Matt D

It's tricky because we're a lot broader than we used to be. I'd maybe say Goldberg in 98 relative to the internet wrestling community at the time that very much hated him?

Nah, what Austin does generally in those situations is just move on rather than be a dick and argue. It's part of why he's such a great host. That's why he's a great host? Because of letting inaccuracies slide? I've heard his podcast. There's nothing there that would make me suspect he would have any idea whether Flair was in Puerto Rico that night. That's true of 99% of the people who will ever interview Flair. What makes him a great host is him not arguing and moving on so the show has a flow and stays fun. When Flair was saying hardcore wrestling started when Funk pile driver him on the table, and that no one had ever done that before, Austin just moved on. That's a great host. I don't want Austin playing Mike Wallace, I want the fun enjoyable show he does. Remember folks, some people like to think, analyze and discuss.

2012-2013 poor cardio Rock then?

I still think you guys are sort of missing the mark. If you wanted a really big WWF guy, then maybe Bobby Lashley in that he had a very high profile match that had a decent amount of media attention but an ultimately forgettable run. Glacier's tempting but I'm not sure how well known he was despite the marketing campaign. (Kiss Demon would maybe fall on this level too).

My general argument is that the first few times out were very fun since he was making guys run past him, the vignettes were great, but most of all, adding El Paso de la Muerte to his offense made his matches so much more interesting. Since he stopped using the Figure Four post-Strike force, every tito singles match would have him hit the flying forearm in the finishing stretch but the heel would get to the ropes or out of the ring. At that point you knew Tito was going to lose since he already hit his finish.

I hate that they don't show a picture of Tito in the matador book.

I do think Vince has a couple of things going for him. One is an insane, probably quite literally, work ethic. The second is a bevy of ideas and, in general, an ability to think outside of the box when encountering something new. I think a lot of his outside partners he's worked with such as Ebersol or Andy Heyward would say as much. I think the fact he has such a quantity of ideas matters, as it helps to average out the quality.

Manny's whole shoot is awesome for how carny it is.

I think you guys are shooting in all the wrong directions. Hillbilly Jim: Someone who a lot of casuals know for various reasons including the cartoon and the WWF marketing machine but who was injured for most of his time in the WWF and never really had a lot of big programs or big anything. Huge exposure though.

Versatility is hugely important to me in a great wrestler. El Dandy was a guy who I was really looking forward to seeing a lot of and this only solidified that.

To your response to Redman's post: Wrestling is subjective. Totally okay that you feel how you do and it's validating to me that you've seen as much of the good as you have, even if you do think they are missing elements, since there are so many people out there who would not see that, and it's only through seeing multiple matches that it really comes to the forefront. It's one of those things you'd never know if you just looked out for Great Matches.

I'll post mine too. I will say that the first SNME match I think is absolutely brilliant. Also, it's a really tricky line. We have someone earlier in this note complaining heavily that Demolition gave way too much in the Twin Towers matches. For the story they were telling in these matches, I think they gave the Busters exactly what they should have. Also, it's been a few years since I've seen these and I've watched a lot of stuff since, so I'm not sure if I'd feel slightly different or not. I know I stand by the first match though. 5/89 7/89 9/89

I actually spit my coffee out at "There ain't no Phil Schneider show." It's too early for this crap.

This is what gave us the Attitude era, no? The rating was so bad that Vince shifted gears in a way he never had before. I think that's Foley's story at least.

I haven't heard everything yet but I'll comment on one thing. Re: me not giving credence to everything else in the Cage match, I do. Wrestling, however, is not something where you can take everything good and add it all up on a points system, not to me. How good the rest of the match is is actually part of what makes the terrible beginning so bad. It wouldn't be so bad if it was in a shit match. That it's in a match that should have been one of the greatest cage matches of all time is what it makes it so tragic and so terrible. Michaels basically digs himself so big a hole that no FIP performance and no heel beating can make up for it (not to mention things like Jannetty no selling the cage shot, etc). I hate the match so much not because there aren't great performances, but because they're completely ruined and invalidated. And even then I probably wouldn't hate it so much if they didn't run the same match a few weeks later without the glaring flaws so that I had it as a point of comparison. That's like salt into the wound. There's plenty more to say but that'll be in a few days.

Selling is a pretty major capability if you ask me.

Did you see the night after Mania Raws from this year or last year?

Don't worry Parv. I had a nice response about how we are occasionally on the same wavelength in some unexpected ways but I didn't think it had enough substance to actually post at the time. I'm looking forward to your opinions on the set, certainly.