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

[Big Red Machine]

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.

2. No it doesn't. It just implies that the point of a large heel stable with a defined leader is usually the same. Who benefited from being a midcarder in the nWo? Steiner did, but that was because it was impossible to get over as a heel at the time if you weren't part of the nWo.

Hall? He was a top-midcarder when he left WWF and remained a top-midcarder throughout his time in WCW. If Scott Hall hadn't been one of the three founding members of the nWo, he, too would have been lost in the shuffle.

Bagwell? Yeah. Konnan? A bit. X-Pac? I guess so (but this is more likely due to his friendship with Hall & Nash more than anything else. If he hadn't been friends with them, he would have just been another guy).

Now look at all of the midcarders who didn't get helped at all by being of the nWo:
Scott Norton (not in WCW anyway- in New Japan, yeah)
Virgil
Brian Adams
Mike Rotunda
Curt Hennig
Big Bubba Rogers
Horace Hogan
Stevie Ray

Compare that to the Four Horsemen:
Luger, Sid, Benoit, Barry Windham, and Jeff Jarrett were all given major boosts in their careers through their time as members of the Four Horsemen. The same formula was successfully repeated in Evolution with Batista and Orton, with Bam Bam Bigelow in Triple Threat, and most recently with Sara Del Rey in the BDK.

The nWo wasn't able to make as many stars out of its midcarders despite having more members at any one time than these other groups... because having so many members takes the focus off of the individual members (even with SDR in the BDK, a lot of the focus has been taken off of guys like Ares and Pinkie Sanchez, and Daizee, who turned along with Sara, has taken a back seat to Sara as well, even while the soft turn was developing).

3. From the Wikipedia page on "Theater"-

Theatre (or sometimes in American English theater[1]) is a collaborative form of fine art that uses live performers to present the experience of a real or imagined event before a live audience in a specific place"

That is what we have going on here. Pro wrestling is a type of theater, just like musicals are a type of theater. Theater is a sub-type of entertainment. Just like sports are a sub-type of entertainment.

From the Wikipedia page on "Sports Entertainment"-

Sports entertainment is a type of spectacle which presents an ostensibly competitive event using a high level of theatrical flourish and extravagant presentation, with the purpose of entertaining an audience. Unlike typical athletics and games, which are conducted for competition, sportsmanship, exercise or personal recreation, the primary product of sports entertainment is performance for an audience's benefit, thus they are never practiced privately.

Commonly, but not in all cases, the outcomes are predetermined (such cases are not considered to be fixed, however, as it is an open secret).

From the Wikipedia page on "Professional Wrestling"-

Professional wrestling (often shortened pro wrestling, or simply wrestling) is a mode of spectacle, combining athletics and theatrical performance.

The first time the term sports entertainment was used was by the WWF in New Jersey to argue that pro wrestling should not be regulated the same way that combat sports are regulated, because pro wrestling is not a sport! Wrestling has called itself a "sport" because, for most of its existence, it wanted people to believe that it was a legitimate competition, no less real than a baseball game. The term "sports entertainment" has started to be used to describe it in order to appeal to the demographics it is trying to appeal to. I'm not saying that pro wrestlers aren't athletes. I am saying that they are not taking part in a sport. There are many types of athletes who don't take part in a sport: Cheerleaders, synchronized swimmers, competitive divers, figure skaters, gymnasts, etc.)

They are telling a predetermined story. What they are doing is not a sport. A sport is competitive (among other qualifications). Pro wrestling is not competitive, therefore it is not a sport. It is a combination of fight choreography and dramatic theater.

To quote one of your older posts:

Wrestling is now Art Entertainment??? No. Half sport, half entertainment.

No one has ever asserted that "sports entertainment" meant "half-sport, half entertainment." By that definition, sports themselves aren't a form of entertainment, which the ratings and ticket sales for any professional sporting league will show you are ridiculous.


As for my point with this whole thing (and why the art discussion started): you have stated that indy matches are inherently worse than WWE matches because WWE has more exposure (and you backed up that assertion when you said that songs by a popular musician are inherently better than songs by an unknown musician because the well known musician is getting played [i.e. has more exposure]). You are saying that one instance of a certain form of art is inherently better than another instance of that same form of art because the first one has more exposure. I am calling that this is complete and utter bullsh*t.

You are judging these matches (and promotions) on a superficial fact (how much exposure they get). How good a match is can only fairly be judged based on the opinions of the people that have seen it, and holding the lack of opinion one way or other of people who haven't seen it against it is ridiculous. Yeah, only 20,00 people might have seen Danielson vs. McGuinness from Driven, while millions have probably seen (for example) Cena vs. The Miz from Wrestlemania 27, and while a larger raw number of people probably liked Cena vs. Miz, the percentage of the people who saw Danielson vs. McGuinness and liked it is certainly much higher than the percentage of people who saw Cena vs. Miz and liked it, and between people who have seen both, I am certain that most fo them prefer Danielson vs. McGuinness to Cena vs. Miz.

The same holds true with drawing power. Just because more people have heard of Jack Swagger than Davey Richards, and thus, Swagger draws a larger raw number of people than Davey doesn't mean that Davey is a bigger draw than Swagger, because of the (let's say) 50,000 people who have heard of Davey Richards, Davey is a draw to a higher percentage of those people than Swagger is to the millions of people who have heard of him, and if you take a poll of the people who have heard of both of them, I'm certain that the majority of those people would rather see Davey Richards than Jack Swagger.

Your way of looking at things penalizes wrestlers (and promotions, and, apparently, musicians) for something beyond their control. Having less exposure does not make something inherently worse. As CM Punk has proven, if you take an indy guy, put him in WWE, and give him the same opportunity for success (time to get his stuff over in the ring, time to get himself over on the mic, good booking, and not changing your mind about things on a whim) that he was given on the indies, he will draw the same proportion of his new, wider, audience that he did in his more narrow indy audience.

As for the ECW guys- like many fans experience with TNA and with the indies, you can only ask "when are those guys on" if you know that they exist, which, if they are on at very abnormal hours and/or on an obscure channel (as was the case with TNA and with ECW), it is highly unlikely you will discover them.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

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.

1 & 2). Well Anderson WASN'T treated like a mid carder in TNA... But why was he booked to be on top in TNA after mid carding in WWE? BECAUSE WWE IS THE DOMINANT promotion... Which proves my initial point to be correct. A solid WWE midcarder can instantly main event in any promotion & it be believeable, because everyone dreams to be as big as the WWE... You just agreed with my viewpoint when you think about it...

And yes, the Usos could. Who are half of those guys? Everyone that knows about wrestling today, know who the USOS are. But not everyone knows about half the other teams in smaller promotions. Your name gets you fame & a belt... The Usos would come in right off top, and be Beer money's main competition, hypothetically speaking of course... because they're products of the big dogs.

And Billy Gunn was like 73 by the time he went to TNA to be Kip James. That's why that didn't work.

4). I'll agree with that, because I was guilty of it.

5). The thing about Patrick is if it was done right, it would've be the ultimate WTF moment. The biggest negaitive pop is WCW histpry, IF and only if it was that ONE fast count. The error was simply his fault, because then it looked like they just restarted the match because they didn't like Hogan winning. That caused the confusion.

I've watched Goldberg v. Hogan more times than a pregnant lady rubs her belly, NO exaggeration. I could tell you everything precisely with the most accurate details. You really think Goldberg needed that distraction? We all know that was WCW's thing, non-clean finishes. It was their addiction. If anything, Hogan was going to need the whole NWO to stop Goldberg, not the way you suggested.

You've got to remember the time. How big was wrestling back then? How big was Rodman v. Malone in the NBA??? Wrestling was as popular as Football in the mid-late 90's damn near. It wasn't like now, say when they bring celebs to guest host RAW. You bought the BIG DOGS in the BIG SHOW (no pun intended). So it mattered. people marked the f**k out for it. Don't remember? Watch & listen to the pops. Look at fans reactions. Hell, even look at some classic NWO entrances & see how crazed fans got for RODZILLA.

Russo put them in a position where there was no coming back. I think intially after the fingerpoke, they were fine. it was the Russo era that killed the WCW.

WCW had great ideas BESIDES Goldberg & the NWO. Prime examples are: The Filthy Animals, the emergence of their cruiserweights, making the younger guys get BIG shine (example: Kidman), and even towards the later years of those 3 years, Team madness (yes, Macho & Sid)... People don't give them the credit they deserve. They had GREAT ideas.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

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.

How was the match NOT good? It looked good. It felt good. It ended good. EXPLAIN how??? It was worked good/well... whatever! Proper grammar my a**. Because ONE match was enough to be put into a slot of the top 10 matches of all time (yeah, I said it). Multiple matches would've made one look more important than the other, thus making them all seem less significant.

Sure, I forgot which PPV honestly. Whichever was the match where after Punk walked out with the title... Whoa whoa whoa, that assertion was CRAZY. Why? Because neither Cena or Punk will ever be as big as Hogan or Goldberg.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

2. No it doesn't. It just implies that the point of a large heel stable with a defined leader is usually the same. Who benefited from being a midcarder in the nWo? Steiner did, but that was because it was impossible to get over as a heel at the time if you weren't part of the nWo.

Hall? He was a top-midcarder when he left WWF and remained a top-midcarder throughout his time in WCW. If Scott Hall hadn't been one of the three founding members of the nWo, he, too would have been lost in the shuffle.

Bagwell? Yeah. Konnan? A bit. X-Pac? I guess so (but this is more likely due to his friendship with Hall & Nash more than anything else. If he hadn't been friends with them, he would have just been another guy).

Now look at all of the midcarders who didn't get helped at all by being of the nWo:
Scott Norton (not in WCW anyway- in New Japan, yeah)
Virgil
Brian Adams
Mike Rotunda
Curt Hennig
Big Bubba Rogers
Horace Hogan
Stevie Ray

Compare that to the Four Horsemen:
Luger, Sid, Benoit, Barry Windham, and Jeff Jarrett were all given major boosts in their careers through their time as members of the Four Horsemen. The same formula was successfully repeated in Evolution with Batista and Orton, with Bam Bam Bigelow in Triple Threat, and most recently with Sara Del Rey in the BDK.

