The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

[Stennick]

I think OSB, Fantabulous and Bookerman have the right idea and they're all speaking the truth. Anybody that thinks this "character" of CM Punk is the same one that cut those scathing promos and walked out on the company is in critical denial.

[Fantabulous]

...what?

 

What has changed? John Cena is still being fed title shots, CM Punk still (at least in his character's eyes) has to feel underutilized, guys like Mason Ryan are still getting an absurd amount of TV time while guys like Colt Cabana still can't crack the WWE (he was given a "try out" about a month ago and now the WWE won't take his calls), the amount of actual wrestling on Raw has managed to go down so that Vince's family and/or stooges can put the spotlight on themselves, etc.

 

Pretty much all the stuff Punk rebelled about before hasn't changed, except that Punk has better shirts and he's in the opening to Raw now.

 

edit: Oh, and now F4W is reporting that John Morrison is probably done with the WWE once his contract expires soon. Summer Punk would have had a field day with the WWE driving out a talented and popular wrestler reportedly because they were upset with the woman he happened to be dating.

 

The idea that there's nothing for Punk to rebel against is mind-blowing.

 

I know it should be obvious that this is the case, and you've given some great examples. so I genuinely wonder how things so obvious can go over the heads of so many. It's amazing, really.

[sabataged]

I think OSB, Fantabulous and Bookerman have the right idea and they're all speaking the truth. Anybody that thinks this "character" of CM Punk is the same one that cut those scathing promos and walked out on the company is in critical denial.

 

 

It is in no way the same character...BUT (there is always a BUT), I honestly how long can you keep the pipe bomb gimmick going until it seems like he is saying the same old crap every week. Then he quickly turns from the guy wanting change to Jericho (the crybaby). If Punk was going to remain a face he had to evolve away from that character. The only possible way to keep him face, and keep him doing that character was too turn John Cena heel, opening up the #1 face spot. Sorry I just don't think Orton is a top face.

[eayragt]

I don't mind what they've done with Punk. I don't see how they could have had him keep his momentum so high without destroying everyone else.

 

Good to know this makes me a niave mark who doesn't understand wrestling or Sports Entertainment, and has no idea about what makes WWE money.

 

I can't understand why some people on this forum aren't signed up to the WWE Creative Team to revolutionize the wrestling industry. Don't they understand that some people are more important to the industry than John Cena?

[bigtplaystew]

I see OldStingBerg's points. I feel like there's a definite happy medium between the rebel punk and the "kiss ass" Fantabulous seems to be seeing. I would love to see Punk go more in that direction where he was calling people out. He was funny and compelling. But you can't do worked shoots every week either or the "fans" will complain that they have no meaning and are getting dull. I also think he's trying to portray a different and reasonable side of himself that doesn't hate EVERYTHING the WWE does.

[Fantabulous]

It is in no way the same character...BUT (there is always a BUT), I honestly how long can you keep the pipe bomb gimmick going until it seems like he is saying the same old crap every week. Then he quickly turns from the guy wanting change to Jericho (the crybaby). If Punk was going to remain a face he had to evolve away from that character. The only possible way to keep him face, and keep him doing that character was too turn John Cena heel, opening up the #1 face spot. Sorry I just don't think Orton is a top face.

 

It's true that a character has to evolve to avoid going stale, but if a particular character gets hot you don't 'evolve' it by turning it into the complete antithesis of itself. That's not evolving a character, that's killing it dead. But hey, common sense and logic like that appears lost on most around here.

[OldStingberg]

It is in no way the same character...BUT (there is always a BUT), I honestly how long can you keep the pipe bomb gimmick going until it seems like he is saying the same old crap every week. Then he quickly turns from the guy wanting change to Jericho (the crybaby). If Punk was going to remain a face he had to evolve away from that character. The only possible way to keep him face, and keep him doing that character was too turn John Cena heel, opening up the #1 face spot. Sorry I just don't think Orton is a top face.

 

The thing is, he doesn't have to do worked shoots every week. He doesn't have to keep reciting the huge list of the WWE's problems to remain edgy and interesting. For example, I think he should have brought back the old winged eagle belt when he returned after MitB. He could have said that any belt good enough for Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels, the two greatest wrestlers ever, is good enough for him. Then when him and Cena wrestled at SS (or NoC, if they wanted a good build), they could have the match determine which belt would be used, with Punk winning. That's a simple way for Punk to remain edgy and appeal to relapsed WWE fans without hurting the promotion at all and it'd get rid of the current horrid belt design.

