One Night Stand To Receive Little Promotion by WWE

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

ECW in late 1999 / 2000 is largely underrated. Though it didn't have the "revolutionary angles" that the earlier, more well-known, ECW had, and they had less "names", the in-ring stuff was much more polished and certainly on-par with what WWF was doing at the time. I was disappointed by mid-90's ECW ring work; it was largely very sloppy, it lacked format and pacing, and you'd be lucky to find 1 good match on a card, let alone a great match. I'll put Hardcore Heaven 2000 and AR 99 against anything ECW did in its "prime" and it wouldn't be a contest. People just don't jerk off to it like the mid-90's stuff because ECW lost its "buzz".

 

And yes, Psi/Tajiri REALLY was that good. In terms of flow, form, and execution of moves, it was high-end stuff.

[Guest MikeSC]

The only good thing ECW had late in the 1990's was when Sandman was gone, they had one less bad worker.

 

Honestly, the only time they REALLY wowed me was the ECW Tag Title Tourney in late 2000.

 

The rest of the time, the matches were blah. I never got into Doring and Roadkill. Corino is STILL unwatchable for me. CW Anderson was OK, but not much more. I don't like Dreamer's work. Jerry Lynn, sorry, is above average on a good day. I won't even go into how bad Credible and Rhino were.

 

Tajiri & Mikey v FBI was the last series of matches I really got into.

-=Mike

[spman 0]

Sweet Jesus, WWE is raping everybody with these ticket prices

 

 

Ryan Morgan sent word that the following ticket prices are listed on WWE.com for the ECW One Night Stand PPV at the Hammerstein Ballroom in New York City:

 

Ringside: $400 including take-home commemorative chair

$200

$150

 

Credit PWI

[2GOLD 0]

Sweet Jesus, WWE is raping everybody with these ticket prices

 

 

Ryan Morgan sent word that the following ticket prices are listed on WWE.com for the ECW One Night Stand PPV at the Hammerstein Ballroom in New York City:

 

Ringside: $400 including take-home commemorative chair

$200

$150

 

Credit PWI

 

Look out, here comes that 34.95 price tag that makes me go thanks but no thanks. I will never pay more than 25 dollars for a PPV ever again, it's just not worth it.

[Scroby 0]

Seriously? At those prices WWE will be very lucky if anyone shows up. I mean a ringside seat at a regular WWE event is just barely over 100 dollars.

[ChrisMWaters 0]

Seriously? At those prices WWE will be very lucky if anyone shows up. I mean a ringside seat at a regular WWE event is just barely over 100 dollars.

...

 

My Royal Rumble tickets, almost ringside, were $300.

[Scroby 0]

Yeah thats Royal Rumble through. I ment more like No Way Out, Backlash, Judgement, Bad Blood PPVS, not the big ones.

[ChrisMWaters 0]

Well, I'm guessing the reason that the tickets are so high for this event is because it's a very special event, one that may just truly be a one time only thing.

[tominator89 0]

With prices like that, is it any wonder that people download this stuff?

[Jericholic82 0]

well its not like wwe was gonna charge 20 bucks for general admission or something, this is just another money making thing for them, they can care a crap less about ECW.

[Jericholic82 0]

then agian, most of us in 2005 can care a crap less abotu a promotion that died 4 years ago.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

It's going to be funny when they have to heavily paper this event and then only pull in 50k buys.

[Guest netslob]

no, no, NO, Mike is ALWAYS right. his opinion is the only one that matters. personal preferences don't matter, if you don't like what he likes or hate what he hates you are WRONG, WRONG WRONG! where have you been?

Hmm, I might start praising HHH now, simply because you've just said it is impossible to criticize.

-=Mike

oh by all means!

 

hey everyone, spread the word...HHH is now to be praised...MIKE HAS SPOKEN~!

 

always remember kids...before you have an opinion...check with Mike first to see if it's the RIGHT opinion.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

The only good thing ECW had late in the 1990's was when Sandman was gone, they had one less bad worker.

 

Honestly, the only time they REALLY wowed me was the ECW Tag Title Tourney in late 2000.

 

The rest of the time, the matches were blah. I never got into Doring and Roadkill. Corino is STILL unwatchable for me. CW Anderson was OK, but not much more. I don't like Dreamer's work. Jerry Lynn, sorry, is above average on a good day. I won't even go into how bad Credible and Rhino were.