The nWo wasn't able to make as many stars out of its midcarders despite having more members at any one time than these other groups... because having so many members takes the focus off of the individual members (even with SDR in the BDK, a lot of the focus has been taken off of guys like Ares and Pinkie Sanchez, and Daizee, who turned along with Sara, has taken a back seat to Sara as well, even while the soft turn was developing).

3. From the Wikipedia page on "Theater"-

Theatre (or sometimes in American English theater[1]) is a collaborative form of fine art that uses live performers to present the experience of a real or imagined event before a live audience in a specific place"

That is what we have going on here. Pro wrestling is a type of theater, just like musicals are a type of theater. Theater is a sub-type of entertainment. Just like sports are a sub-type of entertainment.

From the Wikipedia page on "Sports Entertainment"-

Sports entertainment is a type of spectacle which presents an ostensibly competitive event using a high level of theatrical flourish and extravagant presentation, with the purpose of entertaining an audience. Unlike typical athletics and games, which are conducted for competition, sportsmanship, exercise or personal recreation, the primary product of sports entertainment is performance for an audience's benefit, thus they are never practiced privately.

Commonly, but not in all cases, the outcomes are predetermined (such cases are not considered to be fixed, however, as it is an open secret).

From the Wikipedia page on "Professional Wrestling"-

Professional wrestling (often shortened pro wrestling, or simply wrestling) is a mode of spectacle, combining athletics and theatrical performance.

The first time the term sports entertainment was used was by the WWF in New Jersey to argue that pro wrestling should not be regulated the same way that combat sports are regulated, because pro wrestling is not a sport! Wrestling has called itself a "sport" because, for most of its existence, it wanted people to believe that it was a legitimate competition, no less real than a baseball game. The term "sports entertainment" has started to be used to describe it in order to appeal to the demographics it is trying to appeal to. I'm not saying that pro wrestlers aren't athletes. I am saying that they are not taking part in a sport. There are many types of athletes who don't take part in a sport: Cheerleaders, synchronized swimmers, competitive divers, figure skaters, gymnasts, etc.)

They are telling a predetermined story. What they are doing is not a sport. A sport is competitive (among other qualifications). Pro wrestling is not competitive, therefore it is not a sport. It is a combination of fight choreography and dramatic theater.

To quote one of your older posts:

Wrestling is now Art Entertainment??? No. Half sport, half entertainment.

No one has ever asserted that "sports entertainment" meant "half-sport, half entertainment." By that definition, sports themselves aren't a form of entertainment, which the ratings and ticket sales for any professional sporting league will show you are ridiculous.


As for my point with this whole thing (and why the art discussion started): you have stated that indy matches are inherently worse than WWE matches because WWE has more exposure (and you backed up that assertion when you said that songs by a popular musician are inherently better than songs by an unknown musician because the well known musician is getting played [i.e. has more exposure]). You are saying that one instance of a certain form of art is inherently better than another instance of that same form of art because the first one has more exposure. I am calling that this is complete and utter bullsh*t.

You are judging these matches (and promotions) on a superficial fact (how much exposure they get). How good a match is can only fairly be judged based on the opinions of the people that have seen it, and holding the lack of opinion one way or other of people who haven't seen it against it is ridiculous. Yeah, only 20,00 people might have seen Danielson vs. McGuinness from Driven, while millions have probably seen (for example) Cena vs. The Miz from Wrestlemania 27, and while a larger raw number of people probably liked Cena vs. Miz, the percentage of the people who saw Danielson vs. McGuinness and liked it is certainly much higher than the percentage of people who saw Cena vs. Miz and liked it, and between people who have seen both, I am certain that most fo them prefer Danielson vs. McGuinness to Cena vs. Miz.

The same holds true with drawing power. Just because more people have heard of Jack Swagger than Davey Richards, and thus, Swagger draws a larger raw number of people than Davey doesn't mean that Davey is a bigger draw than Swagger, because of the (let's say) 50,000 people who have heard of Davey Richards, Davey is a draw to a higher percentage of those people than Swagger is to the millions of people who have heard of him, and if you take a poll of the people who have heard of both of them, I'm certain that the majority of those people would rather see Davey Richards than Jack Swagger.

Your way of looking at things penalizes wrestlers (and promotions, and, apparently, musicians) for something beyond their control. Having less exposure does not make something inherently worse. As CM Punk has proven, if you take an indy guy, put him in WWE, and give him the same opportunity for success (time to get his stuff over in the ring, time to get himself over on the mic, good booking, and not changing your mind about things on a whim) that he was given on the indies, he will draw the same proportion of his new, wider, audience that he did in his more narrow indy audience.

As for the ECW guys- like many fans experience with TNA and with the indies, you can only ask "when are those guys on" if you know that they exist, which, if they are on at very abnormal hours and/or on an obscure channel (as was the case with TNA and with ECW), it is highly unlikely you will discover them.

Horace Hogan was NEVER a midcarder. Stevie ray was winding his career down because of his back apparently. Mike Rotunda was well beyond his youth, and was never a big enough name to draw PAST his youth... And even as IRS, his gimmick never took off. he was always just a face in a stable. Will agree on Brian Adams, as he didn't take off until kronik, and Hennig, Bubba Rodgers & Virgil. But more than 50% of the NWO benefitted from it. That's not bad... And considering a guy like Virgil is best remembered for his tenure in the NWO & not in the WWF as Virgil, that's why it was gold.

That's nice you defined Pro Wrestling from Wikipedia... But tell me this. What WWE wrestler is defined as an artist of any sort??? Tell me, what or when SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT has been defined as artwork. I don't see artist next to The Rock or batista's name. I don't see Art incoprated with the definition of Pro Wrestling, which is sports entertainment. Half SPORT. Half ENTERTAINMENT.

My proof... much more credible than an editor's opinion from Wikipedia... here we go, proving wrestling IS a sport:



Don't know if that's the right way to upload a Youtube vid on here, but follow that link. Promo with the greatest tag team of all time, The LEGION OF DOOM... Listen closely to what Animal says at the 1:18 mark... He says they ain't new to the SPORT... That, coming from 1/2 of the greatest team ever, and one of the best wrestlers ever, says more than what wikipedia could say in 1,000 words. That, backed with the fact that its called Sports Entertainment, and wrestlers are reffered to as athletes, I still really don't see how it can't be defined as that, let alone, something completely different.

Again, I haven't said an indy match is WORSE than a WWE match. Time after time I have said those guys prob put on good matches as well. Hell, I watched a dude named Sean Statik I believe that's how you spell it, LIGHT IT UP in the ring. The boy was on fire. Wicked moveset... BUT, I will reinforced that you can NEVER put a match from the indies, on the same level as a match in the WWE, let alone even in the same sentence. A whole different playing field & ball game. Yes, the matches in the WWE & TNA are more important to the history of pro wrestling, than any other promotion today, and the stars of the WWE cannot be outshined by any guy from the smaller organizations, no matter how good they are, UNLESS that promotion ever gets on the WWE's level.

[Big Red Machine]

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.

1 & 2). Well Anderson WASN'T treated like a mid carder in TNA... But why was he booked to be on top in TNA after mid carding in WWE? BECAUSE WWE IS THE DOMINANT promotion... Which proves my initial point to be correct. A solid WWE midcarder can instantly main event in any promotion & it be believeable, because everyone dreams to be as big as the WWE... You just agreed with my viewpoint when you think about it...

And yes, the Usos could. Who are half of those guys? Everyone that knows about wrestling today, know who the USOS are. But not everyone knows about half the other teams in smaller promotions. Your name gets you fame & a belt... The Usos would come in right off top, and be Beer money's main competition, hypothetically speaking of course... because they're products of the big dogs.

And Billy Gunn was like 73 by the time he went to TNA to be Kip James. That's why that didn't work.

4). I'll agree with that, because I was guilty of it.

5). The thing about Patrick is if it was done right, it would've be the ultimate WTF moment. The biggest negaitive pop is WCW histpry, IF and only if it was that ONE fast count. The error was simply his fault, because then it looked like they just restarted the match because they didn't like Hogan winning. That caused the confusion.

I've watched Goldberg v. Hogan more times than a pregnant lady rubs her belly, NO exaggeration. I could tell you everything precisely with the most accurate details. You really think Goldberg needed that distraction? We all know that was WCW's thing, non-clean finishes. It was their addiction. If anything, Hogan was going to need the whole NWO to stop Goldberg, not the way you suggested.

You've got to remember the time. How big was wrestling back then? How big was Rodman v. Malone in the NBA??? Wrestling was as popular as Football in the mid-late 90's damn near. It wasn't like now, say when they bring celebs to guest host RAW. You bought the BIG DOGS in the BIG SHOW (no pun intended). So it mattered. people marked the f**k out for it. Don't remember? Watch & listen to the pops. Look at fans reactions. Hell, even look at some classic NWO entrances & see how crazed fans got for RODZILLA.

Russo put them in a position where there was no coming back. I think intially after the fingerpoke, they were fine. it was the Russo era that killed the WCW.

WCW had great ideas BESIDES Goldberg & the NWO. Prime examples are: The Filthy Animals, the emergence of their cruiserweights, making the younger guys get BIG shine (example: Kidman), and even towards the later years of those 3 years, Team madness (yes, Macho & Sid)... People don't give them the credit they deserve. They had GREAT ideas.

1. Anderson was booked as a main eventer in TNA because the people in charge thought he had the talent to be a main eventer. The same reason that Nigel McGuinness was booked to be a main eventer when he came in to TNA, and the same reason anyone is booked as a main eventer in any promotion.

As for your comments about the Usos- who has heard of all of those other teams? The fans of the promotion that the Usos would be coming into. And (as I have been trying to point out in other parts of this debate) those are the only people who matter.

I also think that you are grossly overestimating the drawing-power of WWE midcarders. Just because a local indy advertising a guy like Finaly doesn't mean that everyone who sees the poster who has heard of Finlay is going to want to go. The Usos aren't going to draw that many people to an indy show.

Billy Gunn was 41 when he came to TNA, and could still work decently. Certainly much better than Sting can now. Age is irrelevant. It is how well you can work. Look at Jerry Lynn in both ROH and TNA.

