Sting's New Gimmick!!! Yay or Nay???

[Big Red Machine]

1. Zeke is just as awkward at selling as most big-men who are trying to portray monsters are (because you have to sell a little, but not too much- Kane and Abyss are particularly good at selling while still being big men because they get the psychology- things like stumbling backwards with the first few shots before finally going down to a bigger strike).

2. But he wasn't doing it to save WCW from the nWo. He was doing it just because his job was to wrestle and they happened to be his opponents. Therefore, he wasn't a part of the WCW vs. nWo angle.

3. I remember that debate, and which matches of his did you watch? He has already proven that he can sell tickets through his work in ROH, PWG, and other companies. And really. Which non-WWE matches of his have you seen that you thought were "predictable?"

4. You keep flip--flopping here. If the talking is secondary, then his in-ring prowess should be enough to get him over.

5. The problem with his feud with Michael Cole was that it had no resolution whatsoever. Whatever they were planning to do (and they were planing something; the "less Daniel Bryan, more Bryan Danielson" promo proves that) was thrown under the bus and forgotten about in favor of the Nexus angle.

1). Allow me to sound childish, but Zeke is doo doo draws (for any who don't know what this means, it's the equivalence of poop). But seriously, he just reminds me of a stiff worker. Say Sid like. Except, he doesn't have anything that says top dog about him. Not memorable on the mic, accompanied by meager ring skills. You can only watch a Zeke power clothesline so many times before you really get dumb bored. That's the thing too. I am all for stiff big men (sounds so wrong). I mean those guys that try moves, and maybe just make it seem like "ouch." You know, guys like Hawk, Animal, Sid, even Goldberg. The bigger guys that were rough in ring, but still had an arsenal of moves. Honestly, Zeke's moveset is worse off than mark Henry's. Might be because guys like Bill DeMott, Bigelow, a younger Kane, the big men than could actually go in the ring, spoiled me. I mean, I don't mind seeing Zeke beat some people up. But just not as the WHC or a long reign IC champ. He needs to adopt a powerslam or 2. A spinebuster, and maybe even a delayed vertical suplex. He literally just does a clothesline, bodyslam, a horrible torture rack or book of Ezekiel.

2). While Goldberg DID take out the whole roster, once he became US champion, he started to shift towards mostly all nwo opponents. By the time he was WHC, with the exception of say Meng, he was targeted by the nWo, & pretty much beat up the whole B team & other members. Not to mention his short feud afterwards with Nash.

3). Again, selling tickets for ROH, PWG, and indy promotions are one thing. That's 1,000 fans in an arena. 20,000 fans nationwide. Out of a pro wrestling fanbase of how many millions? I'm talking WWE here. Not slighting his ROH work, because his matched did have a bit more to it. I'll give it to him, as I do by saying he's hot stuff in the ring. Not really my style I prefer watching, but I can't slight what he CAN do in the ring. It's just in the WWE, he hasn't done what I've seen in ROH as far as keeping suspense of the match. It (his WWE matches), are worked almost in a Cena like fashion. You know what's coming next. He hasn't used some moves I've seen him use in ROH (such as Cattle Mutilation I think it's called), and that could be contributed to the fact he's in the ring with guys less talented, but he can change up from time to time. Maybe do something he didn't do the week before, and in a different order.

4). It is secondary. While I don't believe he's the best talker, he's alright at it. BUT, in the WWE, especially with the direction it's gone now, it takes much more than a good match to get over. This isn't the Benoit era, where most of your show was dedicated to in ring. You know, the 2 minute promo before the 15 minute match. This is an era, where we get 30 minutes of wrestling, on a 2 hour show, which features (commercials taken into consideration), 100 minutes of on screen time. Most of the time is spent with talking. It's not WRESTLING anymore, but rather entertainment.

5). I think people gave too much credit & got behind it because he said his name was Bryan Danielson, not Daniel Bryan. To most WWE fans, that meant nothing. It was like "what are you talking about." To those that followed him in ROH, they may have felt he'd get loose. But that type of spotlight, could've easily propelled him into being a star. I just feel he has underachieved in the WWE so far.

1. I agree that his moveset is limited at the moment, and that he needs to expand it, but I think that if he does, he has tremendous potential.

2. But none of that was about WCW vs. nWo. The motivations there were all about Goldberg being Goldberg, and about the nWo wanting the World Title. Goldberg wasn't doing it to save WCW, therefore he was not part of that angle (the way that Sting or Luger or Piper or DDP were).

3. I don't see a difference between the concept of drawing in the indies and drawing in WWE. WWE has the exposure to reach more people, but the things that draw people are still the same: action, excitement, and drama. You don't think that Taz or Shane Douglas, booked exactly the same way, doing exactly the same things, would have been just as much of a draw if they had been working for WWE instead of ECW?

As for Dragon, he himself said that he stopped using the Cattle Mutilation because it isn't a good finisher for TV, because you can't see the look of pain on the opponent's face, so he has stopped using it all together to protect the move, so he can go back to it if/when he makes indy appearances. Yeah, he hasn't been using a lot of his moveset, but he has been doing some new and different things, too (like the running flip out of the corner, and the Crossface). Part of it is that he doesn't have as much time for his matches in WWE as he did on the indies, and so he is trying to focus on a few moves to establish some signature moves (things that draw pops and make for good teases) to help him get more over before doing more and more stuff in his matches.

4. Dragon can talk. He hasn't gotten much of a chance. And you can definitely get over in the ring alone. Look at Kofi Kingston or Evan Bourne. They are over because of their in-ring work, not their promo skills.

5. It wasn't just that he said his name. It was the whole promo (paraphrasing): Does it really make sense that I show up the first day and have a competitive match with the world champion... that I then go and take Batista to the limit... but I lose all of my matches against a bunch of rookies?" They were implying that Dragon lost his NXT matches because he didn't care about NXT, and he just wanted the chance to make an impression on the big names. It was definitely going somewhere not seen before in wrestling. Combine that with the fact that they kept talking up that he had years and years of experience wrestling around the world, and it is not hard to see that they would have followed up on it the next week with an explanation.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

Being a big name helps you sell tickets, but it doesn't mean you will be accepted as a main eventer. Do you really think that people would have bought D'Lo as a main event act in TNA right away (even back in 2003)? I am a HUGE D'Lo fan (I couldn't stop myself from cheering for him during his ROH run, even though he was a heel), and I sure as hell wouldn't have.
Your argument falls apart because you are completely discounting the possibility of creating a star, which is done by booking a guy in such a way that he looks like a star. How many fans did Brock Lesnar have as of Wrestlemania 18? I doubt that anyone who didn't know about and follow OVW had even heard of him. Five months later, he won the WWE Title, and it was completely believable because he was made to look like a star. He plowed through the Hardyz, Bubba Ray Dudley, RVD, Hulk Hogan, and The Rock.
The same was done with Desmond Wolfe. He came to TNA, and was put against and made to look like he belonged in the ring with Kurt Angle, and so he was accepted as a main eventer.

Yes, it would work. Look at Rhyno. look at Christian. Guys that were mid carders, and came straight in the main swing of things, making TNA the thing to watch.

And, this is where I will prove myself to be right... 2 words

Chris jericho.

He was mid carded in the WCW. Took the backseat to many. During the time in which WCW was the premier of the 2 bulls (WCW v. WWF). Then, Jericho comes in, becomes the HOT commodity, and gets into a program with The Rock. You can go from mid carding the more POPULAR company, to main eventing the smaller promotion. Simply because what else does the smaller promotion have? You are a bigger name.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

1. How can you not have seen Star Wars? It is one of the most famous movies of all time!

2. Whether or not you have seen it is irrelevant. What matters is statistic, and the comparison we can draw. The sequel had a much better opening weekend than the original because the awesomeness of the original made them trust that the second one would be worth their money, enough that they didn't even wait for reviews before getting tickets. Similarly, a wrestling match that is good makes people want to see a rematch. Therefore, only happening once does not make a match inherently better or more special, as if it were good enough, the company would have done a rematch (the obvious, logical, business move to capitalize off of a major match-up, and wrestling is, at its core, a business).

3. And Flair vs. Steamboat wasn't the same? You had the people's hero babyface against the leader of the most dominant heel faction in wrestling at the time. Flair (and Warrior, at that time) were the hot commodities. Why are those matches any different? Those matches also had amazing atmosphere... but they were good enough that the company could actually promote a rematch. The atmosphere in Goldberg-Hogan was helped by the fact that it was the first time they had wrestled. The fact that it turned out to be the only time they wrestled is (and was) irrelevant to the atmosphere, or any of the feeling about the match (especially since no one knew that it would be the last time they would wrestle 1-on-1). The only thing that fact is relevant to is the stupidity of the bookers and not even close to top-tier quality of the match. Atmosphere and booking/build-up can help a match be great, but it can't be everything.

1). I'm not into all of that space/cyber galatic stuff...

2). Again, you're asking me to put my 2 cents in on a movie that I know nothing about... I can't relate... But, to disprove your theory, the saying, and the majority of any film is "Ain't as good as the original." People get TIRED of it. Look at Barbershop. Why Did I Get Married. Lion King. Hell, Pierce Brosnan's Goldenye in comparison to The World Is Not Enough... People get TIRED of the same story being ran through. No matter the spinoff. People get tired of the feuds. You cut them off at some point. If there is only one, you CAN'T top it, nor not come close to competeing with it. The ONE is the legend that makes it.

3). Looking back 14 years ago, you type in Goldberg v. Hogan on Youtube. That ONE match probably has more hits than anything Flair v. Steamboat. Not because it was techincally better, because it wasn't. Not because the others weren't interesting. But because the one match DISTINGUISHES them from the feuds that had 1,000 matches. I am not saying Goldberg v. Hogan was a better feud, because that'd be crazy... But, the match was bigger than any Steamboat v. Flair match, and still is to this day.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

1. I agree that his moveset is limited at the moment, and that he needs to expand it, but I think that if he does, he has tremendous potential.

2. But none of that was about WCW vs. nWo. The motivations there were all about Goldberg being Goldberg, and about the nWo wanting the World Title. Goldberg wasn't doing it to save WCW, therefore he was not part of that angle (the way that Sting or Luger or Piper or DDP were).

3. I don't see a difference between the concept of drawing in the indies and drawing in WWE. WWE has the exposure to reach more people, but the things that draw people are still the same: action, excitement, and drama. You don't think that Taz or Shane Douglas, booked exactly the same way, doing exactly the same things, would have been just as much of a draw if they had been working for WWE instead of ECW?

As for Dragon, he himself said that he stopped using the Cattle Mutilation because it isn't a good finisher for TV, because you can't see the look of pain on the opponent's face, so he has stopped using it all together to protect the move, so he can go back to it if/when he makes indy appearances. Yeah, he hasn't been using a lot of his moveset, but he has been doing some new and different things, too (like the running flip out of the corner, and the Crossface). Part of it is that he doesn't have as much time for his matches in WWE as he did on the indies, and so he is trying to focus on a few moves to establish some signature moves (things that draw pops and make for good teases) to help him get more over before doing more and more stuff in his matches.

