Ricky Jackson

http://blogs.thescore.com/aftermath/2012/0...n-cartoon-form/

I want to believe that's what happened, as opposed to the more obvious and ugly alternative everybody thought last night. Totally random, but speaking of in-ring "accidents", which match was it where Sid supposedly shat himself again? Edit: Never mind, I remember now.

Doesn't it usually take about a month for PPV numbers to be known?

http://www.f4wonline.com/more/more-top-sto...bow-passes-away Just read this. He was from a different era, but for some reason I like watching some of his 70s matches, especially for his comebacks. I know he isn't very highly regarded as a worker, but he was a pretty big star in 70s New York. Plus he wrestled a dude in a shark cage once. The feathers in the mouth angle with Ladd from Georgia is also good (based on the more famous, and lost, angle with Arion in 74). RIP Chief

OK, OK, I was being a dick. Sorry.

Look at this way, Beth wouldn't have even been on the show and received a nice pay day if it wasn't to put over that celeb. Cena once jobbed to K-Fed. Who cares? It's how the WWE has always operated and always will.

I've never been one to critically analyze wrestling matches and attempt to explain why, objectively, a certain match is great (or why it isn't). That's just me. As I've written before, I'm very impressed by the level of thought a lot of you put into analyzing wrestling on this board. But that is like me, a history and art guy, praising someone for their skill at physics or mathematics: I'm impressed with your knowledge of something I have no knowledge of and never will. But at the same time, I don't have a desire to ever learn. For me, a great match is a great match. I've watched enough wrestling over the years to know one when I see it, but don't expect me to explain exactly why it is great. As goodhelmet posted, emotional reaction plays a huge part in it. In the 90's I lived and died with Bret Hart, like I was cheering for my favorite team, and was heavily involved emotionally in the outcome of his matches. If I made a top 10 list of my all time favorite matches, Bret matches would likely take up about 50% of the spots (or at least they would have five years ago, before I saw a lot of other stuff). I could tell you Bret was a master psychologist and all that, but my best explanation for loving his work is pretty emotional: He opened my eyes to a style of wrestling I had never really seen before and I really embraced, he was a breath of fresh air after years of Hogan, and he was, and this is something I can't overstate, a Canadian, a Calgarian no less, and this meant A LOT to my teenage self, in a way I can never recapture or even explain properly. A lot of my love for Bret is/was based on timing and geography. In fact, a lot of my love for wrestling in general is based on timing and geography. I grew up a WWF kid in 80s and 90s Canada. I've been into other wrestling over the years, like WCW, AWA, ECW, Stampede of course, and have been exploring old Japan and Memphis (and other territories) increasingly in the last few years, but I always return to my first love, like a security blanket. I emotionally receive more joy out of watching old WWF on YouTube than anything else. I have enjoyed a lot of the non-WWF stuff I have watched "cold" over the years, as like I said, a great match is a great match. But it is true that I have to be in a certain mood to stray from the WWF canon, as the emotional pull just isn't there (although I'm developing one for Jerry Lawler and Terry Funk's work, among others). I've rambled on long enough.

Were Harlem Heat even still a team in 1999? And if they were, I doubt I would have lost much sleep if ICP went over them clean. So, sure, whatever, you're right, exact same thing. Silly me.

Vince booked a celebrity/non-wrestler to go over clean in the main event of a Wrestlemania 17 years ago...why the hell would anyone expect any other outcome for a meaningless mid-card women's match?

Except it's not at all like that.

Yep. It's the most organic heel turn ever.

I think there will be quite a few interesting stories of what happened behind the scenes and out on the town this weekend.

Good show. Memorable. I watched it with a group of people, and the mix of social interaction with a six pack of beer definitely prevented my usual cynicism with WWE from taking over. First hour was as dull as it gets, though. I'm fine with Sheamus vs Bryan being a shock squash. Made it feel like "anything can happen tonight" right from the get go. That said, considering what followed, maybe Cody vs Show would have been a better choice for squash opener. Sucks for Bryan fans. Hopefully one day we can look back at the match as just a HHH vs Warrior type moment in the grand scheme of his career. HHH vs Taker had everybody I was watching with totally glued to the TV and marking out, even though as I was watching it unfold a voice in my head was thinking "This is the type of match the PWO crew will shit all over", and if I was watching this by myself I probably would have rolled my eyes a few times over the whole bloated spectacle of it all. Still, I liked the match last night. I thought the superkick into the Pedigree near fall was awesome. The finish was a bit anti-climatic, and the cage didn't even really come into play at all, but because of the long backstory of the characters involved, the whole epic drama, Two Gods Fighting on a Mountain-feel worked for me. Will I ever watch the match again? Probably not. Punk vs Jericho was my favorite match of the night. Great, dramatic, finishing sequence. Huge pop for the finish with the crowd I was watching with. Made me feel like I was fifteen again and Bret Hart just made Razor Ramon submit to the Sharpshooter at the Royal Rumble. WWE needs to do more of these big-time, great athletic contest between two great wrestlers-type matches. I felt the main event was a bit underwhelming, but with all the endless hype, and the previous matches upping the ante, it was in a tough spot to meet my exaggerated expectations. I'll have to watch it again someday. I guess I expected a Hogan vs Rock feel, which was unrealistic considering the uniqueness of that situation and the fact that the outdoor shows really mute the heat of the crowd. The finish was well-booked. Instead of closing the book on the feud with a clean Cena win, there is now a feeling of uncertainty with the upcoming direction of both guys. I'm interested in where they go from here. Overall, it was a fun night of wrestling.