5. I don't think that Goldberg needed the distraction to beat Hogan. No one did. So why have the distraction? Everyone knows that Goldberg can win cleanly, and everyone wants to see Goldberg win cleanly... so why not have him win cleanly? It is just common sense!

Just because dirty finishes were WCW's thing- their "addiction" as you put it- does not excuse them from the crime of doing it!

Fans popped for Rodman because he was there. They didn't come to see him. Just like the Raw Guest Hosts. The fans came to see the wrestlers.

I think you are placing WAY too much blame on Russo. Yeah, his dumb ideas killed it quicker than t otherwise might have died, but the fact that WCW lost almost every week from mid 1998 onwards says a hell of a lot about the direction of the company. I don't think that anyone short of Paul Heyman (or maybe MIke Quackenbush or Gabe with a time machine) could have stopped WCW from dying with the state the company was in when Russo came in.

None of the things you mentioned there are angles. None of them are stories. Characters are great, but you need stories to go with them. To make us develop a deep emotional connection to them and to become invested in their success or failure.

[Big Red Machine]

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.

How was the match NOT good? It looked good. It felt good. It ended good. EXPLAIN how??? It was worked good/well... whatever! Proper grammar my a**. Because ONE match was enough to be put into a slot of the top 10 matches of all time (yeah, I said it). Multiple matches would've made one look more important than the other, thus making them all seem less significant.

Sure, I forgot which PPV honestly. Whichever was the match where after Punk walked out with the title... Whoa whoa whoa, that assertion was CRAZY. Why? Because neither Cena or Punk will ever be as big as Hogan or Goldberg.

It wasn't exciting. It didn't tell a good story. Hell, it barely told any story at all. The entirety of the story of that match was the finish. The only things that mattered were the false finishes and the finish, and those weren't as important to the match as they were to the angle.

Having multiple matches does not make one look less important than the other simply because there are more than one of them. One match might look less important because of where those guys are on the card at the time, but that is no different than the reason why any match is less important than any match higher up on the card than it on any given night.

But take your example of Hogan vs. Goldberg. What would make a rematch later down the line, where the mean, evil heel Hollywood Hogan tries to take the belt back from our babyface champion Goldberg any less important than their first match, where our babyface champion Goldberg is trying to take the belt off of the mean, evil heel Hollywood Hogan?

And if you don't think that Cena isn't qalready bigger than Goldberg, you are crazy. And Punk will get there, too.

[Big Red Machine]

2. No it doesn't. It just implies that the point of a large heel stable with a defined leader is usually the same. Who benefited from being a midcarder in the nWo? Steiner did, but that was because it was impossible to get over as a heel at the time if you weren't part of the nWo.

Hall? He was a top-midcarder when he left WWF and remained a top-midcarder throughout his time in WCW. If Scott Hall hadn't been one of the three founding members of the nWo, he, too would have been lost in the shuffle.

Bagwell? Yeah. Konnan? A bit. X-Pac? I guess so (but this is more likely due to his friendship with Hall & Nash more than anything else. If he hadn't been friends with them, he would have just been another guy).

Now look at all of the midcarders who didn't get helped at all by being of the nWo:
Scott Norton (not in WCW anyway- in New Japan, yeah)
Virgil
Brian Adams
Mike Rotunda
Curt Hennig
Big Bubba Rogers
Horace Hogan
Stevie Ray

Compare that to the Four Horsemen:
Luger, Sid, Benoit, Barry Windham, and Jeff Jarrett were all given major boosts in their careers through their time as members of the Four Horsemen. The same formula was successfully repeated in Evolution with Batista and Orton, with Bam Bam Bigelow in Triple Threat, and most recently with Sara Del Rey in the BDK.

The nWo wasn't able to make as many stars out of its midcarders despite having more members at any one time than these other groups... because having so many members takes the focus off of the individual members (even with SDR in the BDK, a lot of the focus has been taken off of guys like Ares and Pinkie Sanchez, and Daizee, who turned along with Sara, has taken a back seat to Sara as well, even while the soft turn was developing).

3. From the Wikipedia page on "Theater"-

Theatre (or sometimes in American English theater[1]) is a collaborative form of fine art that uses live performers to present the experience of a real or imagined event before a live audience in a specific place"

That is what we have going on here. Pro wrestling is a type of theater, just like musicals are a type of theater. Theater is a sub-type of entertainment. Just like sports are a sub-type of entertainment.

From the Wikipedia page on "Sports Entertainment"-

Sports entertainment is a type of spectacle which presents an ostensibly competitive event using a high level of theatrical flourish and extravagant presentation, with the purpose of entertaining an audience. Unlike typical athletics and games, which are conducted for competition, sportsmanship, exercise or personal recreation, the primary product of sports entertainment is performance for an audience's benefit, thus they are never practiced privately.

Commonly, but not in all cases, the outcomes are predetermined (such cases are not considered to be fixed, however, as it is an open secret).

From the Wikipedia page on "Professional Wrestling"-

Professional wrestling (often shortened pro wrestling, or simply wrestling) is a mode of spectacle, combining athletics and theatrical performance.

The first time the term sports entertainment was used was by the WWF in New Jersey to argue that pro wrestling should not be regulated the same way that combat sports are regulated, because pro wrestling is not a sport! Wrestling has called itself a "sport" because, for most of its existence, it wanted people to believe that it was a legitimate competition, no less real than a baseball game. The term "sports entertainment" has started to be used to describe it in order to appeal to the demographics it is trying to appeal to. I'm not saying that pro wrestlers aren't athletes. I am saying that they are not taking part in a sport. There are many types of athletes who don't take part in a sport: Cheerleaders, synchronized swimmers, competitive divers, figure skaters, gymnasts, etc.)

They are telling a predetermined story. What they are doing is not a sport. A sport is competitive (among other qualifications). Pro wrestling is not competitive, therefore it is not a sport. It is a combination of fight choreography and dramatic theater.

To quote one of your older posts:

Wrestling is now Art Entertainment??? No. Half sport, half entertainment.

No one has ever asserted that "sports entertainment" meant "half-sport, half entertainment." By that definition, sports themselves aren't a form of entertainment, which the ratings and ticket sales for any professional sporting league will show you are ridiculous.


As for my point with this whole thing (and why the art discussion started): you have stated that indy matches are inherently worse than WWE matches because WWE has more exposure (and you backed up that assertion when you said that songs by a popular musician are inherently better than songs by an unknown musician because the well known musician is getting played [i.e. has more exposure]). You are saying that one instance of a certain form of art is inherently better than another instance of that same form of art because the first one has more exposure. I am calling that this is complete and utter bullsh*t.

You are judging these matches (and promotions) on a superficial fact (how much exposure they get). How good a match is can only fairly be judged based on the opinions of the people that have seen it, and holding the lack of opinion one way or other of people who haven't seen it against it is ridiculous. Yeah, only 20,00 people might have seen Danielson vs. McGuinness from Driven, while millions have probably seen (for example) Cena vs. The Miz from Wrestlemania 27, and while a larger raw number of people probably liked Cena vs. Miz, the percentage of the people who saw Danielson vs. McGuinness and liked it is certainly much higher than the percentage of people who saw Cena vs. Miz and liked it, and between people who have seen both, I am certain that most fo them prefer Danielson vs. McGuinness to Cena vs. Miz.

The same holds true with drawing power. Just because more people have heard of Jack Swagger than Davey Richards, and thus, Swagger draws a larger raw number of people than Davey doesn't mean that Davey is a bigger draw than Swagger, because of the (let's say) 50,000 people who have heard of Davey Richards, Davey is a draw to a higher percentage of those people than Swagger is to the millions of people who have heard of him, and if you take a poll of the people who have heard of both of them, I'm certain that the majority of those people would rather see Davey Richards than Jack Swagger.

Your way of looking at things penalizes wrestlers (and promotions, and, apparently, musicians) for something beyond their control. Having less exposure does not make something inherently worse. As CM Punk has proven, if you take an indy guy, put him in WWE, and give him the same opportunity for success (time to get his stuff over in the ring, time to get himself over on the mic, good booking, and not changing your mind about things on a whim) that he was given on the indies, he will draw the same proportion of his new, wider, audience that he did in his more narrow indy audience.

As for the ECW guys- like many fans experience with TNA and with the indies, you can only ask "when are those guys on" if you know that they exist, which, if they are on at very abnormal hours and/or on an obscure channel (as was the case with TNA and with ECW), it is highly unlikely you will discover them.

Horace Hogan was NEVER a midcarder. Stevie ray was winding his career down because of his back apparently. Mike Rotunda was well beyond his youth, and was never a big enough name to draw PAST his youth... And even as IRS, his gimmick never took off. he was always just a face in a stable. Will agree on Brian Adams, as he didn't take off until kronik, and Hennig, Bubba Rodgers & Virgil. But more than 50% of the NWO benefitted from it. That's not bad... And considering a guy like Virgil is best remembered for his tenure in the NWO & not in the WWF as Virgil, that's why it was gold.

That's nice you defined Pro Wrestling from Wikipedia... But tell me this. What WWE wrestler is defined as an artist of any sort??? Tell me, what or when SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT has been defined as artwork. I don't see artist next to The Rock or batista's name. I don't see Art incoprated with the definition of Pro Wrestling, which is sports entertainment. Half SPORT. Half ENTERTAINMENT.

My proof... much more credible than an editor's opinion from Wikipedia... here we go, proving wrestling IS a sport:



Don't know if that's the right way to upload a Youtube vid on here, but follow that link. Promo with the greatest tag team of all time, The LEGION OF DOOM... Listen closely to what Animal says at the 1:18 mark... He says they ain't new to the SPORT... That, coming from 1/2 of the greatest team ever, and one of the best wrestlers ever, says more than what wikipedia could say in 1,000 words. That, backed with the fact that its called Sports Entertainment, and wrestlers are reffered to as athletes, I still really don't see how it can't be defined as that, let alone, something completely different.

Again, I haven't said an indy match is WORSE than a WWE match. Time after time I have said those guys prob put on good matches as well. Hell, I watched a dude named Sean Statik I believe that's how you spell it, LIGHT IT UP in the ring. The boy was on fire. Wicked moveset... BUT, I will reinforced that you can NEVER put a match from the indies, on the same level as a match in the WWE, let alone even in the same sentence. A whole different playing field & ball game. Yes, the matches in the WWE & TNA are more important to the history of pro wrestling, than any other promotion today, and the stars of the WWE cannot be outshined by any guy from the smaller organizations, no matter how good they are, UNLESS that promotion ever gets on the WWE's level.

