lazorbeak

Yes, because Sin Cara and Alberto Del Rio have feuded with everyone and/or are not "new" stars being built. Also while I'm at it, John Morrison and R-Truth haven't moved up the card, despite the fact that they're in the middle of a program that's getting some attention, Morrison is slated to be in the main event on PPV, the two opened last week's show, and have never had long-term feuds with any main eventers except the guys that moved up the card ahead of them (CM Punk and the Miz in Morrison's case). And honestly I'd pay to see Morrison/Punk on PPV again because it's been years since they feuded on ECW, they've face-heel switched, and they put on some great matches last time. But yeah, no new stars!

Re-watched In Bruges last night: easily one of my favorite movies of the past five years.

Val in real life is the blandest guys ever, and the porn star gimmick was what got him on TV. The idea that he would've gotten further without it in the Attitude era does not have a lot of support. Look at how much success Val had during his heel runs with the RTC or as Chief Morley. He's a solid worker, but without that gimmick he is extremely vanilla. And yes, he's obviously cutting a promo to try to generate some heat among smarky marks. Matt Hardy acted all shocked and offended when Morley did the same thing to him a few months back. Also while I have no problems with Trish getting the spot over Melina (who, last I checked, was still a heel anyway), the idea that right now Trish is a better wrestler doesn't particularly gel with Trish's performance since she came back this year and looked incredibly rusty.

It tells you something about the brain-trust over at the Hogan residence that he makes his point by citing drug addicts, people who literally have no choice but to work, and people who died before they hit 50 as his examples of working against doctors orders. It's almost as if wrestling through excruciating pain made someone more likely to take dangerous drugs and/or die prematurely!

Outside of this forum, nearly all of my interactions are with casual fans. Most of them aren't wearing Captain Charisma merchandise.

My point is he hasn't done anything of any value to anyone who watches WWE television in 18 months except for the program he's in a supporting role in right now. So if any hypothetical people were to think he was at the same level in the eyes of the fan-base of, say, The Miz, that that statement would be outlandish. Yes, Christian has won titles: most guys who have been around since 1998 have a ridiculous amount of gold. But saying that because he did a bunch of midcard stuff 10 years ago for a national promotion and then was a 'star' in a promotion nobody watched (where as top draw he didn't move needles at all) for several years which is basically downtime in the eyes of most 'E fans doesn't mean a lot. Plus he's good on the mic. With these stringent definitions of big star, Raven is/was a "big star." Heck, he was ECW champ when it was more relevant, TNA champ, US champion when it mattered, and a better talker. Raven for WWE Hall of Fame 2012!

Except that Christian isn't hurt now, and he wasn't hurt when he was doing TV programs with Cody Rhodes and McIntyre, and he's done literally nothing for a year. So no, not quite the same, but nice try. I mean Triple H has been in more singles matches on PPV than Christian despite not being on television for most of an entire year. Yes, maybe 4 months of that is injury time, but even before that WWE made it clear they weren't showcasing him. Not sure that one crowd's response at a shock return makes anyone a "main eventer," but you're right: while nobody's seen Kevin Nash in 8 years, when he left, he was working high profile matches and was a multi-time world champion. Whereas when Christian left he was a solid worker who could make top guys look good, and since he came back he's a solid worker who could make young guys look good: neither qualifies him as a "big star."

No, I really don't. I don't believe Christian is a "pretty big" name anymore than I thought/think Matt Hardy was a "pretty big" name or Chavo Guerrero is a "pretty big" name. I mean not only was he not on the card at Wrestlemania, he hasn't been on a single PPV card since July, when he was in a six man money in the bank match he lost. And his last PPV appearance before that? At last year's Wrestlemania... in a six man money in the bank match that he lost. That's two pay per view appearances as a competitor in the past year, both times competing in a six man match and without a single victory, and you're telling me I "have to" admit that Christian is a "pretty big" name." I mean what qualifies him as a "pretty big" name in your eyes? The fact that he was briefly a top guy in a small-time promotion? That he was ECW champion? That he was partnered with someone that went on to be a big name ten years ago? Chavo Guerrero meets 2/3 of that criteria. Matt Hardy is 2/3. I don't have to agree with you "just because" when you just state that someone is a "pretty big" star. Christian doesn't sell merch. He doesn't headline or even appear on PPVs. Do you think the fact that he was on the roster during a boom period automatically makes him a bigger name than the people that WWE have consistently featured over the past year? If so, I think you're drastically over-estimating the memory of WWE's audience. As far as the stuff with Angle, I disagree with that, too. He's shown respect for Vince McMahon and WWE in the past and may be more willing to alter his style, especially considering his physical condition, if he was getting feedback from veteran guys who know what they're doing (Finlay, Regal, Malenko, Arn Anderson, Steamboat, etc.), rather than TNA's management (or lack thereof).

