Matt D

Presentation matters. Especially over time. Guess who worked a main event on a PPV this year? Guess who got the expensive repackage? Who won at Mania. Not the guy who was booked as a vulnerable heel champion, lost in 17 seconds at Mania, lost his rematch in a match with stips he wanted, lost his first shot at Punk. Size doesn't hurt, but booking matters. They've been trying to rectify that a little bit in the last month, but I don't think DB has been protected well or presented all that well. They weren't planning on going with him long term before the Yes stuff picked up and changed his life, so it's been a slow course change and while all of that works when he HAS the belt, it's a little wonky when he's chasing it. And Kane's a good worker in the right situations, and a lot smarter than he was in 95. He's been at this for a while and he's worked just about every good wrestler they've had for 15 years.

You are the grumpiest guy ever. I bet it'd be way more fun to watch wrestling with Johnny Sorrow than with you. Hey, guess what? Kane is a pretty good worker. He just works a style that you don't like, and you have very particular tastes, which is okay, but seriously I don't think you SHOULD watch WWE programming. You'll just cause yourself pain. Also, Kane in a World title match in 2012 is still more credible than Daniel Bryan in a world title match in 2012. We might rather DB be there, but I think it's a huge jump, both kayfabe and otherwise, to think that Kane isn't considered more credible in a ton of ways.

It's not like that at all. Studd was completely immobile in 88. There's a lot that Kane can still do and he's a pretty savvy guy. He likes matches with size differences quite a bit and I imagine that they'll be able to do something very self aware and smart if it becomes a three way. I'm interested to see how they put it together, probably more interested than I'd be in another Punk vs Bryan match because past building a little on the last one, I'm not sure how they could do something better than that right now. I think it would have been a lot more of the same, and while that's great, this is wildly different and I kind of want to see it.

To be honest, I don't actually think they weren't a national promotion, but I was really shocked to figure out just where they didn't run, especially since just assumed they did shows here and there and I never heard anyone talk about it before.

I'm just saying that national TV isn't the end all.

GWF was on ESPN. I watched it when I was a kid. I got pissed off during the baseball expansion draft because it was preempted. Definitely on National TV. On the other hand even where they didn't run at all, I was still able to buy WCW Magazine, trading cards, and action figures as a kid.

According to the site, they didn't work New York at all in 91 or 92 either. Think about that. For 91/92, how are you a national promotion without working either the Northeast (they worked Jersey and DE and PA of course) or the North-NW (I don't see anything in WA, OR, WY, IH, ND, SD). Also nothing in UT, NV, CO. Just to name a few. As best as I can tell, WWF worked all of these places (give or take the one where the wrestling commission was weird).

I still think it's crazy how little WCW ventured to New England between 90 and 96. I thought the regional promotion thing wasn't even worth talking about but I find that really striking.

Shouldn't we look more closely at 92 then? Also, as a kid really into WCW in 91, I was always bummed that they didn't come to my part of MA. Graham's site has once in Boston in 90, nowhere in the rest of New England. They didn't run New England once in 1991. Once in Worcester in 92 and nowhere else in New England. Nothing in 93. Nothing in 94. Geez! Nothing in 95 in New England either! And just one Hartford show in 96, nowhere else. Is that REALLY right?

I would like to see someone take an argument that Cena was influenced by Sting.

I also think Sting WAS regarded as a draw, even if he didn't actually draw. The Perception was that he was a draw. That's part of why this is a bit of a jarring thing for some people. It goes without saying for them. "He was Sting! He was the franchise in WCW. Of course he was!" Edit: Once you get past the first few there, I think Sting does surprisingly well with the Gordy List, actually. If you put his "class" as overmuscled strongman babyfaces, he does even better.

I'm biased on this match. It's the only thing I watched the day Randy died. I hadn't seen it before and it seemed like a really natural thing. I like what was there as they were really trying, but yeah, it's a pale reflection of what could have been I guess.

If the booking was good enough then he probably would have been. But then if the booking was good enough Yoshi Tatsu would be too. Obviously, there's a level of scope there, but yeah.

Again, we're not arguing objective truth here. We're arguing whether or not he meets certain criteria to get him into a certain hall of fame. There are normative elements here.

It's also worth saying that there's no reason we can't think highly of Sting or say that he did many things well. It's just that he doesn't match the general criteria for the WON HOF. I have to think stuff like this all the time, because it's my natural tendency to back Sting in most things.

Really, hadn't they turned a corner? Wasn't it just bad business decisions, a move away from focusing primarily on what they did well and an over-extension financially and otherwise because of that which doomed JCP?

It's not about pinning the failure on Sting. It's just about not rewarding him for it.

It wasn't a good long term business decision. I Think that's the best way I can put it.

Crap I might have to break my rule.

And presentation and protection is more important than look. Maybe not in the casual fan. If someone won't buy Big Show's punch as a finisher because they haven't seen the build, then yeah, they're not going to buy a 5 foot tall guy being a main eventer. But if people stick through a really effective build on a talented performer, they will believe anything.

I never bought Spike's giant killer gimmick. When he beat Bam Bam it was fine. After that it was done so sloppily, "oh look he kicked the guy in the nuts and hit the acid drop." and they did the same match for months. It always looked like that old Ren and Stimpy cartoon when they were wrestlers. "Its time to lose the match." Doing it to Big Guido and Big Sal is fine. Then they had him do it to guys like One Man Gang and they still did it in under a minute, when they could of gotten a good brawl out of them. Gang still could of lost, but not in such a stupid manner. Fine, what about Taz? Yes he wasn't scrawny, but he was still a relatively tiny guy. But he was super protected and the fans were conditioned to see him as the human suplex machine and he was both believable and over, based on booking and match layout alone. Perception is all that matters in wrestling. Sometimes you have to get over a slightly bigger hump, and sometimes it's worth it and sometimes the cost is too high, but the thing that puts wrestling over most real life sports is that you can orchestrate this stuff. It's fiction. That WWE is terrible at long term planning in 2012 isn't the fault of the genre itself.

It matters differently to different people. BUT you can condition the audience to just about anything. Spike and Rey both had giant killer gimmicks and they were put over a few huge guys and it put that doubt in people's mind when they went up against Awesome or Nash. Maybe they COULD do it.

To me, the Summerslam match is weird. It's got this strange pace and the theatrics are over the top compared to VII, not in the concept but just in how the two guys MOVE. It's not slow motion necessarily but they were wrestling really BIG. It might be for the stadium but no one else in the show was doing that. And the crowd eats it up SO much too.

Has anyone ever pointed out specific things that Hogan did like that? I'd be really curious in reading that level of in depth analysis of him. I think for decades our community disregarded him as a rule, and would NEVER do that, just based on his push, his lack of moves, and the superman comebacks. It wasn't "against the rules" to deep analyze Hogan matches, but I think it was more along the lines of "just unthinkable." No one would even consider doing it.

That makes a big difference. It's okay that you don't care to see it. That's understandable. I just think that a match could be put together well enough and smartly enough to make it work. That is the JOY of pro wrestling.