 

Tajiri & Mikey v FBI was the last series of matches I really got into.

-=Mike

The majority of Masato Tanaka matches were better than the stuff WWF was putting out at the time; his stuff against Ballz Mahoney in 2000 was great, as was his stuff against Awesome. A lot of people will throw "overrated" at these matches, but I think it's getting to the point to where they're being underrated now. I'd put that stuff above 99% of ECW's past matches, and the majority of WWF/WCW stuff at the time.

 

The RVD/Lynn/Tajiri/Psicosis stuff, while overdone, when it was done right it was awesome (more so Tajiri than RVD). The Tajiri/Psi match was way too smooth and well-timed not to be considered a top match at the time. Nothing in NA was coming close to what they were doing.

 

Credible/Corino/Lynn had fantastic chemistry. Though Credible/Corino were "solid" workers at best and were pushed without really earning it, they did have charisma and IMO their matches together exceeded their individual ability. One match in particular, 9/9/00, between the 3 was one of the best 3 way dances I have ever seen. Corino/Lynn tends to get labelled just for the "DIE" spot but the match itself had tons of neat stuff in it (Corino working the crowd, in particular), which surprised me when I saw it. I think Corinos work in this period is largely overlooked, because he worked the crowd almost better than anyone else _in the ring_ at this time.

 

In terms of the tag division, as you mentioned before, the Tajiri/Mikey team did some great stuff, and I think Doring/Roadkill were good enough to have some high-end matches, and did so on one or two occasions. Their match against the FBI on 9/9/00 was very well worked and thought-out. Which I think is a big strength to the later ECW matches; they were more structured and better executed than the earlier stuff. The earlier stuff may have been more inspired, but they didn't have the ability at the time to pull it off. The FBI, along with Simon and Swinger, Nova/Chetti, were "solid" teams, and looking back -and this may not be a huge compliment- were doing better than the tag division is today. Unfortunately, the WWF tag division was raising the bar with the TLC's and whatnot, and ECW didn't really have enough to compete. Too many thrown together teams, and no cohesive storyline to join them together... hmm, sounds familiar...

 

I enjoyed Rhino in small doses, much like Taz, and the longer the match went the more apparent his flaws were. I wouldn't call him awful, though, especially in comparison to the slugs pushed in the earlier days of ECW. But then again, I like the garbled, fuck-laced, promos and crazy antics with table breaking. Which explains why I liked Mike Awesome so much during that time.

 

In the end, I'd watch ECW in 2000 over both the WWF in 2000, and ECW in the mid-90's. Maybe that is just personal preference, but I think history hasn't been too kind to that period of time for the WWF and I find the majority of mid-90's ECW stuff to be hackish. Though they didn't have the names they once had, or the buzz that they once had, I thought ECW in 2000 was a lot more polished than it used to be and tends to get disregarded because he didn't have the buzz or the names.

[strummer 0]

I will admit the wrestling was better in 99/2000 but the angles were non-existent. What made ECW appealing to me was the in your face, emotional promos and vignettes. Foley, Dreamer, Shane, Funk, Raven, Benoit, etc. would cut these amazing promos right into the camera and you didn't see that in the WWF or WCW at the time. They were from the heart, they weren't traditional wrestling promos. They made me feel the hatred and frustration were real, and it some cases, they were. People say mid 90s stuff was overbooked, but the overbooking worked in the chaotic setting. It allowed them to be different from the other 2 companies. After Raven left, the angles became down right awful and Heyman was openly sucking up to the smart fans by giving EVERY match 20 minutes. All of a sudden ECW was "all about workrate". Funny because that wasn't what ECW was about when it started. Paul was getting desperate after all his stars left and thought he could still hook the smart fans to at least stay afloat.

 

But in the end, they were drawing their best houses in 2000/2001, so maybe that's the style the fans really wanted. It wasn't what I wanted though. I know it would have been tough for them to still be "revolutionary" at the time (especially when the WWF was probably doing more risky stuff anyway), but they could have put some effort into creating that emotional connection with the fans.

[DARRYLXWF 0]

Mike.

 

Yet people here bitch about JBL, HHH, etc.

 

I know. You bitch about ECW. Wrestling IS subjective, but people tend not to understand why others don't like the things that they like. It's a part of human nature, only you tend to be more dogmatic about it. It gets to people.

