C.S.

Not a fair statement at all, when one poster said the match was more compelling than great, but he thinks he prefers compelling in this case. I agreed with that sentiment and referenced it in my own post. And, come on, the very post above mine offers criticisms of the match.

As I said in the other thread, there's nothing "false" about the line, per se. But it's still the type of soulless corporate-speak I'd expect to hear from Triple H or Vince. It feels "off" coming from Jericho.

Sorry for not responding to all of this sooner. Kept meaning to reply all weekend but time got away from me. Before I get into the posts addressed to me, I want to add my own answer to this question directed toward another poster: I absolutely would, and so would anyone else who has a business-oriented mind with their goal on the bottom line. Women do not draw right now! Do they have the potential to draw in the future? Yes. Could a forward-thinking executive turn them into major draws? Yes. Are they awesome wrestlers capable of having great matches? Yes - well, sometimes, depending on who we're talking about (but that's true of the men too). The fallacy that they drew the most ratings in TNA means nothing to me. They may very well have drawn the most ratings, but the fact is, nothing really drew in TNA, and nothing has ever mattered there! No legitimate businessman will use TNA as an example of anything, except maybe as a template of what not to do. TNA is a joke. Looking longterm, I'd absolutely want Charlotte on my roster. But if I'm playing with my money today and looking to build a company today, Miz easily gets the call before her. It's a no-brainer. In addition to getting a fantastic heel with face potential - more on that below - there are so many ways he could get my hypothetical product exposure (talk shows, reality shows, movies, etc.). Charlotte is good too, don't get me wrong, but she still needs more seasoning. Miz is a ready-made asset. Of course, in real life, there's no reason this would have to be an either/or question. If they were somehow both free agents, anyone with brains would sign them both. Care to elaborate a little? Curious to hear your take on it. Outside of the whole "social media ambassador" thing, I never really got it. I'll preface my post with this one below, as he covered a lot of the same ground before I had a chance to get to it: For me, it started with Tough Enough. There was one segment near the end where the contestants remaining (might've just been Miz and the useless Daniel Puder left at this point) appealed to the fans directly to get votes. Miz "dropped character" and a cut a "real", heartfelt, emotional promo about how much wrestling has meant to him. I can't remember what Puder did? Probably stuck his thumb in his ass and stood around looking like the goofy fuck he was. How a charisma-less tool like Puder ever won Tough Enough is beyond me, but the winners are almost never the best ones in the competition anyway (Ryback, then known as "Silverback" Ryan Reeves, was a contestant that year too). Fast-forward to when he cashed in Money in the Bank at Survivor Series. The fans legit went crazy and loved it. It was a major moment. The face momentum was building IMO. Of course, he had to remain a heel at least through WrestleMania. Redman mentioned the Nas redemption video package, which also made a good case for him to eventually turn face. After WM, I was convinced that Alex Riley would be the one to turn heel, and that's exactly what should have happened. Was anyone more unlikeable than the pretty boy, prom king, jock-ass, jock-sniffing turd that Riley's character was then? There's a reason Riley has gone nowhere since then, because he was never a natural or likeable face IMO. At that point, Miz could've been a huge fan favorite. He was still a main eventer with massive momentum. Instead, years passed, Miz was marginalized, etc. By the time they tried a face turn, the Miz character had cooled off considerably. Even worse, it was a poorly written, half-baked turn, done with no rhyme or reason. That kind of sloppy bullshit writing never works. Look at Del Rio for another example of a face turn handled the exact same way, with the exact same result - it was a colossal flop. Both turns were ret-conned within months, so what does that tell you? Also, shoehorning Flair into Miz's act was a waste of time and seemed so out of place that it hurt Miz instead of helping him. Timing is everything.

I never want to hear the announcers shout "FOR THE WIN!" again like they did over and over during every near-fall on this show. Is that a new thing, or am I only now noticing it? It's horrible! - I skipped the pre-show and the ladies (sorry, but there's no way that match could ever come close to Sasha Banks vs. Becky Lynch, and I just didn't care). - Tag Chamber was fun, even with the weird (botched?) Kalisto spot. I'm glad The Ascension is getting built back up (even though I don't love them) and Prime Time Players (who I do like) lasted until the end. - I agree with the poster who called Cena/Owens compelling but just short of great, and like him, I think I prefer compelling. Very smartly executed match. Owens was made to look like a million bucks, on equal footing with Cena, and I'd still feel that way even if Cena won. I'm shocked that Owens got the victory. Wow, they are really strapping the rocket to him. One of the most incredible main roster debuts ever! - Neville/Bo was okay but didn't really do NXT any favors. Why did Bo shave? Better yet, why did he grow facial hair in the first place? - I liked I-C more than most of you. However, I agree that the Sheamus "strategy" where he kept himself locked in the cage wasn't explained well by the commentators or captured properly by the cameras. Looked more like another botch than anything intentional. I was rooting for Henry to win, but Ryback is over with the fans and probably deserves a run with I-C. His catchphrases feel so forced and fake to me though. They really irritate the hell out of me. - The main event was shocking, but I had a feeling in the back of my mind that it would end up being a fuck finish. It makes no sense for Ambrose to win by DQ when it was his move that knocked out the ref. Other than that, I'm not sure whether I should be pissed at the screwjob or praise the finish for being interesting and full of emotion (both good and bad).

