Loss

Bix wins the thread.

El-P's favorite team: Nikita Koloff/HHH/Yumiko Hotta

Yes. Mid South Wrestling is not perfect by any means, but it was from my perspective the one that produced the most interesting television and had the most good matches.

Thanks. So when measuring the success or failure of Raw, isn't it a little unfair to compare ratings points from a year or two years prior? The rating itself doesn't say much. The number of viewers could increase while the rating decreases if the show is now available to a wider audience. I see people making number comparisons to previous years all the time. That's not really the best approach, is it? Shouldn't we be looking instead at the number of viewers? It's what we are evolving to with PPV buys, so it seems like doing the same for TV ratings would make far more sense.

I asked the question, but it was not answered.

It really wasn't just a tag league thing. Why did Hokuto and Kandori team at Queendom anyway?

I still get confused by this stuff. Can someone explain, so we can refer back to it as needed, the following? (1) What does a rating actually represent? If RAW gets a 3.2, does this mean 3.2% of people with televisions were tuned into RAW? (2) Is the overall rating determined by averaging together all of the quarter hours? (3) How can Dave say that a segment with a wrestler lost or gained x number of viewers, unless every single segment lasts exactly 15 minutes and starts at the beginning of the quarter hour? If there is a backstage skit with AJ, then Punk comes out for a promo, but people tuned out during AJ's skit, it's not fair to say Punk's promo lost 600,000 viewers or whatever, is it? (4) What is a share, and how is it different from a rating? (5) What is "head-to-head", and how does that differ from the rating/share? I have follow-up questions too, regarding things that have never really made sense to me, but answers to these questions will get the ball rolling in the right direction.

Alternatively, Rude did receive tons of shots on house shows when Sting was champion, which is a great way to make the people who were in attendance wonder why they paid money to attend something that the promotion says never happened.

You told me in another thread that AJW didn't randomly pair tag teams, and I would know that if I watched all the shows.

I think randomly paired tag teams is my least favorite thing about AJW booking.

I wish "shot" wasn't the past tense of "shoot" in wrestling talk. It sounds too porno.

I think this is really interesting when you compare Angle to wrestlers who were smart, but didn't do much athletically. Is Kurt Angle a better worker than Jimmy Valiant? Is Kurt Angle a better worker than Junkyard Dog? Is Kurt Angle a better worker than Jake Roberts? Is Kurt Angle a better worker than Dump Matsumoto? I don't think the answer is a definite "the other wrestler is better" in each of those cases, but I still think it's an interesting question that probably says more about the tastes of the individual than anything.

Jericho is another. Just in WWE: 1999, Debut - Heel 1999, Chyna stuff - Face 2001, feud with Rock - Heel 2004, Trish/Christian - Face 2005, Cena departing feud - Heel 2007, Return - Face 2008, Michaels feud - Heel 2012, Return - Face 2012, Punk feud - Heel He's been in WWE for 13 years. He's been active for roughly 9 of those years. So that's a lot of turns.

I split this off into its own topic because it's worth discussing on its own.

Ric Flair is still the gold standard for turns. Lex Luger is up there too, although Big Show and Kane probably surpassed him by now.

While I like the Watts run more than most, this time period was in general proof that either: (a) He was out of touch with changes that had happened in wrestling since 1986. ( He was always doing stuff like this, but people chose not to see it. Maybe a little of Column A, little of Column B.

The only other thing I'll add is that the WWE fanbase is so fragmented and has interests that directly contradict interests of other parts of the fanbase, so I think the days of a near-universal response may never return. There has never been a more polarized WWE audience, and neither is a segment of the audience WWE can afford to do without. Cena, as a babyface, has been able to appeal to both sides of that audience in different ways for difference reasons. Punk, as a heel, has the potential to do the same.

(1) Rock hasn't gotten booed by a significant part of the fanbase in over a decade, when Rock was sometimes booed when facing other very over babyfaces like Austin and Hogan. Wrestling fans have grown up and moved on since then, and they have largely been replaced with an entirely new generation of wrestling fans. Also, absence makes the heart grow fonder. I would be genuinely surprised if this backfires and the crowd turns on Rock. (2) I think you may be overestimating CM Punk's popularity as a babyface. As soon as he mentioned that he would beat Rock when they faced each other at the Royal Rumble -- prior to the turn, mind you -- he was booed. He has been met with apathy or a merely polite response during many episodes of RAW that I have watched. He's liked by many, but I wouldn't really call him likable. (3) It's wrong to say WWE hasn't exploited the old wounds over Rock leaving. It was the centerpiece of the build to this year's Wrestlemania main event against John Cena. (4) When fans started cheering Punk, he stopped calling them idiots. Punk is capable of being a great heel. We have seen him in this role before. People love Rock. When presented with the choice, people will cheer Rock over Punk. WWE, to their credit, knew they couldn't execute the turn with Cena, so they didn't execute the turn with Cena. The feud has potential. I am excited about seeing CM Punk vs The Rock. I think most WWE fans are too. Booking choices made on Monday night encourage a heel response directed to Punk. I expect him to deliver a great promo on Monday to further his turn. Over the next few months, he has Cena as a placeholder opponent, and if all else fails, Rey is capable of being put in that slot at any time. WWE is capable of doing anything badly, just as they are capable of doing anything well. There are no guarantees, but if you judge them on what they have done so far (the turn on Monday), I don't see what is not to like.

