WingedEagle

I love this topic as it raises a bunch of questions that I'm not sure how I'd answer, much less that there is any sort of definitive answer. Which audience should wrestlers be working the match for? Is it always the live crowd or the TV audience? They can definitely work things differently to appeal to me at home with an HDTV as opposed to sitting in the 300 level at an arena. Then there's how much the live crowd helps or hurts a match for the TV audience. Just a quick hit right now as I don' t have the time to think back about various matches where these ideas stood out, but its always fascinated me. What if you're watching on mute -- is that a fair way to look at a match?

Wow, much bigger dropoff than I would've expected. But I wonder how much of that is a one-time thing resulting from the change in companies due to difficulties at their previous partner.

Wasn't Batista at least depushed for a while after the Booker scrum?

What's been typical on it?

That Conor video was ridiculous. Don't know how you don't tear up at that. I can't wait to hear the debbie downers say how they're putting it out there for PR. They likely gave that kid the highlight of his life and his parents something great to look back on. Makes me proud to be a customer.

How big an issue can it become without a well funded alternative? Dave presumably has that to some extent in the movies. It sounds like Foley is set. Punk would have people believe he doesn't need to work again. But for those who do I don't see a stable option.

Lineup isn't the greatest you'll find, but I'm pretty pumped as I'll usually only order 1-3 PPVs every year and now will be watching all of them with the network.

Strongly disagree. He was an attraction from the get go. The crowds of children were scared shitless. The chokeslam. The walk on the ropes. The flying clothesline. The salute to the urn. The tombstone. The zombi sit-up. The pale look. It was unique and unheard of as a package. Of course it helped that Mark Callaway was amazing and found himself in this gimmick. But despite the shitty matches for a good 5 to 6 years, Taker was special very quickly. HUGE disagree as well. Taker began as an entrance, and worked a character that along with Bearer didn't play singalong, didn't work cheap pops for the hometown like Foley would do as a gag, didn't compromise a single thing about the character. It took a classic heel in Jake to turn him face, and at that point the character wasn't dumbed down or amended to include any wink/nod nonsense either. Most importantly, his presence during the matches (work be damned for years, because that's beside the point here) was completely different from everyone else on the card and consistently so for years. It might very well be true that if Undertaker debuts in 2014 he doesn't get over anywhere near what he did back in the day. I'd be open to arguments he would or wouldn't. But man is Taker a whole other level from Bray Wyatt.

I need to rewatch Austin/HHH from No Way Out. I remember loving it when I first watched it but not sure how it'd hold up now.

Wyatt still doesn't strike me as anything more than a mid-card character with a main event intro. Is it anything more than a 2014 ministry of darkness / cultish heel group? The angle on Monday with the kids was completely different and effective for that reason. But outside of the Shield matches, I'm still waiting for this to resemble a headline act.

This is a match that gets a lot better when you watch the feud in context. If you don't know why they are wearing the tuxedos, or don't know why the crowd goes so nuts when DiBiase goes to slide out, bumps his feet against the Cage and remembers he can't run as Duggan just looks at him like "yea, you're screwed" then you aren't going to think it's as a great as people who saw the buildup. It also helps to understand that Ted had been dropping people with the loaded glove for three years. When Duggan nails him with the coal miner's glove at the end, it was three years worth of catharsis in one punch. Sounds like that would make a bit of a difference. Will have to go through the whole promotion eventually. Man do I hate how long my wish/watchlist is.

I think I'm with the consensus on pre-96, primarily due to AJ, Crockett and 80s Japan. BUT -- I see the case for going with post-96: '97 WWF. WWE/F Attitude era. post-96 ECW, including what I consider the peak of their TV in '96, building to Barely Legal and then the Lawler/Cornette summer. And that's before you get to Cena-era WWe with Cena, Punk, Bryan, Renee Young, Shield, and a host of PPVs with at worst some good+ matches on top. Joe/Punk/Danielson in ROH. The last few years in NJ with Tanahashi/Okada/Nakamura. Plus the future. That glass is not half empty.

What's excitement and skill in wrestling? This isn't batting average or field goal percentage. No one's suggesting there's an objective standard.

Catching up on last week's Smackdown and for whatever reason decided to see how the minis match was. This was a wise decision, as JBL's "Ali Bomaye" call during the staredown was perhaps the funniest thing I've seen in wrestling in some time. Gold.

I just don't get the hatred for star ratings. You can debate a rating all you want, no one's suggesting there's anything definitive about it. But what about stars of the night in hockey? Assists in hockey/basketball? The aforementioned rankings of games / series / plays? Instapolls following political debates? (No, not going down that road, just highlighting a quick hit subjective rating of something ). It just always struck me as odd that Dave would rate tons of wrestling matches -- even while offering commentary / analysis -- but leave that out of a fight review.

Exactly. I don't see how its any more or less preferable than an exhaustive, qualitative review of a fight. Both have merits and I'd appreciate being able to reference both.

Maybe, if you're looking for 25 minutes of wrestling. What'd you think of the Bryan/Sheamus flash pin at Mania? Its all subjective so I don't see what difference it makes whether the outcome is scripted or not.

I always wanted Dave to give star ratings to fights. Never really understood why not. If you can score rounds and provide a qualitative analysis, why not stick a rating on there as well?

Frankly I don't blame them. Why pay someone to trash your product? There are plenty of people who'll do it for free so keeping that on the payroll is a pretty poor use of company resources.

This is true and accurate. But I'd also like one opportunity to pop for Sting having a moment on WWE TV. Depending when Batista returns and how long the Evolution reboot lasts, it could be as simple as having Flair return as manager to help lay out a babyface heading into another big tag match. Bryan says they're not showing up empty handed, and if Evolution has Flair in the fold there's only one way to counter that. And then send him off to the network.

Last year for Bryan isn't too much of a stretch. Week to week, month to month I can't think of how many other stars' years compare that favorably. Perhaps not as many reached MOTY level as some other candidates, but the sheer number of good or better matches was something special.

My first reaction is it had to be Kawada in '94. But then what about Kobashi in '93? Or Misawa/Taue in '95? I dunno how to pick the best of the bunch from one of those 4 over that period.

I feel exactly the same way. I used to hit all the big shows in NY and since '08 haven't been to one until buying tickets for the NJ crew coming over next month.

I love the idea. At worst it'll be a great reference and reason for us to go back and rewatch certain things that aren't as time consuming as some classic matches.