Russo's not wrong at all though.

Neither Charlotte or The Miz are particularly good babyfaces. I thought Miz had the potential to be a great face, but the writers didn't turn him properly, so it had no chance. Ditto for Del Rio and so many other half-baked, poorly-written turns during that timeframe. Come to think of it, Charlotte's turn kinda "just happened" too. Anyway, there are plenty of divas worse than The Miz (the usual suspects), but not all of them. Hell, I'd love a Miz/Sasha Banks pairing. Wouldn't that be magical? (I actually like The Miz.)

Well, that's true. Yeah, it's true, but it's the way he said it and the fact that it was coming from him at all when that seems more like a Vince or Triple H line. Maybe it's just the editing, but that's all he said in that bit.

Ryback strikes again. WrestlingInc.com: Top Star Possibly Injured At Last Night's WWE SmackDown Tapings (Updated With Photo) https://twitter.com/_BellaFam/status/603542895593914370/photo/1

Posted this in the Chris Jericho vs. Matt Hardy Microscope thread, but it's worth posting here too, I think. I watched the Matt Hardy vs. Edge "Rivalries" show on WWE Network last night. Even with all of the editing and cleaning up to omit Matt's goofier moments, it's amazing how much better and more convincing both Edge and Lita were on the mic during this run. Even though Matt Hardy was angry in real life (justifiably so IMO), almost everything he said still came across like a rehearsed wrestling promo. Whereas, everything that came out Edge and Lita's mouths felt so much more "real." Even so, I still think it's unfair and total bullshit that Edge dominated the feud and eventually forced Matt off of Raw. Yes, this comes back around to Jericho, who was one of the talking heads and sounded like a clueless corporate douchebag once again. He said something along of the lines of Matt being fired "wasn't necessarily fair, but business isn't fair." Gag!

Because of this thread, I watched the Matt Hardy vs. Edge "Rivalries" show on WWE Network last night. Even with all of the editing and cleaning up to omit Matt's goofier moments, it's amazing how much better and more convincing both Edge and Lita were on the mic during this run. Even though Matt Hardy was angry in real life (justifiably so IMO), almost everything he said still came across like a rehearsed wrestling promo. Whereas, everything that came out Edge and Lita's mouths felt so much more "real." Even so, I still think it's unfair and total bullshit that Edge dominated the feud and eventually forced Matt off of Raw. Yes, this comes back around to Jericho, who was one of the talking heads and sounded like a clueless corporate douchebag once again. He said something along of the lines of Matt being fired "wasn't necessarily fair, but business isn't fair." Gag!

Also, his third book - at times - makes him come across as the most drunken, unlikeable, immature asshole imaginable.

I voted Dustin but this is just demonstrably not true. He has long stretches of doing nothing or being actively not very good. I mean 98-2002 is like a completely dead period. This is ultimately what swayed me to go with Austin. Look, I love Dustin Rhodes - I even bought a massive compilation of his Dustin matches a few years ago, which I've never done with anyone else. I love Goldust. He magnificently reinvented himself and broke out of his father's shadow. I even love weird short-lived gimmicks like the American Nightmare. I love his versatility in general and his great work in the ring. But like goc correctly pointed out, Dustin's had several bad years. True, Austin's career was shorter, but he never had a bad year. Even his low point - The Ringmaster - lasted only a few months, and I'm willing to bet there were several decent matches in there too. When it comes to sheer consistency on a high level, very few can match Austin's career year by year. Plus, Austin made himself one of the biggest stars ever - nothing was handed to him. There are many cool Goldust moments, but none of them come close to the birth of Austin 3:16 at King of the Ring for its sheer magnitude and goosebump factor. Ditto for the amazing WM13 match with Bret. We're probably the biggest collection of Dustin marks online (I think that might be how I found this board), but I can't realistically not give this one to Austin.

Funny (but fake) face to face interview between Meltzer and Russo - an homage to the feature found in those old Inside Wrestling magazines. http://kevineckwrestling.sportsblog.com/posts/2519011/face-to-face--vince-russo-vs--dave-meltzer.html His Russo impression is almost spot-on. I'm not as sure about Meltzer, unless this is how he comes across in audio (I've never listed to a single soundbite of his audio, so I don't know).

