Sting's New Gimmick!!! Yay or Nay???

[SONICdopeFRESH]

I couldn't find anything about it. Liger didn't feud with any heavyweights in the US; he was primarily WCW's guy to get their Junior Heavyweights over. And Sting was such a huge draw that it's hard to forget the guys he feuded with (esp pre nWo). Liger was WCW's most identifiable Japanese competitor (prolly even more so than Muta and Chono; or at least right up there with them). Sting had a small feud with Kensuke Sasaki around Starrcade 95, when they had the whole WCW v. New Japan deal....

Wait, was Kensuke Sasaki the dude who kayfabe broke Road Warrior Hawk's arm with that armbar in WCW in like 96???

[Big Red Machine]

But it doesn't matter if he was in WWE and didn't do anything (like Pope) or if he is at a much higher level in TNA than he was in WWE (like Anderson).

Sting only takes bumps that require him to not fall very far (Mic Check, Frog Splash, clothesline etc.) when was the last time you saw Sting take a powerbomb or a suplex of any kind?

Most fans that watch TNA, watch WWE. That's probably a safe assumption to make. Over 50% easily. Pope DIDN'T do anything in the WE. But we still knew he was an ex WWE guy that had skill if given the time. TNA just gave him the time for a bit. Anderson as well. As much noise as he may make in TNA, he was more popular in the WWE, because the legend is there. The history is there. The fanbase is there. that's STILL the major leagues. A mid carder in the WWE, will still be known to more of society than a main eventer in TNA. It's like the NFL vs. Arena Football.

I see Sting take hella suplexes and slams BTW.

But the wider society is irrelevant. The question is: "Who is at high enough level to get a win over Sting?" Neither Anderson nor Pope were at that level at any point in their WWE careers. A main eventer is a main eventer, no matter where you go. If a guy like Ted Dibiase Jr. were to jump to TNA tomorrow, wrestling fans wouldn't just say "he's ready for win over Sting now" just because he had more exposure as a WWE midcarder. Look at Nigel McGuinness' jump to TNA. He was a main eventer in ROH, he came in to TNA, and people could easily accept him in a main event spot.

When has Sting taken suplex or a slam recently?

[Big Red Machine]

1. The reason that you know which match people are talking about when you say "Hogan vs. Goldberg" is because there was only one. Not because that match was so much better than the other matches they might have had. Your argument is predicated on something that is irrelevant to the quality of the match in question.

2. The nWo was still big, but it wasn't the same. The split had already happened. Goldberg winning the belt was big for WCW, but it was something we had seen twice before (when both Sting and Luger won it... and having them lose it was WCW's own stupidity not some master plan to push Goldberg to the title, or else he wouldn't have won the US Title first, and they would have actually HYPED UP the title match. Goldberg himself said that he didn't even know he was going to be challenging for the belt until JJ Dillon announced it on Thunder.)

3. They would be more interested to watch Punk vs. Orton... because those guys have been given time to show off what they can do. But that doesn't mean that they would give up half way through watching Riley vs. Kidd. And after watching both guys a few times, they now know what those guys can do, and would become progressively more interested in watching Riley vs. Kidd. That is how new stars get made.

1). Who cares about the qulaity of the match in reality? It's moreso how epic the encounter is. Most people would rather see that Goldberg v. hogan match again live, as opposed to say Orton v. Cena...Something only happens once makes it rare, keeps it from being played out, and makes it much more in demand to see that ONE epic encounter. Then say something that was played out... Very rarely will a multiple match/year feud be hype. back then because it happened so much that you don't know which one is supposed to mean more. And now because fans are so impatient & internet hungry, we get tired of somethings too quick. Can't have an ongoing year feud like you could back in the day. Say, Sting v. Vader... Some great matches... But which one was supposed to hold the most weight? The DRAW between the two??? What match between Cena v. Orton is supposed to be the biggest one??? Oh wait, then you have to try & remember what happened in the most standut match of them... That question doesn't happen with Hogan v. THE MAN.