 

Ah, so nobody is allowed to criticize?

 

Got it.

 

ECW sheep really were not too good at handling a differing viewpoint.

 

The irony here is that your the one who seems to have trouble handling a viewpoint. We all know that ECW fans get shitty. That's a given. But you just turn it around and put yourself in the same position.

 

And I'm not saying that nobody is allowed to criticize. If I thought that, I wouldn't have criticized you.

 

Got it?

 

Their matches sucked and the company went belly-up because people, clearly, DIDN'T want to watch them. Their ratings were shit on TNN because people didn't WANT to watch them. Their PPV buyrates were shit because people didn't want to see them.

 

Yet as this ppv has shown (as has the dvd), there is still a market large enough to make these small ECW events worthwhile. That's all that matters.

 

I'm surprised also at your little jab at me for having a minority opinion. As a dedicated right winger (like myself), shouldn't you know that the tyranny of the majority can be just as bad as a government if tolerance isn't a allowed. Go read 'On Liberty' by John Stuart Mill.

 

Anyway...what were we talking about again? Oh ECW. Right.

 

Hmm, I might start praising HHH now, simply because you've just said it is impossible to criticize.

 

Not impossible, no. Just annoying. But that's democracy for you.

 

Cheers.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Their matches sucked and the company went belly-up because people, clearly, DIDN'T want to watch them. Their ratings were shit on TNN because people didn't WANT to watch them. Their PPV buyrates were shit because people didn't want to see them.

 

Yet as this ppv has shown (as has the dvd), there is still a market large enough to make these small ECW events worthwhile. That's all that matters.

 

I'm surprised also at your little jab at me for having a minority opinion. As a dedicated right winger (like myself), shouldn't you know that the tyranny of the majority can be just as bad as a government if tolerance isn't a allowed. Go read 'On Liberty' by John Stuart Mill.

I can't believe I missed that. ECW was drawing their biggest houses in 2000; I was at (from what I hear) their biggest. ECW was very popular in 2000, that their ratings on TNN friday nights and their PPV's in a time when there was a PPV almost every single week were low isn't of much relevance, considering they were drawing sold out shows for those tapings and ppvs in areas that went from 2000-5000 fans. They went belly-up despite a large fanbase.

 

...the right wing is the minority?

[tominator89 0]

ECW has turned into a discussion of politics...Interesting.

[Guest MikeSC]

The only good thing ECW had late in the 1990's was when Sandman was gone, they had one less bad worker.

 

Honestly, the only time they REALLY wowed me was the ECW Tag Title Tourney in late 2000.

 

The rest of the time, the matches were blah. I never got into Doring and Roadkill. Corino is STILL unwatchable for me. CW Anderson was OK, but not much more. I don't like Dreamer's work. Jerry Lynn, sorry, is above average on a good day. I won't even go into how bad Credible and Rhino were.

 

Tajiri & Mikey v FBI was the last series of matches I really got into.

      -=Mike

The majority of Masato Tanaka matches were better than the stuff WWF was putting out at the time; his stuff against Ballz Mahoney in 2000 was great, as was his stuff against Awesome.

His match with Balls Mahoney was a no-selling mess. I'm stunned that you complain about Shawn Michaels pulling out a kip-up after a beating --- but Tanaka no selling chair shots is of no concern.

I'd put that stuff above 99% of ECW's past matches, and the majority of WWF/WCW stuff at the time. 

Balls v Tanaka in 2000 was better than the vast majority of the stuff the WWF was churning out?

 

That might be the silliest thing I've read in a while.

The RVD/Lynn/Tajiri/Psicosis stuff, while overdone, when it was done right it was awesome (more so Tajiri than RVD).  The Tajiri/Psi match was way too smooth and well-timed not to be considered a top match at the time.  Nothing in NA was coming close to what they were doing.

Quite a bit in 2000 was better than that. Hell, Rock v Hunter churned out better matches on PPV. Ditto Benoit v Jericho. Ditto Venis v Rikishi.

Credible/Corino/Lynn had fantastic chemistry.  Though Credible/Corino were "solid" workers at best and were pushed without really earning it, they did have charisma and IMO their matches together exceeded their individual ability.  One match in particular, 9/9/00, between the 3 was one of the best 3 way dances I have ever seen.

Credible/Corino/Lynn could've had lovely chemistry --- shamefully, their matches still were quite bad. There is not ONE Credible match that hit higher than 3 stars.