 

They could have even built on that, having Punk restore some prestige to the tag team and IC championships by bringing back the old belts. That'd also give a bit of a rub to Air Boom (and the tag team division) and Cody Rhodes.

 

If bringing back some old belts isn't feasible, and I'm not sure why not because I doubt there's many people with disposable income still itching to buy Cena's belt, there's other stuff that can be done. What about during that 12-man match, instead of Mason Ryan (because they don't want to bury him) The Great Khali comes out, Punk gets on the mic and tells him that while he is very tall, they need an actual wrestler, and calls out Zack Ryder. That certainly hurts Khali, he's reportedly on the way out anyway, but it also gives a rub to Ryder and furthers Punk doing things differently.

 

Or when one of the heels tries one of their generic heel tricks, Punk doesn't fall for it, instead kind of breaking the fourth wall and acting like it's ridiculous that anyone falls for that sort of stuff.

 

There's countless little things like that they could have Punk do, while occasionally letting him speak some uncomfortable truths, that would make his babyface-ness different and interesting. Instead, Punk has turned into a generic babyface.

[bigtplaystew]

It's true that a character has to evolve to avoid going stale, but if a particular character gets hot you don't 'evolve' it by turning it into the complete antithesis of itself. That's not evolving a character, that's killing it dead. But hey, common sense and logic like that appears lost on most around here.

 

Fantabulous. Make your point without the obvious insults. I just went back and checked out the last few pages. I think all but two of your posts were on point without being completely condescending and/or flat out insulting. You need to rethink your approach to disagreements. It isn't necessary to throw these insults around in order to make your point. In fact, I think it's counterproductive to what you are trying to do. Your intelligence is overshadowed by these petty and unfunny shots you take at anyone who disagrees with you. This isn't personal. You can take shots at me all day if you want to. But do it privately. If you consistently bait people into bickering and immature name calling we will have yet another thread shut down on us. I don't want that to happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The thing is, he doesn't have to do worked shoots every week. He doesn't have to keep reciting the huge list of the WWE's problems to remain edgy and interesting. For example, I think he should have brought back the old winged eagle belt when he returned after MitB. He could have said that any belt good enough for Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels, the two greatest wrestlers ever, is good enough for him. Then when him and Cena wrestled at SS (or NoC, if they wanted a good build), they could have the match determine which belt would be used, with Punk winning. That's a simple way for Punk to remain edgy and appeal to relapsed WWE fans without hurting the promotion at all and it'd get rid of the current horrid belt design.

 

They could have even built on that, having Punk restore some prestige to the tag team and IC championships by bringing back the old belts. That'd also give a bit of a rub to Air Boom (and the tag team division) and Cody Rhodes.

 

If bringing back some old belts isn't feasible, and I'm not sure why not because I doubt there's many people with disposable income still itching to buy Cena's belt, there's other stuff that can be done. What about during that 12-man match, instead of Mason Ryan (because they don't want to bury him) The Great Khali comes out, Punk gets on the mic and tells him that while he is very tall, they need an actual wrestler, and calls out Zack Ryder. That certainly hurts Khali, he's reportedly on the way out anyway, but it also gives a rub to Ryder and furthers Punk doing things differently.

 

Or when one of the heels tries one of their generic heel tricks, Punk doesn't fall for it, instead kind of breaking the fourth wall and acting like it's ridiculous that anyone falls for that sort of stuff.

 

There's countless little things like that they could have Punk do, while occasionally letting him speak some uncomfortable truths, that would make his babyface-ness different and interesting. Instead, Punk has turned into a generic babyface.

 

I actually like alot of these ideas. Bringing back the old winged belts probably wont happen because I think WWE doesn't have the exclusive likeness rights to that belt but I'm not sure of all that. Hogan uses it in his new game which isn't WWE endorsed.

 

But your points are understandable. I agree that Punk should be handled differently. I simply disagree with the overreaction some of the fans are having. No one is burying punk. He isn't kissing anyones ass. He doesn't look weak. He simply isn't as strong as he once was. It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. Some slight improvements and changes to his character can be made. Hopefully, if the rumors are true, Punk's looking at some big things in the future so we'll see how it plays out. But I am becoming of the opinion that he needs to be handled differently to maximize his full potential as a possible top draw leading into a huge wrestlemania.

