Beast

The common theory is that she is the other woman in the Drew-Tiffany situation. No, that's a message board unsubstantiated rumor by random people. All the people with WWE sources are saying she drinks too much while portraying a straight edge chick. Don't spread rumors.

How so?

His interviews probably added between 100 to 400 thousand extra buys for the PPV. 550 was expected and Dana said the tracking was in the 900 level. Whether you think journalists have been "riding Chael's dick" or not, he was responsible for making the PPV even more of a success.

So I guess in another week you'll come back and apologize like the last time you snapped out on the board? Just calling attention to another unreasonable Bryan attack. He can't tie his shoes without someone saying shit. Sorry if my lack of hate offends you.

Jeez, you guys can never let up on the guy. He caught Dana right as he was leaving and did the best he could in 3 minutes to ask questions that hadn't already been asked that night. Sorry it didn't meet your high standards.

Hey, didn't this guy get the memo that wins and losses don't matter in MMA? This talking point is also silly because even WWE and TNA books their major programs several months in advance. TNA maybe but you usually hear that WWE has no idea what's coming up week to week. Even if they know where their major program are going, they end up changing numerous times daily. Not saying that UFC is WWE or vice versa, but the Silva-Sonnen fight felt like a Sting-Vader matchup where Vader beats on him for 19:30 out of 20 minute match only to be caught in a flash pin for the loss. The feeling of watching it was comparable to the best of wrestling where you're on the edge your seat and can't wait to see who will win. That feeling has been missing from current big company wrestling and UFC is usually a fantastic replacement.

Most of us have done that for more than a decade. We also talk about what sucks, and have forever as well. Really no different from Dave or Bryan. I'm sure we can point to negative, critical, bitter comments they made in their early newsletters, and right up to even now when they're talking about a TNA led by Eric and Hulk. You're really not even trying very hard to come across as anything more than a troll of the posters on this board. John Just wanted to come back and apologize. Obviously this is a great board for info and I usually check for that purpose, but sometimes I get frustrated at the overwhelming negativity directed at other people/places around the net. I overreacted to be sure and it's out of my system.

Not to belabor the point, but why shouldn't people dwell on it? Dismissive attitudes are a big reason all our collective -ism's stick around so much. Like I said it happened in the mid 90's in a regional territory. Even if you think it's horrible, it's not relevant at all anymore. I triple dog dare some of you to spend a week posting positive thoughts on matches and wrestlers you like/liked rather than discussing gossip and sleaze and things that make the wrestling business horrible. I know most of you have been fans forever and know a ton about wrestling, but reading your posts every few days gives off the impression that you some of you just search for little-known nasty stories or badly written posts to poke fun at them. Look at the top posts in this section: Greatest Cons in Wrestling History, a thread featuring ridiculous Wade Keller posts, a thread about Linda McMahon's senate run and all the ridiculousness surrounding it, a thread poking fun at the WO.com columnists, a thread to poke at everything little thing Meltzer says or writes, a thread about Hulk Hogan being ridiculous, and of course the Jim Ross is a vile grouchy human being thread. Don't get me wrong, like a middle aged housewife I love checking these threads for gossip, but just call the board prowrestlingdirtonly.com if you're just gonna talk about negative shit. And yes I know

Why the surprise over a guy using the "n" word and then supporting a black president 15 years later? It's a horrible word yes, but the usage of it doesn't make someone automatically a racist. There are tons of kids today who use the word fagot and they're not all homophobes. He shouldn't have used the word, but he was a heel manager in the south getting heat. Why dwell on it?

How does his writing come off as racist? If you have a problem with him using the word nigger, fine, but he gives background on the whole incident and at the end explains how not everything is racially motivated. It doesn't excuse him from verbally assaulting Keller and Mitchell to the extent he did, but I think his piece is extremely low key for what you expect from Cornette. Does it really matter in 2010 what Cornette did in the mid-90's? Obviously WWF employed him for over a decade so they didn't give two shits or some of you are overreacting.

Just a couple things - 1) There really is no denying Brock's appeal is partly because of his WWE background. His first few fights were hits solely because of that because people either wanted to see their pro wrestler beat UFC guys or vice versa. By now he's become accepted by the main fan base. 2) The whole 'WWE should build fights like UFC' is actually the main point. 3) Even if Meltzer's increased coverage of MMA might be related to Yahoo, it's not like MMA is some niche thing. The PPV buys are regularly huge, at the level where 500,000 is considered small. Like I said, UFC has taken a bunch of wrestling fans so why not cover it if the fans are there. Wrestling is stagnant. If Roller Derby was as hot as UFC I'm sure Dave would be giving coverage to that as well. He's a fan of UFC so don't give him crap for giving coverage to it.

