Hektik

I never got the whole "lets bash are are most loyal fan base." They are always quick to point out that smart marks are just a small minority, yet they always feel a need to put them down as if they are a rival promotion. A good example of this was the Layfield Germany issue. It was the smart marks who pounded it and got big media's attention. He was fired from CNBC and Vince put the title on him. Instead of just taking it on the chin, he decided to stick it to big media and smart marks by putting the world title on him. Dave Meltzer is well respected by people on the "inside." Even Ric 'I hate smarks and the internet' Flair gave him his personal endorsement.

Its funny when people say "nobody knows London, not everyone is a smark." They fail to realize that in the first few minutes of the match the crowd was on their side. They came out to no reaction but when they did their double team and aerial moves they got big reaction. It is not like London is doing "technical mat wrestling" where fans might shit on it if they don't know who you are. He does flashy crowd pleasing moves. Not only that, he does it better than most cruiserweights. Give London and Kidman time on the next two Smackdowns and I guarantee that on that on third Smackdown they will be over huge. Paul London is a guy who will make the fans of the WWE forget the name Jeff Hardy.

With Cosby, I think his rants are more of him just trying to show tough love. It is him telling his community things that is taboo for whites to say. I don't completly agree with him, but he has enough respect in his community that they might listen. As far as the whole "gangsta rap causes bad behavior" issue, I don't buy it. You guys make it seem like before gangsta rap, there were no gangstas. I will be the first one to tell you that there were. I grew up in South San Diego/Tijuana right on the US/Mexico border, so I know a few things about gangs. I knew growing up that there were gang members hanging out in front of my apartment complex before Ice T or Eazy E even realesed their first rap single. As a kid I knew gang members who were 40 years old (yes, I know that it is very sad). Rap music is not influencing kids in ghettos and barrios. As cliched as it might sound, It is there enviroment that makes them become "thugs." If you don't have at least one parent/relative/guardian who gives a shit about you, your fate is pretty much sealed.

But Bret has only been out of the spotlight for 4 years. Vince is playing nice in 2004 because there is buisness to be done. If Bret doesn't play ball then you will hear less and less of him on WWE TV. Remember, Vince burried Bret from late 1997 to 2003. If I was a new fan who came along in 2001, I would think Bret Hart was a greedy little Canadian who was the real reason WCW died. I mean, thats what Confidential would have taught me.

The Bruno Sammartino issue is the one of biggest problems with the WWE. In the last couple of years the WWE has used their propaganda to convince their fans on who are "legends" and who are not. In WWE land, Shawn Michaels and Jimmy Snuka are "legends." Snuka will get a huge pop whenever he makes an apperance because the WWE has kept his name fresh in the fans minds. Bruno Sammartino carried the WWE through the 60s and 70s. If he came out for a surprise apperance their would be no reaction. The fans in the arena would look at each other with a confused blank stare. As time goes on the same will happen to Bret and any other wrestler who ends up on Vince's shit list.

I can't believe this, I was fully expecting Meltzer to say that Bradshaws title reign was going to be short transitional one back to Eddy. I am completly speechless.

Flair is a huge hypocrite on the Monday Night War DVD when he specifically names the people responsible for the WWE's boom period in the late 90s. He names Steve Austin (no brainer), The Rock (obviously), HHH (a stretch but I'll go with it), and Shawn Michaels. Where the hell did Flair get that from. You can make the case that when Michaels left, he wasn't able to enjoy the boom period that he helped plant the seeds for. I can accept that argument, even though I hate the son of a bitch. But Flair's hypocrisy shines by saying Bret was not a draw. If Michaels gets credit for the boom period, so does Bret. Bret was really the main guy in 97, despite Taker holding the title. It was the Hart/Austin Feud that really blew WCW out of the water, in terms of creativity and workrate. For him to lick Michaels ass for the 100th time and go off on Bret shows why Flair's credibility has gone down in the last 10 years.

I can't believe most people think 2nd base is a lock. The best 2nd baseman in the National League is Mark Loretta of the Padres. He has the best batting average of all 2nd baseman in the NL. He has the most hits, doubles, and I believe RBIs. He is great fielder and the fact he isn't even in the top 10 in voting just shows the flaws in All Star Voting. Obviously, I'm ok that Kent will be the starter because the game will be played in Houston. It is pretty much a lock though that Loretta will be the second 2nd baseman in Houston. If you look at his stats and compare them, only Kent would come close.

This whole presidential election with Bush vs Kerry is class warfare. Yale Class of 66' vs Yale Class of 68' (Bill Maher joke) I liked this movie, very entertaining. My favorite parts are Bush looking like a jackass with his facial expressions and his "fool me once" line. For someone like me who hates Bush, it was worth the price of admission itself. Some of his theories are a stretch but thats Michael Moore. Overall, it was a very entertaining movie.

Bradshaw having the title does not really bother me because I know he will just be a lame duck champion. I predict Eddy will have regain his title within the next month. They will wrestle in a 3rd gimmick match on a heavily promoted Smackdown.