4. Dragon can talk. He hasn't gotten much of a chance. And you can definitely get over in the ring alone. Look at Kofi Kingston or Evan Bourne. They are over because of their in-ring work, not their promo skills.

5. It wasn't just that he said his name. It was the whole promo (paraphrasing): Does it really make sense that I show up the first day and have a competitive match with the world champion... that I then go and take Batista to the limit... but I lose all of my matches against a bunch of rookies?" They were implying that Dragon lost his NXT matches because he didn't care about NXT, and he just wanted the chance to make an impression on the big names. It was definitely going somewhere not seen before in wrestling. Combine that with the fact that they kept talking up that he had years and years of experience wrestling around the world, and it is not hard to see that they would have followed up on it the next week with an explanation.

1). Ezekiel Jackson expanding his moveset is going to happen the same day The Great Khali expands his. They have limited potential. And, it's not like Zeke came onto the scene of the WWE at age 24, with his prime years ahead of him. This is an era, where guys aren't on as many, if any at all, drugs and juice as they were in the 80's. So we see wrestlers breaking down in their late 30's, not looking how the guys back in the day did. Point I'm making, is Zeke physically WON'T get any better. Won't possess new abilities. The chances of him getting better, are slim to none.

2). Goldberg was WCW's hero. They booked him to be such a beast, to triumphantly win the belt, then miraculously lose the belt... ALL to the NWO. Look as soon as the NWO became a pure clusterf**k in mid 99, Goldberg became humanized sort of. He lost a few matches, there wasn't the same domination... Must be a coincidence that at that point, it wasn't WCW v. NWO, huh???

3). You don't DRAW in the indies. Simply because nobody really pays attention TO draw. Who really knew CM Punk before the WWE? Maybe 2% of wrestling fans. Who really said "hey, there's CM Punk holding the gun for Cena?" Nobody. Half the crowd of 500 at an indy event, are probably high school classmates, family, friends, and guys that probably REALLY go around trying to pick up chicks saying they're a professional wrestler. Newsflash, a guy wrestling in an arena that AIN'T the major leagues, really can't say they're a pro. Not saying theat down there, lies a bunch of untalented people. BUT, records, streaks, chamiponships only matter in the bigs. As well as being a draw, commodity, and character. If you play basketball for some developmental league that's NOT the NBA in America, you can't really say you're a professional basketball player. Now, there's talent than expands past the NBA that just hasn't been discovered nor given the chance, but until they play in the big league, they don't have the chance at saying they're one of the game's best. Same with wrestling. Is the guy that does what he does, in a gym of 500 people, really capable of even being put in the same sentence as Santino marella? No. Drawing, only affects those in the bigs. Drawing creates a legend. Look at Punk. He is drawing to millions. And sketching himself into the books as one of the greats, day by day. But, ONLY because he's doing it in the bigs.

4). Dragon may be able to talk. But Daniel bryan sure can't. 90% of that WWE crowd, doesn't know who Dragon is. Unless it's Ultimo. I normally watch Smackdown each Friday with a group of 6, and I'm the only one that looks at the dirt sites to see what people think is going to happen next. And I can tell you, none of them know anything past what a lot of these indy callup guys have done, besides their work in WWE, ebcause that's all that matters once you're there. Chance? He's gotten more of a chance than 50% of that roster, and still is a glorified WWE Superstars wrestler.

5). So basically, you're almost saying THAT was the chance he had, right? The chance in the #4 you said he never got???

[Big Red Machine]

Being a big name helps you sell tickets, but it doesn't mean you will be accepted as a main eventer. Do you really think that people would have bought D'Lo as a main event act in TNA right away (even back in 2003)? I am a HUGE D'Lo fan (I couldn't stop myself from cheering for him during his ROH run, even though he was a heel), and I sure as hell wouldn't have.
Your argument falls apart because you are completely discounting the possibility of creating a star, which is done by booking a guy in such a way that he looks like a star. How many fans did Brock Lesnar have as of Wrestlemania 18? I doubt that anyone who didn't know about and follow OVW had even heard of him. Five months later, he won the WWE Title, and it was completely believable because he was made to look like a star. He plowed through the Hardyz, Bubba Ray Dudley, RVD, Hulk Hogan, and The Rock.
The same was done with Desmond Wolfe. He came to TNA, and was put against and made to look like he belonged in the ring with Kurt Angle, and so he was accepted as a main eventer.

Yes, it would work. Look at Rhyno. look at Christian. Guys that were mid carders, and came straight in the main swing of things, making TNA the thing to watch.

And, this is where I will prove myself to be right... 2 words

Chris jericho.

He was mid carded in the WCW. Took the backseat to many. During the time in which WCW was the premier of the 2 bulls (WCW v. WWF). Then, Jericho comes in, becomes the HOT commodity, and gets into a program with The Rock. You can go from mid carding the more POPULAR company, to main eventing the smaller promotion. Simply because what else does the smaller promotion have? You are a bigger name.

1. No matter who was winning the ratings war, there was no difference in exposure between WWF and WCW. WWF midcarders were just as well known as WCW midcarders.

2. The fact that he was coming from WCW was nowhere near as important as the fact that they put him against The Rock and had him hold his own. WWE did the same thing with Alberto Del Rio last summer. He was unknown outside of Mexico (I'm sure you'll agree that WWE is much bigger than CMLL). But from his first night on Smackdown, Del Rio was made to look like he belonged in the main event.

3. I have now given numerous examples of people coming into larger promotions from smaller ones and wrestling at the exact same (or in some cases, even a higher) level on the card than they were in the smaller promotion, and you have yet to refute any of them (Desmond Wolfe/Nigel McGuinness in TNA, Brock Lesnar in WWE, Alberto Del Rio in WWE, and you can add the Dudleys coming into WWF from ECW to that list, too).

4.

Simply because what else does the smaller promotion have? You are a bigger name.

Let's take a look. Who else did what you erroneously (see below) claimed to be the smaller promotion have: THE ROCK, TRIPLE H, MANKIND, STONE COLD, THE UNDERTAKER, KANE, THE BIG SHOW, KEN SHAMROCK (plus the British Bulldog came back later that month). There is no way in hell you can make the argument that WWE didn't have anyone else.

5. Just to disprove your point even more, by the time Jericho jumped ship to WWF, the tide had already turned. The last time that Nitro won a ratings battle was October 28th, 1998 (according to the table on the Wikipedia article for the Monday Night Wars). Jericho jumped to WWF in the Summer of 1999.

[Big Red Machine]

1. How can you not have seen Star Wars? It is one of the most famous movies of all time!

2. Whether or not you have seen it is irrelevant. What matters is statistic, and the comparison we can draw. The sequel had a much better opening weekend than the original because the awesomeness of the original made them trust that the second one would be worth their money, enough that they didn't even wait for reviews before getting tickets. Similarly, a wrestling match that is good makes people want to see a rematch. Therefore, only happening once does not make a match inherently better or more special, as if it were good enough, the company would have done a rematch (the obvious, logical, business move to capitalize off of a major match-up, and wrestling is, at its core, a business).

3. And Flair vs. Steamboat wasn't the same? You had the people's hero babyface against the leader of the most dominant heel faction in wrestling at the time. Flair (and Warrior, at that time) were the hot commodities. Why are those matches any different? Those matches also had amazing atmosphere... but they were good enough that the company could actually promote a rematch. The atmosphere in Goldberg-Hogan was helped by the fact that it was the first time they had wrestled. The fact that it turned out to be the only time they wrestled is (and was) irrelevant to the atmosphere, or any of the feeling about the match (especially since no one knew that it would be the last time they would wrestle 1-on-1). The only thing that fact is relevant to is the stupidity of the bookers and not even close to top-tier quality of the match. Atmosphere and booking/build-up can help a match be great, but it can't be everything.

1). I'm not into all of that space/cyber galatic stuff...

2). Again, you're asking me to put my 2 cents in on a movie that I know nothing about... I can't relate... But, to disprove your theory, the saying, and the majority of any film is "Ain't as good as the original." People get TIRED of it. Look at Barbershop. Why Did I Get Married. Lion King. Hell, Pierce Brosnan's Goldenye in comparison to The World Is Not Enough... People get TIRED of the same story being ran through. No matter the spinoff. People get tired of the feuds. You cut them off at some point. If there is only one, you CAN'T top it, nor not come close to competeing with it. The ONE is the legend that makes it.

3). Looking back 14 years ago, you type in Goldberg v. Hogan on Youtube. That ONE match probably has more hits than anything Flair v. Steamboat. Not because it was techincally better, because it wasn't. Not because the others weren't interesting. But because the one match DISTINGUISHES them from the feuds that had 1,000 matches. I am not saying Goldberg v. Hogan was a better feud, because that'd be crazy... But, the match was bigger than any Steamboat v. Flair match, and still is to this day.

2. I am not asking you to evaluate the movie, and I asking you to look at the facts about the box-office numbers. Your argument even fits into mine. The movies that you named were all worse than the originals (although I dispute your point about The World Is Not Enough. If people were tired of seeing similar plots in a movie franchise, they would have stopped watching Bond movies long before the 90's). They did so poorly that the studios decided that it wasn't an economically good idea to make another one, because the second one was bad, so less people would want to see the third. You are, however, completely discounting the possibility of a good sequel. The Wrath of Kahn, Terminator 2, The Dark Knight... all of these were even better than the originals, and as a result, the opening weekend box office numbers went up when the third movie came out (or will, in the case of The Dark Knight).

As for the wrestling analogy side of it, stories are recyclable. Look at all of the times the Horsemen brought in a new guy, then kicked him out to turn him babyface. Do people get tired of the same feuds over and over again? Yes. But after ONE MATCH!

And the true great performers in wrestling, when they wrestle each other multiple times, make the matches different. Danielson and McGuinness have wrestled nine one-on-one matches. Of those nine, I have seen seven of them (and am planning on getting to the last two some time in the next month), and of the seven that I have seen NONE of them have had the same story. Or look at the three Rock vs. Austin Mania matches... all entirely different stories. Same with the three Danielson vs. AJ Styles matches, the Triple H vs. Mick Foley matches, or the various matches between Danielson and Roderick Strong.
The true greats can wrestle each other and put on an entirely different match the second time, or find a way to build off of the first match to show that they have learned from it to make the second match different (RVD and Jerry Lynn were particular masters at this, but Danielson and McGuinness, Joe and Punk, and the AJ-Daniels-Joe trio have also done it amazingly well).