[Stennick]

What happened to "I don't hate you John, I hate what you represent". What happened to that? Wasn't this about CHANGING the way things were. The voice of the voiceless? Isn't he now teaming with HHH and Cena and others doesn't that make him the voice of the already voiceful or whatever?

 

He doesn't have to do shoots every week to remain edgy. I've enjoyed some of his little jabs. "click is the sound of people's remotes when you begin to talk, click is the sound of your knees everytime you take a step".

 

Again answer me how does it make sense for Punk to win the title, then he leaves, then they give away Rey Mysterio Jr vs. Cena on LIVE tv for FREE. That could have been your summerslam main event right there. They are two of the most popular superstars on the roster and within a certain age of the fanbase they are THE two most popular wrestlers. Then instead Punk comes back and loses the WWE title in his FIRST title defense who then turns around and loses to Cena in his SECOND title defense who then turns around and loses it to Del Rio in his FIRST title defense. Seriously guys Impact Wrestling is better than RAW right now and it hurts nobody more than me to say that.

 

They did with this what they did with the Nexus last year. Less than a month into it they killed the gimmick dead. Remember the "OMG they just beat everyone up and destroyed the set" feeling we had when they debuted? Less than a month later they were dead in the water. Same thing here, about a month after Punk's angle began he was losing to John Cena at Summerslam.

 

People are going to come in here and make excuses and talk of this plan or that plan or whatever else. Fact is you had a chance to do something different and now just like everything else this is a McMahon story and has been since the night after Money in the Bank. How many McMahon/Evil GM stories are we going to see?

 

The guys in here that I expect to get it, Sab, Fantabulous, Stew, OSB they seem to be getting it.

 

If I got to a movie that has an awesome first act and then it just becomes some other movie entirely for the rest of the movie and I walk out of it and say "man they screwed up an awesome movie" or "man I want to see the rest of the movie from that first act" does that mean I should be a director in hollywood? Does that mean I think I should write scripts? If I complain at McDonalds that half my fries were cold and the other half were perfect does that mean I think I should be a fry cooker at McDonalds?

 

No that means I'm purchasing a product and in the case of RAW I purchased Money in the Bank, I tune into RAW every week, I visit their website. These things help them in obvious ways. I purchase their DVD's. I am their customer and if I'm upset with the product I'm paying for I have every right to say "no thats not what I want" and I also have every right as a fan to say "this is what I want'. Just like as a Rams fan I can say "I want this player in the draft or that player in the draft". If my team bombs and we go 0-16 (might actually happen ugh) does that mean because I'm upset and I'm voicing it that I'm a know it all? No it means I'm a fan and I want to be a happy fan. Does that mean I shouldn't watch if I'm unhappy? No it means I can watch and hope the product makes me interested again. I won't know when things start to get appealing if I stop watching. If I would have stopped watching after Wrestlemania I would have never got to see that Punk promo live, I wouldn't have gotten to enjoy the Money in the Bank match. So "don't watch it if you don't like it" doesn't make much sense. Why do you care if I complain about it? Why do you care if I watch or not? I can't change the weather a bit doesn't mean I can't complain about it.

[Fantabulous]

What happened to "I don't hate you John, I hate what you represent". What happened to that? Wasn't this about CHANGING the way things were. The voice of the voiceless? Isn't he now teaming with HHH and Cena and others doesn't that make him the voice of the already voiceful or whatever?

 

He doesn't have to do shoots every week to remain edgy. I've enjoyed some of his little jabs. "click is the sound of people's remotes when you begin to talk, click is the sound of your knees everytime you take a step".

 

Again answer me how does it make sense for Punk to win the title, then he leaves, then they give away Rey Mysterio Jr vs. Cena on LIVE tv for FREE. That could have been your summerslam main event right there. They are two of the most popular superstars on the roster and within a certain age of the fanbase they are THE two most popular wrestlers. Then instead Punk comes back and loses the WWE title in his FIRST title defense who then turns around and loses to Cena in his SECOND title defense who then turns around and loses it to Del Rio in his FIRST title defense. Seriously guys Impact Wrestling is better than RAW right now and it hurts nobody more than me to say that.

