lazorbeak

I want a Chris Masters/Marco Corleone feud in Mexico, presumably starting over a pec flexing contest. Also Koslov really never improved in-ring; even during his Santino team-up days he'd often appear very sloppy and didn't know what to do to cover his mistakes.

It's strange that WWE is trying so hard to do something with Kidd, pairing him up with managers, putting him on TV, giving him something to do with NXT, etc. I mean he's a very solid worker but he's small and can't talk; what do you do with a guy like that when you don't have a tag team division or a cruiserweight division to put him in?

I'm just lol-ing at the idea of taking one loss to the world champ, who in theory is the #1 or #2 guy in the company, is getting "buried." Why would Bourne even merit a match against Christian? And yeah, the WWE loves split-ups that lead to neither party being pushed. The Harts are following in the grand tradition of Crime Tyme and the Colons.

Yes, by losing a competitive match to a world champion while they sold he was not at 100%. Also it seems like a colossal waste to cut Melina, even though she hadn't won a match since her idiotic heel turn and had clearly po'ed somebody over the Wrestlemania thing. The crowd still reacted to her in the ring in a way that they still don't (and never will) for somebody like Alicia Fox.

I am. The trademark search function on the uspto site is free and pretty easy to use though, so it's not like you need a law degree to appreciate it. But, the lawyer-ly distinction is the distinction between the TM and the ® designations. Basically anybody can put TM next to a name or a gimmick, which means basically nothing except you can keep somebody two towns over from stealing your business name/gimmick/whatever when he comes into town, but once it's federally registered you have a stronger legal position. Most indy guys don't feel the need to register their gimmicks since they own the name as long as they came up with it. Samoa Joe is one of the few indy guys who still has his own registered trademark separate from TNA. And WWE has registered the "CM Punk" mark on both people wrestling as CM Punk and anyone selling CM Punk t-shirts.

Not according to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. http://www.uspto.gov/ WWE owns the marks for both the professional wrestler and the merchandise.

There's two marks in the freely searchable trademark system for Punk, one filed 3-28-2007, and a new one filed 6-22-2011. They cover: "Clothing, namely, tops, jackets, bottoms, underwear, pajamas; footwear, namely, shoes, sneakers, slippers; headwear, namely, hats," while the old 2007 mark covered "Entertainment services, namely, wrestling exhibitions and performances by a professional wrestler and entertainer; providing wrestling news and information via a global computer network." So as of today, WWE has rights to the wrestling name and merch. Edit: Colt Cabana has no registered trademark, so if he used his own name it would presumably involve signing over his rights to the character.

Que?! How about the fact that he didn't wrestle a match after the Undertaker match (as I mentioned), and didn't work another match for 4 years? The fact that he was barely on TV and missed the February PPV tended to show he wasn't faking that particular injury. I mean I'll give the wrist taping story the benefit of the doubt as far as something like that happening, but that doesn't connect to 'HBK refuses to job," it connects with "HBK was unhappy." His version, years after the fact, was that he was upset about the Tyson involvement, not putting Austin over. Maybe that's 100% not true either, but I really don't see enough evidence either way to go "a-ha, that proves it!" Especially since the version where he thinks he's going over makes HBK sound like an insane person. Everybody knew Austin was going over from January on. The entire show was already built around him by that point, and he'd never been champ. Compare that to the guy that needed two months off just to be in position to not come to the ring on crutches. Would a guy who believed his career was over really going to try to put himself over at the expense of the biggest babyface in the company, who's already worked with him in the past? Maybe he just hadn't noticed that the entire build-up going in was focused on Austin/Tyson? It just seems like a slightly biased viewpoint to look at two weeks of programming several years ago and say "a-ha, I knew he hadn't changed!" Especially when he was clearly and self-consciously doing a version of his own on-screen heel act from almost a decade earlier. And, as mentioned, he made a Hulk Hogan match entertaining in 2005, which in of itself probably deserves a medal.

