Cheech Tremendous

Is it me or is JR telling us he prefers guys who don't know how to correctly apply a wrestling hold? Am I just reading that wrong? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're just reading it wrong. It's a veiled shot at Daniels and Styles. The statement implies that he wants two guys on the mat wrestling instead of some high-flying exhibition. I can see you how misinterpreted the statement though. Maybe it's some sort of Oklahomian doublespeak.

Yeah, why not just do like, at the end of Raw, instead of ending with a cliffhanger like they usually do (I think), just have the last match end, have the lights at the stage turn off, and just show Ross saying that he's decided to call it quits after 20some years of announcing, it's been a pleasure, thanks for inviting me into your home each week, I wish Raw the best, so long, we'll see each other again on this long dusty trail of life. It doesn't have to be "YOU'RE FIIRED BLAARRRGH!!!" every damn time. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Like the WWE would do something that classy.

Man, that makes me feel dirty for picking Andruw Jones as my MVP this year.

Not to mention that Dave Meltzer said over on the WC message board that Kerry Von Erich was THE backup plan had they not gotten Hogan. Interesting tidbit.

Last time I checked there was still a band called the Rolling Stones that were kicking around. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'd say the Beatles were/are bigger than the Stones, and a big part of that is the fact the Beatles split. The Stones only became the biggest band in world in 1970 because when the Beatles were about no one else stood a chance. Plus they've released nothing of worth for the last thirty years. They're a nostalgia band now, nothing more, nothing less. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I was not implying that the Stones were bigger than the Beatles, just that they were bigger than U2. And the Stones newest album is getting rave reviews. Sure, they play to nostalgia, but that doesn't mean they aren't still a kick-ass rock and roll band. Frankly, I think U2 is big time overrated. While not a gauge of their overally popularity, I'm not sure I've ever personally known a U2 fan.

I still think Kerry was the better option. He just seemed to have more of the "it" factor.

How exactly do you do play by play with zero knowledge of the sport? He will not know how to call moves, he won't know the wrestlers or their motivation. I just don't see this being that good of a move, regardless of what he meant to UFC.

Last time I checked there was still a band called the Rolling Stones that were kicking around.

Scott Keith has always been called the useless moron around these parts. I was merely adhering to protocol.

If the guy's so useless then why do you check his blog and quote him? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> At one time, he was one of the best and most insightful writers in the IWC. He's really fallen off in recent years but I still check things just to see if he has returned to form. Old habits die hard I guess. And the reason I quoted him is because he made excellent points about Steve Austin and the show in general.

If Curry delivers the Knicks are going to have a good young team this year. I remember someone calling them the Phoenix Suns of the east. Allan Houston is also another good trading block next year I believe. He has a very large expring contract which would be great for a sign and trade. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There sure are a lot of Knicks apologists on this board. They trade away a promising young talent and future cap savings for a guy with a bad heart (literally and figuratively) and an uninsurable contract, and this is spun as a positive? If he is healthy and ably to play out the next 5 years, it will be a good move. But does ANYONE see this happening? Isn't it alarming that there was only one GM in the entire league willing to give this guy a contract? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hakeem had the same heart problem and played for like 17 years or so. Like I said, if he's healthy, how is this a bad move? They traded away an undersized PF (oh wait, since we traded him away, he suddenly becomes a promising young talent, my bad), and a guy who is mediocre for a guy who's a better player than both, with more upside, and an expiring contract (same as TT, if they decide not to cut him). And i've asked for this move. I think Curry will be the real deal. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Check out John Hollinger's article on why this is a potentially horrendous deal. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/trainingcamp...d=2182500&num=0

I'm still in the middle of a 2 year depression over this. Now it looks like I'm going to be depressed for at least 5 years. Meltzer has a mailbag? Where's this at? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> His website.

Slim to none.

Ilgauskas? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Alvin Williams, Alonzo Mourning

Does anyone know the 12 NBA contracts that are uninsurable? I remember reading about it at the time the whole Curry thing went down. I know Grant Hill (ankle), Quentin Richardson (back) and Eddy Curry (heart) are three of them? Any guesses on the rest?

I think it's more likely that HHH wins the Rumble and goes on to defeat Cena at WM than the other way around. They've done the HHH loses to the up and coming babyface the past two years at Mania. It would be beyond stale to do it again.

