Matt D

I don't care if it's proven to be dangerous or not, it'd make me personally feel better if he stopped doing the diving headbutt.

No matter how WWE is trying to rebrand itself for this, it's not a sport. It is a block of live programming, and I KNOW we have to compare it to SOMETHING to understand what's going on, but do the networks see it as a sport?

I would enjoy Aiden English on the main roster if that happened.

I just saw the tour of Lawler's house from Confidential and it's really great. Not only did he seem so young, relatively, but he's got the best house.

This is what I'm interested in too. Another way to get at it would be to ask him how he improved as a wrestler since coming to WWE, I suppose? Anything he could tell us about working with agents in match layouts would be interesting too. On a selfish note, I'd love to hear about him working with Dustin and maybe if he thought they should have had more of an on-screen relationship with Heyman early last year.

As much as I enjoy WrestlingCulture, I was poking at Will. Will hasn't let life get in his way. I have. There are the Wrestling Cities and Lucha Party podcasts too! Maybe even something I'm forgetting.

What can you say about them demographics-wise? Do they run younger? More casual?

I'd rather they buy CHIKARA to be honest. I'd love to watch that from beginning to end since there's long form storytelling and what not, even if the ring-work might not be what I want entirely.

When they buy the TNA library, they should just put it up on youtube for free. That'd be sort of funny.

The big problem is that, if you listen to Dave a little, it's not hard to figure out HOW to talk to him. There are ways, that if you were to say things, he'd understand and would get past the semantics. Bryan can't or won't do that at all.

As much as I enjoy WrestlingCulture, I was poking at Will.

Where have all the podcasts been this year, chief? I miss them.

Life is just way too busy right now. Plus, it's crazy to watch everything. The Blacklist is a much higher priority than Raw on Monday, for instance, since I can watch it with my wife. I'll catch any great six man matches on youtube later. For the most part I only half watch PPVs live, even with the network, since we have too much we watch together Sunday nights. One of my biggest rule of wrestling is that it doesn't get in the way of the rest of my life.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/28/news/cheerleader-wage-lawsuits/?iid=EL This is pro wrestling mostly but it doesn't deserve its own note. They have their own independent contractor issues.

I, for one, resent that school teachers aren't getting paid that sort of money! Though I get why they don't get paid like that in Texas.

Stupid question but what % of the wrestlers have agents?

This is one of those metrics where I might give someone points but would be less likely to take points away. If someone understands human nature and the psychology of wrestling enough to find a way to reach that crowd while still accomplishing the other, longer-term goals that he had to in his match, then I would give him credit for that, because I think that deserves credit. Back in the 19th century when oration was a passtime of sorts, you would get people who could manage it, while getting forward their views, to the most and least educated of crowds. Wrestling is sort of the same thing. It's all about utilizing the tools of the medium for storytelling and crowd control. That said, if you asked me if a match in front of a bunch of spot-happy misfits that was worked in a way that was hugely pleasing to them was a good wrestling match, I'd probably say no, but if they engaged that crowd while still hitting the marks that I cared about, I'd give them points for it. So, to sum up, now that I've stumbled through it, it's a second-level quality to me. If I had two matches that I thought were just about as good, it might be a tie-breaker. Likewise, it might fit into the "versatility" category for how I judge a wrestler. Can he work a different sort of match in front of different crowds, etc. I don't know. That all still seems sort of scattered, which is one reason I haven't said much until now.

They could have been forced to do a whole "face of the WWE" thing with banners and what not.

It's not surprising when you figure how many people under 20 are probably voting.

I thought it was pretty weird that Punk was #3 on the Best Villains Countdown (ahead of Triple H, amongst others). I know those were made a while ago but they've obviously done interviews with wrestlers at different times. We're at a period now that they're knocking him out of any bit of promotional material possible and he was all over that, even if it maybe wasn't the most positive portrayal.

One good thing about Meltzer in 2014 as opposed to similar people in other such walks is that there's almost never a sense from Dave that he GOT someone. Sometimes he gets frustrated, but you get the sense he's doing what he perceives to be his job and it's rarely, if ever, personal anymore. Unless he's saying that it was Hunico who was the dirt sheet hero? He's kind of all over the place there, especially after tweeting earlier that nothing happened.

I think the more interesting question is this: Would have Billy Gunn gotten that pop? More or less of one?

I was watching the last Clash the other night. It was from Nashville and Jarrett was getting booed all over the place vs Mongo and for some reason, I just couldn't imagine that now. I think the 2014 crowd would have been heavily pro-Jarrett, no matter what he did, save for maybe some really cheap heat generation device.

I said it before but I LOVE 10 count corner punches. In this day and age, it's so much more important to get the fans involved in some sort of interactive way in the match than it is to make them think it's real. Wrestling is symbolic, but in a lot of ways, the crowd wants to be part of the show more than ever and so few guys call out to them in any meaningful manner.

The rumor is that they want Flair to helm the second season. That seems like a terrible idea.