Sean Liska

To be fair Dave was more arguing for Kobashi and Flair over Michaels. But Negro phoning it in during the entire 90s? This would be a bigger scandal than the "Jumbo was lazy" allegations if there were more lucha fans around.

I'm not going to pick on Dave with all he's going through. But he wounded me today. I threw in Negro Casas as someone who deserves to be in this GOAT conversation with Flair, Michaels, Kobashi, Toyota and the usual suspects. Dave's response was that Negro was great in the 80s and as he got old but he phoned it in during the 90s. Negro Casas! His peak 90s years! That's like saying Misawa was great in the 80s and when he was older but not so much in the 90s. I didn't think Dave could hurt me more than when he said he didn't think much of Dundee as a worker but here we are.

Flair's retirement hit me. It was like my childhood officially died, hard to explain, my first memories of life are watching Flair with my dad. Then he was working Abyss at Universal Studios 2 years later, oh well.

Joe's run from 04-06 played a huge role in me maintaining my passion for wrestling during a rough period for the industry. I'm still internally debating flying to Dallas for Joe-Lesnar just because that run did mean so much to me, but it's a lot of money and work for a match I don't expect to exceed 10 minutes

Apologies if this thread has been done before, I know a lot of ground has been covered here. But I'm watching 88 AJPW now and thinking about the level Jumbo worked at from 88-92 and trying to think of better peaks in wrestling history. Obvious possibilities that come to mind: Negro Casas - 93-97 (just because it's what we have on tape) Any of the AJPW guys from 90-96ish Any couple of years you want to take from Flair in the 80s Tenryu 88-93 Lawler 79-84 Let's throw in a modern one - Bryan Danielson 2004-2008 Underrated possibility: Bobby Eaton 83-88 Obviously tons of other options too, Fujinami, Satanico, etc - what's your favorite couple year peak from a wrestler? What peaks are underrated?

The entire Jumbo-Misawa 6/8/90 presentation has to be some type of art.

Bryan was already an amazing performer and in his retirement he's found appreciation for Jerry Lawler punches and Blue Panther mat work. I shouldn't want him to come back, but wow he would be interesting to watch.

Daniel Bryan's tastes are similar to a lot of us here and if he comes back hopefully he'll teach some indy/NJPW guys some tricks. This quote from an NBC interview he did makes me so happy.

That match looked awesome!

I actually enjoyed most of that show except the finishes. And some of them are defensible, but to do so many deflating finishes on the same show, even if it's to get heat on the heels as we start the road to SummerSlam - may want to take a break from the St. Louis market for a bit.

Orton fighting for the honor of Wrestling at the Chase, I love it, maybe the only way you could get me into this match.

I had the same experience watching old WWF house shows on the YT channels that popped up. He wasn't going to give you a 25 minute classic but the guy could work a really fun, fast-paced, stiff, heated, 12 minute match, nothing wrong with that. Oftentimes he saved what were really weak shows.

Let me cherry pick a stat to make my point clearly. In 2011 domestic live shows were at 6,000. Last year 5,800. In 2011 Raw had to be doing close to 5 million viewers, last year more like 3.25 million. That's all in saying. It deserves further examination from someone like Meltzer. In 1999 when WCW's ratings collapsed, attendance was right there with it. Hasn't happened with WWE. Why? I think it's something bigger with media consumption.

According to WWE's official SEC filings, average attendance at North American events was 6300 in 2010 and 5800 last year. That's a decline of 8 percent. I got the 10 percent figure from looking at 2009, when average attendance was 6500. You have a history of cherry-picking numbers from big shows while ignoring broader trends. You also have a history of insisting that various metrics are flat when they're actually in decline. WWE isn't in any kind of imminent danger, but there are definitely red flags that need to be addressed before they spiral out of contol I pick out individual shows because they're usually more direct examples. First off, 8% in 9 years, that proves my point when it comes to TV ratings not teling the story of the company's popularity, that's a much smaller # than the TV decline in the same period. Also, they re-introduced the Monday SD house shows in 2016 which have always done lesser numbers, affecting that average. In 2004 they did 4,500 in domestic shows so they have a long way to fall and the company was fine then. So I think I have a point when thinking things aren't anywhere near spiraling out of control. I have no reason to be an apologist, I can't even watch Raw, if we were addressing 80s Memphis I would wear that label gladly. But people have been predicting doom since 2001. I distinctly remember being online circa 2004 and the thought was they were surviving off international touring and DVD sales but when those drop off, watch out.

Lawler teaming against HBK/Bret, yes please. Whole set loos like a bunch of fun, first WWE DVD I'll be getting instantly in a while.