* Nothing that happens between now and the Royal Rumble is important. Go back to sleep. This coming week has a hook. CM Punk explains why he did what he did. This begs the question: Do you think they should have asked Rock to stay home even though he was available for the show? You know, because he's not going to be around every week anyway. Everyone is just going to hate him for being gone apparently, so might as well just not use him at all. That would be much better, right? Since when did planting seeds for things that are happening in a few months become a bad idea? Not really. People dug Chris Jericho. But they dug Shawn Michaels more. So Jericho/Michaels worked because Michaels was the object of Jericho's scorn. People dig CM Punk. But they dig The Rock more. So Punk/Rock will work because Rock is the object of Punk's scorn. People dig Punk now more than they dug Jericho then. And they dig Rock more now than they dug Michaels then. So Punk/Rock should work better than Jericho/Michaels. Plus, I am not a typical WWE fan. My reactions to things aren't typically an indicator of how most people react to something. I find it strange that you defended last summer's Punk angle turning into HHH's wacky tenure running RAW (at least IIRC), yet Punk turning on Rock to set up a big program in January that will directly lead to WM is problematic. Why is that better than this? And the hero of a horror movie bumping into a cat in a dark, quiet room makes people jump in their seat. It doesn't mean cats are scary, it means the filmmaker caught you off-guard with a cheap surprise. You can't build a whole horror film around a guy bumping into cats. Once the shock value of Punk attacking Rock wears off - and I'll tell you right now, that's not gonna last long - will they still boo him? Yes. WWE fans are Pavlovian. Whether they agree with him or not, if Punk calls them idiots, they will boo him. You act as if your average WWE fan carefully weighs the facts and considers both sides of an argument before deciding who to cheer or boo. Rock is popular, Punk will bash him and call fans idiots, people will boo, and it will be awesome. "Remember when Rock showed up after filming another shitty movie and got a title shot on a silver platter because nobody in the company actually gives a shit about the belt anymore, so Punk beat the fuck out of him? That was awesome." Please. WWE fans don't hold Rock's absences against him. He proves this by getting a gigantic reaction every time he shows up. You know this to be true. Since when has WWE booked based on who is right and who is wrong on the merits? They book based on a caste system where headliners are entitled to act however they want and everyone else is expected to like it or get booed. Remember Cena, Zach Ryder and Eve just a few months ago? Punk doesn't like how Rock is acting, which means he doesn't know his role. Punk will get booed. It's simple.

Well, if you really wanted to get critical, Rock hasn't even earned the title shot. It's not exactly Flair-Funk where Flair scoffed at the idea of just giving a shot to a guy who had been "in Hollywood rubbing shoulders with Sylvester Stallone", which most people saw as a pretty sensible point of view. We're long, long removed from that. And I suppose you could look at it as devaluing of the title. But if you look at the reality of Monday night, which was: * The Rock is on RAW. * The Rock is wrestling at the Royal Rumble. * RAW has the largest viewing audience they are likely to have between now and Rock's return. They did a great job. My enjoyment of the final angle wasn't even about the title. It was about the champion finally being positioned with people that everyone sees as being at the very top. The Undertaker's streak is "wrestling's richest prize". Being The Rock is probably #2. All valid points. The rationale for Punk's heel turn is that he has had the longest title run in the over 15 years, yet hasn't been treated with respect. Despite beating everyone who has challenged him, John Cena has still been the guy, and guys like Rock and Undertaker and HHH have had more focus when they've been around. All the while, he's been there every night, winning matches, and it hasn't made a difference. Not to the company, not to the WWE Universe, not to anyone. As he started to leave the ring, he realized it was happening again. He was taking a back seat to The Rock and John Cena. And he wasn't going to let that happen again. He had enough. (I wonder if Rock mouthing "Get the fuck out of the way" as he did his run-in will be used as fodder later.) Also, they've been mentioning Punk's positioning while champion on television for weeks, so this has been foreshadowed for a little while. I don't think turning the crowd on Punk is a valid concern. It already happened -- before RAW ended. Cena will be his opponent in the interim, which could prove tricky, but replaying and reminding people of what Punk did will go a long way. By no means do I think it was GREAT. But I think it was solid, and it's a good direction. As always with WWE, many things can happen from here. It can be great, or it could end up terrible.

Since I find myself in the rare position of liking something modern WWE does while others dislike it (usually it's the other way around), I thought I'd explain why. CM Punk and Daniel Bryan. Seriously. That's it. That's the reason. They had a segment with The Rock. I take it as a bode of confidence from the company on both guys. And with Daniel Bryan, he has a celebrity angle coming up that is a pretty big opportunity for him. I can't really be mad at that. Punk is doing a program with The Rock. Punk had a tremendously executed heel turn. They didn't waste the added viewers they had on stupid comedy (there was some, but that wasn't the central focus of the show). There wasn't much wrestling, and there was a lot of typical WWE weirdness, but the show ended with a hook for the next episode: CM Punk explains his actions. That they used the show to hype matches for Summerslam, Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania is pretty significant and I give them credit for it. Booking is what made me tune out on modern WWE. Booking is what made me happy with last night's show. Even if the entire show was horrible, leaving with a good hook revolving around the main event scene would be enough to make up for it.

I don't remember them ever being in the same angle before, except in 2001, when they were on the same side. What am I forgetting?

Dave thought Stephanie's comments toward Heyman were fascinating because they had nothing to do with the angle, and she seemed to take so much joy in saying them. I'll just say this. It's Paul Heyman. Stephanie probably has good reasons to feel however she feels about him. I would imagine it's deserved.

Waltman always seemed like a nice guy to me, outside of the addiction stuff.