Quasar

2000 wasn't all ROH-like either. Look at the beginning of 2000, you had Triple H and Stephanie McMahon-Helmsley running wild with the McMahon-Helmsley Era then HHH retaining at WrestleMania 2000 when Vince McMahon gives his seal of approval. The HHH/Rock feud then moved into "Can Rock overcome the odds?" by having Shane be the ref at Backlash but Rock retained and then an angle where Shawn Michaels may or may not have seen The Undertaker tombstone HHH at Judgment Day. Then you had The Rock pinning Vince McMahon to become WWF Champion at King of the Ring. Then you had the HHH/Angle/Steph love triangle angle while The Rock and Chris Benoit had something resembling a wrestling feud. Of course, RAW was dominated by the love triangle angle. After the end of the love triangle, you had "WHODUNNIT?"................

WWE's main problem is that the production is stale as all hell. We've had basically the same production setup since 1997. Watch a RAW from 1997 and then 2008 and you see little difference production wise. Now, watch a WWF event from 1987 and then 1998 and you see a world of difference. Hell, compare ANY 11 year period in WWF history and you see a FAR larger difference than 1997-2008. If WWE can change production up and catch up with the mainstream, they'd maybe hit another boom. The WWF caught on in 1985 by latching onto MTV and then again in 1998 by latching onto the Jerry Springer Trash TV fad. But what CAN WWE latch onto now?

Vince Russo is a very creative man but abysmal without someone to throw his shit ideas out. His track record in the WWF speaks for that. Though, I may be one of the few that enjoyed TNA in 2003.

Glad to see you're back on the board, Mr. Russo. If only Andre and Hogan involved some exploding boats and bastard dwarfs, maybe people would have went to see that match. Not to argue Mr. Classic but you certainly took his point in the FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR opposite direction. Think about it this way, wrestling booms spark not from mat classics but from non-wrestling angles. May I remind you that D-Generation X and Austin vs. McMahon involved more out of the ring shenanigans than in-ring broadways? To go back to your Andre/Hogan point, Andre vs. Hogan was the peak of a boom period started by the involvement of Mr. T, Cyndi Lauper and MTV. I'd even argue that Hogan's own in-ring deficiencies would be proof that straight out "wrestling" doesn't draw modern audiences. But anyway, the star of Hogan grew through MTV. Remember how Hogan escorted Lauper to the Grammy's? Hogan became a bonafide mainstream celebrity during this period. During this time of the inflated audience, Hogan and Andre were built up as THE MEN! They were unstoppable so when it came time to square off, fans were interested in seeing it. It was that simple. Hogan/Andre WAS based on who was the best wrestler but to achieve the 93,000+ in Pontiac, MI, it took out of ring theatrics to draw them in.

Pet peeve time, Can people stop saying "NWA" when referring to the pre-1986 National Wrestling Alliance? Seriously, you're lumping ALL of the territories (all of which were vastly different) into one entity? Seriously, there are some NWA territories that were downright terrible and saying "NWA" is too much of a blanket that it annoys me and takes away from your argument. Which territory are you saying was better than the WWWF?

Ummm.........pretty sure that you can't own part of someone's name. Plus, Booker used that name before he signed with WCW. Remember kids, WWE doesn't trademark EVERYTHING.

You forgot the men who won the WCW Title in the WWF, remember, the WWF owned WCW so their title changes are valid. In fact, I'd rather consider THE ROCK a former WCW Champion before Arquette. Anyway, here is your list of possible choices: Possible Choices Big Show Booker T Bret Hart Chris Jericho Goldberg Hulk Hogan Kurt Angle Randy Savage Ric Flair Sid Vicious The Rock Narrowing it down further, guys on that list who have feuded with Angle: Guys Who Have Feuded with Angle Big Show Booker T Chris Jericho Hulk Hogan Ric Flair The Rock

You guys don't watch "The Big Bang Theory" do you? You really should, Kaley Cuoco is the hottest TV actress out there today.

Wrong. 2003 was worse. You don't want to see Morrison vs Punk? 03 had a decent Lesnar/Angle match and the Elimination Chamber as the co-main events. Compare this to Orton-Cena and what, Booker-HHH or Batista/Khali? This card, on paper - BLOWS. I'd rather see Umaga v. Kennedy v. Carlito over anything, but yet not going to shell out $40 for that at all. Nothing here on this card is really grabbing me. If the HHH and Rey returns would be against someone fresh and a really strong program behind it, to boot, that would have probably helped the overall feel of this one. Basically, I just get the vibe like it's "just another ppv" or something. Orton/Cena will probably be pretty good given the praise its been getting on house shows, but I can't see anything else here as really THAT good. I havent been impressed with any of the Morrison/Punk series of matches, sadly, so, no, I dont really want to see it. I hate to say it, but that is a match that really needed a gimmick attached to it (extreme rules maybe?). The ppv might actually deliver, but not confident enough it will to throw down da cheddar on it. First SummerSlam I'll miss on ppv in it's history. What is this foul form of the Queen's language which thou speaketh? Why art thou referring to the throwing down of cheddar? Does thou not appreciate the dilligent labour of the milk maidens? I also must question your use of the word blows, how can a jousting programme blow? It is an inanimate object, it has no lung capacity from which to blow.