Virgil is remembered more for his time in the nWo than his time in the WWF? Really? Then why do we all refer to him as "Virgil" rather than "Vincent" or "Shane"?

I am drawing inferences by looking at the essence of the thing in question. The same way that scientists look at an animal's features and characteristics before taxonomically categorizing it.

Where the hell are you getting your "half sports, half entertainment" breakdown from? By that logic, "professional football" would be "half professional and half football."


And THAT is your proof that wrestling is a sport? Because a wrestler said it was a sport in a promo during a wrestling show? Are you off of your rocker? That is like saying that The West Wing is real because Jed Bartlett (Martin Sheen's character) said that [during an episode of the show that he is the President of the United States. That clip of yours... the things that he is saying are FAKE. They are PART OF THE SHOW. KAYFABE. A WORK!

Check out the RF Video shoot with Lance Storm, vol 2 where he is talking about his and Elix Skipper's match against Goldberg. You will clearly hear Lance say that wrestling is fake.



As to your last point, I made the following comparison:

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.

To which you responded:

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.

What your whole point there (and even in your last paragraph is saying is that the indy matches are worse. Not as good "I will reinforced that you can NEVER put a match from the indies, on the same level as a match in the WWE, let alone even in the same sentence. A whole different playing field & ball game." I find this statement to be ridiculous, and I think that most people here will agree with me. The exposure of the promotion has no bearing on the quality of the match.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

1. Anderson was booked as a main eventer in TNA because the people in charge thought he had the talent to be a main eventer. The same reason that Nigel McGuinness was booked to be a main eventer when he came in to TNA, and the same reason anyone is booked as a main eventer in any promotion.

As for your comments about the Usos- who has heard of all of those other teams? The fans of the promotion that the Usos would be coming into. And (as I have been trying to point out in other parts of this debate) those are the only people who matter.

I also think that you are grossly overestimating the drawing-power of WWE midcarders. Just because a local indy advertising a guy like Finaly doesn't mean that everyone who sees the poster who has heard of Finlay is going to want to go. The Usos aren't going to draw that many people to an indy show.

Billy Gunn was 41 when he came to TNA, and could still work decently. Certainly much better than Sting can now. Age is irrelevant. It is how well you can work. Look at Jerry Lynn in both ROH and TNA.

5. I don't think that Goldberg needed the distraction to beat Hogan. No one did. So why have the distraction? Everyone knows that Goldberg can win cleanly, and everyone wants to see Goldberg win cleanly... so why not have him win cleanly? It is just common sense!

Just because dirty finishes were WCW's thing- their "addiction" as you put it- does not excuse them from the crime of doing it!

Fans popped for Rodman because he was there. They didn't come to see him. Just like the Raw Guest Hosts. The fans came to see the wrestlers.

I think you are placing WAY too much blame on Russo. Yeah, his dumb ideas killed it quicker than t otherwise might have died, but the fact that WCW lost almost every week from mid 1998 onwards says a hell of a lot about the direction of the company. I don't think that anyone short of Paul Heyman (or maybe MIke Quackenbush or Gabe with a time machine) could have stopped WCW from dying with the state the company was in when Russo came in.

None of the things you mentioned there are angles. None of them are stories. Characters are great, but you need stories to go with them. To make us develop a deep emotional connection to them and to become invested in their success or failure.

1. Anderson was booked to be a main eventer in TNA because he was a good MID CARDER in the WWE. You think John Morrison won't be in the main event for the TNA title his month month when (we all know it'll happen) joins TNA???

But what I am saying is even a little known team like the Usos have a bigger name in professional wrestling than say The American Wolves. So of course they'll be taken seriously from the start, and be billed as a HUG accquisition for ANY promotion. It's a CLASSIC thing people do.

WWE midcarders DRAW. Like, former WWE stars (Masters, Carlito, & more) are coming here, and tickets are already 75% sold out only a week into an event w/out much exposure, 1 week after they went on sale. WWE midcarders get a lot of talk, why? Because 90% of WRESTLING fans still will watch the WWE, even if it's crappy.

Billy Gunn wasn't any good as a worker IMO. He was all gimmick, which only worked well with DX. After that, nobody took him seriously. He was a big LOL.

After re-watching Goldberg v. Hogan for the 9700th time, I can honestly say, YES. It was Goldberg v. the NWO. Want proof? Look at all his matches after he won the US title until he beat Hogan. MOST were against the NWO, and commentators even addressed him as the man who is single handidly taking out the NWO, BEFORE he did. Now, could he have won easily? yes, but it's the beloved Hogan. During that era, when did he EVER lose cleanly? I mean, look @ Sting v. Hogan at Starrcade. 18 months of build-up for THAT finish? Sting SHOULD'VE won cleanly. It's the booking. Doesn't take away from the greatness of the match though.

Before Russo, the WCW was only losing by a bit for about what, 4-5 months? That's VERY reversible. BUT, considering what was still an enjoyable product, turned into CRAP once Russo hit, that brought it down even more than the days of Hogan v. Dungeon of Doom.

I disagree. CM Punk doesn't really have a set story right now. He's just being Punk, the character & wrestler. And people love him right now.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

It wasn't exciting. It didn't tell a good story. Hell, it barely told any story at all. The entirety of the story of that match was the finish. The only things that mattered were the false finishes and the finish, and those weren't as important to the match as they were to the angle.

Having multiple matches does not make one look less important than the other simply because there are more than one of them. One match might look less important because of where those guys are on the card at the time, but that is no different than the reason why any match is less important than any match higher up on the card than it on any given night.

But take your example of Hogan vs. Goldberg. What would make a rematch later down the line, where the mean, evil heel Hollywood Hogan tries to take the belt back from our babyface champion Goldberg any less important than their first match, where our babyface champion Goldberg is trying to take the belt off of the mean, evil heel Hollywood Hogan?

And if you don't think that Cena isn't qalready bigger than Goldberg, you are crazy. And Punk will get there, too.

It wasn't exciting? Did you not see 20,000 people having shouting orgasms??? They went PAST screaming. The match was LEGENDARY, people will talk about it as being great 20 years from now, easily.

And yes, it does. One match will be bigger with 2 stars, than 15 matches with 2. The Rock v. Austin had a MUCH better feud than Goldberg v. Hogan, who as you mentioned, didn't have much of a direct feud. BUT, what match of The Rock & Austin was bigger than Goldberg v. Hogan? None, because you have so many that you can't recall one specifically over the other & which holds more weight.

Cena isn't bigger than Goldberg, nor will Punk ever be, because of the condition of wrestling. Wrestling in that era, was 10x bigger than today. We can see this everywhere. Back then, wrestling was cool. Now, it's like "you STILL watch that crap?"... Is it fair to guys today? No, but it is what it is. Goldberg will ALWAYS be bigger than Cena & Punk.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

Virgil is remembered more for his time in the nWo than his time in the WWF? Really? Then why do we all refer to him as "Virgil" rather than "Vincent" or "Shane"?

I am drawing inferences by looking at the essence of the thing in question. The same way that scientists look at an animal's features and characteristics before taxonomically categorizing it.

Where the hell are you getting your "half sports, half entertainment" breakdown from? By that logic, "professional football" would be "half professional and half football."


And THAT is your proof that wrestling is a sport? Because a wrestler said it was a sport in a promo during a wrestling show? Are you off of your rocker? That is like saying that The West Wing is real because Jed Bartlett (Martin Sheen's character) said that [during an episode of the show that he is the President of the United States. That clip of yours... the things that he is saying are FAKE. They are PART OF THE SHOW. KAYFABE. A WORK!

Check out the RF Video shoot with Lance Storm, vol 2 where he is talking about his and Elix Skipper's match against Goldberg. You will clearly hear Lance say that wrestling is fake.



As to your last point, I made the following comparison:

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.

To which you responded:

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.

What your whole point there (and even in your last paragraph is saying is that the indy matches are worse. Not as good "I will reinforced that you can NEVER put a match from the indies, on the same level as a match in the WWE, let alone even in the same sentence. A whole different playing field & ball game." I find this statement to be ridiculous, and I think that most people here will agree with me. The exposure of the promotion has no bearing on the quality of the match.

Well, around these parts, we call him Vincent from the NWO. As that's probably more memorable than his minor feud with Dibiase, him being the NWO's whooping boy.

WHAT?

From it's title SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT. The proof is in the pudding. The guys are classified as athletes, and the business is classified as SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT. Again, not art, acting, teaching, learning, but wrestling... Which is defined & classified TECHINCALLY as what? A SPORT. That would be politically correct.

That's one instance. I can probably give you 10. Better yet, call up any ROH, WWE, or TNA talent, and ask them if they consider themselves an athlete... Or if they consider it a sport. Guarantee they'll say it again, that it's a sport. Considering you have to be in shape to participate in a 20 minute match, the high spots, and proper execution of the various holds, I'd safely assume that puts it in the category of a sport. Not to mention the blood, sweat, and broken brokes associated with it. You don't get that from fiddling violins or cellos.

Wrestling is fake??? I didn't know that... No wonder Lance Storm isn't on tv anymore & never played a significant role in mainstream. Stating the obvious doesn't cut it. Hell, his words have no credibility. What has he ever really signifcantly done besides not be on the roster for more than 2 years. Ask someone who main events & does high profile matches, guarantee they won't refer to it as fake. We all here have even said it's scripted; not fake. Come on now.

While it doesn't make the match worse, it's not as important, nor does it hold the same weight as something in the bigs.

[Big Red Machine]

1. Anderson was booked as a main eventer in TNA because the people in charge thought he had the talent to be a main eventer. The same reason that Nigel McGuinness was booked to be a main eventer when he came in to TNA, and the same reason anyone is booked as a main eventer in any promotion.

As for your comments about the Usos- who has heard of all of those other teams? The fans of the promotion that the Usos would be coming into. And (as I have been trying to point out in other parts of this debate) those are the only people who matter.