2). let's see... Luger held the belt all in all for 5 or 6 days... Sting's victory was as epic as my birth (VERY epic). But with Goldberg, you have a man, who was running through everyone. Who had hype out of this world. Who was seen in ring doing everything a powerhouse does. Who made it look like a true a** whooping... You had that beast go up against HOGAN. The man responsible for the group that took WCW apart. Yeah, the NWO was beefing. But it was still WCW v. NWO... Even at future PPV's... It was NWO black n white v. Wolfpac v. WCW. The gold was always wanted in WCW by the good guys (commentary as well as the super babyfaces).

3). new stars get made by doing something to get them over. Wrestling a good match doesn't do that. We can count on 50 fingers & toes good wrestlers now. Probably 100 or 150 really. You need to have great mic skills, or something that stands out & say "I'm the reason you keep from turning the channel." And a lot of these good wrestlers, don't have that.

1. EVERYONE cares about match quality! If they didn't, why not have every match only go 30 seconds long? Because good matches build excitement during the match. Yes, not happening as often makes a match more special. But not enough to make up for bad quality. Furthermore, the way that you are looking at things imposes importance after the match, and does not affect the match itself. Your point that (in your opinion) people would rather see Goldberg vs. Hogan live than see, say, Sting vs. Flair live, is because of the hype going in to the match. No one wants to see Luger vs. Yokozuna again because it didn't live up to the hype.

You can't look at feud and see which matches are supposed to mean more? Isn't it obvious? The matches with the major hype. The matches at major shows. The opener. The blow-off. Title matches. In a well booked feud, which match means "more" is irrelevant. Each match should do its part to get you to where you need to be. If you want to say that the blow-off means more because it decides who wins and who loses you can take that stance, but looking at it this way you are robbing yourself of the ability to enjoy the rest of the matches in the feud. Which Matrix film was supposed to mean more? None of them! They are all chapters in the story.

2. The length of Luger's reign was irrelevant. The important thing was the win. He went up against Hogan, the big bad, and took the belt away from him and brought it back to WCW. The moment was important. In the case of Goldberg, winning the belt was not important for the nWo vs. WCW angle... it was important for the character of Goldberg the Unstoppable Badass.

3. Wrestling great matches does get people over. Why am I not changing the channel? Because I want to see this guy's match because I know it will be exciting. Why would someone be watching wrestling if they can't sit though the matches? That is what wrestling is about. That is what makes it different from daytime soap operas. I suggest that you not keep your hand on the remote at all times and just watch the damn show.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

But the wider society is irrelevant. The question is: "Who is at high enough level to get a win over Sting?" Neither Anderson nor Pope were at that level at any point in their WWE careers. A main eventer is a main eventer, no matter where you go. If a guy like Ted Dibiase Jr. were to jump to TNA tomorrow, wrestling fans wouldn't just say "he's ready for win over Sting now" just because he had more exposure as a WWE midcarder. Look at Nigel McGuinness' jump to TNA. He was a main eventer in ROH, he came in to TNA, and people could easily accept him in a main event spot.

When has Sting taken suplex or a slam recently?

The wider society isn't irrelevant. The wider society makes up of the most fans today. Very relevant... Pope I'll agree, he primarily was used in a role to lose against the big dogs & get minor wins on WWECW... But Anderson is VERY different. He achieved success & had a standout character in the WWE. Sure, he wasn't a top dog, but def formiddable. If you go from mid carding from the BIGGEST company (WWE) to main eventing a smaller company (TNA) it's alright. You can't go from mid carding ROH to main eventing TNA because ROH doesn't have the exposure nor fanbase yet.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

1. EVERYONE cares about match quality! If they didn't, why not have every match only go 30 seconds long? Because good matches build excitement during the match. Yes, not happening as often makes a match more special. But not enough to make up for bad quality. Furthermore, the way that you are looking at things imposes importance after the match, and does not affect the match itself. Your point that (in your opinion) people would rather see Goldberg vs. Hogan live than see, say, Sting vs. Flair live, is because of the hype going in to the match. No one wants to see Luger vs. Yokozuna again because it didn't live up to the hype.

