Matt D

I'm not sure I believe that. I used to. But I think WWE main event style is FAR easier to have good matches in than any other main event style. I am more impressed by a guy who can work ten good tv matches, with ten different guys, none of them getting more than ten minutes than I am by a guy that goes 1/4 or even 2/4 in terms of delivering quality, lengthy, "big show" matches. Especially if some of those matches have different basic structures?

It's largely because there are fewer quality roles for Women. If they weren't split, you'd have men dominate the nominations. Don't think so? Sample the last 20 years of Best Picture nominees. Split them into categories by Man Is The Lead, Woman Is The Lead, Tweener. Even the Tweener part is tricky, because as much as there's Johnny & June in I Walk The Line, it is more about Johnny than June. It just happens to have a strong woman role. You might even need to have Tweener Lean Man, Tweener Lean Woman and True Tweener. Why is this the case? As truly compelling as June's life is relative to Johnny's (and it's arguable even more compelling), Men for the most part Write / Direct / Produce / Greenlight movies. Even major indy houses are... The House Of Weinstein. It kind of sucks that they're split. But I'd rather see 5 women get the nod than 1. Or worse, they expand the field to 10 and 7 end up men on average, and 3 women. It sucks, but it's the reality of US movie making. John I don't want to do it right now, but if you were to look not at the best Picture nominees, but the best Actress Nominees and see they are Man is the Lead, Woman is the Lead, Tweener. Then... I had an argument in there but it fell apart. But do that anyway! or something.

Did Savage vs Flair draw in 92? Did Crush vs Savage headline any shows? I guess I can research that. #3 would be, did Hogan's exit (and how difficult Warrior was to deal with, perhaps) have something to do with Vince wanting to tone down the importance of Savage? Or what about how unstable he apparently was in 92 when the Liz break up happened?

Due to the scathing cooking analogy we can't really compare them.

Would Wrestlicious be okay then?

Wrestling is about symbolism and perception. If you train the audience to buy into something (see: People's Elbow, Cobra) they will. Sometimes it takes time; sometimes it doesn't, but I think you can train the WWE audience into almost anything, really if you're smart and persistent enough. What's the last thing that they tried to do, that they stuck with for MONTHS, and executed at least moderately well that really bombed? The Lashley push?

Rey is pretty much ready to come back, right? Is he being kept off the Mania card due to the injury still or some other punishment? I really hope they feud him with DB.

It's funny but never in my entire life did I question why there are separate best actor and best actress awards. I should nudge Fowler and see if there are scores of articles on this or whatever. Then have him read them for me and sum up.

Neither here nor there but the Nord shoot interview is one of the very best I ever heard.

I fully believe that Lanny Poffo almost caused riots in Texas. (I may be getting my facts wrong there)

I've seen a lot of 85 Nord and I've seen a lot of 91-2 Nord and he had it way more together in 91.

Nord/Bulldog from one of the 1991 WWF UK shows is WELL worth watching. The thing with Nord is that he had a pretty amazing offense (both in variety and believability) for a WWF heel at the time. I bet there are some really good Nord/Hart matches too.

I really like Orndorff/Andre vs Piper/Orton

There's a quite good fancam too I think, since it was post Clash and we didn't really get to see Sting get revenge in a singles match on TV. Once again. Will's DA comp. Well worth it.

I had a cookie that Dave Taylor made once that tasted a hell of a lot better than this really big cake HHH baked.

"strength of fundamentals" I like that. I think personally that's a much bigger indicator of whether someone's good or not to me than "great matches" because a lot of guys just aren't put into the position to have those. As for Van Hammer, i'm still annoyed I've never got anyone to watch/comment on the Van Hammer vs Big Sky miracle match from 93.

Is that really a talking point? For baseball at least, watching the game is the least part of BEING at the game. I imagine that's true with football even more so.

I don't think it's THAT outlandish. I know a lot of things that Meltzer thinks are good and important in a match aren't things that I enjoy and actually, quite often, get in the way of the things I enjoy or are actively things I find faulty. I can totally understand why someone tuned into this stuff even more than I am would feel that way.

We have a baby on the way and I'm just.. I'm barely even letting myself think about this.

Kamala couldn't figure out how to pin someone? There are some guys who can be riled/made angry enough to make mistakes/get themselves DQed? Mark Henry's confidence? Robert Gibson got so angry that he'd try to storm the ring and poor Ricky would get beaten to a pulp?

Michaels' back later on. Austin had the braces. Poor Ace Orton's arm.

The Slaughter heel turn is interesting since at the time, people LOATHED it. the sense I get from what sources we have is that it was basically thought to be THE WORST THING EVER. Looking back, it's feels pretty harmless comparatively.

Nothing makes me discount someone's statement (and really, someone in general) than coming into a note and saying "Some pretty funny stuff here" or "this is ridiculous" without backing things up. Dylan's been backing up everything he's said. We've all made our points, pro and con towards HHH.And yeah, if someone can make the argument for Rosey over Michaels, I'll listen to it and give that person way more attention and respect for making a cohesive argument than someone just dismissing it for being ridiculous or against some obvious objective truth. That said, I think Levy vs Hunter is a kind of interesting argument since both guys are obviously big fans of wrestling and tried to emulate what came before.

Barbarian is a no-brainer guy to me, when it comes to being better than HHH. He ate offense better. His offense looked way better. He was willing to bump huge and make guys look really good. The problem with Hunter having all these opportunities is that they allow for a sort of excess. He'd probably have been a better wrestler with a better body of work if he HADN'T had the opportunities.