What's wrong with them? They're funny and entertaining. Just because it doesn't involve WRESTLING~! doesn't make it bad. You are watching Sports ENTERTAINMENT, if you want nothing but wrestling, pop in an ROH tape if that's your thing.

I was hoping that Ron would say DAMN! Yankees

Who else are they gonna throw out as a possible new maineventer because the program is going to lead to the person working H in a mainevent fued.... They could always do something lame like have John Cena be the illegitimate child (thus rendering the whole angle pointless) Or they could have the illegitimate child be Finlay

Am I the only one who could see WWE changing Vince's kid now that it seems like the secret out? WWE COULD cancel Kennedy being the kid in order to "surprise" us.

Personally, I wish EVERY state would do this. It would eliminate the "more people voted for the loser" loophole that happened in 2000 and three times before that. Maine already does it that way, and maybe another state I'm forgeting. A district-by-district system would eliminate that problem, too. I just think the current "all or nothing" electoral system is obviously flawed. I'm from just South of the South (Florida) and I agree with you that the youngest generation of Southerners are less abrasive than previous generations, but you remember, we are only 40 years past the Civil Rights movement and all of that BS that took place in the South and a lot of people who came of age during that time period are still alive. I'd say that the Democrats picking up House seats proved that Democrats CAN win in the South, however, the Senate remains very regionalized and thus, the South's electorate (played purely on their past actions, for the most part) are GENERALLY conservative Republican. And hell, to use your example, didn't Harold Ford Jr. get screwed out of the Senate election in Tennessee because of his opponent playing ads that depicting him partying in the Playboy Mansion? But yeah, I think that the South will get more liberal, the whole country is moving left. But the older generation is still more politically active than the younger. To be more accurate, the WHITE older generation is still more politically active than ANYONE. I saw a statistic somewhere that minority voter turnout in the South is significantly lower than in other portions of the country. So, you want Obama to have a chance in the South? Get the youths and blacks to go and vote. Personally, I don't want President Obama nor President Clinton II. I'd much prefer President Edwards or President Richardson.

Doesn't matter, people see "Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney" and think LIBERAL because of the state Massachusetts. And if you want candidates to stop pandering to the South, tell people from the Northeast and Midwest to quit moving there and helping them get electoral votes. Seriously, people are moving to the South now because of it having "nice weather" and "good people" and in the process helping them get electoral votes.

And in actuality, wasn't the plan before Triple H's quad injury for him to turn face and feud with Austin? For some reason though, I can't see Triple H leading the WWF against Austin and The Alliance mainly because HHH's kayfabe marriage to Stephanie. Although, the WWF could've added spousal feud to the Alliance, it's not like it wasn't already a McMahon vs. McMahon war anyway.

Actually, Triple H never turned back heel officially until he revealed that he conspired with Rikishi to run down Stone Cold. HHH was a face at No Mercy taking on the heel Chris Benoit. Stephanie chose Triple H as her lover but remained with Kurt Angle as his "business partner" leading him to the WWF Championship at No Mercy.

No, no, absolutely not. Putting the belt on Chris Jericho would've been the opposite of good business. The "title change" took place just 13 days prior to Backlash, where THE ROCK (you know, that guy who drew tons of money) was scheduled to get his big title win. Why in the hell do smarks think that Chris Jericho should've won the belt there? The Rock was clearly being built up as the next WWF Champion and he had been screwed out of the WWF Championship by the McMahon-Helmsley Regime at WrestleMania 2000. The Rock had to win the WWF Championship. So, do you want Jericho's first reign to have lasted 13 days by chance? Jericho got a pop because he dethroned TRIPLE H as champion, I'm not denying that Jericho was over but remember, TAKA Michinoku got a pop for pinning Triple H but we aren't clamouring for a TAKA title reign. Jericho went on to have a good feud with Chris Benoit that did a better job of elevating both then a hotshot title reign would've. In fact, I'd argue that the Rock/Benoit program should've led to a Benoit title win at SummerSlam with HHH/Angle getting their own match in the undercard.

You know something? I believe that a Mitt Romney vs. Hillary Clinton would cause a third party to emerge. Southern Republicans will not vote for a liberal Mormon Republican and a Southerner won't vote for Hillary. In fact, it'd be extremely intelligent for a conservative Southern politician to use that as an opportunity to position themselves for the 2012 Republican nomination. The third party would take the South, Romney would win the non-Southern red states but Clinton would take the blue states and ride into the White House. And Gogo, the electoral college is a funny thing, where 60 million votes would put Hillary in the White House. Remember, in 1860, Stephen Douglas came in 2nd to Lincoln in the popular vote but lost the electoral college to other candidates (aside from Abe). EDIT: And there's a chance that neither Hillary, Obama nor Edwards get the nom. Remember how in 2003, we were all talking about Lieberman and Gephardt with some Dean sprinkled in?

