Matt D

I still think it's crazy how little WCW ventured to New England between 90 and 96. I thought the regional promotion thing wasn't even worth talking about but I find that really striking.

Shouldn't we look more closely at 92 then? Also, as a kid really into WCW in 91, I was always bummed that they didn't come to my part of MA. Graham's site has once in Boston in 90, nowhere in the rest of New England. They didn't run New England once in 1991. Once in Worcester in 92 and nowhere else in New England. Nothing in 93. Nothing in 94. Geez! Nothing in 95 in New England either! And just one Hartford show in 96, nowhere else. Is that REALLY right?

I would like to see someone take an argument that Cena was influenced by Sting.

I also think Sting WAS regarded as a draw, even if he didn't actually draw. The Perception was that he was a draw. That's part of why this is a bit of a jarring thing for some people. It goes without saying for them. "He was Sting! He was the franchise in WCW. Of course he was!" Edit: Once you get past the first few there, I think Sting does surprisingly well with the Gordy List, actually. If you put his "class" as overmuscled strongman babyfaces, he does even better.

I'm biased on this match. It's the only thing I watched the day Randy died. I hadn't seen it before and it seemed like a really natural thing. I like what was there as they were really trying, but yeah, it's a pale reflection of what could have been I guess.

If the booking was good enough then he probably would have been. But then if the booking was good enough Yoshi Tatsu would be too. Obviously, there's a level of scope there, but yeah.

Again, we're not arguing objective truth here. We're arguing whether or not he meets certain criteria to get him into a certain hall of fame. There are normative elements here.

It's also worth saying that there's no reason we can't think highly of Sting or say that he did many things well. It's just that he doesn't match the general criteria for the WON HOF. I have to think stuff like this all the time, because it's my natural tendency to back Sting in most things.

Really, hadn't they turned a corner? Wasn't it just bad business decisions, a move away from focusing primarily on what they did well and an over-extension financially and otherwise because of that which doomed JCP?

It's not about pinning the failure on Sting. It's just about not rewarding him for it.

It wasn't a good long term business decision. I Think that's the best way I can put it.

Crap I might have to break my rule.

And presentation and protection is more important than look. Maybe not in the casual fan. If someone won't buy Big Show's punch as a finisher because they haven't seen the build, then yeah, they're not going to buy a 5 foot tall guy being a main eventer. But if people stick through a really effective build on a talented performer, they will believe anything.

I never bought Spike's giant killer gimmick. When he beat Bam Bam it was fine. After that it was done so sloppily, "oh look he kicked the guy in the nuts and hit the acid drop." and they did the same match for months. It always looked like that old Ren and Stimpy cartoon when they were wrestlers. "Its time to lose the match." Doing it to Big Guido and Big Sal is fine. Then they had him do it to guys like One Man Gang and they still did it in under a minute, when they could of gotten a good brawl out of them. Gang still could of lost, but not in such a stupid manner. Fine, what about Taz? Yes he wasn't scrawny, but he was still a relatively tiny guy. But he was super protected and the fans were conditioned to see him as the human suplex machine and he was both believable and over, based on booking and match layout alone. Perception is all that matters in wrestling. Sometimes you have to get over a slightly bigger hump, and sometimes it's worth it and sometimes the cost is too high, but the thing that puts wrestling over most real life sports is that you can orchestrate this stuff. It's fiction. That WWE is terrible at long term planning in 2012 isn't the fault of the genre itself.

It matters differently to different people. BUT you can condition the audience to just about anything. Spike and Rey both had giant killer gimmicks and they were put over a few huge guys and it put that doubt in people's mind when they went up against Awesome or Nash. Maybe they COULD do it.

To me, the Summerslam match is weird. It's got this strange pace and the theatrics are over the top compared to VII, not in the concept but just in how the two guys MOVE. It's not slow motion necessarily but they were wrestling really BIG. It might be for the stadium but no one else in the show was doing that. And the crowd eats it up SO much too.

Has anyone ever pointed out specific things that Hogan did like that? I'd be really curious in reading that level of in depth analysis of him. I think for decades our community disregarded him as a rule, and would NEVER do that, just based on his push, his lack of moves, and the superman comebacks. It wasn't "against the rules" to deep analyze Hogan matches, but I think it was more along the lines of "just unthinkable." No one would even consider doing it.

That makes a big difference. It's okay that you don't care to see it. That's understandable. I just think that a match could be put together well enough and smartly enough to make it work. That is the JOY of pro wrestling.

What? Look Bryan is smart enough and good enough and working with the agents and Brock and Heyman and whoever, I think they could absolutely put together a match where Bryan wins and wins cleanly. I don't think they'd WANT to do that, but it's completely and utterly doable. I mean I'd have SOME problem with Hornswaggle going over Lesnar, but that's about my limit. A guy with the background as Bryan? Absolutely. You could do it a half dozen ways. Speed v strength, Skill v size, overconfident brock, extreme bodypart working, Brock being rusty at pro wrestling, DB cheating at every turn like Flair, Or just sheer stubborn fighting spirit by DB leading to Brock getting frustrated and making a mistake. If people can go over Big Show they can go over Lesnar. He's not some kind of holy godking because he spent time really hitting people in the face. Wrestling is fiction and it's all in the presentation and build..

There's a certain timing to it all too, to know when to make the comeback, to know how much to give and when, to know what the fans want and exactly what to give them, to know how long to sit in a hold, etc. To READ a crowd. Now, I guess the argument is that Hogan was so over that he could have spent 30 seconds less or 30 seconds more in a hold and it wouldn't have mattered.

If they really wanted Sheamus to be THE GUY, then this was probably their chance. I think with the right presentation almost anyone could work in the ring with a guy like Lesnar. You just need to write it carefully and build it smartly. If they wanted to turn Ziggler face for some reason, for instance, I think it could have worked with Brock.

Is Summerslam more expensive than a normal PPV?

I really like Savage's work in Savage vs Hogan and the general layout. But yes, I hate the finish. To cap off the year's worth of story, it's good, but then they needed Savage as their top heel for the next two years, basically, so yeah. Granted, the addition of Sherri was huge. I especially love the short period between when he took on Sherri and when he got the crown and became a real parody of himself.

Yeah, it's 12-29 that I really like. In my HEAD it was just the third match in the series. The first time around was end of October, then End of November, then end of December.

Ok, I'm trying to figure out what I meant. As best as I can remember this, we definitely have 4 Hogan vs Flair matches, the Dayton handheld, the San Fran handheld, the first MSG match, and the second MSG match. I want to say that we have another handheld in January or Feb somewhere (maybe non-title if in Feb), after they'd gone around the horn once or twice but before the tag matches with Piper. It was longer and had way more Flair offense but a definitive Hogan victory. i remember liking it way more than the others. But I can't put the pieces together right now. EDIT: Looking at results, I don't see Hogan pinning Flair at all one-on-one. So I must just be thinking of the SECOND MSG match, which felt like a third one to me because of the handhelds I saw before hand. It was the third or fourth time I saw the match (as the first two were very similar). He pinned Flair in the tag matches with Roddy and Taker, so that must be what I'm getting THAT visual confused with. Sorry. I do wish we had this from a Superstars taping though: WWF @ Amarillo, TX - Civic Center - January 28, 1992 WWF Superstars taping: Hulk Hogan & Randy Savage defeated Jake Roberts & the Berzerker (sub. for the Undertaker) I bet that was really cool if it went more than 5 minutes. Nord is probably my favorite single WWF guy to watch in 92.