3. It is impossible to tell which has more youtube hits because of the sheer number of different times each of those matches are posted. Similarly, you can't judge by youtube hits because you don't know why the person watched it. Hell, I have watched the video of Russo winning the WCW World Title a bunch of times just to see how stupid it was. I'll bet that the Kennell From Hell match has a ton of hits, too.

[Big Red Machine]

1. I agree that his moveset is limited at the moment, and that he needs to expand it, but I think that if he does, he has tremendous potential.

2. But none of that was about WCW vs. nWo. The motivations there were all about Goldberg being Goldberg, and about the nWo wanting the World Title. Goldberg wasn't doing it to save WCW, therefore he was not part of that angle (the way that Sting or Luger or Piper or DDP were).

3. I don't see a difference between the concept of drawing in the indies and drawing in WWE. WWE has the exposure to reach more people, but the things that draw people are still the same: action, excitement, and drama. You don't think that Taz or Shane Douglas, booked exactly the same way, doing exactly the same things, would have been just as much of a draw if they had been working for WWE instead of ECW?

As for Dragon, he himself said that he stopped using the Cattle Mutilation because it isn't a good finisher for TV, because you can't see the look of pain on the opponent's face, so he has stopped using it all together to protect the move, so he can go back to it if/when he makes indy appearances. Yeah, he hasn't been using a lot of his moveset, but he has been doing some new and different things, too (like the running flip out of the corner, and the Crossface). Part of it is that he doesn't have as much time for his matches in WWE as he did on the indies, and so he is trying to focus on a few moves to establish some signature moves (things that draw pops and make for good teases) to help him get more over before doing more and more stuff in his matches.

4. Dragon can talk. He hasn't gotten much of a chance. And you can definitely get over in the ring alone. Look at Kofi Kingston or Evan Bourne. They are over because of their in-ring work, not their promo skills.

5. It wasn't just that he said his name. It was the whole promo (paraphrasing): Does it really make sense that I show up the first day and have a competitive match with the world champion... that I then go and take Batista to the limit... but I lose all of my matches against a bunch of rookies?" They were implying that Dragon lost his NXT matches because he didn't care about NXT, and he just wanted the chance to make an impression on the big names. It was definitely going somewhere not seen before in wrestling. Combine that with the fact that they kept talking up that he had years and years of experience wrestling around the world, and it is not hard to see that they would have followed up on it the next week with an explanation.

1). Ezekiel Jackson expanding his moveset is going to happen the same day The Great Khali expands his. They have limited potential. And, it's not like Zeke came onto the scene of the WWE at age 24, with his prime years ahead of him. This is an era, where guys aren't on as many, if any at all, drugs and juice as they were in the 80's. So we see wrestlers breaking down in their late 30's, not looking how the guys back in the day did. Point I'm making, is Zeke physically WON'T get any better. Won't possess new abilities. The chances of him getting better, are slim to none.

2). Goldberg was WCW's hero. They booked him to be such a beast, to triumphantly win the belt, then miraculously lose the belt... ALL to the NWO. Look as soon as the NWO became a pure clusterf**k in mid 99, Goldberg became humanized sort of. He lost a few matches, there wasn't the same domination... Must be a coincidence that at that point, it wasn't WCW v. NWO, huh???

3). You don't DRAW in the indies. Simply because nobody really pays attention TO draw. Who really knew CM Punk before the WWE? Maybe 2% of wrestling fans. Who really said "hey, there's CM Punk holding the gun for Cena?" Nobody. Half the crowd of 500 at an indy event, are probably high school classmates, family, friends, and guys that probably REALLY go around trying to pick up chicks saying they're a professional wrestler. Newsflash, a guy wrestling in an arena that AIN'T the major leagues, really can't say they're a pro. Not saying theat down there, lies a bunch of untalented people. BUT, records, streaks, chamiponships only matter in the bigs. As well as being a draw, commodity, and character. If you play basketball for some developmental league that's NOT the NBA in America, you can't really say you're a professional basketball player. Now, there's talent than expands past the NBA that just hasn't been discovered nor given the chance, but until they play in the big league, they don't have the chance at saying they're one of the game's best. Same with wrestling. Is the guy that does what he does, in a gym of 500 people, really capable of even being put in the same sentence as Santino marella? No. Drawing, only affects those in the bigs. Drawing creates a legend. Look at Punk. He is drawing to millions. And sketching himself into the books as one of the greats, day by day. But, ONLY because he's doing it in the bigs.

4). Dragon may be able to talk. But Daniel bryan sure can't. 90% of that WWE crowd, doesn't know who Dragon is. Unless it's Ultimo. I normally watch Smackdown each Friday with a group of 6, and I'm the only one that looks at the dirt sites to see what people think is going to happen next. And I can tell you, none of them know anything past what a lot of these indy callup guys have done, besides their work in WWE, ebcause that's all that matters once you're there. Chance? He's gotten more of a chance than 50% of that roster, and still is a glorified WWE Superstars wrestler.

5). So basically, you're almost saying THAT was the chance he had, right? The chance in the #4 you said he never got???

1. What evidence do you have for this? I'm not arguing that it is a certainty, but you seem to be extremely negative here for seemingly no reason. Zeke might be 33, but he only started wrestling four years ago. He will improve with experience.

2. The nWo became a clusterf*ck in early 1998 when it grew to 20 people including a whole bunch of random midcarders, way before they had anything to do with Goldberg, and even after the end of the streak, Goldberg rarely lost cleanly. Goldberg wasn't WCW's champion. Sting was. Sting was doing things for WCW. Goldberg was doing things for Goldberg.

3. First of all, you have CLEARLY never been to an indy show, especially a company that usually draws at least a thousand people in their larger venues like ROH or CZW. And really? Indy guys aren't "professionals." Anyone who is paid to do it, is, by definition, a professional.

Second of all, your logic here is self-defeating. Of course you draw on the indies! Why do the fans show up? Someone/something drew them! You say that the reason that not many people show up to indy shows is because they don't know about them. Using your 2% number and the CM Punk example... if only 2% of wrestling fans knew about Punk before he debuted in WWE, then those are the only people who can be used to gauge Punk's ability to draw! Drawing means that you can get someone to come to the show, buy the PPV/DVD, or, if they are watching on TV, to stay on the channel. The fact is that, almost everyone of those 2% would go to a show if they knew CM Punk was going to be on it. Everywhere he wrestled, from St. Paul to Nashville to Virginia to Boston, CM Punk drew the people who knew about him. He drew those people.

Your basketball analogy fails because basketball is a sport and wrestling is art. Yes, a great player who goes and undiscovered cannot claim to be one of the greatest of all time because there is no way to compare him to those all-time greats, because he is playing a sport at a much different level of competition. Just because you hit 50 home runs in Triple A doesn't mean you will also do so against major league pitching... but no such comparison exists in wrestling because wrestling is not competition. Wrestling is art. You can have outstanding indy films while major studios can put on absolute stinkers. Who does and it and where they do it is unimportant. What is important is the skill of the people involved and the amount of effort they put into their work. Your argument is like saying that any song by Aerosmith or Britney Spears or the Black-Eyed Peas in inherently better than any song by an indy band because more people have heard the song, and thus, had the chance to enjoy it, rather than polling those who have heard both songs, and thus can evaluate and compare them competently.

Look at guys like Shane Douglas, Sabu or Steve Corino. All considered to have been big draws, but never got anywhere past the midcard in a mainstream promotion. Are you going to tell me that goes guys couldn't draw? Are you going to tell me that Tommy Dreamer couldn't draw before he got his first push in WWE? Or that everything Dusty Rhodes did in Florida didn't matter until he won the NWA World Title? Or that Kevin Sullivan never drew until 1987?

4. Just because some (or even majority of ) wrestling fans are ignorant of their history does not take away from a wrestler's talent.

And yes, he has gotten more of a chance than a lot of guys, but that doesn't mean he has been given the chance to show what he can do. It is hard to get over in a bunch of five minute matches and no angles at all.

5. He got to cut ONE promo... then they shoved the angle under the rug and never mentioned it again because they decided to do something different. That is like evaluating the entirety of Dustin Runnel's mic skills on the one promo he cut as Seven.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

1. No matter who was winning the ratings war, there was no difference in exposure between WWF and WCW. WWF midcarders were just as well known as WCW midcarders.

2. The fact that he was coming from WCW was nowhere near as important as the fact that they put him against The Rock and had him hold his own. WWE did the same thing with Alberto Del Rio last summer. He was unknown outside of Mexico (I'm sure you'll agree that WWE is much bigger than CMLL). But from his first night on Smackdown, Del Rio was made to look like he belonged in the main event.

3. I have now given numerous examples of people coming into larger promotions from smaller ones and wrestling at the exact same (or in some cases, even a higher) level on the card than they were in the smaller promotion, and you have yet to refute any of them (Desmond Wolfe/Nigel McGuinness in TNA, Brock Lesnar in WWE, Alberto Del Rio in WWE, and you can add the Dudleys coming into WWF from ECW to that list, too).

4.

Simply because what else does the smaller promotion have? You are a bigger name.

Let's take a look. Who else did what you erroneously (see below) claimed to be the smaller promotion have: THE ROCK, TRIPLE H, MANKIND, STONE COLD, THE UNDERTAKER, KANE, THE BIG SHOW, KEN SHAMROCK (plus the British Bulldog came back later that month). There is no way in hell you can make the argument that WWE didn't have anyone else.

5. Just to disprove your point even more, by the time Jericho jumped ship to WWF, the tide had already turned. The last time that Nitro won a ratings battle was October 28th, 1998 (according to the table on the Wikipedia article for the Monday Night Wars). Jericho jumped to WWF in the Summer of 1999.

1). Yes.. EXACTLY. Because they BOTH were the big things out. Which is why Jericho worked. Using the comparison of Wolfe, because of how we supposedly "worked" as a main eventer in TNA due to his time in ROH is irrelevant, because look at how small ROH is in comparison to the WWE/TNA. The majority of ppl don't know the ROH product, so they don't know what makes these guys so much more special than say, Drew McIntyre so to speak.

2). Well they gave they guy fancy cars & pyrotechniques. Just like they gave Sin Cara pyrotechniques, lighting, and a trampoline. They're telling us we are going to see them in the spotlight, rather than they work to get to it. Not taking anything away from them however. They gave Chris a titantron & a mic. The pop was because he was known by the majority of all fans from his time mid carding in WCW because the promotion was just as big. In a sense, it was just like a trade in baseball, rather than someone getting the call up from AAA.

3). Read my #2.

4). You can't make that claim because yes, at the time, they WERE losing the ratings, being the smaller promotion... BUT, for how long had they BEEN the top promotions??? Years man. Years. And it's not like they weren't televised. They were just as accesible as the WCW.

