Dave Meltzer stuff

[kjh]

He did draw the two biggest buyrates in TNA history against Samoa Joe, which means something, given all the stars that have gone though TNA's doors.

[jdw]

When you grow up, you realize that intolerance of other people's divergent opinions, which was certainly a trait I had, is a bad vice.

Thanks, Bix. It always ends up being worse than I remember it.

 

John

[khawk20]

I think if more people saw his run as AWA Champion they would be more open to admitting his flaws as Mr. Perfect.

One of the qualities of Hennig's AWA title reign was that, for the hardcore AWA fans, he was a real hope that the AWA could turn things around amidst the Mitch Snows, Soldat Ustinovs, JT Southerns and Rocky Mountain Thunders that we were being subjected to on TV every week.

 

Hennig was great, no doubt, but think about how much better he looked compared to the rest of the AWA TV fare at that time. Put it this way: I enjoyed his early Mr. Perfect bouts in the WWF against guys like Jim Brunzell as much as I did some of his title defenses in the main-event slot on AWA TV shows.

 

It's something to think about, if nothing else.

[Tim Cooke]

Has Dave ever written anything definitive on the history of All Japan Women? Been watching a lot of Dump & Co vs. Crush and Co this afternoon and the heat, wild, out of control, non-stop pace they keep is absolutely amazing.

[kjh]

He did a pretty good obituary for Takashi Matsunaga when he died on July 11th, 2009.

[FLIK]

He did a pretty good obituary for Takashi Matsunaga when he died on July 11th, 2009.

Yeah that was an awesome piece, doesn't go in depth on any one time period but is great as a cliff notes time line of the major highlights of the company up until the 90's. Post 97 he just skiped from talking about the company having money issues that year to the company going out of business 8 years later with little talk of what happened during that span.

[sek69]

Dave's review of the Shawn vs Bret DVD is fascinating, he's blown away at how little bullshit was included in both guys' accounts. I don't know if I was just late on this, but the tidbit where he mentioned that getting KTFO by Bret (on one punch) was the motivation for Vince to go balls-out with his bodybuilding and/or roid use was something I never heard before. I can only imagine how much of a mindfuck it was for someone with Vince's mentality to get owned by a so called "little guy".

[Paul Jacobi]

Less people watched the AWA in 1987-1988 than Smackdown at any point.

Yep.

 

Hennig MIGHT be the guy with the worst record as a main event draw to ever appear on the ballot. I'm trying to think offhand of who would be worse.

 

HHH and Angle were both pretty spotty as draws. Angle bombed so badly so quickly in 2001 that they did the hotshot back to Austin.

 

 

The part of Angle 'bombing' in 2001 is false. He had a 3 week reign that probably wasn't originally planned.

It seemed to be a feel good moment after 9/11 to have "American Hero" Kurt Angle win the title a few weeks after the tragedy.

The fact he dropped it back to Austin on Raw so quickly and prior to the next PPV backs this up.

Do you have any kind of numbers backing up this view at all?

[Loss]

I'm not an Angle defender, but Paul is right -- he didn't hold the title long enough to be considered a bomb. If there's a compelling argument to make against Angle, it's that the way he was booked in his first two title runs -- comedy figure with brother Eric and his whole family in Christmas hats the first time, no decisive title defenses, short second reign -- hurt him. I also think he got the belt way too soon. The second time, he was ready, but they hadn't made the decision to turn Austin babyface yet, so they were still keeping Austin strong because the planned WM main at that time was for him to drop the belt to a returning HHH. When he insisted on turning face after seeing his merch numbers, Jericho ended up filling that role.

[Mad Dog]

No, I remember reading it all the way back then that they were disappointed by the ratings, etc. but that's been a decade now. And the numbers would be a crap shoot anyway in hindsight because the Invasion angle was falling apart at the time and the company was starting to freefall as far as attendance and ratings go.

[Paul Jacobi]

No, I remember reading it all the way back then that they were disappointed by the ratings, etc. but that's been a decade now. And the numbers would be a crap shoot anyway in hindsight because the Invasion angle was falling apart at the time and the company was starting to freefall as far as attendance and ratings go.

 

According to Graham's site, He had the belt for 15 days (9/23/01 -10/8/01). No matter what, that really isn't time to 'bomb'.

It was a quick feel good switch and I suspect they never intended to take the belt off Austin. Any house shows headlined would probably have been purchased even before he had it and they were all Austin/Angle matches too and Rock is back at this point as the WCW (World) champ to boot.

If you want to look at his Smackdown headline run from late '02 to Mania '03, that could be a different story, but the 2001 stuff is a myth.

[kjh]

For someone who was pushed so hard from 2000-2006, you would think there would be one number that you could point to as evidence that Angle was a draw, but there really isn't. He probably peaked as a hot character in the summer of 2000, but he'd still be behind Austin, Rock and Hunter in terms of responsibility for the big PPV numbers drawn that year.

[Mad Dog]

His big match with Lesnar at Wrestlemania 19 didn't do huge numbers but it wasn't a disaster by any means. I think his jump to TNA is really where you can see his lack of draw though. He was considered the biggest star to go to that company and he added virtually nothing to their ratings. Sting showing up moved the dial more than Angle did.

 

I still think, big picture that Undertaker is probably a worse draw than Angle was.