I also think that you are grossly overestimating the drawing-power of WWE midcarders. Just because a local indy advertising a guy like Finaly doesn't mean that everyone who sees the poster who has heard of Finlay is going to want to go. The Usos aren't going to draw that many people to an indy show.

Billy Gunn was 41 when he came to TNA, and could still work decently. Certainly much better than Sting can now. Age is irrelevant. It is how well you can work. Look at Jerry Lynn in both ROH and TNA.

5. I don't think that Goldberg needed the distraction to beat Hogan. No one did. So why have the distraction? Everyone knows that Goldberg can win cleanly, and everyone wants to see Goldberg win cleanly... so why not have him win cleanly? It is just common sense!

Just because dirty finishes were WCW's thing- their "addiction" as you put it- does not excuse them from the crime of doing it!

Fans popped for Rodman because he was there. They didn't come to see him. Just like the Raw Guest Hosts. The fans came to see the wrestlers.

I think you are placing WAY too much blame on Russo. Yeah, his dumb ideas killed it quicker than t otherwise might have died, but the fact that WCW lost almost every week from mid 1998 onwards says a hell of a lot about the direction of the company. I don't think that anyone short of Paul Heyman (or maybe MIke Quackenbush or Gabe with a time machine) could have stopped WCW from dying with the state the company was in when Russo came in.

None of the things you mentioned there are angles. None of them are stories. Characters are great, but you need stories to go with them. To make us develop a deep emotional connection to them and to become invested in their success or failure.

1. Anderson was booked to be a main eventer in TNA because he was a good MID CARDER in the WWE. You think John Morrison won't be in the main event for the TNA title his month month when (we all know it'll happen) joins TNA???

But what I am saying is even a little known team like the Usos have a bigger name in professional wrestling than say The American Wolves. So of course they'll be taken seriously from the start, and be billed as a HUG accquisition for ANY promotion. It's a CLASSIC thing people do.

WWE midcarders DRAW. Like, former WWE stars (Masters, Carlito, & more) are coming here, and tickets are already 75% sold out only a week into an event w/out much exposure, 1 week after they went on sale. WWE midcarders get a lot of talk, why? Because 90% of WRESTLING fans still will watch the WWE, even if it's crappy.

Billy Gunn wasn't any good as a worker IMO. He was all gimmick, which only worked well with DX. After that, nobody took him seriously. He was a big LOL.

After re-watching Goldberg v. Hogan for the 9700th time, I can honestly say, YES. It was Goldberg v. the NWO. Want proof? Look at all his matches after he won the US title until he beat Hogan. MOST were against the NWO, and commentators even addressed him as the man who is single handidly taking out the NWO, BEFORE he did. Now, could he have won easily? yes, but it's the beloved Hogan. During that era, when did he EVER lose cleanly? I mean, look @ Sting v. Hogan at Starrcade. 18 months of build-up for THAT finish? Sting SHOULD'VE won cleanly. It's the booking. Doesn't take away from the greatness of the match though.

Before Russo, the WCW was only losing by a bit for about what, 4-5 months? That's VERY reversible. BUT, considering what was still an enjoyable product, turned into CRAP once Russo hit, that brought it down even more than the days of Hogan v. Dungeon of Doom.

I disagree. CM Punk doesn't really have a set story right now. He's just being Punk, the character & wrestler. And people love him right now.

1. TNA did not push Anderson because just because he was a midcarder in WWE. They pushed him because they thought he had the talent to be a main eventer. If they didn't didn't think he had the talent to be a main eventer, they would not have pushed him, regardless of his WWE status. Same goes for Haas & Benjamin in ROH.

You are basing all of your assumptions on WWE. About the way business is done, about the way people perceive talent... everything. WWE does not make the world go round.
Bringing in the Usos would not be the "classic" thing to do. Look at the history of wrestling. WWF and WCW didn't bring guys in somply because they had worked for the other company. They brought guys in because they though they could help their company by putting on great matches/telling great stories. ECW didn't grab guys just because they had been in WWF or WCW. They grabbed guys who they thought would help their product. Shane Douglas' ECW push had nothing to do with his WCW Tag Team Title reign. It happened because Heyman saw a star. Look at the most successful indies of all time: ECW, ROH, and CZW. None of these companies have ever gone out and found WWE/WCW cast-offs and pushed them just because. They have only pushed people who their fans saw as legitimate stars.

And how are the promotions that bring in those WWE midcarders doing? Do they go the places that ROH, CZW, or CHIKARA go? Does anyone talk about them? No. Because they aren't putting on good matches or compelling angles.

Goldberg's matches were against the nWo because he was going through them to get to Hogan. It was Goldberg vs. the nWo. Not WCW vs. the nWo. Goldberg's angle was not that of Sting or Luger, who were going to win the belt for WCW and for the fans. Goldberg was doing it for Goldberg (if he wasn't he would have cut a promo saying so).

The booking is part of the match, and sh*tty booking can kill matches. Look at Roode vs. Angle!

At the point that russo came in, WCW had been losing for close to a year, actually (and more like a year and a half, if you are going by just the majority of wins, rather than consecutive wins). Did Russo help things? Certainly not. Did he make the worse? Yeah. But to blame it all on him is ridiculous.

Punk doesn't have a story right now? Sure he does. A title chase/defending you title is a story.

[Big Red Machine]

It wasn't exciting. It didn't tell a good story. Hell, it barely told any story at all. The entirety of the story of that match was the finish. The only things that mattered were the false finishes and the finish, and those weren't as important to the match as they were to the angle.

Having multiple matches does not make one look less important than the other simply because there are more than one of them. One match might look less important because of where those guys are on the card at the time, but that is no different than the reason why any match is less important than any match higher up on the card than it on any given night.

But take your example of Hogan vs. Goldberg. What would make a rematch later down the line, where the mean, evil heel Hollywood Hogan tries to take the belt back from our babyface champion Goldberg any less important than their first match, where our babyface champion Goldberg is trying to take the belt off of the mean, evil heel Hollywood Hogan?

And if you don't think that Cena isn't qalready bigger than Goldberg, you are crazy. And Punk will get there, too.

It wasn't exciting? Did you not see 20,000 people having shouting orgasms??? They went PAST screaming. The match was LEGENDARY, people will talk about it as being great 20 years from now, easily.

And yes, it does. One match will be bigger with 2 stars, than 15 matches with 2. The Rock v. Austin had a MUCH better feud than Goldberg v. Hogan, who as you mentioned, didn't have much of a direct feud. BUT, what match of The Rock & Austin was bigger than Goldberg v. Hogan? None, because you have so many that you can't recall one specifically over the other & which holds more weight.

Cena isn't bigger than Goldberg, nor will Punk ever be, because of the condition of wrestling. Wrestling in that era, was 10x bigger than today. We can see this everywhere. Back then, wrestling was cool. Now, it's like "you STILL watch that crap?"... Is it fair to guys today? No, but it is what it is. Goldberg will ALWAYS be bigger than Cena & Punk.

They popped for the entrances, they popped for the spear, they popped for the Jackhammer, they popped for the kickout of the leg drop, they popped for the win. So what. People always pop for finishers. Compare that to Punk vs. Cena from MITB. People were popping for EVERYTHING in that match. Hell, compare it to either HBK vs. Taker match at Wrestlemania. The crowd is nowhere near as hot.

Have you never heard of the concept of a rematch? The build to a rematch is based, in part, on how great the first one was! Watch Davey vs. Tyler II, or Joe vs. Punk II, or HBK vs. Taker from WM 26. Angle vs. Joe II, Ange vs. HBK II, AJ vs. Daniels II, AJ vs. Joe II, Rock vs. Austin from WM 17. These are amazing matches, and a lot of the build for them was based off of the fact that the first one was so good.

As for which one holds more weight; I don't think that, in most cases, any particular (for example) WWE Title match holds more weight than any other WWE Title match without external factors, such as stips or its place in the feud. And I would dispute that only the match that means the absolute most between two guys can be the best. Look at the Unbreakable three way, and compare it to the match from Turning Point 2009. I think most people would agree that the Unbreakable Three Way is the better Joe vs. AJ vs. Daniels match... even though it was for the X Division Title rather than the World Title.

So what if there were more wrestling fans back then? We say that the biggest stars in wrestling are those who transcend the industry while they are wrestlers. Nowadays, how many active wrestlers can the average non-wrestling fan name: Just one. John Cena. Back then, a non-wrestling fan could name Rock, Austin, Goldberg, Hogan, Sting...

John Cena is bigger and more important to wrestling, both in the ring and out of it, than Bill Goldberg ever was

[Big Red Machine]

Virgil is remembered more for his time in the nWo than his time in the WWF? Really? Then why do we all refer to him as "Virgil" rather than "Vincent" or "Shane"?

I am drawing inferences by looking at the essence of the thing in question. The same way that scientists look at an animal's features and characteristics before taxonomically categorizing it.

Where the hell are you getting your "half sports, half entertainment" breakdown from? By that logic, "professional football" would be "half professional and half football."


And THAT is your proof that wrestling is a sport? Because a wrestler said it was a sport in a promo during a wrestling show? Are you off of your rocker? That is like saying that The West Wing is real because Jed Bartlett (Martin Sheen's character) said that [during an episode of the show that he is the President of the United States. That clip of yours... the things that he is saying are FAKE. They are PART OF THE SHOW. KAYFABE. A WORK!

Check out the RF Video shoot with Lance Storm, vol 2 where he is talking about his and Elix Skipper's match against Goldberg. You will clearly hear Lance say that wrestling is fake.



As to your last point, I made the following comparison:

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.

To which you responded:

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.

What your whole point there (and even in your last paragraph is saying is that the indy matches are worse. Not as good "I will reinforced that you can NEVER put a match from the indies, on the same level as a match in the WWE, let alone even in the same sentence. A whole different playing field & ball game." I find this statement to be ridiculous, and I think that most people here will agree with me. The exposure of the promotion has no bearing on the quality of the match.

Well, around these parts, we call him Vincent from the NWO. As that's probably more memorable than his minor feud with Dibiase, him being the NWO's whooping boy.

WHAT?

From it's title SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT. The proof is in the pudding. The guys are classified as athletes, and the business is classified as SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT. Again, not art, acting, teaching, learning, but wrestling... Which is defined & classified TECHINCALLY as what? A SPORT. That would be politically correct.