5). But I guarantee you WCW was still on everyone's mind to watch. And it was still out there. It hadn't been pulled back. People just didn't watch what they didn't like, which was a lot of the show. They still would flicker to see what was happening, just not for long. A 5 month drop doesn't do much for a promotion which was on the rise for how many years, before DOMINATING for almost 2 years. It was what came AFTER that drop. Vince, not Mcmahon either.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

2. I am not asking you to evaluate the movie, and I asking you to look at the facts about the box-office numbers. Your argument even fits into mine. The movies that you named were all worse than the originals (although I dispute your point about The World Is Not Enough. If people were tired of seeing similar plots in a movie franchise, they would have stopped watching Bond movies long before the 90's). They did so poorly that the studios decided that it wasn't an economically good idea to make another one, because the second one was bad, so less people would want to see the third. You are, however, completely discounting the possibility of a good sequel. The Wrath of Kahn, Terminator 2, The Dark Knight... all of these were even better than the originals, and as a result, the opening weekend box office numbers went up when the third movie came out (or will, in the case of The Dark Knight).

As for the wrestling analogy side of it, stories are recyclable. Look at all of the times the Horsemen brought in a new guy, then kicked him out to turn him babyface. Do people get tired of the same feuds over and over again? Yes. But after ONE MATCH!

And the true great performers in wrestling, when they wrestle each other multiple times, make the matches different. Danielson and McGuinness have wrestled nine one-on-one matches. Of those nine, I have seen seven of them (and am planning on getting to the last two some time in the next month), and of the seven that I have seen NONE of them have had the same story. Or look at the three Rock vs. Austin Mania matches... all entirely different stories. Same with the three Danielson vs. AJ Styles matches, the Triple H vs. Mick Foley matches, or the various matches between Danielson and Roderick Strong.
The true greats can wrestle each other and put on an entirely different match the second time, or find a way to build off of the first match to show that they have learned from it to make the second match different (RVD and Jerry Lynn were particular masters at this, but Danielson and McGuinness, Joe and Punk, and the AJ-Daniels-Joe trio have also done it amazingly well).

3. It is impossible to tell which has more youtube hits because of the sheer number of different times each of those matches are posted. Similarly, you can't judge by youtube hits because you don't know why the person watched it. Hell, I have watched the video of Russo winning the WCW World Title a bunch of times just to see how stupid it was. I'll bet that the Kennell From Hell match has a ton of hits, too.

2). See, I don't like to look at numbers over something I don't know, simply because I can't judge how good I thought the content was. We speak opinion based off of OUR knowledge & liking... Now, if you wanna go Star Wars, I could crush it today because I found the little bit I watched it to be horrible, I found the video game to be even stupider (yes thats how stupid I found it to be, sarcasm)... OR, I could say maybe one day I could force myself to watch Star Wars to accurately say why it could be related. See why guys like Luke Skywalker or Ovie Won Konobie??? appeal... But as of now, numbers really don't do much for an opiniated statement because this ain't a research paper. This is simply speak on what you know to enhance your opinion.
Now, speaking on what I DO know of to validate my beliefs... The Dark Knight wasn't as good of a movie as any of it's predecessors... Two words: Heath Ledger. It bought anticipation to see what his work in this would be like, even though it was after his death. Another big factor was the delay of the series, the fact that the movie before left people with a sour taste in their mouths, and the fact that it took a new angle, a different twist, than the movies before.
As far as Bond, similar factor. After Sean Connery, George Lazenby was so bad, that of course people were excited for Sean to do one more. Roger Moore was solid, then Dalton was so bad, that Brosnan went HARD. It's not that the SEQUELS were better, but rather a change in the franchise. because we can't judge by the numbers, simply because movies will gross more now than 1960, because the cost of everything is ten times higher. Another reason why I don't go off numbers, because more factors play into it, than just numbers.

Yes, after how many matches??? ONE. Remember you said that... So... Do you think people got tired of Flair & Steamboat? Rock v. Austin? Cena v. Orton? YES. But they didn't have the chance to with Goldberg v. Hogan because there was just that ONE match... which makes that match stand out.

The story around the match really doesn't matter much in terms of what it does in that ring. A story won't make John Cena v. Randy Orton look any better as opposed to them having some pointless match. Some of the greatest matches of all time had no memorable story, if any at all. It was the match that was memorable. The initial Sting v. Flair. Sting v. Muta encounter #1 was just the tv champion v. the undefeated Muta. No major interaction between the two. Just put 2 guys on top of their game against each other. No talking, promo cutting, jaw jacking beforehand. Just got in their & did their thing.

3). BUT, that stupidity is keeping you interested, right???

[SONICdopeFRESH]

1. What evidence do you have for this? I'm not arguing that it is a certainty, but you seem to be extremely negative here for seemingly no reason. Zeke might be 33, but he only started wrestling four years ago. He will improve with experience.

2. The nWo became a clusterf*ck in early 1998 when it grew to 20 people including a whole bunch of random midcarders, way before they had anything to do with Goldberg, and even after the end of the streak, Goldberg rarely lost cleanly. Goldberg wasn't WCW's champion. Sting was. Sting was doing things for WCW. Goldberg was doing things for Goldberg.

3. First of all, you have CLEARLY never been to an indy show, especially a company that usually draws at least a thousand people in their larger venues like ROH or CZW. And really? Indy guys aren't "professionals." Anyone who is paid to do it, is, by definition, a professional.

Second of all, your logic here is self-defeating. Of course you draw on the indies! Why do the fans show up? Someone/something drew them! You say that the reason that not many people show up to indy shows is because they don't know about them. Using your 2% number and the CM Punk example... if only 2% of wrestling fans knew about Punk before he debuted in WWE, then those are the only people who can be used to gauge Punk's ability to draw! Drawing means that you can get someone to come to the show, buy the PPV/DVD, or, if they are watching on TV, to stay on the channel. The fact is that, almost everyone of those 2% would go to a show if they knew CM Punk was going to be on it. Everywhere he wrestled, from St. Paul to Nashville to Virginia to Boston, CM Punk drew the people who knew about him. He drew those people.

Your basketball analogy fails because basketball is a sport and wrestling is art. Yes, a great player who goes and undiscovered cannot claim to be one of the greatest of all time because there is no way to compare him to those all-time greats, because he is playing a sport at a much different level of competition. Just because you hit 50 home runs in Triple A doesn't mean you will also do so against major league pitching... but no such comparison exists in wrestling because wrestling is not competition. Wrestling is art. You can have outstanding indy films while major studios can put on absolute stinkers. Who does and it and where they do it is unimportant. What is important is the skill of the people involved and the amount of effort they put into their work. Your argument is like saying that any song by Aerosmith or Britney Spears or the Black-Eyed Peas in inherently better than any song by an indy band because more people have heard the song, and thus, had the chance to enjoy it, rather than polling those who have heard both songs, and thus can evaluate and compare them competently.

Look at guys like Shane Douglas, Sabu or Steve Corino. All considered to have been big draws, but never got anywhere past the midcard in a mainstream promotion. Are you going to tell me that goes guys couldn't draw? Are you going to tell me that Tommy Dreamer couldn't draw before he got his first push in WWE? Or that everything Dusty Rhodes did in Florida didn't matter until he won the NWA World Title? Or that Kevin Sullivan never drew until 1987?

4. Just because some (or even majority of ) wrestling fans are ignorant of their history does not take away from a wrestler's talent.

And yes, he has gotten more of a chance than a lot of guys, but that doesn't mean he has been given the chance to show what he can do. It is hard to get over in a bunch of five minute matches and no angles at all.

5. He got to cut ONE promo... then they shoved the angle under the rug and never mentioned it again because they decided to do something different. That is like evaluating the entirety of Dustin Runnel's mic skills on the one promo he cut as Seven.

1). How many athletes get better after 31??? Not many, if any at all. It is proven that 26-30 are the average prime years of ones life physically.

2). The nWo with 20 people was GOLD! That's what made them different than any other faction, the gang mentality. It made you appreciate the mid carders. Hell, 13 years later, those mid carders still live off glory to say "I was nWo." Goldberg rarely lost cleanly, but he lost a bit. The losses became a BIG thing as opposed to MONUMENTAL. Look at Booker T... I mean, sure he got his ass handed to him after, but the win was not as momumental as it would have been in 98, when Goldberg was on top & it was Goldberg v. the NWO.

3). Must be the craziest thing you've ever said... Remember 2009, Great Lakes in Waukesha WI??? Outsiders ring a bell??? Yep, def was there.
Well then I am a professional bowler. I never knew I was... GUESS AGAIN. Ever heard of amateur??? They get paid too. Ever heard of semi-pro??? They get paid too. Indy wrestlers are aspiring professionals. Nothing wrong with that, but they're not there yet.

Ok, firstly CM Punk didn't put butts in those seats right away. I remember him being the new kid on the block over in ECW. BUT, that small percentage of the people that were in house that knew who he was from the indies, may have marked out. He didn't draw WWE fans until he became a commodity. And that was NOT when he was CM Punk the newcomer on WWECW. You don't draw in the bigs when you hit in the indies because those 2% don't come to support you, they come to see it all. The main guys. The indy guy just so happens to now be in the mix.

BAFFOONERY. Wrestling is not, nor has not ever been defined as an art. What, did I miss something??? Wrestling is now Art Entertainment??? No. Half sport, half entertainment. The guys are considered athletes, and some as actors. Simply put. You can google it, dictionary it, but that's not opinion, that's as close to fact as it can get. You give me some documentation that shows wrestling is an art. Because I call ludacris (no, I'm not really calling him... at least not until Saturday).

And yes, That is EXACTLY what I am saying. Lil Wayne's songs are better than any of these wannabe "rappers" because he's getting played. He's getting hype. So if you're not anywhere near the level he is, you can't compare him. Can't compare the guys over in a indy to Dolph Ziggler. You couldn't compare Daniel Bryan, oh excuse me, Bryan Dragon Danielson to Drew mcIntyre... Until he came to the WWE. If you do, it's not going to be anything worth taking as a credible argument... Those that believe in that higher product will simply brush you off.

ECW was the little of the 3 big promotions, but look at how big wrestling was during that era. WRESTLING was a commodity. Everyone had to have it. Boys and girls cover your eyes, but wrestling was like sex (sarcasm). You had to have parts. Your commercials throughout ALL the day on TNA & USA were wrestling. Wrestlers made cameos up the anus, and hell, remember Halftime heat??? It's a lot different to be Steve Corino, than say Davey Richards, simply because now, in comparison, wrestling is dead.

[Big Red Machine]

1. No matter who was winning the ratings war, there was no difference in exposure between WWF and WCW. WWF midcarders were just as well known as WCW midcarders.

2. The fact that he was coming from WCW was nowhere near as important as the fact that they put him against The Rock and had him hold his own. WWE did the same thing with Alberto Del Rio last summer. He was unknown outside of Mexico (I'm sure you'll agree that WWE is much bigger than CMLL). But from his first night on Smackdown, Del Rio was made to look like he belonged in the main event.