Of course, you and I both know that John Edwards is the most electable out of the big three right now. Hopefully, Edwards can get the nomination because I'm not feeling the Republicans right now. The thing that the Democrats need to focus on is winning red states and Obama and Clinton will not win a single red state. Look at Obama, no seriously, LOOK AT OBAMA! Most of the red states are Southern and it hasn't even been 50 years since the civil rights movement. Obama/Guiliani would be a nightmare for the Democratic party as it'd be the Mayor during 9/11 against a black man. No way does Obama win a single red state, he's good for maintaining the Democrats in the states that they already have but I can't see Obama winning in the South. Clinton is too polarizing and many in the South cringe at the thought of a woman being President. I think that the Democratic Party needs to stop looking for candidates that appeal to their 49% and look for candidates that appeal to the 100%. I look at Clinton and Obama and think "Blue State Democrat", I don't see someone who can win red states. I see someone who Northern Democrats jerk off to because they're "DIFFERENT!" John Edwards has broad appeal, he's a handsome man from the South, he has lived in the South for his entire life and his campaign actually focuses on helping impoverished people (Whether or not he's genuine is another question). I think that John Edwards has MORE appeal than Obama and Clinton in the South. If it's Clinton/Guiliani or Obama/Guiliani, Guiliani wins with the same margin that Bush did in 2000-2004. If it's Edwards, Edwards COULD possibly take the Carolinas and Georgia to steal the election. Even if Arkansas went to Clinton, it wouldn't be nearly enough to take the election AND I highly doubt that the South would even vote for a former First Lady of Arkansas who decided to become a NEW YORK Senator. Clinton would have a hard time justifying leaving Arkansas for New York. Especially when to the Southern man, New York is seen as the worst place in America, it's the ultimate ANTI-South. What in the hell was Clinton even thinking? If the Democrats want to win this election, they must nominate John Edwards and leave the circle jerked Northern Democrat friendly candidates alone. Get a man who can appeal to the common man. Clinton is not popular enough amongst Southerners to win an election and Obama is not the right race to win in the South (especially considering the low voter turnout of black people historically in the South as a result of the lingering effects of Jim Crow).

Bullshit, he won't pay for anything. This guy had the biggest following of college-age idiots before he even expressed a thought. He's got every election locked up from here to next November; bank on it. So you're predicting that Obama will ride the support of college students all the way to the White House? Yes. Obama will win every significant primary, maybe dropping one or two because of a local candidate, and beat any lame duck the Republicans trot out. I'm not entirely sure I want him to, but I'm resigned to the fact that he will. Actually, I think that the real race is between John Edwards and Barack Obama. I can't see Hillary winning any primaries and Edwards has a lot of support in the South. Also, I think that the according to polls, Edwards and Obama are neck and neck in Iowa right now. I wouldn't rule John Edwards out as of yet.

You do realize that you and I just made the same point, don't you? The college kid demographic isn't nearly enough to win someone the Presidency, there just aren't enough numbers. Keep in mind that not all college kids are Democrats anyway. And if Kerry had a competent campaign staff, we'd be talking about President John Kerry right now. There's no reason that a President with sub 50% approval ratings headed INTO the election year should be taking the oath of office again the following year.

It's already closed and has been since like March. I'm pretty sure that it's being replaced by The Simpsons Ride or something. I went to Universal in April and it was already closed, so it's gone the way of the do-do already.

It just seems off to me that JBL would float the idea to Regal then proceed to go out there and act somber over Chris Benoit's death, despite him having knowledge or even the thought that Benoit was a child murderer. JBL always came off to me as an honest and off the record kind of person, I don't see him being so much of a company man that he would go out there and honor a child murderer. Though, it wouldn't be totally out there for JBL to have the thought. I remember that by 7:00 PM EST, we were hearing rumors of murder-suicide from Meltzer and company, everyone just assumed that it was Nancy that killed Chris and Daniel. Maybe John knew better and figured out that it was Chris but had to toe the company line by going out there and acting somber. In retrospect, WWE should've just canceled the damn show until they knew more.

I just had a thought: Does anyone think that Meltzer possibily screwed up by reporting that JBL told Regal about Benoit killing Daniel? It doesn't seem to fit any timeline, JBL was doing commentary during RAW and openly weeped for Benoit's death. I'm leaning towards Meltzer hearing "John L" and thinking Layfield instead of Laurinitus. I'm sure that the tributes were being taped as RAW was going on as opposed to being taped prior to RAW going on the air.