You can't look at feud and see which matches are supposed to mean more? Isn't it obvious? The matches with the major hype. The matches at major shows. The opener. The blow-off. Title matches. In a well booked feud, which match means "more" is irrelevant. Each match should do its part to get you to where you need to be. If you want to say that the blow-off means more because it decides who wins and who loses you can take that stance, but looking at it this way you are robbing yourself of the ability to enjoy the rest of the matches in the feud. Which Matrix film was supposed to mean more? None of them! They are all chapters in the story.

2. The length of Luger's reign was irrelevant. The important thing was the win. He went up against Hogan, the big bad, and took the belt away from him and brought it back to WCW. The moment was important. In the case of Goldberg, winning the belt was not important for the nWo vs. WCW angle... it was important for the character of Goldberg the Unstoppable Badass.

3. Wrestling great matches does get people over. Why am I not changing the channel? Because I want to see this guy's match because I know it will be exciting. Why would someone be watching wrestling if they can't sit though the matches? That is what wrestling is about. That is what makes it different from daytime soap operas. I suggest that you not keep your hand on the remote at all times and just watch the damn show.

1). Did people care about the match quality with The Ultimate Warrior??? Or say Ezekiel Jackson??? Doesn't always mean a Five Star match. Sometimes, if you have the IT factor to get over, you will be just that. OVER.

And a dream match that happened once is forever memorable... WAY easier to remember than something that happened 10 times. NOT saying that the feud is better that way, but just match. Like, we know The Rock v. Austin was a GREAT feud... But Goldberg v. Hogan's match is more legendary than The Rock v. Austin bc you can't define right away which match would be their BEST. Everyone would have their own standards to distinct that. Goldberg v. Hogan, no need because there is only one.

2). Goldberg the unstoppable badass could've kept going and destroying the US title scene for a few more months... But it was against the NWO. The NWO attempted to save Hogan in the match (and Hall earlier), and the NWO put a stop to Goldberg's reign at Starrcade. It was Goldberg representing the good guys v. the bad guys. The unstoppable force (Goldberg) v. the bad guys.

3). Funny because I watch the whole show my guy. So don't make that assumption. It DOESN'T get you over. Maybe noticed, but NOT over. Daniel Bryan is NOTICEd, not over. CM Punk is OVER, not noticed. Why? Because Punk has the IT. Ever since he came, he's been a VERY entertaining talker & worked ANY gimmick VERY well... Bryan isn't working this gimmick well, so he's only being noticed for his ability. It takes you being able to get your gimmick popping to become over. Prime example... Look at Surfer Sting. He had the wrestling ability which got him noticed. BUT his perfected gimmick then, got him over as a SUUUUUPER face.

[Big Red Machine]

If you go from mid carding from the BIGGEST company (WWE) to main eventing a smaller company (TNA) it's alright. You can't go from mid carding ROH to main eventing TNA because ROH doesn't have the exposure nor fanbase yet.

You can't go from ROH midcarder to TNA main eventer, but you can go from ROH main eventer to TNA main eventer. You also can't go from a WWE mid-carder to a TNA main eventer. You have to get pushed up from the midcard in TNA or else the fans will poop on it.

[Big Red Machine]

And a dream match that happened once is forever memorable... WAY easier to remember than something that happened 10 times. NOT saying that the feud is better that way, but just match. Like, we know The Rock v. Austin was a GREAT feud... But Goldberg v. Hogan's match is more legendary than The Rock v. Austin bc you can't define right away which match would be their BEST. Everyone would have their own standards to distinct that. Goldberg v. Hogan, no need because there is only one.

I'm in the middle of responding to everything else, but the logic here is so ridiculous that it deserves its own post. By this logic, a one off squash match with a jobber is "more legendary" than any Rock vs. Austin match simply because it only happened once. Surely you can see how ridiculous this logic is.