3. I have now given numerous examples of people coming into larger promotions from smaller ones and wrestling at the exact same (or in some cases, even a higher) level on the card than they were in the smaller promotion, and you have yet to refute any of them (Desmond Wolfe/Nigel McGuinness in TNA, Brock Lesnar in WWE, Alberto Del Rio in WWE, and you can add the Dudleys coming into WWF from ECW to that list, too).

4.

Simply because what else does the smaller promotion have? You are a bigger name.

Let's take a look. Who else did what you erroneously (see below) claimed to be the smaller promotion have: THE ROCK, TRIPLE H, MANKIND, STONE COLD, THE UNDERTAKER, KANE, THE BIG SHOW, KEN SHAMROCK (plus the British Bulldog came back later that month). There is no way in hell you can make the argument that WWE didn't have anyone else.

5. Just to disprove your point even more, by the time Jericho jumped ship to WWF, the tide had already turned. The last time that Nitro won a ratings battle was October 28th, 1998 (according to the table on the Wikipedia article for the Monday Night Wars). Jericho jumped to WWF in the Summer of 1999.

1). Yes.. EXACTLY. Because they BOTH were the big things out. Which is why Jericho worked. Using the comparison of Wolfe, because of how we supposedly "worked" as a main eventer in TNA due to his time in ROH is irrelevant, because look at how small ROH is in comparison to the WWE/TNA. The majority of ppl don't know the ROH product, so they don't know what makes these guys so much more special than say, Drew McIntyre so to speak.

2). Well they gave they guy fancy cars & pyrotechniques. Just like they gave Sin Cara pyrotechniques, lighting, and a trampoline. They're telling us we are going to see them in the spotlight, rather than they work to get to it. Not taking anything away from them however. They gave Chris a titantron & a mic. The pop was because he was known by the majority of all fans from his time mid carding in WCW because the promotion was just as big. In a sense, it was just like a trade in baseball, rather than someone getting the call up from AAA.

3). Read my #2.

4). You can't make that claim because yes, at the time, they WERE losing the ratings, being the smaller promotion... BUT, for how long had they BEEN the top promotions??? Years man. Years. And it's not like they weren't televised. They were just as accesible as the WCW.

5). But I guarantee you WCW was still on everyone's mind to watch. And it was still out there. It hadn't been pulled back. People just didn't watch what they didn't like, which was a lot of the show. They still would flicker to see what was happening, just not for long. A 5 month drop doesn't do much for a promotion which was on the rise for how many years, before DOMINATING for almost 2 years. It was what came AFTER that drop. Vince, not Mcmahon either.

1 & 2. There are two factors here: There is "how the company portrays you" (i.e. do they make you look like you can be in the ring with a main eventer) and "how the fans receive you" (i.e. do the fans think you can be a main eventer). You need BOTH to succeed. Yes, to the fans who didn't know Nigel, he was a main eventer in TNA because of the way that TNA booked him. But that doesn't mean that a midcarder from WWE who the fans don't view as being someone who deserves to be/has the talent to be a main eventer can come into TNA and be accepted by the fans as a main eventer. When Anderson came to TNA people accepted him as a main evnter right away because they thought that he had the talent to be one and because he was booked like one (he was made to look like he could hang with guys like Kurt Angle and Jeff Hardy). When Billy Gunn jumped ship back in 2005, he was booked to be able to hang with main eventers like Kevin Nash and DDP (and was even teaming with guys like Jeff Jarrett and Monty Brown), but the fans didn't view him as a main eventer, so his push failed. It is all about how the fans view you and how you are booked, not about exposure or how many fans you have.

4. You've defeated your own argument! If WWF was the bigger company at the time... then Jericho came from a smaller company to a bigger one. But if you are saying that who was bigger didn't matter because of the size of both companies, then using Jericho as an example does not prove your point, since both companies were about equal, rather than WCW being bigger.

5. Oh come on! You can't blame it all on Russo. The company had completely squandered a HUGE gain in Bret Hart who came in with a legitimate claim to being a world champion. Hell... the entire booking of the Sting vs. Hogan match from Starrcade should show you that there were a lot of problems in WCW before Russo came in. The fact that GOLDBERG needed a distraction from KARL MALONE to beat Hogan should tell you that there were problems in WCW before Russo came in. How about the Fingerpoke of Doom? Between 1996 and the time Russo came in, WCW had only had TWO IDEAS. The nWo (which they killed and redid 17,000 times) and Goldberg's streak. That was it. And THAT is what led to them losing ratings.

[Big Red Machine]

2. I am not asking you to evaluate the movie, and I asking you to look at the facts about the box-office numbers. Your argument even fits into mine. The movies that you named were all worse than the originals (although I dispute your point about The World Is Not Enough. If people were tired of seeing similar plots in a movie franchise, they would have stopped watching Bond movies long before the 90's). They did so poorly that the studios decided that it wasn't an economically good idea to make another one, because the second one was bad, so less people would want to see the third. You are, however, completely discounting the possibility of a good sequel. The Wrath of Kahn, Terminator 2, The Dark Knight... all of these were even better than the originals, and as a result, the opening weekend box office numbers went up when the third movie came out (or will, in the case of The Dark Knight).

As for the wrestling analogy side of it, stories are recyclable. Look at all of the times the Horsemen brought in a new guy, then kicked him out to turn him babyface. Do people get tired of the same feuds over and over again? Yes. But after ONE MATCH!

And the true great performers in wrestling, when they wrestle each other multiple times, make the matches different. Danielson and McGuinness have wrestled nine one-on-one matches. Of those nine, I have seen seven of them (and am planning on getting to the last two some time in the next month), and of the seven that I have seen NONE of them have had the same story. Or look at the three Rock vs. Austin Mania matches... all entirely different stories. Same with the three Danielson vs. AJ Styles matches, the Triple H vs. Mick Foley matches, or the various matches between Danielson and Roderick Strong.
The true greats can wrestle each other and put on an entirely different match the second time, or find a way to build off of the first match to show that they have learned from it to make the second match different (RVD and Jerry Lynn were particular masters at this, but Danielson and McGuinness, Joe and Punk, and the AJ-Daniels-Joe trio have also done it amazingly well).

3. It is impossible to tell which has more youtube hits because of the sheer number of different times each of those matches are posted. Similarly, you can't judge by youtube hits because you don't know why the person watched it. Hell, I have watched the video of Russo winning the WCW World Title a bunch of times just to see how stupid it was. I'll bet that the Kennell From Hell match has a ton of hits, too.

2). See, I don't like to look at numbers over something I don't know, simply because I can't judge how good I thought the content was. We speak opinion based off of OUR knowledge & liking... Now, if you wanna go Star Wars, I could crush it today because I found the little bit I watched it to be horrible, I found the video game to be even stupider (yes thats how stupid I found it to be, sarcasm)... OR, I could say maybe one day I could force myself to watch Star Wars to accurately say why it could be related. See why guys like Luke Skywalker or Ovie Won Konobie??? appeal... But as of now, numbers really don't do much for an opiniated statement because this ain't a research paper. This is simply speak on what you know to enhance your opinion.
Now, speaking on what I DO know of to validate my beliefs... The Dark Knight wasn't as good of a movie as any of it's predecessors... Two words: Heath Ledger. It bought anticipation to see what his work in this would be like, even though it was after his death. Another big factor was the delay of the series, the fact that the movie before left people with a sour taste in their mouths, and the fact that it took a new angle, a different twist, than the movies before.
As far as Bond, similar factor. After Sean Connery, George Lazenby was so bad, that of course people were excited for Sean to do one more. Roger Moore was solid, then Dalton was so bad, that Brosnan went HARD. It's not that the SEQUELS were better, but rather a change in the franchise. because we can't judge by the numbers, simply because movies will gross more now than 1960, because the cost of everything is ten times higher. Another reason why I don't go off numbers, because more factors play into it, than just numbers.

Yes, after how many matches??? ONE. Remember you said that... So... Do you think people got tired of Flair & Steamboat? Rock v. Austin? Cena v. Orton? YES. But they didn't have the chance to with Goldberg v. Hogan because there was just that ONE match... which makes that match stand out.

The story around the match really doesn't matter much in terms of what it does in that ring. A story won't make John Cena v. Randy Orton look any better as opposed to them having some pointless match. Some of the greatest matches of all time had no memorable story, if any at all. It was the match that was memorable. The initial Sting v. Flair. Sting v. Muta encounter #1 was just the tv champion v. the undefeated Muta. No major interaction between the two. Just put 2 guys on top of their game against each other. No talking, promo cutting, jaw jacking beforehand. Just got in their & did their thing.

3). BUT, that stupidity is keeping you interested, right???

1. You are completely missing my point. It is not about what you or I thought about the movie. My point is the following: The best equivalency that we have for the TV rating/PPV buys for a wrestling match is the opening weekend box-office numbers for a movie, because there hasn't been too enough time for reviews (whether negative or positive) to influence people's decision as to whether or not to see the movie. It is all hype and advertising. Do they want to see it or not?

You have been saying that Goldberg vs. Hogan is a more legendary match because it only happened once. I am saying that having happened more than once does not make the various matches less legendary, and the rematch-factor can add the same amount to the atmosphere. Hogan vs. Goldberg wasn't that good, and the lack of good workrate in the match PREVENTED WCW from doing another one because they knew it wouldn't draw as well, because the first one sucked. Hogan vs. Goldberg sucked the first time, so no one was going to be to excited (never mind pay) to see it again.

With the movies, I am proving my theory. Where the previous movie was considered good by most people, more people were willing to go see the sequel without rating for reviews. When the previous movie was not considered to be good by most people, less people were willing to go see the sequel without waiting for reviews first. Having more than one match does not inherently make something less special or have a worse atmosphere, and to be special, a match must also be at least decent. People did get tired of Goldberg vs. Hogan. A lot less people were going to pay to see the rematch because the first one sucked.

I honestly had no idea who Heath Ledger was until he died, and when I found out who he was, I was extremely skeptical of his ability to play the Joker, to the point where I didn't see the movie until over a year after it came out. That movie was amazing. It wasn't just Ledger (and he definitely deserved that Academy Award). It was the way his character was written, the way that they Harvey Dent character was written, and the way everyone in that movie was played. It was an amazing plot with good effects and great pacing which kept you on the edge of your seat.

It keeps you interested once. Then you never want to see it again. Matches like Flair vs. Steamboat, Dragon vs. Nigel, HBK vs. Triple H, Tyler vs. Davey, or Rock vs. Austin are matches that people want to watch over and over again. Also, if stupidity not what the writers are striving for, and people are watching it because it is stupid and they want to laugh at how stupid it is, then it is a creative failure.

[Big Red Machine]

1. What evidence do you have for this? I'm not arguing that it is a certainty, but you seem to be extremely negative here for seemingly no reason. Zeke might be 33, but he only started wrestling four years ago. He will improve with experience.

