Loss

Yes.

It's Minnesota - brothers, cousins, whatev.

Crockett and Dusty wanted to build Starrcade around Flair regaining the title from someone. They just needed a warm body, and Garvin was the guy they decided on. I think Windham getting the belt would have worked a little better and also provided some good symmetry for the Horsemen run a few months later. They may have run that match into the ground earlier in the year though. Not sure why he wasn't considered. He wasn't really higher or lower than Garvin at that point. Aside from Dusty, the Road Warriors and maybe Nikita, by 1987, all the babyfaces were this blob of guys that were sort of interchangeable in position on the card.

Ron Garvin got over great and drew reasonably well as a challenger to Flair. He just wasn't cut out to be the champion.

Yes, that is a difference. But the point is that calling Benoit's title run a lifetime achievement award is not incorrect.

I have Garvin wrestling on TV with the belt. That's one of those things that has been repeated so many times that people believe it when it's not really true.

So what makes Benoit different from Ron Garvin in 1987?

It did. Angle was really the first guy to become champ where he was second or third from the top. Jericho, Benoit and others would follow, and it still happens to this day. It happened with Bret and Shawn in 1997 (Bret actually went from being the top heel to the #2 heel immediately after winning the WWF title), but there were extenuating circumstances there, to say the least.

Jericho himself has called Benoit's reign a lifetime achievement award. I'm fairly certain he said that in his book. I do agree that calling Eddy's time on top that isn't valid. Nor is Foley's, for that matter. He served an actual business purpose and became a draw in his own right. They didn't need to put the belt on him to draw or anything like that, but he was the guy who was used to keep Austin and Rock apart until the Wrestlemania build kicked in. Him being champion served a practical purpose other than to say, "Thanks, Mick."

I am so confused. How am I doing that?

Looked on F4W, saw nothing of the sort. But I have no idea what to do with that.

Ok, that's great. And yes, I see the argument for Eddy not being a lifetime achievement award. He was one of the most over guys in the company at the time. But if Benoit was "something different", I'd like for him to explain what exactly that means.

So I sez, "It was only 78,000 ... SEVENTY-EIGHT." She looked at me like she'd never even heard of Zane Bresloff! "So I says, Junk YARD Dog?..more like Junk FOOD Dog, AMIRITE?!!!!" "I told him, 'Not on steroids? Everyone is on steroids except Lance Storm!'"

So I sez, "It was only 78,000 ... SEVENTY-EIGHT." She looked at me like she'd never even heard of Zane Bresloff!

Just to clarify, we are well past the point where we are seeking recommendations. We have more than enough to fill a yearbook, and are now in the editing phase. The good news is that unlike previous yearbooks, there are not very many matches that go 30 minutes or more.

Not sure about that. Flair/Michaels was a first-time outing though, not counting the 8-minute special from '91. That show also had Goldberg/Jericho. I don't know if I'd call that a money match, but there's appeal there, and that match was built very well, with Jericho narrowly avoiding the spear in the build and then working the match around avoiding it. Goldberg finally doing it got a big pop. But I always loved the Highlight Reel with him spraying Goldberg in the eyes, spearing him, then taking off running as fast as he could.

It may not compete from a match quality perspective, but it just might! EMLL had a ridiculously hot year with tons of great matches. Probably a better year for relative lucha novices to really dive in than 1992-1996. That said, I have no idea what my MOTY will be. None. I plan on doing a Top 100 PROMOS for the year on this set, not just matches.

Mick Foley was the special referee after a long absence. That's what sold that main event. Plus, that show had Flair/Michaels.

Oh, we are pretty far along. This is within a few weeks of release. It's just that I had to watch a lot more from other places because there were less recommendations. But this is pretty far along.

For 1990, the WWF is the promotion I've probably *watched* the least of in preparation. So a lot of it will be new to me too. That said, this is the first yearbook with lots of SNMEs the way we remember them, and I am a big mark for those quick cut intros they used to do to start every show, so we hope to capture all of those. Also, Wild Kingdom, which had a lot of silliness and three really good matches. I think that's the best SNME ever. There looks to be some really good MSG and Coliseum Video matches from '90 as well.

Dawwwwwwnaw? Yes! The ICW TEEN REPORT. Just wait until you see her interview Tony Atlas, if you never have.

This started as the year I was least interested in exploring from the decade. However, now I'm confident this will be the best yearbook yet, and definitely the one with the most hidden gems. What is the connection between Connie Chung and Tod Gordon? What about between the Ultimate Warrior and Phil Collins? Between Kerry Von Erich and Perestroika? Who wins when WCW and GLOW face off on Family Feud? What happens when WWF wrestlers hit late night TV? How do Sam Houston and Rockin' Robin celebrate Mothers Day? Who would say such mean things about Ox Baker? Owen Hart in Europe? Rip Rogers in the Maritimes? What collective considers themselves, quite simply, dynamite? WCW has more advanced production than Madonna concerts? Gary Young wants to destroy your eyeglasses? Jerry Lawler works a fake shoot with a guy who was later accused of pawning the USWA belt for crack? Steve Austin collaborated with a mortician in drag? Sean Waltman would like to sell you hair? Who exactly will "all be doing that ... Wild Thing"? A teenage girl got TV time for that? You mean the Freebirds aren't huge rock stars? Shoes for your feet and pockets for your stuff ... Why, that sounds too good to be true! Soon, it will all make sense.

Jericho and Nash threw some shots at each other, with Jericho saying he hoped Nash didn't tear his quad while tweeting. Either they're having fun working everyone (odds on these two doing that are strong) or there's a beef there. It will be entertaining either way.

You could argue that the end of WM XX killed championships, because they turned them into lifetime achievement awards. But that has nothing to do with Benoit and Eddy's size.

So you're saying that the rest of the roster weren't over because their matches didn't draw heat? Yes. If they were over, their matches would get a reaction. Plenty of wrestlers have been able to get a great reaction despite not really being great workers or working hard. The match quality has almost nothing to do with that. I'm saying WWF crowds liked Hogan, and to a lesser degree responded to Savage, Warrior, Piper and Andre, and to an even lesser degree got into acts when they peaked like DiBiase, Steamboat, Rude, Boss Man, Beefcake, Duggan, JYD, and Honky Tonk Man, and were generally just polite to almost everyone else. You are arguing that the WWF roster as a whole was pretty over, but if we can't point to crowd reaction or money drawn as proof, then where is the proof? It really comes across as an argument based on what wrestlers people liked as kids. In fact, that was what you specifically cited.