Okay I'm not sure where to begin: Christian is a big name? Kurt Angle is a big name who is at that same level? I mean if my point is he's not "dream match" material and you're disagreeing while comparing him to Christian, something is out of whack. Next, a returning charismatic, natural heel, outstanding wrestler back from a 5 year break couldn't be booed? I mean didn't Chris Jericho just prove this false by being one of the top heel acts in the company after his return?

I really doubt Kurt is that big a name, and yes, Undertaker and Angle have had high profile matches. One of Angle's last big matches was a great contest against 'Taker at No Way Out 2006. And while it was forever ago, he also had two one on one matches with 'Taker on PPV in 2000.

Why would the Bobcats be a team that gets contracted? They are in the top 2/3 of attendance figures in one of the few parts of the country where basketball is equal to or greater than football- imagine the numbers they could do with a good team. I mean if we're talking bad teams with bad attendances, talk about Minnesota, the Nets, the Kings, and the Pistons. All have lower attendance figures and worse records than the Bobcats. And as bad as the Raptors record is, their attendance numbers are only 20/30 in terms of average home attendance. And some of these teams in large markets are still afterthoughts: nobody goes to 76ers or Nets games, despite the fact that Philly and Jersey dwarf a market like San Antonio (where the Spurs still sell out most games, due to being awesome every year). And one guy can turn it around for a team: the Clippers this year are suddenly selling out games despite still being terrible just because of Blake Griffin.

No heel ever needs to beat a babyface clean at the biggest event of the year.

Well up to and including a generation ago, most wrestlers were basically at "carny" level on the entertainment food chain. They even went from town to town calling their fans "marks" and speaking a barely disguised carny language. Edit: Hive, you're thinking of the illusory "independent contractor" status wrestlers have, instead of being "employees." Totally separate issue.

No idea where you're getting this at all. Big guys are preferable because they can be seen from farther away? Is that why boxing and every other legit sport has always treated heavyweights as a superior draw? Because of how big the guys look in the 100th row? And all wrestling fans want modern, "fast-paced" action? That must be why TNA's X-division and WWE guys like Kofi Kingston are such ratings magnets. Just limiting things to the past ten years, when modern technology has included jumbotrons, the top draws in american professional wrestling have been guys like Triple H, The Rock, Brock Lesnar, Batista, John Cena, and Randy Orton. None of those guys are exactly small, with Cena being the smallest, billed at 6'2, 250. Meanwhile Bob Sapp became one of the biggest stars in Japan. Brock Lesnar became one of the top draws in MMA history almost overnight in large part because of his look. So to say big guys don't draw any more is preposterous. Big guys are inherently more of a draw in a worked sport like pro wrestling, and not because you can see them from slightly farther away.

Haha, Jericho and Miz have had a twitter feud going back more than a year. Somehow I doubt he's serious. Miz has been excellent though.

I'd like it more if he hadn't done it in straight double digit losses to Minnesota and Toronto, two of the worst teams in the league. I agree that he has upside because he is very smart and he knows how to get his offense, but if he's your top scorer, it's a symptom that something is going wrong. Granger was 2 for 19 in that loss to Minnesota.

Agreed. Poor coaching, breaking league rules, and sinking way too much time into trying to make Stephon Marbury the #2 guy sank the T-Wolves more than some notion of "stars." Sam Cassell is another guy that was never a "star," but he won 3 championships with two different teams and went to the conference finals with two other teams (the Wolves and the Bucks). No matter where he was he won. He even helped the Clippers get to the 2nd round of the playoffs for crying out loud. And they took Phoenix to 7 games! But no, the league needs "stars" and only "stars" make you win.