[Big Red Machine]

1. EVERYONE cares about match quality! If they didn't, why not have every match only go 30 seconds long? Because good matches build excitement during the match. Yes, not happening as often makes a match more special. But not enough to make up for bad quality. Furthermore, the way that you are looking at things imposes importance after the match, and does not affect the match itself. Your point that (in your opinion) people would rather see Goldberg vs. Hogan live than see, say, Sting vs. Flair live, is because of the hype going in to the match. No one wants to see Luger vs. Yokozuna again because it didn't live up to the hype.

You can't look at feud and see which matches are supposed to mean more? Isn't it obvious? The matches with the major hype. The matches at major shows. The opener. The blow-off. Title matches. In a well booked feud, which match means "more" is irrelevant. Each match should do its part to get you to where you need to be. If you want to say that the blow-off means more because it decides who wins and who loses you can take that stance, but looking at it this way you are robbing yourself of the ability to enjoy the rest of the matches in the feud. Which Matrix film was supposed to mean more? None of them! They are all chapters in the story.

2. The length of Luger's reign was irrelevant. The important thing was the win. He went up against Hogan, the big bad, and took the belt away from him and brought it back to WCW. The moment was important. In the case of Goldberg, winning the belt was not important for the nWo vs. WCW angle... it was important for the character of Goldberg the Unstoppable Badass.

3. Wrestling great matches does get people over. Why am I not changing the channel? Because I want to see this guy's match because I know it will be exciting. Why would someone be watching wrestling if they can't sit though the matches? That is what wrestling is about. That is what makes it different from daytime soap operas. I suggest that you not keep your hand on the remote at all times and just watch the damn show.

1). Did people care about the match quality with The Ultimate Warrior??? Or say Ezekiel Jackson??? Doesn't always mean a Five Star match. Sometimes, if you have the IT factor to get over, you will be just that. OVER.

And a dream match that happened once is forever memorable... WAY easier to remember than something that happened 10 times. NOT saying that the feud is better that way, but just match. Like, we know The Rock v. Austin was a GREAT feud... But Goldberg v. Hogan's match is more legendary than The Rock v. Austin bc you can't define right away which match would be their BEST. Everyone would have their own standards to distinct that. Goldberg v. Hogan, no need because there is only one.

2). Goldberg the unstoppable badass could've kept going and destroying the US title scene for a few more months... But it was against the NWO. The NWO attempted to save Hogan in the match (and Hall earlier), and the NWO put a stop to Goldberg's reign at Starrcade. It was Goldberg representing the good guys v. the bad guys. The unstoppable force (Goldberg) v. the bad guys.

3). Funny because I watch the whole show my guy. So don't make that assumption. It DOESN'T get you over. Maybe noticed, but NOT over. Daniel Bryan is NOTICEd, not over. CM Punk is OVER, not noticed. Why? Because Punk has the IT. Ever since he came, he's been a VERY entertaining talker & worked ANY gimmick VERY well... Bryan isn't working this gimmick well, so he's only being noticed for his ability. It takes you being able to get your gimmick popping to become over. Prime example... Look at Surfer Sting. He had the wrestling ability which got him noticed. BUT his perfected gimmick then, got him over as a SUUUUUPER face.

1. Zeke is not a bad worker. Ultimate Warrior was lightning in a bottle, and was a product of a different era. Televised non-squashes were very rare back then. Warrior would have been exposed a lot quicker than he was. His 1996 and 1997 returns prove this.

Who cares if there isn't a universally acknowledged consensus as to which match is better? Why does that matter at all. The greats manage to make their matches different! Take MCMG vs. the Briscoes. A legitimate dream match. They had two match that were very different from one another. It is up to the viewers to decide whether or not they liked the first match (slower-paced) or the second match (faster-paced with more double teams) better. The greats take their series of matches and make each one different. Look at Danielson & McGuinness. All nine of their matches are remembered for different spots or the different story they were trying to tell.

2. Not really. If it was so important to the WCW vs. nWo angle, then Goldberg would have been on Team WCW at War Games. But he wasn't DDP was. The angle was Goldberg steamrolling everyone, be they nWo Hollywood, nWo Wolfpac, or WCW. It didn't matter who you were, you couldn't beat Goldberg. The hype for the match was about "can Nash break the streak?"

