Matt D

It's all tricky in that regard because someone like Shawn Michaels would get pissed off when a match didn't go how he wanted, not necessarily because he wanted that match to draw money, but because he wanted it to be a CLASSIC. That's sort of after the era a lot of us care the most about, though. That said, there are stories about someone like JJ Dillon who would go out and try to have a great match to impress the boys (though of course the moral of the story is that he got reamed because he wasn't supposed to do that and he didn't play his role right to draw money, but it does show that such a thing could matter to wrestlers even in the early 80s).

I think there are two different arguments here and it's worthwhile to separate them on some level. The first is: "Can Pro Wrestling be seen as art even if the intent of wrestlers is simply to make money?" or "Is this a reasonable way to view pro wrestling?" maybe. The second is "What are the downsides and difficulties in trying to understand drawing power?" I think I said it before, but to me, looking at someone who we think is a draw and then trying to figure out how they drew and why they were a draw and what made them a draw relative to their peers, is the key part of this. It's understanding the numbers, and then, if you want to get a total picture, cross-referencing that with the artistic elements and see where they intersect.

Let him do a tag with Kane. Or maybe Wyatt will be a face by then. Just do something where he can be protected and it'll draw interest.

Though, Cena says that Arn lets him do whatever now and I tend to believe it.

Iggy Azalea is part of the top 2 songs on the Billboard 100 right now. Does that mean she's the best singer in the world? Even if so, what about the producers she's worked with, etc? The best drawing wrestler is Cena. Wrestling is an industry but it's also an art form. It's a performance art. Now, I think there's a great argument for Cena being the best wrestler on multiple metrics, but wrestling is art. You're looking at things too narrowly, just like you argue that the people who ONLY look at work are missing the big picture. Making money might be the big picture, but there are a dozen other pictures to look at and most of them make for way more interesting conversation.

It'll probably help draw? If drawing is even a thing anymore? It'll give him a more celebratory retirement match? I think there's probably some casual interest in "What can taker do after Brock beat the streak?" That seems like a thing Kris' friends would talk to him at the water cooler about.

I think some of this is really about what the discussion is actually about. Are we talking about the WON HOF? Are we talking about the context of why a wrestler only got to wrestle ten minute matches and we can't judge their output well? Are we talking GOAT? Or are we just trying to figure out if someone's a better wrestler than someone else, based on our own specific criteria at the time. With almost any talk here, we are usually on the same page with one another what we're talking about and sometimes it matters a lot and sometimes it matters a little. I think far more important than "Did he draw?" would be "why did he draw?" in as what specific things did the wrestler do to get to that point. That's the same thing with great matches. "Did he have great matches?" is an okay starting point but then go in depth and start to look for patterns.

So, not TOP GUY, but certainly a draw and a "Star." Tom Zenk as part of the Can Am Connection. They were getting super over. There was momentum there. They were going to get pushed to the title if he didn't leave.

Paige was sort of a Mad Max Warrior in NXT. This is pretty far off of that.

Vader attributes the poor selling of Summerslam 96 to them having Shawn beat him clean around the country at house shows beforehand.

I made it halfway through before skipping to the end and seeing if anyone commented, because you getting in it with pro-TNA commenters would have been more interesting than reading even the best TNA review.

Someone ought to make a big infograph of dogmatic views at some point

Back and to the left.

I'm at the point where I haven't even found a need to read the spoilers for a year or two.

You should pay Johnny Sorrow a dollar for stealing his premise. More like I should go into rehab for thinking along the same lines the old cad.

Tenta is a way better pro wrestler than either Steiner. In general this was a fun read though.

i really wish they bring Sullivan in to WWE as the Chairman of the Board of the Wyatt Family

Does it really matter if they do? They're not considered valuable TV one way or the other, really.

I honestly think that's what they should have done with Bryan, or what they should do with Barrett or Sheamus. Sort of a fighting champion gimmick.

I think some of Dave's comments about women's wrestling were interesting this week. He basically, said "since I wasn't there, I have no way of knowing!" but that he read a book by someone who wasn't there and because of the information in the book, he could then know better. I know it sounds silly to break it down like that but it really did stand out to me, just the way he said it, especially relative to some of our previous discussions. I also liked the branding that Full Sail is the new ECW Arena.

Now I badly want to see a Hogan vs Mountie match (I know they had the Montreal match later on but that's not the same).

These frankly sound like cons rather than pros when evaluating WWF monster heels. Did Undertaker get over by giving a lot to his opponent and making them look good, or did he get over because he was perceived as unstoppable? Did Sid? Berzerker's way may have made for more aesthetically pleasing matches to us (though I'd love to see a Berzerker match as good as UT/Warrior or UT/Bret from MSG) but it wasn't really, as Parv put it, the "WWF way." This is fair. My counter was that Hogan would then be open to working with him if he thought he'd make him look good. I generally think that the size/look counters most of the rest. They used him as Undertaker's first real program as a babyface after the aborted Jake stuff. I was curious to see if that was main eventing the B show, but it wasn't. It was #2 on the card after Savage vs Flair on the A show (though I'll let Parv argue that Money Inc vs the Disasters was #2 on those shows). They had Warrior vs Shango and Hart vs Michaels on the B shows. I don't want to go down this road or else Shango suddenly becomes the #2 heel in the company after Flair and that's just a weird thought. I actually think it's fair to say that Money Inc was the #2 heel act in the company between Mania and Summerslam in 1992, which is something no one ever really thinks about. But yeah. Size. Look. Would make Hogan look better than Taker or Sid would. Has the MN connection with Flair. Viable big man WWF top heel vs Hogan in 1991.

Yeah, but Vince could see it as doing Brody better than Brody. The Demolition of Brodies. You get me a time machine and a nice suit and we can sell him on this. Again, I'm shooting for Survivor Series 1991/This Tuesday in Texas as my payoff here. You can even say that the real #1 heel there was Flair. I'll give you that, especially for the second match. He can't be Flair, but he could have been in that Taker spot, maybe.

He's got everything Brody has and he doesn't suck. He has size, he has look. You package him right. You pair him with the right mouthpiece, and it works out. He debuted in late January, 91. That's only a few months off Taker. Give him Heenan with the storyline that this is Heenan's last change to go after Hogan before he hangs it up and he's brought out someone so dangerous that he can barely control him, and there's no reason why he couldn't be in Taker's spot for Survivor Series 91. Go fuil on Brody with a guy like Heenan as a mouthpiece. It could have worked. Hell, I bet Hogan would have LOVED working with him since he loved working with relatively safe guys who made him look great.