What does he say about Shawn? I hope he also says that he was not a draw or else my Flair/Michaels/HHH circle jerk theory may not be far off.

First of all, let me say that I am a long time Ric Flair fan, but he is really starting to get me mad in his last few years around the wrestling buisness. I am interested in what he has to say on his early years in the buisness but I already know what he will say on the later years. He will say he was the best wrestler in the 80's. He will then say Shawn took some imaginary torch from him to be the best wrestler in the 90's. He will underrate Bret and say Shawn was better and Bret is bitter. Then finish off by saying HHH took the imaginary torch from Shawn to become the best wrestler of the new millenium.

Good, now give him some new music in the style of his "deadman walking" theme. It's about time they put an end to a his 13 year old deadman gimmick. Long live heel MMA Biker Taker.

He is right, but sometimes it is a little tricky. Sometimes wrestlers have wrestled under a stage name and their real name. In that case I usualy go with the name they wrestled under longer. That is why I use Scott Hall, Kevin Nash, and Curt Henning when I refer to those wrestlers. With someone like Sean Waltman I use his real name because he has used so many that it is just easier to refer to him as Sean Waltman. But with most wrestlers you should go by their stage name.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't Taker beat both Brock and Big Show in a handicap match to build him up for Vince McMahon.

With the Padres I'll assume you mean from a buisness standpoint. For the last 7 years the Padres were trying to get their new ballpark open. There were a lot of lawsuits during construction and the project was even shutdown for a year. The Padres had to pay the cost of the lawsuits and all the extra fees. Finally a judge ordered that no new lawsuits could be filed against the Padres and construction was able to restart. In that time, the Padres payroll was reduced to a shoestring budget. Even through those 7 years the Padres were able to get at least a million people a season. Now the ballpark is open, the payroll increased, they're competing for 1st place in the NL West, and they already had million people come to the games just a quarter into the season. With the Chargers it's up in the air. They will be here until 2006 when the public has to vote on wether to build a new stadium for the Chargers. If it passes the Chargers stay and it will mean a permanent spot on the rotation to host the Super Bowl. As far as basketball, the Clippers should be here with a competent owner. He really screwed us when he moved the team. At least here in San Diego the Clippers could form their own identity and not be in the shadow of the Lakers.

I always thought that Eddy/Taker should main event Summerslam. The only problem is that as long as he still is the deadman he will get a huge pop and will be cheered during his matches. In order for it to work for him as a heel, he would have to go back to MMA Biker Taker.

Hey, bring them to San Diego. We used to have the Rockets and the Clippers. I think San Diego deserves another shot at NBA basketball.

Chavo Sr. was one of the only highlights on Smackdown. I am sad to see him go. You know a versatile intelligent booker would see this as a way to rebuild the shattered cruiserweight division. Hire new cruiserweights and create a "worldwide" cruiserweight tournament. Maybe even make a newly designed belt that looks important, so they can get away from the Jackie/Chavo Sr. stigma it has now.

Part of the point I'm trying to make is that legend is the most whored out term in the WWE. A legendary figure is someone who has reached a mythical level. The only person from the WWE that can really claim that is Andre the Giant. There are a lot of unbelievable stories about him that people tell but no one is really sure if they are completly true. Look at sports, there have been great players who have come out but they are not legends. Nobody calls Michael Jordan a legend.

I have always thought that Benjamin should be a heel. Better yet, he should be a heel on Smackdown. If they had put the effort into making him a heel on Smackdown instead of a face on Raw, he could have been challenging Eddy for the title by Summerslam or Survivior Series.

In retrospect both Bret and Shawn were not draws. If you look closer Bret drew more than Shawn because he was champion longer. You can't really compare their title reigns. All the Bret/Shawn debate really comes down to is which one like more. I like Bret more because I can't stand Shawn. It makes me angry to know that son of bitch is still involved in wrestling as the top babyface in 2004. Even worse is the years of WWE propaganda claiming he is legend. Dosen't it seem like they give legend status to anyone who has been wrestling for over ten years. With Shawn it's worse because they were trying to do it when he was still wrestling in 1997.

You know what, Paul London is a jobber. I really just realized this right now. The cruiserweight division is dead and it will be completly gone in a few months. I was reading the Observer and it said that the WWE will be going back to 80s/early 90s style squash matches (for a few matches, not the entire show). They are doing it as way of getting their new gimmick wrestlers over. The cruiserweight division is going to become their "enhancement talent." Paul London has become Barry Horowitz. I think it is a shame because I thought London along with Kendrick could have become the WWE's best and most popular tag team. They could have made the marks forget about Jeff Hardy. But I guess Spanky was the one that kind of screwed him there.

I sent an email to Dave Meltzer and here is what he has to say about the rumor: That's what Jeff is telling people. that's only happening if they show some ratings life.

If you want to get completly technical, Eddy, Benoit, and Jericho are all realisticly around 205 to 210. Shawn Michaels is realisticly around 190 and he is the most dominant face on Raw.