I was thinking of this same thing last night before bed. Sid, for all his faults, was genuinely believable as a tough guy, badass, dangerous, unhinged, whatever you want to call it. You would not want to run into that guy in a dark alley, period. Contrast that with today's wrestlers. If I knew nothing about Sid or Lesnar but had a gun to my head and had to fight one of them, I'd take my chances on Lesnar. And Lesnar is actually credible as a tough guy. I love Kevin Owens, Samoa Joe, Dean Ambrose, etc., but I'm not afraid of any of them. Bray Wyatt is even worse in this regard - I don't believe he's really anything like that. For whatever else you can say about Sid, he had an aura about him that said, step the fuck back, you don't want any part of this! Warrior never came across as dangerous, you're right, but I don't hold that against him. He was a career babyface once he got his big push, and career babyfaces I don't think really benefit from being dangerous. Before someone brings up Brody or whoever, I mean in a WWE/WCW "bright lights, big stage" type of environment. Even Mick Foley's rough edges were softened considerably by the time he got his big main event run.

Even though I created this thread and poll, I haven't made a final decision yet. My thoughts: Warrior + A few great matches (Macho, Hogan, etc.) + An awesome look, presence, and entrance - all unforgettable + It may not have lasted, but he was believable for the moment as the "next big thing" and "icon" vs. Hogan - that kind of status is very rare to achieve, even momentarily and fleetingly + Got in, made his money, and got out. I actually respect his business acumen and realistic view of what wrestling actually is. All of that, of course, goes against the grain of everything believed by people stuck in the "rasslin' bubble," which makes it even more of a plus for me. - Many not-so-great matches, of course - Bizarre out-of-the-ring rants, sometimes of a racist nature - His entire WCW run - holy shit, this was bad Sid + He was a Horseman. It's easy to say he was a bad one in hindsight or with revisionist thinking. But was he really? I'm not so sure. + Amazing presence, albeit unintentionally goofy at times. + The two Michaels matches still hold up at least, right? I remember them being fun enough. Any other hidden gems? + Good as both a face and a heel. - Tons of bad matches - Scissors, squeegees, and softball - Broken leg - not his fault, but it's burned in the memory of anyone who saw it Both * Main event/World Title runs * Headlined WrestleMania (Hogan vs. Warrior and Taker vs. Sid respectively (I guess Sid vs. Hogan too, if you want to count that - but ironically enough, Warrior was the real star there) * Headlined Halloween Havoc (Warrior) and Starrcade (Sid) respectively in an era where there was no one "top" WCW PPV * Mic work was "interesting," to say the least. Of the two, only Sid dipped into midcard territory after his first main event push - the Sid and The Kid run in the mid-'90s WWF where they were managed by DiBiase. Warrior remained a main-eventer for the rest of his career after his first big push in the late '80s.

LOL. I could see a ridiculous line like that working for a smarmy heel (ironically, Jericho or the V1 Matt Hardy could've pulled it off, I think), but it's horrible coming from a righteous babyface as Matt Hardy was at the time.

I promise you this is not a troll poll reacting to the Jericho vs. Hardy and Bret vs. Perfect polls. But yes, this one does go in the completely opposite direction. Instead of fast-paced athletic wrestling technicians, this comparison focuses on two musclebound brawlers who relied more on charisma, looks, etc. Ultimately, both of them - more or less - ended up in similar positions on the card. At first, this poll would seem to slightly favor Warrior, but after thinking about it, I'm not so sure. I could see an argument being made for Sid too. They've both been in at least a few great matches, but their opponents (or Pat Patterson) are usually given the credit. I think this could make for an interesting debate, personally.

