Matt D

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.

Yes, but you've always been an extreme outlying entity.

You're an empiricist and i'm a theorist, I guess.* I have no idea if that's accurate.

I made it black and white, but i doubt it is. There are different elements of execution. Timing is way more important to me than believable strikes/contact/stiffness for instance.

It's not hogan that changed. It's us.

There's actually a lot of stuff in the first few WWE years I haven't seen. I like most of the Slaughter stuff (I know, dates). Hogan v Earthquake is the best match on SS 90. I like the third MSG Flair match. i love the Orndorff cage match. I'll double back later.

What maters more? What happens in the match or how it's executed?

His corkscrew elbow had to be a revelation in 1984.

I do wish I knew who came up with the idea to use the stairs.

I think there was a curiosity factor for the diehards on how they would present Brock, how his style has changed, how they were going to book the thing, etc. I don't think that it was enough, necessarily, to warrant a buy a month after the inflated Mania price.

pay attention to my talking point! Patterson vs Anderson! The guys laying out the big matches matter. I'm only partially kidding.

I'll say this. I think Cena would be just as good in 1988. In some ways, even better as a total act, since his promos would have been against the screen and shorter

I may have been speaking more generally.

Why? Because opportunity matters to me. What the wrestler actually does with the opportunity given matters. You watch enough matches with someone, you see how they move, why they move, and you can extrapolate. It's the ten minute vs thirty minute match argument. So long as you have ENOUGH matches to work off, you can extrapolate. Some guys aren't put in a position to have as many great matches. Talent does not always rise in wrestling, because what the general audience is looking for isn't always what we're looking for. Completely alternatively, isn't this argument, in some ways, Pat Patterson vs Arn Anderson?

I'll take attributes over output anyday.

If I was going to go for it, I'd go gung ho. As many matches as possible. I'm used to watching EVERYTHING available when I watch something. Obviously I wouldn't do that here, but I'd watch anything I thought would enhance the end product. What's the point of doing it half way if it's as good as the op says.

It seems like a hell of a payoff, but I'm not sure if I'm up to handling the learning curve right now.

I'm dealing with the weird logic gaps surrounding the 93 Rumble right now. First Savage knocks down Yoko and tries to pin him. Then the next night on Raw, Bartlett goes "At least you knocked him down!" To Savage, and Vince plays it down something fierce. "Well, I don't know about that. No one's ever knocked Yokozuna down." So that they can do the Duggan challenge (announced that week on Superstars, played out the following week). It was so weird because it's one thing for Yoko to get knocked down and them to just pretend it didn't happen, but the guy who did it was in the booth, and more than that, it was the FINISH of the Rumble. Crazy stuff.