3. How often has Dragon even had promo time before winning MITB? Look at his stuff in other companies and it is clear that he can talk.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

You can't go from ROH midcarder to TNA main eventer, but you can go from ROH main eventer to TNA main eventer. You also can't go from a WWE mid-carder to a TNA main eventer. You have to get pushed up from the midcard in TNA or else the fans will poop on it.

Well ROH is the smaller of the 2 firstly... And I think fans would be okay with say, if John Morrison came to TNA and got put right in the main event picture. I mean in reality, John Morrison is the bigger star then say AJ Styles, just because of the level he's worked at... The biggest.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

Your comments about Fujinami dismissed his match with Hogan was being completely unimportant because you had no idea who he was, in a debate about whether big names or workrate were more important to a match.

I'm not going to talk about someone I DON'T KNOW... so of course I disregarded it. I speak for the casual fan, who simply watches WWE, WCW, & TNA... If they ain't been in 1 of those 3, they don't matter to ME & I don't speak on em. We all know this by now.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

I'm in the middle of responding to everything else, but the logic here is so ridiculous that it deserves its own post. By this logic, a one off squash match with a jobber is "more legendary" than any Rock vs. Austin match simply because it only happened once. Surely you can see how ridiculous this logic is.

Yes, your logic is very ridiculous... You just mentioned jobber & dream match in the same sentence, when we're talking about iconic figures like Hogan, Flair, Goldberg, etc... Let's be real here. No need to throw jobbers into this.

Point being... Goldberg v. Hogan was bigger than say Flair v. Steamboat IN THE SENSE of the magnitude of the match. While we all know Flair v. Steamboat was an EPIC feud, it's tough to distinguish which match was the icing on the cake. With Goldberg v. Hogan, there's one match for the big prize, that blew ratings through the roof. Think about it from that angle.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

1. Zeke is not a bad worker. Ultimate Warrior was lightning in a bottle, and was a product of a different era. Televised non-squashes were very rare back then. Warrior would have been exposed a lot quicker than he was. His 1996 and 1997 returns prove this.

Who cares if there isn't a universally acknowledged consensus as to which match is better? Why does that matter at all. The greats manage to make their matches different! Take MCMG vs. the Briscoes. A legitimate dream match. They had two match that were very different from one another. It is up to the viewers to decide whether or not they liked the first match (slower-paced) or the second match (faster-paced with more double teams) better. The greats take their series of matches and make each one different. Look at Danielson & McGuinness. All nine of their matches are remembered for different spots or the different story they were trying to tell.

2. Not really. If it was so important to the WCW vs. nWo angle, then Goldberg would have been on Team WCW at War Games. But he wasn't DDP was. The angle was Goldberg steamrolling everyone, be they nWo Hollywood, nWo Wolfpac, or WCW. It didn't matter who you were, you couldn't beat Goldberg. The hype for the match was about "can Nash break the streak?"

3. How often has Dragon even had promo time before winning MITB? Look at his stuff in other companies and it is clear that he can talk.

1). If Zeke isn't bad, then Batista was the best bodybuilding like wrestler ever. Zeke is big & strong (the type of wrestling I grew up on, so naturally I like that), but he's stiff, slow, awkward selling, limited moveset... Makes names like Goldberg look like perfection (which he really was)..

2). Partially true, BUT during that time, he mainly took out all of the NWO members until he was downed by Nash. Whether it was the black or red.

3). Yes, he can add ing to the end of noth. But, he bores me. I have done research a LONG time ago, if you remember back about a year ago, when I was totally against him. I STILL see nothing special. A good in ring competitor, but not a bonafied ticket seller. And I think he's given quite enough talk time. Even dating back to NXT & his feud with Cole which was mediocre. Besides, it's wrestling. The talking is secondary. Even in ring his matches are very, CENA like. Predictability at it's finest.