Some of you are the only people I know who take so much offense to their view on this. Without saying they're exactly the same, you should be able to see how the way UFC is promoted is similar to old school wrestling. Hell, Dave even remarked about figures that show that much of UFC's audience comes from old WCW/NWA fans who are looking for the closest thing to the golden age of wrestling. If you can't move past the "UFC and WWE are the same" talk then why even bother because you'll just keep going around in circles. If WWE was f'n awesome right now I'd pass on this, but all of my former wrestling friends watch UFC now and they have no idea who Dave Meltzer is. If WWE wants to stay at the top, they need to follow UFC's lead and like Dave has said, it should be easier for Vince since he can make sure the fights have the right outcome for business. Edit - Posted before I saw Liska's post, but yeah, what he said.

The Heenan - Bossman storyline, the beginning of Heenan/Flair, Heenan's Team vs the Warrior, and even Heenan vs. Red Rooster were all entertaining angles. I don't see where people are getting the impression that Heenan was done by this time. Yeah I guess comparing him to his prime, he was off a mark, but his promos were still great and I can't see how Sherri bumped any better or more than he did. He was all over the place during this period and wrestled at least as many if not more matches as a manager as she did (Not counting her feud with Rockin' Robin in 89). I'll have to watch some of this stuff over but I've never gotten the impression he couldn't bump by this time. Like I said, his match vs. Bossman in 1991 was just Bossman throwing Heenan around. Anyway, since when do bumps make someone better than someone else? For a manager I'd think promo ability would be more important and Heenan's promos in 1989-1991 were top notch.

She may have been praised at the time, rightfully so, but even if some said she was the best worker at the time I still find it ridiculous. I see it as apples and oranges. She was a manager and comparing her to wrestlers doesn't work for me. So if you and others think she was better than all that talent that's fine and I apologize for my immediate overreaction. My concession at this point would be that she probably was overall top 10 from 89-91 if you include everyone in the company and don't focus on in-ring, but I still wouldn't put her at the top and below Heenan in her own category.

I'll disagree with you on Sherri as a worker, but whatever. Alot of the managers back then were an active part of their wrestler's matches (Heenan, Slick, Hart). If you want to consider her on the same level as the actual wrestlers back then, I can't stop you. As for Heenan, I'm going to have to disagree with you on those points too. For those three years he was still in his prime as an overall wrestling personality. End of his prime, yeah, but still top notch stuff. His work on PTW with Monsoon still holds up today, possibly even better than it was back then. As a manager his promos were first rate. I'm not sure I'm reading you right, but if you're saying he didn't help sell Andre/Hogan well I don't know. The WWF booked it as a heel/face match, not a UW-Hogan type dream match and Heenan as well as Ventura and Piper were all focal points in helping the build, especially since Andre was at times unintelligible. Heenan pushed the story and gave fans who weren't sure about Andre's heeldom a point of reference to boo. As for Rude, same thing. Rude was a great promo, but Heenan was part of everything he did. The Roberts feud, the UW stuff, Heenan's presence cemented him as a top heel. Hell, Heenan was carry the Bossman-Rude feud even before Rude left the WWF and just this week Vintage Collection showed a Heenan/Bossman match which was a great example of how well-rounded Heenan was. Brainbusters, I'd say you might be right since they didn't do much except wrestle and even JJ let Arn and Tully do there own promos in the Horsemen. Haku, Studd, Bundy, etc.. wouldn't have been the same without being part of the Heenan Family. No way Bundy would have main evented WM 2 without Heenan. Hell, Heenan's bump taking was the focal point of the match. Everything Sherri did, he did better. Bumping, talking, managing. Seriously, if you're going to say Heenan's wrestlers would have been the same without him, I'd say the same about Savage and Sherri. Savage was already a major league star with major league ability. The year she was with him, he went from feuding with Hogan to doing mixed tags with Dusty and Sapphire. The Warrior feud was an exception and Savage's heel persona would have made that just as great without Sherri, RR 1991 promo aside. Sherri can't be at the top anyway, because she was the minor part of the Savage/Sherri grouping. Fine if you want to put Sherri on a pedestal, but I can't fathom how she was better than Heenan much less the best part of the roster those years. She had a job which she did well, but others had more important duties which they performed just as good and better.

