Hooker

Right. I agree and addressed that with my edit. But people here are are going on about how trickling in AWA shows is going to tease out longer subscriptions instead of infuriating existing subscribers.

The answer to this question is because that's what a digital service is. The comparable to what the WWE Network is is Netflix; another pay-for-streaming service that produces original content. And the original content it produces, it immediately puts on the site so you can watch it at your pace, not theirs. The future of film-at-home is pretty obvious to see at this point, at least in this regard. There will be live events that, due to the nature of them, will happen at set times that you have to base your schedule around. Then there is produced events, and scheduling those to come out periodically is going to, more and more, appear archaic at best and anti-consumerist at worst, which is death in the digital age of entertainment. On top of which, why wouldn't you give everything right away? People are going to sign up for what's there, not what's promised to be there. A friend of mine (who spends $0 a year on wrestling) wants to sign up for the service because he wants to watch old Nitros (which apparently aren't going to be available?). We've been in the Hulu / Netflix / YouTube age for a while now; people expect everything that's already made to be available. You keep subscribers with interesting new content regularly coming out. In one way, the WWE has the edge on other digital services in this regard because they have an established live entertainment foundation, which other digital platforms have been pretty desperate to get their hands on themselves. But in another way, the WWE is behind because they've shown a consistent inability to create engaging content. EDIT: That said, I don't think the WWE is actually trying to keep their more obscure stuff off the network. It probably just takes time to get it available for the service.

They're also being shut down across North America.

ECW did its darker, more unconventional humour well (Dudleyville stuff, for instance), but the typical wrestling broad appeal stuff always did fall kinda flat for them, with the notable exception of Joel fucking Gertner, who killed it every time. He was so good at his stupid God damn raunchy poetry that it became a highlight of the shows.

Hold on, hold on. Can we get a Gonzalez ruling on this?

Hogan probably can't perform a sharpshooter.

Two things about that Austin moment: 1) I knew, just on the sheer ridiculousness of everyone lining up to get their complimentary stunner, that Austin was joining the Alliance. 2) Kanyon sold the stunner better than anyone.

Back when people on this board were talking about how great Rock vs Brock would be (around Cena/Rock 2), I never really understood it. The appeal of Cena vs Rock 1 was that it was stars from different eras going at it (like Rock vs Hogan). The appeal of Cena vs Rock 2 was that you got to witness the culmination of the WWE's steadfastly-masturbatory storyline of how great John Cena is with absolutely no surprises along the way. What's the appeal of Rock vs Lesnar? We already got that match back when both were fulltime wrestlers.

Well, there was an ECW full of Steve Austin, Chris Jericho, Chris Benoit, Sabu, Rob Van Dam, The Dudley Boys, Eddie Guerrero, Rey Misterio, Raven, Tajiri, and Mick Foley. So, I don't know how much better that one would have been than the one we got. I say this as a huge ECW mark.

Wade Barrett is the new Mike Awesome: saddled with the worst, go-nowhere gimmicks one after another. What's amazing to me is that his segment tonight is about as compelling as that segment could possibly be. Insofar as you can kill it polishing up a turd like that, he did.

It's probably a combination of: 1) Paul Heyman will work any angle because he's one of the true fucking pros (although, I'd say that about Lawler as well). 2) Vince and Trips pretty clearly hate Heyman. Vince clearly does not hate Heyman. There have been times (Vince on Off The Record, the December to Dismember PPV, etc.) where the subtext is that Vince doesn't really have much respect for Heyman. I think Vince is capable of putting his personal feelings aside in order to do business, which is a real testament to his character, but everything I've seen would seem to imply that he doesn't hold Heyman in particularly high esteem, perhaps because Heyman has this reputation among fans as being a creative genius while Vince, who is far more successful, has a reputation of being completely disconnected with the American zeitgeist. As for that comment that Heyman made to Vince in a promo about lying about anything, first, that was Vince on screen reacting to Heyman's remarks. Second, I read that reaction far more as a sarcastic grin more than anything like pride.

It's probably a combination of: 1) Paul Heyman will work any angle because he's one of the true fucking pros (although, I'd say that about Lawler as well). 2) Vince and Trips pretty clearly hate Heyman.

God damn, that would be the greatest desperation spot of all time if he could pull it off in one fluid motion.

Yeah, the WWE has the screws to the talent, no question. They run the same arenas as basketball/hockey teams, which each play 82 regular-season games, a handful of pre-season games, and some of them play playoff games (compared to 52/3 RAWs, 52/3 Smackdowns, 13 PPVs, and innumerable house shows each year for the WWE). Those teams pay their roster more, fly them around in charter jets, cover their health care entirely, etc. That said, it's much easier to become a WWE wrestler than it is to become an NBA player.

