Something The Blog Should Know

Scott, this has nothing to do with wrestling at all, but I think any of your Canadian readers (or readers close to the border) will really want to know about this deal: http://business.financialpost.com/2013/11/08/future-shop-offering-new-call-of-duty-assassins-creed-and-battlefield-titles-for-free-with-single-trade-in/?__lsa=b0ba-e207


Brent Hirose.

Huh. I imagine the stores are gonna be SWAMPED this weekend.  That’s a crazy deal.  

Has DC Done Something Stupid Today?

http://hasdcdonesomethingstupidtoday.com/

Read more about DC’s PR disasters at The Outhouse.

 
They’ve really been on a roll of bad decision-making since the New 52 started.  I was reading GLC #20, which is an “epilogue” to the First Lantern story, and I was like “Wait a minute, did I miss Green Lantern #20 where all these important plot points were supposed to be revealed first?” but no, they’re just shipping it TWO WEEKS after the Epilogue to the big crossover they’ve been doing for the past two months. 
 
Every month makes me more of a fan of Marvel, and the Marvel Unlimited app finally coming to Android helps with that even moreso. 

And Now For Something Completely Different.

I am a New York Yankees fan living in Boston. That in and of itself is a mitzfah. I write a bunch on baseball. This seems relevant. By the way, your Blue Jays roster is loaded with talent. Lets see where they end up, and don't be surprised to see the Yankees finish DFL. ( For the uninformed, DFL would be dead fucking last.) 

Honestly, I stopped watching baseball altogether once Delgado got traded to the Marlins, so I haven't really been paying attention to the offseason stuff aside from TSN being all "Holy cow, the Jays might not suck this year!" once they did that blockbuster trade.  However, the Yankees finishing in dead last is always awesome.  You know, back in the 80s when I did watch baseball every day after school and Steinbrenner was banned from the sport, the Yankees being terrible was a regular occurrence.  

Do I have something here?

Hey, Scott


I generally abhor armchair booking, BUT I have been entertaining this idea, because I am kinda wondering if they may actually do this.

Punk vs. Ryback at HIAC. Match is going…whatever. Ryback looks as if he is going in for the kill. Suddenly, Lesnar comes out from under the ring. Maybe a stare down, a collision,  destruction. Lesnar costs Ryback the title. Punk retains, and keeps it until Rock. The natural stable between Heyman clients is formed. Heyman one ups Vince. Ryback has a monster to try and hunt down in  a big time feud that can be stretched out for a month or two maybe. 


I dunno…am I really, really wrong, or is this not a bad idea? I am a little murky on what they would do with Ryback after he would be done with Lesnar though. Seems unlikely that he would be dominated by OR dominate Lesnar. I suppose a returning HHH can cost Lesnar a win over Ryback in a couple of months to set the table for Trips/Lesnar II at Mania, but that seems…not right. And of course, I haven't really taken into account the whole limited number of Lesnar appearances thing, because I really don't know how many he has left. Anyway, do I have ANYTHING here?

I think that scenario leading up to Punk/Lesnar v. Ryback/Cena at Survivor Series is absolutely not the worst idea in the world.  I also think that using Lesnar to make Ryback is not the worst idea in the world, because at least that's using Lesnar to put over a NEW star.  However, I once again would like to stress that we haven't seen Ryback in a match that has run longer than about 2 minutes yet, and if he goes out there and completely craps the bed against Punk on PPV the push could end the night after.  So it's dangerous to lock yourself into that kind of longer-term booking with an unknown quantity like Ryback.  Honestly, this would be the time where I'd want to (say it with me) let it play out and see where it goes first.  If Ryback can have a good match and carries himself well, then roll the dice with him.  If not, there's no sense in wasting Brock's appearances on trying to get something out of him.  This show is going to TANK without Cena anyway so there's no point in panicking about it any further.  But I'm sure they will.  