That's one instance. I can probably give you 10. Better yet, call up any ROH, WWE, or TNA talent, and ask them if they consider themselves an athlete... Or if they consider it a sport. Guarantee they'll say it again, that it's a sport. Considering you have to be in shape to participate in a 20 minute match, the high spots, and proper execution of the various holds, I'd safely assume that puts it in the category of a sport. Not to mention the blood, sweat, and broken brokes associated with it. You don't get that from fiddling violins or cellos.

Wrestling is fake??? I didn't know that... No wonder Lance Storm isn't on tv anymore & never played a significant role in mainstream. Stating the obvious doesn't cut it. Hell, his words have no credibility. What has he ever really signifcantly done besides not be on the roster for more than 2 years. Ask someone who main events & does high profile matches, guarantee they won't refer to it as fake. We all here have even said it's scripted; not fake. Come on now.

While it doesn't make the match worse, it's not as important, nor does it hold the same weight as something in the bigs.

At conventions, he bills himself as "Virgil," not "Vincent." Also, I think that if you poll most wrestling fans, they will think of him as Virgil, not Vincent.

Ignoring, for the moment, that your logic about Lance Storm's word not being credible because he hasn't ever done anything (Tag Team Titles in WWE and ECW, and numerous singles titles in WCW don't count as anything?) is utterly ridiculous (because how much someone knows about wrestling is clearly based on how much TV exposure they had, rather thank say, the fact that they are a noted pro-wrestler, and considered by many to be one of the better workers of the last two decades), I will play your game. Here is a clip of Chris Jericho:



The "wrestling being defined as a sport is amateur. Not pro.

You seem to be entirely missing the point of my argument. I have never, ever said that wrestling isn't athletic, doesn't require training or anything like that. I am saying that it is not a legitimate sport like baseball or tennis or soccer.

Fine. I will say scripted. I was taking the "fake" position to hammer home how ridiculous your proof was (I believe my West Wing analogy made that clear)- but even if we say "scripted" it does not change the nature of wrestling. It is not a sport. If it was a sport, titles would be won legitimately in that ring based on competition with one person pinning someone else's shoulders or making them tap because of athletic superiority. A title won because a bunch of people get together and decide that Person X is the best, so they should be the winner is not a sport (just like cheerleader or synchronized diving, while athletic, are not sports, because there is no legitimate objective means of deciding the winner).

You think you can determine the importance of something now? It is extremely rare that the importance of a match in pro-wrestling is immediately apparent. The last case I can think of (aside from Cena vs. Punk at MITB) was the Ladder War at Man Up (September 2007) (although there are some who would say that Davey vs. Tyler from DBD VIII has hit that level, based on the number of people who came out of that show raving about it, and the effect it had on ROH buyrates for the next iPPV). Before that, I'd say the last truly "important" match was the Unbreakable three way, and before that, you'd have have to go back to Joe vs. Punk II, or maybe even the Three-Way match from The Era of Honor Begins) (then maybe TLC, the main event of WM XIV, HIAC, Bret vs. Austin from WM 13, and then back to the Hostile Takeover match)- that's about a total of 10 in fifteen years. Importance is based on what it means for the industry- not how big the company that does it is.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

1. TNA did not push Anderson because just because he was a midcarder in WWE. They pushed him because they thought he had the talent to be a main eventer. If they didn't didn't think he had the talent to be a main eventer, they would not have pushed him, regardless of his WWE status. Same goes for Haas & Benjamin in ROH.

You are basing all of your assumptions on WWE. About the way business is done, about the way people perceive talent... everything. WWE does not make the world go round.
Bringing in the Usos would not be the "classic" thing to do. Look at the history of wrestling. WWF and WCW didn't bring guys in somply because they had worked for the other company. They brought guys in because they though they could help their company by putting on great matches/telling great stories. ECW didn't grab guys just because they had been in WWF or WCW. They grabbed guys who they thought would help their product. Shane Douglas' ECW push had nothing to do with his WCW Tag Team Title reign. It happened because Heyman saw a star. Look at the most successful indies of all time: ECW, ROH, and CZW. None of these companies have ever gone out and found WWE/WCW cast-offs and pushed them just because. They have only pushed people who their fans saw as legitimate stars.

And how are the promotions that bring in those WWE midcarders doing? Do they go the places that ROH, CZW, or CHIKARA go? Does anyone talk about them? No. Because they aren't putting on good matches or compelling angles.

Goldberg's matches were against the nWo because he was going through them to get to Hogan. It was Goldberg vs. the nWo. Not WCW vs. the nWo. Goldberg's angle was not that of Sting or Luger, who were going to win the belt for WCW and for the fans. Goldberg was doing it for Goldberg (if he wasn't he would have cut a promo saying so).

The booking is part of the match, and sh*tty booking can kill matches. Look at Roode vs. Angle!

At the point that russo came in, WCW had been losing for close to a year, actually (and more like a year and a half, if you are going by just the majority of wins, rather than consecutive wins). Did Russo help things? Certainly not. Did he make the worse? Yeah. But to blame it all on him is ridiculous.

Punk doesn't have a story right now? Sure he does. A title chase/defending you title is a story.

1). Yes, Anderson is talented... BUT, his name & being a former well knwon guy in the WWE puts him at the top of any oher promotion that is smaller. Haas & Benjamin in ROH... Hmmm let's see. They achieved a good amount of success in the WWE. Yes, they can work well, BUT who sells more tickets, Haas & Benjamin, or the other 2 guys that resemble Titus O'Neal & Percy Watson (excuse me for not knowing the names, new to ROH)... Or any other team for that matter. The WWE name is going to sell, so smaller promotions use that & put that guy in an elevated status because it, as Matt Striker would say, is a "mark out moment."

2). I'm not saying you can bring in a piece of crap & make it believable... Say, if TNA signed The Great Khali... I don't think him being TNA champion would work well, simply because he never showed an ounce of wrestling ability. BUT, could he be used in a BELIEVEABLY larger role in TNA off top than he was in the WWE? He sure could. A mid carder in the WWE WILL be able to main event in any other promotion off top.

Even though I've taken liking to ROH, you can't put them at TNA's level... yet. So to say going places like ROH or CZW, etc is null & void... Because they haven't hit like TNA has yet... AND they also haven't flopped. This is all off prediction & assumption. Well we know how that goes, because in 2008, we never would have thought TNA would be f**ked like it is now.

How? Goldberg became the FACE of WCW during that time.

Roode v. Angle is bad because Roode has NO business being a singles competitor for the heavyweight title. I'm sorry but, he has the charisma of a prune! The guy is BORRRING. He should've taken the backseat to Storm. Guy has ZERO charisma. He is JUST look & the usual "decent wrestler," ability. Nothing says BUY TICKETS. That, along with a Kurt Angle who isn't as entertaining in or out the ring as he once was, simply makes for a crappy feud. That's not booking, that's the individuals itself. TNA's problem is they push the most RANDOM of people, Roode being one of them. Nobody cares for him as a heel pursuing a solo career.

You can't tell me that Vince Russo shouldn't get the blame of the fall of WCW. That's almost as ludacris as saying Dixie Carter shouldn't take the blame for the crappy TNA product.

Well, seems like Punk didn't have a storyline, and was just wandering for awhile until he stumbled upon the title.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

They popped for the entrances, they popped for the spear, they popped for the Jackhammer, they popped for the kickout of the leg drop, they popped for the win. So what. People always pop for finishers. Compare that to Punk vs. Cena from MITB. People were popping for EVERYTHING in that match. Hell, compare it to either HBK vs. Taker match at Wrestlemania. The crowd is nowhere near as hot.

Have you never heard of the concept of a rematch? The build to a rematch is based, in part, on how great the first one was! Watch Davey vs. Tyler II, or Joe vs. Punk II, or HBK vs. Taker from WM 26. Angle vs. Joe II, Ange vs. HBK II, AJ vs. Daniels II, AJ vs. Joe II, Rock vs. Austin from WM 17. These are amazing matches, and a lot of the build for them was based off of the fact that the first one was so good.

As for which one holds more weight; I don't think that, in most cases, any particular (for example) WWE Title match holds more weight than any other WWE Title match without external factors, such as stips or its place in the feud. And I would dispute that only the match that means the absolute most between two guys can be the best. Look at the Unbreakable three way, and compare it to the match from Turning Point 2009. I think most people would agree that the Unbreakable Three Way is the better Joe vs. AJ vs. Daniels match... even though it was for the X Division Title rather than the World Title.

So what if there were more wrestling fans back then? We say that the biggest stars in wrestling are those who transcend the industry while they are wrestlers. Nowadays, how many active wrestlers can the average non-wrestling fan name: Just one. John Cena. Back then, a non-wrestling fan could name Rock, Austin, Goldberg, Hogan, Sting...

John Cena is bigger and more important to wrestling, both in the ring and out of it, than Bill Goldberg ever was

Let's see... The ONLY reason Punk v. Cena got sooo much crowd reaction, was because it was in CHICAGO. It was a hostile crowd already. Not saying it wouldn't have been a good crowd, but it damn sure wouldn't have been nearly that loud if it was somewhere else. As far as Taker v. HBK... Aren't those crowds also filled with 70,000 people, instead of 18,000? Of course they're going to sound louder, which they BARELY were.

And have you ever heard of water running dry? People want to see a dream match ONCE. Not 1,291 times. ONCE. Because nothing will compare to the original. 9/10, the sequel(s) will just be played out by the time the ref counts to 3.

See that's the thing though. You're giving your opinion as to which match was better to define the combatants. If you have ONE match, there's no room for that, you just automatically know that the initial contest is the big bang. No question as to which one defined ____ vs. _____.

Oh, it plays a BIG part. You're talking guys that made wrestling BIGGER than any reality tv show & all its competition, vs guys of today, that provide the same stale stuff which has help make wrestling fall on the verge of life support. And pretty sure in this forum, it was documented that Cena actually isn't doing anything positive number wise for the WWE. As most grossed numbers were red.