Yes, because either Shawn or WWE or both saw no future in "1997 redux heel Shawn Michaels" and quickly turned face again. I just find it funny that he plays a character for a few weeks and people suddenly see it as "proof" that he's really like his character 8 years earlier, all the time. And as far as "getting his way" at Wrestlemania 14? HBK thought his career was over after his Royal Rumble match with Undertaker, and was clearly just trying to last until March so he could hand the belt off to the guy that was obviously the top babyface in the company. His promos talked about not laying down for anyone and how he was going to game his way into keeping the title because he was a heel and as a heel he obliquely referenced his (legitimate and on-screen) beef with Bret Hart to get heat. But that was just to make it seem like less of a "well, duh" proposition that Austin was going over. But yeah, almost every non-"company man" has played political games in the past. Guys like Hogan are/were masters of promising a return match and then conveniently disappearing to shoot a movie or take time off for injury before any rematch could happen. It's probably a result of growing up in the territories and seeing guys pull stunts like this on them. Austin, HBK, and everybody who grew up in the territory days tends to have at least one story about refusing to play ball. Also, Beth Phoenix was on Colt's podcast today, and, to quote TEW, she really put over Molly Holly/Nora Greenwald as a great person. Not nearly enough talking about her CM Punk connections though. Cabana's whole show should just be talking about CM Punk, all the time (he has very brief cameos in the Zach Ryder and Chris Hero podcasts).

A lot of outrage over what Shawn Michaels did as a heel in pretty much his only heel run of the past decade. It's almost like that's exactly how the business is supposed to work. You mean you didn't like the things the bad guy did? He was direspectful of his opponent? The nerve!!!

Checking up a suspicion I had on cagematch, I found that Punk is 5-0 against Cena in 2011. Granted most of those were storyline wins that kept Cena looking strong, but kayfabe wise, Punk has Cena's number. Also, clearly Randy Orton is not nearly as good a role model as Atticus Finch.

Sheamus was given the belt in a fluke-y way and rarely if ever booked to be a top level guy despite winning the belt twice. ADR has been consistently built for months without getting the title or any main event PPV appearances. This is EXACTLY how you're supposed to build somebody.

That's what I get for referencing Billy Wilder movies around the children.

The argument has moved on so completely that this post is pretty unnecessary. Yes, awards are objective. Your "thousands of Americans" statement is close to the truth, except it could be "thousands of anyone democratically selecting someone." Consensus creates the award, and the award is an objective measure of the respect of a community. Yes, sometimes there are mistakes, but that isn't the point. It's a semantics issue and a hair-splitting one, so again, why are we even talking about it? Would you say Richard Nixon was subjectively elected president? That it was a matter of opinion? No, even though subjective factors led to his presidency. Opinions created the award, winning the award is a fact. That's how it works in any award in any medium, that's why mentioning that someone has won an award is a factual counter to the subjective "oh I think so and so SUCKS." It doesn't inherently prove that so in so does not, in fact, suck, but it's evidence that they probably don't, or at least, didn't at one time. Yes, billed weights are objective, even if you think they're wrong (that is attacking evidence veracity, not whether it is a fact/opinion). The fact that Cena is billed at 240 (and it is a fact that he's billed at that weight) suggests that there is not an intended perception of Cena as "big guy," and that makes sense, considering he's not a particularly big guy, and outside of the Miz and Jericho, virtually everybody he works with is bigger than him. And again, my point was not that Cena couldn't have been pushed due to his size, so saying it's "insane" to dismiss that is missing the point. The point is it's an arbitrary distinction to say that 240 pounds is "big" and 225 isn't. What Shawn Michaels and Cena's weight difference if you had a weigh-in is absolutely not the point I was trying to make, now or ever. And as someone closer to Randy Orton's size, I have a hard time even picturing a guy 3-4 inches shorter than me as a "big guy." Yeah, he's in shape, but so is Dolph Ziggler. Are we going to say he's been pushed because of Vince's love of big guys? Did John Morrison get over because of his size? I mean if you classify Cena as a big guy, where do you make the cut-off? That was the point I was making several pages ago. For TEW purposes, Cena would be a middleweight. He's listed at around the same size as Ric Flair in his prime. So to dismiss the work it took to get him over by saying "oh well he's a big guy so of course" was a tremendous oversimplification which was why I used facts to explain why it wasn't just an "oh I think x and you think y" situation. But again, why are you bringing this up days after the conversation has totally moved on? As for why The Rock is getting in the ring next year, he has no monetary reason for it: he's having a lot of success in Hollywood with his twin personas of Dwayne Johnson, comedic actor and The Rock, action hero guy. He's most likely doing it because he likes working in front of a live crowd and he wants to help the company out. I think he just wants to do it. Wrestling can be pretty addictive, and Rock's been gone a solid 7 years, so it's no surprise he's got the itch [/obscure reference].