 

They did with this what they did with the Nexus last year. Less than a month into it they killed the gimmick dead. Remember the "OMG they just beat everyone up and destroyed the set" feeling we had when they debuted? Less than a month later they were dead in the water. Same thing here, about a month after Punk's angle began he was losing to John Cena at Summerslam.

 

People are going to come in here and make excuses and talk of this plan or that plan or whatever else. Fact is you had a chance to do something different and now just like everything else this is a McMahon story and has been since the night after Money in the Bank. How many McMahon/Evil GM stories are we going to see?

 

The guys in here that I expect to get it, Sab, Fantabulous, Stew, OSB they seem to be getting it.

 

If I got to a movie that has an awesome first act and then it just becomes some other movie entirely for the rest of the movie and I walk out of it and say "man they screwed up an awesome movie" or "man I want to see the rest of the movie from that first act" does that mean I should be a director in hollywood? Does that mean I think I should write scripts? If I complain at McDonalds that half my fries were cold and the other half were perfect does that mean I think I should be a fry cooker at McDonalds?

 

No that means I'm purchasing a product and in the case of RAW I purchased Money in the Bank, I tune into RAW every week, I visit their website. These things help them in obvious ways. I purchase their DVD's. I am their customer and if I'm upset with the product I'm paying for I have every right to say "no thats not what I want" and I also have every right as a fan to say "this is what I want'. Just like as a Rams fan I can say "I want this player in the draft or that player in the draft". If my team bombs and we go 0-16 (might actually happen ugh) does that mean because I'm upset and I'm voicing it that I'm a know it all? No it means I'm a fan and I want to be a happy fan. Does that mean I shouldn't watch if I'm unhappy? No it means I can watch and hope the product makes me interested again. I won't know when things start to get appealing if I stop watching. If I would have stopped watching after Wrestlemania I would have never got to see that Punk promo live, I wouldn't have gotten to enjoy the Money in the Bank match. So "don't watch it if you don't like it" doesn't make much sense. Why do you care if I complain about it? Why do you care if I watch or not? I can't change the weather a bit doesn't mean I can't complain about it.

 

Touchd....oh, wait; as a Rams fan, you might not know what that is.

 

Home Run!

[bookerman]

The WWE misunderstood the "what is going to happen at MITB?" buzz for "what unpredictable thing is the WWE going to do now" and started employing Russo level shock tactics (fire Vince and hire HHH, fire Truth/Miz, Kevin Nash, post HIAC beatdown, the walkout, fire HHH and hire Ace) thinking that is what got the buzz going.

 

The movie analogy is excellent. In July, we got a hot opening act, but things went downhill from there.

 

Per WON, last night wasn't the original script for the show. If I could change ONE thing in WWE, it would the creative process and creating long term plans and then sticking to them. Look at the Henry push up to last Monday (cause then it went off the tracks). That is what they are capable of doing when they get behind a character and follow through.

 

Former Creative guy John Piermarini (sp) suggested the WWE write in 3 month story archs. Not a bad idea at all. After 3 months, you have a better idea of if the story worked or not and can do longer term programs like Cena/ADR/Punk without having to rush things. That provides an opening act (month 1), rising action (month 2 - run ins, interferences, backstage attacks, new allies, etc), climax (month 3 - blowoff matches). They can also overlap stories such that if 6 stories are happening, then 2-3 can wrap up each month and characters can go in a new direction. I wouldn't think it would be too hard to layout a feud over 12 weeks that includes 3 ppv matches and 8-10 TV appearances (interviews, tags, 6 man matches 3/4 way matches, etc).

[sheepy]

All I know is that Punk's promo got me interested in the WWE again. Now I'm not. Tells me all I need to know really.

 

TNA, although riddled with mind blowing booking, have a vague sort of inclining of how to book long term stories that the WWE either has forgotten (or more likely) never really knew.

 

It's hard to think of any storyline in recent times that has gone more than a couple of months and been successful other than the NWO vs. Sting.

[bookerman]

RAW got a 3.25 which is a .2 increase and the highest rating since mid-August. HOWEVER, they lost 13% of the audience during the 2nd hour. From what I've read, people tuned in for the walkout fallout, but as the show went on, people left in droves.