Goldberg > Cena. Goldberg is STILL a hot topic revolving wrestling 13-14 years after he was on top of the world & 8 years after he hung up the boots. Cena, 10 years after he hangs it up, will be forgotten or talked about as comic relief. Not as an iconic figure. He is simply just the guy they HAVE to put out there because nobody else can take it. He's not special at all. Goldberg was in every way.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

At conventions, he bills himself as "Virgil," not "Vincent." Also, I think that if you poll most wrestling fans, they will think of him as Virgil, not Vincent.

Ignoring, for the moment, that your logic about Lance Storm's word not being credible because he hasn't ever done anything (Tag Team Titles in WWE and ECW, and numerous singles titles in WCW don't count as anything?) is utterly ridiculous (because how much someone knows about wrestling is clearly based on how much TV exposure they had, rather thank say, the fact that they are a noted pro-wrestler, and considered by many to be one of the better workers of the last two decades), I will play your game. Here is a clip of Chris Jericho:



The "wrestling being defined as a sport is amateur. Not pro.

You seem to be entirely missing the point of my argument. I have never, ever said that wrestling isn't athletic, doesn't require training or anything like that. I am saying that it is not a legitimate sport like baseball or tennis or soccer.

Fine. I will say scripted. I was taking the "fake" position to hammer home how ridiculous your proof was (I believe my West Wing analogy made that clear)- but even if we say "scripted" it does not change the nature of wrestling. It is not a sport. If it was a sport, titles would be won legitimately in that ring based on competition with one person pinning someone else's shoulders or making them tap because of athletic superiority. A title won because a bunch of people get together and decide that Person X is the best, so they should be the winner is not a sport (just like cheerleader or synchronized diving, while athletic, are not sports, because there is no legitimate objective means of deciding the winner).

You think you can determine the importance of something now? It is extremely rare that the importance of a match in pro-wrestling is immediately apparent. The last case I can think of (aside from Cena vs. Punk at MITB) was the Ladder War at Man Up (September 2007) (although there are some who would say that Davey vs. Tyler from DBD VIII has hit that level, based on the number of people who came out of that show raving about it, and the effect it had on ROH buyrates for the next iPPV). Before that, I'd say the last truly "important" match was the Unbreakable three way, and before that, you'd have have to go back to Joe vs. Punk II, or maybe even the Three-Way match from The Era of Honor Begins) (then maybe TLC, the main event of WM XIV, HIAC, Bret vs. Austin from WM 13, and then back to the Hostile Takeover match)- that's about a total of 10 in fifteen years. Importance is based on what it means for the industry- not how big the company that does it is.

That's because when WWE does follow up articles on him, they bill him as VIRGIL. It's the name they gave him. Their product. Same way that they refer to Scott Hall as Razor Ramon. He had more success as Scott hall than Razor. Vince wants what he created to be brought to light. He was bigger as Vincent.

Yes, Chris Jericho is THAT good... Or, he's another case of "We didn't have anyone else there, so step in & take their place Chris." This is a guy who runs his mouth left & right outside of what he does, and would rather do everything BUT wrestle for the majority of after 2004... Riiight.... Def putting him in that Storm category. never quite felt he really cared much about it, moreso just wanted his 5 minutes of fame. A much less exposed version of The Rock, if you will. Go find comments about guys who do this for real (Flair, Hogan, Angle, etc..) see if they call it a sport or not.

So, now there's legitimate sports & illegitimate sports? These guys have to train, stay in shape, take bumps, and physically risk their bodies, but I guess since the outcome is pre-determined, it still isn't considered a sport, huh? Even though they are defined as atheletes, which means they participate in some sort of sport...

Well, then since wrestling isn't a sport according to you, why is that? Is it because we all know it is predetermined now? If so, then what was wrestling in 1992, before the secret that it is pre-determined was out there??? What was it in the 80's? The 70's? It was a sport... BUT, since this incredible discovery has come about that it's not real has emerged, it changes what it is? I think not.

I'm going to stand by that. I mean these little matches aren't important to professional wrestling. Sure, the guys are passionate, and yes, they can work, BUT what does a match in an indy do for professional wrestling as a whole? Nothing. The only matches that really (today I should say) are important to the big picture of American pro wrestling, are that of WWE & TNA.

[Big Red Machine]

1. TNA did not push Anderson because just because he was a midcarder in WWE. They pushed him because they thought he had the talent to be a main eventer. If they didn't didn't think he had the talent to be a main eventer, they would not have pushed him, regardless of his WWE status. Same goes for Haas & Benjamin in ROH.

You are basing all of your assumptions on WWE. About the way business is done, about the way people perceive talent... everything. WWE does not make the world go round.
Bringing in the Usos would not be the "classic" thing to do. Look at the history of wrestling. WWF and WCW didn't bring guys in somply because they had worked for the other company. They brought guys in because they though they could help their company by putting on great matches/telling great stories. ECW didn't grab guys just because they had been in WWF or WCW. They grabbed guys who they thought would help their product. Shane Douglas' ECW push had nothing to do with his WCW Tag Team Title reign. It happened because Heyman saw a star. Look at the most successful indies of all time: ECW, ROH, and CZW. None of these companies have ever gone out and found WWE/WCW cast-offs and pushed them just because. They have only pushed people who their fans saw as legitimate stars.

And how are the promotions that bring in those WWE midcarders doing? Do they go the places that ROH, CZW, or CHIKARA go? Does anyone talk about them? No. Because they aren't putting on good matches or compelling angles.

Goldberg's matches were against the nWo because he was going through them to get to Hogan. It was Goldberg vs. the nWo. Not WCW vs. the nWo. Goldberg's angle was not that of Sting or Luger, who were going to win the belt for WCW and for the fans. Goldberg was doing it for Goldberg (if he wasn't he would have cut a promo saying so).

The booking is part of the match, and sh*tty booking can kill matches. Look at Roode vs. Angle!

At the point that russo came in, WCW had been losing for close to a year, actually (and more like a year and a half, if you are going by just the majority of wins, rather than consecutive wins). Did Russo help things? Certainly not. Did he make the worse? Yeah. But to blame it all on him is ridiculous.

Punk doesn't have a story right now? Sure he does. A title chase/defending you title is a story.

1). Yes, Anderson is talented... BUT, his name & being a former well knwon guy in the WWE puts him at the top of any oher promotion that is smaller. Haas & Benjamin in ROH... Hmmm let's see. They achieved a good amount of success in the WWE. Yes, they can work well, BUT who sells more tickets, Haas & Benjamin, or the other 2 guys that resemble Titus O'Neal & Percy Watson (excuse me for not knowing the names, new to ROH)... Or any other team for that matter. The WWE name is going to sell, so smaller promotions use that & put that guy in an elevated status because it, as Matt Striker would say, is a "mark out moment."

2). I'm not saying you can bring in a piece of crap & make it believable... Say, if TNA signed The Great Khali... I don't think him being TNA champion would work well, simply because he never showed an ounce of wrestling ability. BUT, could he be used in a BELIEVEABLY larger role in TNA off top than he was in the WWE? He sure could. A mid carder in the WWE WILL be able to main event in any other promotion off top.

Even though I've taken liking to ROH, you can't put them at TNA's level... yet. So to say going places like ROH or CZW, etc is null & void... Because they haven't hit like TNA has yet... AND they also haven't flopped. This is all off prediction & assumption. Well we know how that goes, because in 2008, we never would have thought TNA would be f**ked like it is now.

How? Goldberg became the FACE of WCW during that time.

Roode v. Angle is bad because Roode has NO business being a singles competitor for the heavyweight title. I'm sorry but, he has the charisma of a prune! The guy is BORRRING. He should've taken the backseat to Storm. Guy has ZERO charisma. He is JUST look & the usual "decent wrestler," ability. Nothing says BUY TICKETS. That, along with a Kurt Angle who isn't as entertaining in or out the ring as he once was, simply makes for a crappy feud. That's not booking, that's the individuals itself. TNA's problem is they push the most RANDOM of people, Roode being one of them. Nobody cares for him as a heel pursuing a solo career.

You can't tell me that Vince Russo shouldn't get the blame of the fall of WCW. That's almost as ludacris as saying Dixie Carter shouldn't take the blame for the crappy TNA product.

Well, seems like Punk didn't have a storyline, and was just wandering for awhile until he stumbled upon the title.

Charlie and Shelton had not been a relevant force in WWE as a team since 2003 (and Charlie as an individual since 2004). Yes, they had some reunions, but they didn't do much of anything. They were not big for long enough and the time that they were big for was too long ago for it to help much. Furthermore, you don't need to be a champion to draw. You just need to be on the card. The same for creating that mark-out moment.

2. Not at all. It has to be someone the fans will accept in that role (once again, see my example with Billy Gunn's jump to TNA [especially as compared with Jeff Hardy's that same year.] Just because someone is coming from a larger promotion does not mean that they can automatically be "believablely" (a very kayfabe word, which is the root of the problem here) placed in a higher spot on the card. To say that a guy coming in from a larger company can automatically be "believably" placed in a higher role in the company than they were in their previous company implies that the bigger promotion has the most talented guys, therefore a midcarder in WWE is more talented than a midcarder in TNA. This is just not true. Someone can only be placed in ANY spot on the card believably if the fans believe that person is worthy of that spot.

I think we can compare the two. ROH has tapings in MORE THAN ONE CITY! Take the amount of exposure that TNA has had in its life, compare that to the amount of exposure that ROH has had in its life (ROH is even older than TNA)...then compare the buyrates. Who is doing better, comparative to their position?

My comment about promotions that bring in ex WWE midcarders was not aimed at TNA. It was aimed at the various indies who will take WWE cast-offs, bring them in and put their belts on them in hopes of drawing. Those companies go nowhere. Now look at companies like ROH, CHIKARA, CZW, and PWG (who, despire only operating on SoCal are well-known throughout the US). They are the companies that actually grow. An ex-WWE (or any other company) guy won't draw unless the fans believe he/she deserves the spot you are giving him/her.

Goldberg became the face of WCW the company. Not of WCW the entity whose history the fans have invested their time and emotions into, which the nWo was trying to destroy, but guys like Luger were fighting to preserve. There is a difference. Once is a thing, the other is a feeling.

Bobby Roode is a great wrestler with a lot of charisma who is currently being given a crappy character to play (I used to have trouble seeing what people saw in James Storm for the same reasons). Most of the wrestling world seems to disagree with you, as many, many many people got very emotionally invested in Roode's attempt to take the belt from Kurt. You really didn't like their match from Bound For Glory?