Just re-watched that Cena/Danielson match. Good for Cena and the agent for making Danielson look that strong as an unsigned talent. I mean he obviously had plenty of skill but Cena very easily could've no-sold him or otherwise treated him like a minor league guy.

On the Punk thing, while I still feel this is just a really good worked shoot thing, if you check out Cabana's Art of Wrestling podcast, he's got an interview with Punk recorded a year ago (found here: http://tsmradio.com/coltcabana/2010/08/05/aow-show-2/) that addresses his frustrations with bad fans, WWE's mismanagement of talent, and his idea for a WWE film that featured all of the WWE stars.

Yeah I mean it's hard to believe he was considered the big blue chipper out of UPW and not the almost bald, 30 year old workrate machine that was Chris Daniels.

Okay, do you not see a certain paradox here? Because my tone is "arrogant," I am "beeing" incorrect, even though you seem to acknowledge it's an opinion. But you're the one that said you had a right to an opinion. Again, I believe your statements about being picked on were ridiculous, so I called it ridiculous. Not you, not your actions. You're the one that have apparently said it's "unfair" for people to pick apart the things you say. I have not disrespected you or insulted you in any way, nor have I flat out dismissed the things you say (the way you have). Also I love the "this is the last thing I will say" line. It never gets old.

Yeah definitely that's what I mean by size + something else. It's why Ali was a great champion, but Riddick Bowe wasn't. Bowe was bigger, but he was also completely forgettable. But again, people act like this is peculiar to Vince. Like I said, I think it's telling that in WCW Chris Benoit is the only guy ever to be listed at under six feet tall to win the world title, discounting non-wrestlers. Meanwhile the Giant was champ his rookie year, a guy like Luger is a multi-time champ, and Vader is the #3 champion in terms of combined reign length. It's just how wrestling works. Of course, as I said earlier, when this topic was introduced it made no sense because John Cena was inexplicably considered a "big guy" when in WCW he never would've even sniffed the world title unless he was on UPW level steroids. Edit: Cena has said in the past he hasn't done steroids, but I'm sure the supplements he was on 11 years ago are no longer legal in America. Nobody should look as jacked as he did back then.

Yes because I'm the one making outrageous statements about how I'm the victim after saying knee-jerk, hilariously incorrect things about the business, then complaining that it's "unfair" that people tell me how ridiculous that makes me sound or proved me wrong with facts and reasoning while I called them marks. Waitaminute... that's not me! And if I had made completely ludicrous assertions the way you did, I don't think I'd be particularly justified if someone called those statements ludicrous. Again, you're the person who said you didn't own the truth and everyone had their own opinions and etc., and my opinion is you are being outrageous in your sudden "oh everybody's picking on me" when you make inflammatory, outrageous statements, then completely dismiss/misunderstand everyone who disagrees with you, then proceed to label them, because obviously if they don't agree with you they are all part of one group of people who can't form rational thoughts based on their love of John Cena. Again, ridiculous. Plus, I haven't called your person or your actions ridiculous, just the ridiculous things you said. But, in my opinion, your sudden "oh everybody was picking on me earlier" attitude is both hilarious and wrong. And so I'm not "beeing" extremely incorrect... as you said a few pages back, you don't own the truth.

