Matt D

I hope it ends with AJ comically running away because hes afraid of ghosts.

I would have assumed after the India tour, Corbin would have sneaked it away from him with the case, if he didn't end up in the doghouse for doubting the WWE doctor or whatever. Now? I don't know. Shane?

Doesn't one of those things make someone a better promoter than the other?

For me im glad Ric didn't leave NWA in 88 as Id heard about him wrestling Savage at Summerslam 88 but then we wouldn't have been treated to the 1989 feud with Ricky Steamboat. If they had kept Flair in 93 as Main Eventer who would he have feuded with? Hogan, Piper, Warrior were all gone and Randy was back commentating. Fair question. Just at first glance, I'd ride the Perfect feud out to Wrestlemania, do tags with Luger vs Hart/Perfect/Savage/etc. on the house shows after that, have Hart beat him in the final of KOTR, transition him over to Crush to help get him over (he'd be perfect for that), then feud him with Ramon in the fall and Luger over Winter. You could slot Tatanka in there somewhere too if need be. The point would be to help get some of these guys over while still keeping Flair strong ( to alleviate the fact that he wanted to be towards the top of the card. Itd be a matter of presenting these feuds as important). Of course, the other choice is Undertaker.

I think Vince made a mistake in depushing him and letting him go. One advantage to Flair in 93 is that hes a relatively steroid-proof Star.

Sid was hugely over as a face when he came back in January 92.

If they want to get this over? Styles and Nakamura?

Sure. But that's where we are. And their current solution is an improvement over force feeding. It's not perfect or beyond reproach. Booking babyface successfully > turning ones that are not working out > what they do > forcefeeding It's a distant third.

The one time they did that well with Roman, vs Vince/Sheamus, it worked?

A few months ago, I put together a textual analysis of the uncovered Gino Hernandez footage on NWAonDemand for Mark Coale's publication. I just had Mark post it on the website now that we're a few months down the line and with the official transfer of the NWA. The formatting's just a bit off at the end, but it's more than readable I think. Here it is if anyone's interested: https://winterpalacepodcast.squarespace.com/articles/gino-houston

I'm still playing catch up due to the baby so I'm just into the WCW section here but here's the article I wrote on Michael Hayes at Halloween Havoc 1991: http://placetobenation.com/wtbbp-the-column-beyond-the-great-match-robbery-of-1991/

It does have Rey dressed up as The Phantom before we were used to him doing such things.

Part of me wonders if we're not getting Cena vs Shane at Mania one of these years.

And again, that's still a main event match, not an interesting seven minute Nick Kozak vs foreign heel undercard match. But it is not like you can really blame them.

Considering what you just said, they would have little logical need to post anything that hadn't already been converted and already posted for years if ever. Plus never the real bottom of the card stuff. While we're interested in that, it might damage the "brand."

So, there was a sense in the 90s that AJPW was superior because it had clean finishes. You can see that in the sheets. On the other hand, JCP was destroyed in part by years of unsatisfying Dusty Finishes. I think we're all a bit more nuanced than that though. It's about execution and moderation.

I can relate to that too. But if the end result is not good nor fun to watch, I'm not gonna enjoy that more than a really good match that I've seen before. It's gonna be a footnote. It's a balance. Plus with the really good matches that I've seen before that I go back and rewatch, there's always new things to pick up on based on other watching I've done and changes in me.

One thing that plays a little off of what people have been saying is that I'm much more interested in watching a wrestler's performance than looking for a great match. Moreover, I want to learn something from a match that I didn't know before. I'd rather watch a three star match which puts a wrestler in a situation I haven't seen him in before than a four and a half star match which has a lot of elements I've seen again and again from a certain wrestler. I like looking for understanding as I watch. I like an element of learning.

We more or less did when this back after GWE: http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/33616-what-did-you-learn-about-your-fandom-from-gwe/ I guess it'd be interesting to think about how things have changed in the year since then. I have a lot less time so I'm much less likely to go out of my way to watch something just to be part of the conversation. I think I'm pretty consistent in my tastes though, for good or ill (I imagine I frustrate Loss to a degree though I think it's probably somewhat refreshing too). I wish there was more time in the day. I wish I had more time to review things and write. I wish I had time to do some of the projects I want to do. I wish I had time to properly argue with Jerome. I haven't even had time to catch Reigns vs Cena yet, let alone the Mae Young Classic or anything else I'm supposed to be watching this year.

If that match was rated the drizzling shits then I think the issue is with the rating system.

I think that this caused a ton of damage with a subset of casuals and maybe prevented an even further opening up of things and that hit at the base a bit more, if that makes sense?

Anecdotally, it had a lot of mainstream appeal. You always hear that women were heavily into it. I remember it having a ton of buzz at the time and then people leaving in droves afterwards.

Don't worry. They blow it, ending the boom.

Especially as it has a monopoly?

Except in both cases, it actually doesn't mean anything, really. I've seen plenty of movies with critical/public consensus which I thought were not good at all, so it's never an argument to me. (it works better the other way around usually, when there's a consensus on something being really horrible, it usually is, although there are exceptions) Isn't the issue not whether or not it matters to you but whether or not it's used by enough people to move the needle, either commercially or as it pertains to reputation in general? I think we all appreciate the fact that you don't care what critics say and some of us don't care either (others use the RT aggregate as one factor in how to manage the large amount of media available at our fingertips in 2017, for instance). But again, the discussion isn't about what you or I or Coffey does but what the larger community does or doesn't do based on this.