Again, I'm not saying Russo doesn't deserve some blame... but to think that things were particularly good before he came in and that he royally screwed up despite having an advantageous position is just ridiculous.

[Big Red Machine]

At conventions, he bills himself as "Virgil," not "Vincent." Also, I think that if you poll most wrestling fans, they will think of him as Virgil, not Vincent.

Ignoring, for the moment, that your logic about Lance Storm's word not being credible because he hasn't ever done anything (Tag Team Titles in WWE and ECW, and numerous singles titles in WCW don't count as anything?) is utterly ridiculous (because how much someone knows about wrestling is clearly based on how much TV exposure they had, rather thank say, the fact that they are a noted pro-wrestler, and considered by many to be one of the better workers of the last two decades), I will play your game. Here is a clip of Chris Jericho:



The "wrestling being defined as a sport is amateur. Not pro.

You seem to be entirely missing the point of my argument. I have never, ever said that wrestling isn't athletic, doesn't require training or anything like that. I am saying that it is not a legitimate sport like baseball or tennis or soccer.

Fine. I will say scripted. I was taking the "fake" position to hammer home how ridiculous your proof was (I believe my West Wing analogy made that clear)- but even if we say "scripted" it does not change the nature of wrestling. It is not a sport. If it was a sport, titles would be won legitimately in that ring based on competition with one person pinning someone else's shoulders or making them tap because of athletic superiority. A title won because a bunch of people get together and decide that Person X is the best, so they should be the winner is not a sport (just like cheerleader or synchronized diving, while athletic, are not sports, because there is no legitimate objective means of deciding the winner).

You think you can determine the importance of something now? It is extremely rare that the importance of a match in pro-wrestling is immediately apparent. The last case I can think of (aside from Cena vs. Punk at MITB) was the Ladder War at Man Up (September 2007) (although there are some who would say that Davey vs. Tyler from DBD VIII has hit that level, based on the number of people who came out of that show raving about it, and the effect it had on ROH buyrates for the next iPPV). Before that, I'd say the last truly "important" match was the Unbreakable three way, and before that, you'd have have to go back to Joe vs. Punk II, or maybe even the Three-Way match from The Era of Honor Begins) (then maybe TLC, the main event of WM XIV, HIAC, Bret vs. Austin from WM 13, and then back to the Hostile Takeover match)- that's about a total of 10 in fifteen years. Importance is based on what it means for the industry- not how big the company that does it is.

That's because when WWE does follow up articles on him, they bill him as VIRGIL. It's the name they gave him. Their product. Same way that they refer to Scott Hall as Razor Ramon. He had more success as Scott hall than Razor. Vince wants what he created to be brought to light. He was bigger as Vincent.

Yes, Chris Jericho is THAT good... Or, he's another case of "We didn't have anyone else there, so step in & take their place Chris." This is a guy who runs his mouth left & right outside of what he does, and would rather do everything BUT wrestle for the majority of after 2004... Riiight.... Def putting him in that Storm category. never quite felt he really cared much about it, moreso just wanted his 5 minutes of fame. A much less exposed version of The Rock, if you will. Go find comments about guys who do this for real (Flair, Hogan, Angle, etc..) see if they call it a sport or not.

So, now there's legitimate sports & illegitimate sports? These guys have to train, stay in shape, take bumps, and physically risk their bodies, but I guess since the outcome is pre-determined, it still isn't considered a sport, huh? Even though they are defined as atheletes, which means they participate in some sort of sport...

Well, then since wrestling isn't a sport according to you, why is that? Is it because we all know it is predetermined now? If so, then what was wrestling in 1992, before the secret that it is pre-determined was out there??? What was it in the 80's? The 70's? It was a sport... BUT, since this incredible discovery has come about that it's not real has emerged, it changes what it is? I think not.

I'm going to stand by that. I mean these little matches aren't important to professional wrestling. Sure, the guys are passionate, and yes, they can work, BUT what does a match in an indy do for professional wrestling as a whole? Nothing. The only matches that really (today I should say) are important to the big picture of American pro wrestling, are that of WWE & TNA.

Your own logic there is self-defeating. If Virgil bills himself as Virgil at conventions because that is how WWE refers to him, then why does Scott Hall bill himself as Scott Hall, not Razor Ramon? These guys bill themselves under the name that they believe they had the most success over, and thus, will be most recognizable to fans.

There is no way anyone could reasonably argue that Virgil was more successful as Vincent. Look at the matches he was involved in! He never won any titles and only had a few PPV matches his entire time in WCW! When he was in the WWF, he had a feud against TED DIBASIE as well as numerous other PPV matches. Hell... he had more PPV matches in WWF then he did in WCW, and when he left the WWF, they were only doing 5 PPVs a year!

You want a guy who has wrestled his whole life, and still continues to make a career out of it? LANCE STORM, who, as I noted before, has said that wrestling is not a sport.

You are entirely missing the point. It is a performance. Just because something is athletic does not make it a sport. Dancers need to train and stay in shape, too. Dancing is not a sport. Professional wrestling has not been a sport since the 1920's when Toots Mondt came up with the idea to take the all-too-common practice of fixing wrestling matches and string a series of fixes together in such a way to tell longer, over-arching stories that would make the fans come back to see more.

If something is pre-determined (i.e. fixed), it is an illegitimate competition... because, by virtue of the result being predetermined, it isn't really a competition. A sport must be a competition.

Of course wrestling wasn't a sport when everyone thought it was a work. It was still predetermined. If you play five rounds of a game with someone and, in the fifth round, you realize that the dice have been loaded the whole time, all five rounds of the game were unfair. Not just the one where you learned that the dice had been loaded.

What does a match in an indy do for wrestling as a whole? Danielson vs. Low Ki vs. Daniels from The Era Of Honor Begins pretty much created the style of match that got TNA so popular (as well as putting what was to become the third biggest company in the world on the map). Find me a match in WWE that has done something like that.

[Big Red Machine]

They popped for the entrances, they popped for the spear, they popped for the Jackhammer, they popped for the kickout of the leg drop, they popped for the win. So what. People always pop for finishers. Compare that to Punk vs. Cena from MITB. People were popping for EVERYTHING in that match. Hell, compare it to either HBK vs. Taker match at Wrestlemania. The crowd is nowhere near as hot.

Have you never heard of the concept of a rematch? The build to a rematch is based, in part, on how great the first one was! Watch Davey vs. Tyler II, or Joe vs. Punk II, or HBK vs. Taker from WM 26. Angle vs. Joe II, Ange vs. HBK II, AJ vs. Daniels II, AJ vs. Joe II, Rock vs. Austin from WM 17. These are amazing matches, and a lot of the build for them was based off of the fact that the first one was so good.

As for which one holds more weight; I don't think that, in most cases, any particular (for example) WWE Title match holds more weight than any other WWE Title match without external factors, such as stips or its place in the feud. And I would dispute that only the match that means the absolute most between two guys can be the best. Look at the Unbreakable three way, and compare it to the match from Turning Point 2009. I think most people would agree that the Unbreakable Three Way is the better Joe vs. AJ vs. Daniels match... even though it was for the X Division Title rather than the World Title.

So what if there were more wrestling fans back then? We say that the biggest stars in wrestling are those who transcend the industry while they are wrestlers. Nowadays, how many active wrestlers can the average non-wrestling fan name: Just one. John Cena. Back then, a non-wrestling fan could name Rock, Austin, Goldberg, Hogan, Sting...

John Cena is bigger and more important to wrestling, both in the ring and out of it, than Bill Goldberg ever was

Let's see... The ONLY reason Punk v. Cena got sooo much crowd reaction, was because it was in CHICAGO. It was a hostile crowd already. Not saying it wouldn't have been a good crowd, but it damn sure wouldn't have been nearly that loud if it was somewhere else. As far as Taker v. HBK... Aren't those crowds also filled with 70,000 people, instead of 18,000? Of course they're going to sound louder, which they BARELY were.

And have you ever heard of water running dry? People want to see a dream match ONCE. Not 1,291 times. ONCE. Because nothing will compare to the original. 9/10, the sequel(s) will just be played out by the time the ref counts to 3.

See that's the thing though. You're giving your opinion as to which match was better to define the combatants. If you have ONE match, there's no room for that, you just automatically know that the initial contest is the big bang. No question as to which one defined ____ vs. _____.

Oh, it plays a BIG part. You're talking guys that made wrestling BIGGER than any reality tv show & all its competition, vs guys of today, that provide the same stale stuff which has help make wrestling fall on the verge of life support. And pretty sure in this forum, it was documented that Cena actually isn't doing anything positive number wise for the WWE. As most grossed numbers were red.

Goldberg > Cena. Goldberg is STILL a hot topic revolving wrestling 13-14 years after he was on top of the world & 8 years after he hung up the boots. Cena, 10 years after he hangs it up, will be forgotten or talked about as comic relief. Not as an iconic figure. He is simply just the guy they HAVE to put out there because nobody else can take it. He's not special at all. Goldberg was in every way.

And Goldberg vs. Hogan was in Atlanta. Your point? Shouldn't that crowd have been popping for absolutely everything in Hogan vs. Goldberg, then?

Yes, water runs dry after the 9000th time you do something. Not after the first. Most of these "dream matches" don't happen more than a few times, and that is over a period of years. These matches build on each other. Watch the RVD vs. Jerry Lynn matches in order. They build on each others' story, and show that the guys in question are learning from their previous matches against each other and having to think up new moves and new counters.

People only want to see a dream match once? Are you kidding me? Have you really never finished watching a match you were really looking forward to and saying "THAT WAS SO AWESOME! I want to see those guys wrestle again!" Do you really just come out of it and say "Okay. I've seen that now."

Why should only one match have to define ___ vs. ___ ? That is antithetical to pro wrestling. Pro wrestling is designed to make you want to come back again and see the rematch.

Goldberg us a hot topic? Where? On whatever bike show he is hosting on some digital cable network?

And people won't be talking about Cena 10 years after he retires? Oh come on! You and I are here talking about Virgil 12 years after his retirement, and Virgil hasn't done sh*t since Wrestlemania VIII

[KILLdozer]

Shut up already...

:p