2. The nWo became a clusterf*ck in early 1998 when it grew to 20 people including a whole bunch of random midcarders, way before they had anything to do with Goldberg, and even after the end of the streak, Goldberg rarely lost cleanly. Goldberg wasn't WCW's champion. Sting was. Sting was doing things for WCW. Goldberg was doing things for Goldberg.

3. First of all, you have CLEARLY never been to an indy show, especially a company that usually draws at least a thousand people in their larger venues like ROH or CZW. And really? Indy guys aren't "professionals." Anyone who is paid to do it, is, by definition, a professional.

Second of all, your logic here is self-defeating. Of course you draw on the indies! Why do the fans show up? Someone/something drew them! You say that the reason that not many people show up to indy shows is because they don't know about them. Using your 2% number and the CM Punk example... if only 2% of wrestling fans knew about Punk before he debuted in WWE, then those are the only people who can be used to gauge Punk's ability to draw! Drawing means that you can get someone to come to the show, buy the PPV/DVD, or, if they are watching on TV, to stay on the channel. The fact is that, almost everyone of those 2% would go to a show if they knew CM Punk was going to be on it. Everywhere he wrestled, from St. Paul to Nashville to Virginia to Boston, CM Punk drew the people who knew about him. He drew those people.

Your basketball analogy fails because basketball is a sport and wrestling is art. Yes, a great player who goes and undiscovered cannot claim to be one of the greatest of all time because there is no way to compare him to those all-time greats, because he is playing a sport at a much different level of competition. Just because you hit 50 home runs in Triple A doesn't mean you will also do so against major league pitching... but no such comparison exists in wrestling because wrestling is not competition. Wrestling is art. You can have outstanding indy films while major studios can put on absolute stinkers. Who does and it and where they do it is unimportant. What is important is the skill of the people involved and the amount of effort they put into their work. Your argument is like saying that any song by Aerosmith or Britney Spears or the Black-Eyed Peas in inherently better than any song by an indy band because more people have heard the song, and thus, had the chance to enjoy it, rather than polling those who have heard both songs, and thus can evaluate and compare them competently.

Look at guys like Shane Douglas, Sabu or Steve Corino. All considered to have been big draws, but never got anywhere past the midcard in a mainstream promotion. Are you going to tell me that goes guys couldn't draw? Are you going to tell me that Tommy Dreamer couldn't draw before he got his first push in WWE? Or that everything Dusty Rhodes did in Florida didn't matter until he won the NWA World Title? Or that Kevin Sullivan never drew until 1987?

4. Just because some (or even majority of ) wrestling fans are ignorant of their history does not take away from a wrestler's talent.

And yes, he has gotten more of a chance than a lot of guys, but that doesn't mean he has been given the chance to show what he can do. It is hard to get over in a bunch of five minute matches and no angles at all.

5. He got to cut ONE promo... then they shoved the angle under the rug and never mentioned it again because they decided to do something different. That is like evaluating the entirety of Dustin Runnel's mic skills on the one promo he cut as Seven.

1). How many athletes get better after 31??? Not many, if any at all. It is proven that 26-30 are the average prime years of ones life physically.

2). The nWo with 20 people was GOLD! That's what made them different than any other faction, the gang mentality. It made you appreciate the mid carders. Hell, 13 years later, those mid carders still live off glory to say "I was nWo." Goldberg rarely lost cleanly, but he lost a bit. The losses became a BIG thing as opposed to MONUMENTAL. Look at Booker T... I mean, sure he got his a** handed to him after, but the win was not as momumental as it would have been in 98, when Goldberg was on top & it was Goldberg v. the NWO.

3). Must be the craziest thing you've ever said... Remember 2009, Great Lakes in Waukesha WI??? Outsiders ring a bell??? Yep, def was there.
Well then I am a professional bowler. I never knew I was... GUESS AGAIN. Ever heard of amateur??? They get paid too. Ever heard of semi-pro??? They get paid too. Indy wrestlers are aspiring professionals. Nothing wrong with that, but they're not there yet.

Ok, firstly CM Punk didn't put butts in those seats right away. I remember him being the new kid on the block over in ECW. BUT, that small percentage of the people that were in house that knew who he was from the indies, may have marked out. He didn't draw WWE fans until he became a commodity. And that was NOT when he was CM Punk the newcomer on WWECW. You don't draw in the bigs when you hit in the indies because those 2% don't come to support you, they come to see it all. The main guys. The indy guy just so happens to now be in the mix.

BAFFOONERY. Wrestling is not, nor has not ever been defined as an art. What, did I miss something??? Wrestling is now Art Entertainment??? No. Half sport, half entertainment. The guys are considered athletes, and some as actors. Simply put. You can google it, dictionary it, but that's not opinion, that's as close to fact as it can get. You give me some documentation that shows wrestling is an art. Because I call ludacris (no, I'm not really calling him... at least not until Saturday).

And yes, That is EXACTLY what I am saying. Lil Wayne's songs are better than any of these wannabe "rappers" because he's getting played. He's getting hype. So if you're not anywhere near the level he is, you can't compare him. Can't compare the guys over in a indy to Dolph Ziggler. You couldn't compare Daniel Bryan, oh excuse me, Bryan Dragon Danielson to Drew mcIntyre... Until he came to the WWE. If you do, it's not going to be anything worth taking as a credible argument... Those that believe in that higher product will simply brush you off.

ECW was the little of the 3 big promotions, but look at how big wrestling was during that era. WRESTLING was a commodity. Everyone had to have it. Boys and girls cover your eyes, but wrestling was like sex (sarcasm). You had to have parts. Your commercials throughout ALL the day on TNA & USA were wrestling. Wrestlers made cameos up the anus, and hell, remember Halftime heat??? It's a lot different to be Steve Corino, than say Davey Richards, simply because now, in comparison, wrestling is dead.

1. Fair enough.

2. No it wasn't. It was ridiculous. The point of a stable is to be pushed to help the guys in it stand out. If you have 20 guys, no one stands out much, aside from the leader. Look at Nexus. The only two guys who stood out were Barrett (the leader & mouthpiece) and Gabriel (who had the cool and kayfabe devastating finisher).

3. There is a difference between prize money for a sport and getting paid for performing your role on a show. Wrestling is art, not sport.

Punk got pushed BECAUSE HE WAS DRAWING, and you can tell he was drawing because he was getting more and more over.

Not everyone comes to see it all. There are a bunch of matches on the card that people don't care too much about, and even if you would like to see them, you don't necessarily think it is worth it to spend the money on the ticket or the PPV. Some matches play a lot more of a factor in your deciding to buy a ticket/PPV or not. The matches that play a bigger factor are the ones that draw you.

Wrestling is not a sport. Wrestling has predetermined outcomes. Just because it is performed by athletes does not make it a sport (cheerleaders are athletes, but cheerleader is not a sport. The same for synchronized swimming or figure skating, or competitive diving). Wrestling is art, the same way that a TV show is art. The booker writes a story for us and the wrestlers act it out. Like a play. Wrestling is a form of theater.

You clearly don't understand the concept of art. A song is not inherently better because more people have heard of it. A match is not inherently better just because more people have seen it. By your logic, something like the Maxine vs. Kaitlyn botchfest from NXT is better than any indy or TNA match ever. I hope you can understand how utterly ridiculous that is.

Shane Douglas was gone from ECW before they got national TV, so he wouldn't fit your definition of a draw. Furthermore, ECW guys weren't the one who were doing the cameos. WWF and WCW guys were. ECW guys weren't well known at all.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

1 & 2. There are two factors here: There is "how the company portrays you" (i.e. do they make you look like you can be in the ring with a main eventer) and "how the fans receive you" (i.e. do the fans think you can be a main eventer). You need BOTH to succeed. Yes, to the fans who didn't know Nigel, he was a main eventer in TNA because of the way that TNA booked him. But that doesn't mean that a midcarder from WWE who the fans don't view as being someone who deserves to be/has the talent to be a main eventer can come into TNA and be accepted by the fans as a main eventer. When Anderson came to TNA people accepted him as a main evnter right away because they thought that he had the talent to be one and because he was booked like one (he was made to look like he could hang with guys like Kurt Angle and Jeff Hardy). When Billy Gunn jumped ship back in 2005, he was booked to be able to hang with main eventers like Kevin Nash and DDP (and was even teaming with guys like Jeff Jarrett and Monty Brown), but the fans didn't view him as a main eventer, so his push failed. It is all about how the fans view you and how you are booked, not about exposure or how many fans you have.

4. You've defeated your own argument! If WWF was the bigger company at the time... then Jericho came from a smaller company to a bigger one. But if you are saying that who was bigger didn't matter because of the size of both companies, then using Jericho as an example does not prove your point, since both companies were about equal, rather than WCW being bigger.

5. Oh come on! You can't blame it all on Russo. The company had completely squandered a HUGE gain in Bret Hart who came in with a legitimate claim to being a world champion. Hell... the entire booking of the Sting vs. Hogan match from Starrcade should show you that there were a lot of problems in WCW before Russo came in. The fact that GOLDBERG needed a distraction from KARL MALONE to beat Hogan should tell you that there were problems in WCW before Russo came in. How about the Fingerpoke of Doom? Between 1996 and the time Russo came in, WCW had only had TWO IDEAS. The nWo (which they killed and redid 17,000 times) and Goldberg's streak. That was it. And THAT is what led to them losing ratings.

1 & 2: It wasn't that Anderson was made to looklike a main eventer, because he really wasn't in the WWE, he just got people excited with the MISSSSTEEERRRR... I vaguely remember him never being put in the main event spotlight as a serious threat, rather just a guy to mix it up, and I mostly remember him lurking around more of a mid level... It's because TNA is the smaller of the two. WWE stars will ALWAYS seem far more superior than a smaller products, because look at how much more the WWE guys are out on the map than anywhere else. NO OTHER promotion has guys that are on the map. WWE does. The Usos could realistically go to TNA tomorrow, and win the tag titles day one, because they are in a larger promotion, even though they really haven't been used in that manner. It's all about being a BIG name, going to a small promotion. You automatically become the HOT thing.

4: If you talk rating, by the time Jericho jumped ship, YES, the WWF regained control. BUT, after being whooped for SO long, do you really think WCW lost a significant amount of fans by this time? No, WWF's product may have been a bit better with opinionated takes, but WCW was STILL perhaps the bigger company... Star power, Hopes that they could do something big again to take over... Just bad booking. My point stands.

