Loss

Haha, I'm tempted to say Mascara Sagrada.

Actually, instead I would say that I think that posts like the one you just gave are far more interesting, informative and clear than the shorthand we've adapted for ourselves through the years, and as we've seen with recent threads like the one on pinball bumping, we use the phrases so much that people walk away with different interpretations of them. Maybe we should stick to describing what it is we are seeing and why it does or doesn't work for us so that there is less room for misinterpretation.

Shine?

El Dandy vs Angel Azteca, El Dandy vs Negro Casas and Volk Han vs Kiyoshi Tamura are the first matches that come to mind for me, but there are dozens more that fit the bill.

I also think Dave is woefully out of touch with tape trading and comp making culture and how it's changed since he was involved in the scene. Late 70s/early 80s tape trading was a way to get the latest footage from other parts of the country (and world) that fans didn't get locally. It's evolved into something that really is more about capturing history, and so much comp making really is an attempt to frame historical context and consider some of the preordained wisdom we've heard for so many years. As wrestling's preeminent historian, it's something I think he should appreciate way more than he does. The WON is a valuable perspective, but it's not the single voice on pro wrestling. It comes closer than anything else to being that, but it still isn't that. And that's okay.

On the subject of Invader I and Brody, let's flip the analogy. Let's say someone told Undertaker that Papi Chulo threatened Vince. Undertaker beats the shit out of him over the misunderstanding, disfigures him and he is never able to wrestle or even walk again. Or maybe he beats him to death, or stabs him to death. Would people be arguing the Undertaker shouldn't be in the HOF for this? Would there be real debate around it? I think there's an American privilege associated with the current HOF, and territories that had newsletter buzz like Memphis are going to get a bigger platform than places like Puerto Rico which drew much bigger crowds. Perhaps the same could be said for other pockets of the world that have had lots of wrestling, but didn't have the benefit of heavy tape trader penetration in the early days of the WON. I don't know if there are Australian candidates that should go in, for example, but I do think there's a lot of lost history out there that's worth uncovering, even if that means ... *gasp* ... watching old footage to gain understanding.

Dave wrote a horrifying bio for Moolah in the WON when she died.

Lia Maivia too.

We sadly don't have access to those numbers ... do we?

It just seems like it would lead more and more to WWE giving us their moral view of what they want to be instead of what their fans want to see, with no impetus to do otherwise. If business is the same regardless of who is on top, the history of the company tells us who they'll put on top. Moments where everything clicks are fleeting as it is, and I hope this wouldn't be an unintended negative consequence. Wrestling has been going in that direction for a while now -- booking for an audience of one -- but hopefully, this doesn't complete the transition once and for all.

I caught Smackdown last night and thought the exact same thing about the differences in the Rhodes brothers. Swagger also looked pretty bad.

Here's a question. If they put all of their pay-per-views on the channel, how would we know who is drawing on top and who isn't? What would be the new metric? Just television ratings. I know it's geeky, but I'm thinking of this in terms of future HOF debates.

I would consider it, but I have DirecTV, so I don't expect it to be an option. I would also want to see what the general lineup is before committing to anything.

I bet they all know who Hulk Hogan is though. Sure. People are idiots.

I don't know how much a lot of this means. What percentage of the population is aware that we had a President Taft?

However, if you are interested in watching a good Southern style national promotion, then the Nitro era won't appeal to you. Even pre-Hogan WCW will only appeal to you in spots. That was the point that I think was being made.

I don't think Luger was ready to go long in a main event yet at Bash '88. He worked hard, but he wasn't quite there as a worker, to a point where I thought even Flair was a step down from usual just from working so hard to carry him. I do like the match, but it feels like imitation Flair vs Luger in some ways. Lex was there by the end of the year, as he clearly proved at Starrcade. Bash '88 is my least favorite feud of the series. I'd probably go: Wrestle War '90 Starrcade '88 Clash 12 Capital Combat Starrcade '89 Great American Bash '88

Interesting show. I'm thinking about your thoughts on the Flair/Luger series as a whole and I'm curious where you think it ranks among the all-time great in-ring feuds. I think it's hurt by not having the final match with Luger getting a huge win, but I'd have no problem calling it a top five feud for WCW/NWA at worst. Would you agree with that?

Assuming WrestleMania 30 does 600,000 buys in the U.S. at an average price of $65, that would mean 600,000*32.5=$19.5 million in revenue. Say the network's running costs are $4 million for the month. So you would need $23.5 million in revenue from the network to break even. Assuming the price is $9.95 for the network and they receive half of that money per subscriber leads to a little over 4.5 million subscribers. The idea, though, is that they would make the money back over the year by having a lot of these subscribers become lifelong subscribers. Yes, that's true, but given that most fans only watch one to three pay-per-views a year, it's highly likely that most fans will buy just to see WrestleMania 30 and then cancel their subscription until the next major pay-per-view airs on the WWE Network. They are counting on the apathy and laziness of their fanbase, which I suppose has paid off before.

Definitely not the worst idea.

I guess I look at the head dropping as popping more for big offense than for big punishment. I do think selling is an important part of Japanese wrestling, but yes, my only point is that the showy bumpers aren't really that big of a part of Japanese wrestling.

Saying the wrestlers will lose out in some ways is possibly true, although it could also be a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees. The time period for which they are marketable and have options will be much longer if the network is a success, as retired wrestlers should always have a place on the network in different ways.

Does anyone happen to know what the typical advertising budget is for Wrestlemania? Because I would think in order to make this a major success, they would have to spend at least double that in advertising to make sure the casuals who normally buy Wrestlemania and tune out the rest of the year are aware of this change.

This seems awfully dumb to me. Keith mentioned the number of subscribers they would need just to break even, but even then, they'd have to do a ridiculous promotional blitz unlike anything they've done before, which would also eat into their profits. I do think Wrestlemania could draw an enormous rating, but I'm not sure what they'd have to show for it the next day.

Austin chastising Wade for never checking out World of Sport on YouTube is tremendous.