You make it sound as though you chose Jericho based on the "facts" that he had more opportunities and "mattered" more, and therefore must necessarily be better. Maybe it's just crossed wires, but that's how you came across. But those are the facts, pretty much. You cannot seriously argue that Hardy got as many opportunities as Jericho or mattered nearly as much. Not even close. Look, I was pulling for Hardy to get a main event push too during his VI/Matt Facts phase, but it never happened. The Hardy-Edge feud was also heartbreaking because they were clearly favoring Edge - though Hardy didn't help himself by doing that "I hope you die" promo (or however it was worded) and acting legitimately unhinged for months between his firing and re-hiring. Is Jericho better only because he got a main event push and Hardy didn't. No. But the fact is, Jericho was put into a position to have better, more meaningful matches - and he did. If this thread was about Sid, as one poster laughably claimed my point was (nope), we'd be having a much different conversation, obviously. Could Hardy have excelled more than Jericho did if put into the same position? My opinion is no, but as I said, I don't want to argue "what if" and "coulda, shoulda, woulda" because it never happened and we have no way to truly tell 100%. My educated guess, though, is that if all of the factors were the same, Jericho would still come out ahead. Agreeing with Bill here, but I wanted to add something. The main event usually isn't the longest or best match on the card. And that goes for all promotions. You get plenty of opportunities to have good matches in the midcard. And long matches. I understand how card placement can sway opinion, but using it as an argument ender, well... Okay, again, nowhere in the OP does it say we're only talking about ring work. I have no problem with someone who - as one person put it - cares only about "the art." That's fine. I can understand and respect that. I have an entirely different view of wrestling though. I look at the whole package and the big picture, how all of the elements come together to create a wrestler. Yes, that includes "outside" factors like mic work, positioning, character (Jericho was very versatile in this regard, and Hardy's no slouch himself), etc. But if we are limiting this to ring work and nothing else, I think Jericho still comes out ahead. Of course, the main event isn't always the best match on the show, as Bill pointed out. But I think that more applies to older wrestlers or Hogan, Warrior, and Sid types. When we're talking about two faster, more athletic wrestlers like Jericho and Hardy who didn't get ahead because they were 300-pound freaks of nature, I do think it's more than fair to point out that getting opportunities to showcase your skills in longer, more meaningful main event matches would absolutely have an impact on the careers of guys like Hardy, Jericho, Bret, HBK, etc. Just to be clear, I am speaking in general terms... I realize there are always exceptions, so no need to tell me that Al Snow was better in ten minutes than Shawn Michaels was in thirty (or whatever someone might come up with, LOL). Before you think all of this makes me some raving Jericho fanboy, I should point out that I actually agree with the statement below... That's true. But remember, Jericho was never "the guy" either. He was the top of the bottom or bottom of the top - however you want to look at it - below Austin, Rock, etc. on the pecking order. I think that's about where he belongs. I can't call him overpushed. He got just the right push IMO. Like you, I wanted him to be even better than he was. In some respects, he's slightly overrated, just based on the insane love he seems to get (or at least used to get) from the general "IWC." With all of that being said, come on, he was still pretty good. Do I hate Hardy? Not at all. I like him a lot, actually. In many ways, he's a classic example of "what could have been." But since we don't know for sure, I have to analyze what actually happened. Jericho is the more complete package (and for you ringwork/art-only types, the better wrestler) IMO. Yeesh, that was a lot of typing. I hope I've made my position clearer, because I think people weren't quite getting what I was trying (and obviously failing before) to say.

His final stretch sucked, yeah, but at the same time, I don't think he overstayed his welcome. I know those two statements seem incongruous with each other, but if you think about it, people were still pining for him to come back - to the WWE (TNA didn't, doesn't, and never will mean anything). In the end, Randy Savage left people wanting more, disappeared completely, and retained that Macho mystique even in his final years. Also, his underwhelming final stretch coincided with WCW falling off a cliff, so I don't think anyone really holds that against Macho - I certainly don't. Plus, even then, he was apparently responsible for bringing Mona (Molly Holly) into WCW, which eventually led to her WWE run. That alone makes up for whatever bad matches he might've had in his twilight years.

Thanks for the update! This whole situation with Bobby Heenan makes me so sad. But at least he's still getting around, putting himself out there, and having a good time doing it. That makes me happy.

Not at all what I said! You've so badly misconstrued what I actually did say that I'm not sure how to respond to you. Perhaps you missed my follow-up? I've added emphasis to certain points in the quote below: Nowhere in any of my posts did I even hint that I thought that Sid was better than Arn or whatever ridiculous examples you trotted out.

I don't think they were together that long (not long enough to make anyone's top 25, I don't think), and it seems most of their time as a team was in break-up mode, but I loved them when I was a kid.

Can't see this making anyone's top 25 - not enough longevity and I don't think the great matches are necessarily there - but damn I loved these two together when I was a kid. It helps that they won the WWF Tag Team Titles from the tepid Smoking Gunns, who I really couldn't stand.

I admittedly haven't seen AWA or Portland Hennig, but Bret's wide variety of classic WWF matches vs. Hennig's very few in that promotion make this an easy vote for me. Granted, Bret had the WWF main event opportunity (see my similar comments in the Jericho/Matt Hardy thread) and Hennig didn't. If Hennig had gotten Bret's push and the injury never happened, would we be singing a different song? I love Hennig but I'm not so sure.

Lenny Lane & Lodi. That's who they remind me of. That's not a compliment. I can see that. The only thing is, I actually believed Lenny and Lodi when they were doing that gimmick - at least to a degree. This just feels like two bad actors auditioning for a part they have no hope of getting. It's brutally bad. Blake and Murphy can't pull it off at all.