5: Why can't I? And how in the HELL do you think the Sting v. Hogan match was booked badly??? I think it was good, just an error on Nick patrick's part. He was supposed to speed hogan's count, which would've then also helped reinforce the fact that he was a heel ref, the Bret comes & makes the save. Great way to align Brett as a top face, helping out the man who defeated RAW 88 weeks straight. I think it COULD'VE gone well, but didn't.
Goldberg didn't need a distraction. They came out to prematurely celebrate. You do know Goldberg kicked out of HOW MANY Hogan legdrops before that even took place? That simply was to offer excitement around the NWO v. WCW angle.
Fingerpoke of Doom was terrible, I'll agree with you on that, but still very manageable to keep a good product if you have the right mindset behind the scene.
Let's see... The NWO was the most unique & best faction of all time behind perhaps the Four Horsemen. The NWO SOLD tickets, SOLD shirts, ELEVATED Sting to a level no other wrestler besides Hogan has ever seen, and gave a lot of guys who had nothing going on, something to make them seem formiddable. Like it or not, the NWO was gold. Goldberg's streak was gold.

Sorry my responses come so late. Know it kind of makes it hard to keep the argument up, and some fresh points get lost, but I try to stay off the computer unless it's school related during the school year, as I'm on fall break right now.

[cero2k]

Epic Discussion. I can't believe it started in July and we're in October now

[SONICdopeFRESH]

1. You are completely missing my point. It is not about what you or I thought about the movie. My point is the following: The best equivalency that we have for the TV rating/PPV buys for a wrestling match is the opening weekend box-office numbers for a movie, because there hasn't been too enough time for reviews (whether negative or positive) to influence people's decision as to whether or not to see the movie. It is all hype and advertising. Do they want to see it or not?

You have been saying that Goldberg vs. Hogan is a more legendary match because it only happened once. I am saying that having happened more than once does not make the various matches less legendary, and the rematch-factor can add the same amount to the atmosphere. Hogan vs. Goldberg wasn't that good, and the lack of good workrate in the match PREVENTED WCW from doing another one because they knew it wouldn't draw as well, because the first one sucked. Hogan vs. Goldberg sucked the first time, so no one was going to be to excited (never mind pay) to see it again.

With the movies, I am proving my theory. Where the previous movie was considered good by most people, more people were willing to go see the sequel without rating for reviews. When the previous movie was not considered to be good by most people, less people were willing to go see the sequel without waiting for reviews first. Having more than one match does not inherently make something less special or have a worse atmosphere, and to be special, a match must also be at least decent. People did get tired of Goldberg vs. Hogan. A lot less people were going to pay to see the rematch because the first one sucked.

I honestly had no idea who Heath Ledger was until he died, and when I found out who he was, I was extremely skeptical of his ability to play the Joker, to the point where I didn't see the movie until over a year after it came out. That movie was amazing. It wasn't just Ledger (and he definitely deserved that Academy Award). It was the way his character was written, the way that they Harvey Dent character was written, and the way everyone in that movie was played. It was an amazing plot with good effects and great pacing which kept you on the edge of your seat.

It keeps you interested once. Then you never want to see it again. Matches like Flair vs. Steamboat, Dragon vs. Nigel, HBK vs. Triple H, Tyler vs. Davey, or Rock vs. Austin are matches that people want to watch over and over again. Also, if stupidity not what the writers are striving for, and people are watching it because it is stupid and they want to laugh at how stupid it is, then it is a creative failure.

1). Ok, well this new "point" you have, which completely seems different than what you initially stated, a GOOD SEQUEL is different than IN DEMAND. A sequel will be IN DEMAND if the original is good. Which 99% of good movies get that. BUT, will the remake be better? 9/10 times, it won't be. Nothing is a guarantee though. But as close as you can get. You work harder to make the sequel as good, or even better, but it just doesn't happen usually. Why do you think a lot of sequels, don't bring a #3 into the mix? Because the sequel doesn't get the turnout the makers expected.

Where were you in 98??? Hogan & Goldberg wouldn't draw? Craziest idea I have ever heard. It's not always about how pretty the match was... If you really think Goldberg v. Hogan sucked, I suggest you watch the match again and see the Georgia Dome EXPLODE. That's what it's about. Fans expolding. Hogan can make fans explode just by flexing. Goldberg made fans explode by impact. Together, they provided one of the greatest matches ever. And I'm standing on it.

You can look at my last sentence or two in #1 to reinforce my thoughts again. Sequels are usually worse, because you can't usually top something that could be legendary one time. Hell, even look at all the Scream, Saw & Jason movies. How tiring have they gotten??? And again, Goldberg v. Hogan didn't suck. It's one of the BIGGEST matches ever.

I think we can agree that Ledger had a BIG deal in its success though, a lot attributing to his unfortunate passing before. I mean it made headlines, so for those that didn't even know about the movie, to hear that the "Joker" passed, made em say ohhhh a Batman movie is coming out & go see it...

So let me ask you... You want to see Punk v. Cena again??? Why was their NOC match so mediocre, for something that should've been on the level of Goldberg v. Hogan??? Because how many times did they fight before & after??? Just became another match. Doesn't matter how good it was. ONE encounter will be more memorable than 20 encounters.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

Epic Discussion. I can't believe it started in July and we're in October now

It is prob the longest discussion I have seen... But part may be due to me hardly being on these days. Been taking a week or 2 for me to respond & it makes it kind of tough to remember any key points

[SONICdopeFRESH]

1. Fair enough.

2. No it wasn't. It was ridiculous. The point of a stable is to be pushed to help the guys in it stand out. If you have 20 guys, no one stands out much, aside from the leader. Look at Nexus. The only two guys who stood out were Barrett (the leader & mouthpiece) and Gabriel (who had the cool and kayfabe devastating finisher).

3. There is a difference between prize money for a sport and getting paid for performing your role on a show. Wrestling is art, not sport.

Punk got pushed BECAUSE HE WAS DRAWING, and you can tell he was drawing because he was getting more and more over.

Not everyone comes to see it all. There are a bunch of matches on the card that people don't care too much about, and even if you would like to see them, you don't necessarily think it is worth it to spend the money on the ticket or the PPV. Some matches play a lot more of a factor in your deciding to buy a ticket/PPV or not. The matches that play a bigger factor are the ones that draw you.

Wrestling is not a sport. Wrestling has predetermined outcomes. Just because it is performed by athletes does not make it a sport (cheerleaders are athletes, but cheerleader is not a sport. The same for synchronized swimming or figure skating, or competitive diving). Wrestling is art, the same way that a TV show is art. The booker writes a story for us and the wrestlers act it out. Like a play. Wrestling is a form of theater.

You clearly don't understand the concept of art. A song is not inherently better because more people have heard of it. A match is not inherently better just because more people have seen it. By your logic, something like the Maxine vs. Kaitlyn botchfest from NXT is better than any indy or TNA match ever. I hope you can understand how utterly ridiculous that is.

Shane Douglas was gone from ECW before they got national TV, so he wouldn't fit your definition of a draw. Furthermore, ECW guys weren't the one who were doing the cameos. WWF and WCW guys were. ECW guys weren't well known at all.

2. That would imply that Nexus was better than the NWO, which can't even hold as credible. See, there's no certain way anything has to be. And that's why the NWO worked. Because it was so different. Look at all the guys that benefitted from it, who were midcarders during WCW's best days. Prime example: Do you really think that Scott Steiner would be considered one of the best wrestlers ever today, if he WOULDN'T have been in the NWO after turing on Rick? What if he just turned on Rick, and became a heel for the WCW in that time? Another few names to throw in there; Buff bagwell, Scott Hall (who made a career of being an Outsider), Kevin nash (became more than just Diesel, he became one of the most controversial superstars ever)... So many of those guys gained from the NWO. Whether they were the front 3 (Hogan, Nash, Hall), or whether they mid carder during the best days (Steiner, Buff, etc)...

3. I just want you to show me any documented proof that wrestling is an art & not a sport... You haven't because you can't. Nowhere in any credible source, will wrestling be listed as art. It will however, be listed as Sports-Entertainment. Half sport, half entertainment. So how can you really argue what it is? You're basically telling wrestling that its NOT what its called itself for the last thousands of millions of years. It's a sport, and the wrestlers are athletes, not artists.

Try to refrain from telling me what you think I don't know... I easily will combat that with telling you yes, I think I understand the difference between art & a sport, because I have had numerous drawings of mine posted in our art museum, have played in an orchestra for 13 years, and have bowled on a semi professional level... Can't really bring in what you think I don't understand, because then you basically kill any momentum you have once I state how credible my opinion holds... As I also did when you assumed I had never been to an indy wrestling performance, which I proved you wrong... Never the best way to start a point... gets shut down real quick... Now, with that said. Maxine v. Kaitlyn may not be better. I've said multiple times that I'm not saying indies don't get down with the get down, but what I am saying is that which match will get more attention? The big show (no pun intended sir Paul). Why? Because it's what is more exposed & important to the media. It's where everyone wants to be.

ECW guys were very well known. You have to think how big wrestling was as a whole back then. While they didn't get the exposure WCW or WWF got, you still knew Sabu flew through burning tables, and those ECW guys got down & dirty. It was just the "when the hell do they come on" factor.

[Big Red Machine]

1 & 2. There are two factors here: There is "how the company portrays you" (i.e. do they make you look like you can be in the ring with a main eventer) and "how the fans receive you" (i.e. do the fans think you can be a main eventer). You need BOTH to succeed. Yes, to the fans who didn't know Nigel, he was a main eventer in TNA because of the way that TNA booked him. But that doesn't mean that a midcarder from WWE who the fans don't view as being someone who deserves to be/has the talent to be a main eventer can come into TNA and be accepted by the fans as a main eventer. When Anderson came to TNA people accepted him as a main evnter right away because they thought that he had the talent to be one and because he was booked like one (he was made to look like he could hang with guys like Kurt Angle and Jeff Hardy). When Billy Gunn jumped ship back in 2005, he was booked to be able to hang with main eventers like Kevin Nash and DDP (and was even teaming with guys like Jeff Jarrett and Monty Brown), but the fans didn't view him as a main eventer, so his push failed. It is all about how the fans view you and how you are booked, not about exposure or how many fans you have.

4. You've defeated your own argument! If WWF was the bigger company at the time... then Jericho came from a smaller company to a bigger one. But if you are saying that who was bigger didn't matter because of the size of both companies, then using Jericho as an example does not prove your point, since both companies were about equal, rather than WCW being bigger.

5. Oh come on! You can't blame it all on Russo. The company had completely squandered a HUGE gain in Bret Hart who came in with a legitimate claim to being a world champion. Hell... the entire booking of the Sting vs. Hogan match from Starrcade should show you that there were a lot of problems in WCW before Russo came in. The fact that GOLDBERG needed a distraction from KARL MALONE to beat Hogan should tell you that there were problems in WCW before Russo came in. How about the Fingerpoke of Doom? Between 1996 and the time Russo came in, WCW had only had TWO IDEAS. The nWo (which they killed and redid 17,000 times) and Goldberg's streak. That was it. And THAT is what led to them losing ratings.