 

Dunno if this will encourage more cliffhanger/HHH/GM/COO angles, but I'm sure someone is going to jump on the fact that the ratings jumped and think it was a great show.

[Wrestling Century]

To be honest, that's very obvious. Because this...

 

 

 

...is a laughable amount of spin. I'm not unhappy that the big bad mean Miz and R-Truth are beating up on poor little Punk and why don't they just let him be different because gosh darn I'm different too.

 

I'm unhappy they've taken one of their hottest stars in years and have killed his momentum in order to elevate non-wrestlers in a story a lot of people think is terrible. Somehow, I don't think that's the emotion the WWE is trying to evoke.

 

I would love to be able to shut my brain off and not think things like, "wow, Lauranaitis sure is a terrible actor" or "wasn't Raw more dangerous this week than it was before the walkout" or "well that was incredibly sexist" or "ha, Mason Ryan botched getting into the ring on the hot tag", but I can't. Even with the ridiculous amount of leeway I'm willing to give the WWE, I'm still going to think about the quality of the entertainment they're offering.

 

But I suppose maybe making me unhappy with the quality of their programming is exactly what the WWE is trying to do. Those geniuses!

 

I don't know if anybody has noticed, but CM Punk is actually getting BIGGER reactions from the crowd now than he was after he came back from "leaving" the WWE after MitB. This story has actually gotten me to look foward to watching WWE each week, something that hasn't happened in a long, long time. If you don't like this story, then perhaps the WWE's product just isn't for you? Watch ROH or some puroresu. That's what I did when I got sick of the WWE for a while.

[lazorbeak]

I don't know if anybody has noticed, but CM Punk is actually getting BIGGER reactions from the crowd now than he was after he came back from "leaving" the WWE after MitB. This story has actually gotten me to look foward to watching WWE each week, something that hasn't happened in a long, long time. If you don't like this story, then perhaps the WWE's product just isn't for you? Watch ROH or some puroresu. That's what I did when I got sick of the WWE for a while.

 

That's not really proving anything: when he came back, he was still getting somewhat mixed reactions from the casual fans that had seen him as a heel for the past couple years. If a newly turned babyface isn't getting bigger reactions every week, something is going horribly wrong.

[sabataged]

 

The guys in here that I expect to get it, Sab, Fantabulous, Stew, OSB they seem to be getting it.

 

I think you just miss me stennick

[MrOnu]

Honestly, CM Punk rebel persona died for me the minute he came out on RAW the next after MitB. It was a flaw in the logic of his persona so big for me that it could never be recevored. So I kinda find it funny when people talk about Punk-the-rebel as I don't believe he's been in that role for months. He does have a set of beliefs and principles he follows every week, but being rebellous (sp?) is not one of them. Punk could have been bigger by now with different booking decisions, but I can't say he's being faded out either. He's still hanging with the key players, having valuable air time and an integrated part of the main storyline.

 

On to something else now. I still don't get the buzz around Mason Ryan. He still looks like a poor version of Batista to me, which is really not a good thing.

 

Quick question : wasn't the Big Show a RAW member before his injury ? They are confusing the hell out of me with the rosters...

[Stennick]

Sab I do miss you man. I remember a time about two years back before there were so many reasonable people in the Dog Pound. I remember a time when we were the lone voices of the voiceless in this place. I'm happy to report a slew of people now that seem to have logic induced thinking.

 

Lazorbeak I left you off the list but although you may not always agree with and be agreed with you certainly have logic based thinking and I agree with your post one hundred percent.

 

I think we've exhausted the "Vince screwed up again" discussion and the "this is the new attitude era" discussion.

 

So here's a question I hope doesn't get skimmed over. Its 2011, Raw has had virtually the same set (jumptron, ramp, opening promo, ring set up, for the last 15 years or so.

 

How would you freshen up RAW. From the way its presented to the way its formatted. I'm not asking for storylines just things like "I'd like to see this style of wrestling more" or "I'd like to see this style promo" or "I'd like a new set that looks like". Although I'm sure even this will be met with "RAW looks just fine the way it is even though it hasn't barely changed it all in a decade in a half".