 

As for good 3-way dances --- umm, no. The WWF had several better ones that year (Angle/Benoit/Jericho at WM 2K annihilated it).

In terms of the tag division, as you mentioned before, the Tajiri/Mikey team did some great stuff, and I think Doring/Roadkill were good enough to have some high-end matches, and did so on one or two occasions.  Their match against the FBI on 9/9/00 was very well worked and thought-out.  Which I think is a big strength to the later ECW matches; they were more structured and better executed than the earlier stuff.  The earlier stuff may have been more inspired, but they didn't have the ability at the time to pull it off.  The FBI, along with Simon and Swinger, Nova/Chetti, were "solid" teams, and looking back -and this may not be a huge compliment- were doing better than the tag division is today. 

Better than the tag division today is hardly praise.

 

Better than the tag division in the WWF in 2000? Clearly not. Simon & Swinger were rather mediocre. Words can't fully describe my loathing of Nova & Chetti.

In the end, I'd watch ECW in 2000 over both the WWF in 2000, and ECW in the mid-90's.

Wow. Just wow.

 

WWF in 2000 was the best promotion I've ever seen. Insanely good TV, terrific booking, great PPV's.

 

To even attempt to compare ECW 2000 to WWF 2000 is laughable.

Yet as this ppv has shown (as has the dvd), there is still a market large enough to make these small ECW events worthwhile. That's all that matters.

The buyrate for this PPV is...what?

 

The attendance is...what?

I can't believe I missed that. ECW was drawing their biggest houses in 2000; I was at (from what I hear) their biggest. ECW was very popular in 2000, that their ratings on TNN friday nights and their PPV's in a time when there was a PPV almost every single week were low isn't of much relevance, considering they were drawing sold out shows for those tapings and ppvs in areas that went from 2000-5000 fans. They went belly-up despite a large fanbase.

No, they went belly-up because they could never GENERATE a large fanbase.

 

They were always niche.

 

ROH with infinitely less gifted workers and weaker booking.

-=Mike

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

His match with Balls Mahoney was a no-selling mess. I'm stunned that you complain about Shawn Michaels pulling out a kip-up after a beating --- but Tanaka no selling chair shots is of no concern.

 

The problem with Shawn Michaels isn't about just a kip-up, it's about sporadic selling. It's about him trying to garner sympathy one minute and then shrugging it off for a pop. Besides, I always give HBK credit when it comes to pacing and popping a crowd. Tanaka/Ballz wasn't about epic selling, it was about beating the shit out of each-other until one guy dies. It was a dick measuring contest with chairs. And they did it extremely well.

 

Balls v Tanaka in 2000 was better than the vast majority of the stuff the WWF was churning out?

 

That might be the silliest thing I've read in a while.

 

Absolutely. There are probably about 10 matches the WWF put out that year that could top Mahoney/Tanaka and Psicosis/Tajiri. I doubt there would be 20.

 

Quite a bit in 2000 was better than that. Hell, Rock v Hunter churned out better matches on PPV. Ditto Benoit v Jericho. Ditto Venis v Rikishi.

 

You've got to be kidding me. Rock/Hunter?! Their matches were as interesting as belly-button lint. Benoit/Jericho was usually marred by shitty finishes; their 2/3 falls match might be taken into consideration. Venis/Rikishi? Their cage match? Ack. When was the last time you watched these matches?

 

Credible/Corino/Lynn could've had lovely chemistry --- shamefully, their matches still were quite bad. There is not ONE Credible match that hit higher than 3 stars.

 

As for good 3-way dances --- umm, no. The WWF had several better ones that year (Angle/Benoit/Jericho at WM 2K annihilated it).

 

I've got both matches, let's sit down and compare the two. I was meaning to go back and watch the tape of the 3 way anyways.

 

Better than the tag division today is hardly praise.

 

I know, I said that. I also alluded to the similarities between the two divisions. But it was still a good division, which says something of a company on its last legs compared to the still-up-and-running-WWE.

 

Better than the tag division in the WWF in 2000? Clearly not. Simon & Swinger were rather mediocre. Words can't fully describe my loathing of Nova & Chetti.

 

Never said it was. They did produce some very good tag matches though, better than the majority of the tag matches produced in early ECW times and certainly better than what you give them credit for.