I think I understand what you meant. My last paragraph was dedicated to the pet peeve of mine and not the overall idea. Still, I think Cena / Orton / Punk / Bryan / Sheamus / Triple H / Del Rio is roughly as legitimately-tough-seeming as any other period. In fact, with the distinct lack of big fatsos, it might be even better than it was before. I distinctly remember as a kid being almost offended that they expected me to think that Tugboat could beat any of the people that were actually athletic.

I can't help think this is more to do with your changed attitudes towards wrestling and less about wrestling itself. Dusty Rhodes, Ric Flair, Terry Funk, Roddy Piper, Iron Sheik, and arguably Hogan himself all share three things in common relevant to this: 1) They are some of the biggest stars in of the age in wrestling you seem to be referring to. 2) They tend more towards the theatrical than the intimidating. 3) I, at least, don't think they're any more believably tough than Austin / Punk / Bryan / Angle / Triple H / Sheamus. There's this weird attitude in wrestling fandom where the idea that a random fan could "kick such-and-such's ass" keeps popping up as a comment. I don't understand that at all. Have you seen random wrestling fans? Or just regular people in general? There's a viral video right now from a bus in Seattle where a mugger with a gun is robbing people. One guy decides to bum-rush him and it leads to a struggle. That's how most "real" fights go unless there's someone with martial arts/combat training involved. Pro-wrestlers, assuming they don't have military past or take some form of combat training (which many do), still have an edge in that they are essentially professional athletes and they are used to taking an incredible beating on their bodies night after night. Ray Misterio could probably kick most fans' ass if it came down to it.

Nope, they are still awesome. Some references never get old. Now saying "best for business" is tiresome. I wouldn't have thrown a fit over it, but if this is going down, count me in on sydney's side.

Need to promote an action movie? Wrestle at Wrestlemania.

What do you mean by following a Benoit-like career path? I've heard this kind of used, like because Davey wrestles some bastardization of a Benoit style that he will become him, but that's just an assumption and I want it clarified so I can think on it. The Benoit/DK stuff doesn't really bother me, other than he seemingly lacks any understanding of what they were doing. I'm referring mostly to the Dynamite Kid worship.

Being an "intense" actor won't put you in a wheelchair. I feel like people are just looking for any reason to hate on Richards. Being a minor-league gridiron football player trying to get into the big leagues (or even just for the love of the game) will be worse on you than a highspot indy wrestler. Wrestling probably has more awareness of the dangers, both physically and mentally, that the work can put on you thanks the last decade and a half of wrestler deaths/tragedies; look no further than how vilified chairshots to the heads have become, where fans will actively show their displeasure with it when 15 years ago it was one of the most beloved spots in the sport. Davey Richards and people getting it the ring with Davey Richards know what's going on, and despite being a reported asshole, he's never developed a reputation for taking liberties with other wrestlers. Probably the most upsetting thing about Richards, aside from psychology fundamentalists, is that he seems to be following a Benoit-like career path. If someone wants to risk their health doing something they loves, why the fuck would anyone hate on them for that?

Whenever people wonder why Kofi Kingston is still employed because he's awful, midcard fodder, etc., I think we can point to this video as Exhibit A for why he's got a job with WWE. Actually, the kids that I know love Kofi. I think WWE kinda missed the ball not pushing him to be more than what he is. I don't think elementary school kids care what position their favourite wrestler is on the card, which is sort of a blessing and a curse for Kofi.

So, Gonzalez works his gimmick about how Daniel Bryan is garbage pretty well. Considering how people here just worship at the altar of everything Danielson, it's a pretty good gimmick, and he has fleshed it out with some pretty astoundingly stupid comments. Just top notch stuff, for which I applaud him. However, he has taken it to a new level here. "Predator [isn't] really [an] Arnold " is the dumbest thing Gonzalez has ever said, and that includes things he's said in his sleep, things he's said as a child, etc.

Okay. So, speaking of the Austin podcast, as I mentioned on the last page I'm not a regular listener. However, on RAW last week (the 2nd), they advertised that Danielson would be on the show. I finally go to the website a week and a half later and... that was apparently a lie? EDIT: Nevermind. I found it. For whatever reason, the archives page only lists every second episode. http://podcastone.com/Steve-Austin-Show?showAllEpisodes=true

I rarely listen to the podcast. What problems does Austin have with the WWE?

You mean CM Punk is ruining the WWE and the DVDVR?