[bigtplaystew]

Honestly, CM Punk rebel persona died for me the minute he came out on RAW the next after MitB. It was a flaw in the logic of his persona so big for me that it could never be recevored. So I kinda find it funny when people talk about Punk-the-rebel as I don't believe he's been in that role for months. He does have a set of beliefs and principles he follows every week, but being rebellous (sp?) is not one of them. Punk could have been bigger by now with different booking decisions, but I can't say he's being faded out either. He's still hanging with the key players, having valuable air time and an integrated part of the main storyline.

 

So the only way the Punk "rebel" persona would have worked for you was if he actually left the company? Not saying this to be a smartass I'm legitimately curious as to if this was your point.

 

 

Not saying any of this is realistic, but I was asked to give an opinion so I shall. I'd make the following changes to RAW:

 

1) A deeper commitment to long term storylines. We are starting to see this in the top feuds but I'd like to see this with the lower card guys as well. Longer, more intricate stories involving multiple characters at once is a good way to keep their gigantic roster fresh and interesting. I think we might be seeing some of this with the Otunga/Guerrero stable and stuff like that. Or it could just be leading to a lame survivor series match no one will care about. We'll just have to see I guess.

 

2) I'd take Cole off of RAW. Maybe even Lawler. Lawler, Booker, and Cole would be a great team on Smackdown. They've worked well together int he past I think. But I agree that the presentation is stale and I'd probably look to replace the announce team on RAW. Cole being the lead announcer definitely should change. I think his heel persona works but it's also counter productive to achieving a mainstream audience.

 

3) Go with guys that can actually wrestle in top storylines. This is the go-to complaint of the IWC and it generally seems to fall on deaf ears. But they are starting to build this level of talent.

 

Moxley (Dean Ambrose) and Tyler Black (Seth Rollins) had an incredible longform match on FCW not too long ago and I think that level of match quality needs to be sprinkled into the RAW product. I get the feeling that I'm not the only one who fast forwards through most of the crappy, run-of-the-mill 10 minute matches that litter RAW where each guy hits his five spots and then a winner is decided. The RAW matches aren't a big talking point, even on the boards like these. Most of the conversation is bickering about what they should do with certain characters or angles. No one cares about matches on RAW. PPV still gets great matches ever now and then... and they should! But so should raw. I feel like they are building a roster of young guys that can work so I'd like to see that explored. It's an unrealistic vision right now as they are getting further away from wrestling as time goes on. But I think a third ECW-level show will be added once the network launches and we may see more match-driven television if that becomes the case. If people catch on, maybe the bigger shows will follow suit.

 

 

4) Build a proper long form CM Punk title run.

 

This is crucial to me. They need to sit down, write out some long term storyline ideas with a clear direction of where punk needs to go. It's obvious that they haven't done this with him. Punk's a versatile guy and I think writers get lazy because of it. He's a pro and will work anything they throw at him. I cant disagree with the guys on this board that are pointing out that the Punk we got coming back after MitB is not the same guy we are seeing in recent weeks. Which can be acceptable if they commit to this and give him a clear direction.

 

I'd like to see a proper title chase, and a nice lengthy run with several decent feuds and title defenses.

 

I'd like to see them build a show around him being at the top. It can be done but most likely Cena would have to go to smackdown to make this a reality. Which would be great. Smackdown would get the ratings boost and RAW would look fresher with a real champ and contenders that are properly built around him. Run the super cena crap on the more kid-friendly smackdown and give Raw the edge that the maturing WWE fans want to see.

[BHK1978]

Okay the last time I brought up the past someone told me I was going off topic. So here I go again going off topic...

 

The WWE On Demand Channel has some programs for free this month and one of them was the 1997 Royal Rumble. I must say that was one horrible PPV. I know many look at that era with rose colored glasses, much like what I do with the WWF of the 1980's, but one only has to watch a little bit of that PPV to see how crappy the promotion was back then.

 

I will say this I prefer Jerry Lawler now to back then. At least now he is decent on commentary, back then not so much. Also, I had almost forgotten just how bad Vince was at commentary. That is why I always laugh when I hear that he chews out his announce team for being bad at commentary. I mean come on dude people in glass houses...well you all know the rest.

 

There was also an MSG card on there from 1989 which I did not get to finish. However, it is odd how three of the wresters in the first four matches have already died. Two from unnatural causes which were the Blue Blazer (Most know how he died) and Dino Bravo (Killed in a mob style hit). The other (Hercules Hernandez) died of natural causes (heart attack) but I am sure steriods played a part in his early death as well.