 

Wow. Just wow.

 

WWF in 2000 was the best promotion I've ever seen. Insanely good TV, terrific booking, great PPV's.

 

To even attempt to compare ECW 2000 to WWF 2000 is laughable.

 

WWF 2000 aged terribly for me, especially when the current WWE is taken into consideration. I was watching some of it the other day and couldn't believe the stuff was so popular and still is when people look back on it. A lot of it was painfully basic and average and the stuff that stood out doesn't seem so special now in retrospect. The angles are so boring because they've been rehashed again and again and again. It's just sad to watch. ECW, on the other hand, I can watch and respect. They were still playing strong, even if the ship was sinking. Even if the names were gone, the guys there were still trying to make themselves names to fill the void.

 

QUOTE

 

No, they went belly-up because they could never GENERATE a large fanbase.

 

They were always niche.

 

ROH with infinitely less gifted workers and weaker booking.

 

ROH's biggest drawing card was, what, a lil over 1000 fans? ECW did 5000+ when it was supposedly at its lowest. 5 times bigger. If you want to talk about laughable comparisons, there ya go. They did better numbers than Heat and Velocity do now, and that's with less promotion, smaller names, and a worse timeslot. You can talk about how the WWE doesn't promote those small shows on RAW, but ECW didn't even have RAW so they were worse off. And the shows didn't feature popular names, so you can't use that excuse either. Yet they drew better, and WWE is not "niche". In their death, they still drew bigger houses than most of what the WWE does now for their house shows, and that's with constant national promotion and big names.

[Mole 0]

Absolutely. There are probably about 10 matches the WWF put out that year that could top Mahoney/Tanaka and Psicosis/Tajiri. I doubt there would be 20.

RRR, so you are saying that in the year some people consider WWF's best, those two matches beat it?

 

I can't think of 10 matches off the top of my head that were better since I can never remember that shit. But I highly doubt what you said is the case. 10 out of the 12 PPVs WWF put out that year were good, if not great, and there has to be atleast 10 matches that were better than Balls/Tanaka.

 

And don't forget the matches on Raw and SD.

[Guest MikeSC]

His match with Balls Mahoney was a no-selling mess. I'm stunned that you complain about Shawn Michaels pulling out a kip-up after a beating --- but Tanaka no selling chair shots is of no concern.

 

The problem with Shawn Michaels isn't about just a kip-up, it's about sporadic selling. It's about him trying to garner sympathy one minute and then shrugging it off for a pop. Besides, I always give HBK credit when it comes to pacing and popping a crowd. Tanaka/Ballz wasn't about epic selling, it was about beating the shit out of each-other until one guy dies. It was a dick measuring contest with chairs. And they did it extremely well.

Thing is, you seem to have more of a problem with a guy selling sporadically rather than not selling at all.

Balls v Tanaka in 2000 was better than the vast majority of the stuff the WWF was churning out?

 

That might be the silliest thing I've read in a while.

 

Absolutely.  There are probably about 10 matches the WWF put out that year that could top Mahoney/Tanaka and Psicosis/Tajiri.  I doubt there would be 20.

I could name 10 featuring Hunter alone.

 

Hunter v Jericho from RAW, Hunter v Jericho at Fully Loaded, Hunter v Rock at Backlash, Hunter v Rock at Judgment Day, Hunter v Foley at RRumble, Hunter v Foley at nWo, Hunter v Benoit on SD, Hunter v Benoit at No Mercy, Hunter v TAKA on RAW, Hunter v Rikishi on SD.

 

And that ignores Benoit's work. Jericho's work. The tag division. The Hardcore division (which was quite good with Crash as champ). Angle's work. Guerrero's work.

Quite a bit in 2000 was better than that. Hell, Rock v Hunter churned out better matches on PPV. Ditto Benoit v Jericho. Ditto Venis v Rikishi.

You've got to be kidding me.  Rock/Hunter?!  Their matches were as interesting as belly-button lint.  Benoit/Jericho was usually marred by shitty finishes; their 2/3 falls match might be taken into consideration.  Venis/Rikishi? Their cage match?  Ack.  When was the last time you watched these matches?

Rock v Hunter had nothing but great --- yes, great --- matches in 2000. They had the best Ironman match I've ever seen.

 

And Benoit v Jericho had a series of great matches. Screw the bad finishes (none of which were that bad).