[Ricky Jackson]

I've never been a huge fan of the guy, nor do I have any exact numbers to back me up, but I'm pretty confident that Taker is a bigger draw than Angle. His Streak at Mania alone is a much greater drawing card than anything Angle has been a part of. In fact, I think if you only counted his 1990-99 years, pre-Angle, Taker is still a bigger draw.

[Mad Dog]

Taker had some bad moments in the 90s, though he drew against fake Taker and Austin. If you go into the early 00s, he was a fairly big disaster as a draw in 2001, 2002 and 2003. I don't know about his Mania streak though, how much is actually him and how much is Wrestlemania. It should be noted that the company cooled off considerably after X-7 when Taker and Kane became the top faces in the company. Sure, Austin's heel turn had a lot to do with that but Taker being the top face also played a role.

[Loss]

His big match with Lesnar at Wrestlemania 19 didn't do huge numbers but it wasn't a disaster by any means. I think his jump to TNA is really where you can see his lack of draw though. He was considered the biggest star to go to that company and he added virtually nothing to their ratings. Sting showing up moved the dial more than Angle did.

 

I still think, big picture that Undertaker is probably a worse draw than Angle was.

Wrestlemania 19 didn't do huge numbers, but even if it did, the credit/blame for that show goes to the most hyped match on the card -- Hogan vs Vince. Angle/Lesnar was not put in the position to sell that show. And while some have called this point of view scapegoating, I have always agreed with those who said because the war in Iraq had just started, people had their minds on bigger things than wrestling. Perhaps the lineup factored into the buyrate, but I think world events at the time were also a key factor.

 

If you look at Angle's entire run in the WWF, I can't really point to any shows where he was the central focus of the build when the company was hot -- except maybe Summerslam and Unforgiven in 2001. You can argue that he would or would not have been successful as a draw, but he wasn't. Perhaps that was through no fault of his own, but the HOF isn't a place to right wrongs.

[Mad Dog]

Wouldn't Angle's height in the WWE have been the Love Triangle in 2000? That was the biggest storyline of the year and they totally botched it because HHH is HHH.

[Loss]

Yes, but look at that time period:

 

* July 2000, Fully Loaded -- Selling point was the Benoit/Rock and HHH/Jericho matches.

* August 2000, Summerslam -- Headlined in a three-way with Rock and HHH. Hard to say he was put in a position to sell the show, especially after doing a clean job to Undertaker the month before.

* September 2000, Unforgiven -- HHH/Angle was the biggest match on the show, but Steve Austin's return was the selling point of the show.

 

So while I do agree that this was the peak of his appeal as a character, when exactly was he put in the key spot to sell a show? If you can point to one that's disappointing, I think that's when you can call Angle a failed draw.

 

As it stands, I don't think Angle was a failed draw -- I just don't think he was often put in a position to draw.

[Ricky Jackson]

One thing is for sure, Biker Taker of the early-00s was probably the lamest and most ill-advised character reinvention ever.

[Mad Dog]

His TNA run is what shows that he is a poor draw. If Angle was a draw, he would've had a marked impact on them as a company. Ratings would've gone up and attendance would've gone up. Sting hadn't been on television for quite awhile and he still made for TNA as far as drawing some people in, at least a bigger impact than Angle did.

 

As far as 2000. I think the point of the Love Triangle was to put Angle in the position to draw and instead, they used the angle to put HHH over.

 

EDIT: But this is why I say Undertaker is probably a worse draw. I can't point to any one thing against Angle with numbers. I can point at the Undertaker and points where he was hurting the product. The post X-7 run being a prime example of Taker hurting the company. I will consider that more proof than Angle's starpower not carrying over to another company.

[Loss]

Angle hasn't moved the needle in TNA. Neither has Sting or two of the biggest draws in wrestling history -- Ric Flair and Hulk Hogan. I think it's more something that I'd point to as a positive if he did lead to a turnaround than something I'd point to as a negative for not doing it. I think anyone short of Austin, Rock or Cena going to TNA wouldn't turn things around.

[Mad Dog]

Sting actually did move the needle for awhile in TNA. Raven moved the needle when he first arrived and feuded with Jarrett. Those are really the only instances of someone making an impact for TNA even briefly.

[Ricky Jackson]

This is purely hypothetical speculation, but if it was Taker who had jumped to TNA in 2006, I think he would have put up bigger numbers there than Angle did, at least initially before the booking caught up with him and things went back down.

 

But I think it all boils down to the fact that, as Loss stated, Angle in WWE was rarely if ever put in the big money draw position. Taker has been there countless times over the years, and yes some were big duds. But at least he had a few big hits (Summerslam 98 for one). And his biggest hits were bigger than any of Angle's biggest hits.

[Johnny Sorrow]

One thing is for sure, Biker Taker of the early-00s was probably the lamest and most ill-advised character reinvention ever.

That's crazy talk. Big Evil was awesome.

[Paul Jacobi]

Sting actually did move the needle for awhile in TNA. Raven moved the needle when he first arrived and feuded with Jarrett. Those are really the only instances of someone making an impact for TNA even briefly.

 

Are you simply making this up? Please provide actual numbers instead of going on hearsay.

Angle vs Samoa Joe is the highest drawing PPV in TNA history. The # they did was 60k buys as reported in the observer several times.

That's higher than any PPV number Sting has ever drawn in TNA.

 

Undertaker/Austin drew the highest Summerslam in history in 1998. I guess Taker had nothing to do with that either.

He also was in the highest rated Raw segment *ever* in 1999 ( 9.2 rating) and drew a good buy vs Austin again at Fully Loaded that year.