Basically, the context was that "one of the biggest wrestling stars" told Dave he felt the Rock was getting screwed by the Mania build and should refuse to job to Cena on the day of the show, or something to that effect. Edit: Yeah, what Nintendo said.

A moment of silence in memory of the departed...

Actually, far more than you would think. First off, the ratio of women to men at UVic is about 60-40. In the class I attended, I would say it was 65% male. The next year, for the class I lectured, it was seriously closer to a 50-50 split. Most of the students in the class had little to no interest in wrestling, though. In the class I attended, there were only about 3-4 hardcore fans, including myself, out of 20-25 students.

So which one of you guys is lecturing here? I took a class at the University of Victoria in 2007 called Pro Wrestling as Theatre. We looked at wrestling history and compared match set ups and angles/gimmicks to Italian comedy improve theatre, ancient Greek theatre, 19th century melodrama, etc. It was a dream class and super fun, and I took it just for the hell of it, because it didn't tie into any of my degree requirements. I was of course the star pupil of the class The prof and I became good friends, as we share the same geeky interests in wrestling, comics, movies, and music. The next year I even gave a guest lecture (I talked to the class about the importance of the NWA title in the territory days and played the Flair vs Steamboat Chi-Town Rumble match).

Cena has clearly been the face/top guy/ace of WWE since at least 2006. In 2005, it was a 1 and 1-A situation with him and Batista, but Cena got the prime Raw spot, which he has never relinquished. I would say HHH entered his Part-Time Legend phase after the Batista feud. He's had a few runs where his programs were pushed harder than Cena's since 2005 (DX reunion, feud with Orton), but overall it's basically been Cena's show for 6-7 years.

I know it may seem like I'm obsessed with this, but including Inoki in a "Biggest Star in Wrestling" poll is OK (which makes no fuckin' sense, but whatever), but he's not good enough to be considered Japan's Best Ever Wrestler? Or Giant Baba? ????????????????????? These damn Observer polls bother me more than they should.

Here's something to speculate for the hell of it: What modern celebrity would have the impact of a Mr. T or a Mike Tyson as far as being involved in major angle/match? Of course the key is to match them up with the right wrestler, like Hogan/Piper with T or Austin with Tyson. Off the top of my head, I'm going to offer up Tim Tebow. I think there would be some interesting possibilities with him and Cena as a you-either-love-them-or-hate-them team.

The "Get it?" campaign was a complex intellectual statement that worked on multiple levels.

They can hate Mr. T all they want, and some of it is likely justified, but his involvement with WWF made the first Mania a mainstream story in a way it could have never been without him (would there have even been a first Mania without him?), and probably opened a lot of media doors for Vince and co. (was the SNME deal with NBC made before the first Mania or after?), not to mention the effect T's involvement had on the box office.

All I know is I first became interested in wrestling because of Mr. T's involvement in WWF in 85-86. I was a kid and a huge A-Team/Rocky III fan, so I watched Mania 2 (funny, it's one of my least favorite Mania's as an adult), discovered this wrestling thing was basically a superhero comic come to life, and have been a lifer ever since. I'm sure many 80s kids were turned on to wrestling in a similar fashion.

This was a good episode, but the panel really lets Nash off easy when he starts to bullshit and spew out revisionist history, especially when discussing his run as booker. For example, when the subject of his Starrcade match with Goldberg comes up he states "We had to end the streak", implying the streak was somehow bad for business and bad for Goldberg. I thought the panel would jump all over him after that comment, that at least someone would ask "Why, Kevin?" or "What the fuck are you smoking?", but nobody says a thing, and Nash never explains why he thinks the streak was bad for business. I've never heard this "We had to end the streak" argument before, does anybody know what the hell he was talking about?