Loss

That's ridiculous. Half-assing and getting over can be mutually inclusive.

Every match is worked to garner heat. Some succeed and some don't.

Why weren't undercard matches very heated most of the time?

Yes, Matt and Jeff Hardy are perfect examples. They were extremely popular, made the company money and drew well with a segment of the audience. But it was more that they were able to succeed in an already good environment, not increase the fanbase that was already there for Austin and Rock. The WWF had plenty of guys like that in the 80s. It's only been in the last few years that they haven't anymore. That said, even as popular a team as they were, crediting them for the WWF's success is going overboard.

There were definitely people on the roster capable of sustaining the momentum Hogan created, and who could draw for short periods of time. But no one else could have anchored the ship, and no one else could have created that much momentum from the top. Yes, there were sellouts on shows that did not involve Hogan, but they were in a climate that had Hogan around. Honky Tonk Man drew sellouts on shows without Hogan in 1987 while IC champ. Savage and Steamboat headlined shows that drew well too, as did Savage and DiBiase. So I get what you're saying. But among them all, Hogan was the only transcendent guy.

But that's not proof on its own of anything. That's coincidence, not cause. I don't think it was just Hogan. It was Hogan and Vince. Rude and Bravo are no more responsible for the success of the WWF during that time than The Godfather and The Headbangers were responsible for the success of the late 90s. (By the way, speaking of Bravo, I have never seen a guy who had such a forgettable WWF run get so much discussion on his WWF run.) For live events, the lifeblood of the company, the main event sold the show. This is not some radical new idea, and it's not an exclusive concept to the WWF. Whoever was on top deserves the credit. Hogan was on top. Therefore, Hogan deserves the credit. Everyone else in the company is secondary. You can compare heels who had runs against Hogan to each other by comparing the gates they drew opposite Hogan in the same venues. I suppose you could compare other people on the card to each other by comparing their action figure sales. I wish we had those numbers. But I don't buy into the idea of intangible value. Also, midcards don't really exist just to exist or fill out a show. Well, maybe they do sometimes, but that's silly. They are a breeding ground for future main events. Rude going over Snuka so strongly on the WM undercard was because he would be headlining the next pay-per-view against Warrior. Earthquake went over Hercules for the same reasons. Those matches weren't really there to draw people on their own, but at the same time, it's undercutting their value to call them filler. Vince and Patterson knew where they were heading post-Mania and used Mania to build up the heels that would be carrying them into summer. Wrestling is all about the main event. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy other things happening on a card, as we all have at various points. But it's not the driving force. It's just along for the ride.

Growth in which revenue stream? The emotions that make people buy an action figure are not the same emotions that make people buy a ticket.

I used to take that mindset as a statement that reviewers had no right to criticize the show, but I understand that's not what is meant now. It's more that watching something and reviewing it has to be a labor of love. If it's not something one genuinely enjoys and it is an actively bad show, then I'd rather read someone having fun with how bad the show is. It's not a matter of liking/disliking, it's a matter of taking it too seriously.

There is no proof that that is true, nor can that be proven.

I'm sure if the feedback was given to Dave that this would be a great thing to put in a WON at some point, he would do it. Maybe worth making the suggestion.

Dino Bravo, Rick Rude and Demolition mean something to non-wrestling fans? Maybe Punk and Jericho don't either, but it's not like they are any less meaningful as names than Rude, Bravo or Demolition. And they both definitely mean more than Orton.

I've looked through WONs from '89 trying to find the number of buys for some shows, and it's proven very difficult. My hope was to provide hard numbers for WCW/NWA, but they just aren't there. Dave didn't even always report on the buyrates, sometimes just mentioning it in passing 12-18 months later.

Orton is the modern Sting. Over with live crowds, but makes no difference as a headliner. But he's been in the position so long that people just assume he's successful there.

Hogan/Flair at Havoc was to that point the most watched WCW pay-per-view ever if I recall correctly. I know the spin from the anti-Hogan types was that Bash at the Beach '94 got half the buyrate of Bash '89, and that is true, but I'm not sure if it's alarming as it sounds because of the changes in the PPV universe between 1989 and 1994. Just like Flair/Funk gets called the most successful house show run in company history until the boom period. That doesn't mean Flair/Funk was successful. Numbers do have opinions, regardless of what anyone says. Wrestling was at an all-time low in popularity in the U.S. from 1992-1996. The Monday Night Wars changed things, but no one in a headlining position was able to re-steer the sinking ship in the years prior, even the proven draws of years past like Hogan and Flair. Those two did better than others in the same spots, but still weren't lighting the world on fire.

I understand that, but the McMahons aren't stupid. It's crazy that she really thinks what she is doing is enough to win.

Hogan has been a guy who easily overstays his welcome if he's around too long since 1999 or so.

Drawing a PPV buyrate, drawing a house, drawing a rating, selling merch ... there are too many revenue streams now to rule it out without examining each one.

I'm not sure Linda is unique within her party for restricting media access. Even Mitt Romney has done surprisingly few interviews in this campaign cycle, and seems to always be in some tiff with the media when he's trying to cut off their access to something. Add in the tax returns stuff, and Linda and Romney aren't terribly different candidates. But even some of the nuts within the party are more willing to talk policy. Does she really need a full six-year Senate term to do a $500 tax cut, and is that all she wants to accomplish?

This is how WWE works too, so I would expect Linda to get that.

I will add that as someone who likely still thinks of Flair as the GOAT, there are quite a few wrestlers who could be argued as better based on a limited and very positive sampling.

Way too early. Most people have seen Flair in good times and bad. Bock comparisons can't really begin until you take a more completist look at him, as opposed to a "best of" sampling.

Linda needs to talk policy more. She almost never does. Everything is just about being Linda. She also needs to talk to the media way more, and not as much through spokespeople.

As I always say when the topic comes up, check out the attempted piledriver on the floor spot and how gingerly Hogan takes that bump. It's horrible. It's bad enough that it ruins the whole match for me.

I know. And it's always strange.

The last post was 15 months ago. Why did you respond now to say that?