Completely agree with this, too. People act like Vince has this inexplicable love for big guys when really, what it is, he is just the most successful wrestling promotion in the history of professional wrestling. All promoters know that heavyweights sell, and not just in wrestling. Heavyweight boxers headlined boxing events for a hundred years until the sport became completely irrelevant. Heavyweight MMA bouts are still the ones that draw the huge numbers. And honestly, WCW was just as guilty of only focusing on heavyweights, and for the same reasons. I mean other than Benoit's one night title win in WCW, and the Arquette debacle, no other wrestlers under six feet tall, 225 pounds ever won that title. And the next smallest guy is Jeff Jarrett, a guy that many consider to be one of the worst WCW champions in its history. Obviously it's not just being big, it's being big + something else, and smaller guys can still get to the top if their "something else" is enough, but if Eddie Guerrero is 6'2", he's a 10 time champion and still alive. It's just easier to sell heavyweights to the general public, because there is that perception of "damn, that guy looks like he could kick me/my dad's ass," which honestly in a staged sport is more important than the actual quality of the wrestling. Hitman and HBK's time on top is pretty much exhibit A. Great workers, but nobody paid to see them fake fight each other. And yes, I say this as a guy that's 6'4", and while I'm under 200 pounds, I was constantly bigger than everyone else all through school. But it's also the truth. Brock Lesnar wowed me in a way a guy like Chris Jericho didn't when I first saw them.

I just, I don't even... Is this a real post or am I being punked? The point isn't that weights are true, it's that the idea that Cena was god-pushed because of his size is completely ridiculous when he's BILLED at 240. Seriously is this that hard to understand? And yes, WO are based on "opinions," the opinions of thousands of people, which is then recorded and put into an award that has considerable recognition within the community. Seriously, this is how awards work in any field, so I'm not sure why it has to be explained. The point is Cena is objectively considered to be one of the best wrestlers on the planet, in addition to objectively drawing more money than anyone else. So the whole "oh he's easily replaceable/he can't work/he's only there because Vince loves big guys" was a combination of three untrue statements. Not just "oh that's your opinion that's fine" statements, but flat out directly in the face of reality. Also, I'm sorry shawn michaels 82, but this persecution stuff you've had in your past few posts is ridiculous. It's not "unfair" for other people to judge the words that you say: as you said a few pages ago, everybody is entitled to their opinion. You're the one responding with a ridiculous amount of vitriol, calling "debate" shouting empty statements really loudly and waving your arms, ignoring other people's points, and then saying that people who disagree with you must be Cena marks. If people form an incorrect impression based on what you said, it's because of all the ridiculous things you said, not some intent to "attack" you.

Yes, but again, it's a big "so what," since the fact that any favoring of big guys has absolutely nothing to do with anything anyone was talking about. I understand he's struggling to communicate based on his total lack of understanding of what people were saying to him, but it doesn't suddenly make irrelevant statements relevant. It's like pointing out that "everybody knows" that Hulk Hogan was a politician to prove that John Cena's a politician. It just doesn't connect logically at all.

And it was completely irrelevant, since the size issue was brought up to show how ridiculous it was to say Cena was pushed because Vince likes big guys. But that's not the reason Cena was pushed, as evidenced by his relative lack of size.

Hahahahahaha, I'm sorry, Brock Lesnar didn't get the same push? He was actually pushed harder and faster. He kicked out of the leg drop and the Rock Bottom and the 5 star splash having been on the roster for six months. And yes, the babyface main eventer won matches against big names during the period they were building him up as the top guy. The way every babyface ever overcomes the odds in WWE. Steve Austin in 1998 could've kicked out of a gunshot at 2.5. Seriously he was pinned once, in what was basically a handicap match against Undertaker and Kane, and it took both of them pinning him. Otherwise, he won the Rumble, retired HBK, beat up Mick Foley for two months, lost the belt for one day to Kane in ridiculous fashion after a boatload of interference (without being pinned), then won it back 24 hours later, then went over the Undertaker, all in the span of six months. So again, the argument that Cena "never loses" is both wrong and not new.