Wow, that's sad news. Not sure if it came up on this thread, but the same thing happened to Candice Michelle a couple weeks back.

Say what? Did you not see the Heat go on a 5 game losing streak despite their "stars"? Are the Spurs and Mavericks not some of the best teams in the league by playing excellent team basketball? This whole proposition is just false. Or how about the Rockets? They would be a playoff team in the East, and their highest paid player makes under 10 million a year (not counting their "star" that's probably done with basketball). There's plenty of teams that do fine without "star" players. Everything in this paragraph is false. "Half the teams are wasting their time" has nothing to do with the presence of "stars," it's about whether the team is composed of people who know how to win at a high level: a surprising number of NBA players don't: they are in it for themselves and their own stat line. Chicago has one "star" and yet they're already five games better than they were a year ago because they added Boozer and Korver as Rose has developed. You can say the Thunder are better because Russell Westbrook is a "star" now but where did that come from? Who was he a year ago? And "putting pieces" around a star isn't so easy: look at how incompetent the Cavs were at surrounding LeBron with people who complimented his skill set. Or they need to develop the talent they have and translate that into winning games. If they did that, Iggy would magically transform into your definition of a "star." Yes, all teams should forfeit all games if they can't win a championship. And this is a problem unique to basketball because of a vaguely defined concept of a "star." Other sports that are broken: all professional sports. Note: your "starless" team beat the Celtics last night.

I disagree with this so much it's ridiculous. How is the league "broken"? Basketball does have a salary cap, unlike baseball. It does give small market teams and even the Clippers the ability to compete on a level playing field. And, unlike football, it doesn't take a roster of 50 guys plus a practice squad. It also lets bad management shine: when the Knicks spent like they were the Yankees, they stunk, because they paid guys like Alan Houston as if they were franchise stars. A team like the Spurs can win multiple championships without spending a bunch of money; I just don't understand how any of that qualifies as "broken." And I don't think anyone is asking the public to "care" about a labor dispute. But to hope for no resolution is pretty petty. It's about getting what's fair for people who shorten their lives and their quality of life to compete and entertain. You'd think, of all places, a wrestling forum would be where people understood the value there, since that "sport" features a 60 year old man with no retirement and no savings employed by a 2nd rate franchise to pay the bills. "No, don't pay the players even a proportional fraction of the millions in revenue they generate! I want to see LeBron playing ball at age 55 for a team in Israel!" That kind of thinking is just so needlessly negative.

Jessie McKay has the typical diva look? I guess I'd go with Jennifer Blake before either of those two in terms of "diva" look.

I think she'd be a good fit because she's nothing like anything else WWE has right now. That said, she could easily end up being the next Nicole Bass. That said I would think Gina Carano would be a far better fit in pro wrestling: I think a program between her and Kong could be a big deal.

Now that Marco Corleone is gone there's no reason to watch AAA! On a related note, reading the LL USA alumni section on wikipedia is the saddest thing ever. One person was signed to WWE, one was murdered in a club, and one was arrested for robbery.

But if it adds nothing, why add it? It doesn't make any sense for Christian to just show up and receive a title shot. When HBK was put in a Mania Triple threat it's because he was in a major feud with the champion for months. And it doesn't matter that the show doesn't actually "main event," it's a main event match-up on WWE's B-show between two of their top names. Adding someone that is not one of their top names makes no sense. He went over Rey Mysterio in a major feud that main evented frequently on Smackdown, then won the Royal Rumble. To answer your question in one word: YES.

I know the internet is home of Christian-marks worldwide, but why on earth would he be added to the Smackdown Wrestlemania main event? Has Christian been a main eventer at any point since he's been on Smackdown? If the answer is no, why would he be boosted to the main event for Wrestlemania of all pay per views? I mean from a storyline perspective he's done nothing to earn a title shot: he wasn't a contender 5 months ago and he's spent the intervening time on the shelf. I mean throwing John Morrison into the Cena/Miz feud would make more sense, as at least he's had some impressive matches lately and has been booked as a top contender for the past 2 months. It wouldn't be a good idea either but it'd make more sense than adding Christian to the match. I just see it as a way of giving Del Rio somebody to beat up and gives Edge a tag team partner for the next few Smackdowns.