Here's a little blurb from the Useless Moron's blog. He seems to sum up the show fairly well, at least from my perspective. " RAW is...OK. RAW was basically a pretty good show, actually better than most of the ones that have bored me to tears in recent months, but just didn't have the "blow me away" feel that's been lacking for years now. They had all the pieces in place -- a big turn (kind of), lots of guest stars, loser leaves RAW match, a big Iron Man match -- but they couldn't put the pieces together to really make it all click. I think that what it felt like to me was the LAST episode of a long-running series, not the first one of a new series. Whereas TNA introduced their big stars to the audience with the first Impact, WWE basically threw Carlito and Masters out there with no explanation or build of their characters. I mean, sure, it's not terribly likely that people don't know who they are and haven't been watching, but there MIGHT be new viewers (and in fact, that was kind of the point, right?) so why not take five seconds and explain who these guys are? I think their time management was also atrocious, as evidenced by the ridiculously long Austin-McMahons segment that basically robbed us of the Smackdown match and the main event (which was a joke anyway), and seemed to go on forever. I talk more at length about this in the new book, but Austin's slide from iconic figure into self-parody has really been one of the saddest things I've ever witnessed as a wrestling fan. This is truly a guy who can't grasp when it's time to find something new to do with his life, which is doubly ironic considering his attitude in his WCW days towards the people who were acting the same way. He's long past the point where his career (or the WWE's) would suffer if he tried reinventing himself ala "Hulk becomes Hollywood," and really if he doesn't do something soon I don't think the perceived "dream match" with Hogan is going to matter much. The other thing that was really ridiculous about this show was the idea that guys like Batista, Benoit and Christian (representing Smackdown for all of a couple of months) would suddenly feel patriotric fervor towards that show when really they were sent there by an arbitrary draft lottery after establishing all of their current status on RAW. JBL, Rey, Eddie, fine. They're all deeply associated with the show and we can understand why they'd fight for it, but the others just don't ring true. So I think basically that this show was a case of wasted potential more than anything. They just don't have the writing staff that can pull this kind of show off anymore, and it's kind of sad, because you'd think that if they were ever going to get it together and finally deliver something, this would have been the time. "

That's the thing. Is it really that common for a top guy to play out the contract and then be a free agent? It seems like everyone gets an extension or re-ups the year when they are restricted. I can't see the Heat, Cavs, Nuggets or Raptors letting these guys go without a major fight.

If Curry delivers the Knicks are going to have a good young team this year. I remember someone calling them the Phoenix Suns of the east. Allan Houston is also another good trading block next year I believe. He has a very large expring contract which would be great for a sign and trade. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There sure are a lot of Knicks apologists on this board. They trade away a promising young talent and future cap savings for a guy with a bad heart (literally and figuratively) and an uninsurable contract, and this is spun as a positive? If he is healthy and ably to play out the next 5 years, it will be a good move. But does ANYONE see this happening? Isn't it alarming that there was only one GM in the entire league willing to give this guy a contract?

Most reviews are positive. Look outside this board. And even here it's about half/half. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Okay, maybe I didn't do enough searching at other sites. But I haven't really heard people (and definitely correct me if I'm wrong) say that this show has restored their faith in the product. I know I gave it a shot last night, thought it was a whatever show and probably won't watch next week. I didn't mean to imply that it was a bad show, just not the homerun they were supposedly trying to hit by the stacking the line-up the way they did.

I wouldn't have paid big money to see this in 95. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't think I would pay big money to see this in 2005. I think I am in the minority on this one, but I just don't see the appeal in this match anymore. I know they are the two biggest stars the Fed has ever had, but they are years past their point of usefulness. I think I would rather see a Hogan v. Flair double retirement match or something at this point. I guess I'm just over the nostalgia kick. It was interesting a few years ago, but now I've seen enough of Hogan. I think the match will still do a good buyrate, but not at the level of Rock v. Hogan or anything like that. There aren't enough people who care about wrestling anymore, even for the supposed biggest stars in the business. Besides, Austin is in that weird phase that Hogan went through in the mid-90s where he's been gone but people don't really miss him yet.

Although it was personally my favorite year of wrestling, I think 2000 was the year when things starting going downhill. All the friends I had that had become interested in the product during the Attitude era slowly drifted away over the course of the year. The things in 2001 and 2002 just exacerbated the problem The 20 mintue HHH promos each wekk, over-exposure of the McMahons, the halting pushes of Jericho, Angle and Benoit, heel retaining at Mania, Rikishi's heel turn, the botched Austin return, Rock getting stale, the move to TNN, the failed love triangle, Survivor Series and the Sports Entertainment finish, etc... All these things slowly starting driving fans away. The move to Stephanie as head of creative was the beginning of the end.

I think its extremely apparent that they are going with Batista v. Orton, HHH v. Cena and Hogan v. Austin as the top matches at Wrestlemania.

It's not a 5.0, but I think it was a good rating and definitely higher than I expected. At least we know it's not time to hit the panic button. The show nearly a full point higher than what they have been doing recently and on par with the highest rated shows over the past couple years. More than anything, they shoud be worried about the lack of positive reviews for the show. If anything, they needed to hit a home run to bring fans back over the long run. I don't think there is any indication that this happened with last night's show.

Not according to your mother. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nova invented homosexuality.