Loss

Versatility? Aren't they all pretty much 15-20 minute midcard tag matches? Where are the gimmick matches? Where are the matches outside the WWF? Can you see them work against teams that come from different eras where the style has changed? Is there a good sampling of matches available with them facing singles stars who didn't really team regularly? I don't blame them for those things so much, but when comparing them to the other teams of their era, I don't see how variety is a strong point. The Midnights (especially the Condrey/Eaton version), Rock & Rolls, Fantastics, Road Warriors and others have quite a bit of variety.

You mean, like Demolition compared to the Rockers, Steiners, Midnight Express, Rock & Rolls, Samoan Swat Team, Arn & Tully, Foot Loose, etc.?

I suspect this is actually closer to the casual fan response you'd get as well.

I would be very, very, very surprised if the best Barry Darsow match of all time is from his time in Demolition. It will be hard to beat the match against the Rock & Rolls when Morton and Gibson debuted in the NWA and won the tag titles from him and Koloff. I watched the Arn/Tully match and thought it was solid at times, but that was entirely (entirely) because Arn and Tully were a really good tag team. The match felt really poorly laid out, and their gimmick conflicted with how they worked the match. They are not dominant and threatening enough to match the gimmick, and they aren't vulnerable enough to be compelling underdogs. There was no real emotion in the match. They were just ... there. A whole lotta there.

He felt like the crowd didn't buy the angle, because every time they showed crowd shots of people sad about Bret losing, they started smiling and waving at the camera.

I don't know what's not to like about Megumi Kudo.

John Cena is also better than HHH, Edge, and possibly Chris Jericho. He's not as athletically gifted as Angle, but he's much smarter. Cena is sometimes physically awkward, and WWE's dual marketing of him as a face to kids and women/heel to adult males is why people underrate him. They're being worked. I probably wouldn't have either guy in a top 100.

I can't think of a single time in history that a wrestler who wasn't at a certain level already has been made a permanent fixture at that level simply by winning a title. In every case where it has been a success, demand has been created -- either organically by the fans or through good booking -- to make people want to see (or actively not want to see, in the case of some great heels) a wrestler at that level. Punk is only now sort of being treated like a second-tier top guy. His 2008 and 2009 runs did not solidify him at that level. Alberto Del Rio was champion almost a year ago. Jack Swagger was champion over two years ago. They are just faces in a crowd. It's hard for me to care about wrestling where the belts aren't the most important thing in the world because it's unclear what everyone is fighting for. Right now, if a wrestler who isn't a tippety top guy wears the title, he stays at the same level where he was already before winning the title. Only now, he has a championship. The idea that winning a title elevates anyone in WWE is so easily disproven. John Cena should have had the Bruno run for the past several years, with guys like Orton and Michaels filling in during his few absences where he's been injured. I know that doesn't sound too thrilling, which is why I'd point out yet again that they had opportunities for guys like HHH, Undertaker, Michaels and Orton to lay down convincingly for guys who they are trying to rely on now, and haven't taken them. Punk beating HHH last year would have done as much or more for him than this long run.

I'll put it aside when the 1990 Yearbook comes out, plow through that, then come back to this.

Verne Gagne vs Nick Bockwinkel (07/18/80) I was really impressed with this match. I think I agree with Pete that the Greg/Slaughter match is above this, but this was really impressive. I keep going back to that word, but I think that's the best way to describe this. These two cut quite the remarkable pace and showed their cards really well. If anything, it was too fast paced, which is a strange complaint to make about a match with 2012 eyes, but that's because they did so much cool stuff but quickly moved on to the next thing. This is the kind of match I liked now that I think I'll love after getting more comfortable with the AWA style. I find it interesting that Bockwinkel is a faster wrestler than Flair or Steamboat during the same time period.

Greg Gagne vs Super Destroyer Mark II (05/01/80) This match had hot periods and parts where it seemed like not much was happening, but in the end, it was a good match overall. Slaughter gave a really inspired performance and took about 90% of the offense. I wouldn't call Greg awkward, and I didn't get that feeling from him at all. But I didn't think he really did much here except fill a role. Felt very much like a solid Slaughter carry job, but it also felt like an extended squash at times because Gagne's comeback teases were too few and far between. Bobby Heenan sure can heat up any situation and was great here.

Lord Alfred Hays vs Bobby Heenan (01/13/80) What a fun way to start the set! I thought this would be all schtick, and while there is quite a bit, there is also some good wrestling. His Lordship has some fun, tricked out holds, and Bobby Heenan can throw a surprisingly good punch. I'm not a fan of babyfaces using the ropes for leverage as a rule, but this is an exception. It's a manager's match, and if it's not at least partially worked around who the better cheater is, what's the point?

He's definitely doing all right. Better than most. He's not so much being buried as the championship is being buried.

I see this logic. But then I think if all that is true, why has Cena not been champion this entire time? If Punk's segments regularly lose viewers and he's a mild draw at best, why do they have him wearing their top title? None of it makes sense.

I think Brock/HHH's placement will depend on the finish. Lesnar winning would most likely not go on last, but Lesnar losing (which is what I expect to happen) most likely would. Rock mentioning the WWE title on Twitter you would think would mean a segment coming with him and Punk, but I will be surprised if that happens. Punk is the World Intercontinental Champion.

Punk never going on last as champ is frustrating. How's the show?

I thought that show was actually pretty funny and well produced until the IWC stuff started. Even then, parts of it made me laugh. That he has a Jushin Liger poster in the back with the others is pretty surprising. WWE produces this? I've never heard of it before. But hip hop was no longer big in the early 90s. O ... k.

This is why I'd rather compare matches than wrestlers, if given the choice. I feel more comfortable judging the meal than the chef.

Didn't 9-1-1 basically do the same thing? Get over with one move and doing no promos?

Honestly, I think that's every gimmick. WWE books for an audience of one, and if other people like it, that's incidental. That sounded way more negative than I meant it. I actually just meant it as an observation.

For JCP: Starrcade '87 (20,000 buys) (Only had PPV clearance in 4 markets) Bunkhouse Stampede '88 (200,000 buys) Great American Bash '88 (190,000 buys) Starrcade '88 ("Between 100,000 and 150,000 buys") More later.

I'm not saying I disagree with this, but I am having trouble understanding the relevance of the question. Those promotions haven't been around for over a decade, long before MMA got popular. (Well, RINGS moved to shoots ...)

Sure, but are there still promotions like UWFI, RINGS and PWFG? Or are you saying that modern eyes are going to have a tough time enjoying the old stuff? Just want to understand.

This post really nails it. I don't know that Cornette needs to be a wrestling genius, as long as the angles he copies are good and fit what he is trying to accomplish. I don't really expect originality in wrestling booking, as most of the time, it doesn't produce anything worth watching. But yeah, Cornette is nearly as much in the bubble as Vince McMahon.

Anyway, the superman comeback doesn't bother me, and I agree that it's not really a great argument against him. I'd rather focus on his lack of offense and that he didn't seem at all like a tough guy. Someone embellish me and tell me why I'm wrong.