Something to think about in wrestling

Imagine this
-The number one wrestling promotion on the planet is run by Vince McMahon. After a hearty boom period, the company tapered off a bit, and was then wrought by a major public scandal. Now the company has homogenized itself into an overly kid-friendly product, turning many older fans off.
-The number two company is just making headway with live TV, and is backed at the top by Hulk Hogan and Eric Bischoff. With a horde of young high flyers and an innovative approach to their TV product, there are a number of fans flocking to this company, which was once a laughingstock due to its prior poor booking.
-There is an outfit based out of Philadelphia involving Shane Douglas that promises an alternative to the "Big Two" by showcasing bloody brawls and unfiltered, hard hitting wrestling. After using some older, broken-down wrestlers as a draw early on, they've jettisoned much of that approach in favor of top-flight indy guys who can either still go, or are getting their first true taste of glory.
-There is a promotion run by Jim Cornette which favors an old-school style, with more wrestling than 'sports-entertainment', but they also have lost much of their best talent to McMahon's company, as well as the #2 company. Some believe they may be out of business before long.
Now I ask you, what year is this: 2012, or 1995?

A bit of a stretch in some ways, but yes, that's an interesting take on the situation.  I wouldn't say fans are "flocking" to TNA, though.  Thing is, as long as Spike is happy with the ratings (which they are), then it doesn't affect me as a fan because I know they're likely to stay the course.  WWE, on the other hand, is ratings-obsessed and as a viewer I'm constantly having to filter out the bullshit that I know is just for them pop a rating (like AJ teasing a wedding at the end of the show, or the constant commercial breaks interrupting matches.)  
But you know, in general, what they say about those who don't heed the lessons of history…

Question about something Bret Hart said in his book about wrestler quality.

Hi there Scott! I'm a longtime fan (read all your books, rants, etc.) and I had a question for you:
In Bret Hart's book, he stated at one point that in his opinion, wrestlers can be rated in three categories: 1) Physical presence/look (ie. looking tough), 2) In-ring skills, and 3) the ability to talk or sell yourself. He said if you rank guys from 1-10, guys in the high twenties usually turn out to be great wrestlers, while shitty guys (he specifically calls out Dino Bravo) don't have many. He gives himself in the early 90s a pretty fair score: 7 Look (he had a good physique and was in shape, though I'd argue this might be too low), 10 Skill & 4 Charisma, adding up to a 21. Hulk Hogan scored a little better, being 10 Look, 3 Skill and 10 Charisma (if I recall correctly).
My question is: Do you think his system is accurate? I've found that many guys work well with it, with Main Event guys hitting the mid-20s (Flair has high Skill & Charisma, but less Look, while Hogan had Look & Charisma, but less Skill), and IC-level elite midcarders hitting the low 20s. The only guys who mess with it are guys like Dusty Rhodes (not a great worker, and had a terrible look), but I find that overall Charisma is worth more than the other two (a wrestler could get over with JUST that, whereas a great look with nothing else gives you The Warlord). The highest overall scores go to guys who were great (or at least good) at everything (Savage in the 80s, Mr. Perfect, Kurt Angle).
 
Obviously, you can't assess a wrestler purely by some equation, but I think the system tends to be pretty accurate- you can often measure guy's success by how they'd score on these "Bret Hart Categories". Except for say, Val Venis, who seemed good at everything, but had middling IC-level success only.

I'd say it's fair to judge people by look, skill and charisma.  I'd call someone like Angle damn near a 10 in all three during his glory years, although today the look is getting worse by the day.  Savage, yeah, 10/10/10, no question in my mind.  Dusty was pretty much all charisma and had enough skill to get by.  The thing too is that look and skill can be altered by cosmetics or teaching, but charisma is pretty much set.  
It's a good system, I'd say.

Just Want To Clarify Something Here…

…now, the point of the Cena-Show cage match was that NO ONE COULD INTERFERE, right?  So I guess that stip held true, if you don't count Big Johnny, Vince McMahon, the multiple referees, Kofi Kingston, Zack Ryder and Brodus Clay.  That's practically no one, right?  

And Johnny will totally stay fired tomorrow night, I'm sure.  
Remember:  They're just telling stories.  But they don't have to make sense.