1 & 2: It wasn't that Anderson was made to looklike a main eventer, because he really wasn't in the WWE, he just got people excited with the MISSSSTEEERRRR... I vaguely remember him never being put in the main event spotlight as a serious threat, rather just a guy to mix it up, and I mostly remember him lurking around more of a mid level... It's because TNA is the smaller of the two. WWE stars will ALWAYS seem far more superior than a smaller products, because look at how much more the WWE guys are out on the map than anywhere else. NO OTHER promotion has guys that are on the map. WWE does. The Usos could realistically go to TNA tomorrow, and win the tag titles day one, because they are in a larger promotion, even though they really haven't been used in that manner. It's all about being a BIG name, going to a small promotion. You automatically become the HOT thing.

4: If you talk rating, by the time Jericho jumped ship, YES, the WWF regained control. BUT, after being whooped for SO long, do you really think WCW lost a significant amount of fans by this time? No, WWF's product may have been a bit better with opinionated takes, but WCW was STILL perhaps the bigger company... Star power, Hopes that they could do something big again to take over... Just bad booking. My point stands.

5: Why can't I? And how in the HELL do you think the Sting v. Hogan match was booked badly??? I think it was good, just an error on Nick patrick's part. He was supposed to speed hogan's count, which would've then also helped reinforce the fact that he was a heel ref, the Bret comes & makes the save. Great way to align Brett as a top face, helping out the man who defeated RAW 88 weeks straight. I think it COULD'VE gone well, but didn't.
Goldberg didn't need a distraction. They came out to prematurely celebrate. You do know Goldberg kicked out of HOW MANY Hogan legdrops before that even took place? That simply was to offer excitement around the NWO v. WCW angle.
Fingerpoke of Doom was terrible, I'll agree with you on that, but still very manageable to keep a good product if you have the right mindset behind the scene.
Let's see... The NWO was the most unique & best faction of all time behind perhaps the Four Horsemen. The NWO SOLD tickets, SOLD shirts, ELEVATED Sting to a level no other wrestler besides Hogan has ever seen, and gave a lot of guys who had nothing going on, something to make them seem formiddable. Like it or not, the NWO was gold. Goldberg's streak was gold.

Sorry my responses come so late. Know it kind of makes it hard to keep the argument up, and some fresh points get lost, but I try to stay off the computer unless it's school related during the school year, as I'm on fall break right now.

1 & 2. Anderson was not treated like a midcarder in TNA. He came in as a hyped up mystery opponent. He beat Abyss, then made it to the finals of a major tournament for #1 contendership to the TNA World Heavyweight Title, then he feuded with Kurt Angle and Jeff Hardy, challenged for the TNA World Title multiple times, feuding with TNA World Champion Jeff Hardy. Then tried to get a World Title shot, feuding with Rob Van Dam, and earned a World Title shot in a feud with Sting. He has only been demoted to midcarder in the last two months. But when he came into the company (and for the first year and a half after that) he was booked by the company and accepted by the fans as a main eventer.
As for the Usos waling in to TNA (or any smaller company, for that matter) and winning the tag team titles... you are out of your mind. Do you really think that the Usos could walk into TNA and win the World Tag Team Titles... in a division with Beer Money, MCMG, and even less established teams like Ink Inc... and the fans would buy it? Do you really think that The Usos could walk into ROH and win the Tag Team Titles in a division with The American Wolves, Haas & Benjamin, The Briscoes, ANX, The Young Bucks, Future Shock... hell, I bet that the Bravado Brothers would get a better reaction winning the ROH World Tag Team Titles than the Usos would. The same holds true for CHIKARA, PWG, CZW, and most other large (or even moderately sized) indies. If a team from WWE whom the fans don't view as being good enough came in and won the World Tag Team Titles, the fans would riot.

Jumping from a larger promotion to a smaller one does not automatically make you the hot thing, as my above example with Billy Gunn (and numerous other examples, such as Sonjay Dutt and Petey Williams in ROH in 2009) shows.

4. I don't think that they lost fans, but by that same logic, I don't think that WWF ever really lost the fans in question in 97 and 98. Just like you are positing that WCW fans did, I think that those fans watched Nitro live and taped Raw, watching it the next day.

5. If so, then Patrick was screwing up the entire match as logic dictates (as do other great instances of heel refereeing, such as Derek Zabato in CHIKARA) that he should have been giving fast-counts the whole time.
You need to rewatch the Goldberg-Hogan match. Hogan had the advantage. He had just hit Goldberg with a bunch of leg Drops. Yes, Goldberg kicked out on his own, but Hogan was still clearly in control, as Goldberg was at least doing a bit to sell the Leg Drops. Then Curt Hennig came out, and Karl Malone came out behind him and hit him with a Diamond Cutter. Hogan then started pointing and yelling at Malone, taking his attention away from Goldberg, buying Goldberg time to get up and set up for the Spear, which he hit right when Hogan turned around after finishing yelling at Malone. As for it "offering excitement" for the WCW vs. nWo angle... oh please! Never mind the fact that that angle was hot enough that it didn't need outside "excitement" but how many wrestling fans give a sh*t if a basketball player shows up to watch a title match or not (and how many of them do you think were "excited" by the fact that CURT HENNIG, a credible wrestler, was laid out by a basketball player)?

Yes, it is manageable to recover from something like the Fingerpoke of Doom if you have the right mindset backstage... but WCW clearly didn't, as is evidence by the steady decline in ratings from there on out (the first nine moths of which were Russo-less).

I am not disputing that either the nWo or Goldberg's Streak were gold the first time. My point, however, is that those were the only two successful ideas that WCW had! For the biggest wrestling company in the world at the time... that's a terrible record. At roughly the same period of time, ECW (with a lot less money and for the most part, one man's worth of ideas) was giving us Raven vs. Dreamer, Raven vs. Sandman, Taz vs. Sabu, Shane Douglas vs. The Pit Bulls, Terry Funk winning the ECW World Title... do you see my point? Two great ideas in three years is a major failure for a wrestling company of that size.

[Big Red Machine]

1. You are completely missing my point. It is not about what you or I thought about the movie. My point is the following: The best equivalency that we have for the TV rating/PPV buys for a wrestling match is the opening weekend box-office numbers for a movie, because there hasn't been too enough time for reviews (whether negative or positive) to influence people's decision as to whether or not to see the movie. It is all hype and advertising. Do they want to see it or not?

You have been saying that Goldberg vs. Hogan is a more legendary match because it only happened once. I am saying that having happened more than once does not make the various matches less legendary, and the rematch-factor can add the same amount to the atmosphere. Hogan vs. Goldberg wasn't that good, and the lack of good workrate in the match PREVENTED WCW from doing another one because they knew it wouldn't draw as well, because the first one sucked. Hogan vs. Goldberg sucked the first time, so no one was going to be to excited (never mind pay) to see it again.

With the movies, I am proving my theory. Where the previous movie was considered good by most people, more people were willing to go see the sequel without rating for reviews. When the previous movie was not considered to be good by most people, less people were willing to go see the sequel without waiting for reviews first. Having more than one match does not inherently make something less special or have a worse atmosphere, and to be special, a match must also be at least decent. People did get tired of Goldberg vs. Hogan. A lot less people were going to pay to see the rematch because the first one sucked.

I honestly had no idea who Heath Ledger was until he died, and when I found out who he was, I was extremely skeptical of his ability to play the Joker, to the point where I didn't see the movie until over a year after it came out. That movie was amazing. It wasn't just Ledger (and he definitely deserved that Academy Award). It was the way his character was written, the way that they Harvey Dent character was written, and the way everyone in that movie was played. It was an amazing plot with good effects and great pacing which kept you on the edge of your seat.

It keeps you interested once. Then you never want to see it again. Matches like Flair vs. Steamboat, Dragon vs. Nigel, HBK vs. Triple H, Tyler vs. Davey, or Rock vs. Austin are matches that people want to watch over and over again. Also, if stupidity not what the writers are striving for, and people are watching it because it is stupid and they want to laugh at how stupid it is, then it is a creative failure.

1). Ok, well this new "point" you have, which completely seems different than what you initially stated, a GOOD SEQUEL is different than IN DEMAND. A sequel will be IN DEMAND if the original is good. Which 99% of good movies get that. BUT, will the remake be better? 9/10 times, it won't be. Nothing is a guarantee though. But as close as you can get. You work harder to make the sequel as good, or even better, but it just doesn't happen usually. Why do you think a lot of sequels, don't bring a #3 into the mix? Because the sequel doesn't get the turnout the makers expected.

Where were you in 98??? Hogan & Goldberg wouldn't draw? Craziest idea I have ever heard. It's not always about how pretty the match was... If you really think Goldberg v. Hogan sucked, I suggest you watch the match again and see the Georgia Dome EXPLODE. That's what it's about. Fans expolding. Hogan can make fans explode just by flexing. Goldberg made fans explode by impact. Together, they provided one of the greatest matches ever. And I'm standing on it.

You can look at my last sentence or two in #1 to reinforce my thoughts again. Sequels are usually worse, because you can't usually top something that could be legendary one time. Hell, even look at all the Scream, Saw & Jason movies. How tiring have they gotten??? And again, Goldberg v. Hogan didn't suck. It's one of the BIGGEST matches ever.

I think we can agree that Ledger had a BIG deal in its success though, a lot attributing to his unfortunate passing before. I mean it made headlines, so for those that didn't even know about the movie, to hear that the "Joker" passed, made em say ohhhh a Batman movie is coming out & go see it...

So let me ask you... You want to see Punk v. Cena again??? Why was their NOC match so mediocre, for something that should've been on the level of Goldberg v. Hogan??? Because how many times did they fight before & after??? Just became another match. Doesn't matter how good it was. ONE encounter will be more memorable than 20 encounters.

Like I said, Hogan vs. Goldberg was something you would pay to see once. It happened, it was nice, we got a nice moment out of it with Goldberg winning in his home town. Good stuff. Goldberg taking the title off of Hogan was a great moment... but that match itself wasn't very good. Hence why WCW never did a second one. If it would have drawn as well as you claim it would have, you would think the obvious thing to do would be to do a rematch. But they didn't.

Do I want to see Punk vs. Cena again? HELL YEAH! I assume you are referring to their match at Summer Slam, as they didn't wrestle at Night of Champions, and I didn't think that match was mediocre at all. I gave it an 8.75/10, which, on my scale, is between "awesome" and "outstanding!" Was it on the level of their MITB match? No... but their MITB match was PERFECT! But the fact that they had two lesser matches after their MITB match (at Summer Slam, then one soon after that on Raw [both of which I gave at least 8/10, which is my cut-off point for "worth going out of your way to see"]) doesn't make their match at MITB any less legendary. I will bet you that in a few years time, people will talk about Cena vs. Punk at MITB more that they do Goldberg vs. Hogan.