Exactly. Apparently it was Todd's idea to do a SMW-centric show and he did a fine job. I don't listen to his other shows either, but I have no problem with this.

"Worker" is a term pretty much directly associated with match quality, so...umm...yeah. Bossman is actually a really good dark horse pick, though. I think it's not unfair to say there's a better case for him than for Sherri. Ok, well that's why I was confused when Loss said she could be called the best WORKER in the fed especially since her main shit came outside of actual matches.

First, Heenan was active for most of that period and even had some matches in his big feuds with Warrior and Bossman. If you're going to say a non-wrestler is the best worker I'd go with him since he also was a better talker. Anyway, you knock Hart, Michaels, Dibiase, and Hennig for not having "classic" matches for those years, but I personally love their stuff. The Rockers were in their prime and were always fun to watch, even if short almost-squashes like vs. the Twin Towers at Wrestlemania. Plus they and the Rougeaus had some really entertaining matches. Hart had some great matches with Neidhart vs. the Brainbusters and Demolition as well as a number of singles matches with Dibiase, Hennig, and others throughout the period. Hennig almost was entertaining even in short bursts like vs. Blue Blazer, plus his stuff against Von Erich, Piper, Michaels, Hart, and Santana. I personally loved Bossman, Rude, the Rougeaus, Santana, Savage, and Roberts during those years and not only for their matches, but also for their promos and angles. And don't knock the lack of classic matches when Sherri didn't wrestle. The TV during that time was chock full of action packed angles and great interviews and if you're going to knock a lack of great matches, remember that WWF wasn't like NWA and focused more on characters than letting guys go out there and be great. 24/7 has shown that when the "workers" were allowed time, they usually came up with something pretty damn good. Sherri was a great manager, but she wasn't top 10 worker-wise. It's not like Savage was nothing before she paired with him and if anything he had more entertaining matches when he was with Elizabeth. I don't know what qualifications you're using, but there are guys who did a lot more and were just as if not more entertaining during the same period. I do think it was a golden age as entertainment went, match-quality be damned.

Has nothing to do with Meltzer. You said Sherri could be called the best "worker" from 89-91 in WWF. Some of the greatest wrestlers ever were in the fed for that time. It's a ridiculous statement.

*The* best is a bit of a stretch, but one of the best, agreed. Savage didn't carry Warrior alone, she was the second best worker in the match. She was awesome against Tenryu at the Egg Dome too. Loss, unless you're being 100% sarcastic you've just made the biggest P.O.S. statement in wrestling message board history. The contrasting opinion thing can die now because Loss you've just won.

The NWA/Nexus thing is a good comparison actually.

Ok, well said. I can get on board with pretty much everything you wrote.

If Todd Martin wrote for any other site, I'm sure there wouldn't be a weekly discussion of his column here. No one holds his column up as a high standard of wrestling reporting, but it's not really that bad either. It's mediocre and not important. Since it's on the Observer site, you all mock it. Raw is not very good, compared to what it has been and could be, so he doesn't like Raw, sometimes for stupid reasons, but getting on him for not digging commercial parodies is a reach. I'm saying there's no one stopping you all from submitting work to that site. This topic is about shitty columnists who get their work posted on that site because no one else is trying to. You're kicking guys who are already down. No one reads the site for them. You're all just coming off as the guys watching the neighborhood baseball game who are ragging on all the players while sitting on the sidelines. I don't care if you write for other sites, if you're going to spend so much time ragging on one particular site (and if this one site is of so much importance to you) just put your money where your mouth is and write something up and submit it. Otherwise, stop commenting about the shitty content that like I said, no one reads the site for.

Not defending Todd, but why the hell do any of you continue to read his reviews if you have so much disdain for him. I don't read them or listen to his appearances on Bryan's show because I know it'll be a waste of my time. Are you all such masochists that you need to click on his weekly rantings? And in all seriousness, write a recap yourself and send it in to WO/F4W and prove you can do it better. No excuses like "I don't care to" "Bryan won't post it" "Who gives a fuck about being on that site", if you are all such better, funnier, smarter writers than Martin than your work should be so outstanding that Dave or Bryan will have no choice but to post it. You've made a huge topic about how shitty the writers are, prove you can make it on there as well.

Good thing you guys are too smart to fall for that.