 

And Rikishi v Venis had some brutally underrated matches in 2000 that was spectacular.

Credible/Corino/Lynn could've had lovely chemistry --- shamefully, their matches still were quite bad. There is not ONE Credible match that hit higher than 3 stars.

 

As for good 3-way dances --- umm, no. The WWF had several better ones that year (Angle/Benoit/Jericho at WM 2K annihilated it).

I've got both matches, let's sit down and compare the two.  I was meaning to go back and watch the tape of the 3 way anyways.

I seem to remember the WM 2K 3-way being the only 3-way where I don't recall a punch being thrown.

Wow. Just wow.

 

WWF in 2000 was the best promotion I've ever seen. Insanely good TV, terrific booking, great PPV's.

 

To even attempt to compare ECW 2000 to WWF 2000 is laughable.

WWF 2000 aged terribly for me, especially when the current WWE is taken into consideration.  I was watching some of it the other day and couldn't believe the stuff was so popular and still is when people look back on it.  A lot of it was painfully basic and average and the stuff that stood out doesn't seem so special now in retrospect.  The angles are so boring because they've been rehashed again and again and again.  It's just sad to watch.  ECW, on the other hand, I can watch and respect.  They were still playing strong, even if the ship was sinking.  Even if the names were gone, the guys there were still trying to make themselves names to fill the void.

ECW had atrocious and tedious booking and a series of matches that were, to be generous, blah. Take away the tag title tournament and I can't name a single ECW match that year hit 3 stars (I believe Tanaka v Awesome was pretty much over by th time January rolled around).

QUOTE 

 

No, they went belly-up because they could never GENERATE a large fanbase.

 

They were always niche.

 

ROH with infinitely less gifted workers and weaker booking.

 

ROH's biggest drawing card was, what, a lil over 1000 fans?  ECW did 5000+ when it was supposedly at its lowest.  5 times bigger.  If you want to talk about laughable comparisons, there ya go.  They did better numbers than Heat and Velocity do now, and that's with less promotion, smaller names, and a worse timeslot.  You can talk about how the WWE doesn't promote those small shows on RAW, but ECW didn't even have RAW so they were worse off.  And the shows didn't feature popular names, so you can't use that excuse either.  Yet they drew better, and WWE is not "niche".  In their death, they still drew bigger houses than most of what the WWE does now for their house shows, and that's with constant national promotion and big names.

I question almost all of this.

 

Better house show attendance? I seriously and utterly doubt this.

 

Low ratings? ECW was pulling down how many hours of TV at that point? A little easier to get people to watch 1 hour than to watch 5-6. And care to name the big names who appear on Velocity or Heat?

 

In terms of profitability, it's not close. PPV buyrates? Not even close to being close. Attendance? Nope.

-=Mike

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

ROH's biggest drawing card was, what, a lil over 1000 fans? ECW did 5000+ when it was supposedly at its lowest. 5 times bigger. If you want to talk about laughable comparisons, there ya go. They did better numbers than Heat and Velocity do now, and that's with less promotion, smaller names, and a worse timeslot. You can talk about how the WWE doesn't promote those small shows on RAW, but ECW didn't even have RAW so they were worse off. And the shows didn't feature popular names, so you can't use that excuse either. Yet they drew better, and WWE is not "niche". In their death, they still drew bigger houses than most of what the WWE does now for their house shows, and that's with constant national promotion and big names.

 

Closer to 2000 actually for RoH. ECW's best attendence ever was something like 6400 people for a PPV show. They were still doing shows in high school gyms in 2000 and the show I went to in 2000 maybe had 600 people there. RoH is building it's fanbase at a much quicker and smarter pace than ECW ever did.

[dpac 0]

Anyone know where to get the video that they aired at Backlash?

[GreatWhiteNope 0]

Anyone know where to get the video that they aired at Backlash?

ECW - One Night Stand

[dpac 0]

Thanks, but I only got the audio.

[GreatWhiteNope 0]

Thanks, but I only got the audio.

You need the DivX codec.

[Guest Breakdancingbatista]

Is anyone likely to get signed to WWE following the event?

[Guest Brian]

Does ROH run shows as often as ECW did?

[spman 0]

From Meltzer's update today

 

--TNA will be allowing its wrestlers to work the 6/12 ECW PPV show.

 

So I guess you can add Raven and Lynn to the list of guys.