[dvdWarrior]

There was also an MSG card on there from 1989 which I did not get to finish. However, it is odd how three of the wresters in the first four matches have already died. Two from unnatural causes which were the Blue Blazer (Most know how he died) and Dino Bravo (Killed in a mob style hit). The other (Hercules Hernandez) died of natural causes (heart attack) but I am sure steriods played a part in his early death as well.

 

I love those Old School cards. Bad as it might sound, with Raw, SmackDown!, iMPACT!, and now ROH all on TV, it's always those Old Schools that I really look forward to. It is always sad to see so very many wrestlers that have passed though, guess that's the one big drawback.

 

Just saw Macho King face off with The Ultimate Warrior inside the steel cage the other day.

[BHK1978]

I love those Old School cards. Bad as it might sound, with Raw, SmackDown!, iMPACT!, and now ROH all on TV, it's always those Old Schools that I really look forward to. It is always sad to see so very many wrestlers that have passed though, guess that's the one big drawback.

 

Just saw Macho King face off with The Ultimate Warrior inside the steel cage the other day.

 

I am the exact same way, I would much rather watch the older stuff than what is currently going on. That goes for wrestling in general, I just find myself having a general lack of interest in it.

 

Also, I wanted to say I was watching the main event for Starrcade 83 (Not off topic the WWE owns the tapes and both men in the main event worked in the WWF at one time.) and Gordon Solie was just so good. By the time I got interested in the NWA it was towards the end of his career so I really do not remember him very well.

 

However, I was just blown away with how good he was. I really can't explain it but he treated it like a real sport and to me that enhanced it a bit. I think that Jim Ross is one of the best but even he could not touch Gordon Solie.

[dvdWarrior]

However, I was just blown away with how good he was. I really can't explain it but he treated it like a real sport and to me that enhanced it a bit. I think that Jim Ross is one of the best but even he could not touch Gordon Solie.

 

That's kinda my big bad thing, (that, and of course, my long-standing love affair with the 80s in general): I grew up with the NWA, and it's always been my thing to pretend it's real while I watch it. Solie was always the best at presenting it that way, but I always though Bob Caudle was pretty good too, and Gorilla Monsoon in the WWF, always IMO made it feel like you were watching something real.

 

I like nothing better than to get lost in an artificial reality; wrestling was so good at that back in the day. It's really hard for me to get that deeply invested in today's product though.

 

Things just don't seem as real as they used to.

[BHK1978]

That's kinda my big bad thing, (that, and of course, my long-standing love affair with the 80s in general): I grew up with the NWA, and it's always been my thing to pretend it's real while I watch it. Solie was always the best at presenting it that way, but I always though Bob Caudle was pretty good too, and Gorilla Monsoon in the WWF, always IMO made it feel like you were watching something real.

 

I like nothing better than to get lost in an artificial reality; wrestling was so good at that back in the day. It's really hard for me to get that deeply invested in today's product though.

 

Things just don't seem as real as they used to.

 

I always enjoyed Gorilla Monsoon as well and his pairing with the Brain was probably my favorite commentary team in any sport. Although, Phil Rizzuto and Bobby Murcer would be a very close second.

 

As for Bob Caudle, I am not sure about him. Yes he was good but to me he sort of over sold everything. Almost to the point where he reacted to every heel attack much like Herbert Morrison did during the Hindenburg disaster.

[dvdWarrior]

I always enjoyed Gorilla Monsoon as well and his pairing with the Brain was probably my favorite commentary team in any sport. Although, Phil Rizzuto and Bobby Murcer would be a very close second.

 

As for Bob Caudle, I am not sure about him. Yes he was good but to me he sort of over sold everything. Almost to the point where he reacted to every heel attack much like Herbert Morrison did during the Hindenburg disaster.

 

Caudle might be getting the rose-colored glasses treatment from me. Anytime I think of my earliest wrestling memories, it seems like his was always the voice providing the commentary.

 

The Hiro Matsuda - Johnny Weaver incident for one, (which was a monumental event in my young wrestling psyche), and I can't even swear with 100% accuracy that he was the one making the call on that particular show.