He won't say anything negative about Vince or HHH but I don't think he's known for just making stuff up, the show is popular because it's relatively honest and Conrad is there to call Bruce on stuff. Not sure about this story though.

I wouldn't argue against that. Made them see this extra money that could be made pandering to the hardcores. I say no AJ run without NXT, you say no run without Punk/Bryan, it's all part of the same puzzle of the company's evolving thought process of the past 6 years.

Those guys were flukes who overcame so much. Now, they'll actively recruit someone like Balor who isn't even that great, put him on top of NXT, and then give him the Universal title in his first PPV match. That didn't become the mindset until NXT tried to become the hip indy brand in early 2015.

Watching NXT this week - it's such a nice little gift from WWE to old-school minded hardcore fans. It's like an apology for Raw. The Takeovers are so fun. And it leads to stuff like getting a Lesnar-Joe PPV main event. Or, even though he didn't go to NXT, I can't see the amazing 2016 of AJ Styles happening without NXT changing the thinking of who they push. Maybe it's a HHH ego trip, maybe they lose money on it - who cares, why waste energy resenting it, it's pretty much the last bastion of old school wrestling in this world of Meltzer star ratings driving how much so many guys work.

I feel like Dave is going through a late mid-life crisis issue with these NJPW and PWG reviews. Or all the 3-hour Raws broke him. I wouldn't care, except, as said, so many wrestlers are aiming for Meltzer star ratings nowadays and his preferred style doesn't interest me.

I'll need to see a source on the 2010 attendance decline, what I've seen shows them generally in the same range since 2005. Chicago was on pace to sell out and then they put Jinder in the main event and the advance died. That said, there was only one section of the upper deck tarped off (I went to the show and follow the advances here). Jinder headlining a PPV was crazy, no apologizing for that. WWE apologist, come on, this board is above that, this isn't Reddit. I'm trying to take an honest look at the state of the industry. If I thought business really was dying I'd say so and blame Roman since I've always thought the idea to make him the new Cena was a disaster.

I think the WWE TV demos speak more to what you were saying about how young people consume entertainment. When you go to a live WWE show, it's not a bunch of old dudes at the show. Not at all. House shows are families with young kids. PPVs are dudes in their 20s and 30s. I go to a lot of shows and this is consistent. I think they are creating young fans but they're watching it via YouTube clips or downloading it and watching the parts they want to see or whatever kids do now.

So many people struggle to understand the modern media landscape. And I think it's because they take their lead from Meltzer and I've never seen Dave this far behind the curve, he's basically arguing that TV is the same as 1998 and everything else is excuses. Raw is doing half the viewership it did in 2010. Every other aspect of their business is basically flat with 2010. Hmm. That's weird. Considering I heard it mentioned on a video game podcast recently that traditional TV is quickly becoming to the 30 and under set what radio was to people in their 40s (ie: something the old folks enjoyed) made me realize how out to lunch Dave is on the media landscape. He is right when he says ratings are a percentage of people able to get the channel so that cord cutters automatically aren't counted, but he really doesn't get at all that there's an entire generation who only watch content via streaming devices. TV really only has a future in areas where bandwidth hasn't grown enough to accommodate streaming, and once it does those markets jump as well. I think people like Dave sit through these admittedly brutal 3-hours of Raw and they want their pound of flesh afterwards. The show is so tough to watch, they want that bad rating, they relish it, they want something to force change and create a more entertaining show. They don't want to hear excuses, that lets WWE off the hook, that means no changes. But it's not just excuses. Read any entertainment trade journal, changing media consumption is just a given. The fact that there are some mitigating factors doesn't mean letting WWE off the hook. But Dave should be above that. Doesn't he gave young kids? Are they really sitting around watching live TV and not just streaming stuff on their tablet and watching YouTube videos? Anyways, when the Rumble draws 40k, and Mania weekend does mind-boggling business, and Payback sells out, and Extreme Rules sells out, and MITB has a better advance than a St Louis B PPV has had in a long time, and SummerSlam is a bigger live event than ever with a huge gate - don't tell me WWE has 40% less fans than in 2010 because Raw ratings. It doesn't add up. To me live attendance figures are always the best barometers of interest, they were in 1982 and they are in 2017.

So many people struggle to understand the modern media landscape. And I think it's because they take their lead from Meltzer and I've never seen Dave this far behind the curve, he's basically arguing that TV is the same as 1998 and everything else is excuses. Raw is doing half the viewership it did in 2010. Every other aspect of their business is basically flat with 2010. Hmm. That's weird.

It sucks because I love Dave, I've been reading the Observer for 20 years. But I'm growing to resent him as he plays this role in turning more and more wrestling into something I don't like.