[Big Red Machine]

You can't go from ROH midcarder to TNA main eventer, but you can go from ROH main eventer to TNA main eventer. You also can't go from a WWE mid-carder to a TNA main eventer. You have to get pushed up from the midcard in TNA or else the fans will poop on it.

Well ROH is the smaller of the 2 firstly... And I think fans would be okay with say, if John Morrison came to TNA and got put right in the main event picture. I mean in reality, John Morrison is the bigger star then say AJ Styles, just because of the level he's worked at... The biggest.

I disagree. Fans wouldn't accept Morrison as an immediate main eventer in TNA because he had been an upper-midcarder in WWE. They would accept him as an immediate main eventer in TNA because a lot of them believe that he should be a main eventer and WWE and isn't. It is all about the way the fans perceive you. Nigel McGuinness was a main eventer in ROH and came in to TNA as a main eventer and no one questioned it because the fans saw him as a main eventer. If someone like Val Venis or Chris Masters were to come to TNA and immediately be given a main event push, fans would crap on it because they don't see either of those guys as main eventers.

[Big Red Machine]

I'm in the middle of responding to everything else, but the logic here is so ridiculous that it deserves its own post. By this logic, a one off squash match with a jobber is "more legendary" than any Rock vs. Austin match simply because it only happened once. Surely you can see how ridiculous this logic is.

Yes, your logic is very ridiculous... You just mentioned jobber & dream match in the same sentence, when we're talking about iconic figures like Hogan, Flair, Goldberg, etc... Let's be real here. No need to throw jobbers into this.

Point being... Goldberg v. Hogan was bigger than say Flair v. Steamboat IN THE SENSE of the magnitude of the match. While we all know Flair v. Steamboat was an EPIC feud, it's tough to distinguish which match was the icing on the cake. With Goldberg v. Hogan, there's one match for the big prize, that blew ratings through the roof. Think about it from that angle.

I am looking at it from that angle, and I have com to the conclusion that that angle makes no sense.
Look at my earlier boxing analogy with the Ali-Frazier fights. Just because there was more than one does not make either of those fights any worse.
You are completely discounting match quality and a number of other important factors. Lets look at ratings (or some equivalency): In the world of movies, the measure of success for a movie analogous to live ratings/PPV buys in wrestling would be the opening weekend numbers (since there hasn't been time to get the word out if the movie was worth seeing or not). Star Wars made $1,554,475 in its opening weekend. The Empire Strikes Back made even more $4,910,483. Why did ESB do so much better in its opening weekend that ANH? Because the first movie was so good that people were willing to go see the second one without even waiting for reviews (because they were so certain the movie would be great). Return of the Jedi made a whopping $23,019,618 in its opening weekend because the first two had been so good.

Hogan vs. Goldberg II wouldn't have drawn sh*t because the first one stunk. Compare that to Taker vs. HBK. The match at WM 25 was so good that it made people buy WM 26.

Simply being the only match the two men ever had does not inherently make a match better, which is what you are arguing. Trying to figure out which match was the icing on the cake is hardly relevant.

[Big Red Machine]

1. Zeke is not a bad worker. Ultimate Warrior was lightning in a bottle, and was a product of a different era. Televised non-squashes were very rare back then. Warrior would have been exposed a lot quicker than he was. His 1996 and 1997 returns prove this.

Who cares if there isn't a universally acknowledged consensus as to which match is better? Why does that matter at all. The greats manage to make their matches different! Take MCMG vs. the Briscoes. A legitimate dream match. They had two match that were very different from one another. It is up to the viewers to decide whether or not they liked the first match (slower-paced) or the second match (faster-paced with more double teams) better. The greats take their series of matches and make each one different. Look at Danielson & McGuinness. All nine of their matches are remembered for different spots or the different story they were trying to tell.

2. Not really. If it was so important to the WCW vs. nWo angle, then Goldberg would have been on Team WCW at War Games. But he wasn't DDP was. The angle was Goldberg steamrolling everyone, be they nWo Hollywood, nWo Wolfpac, or WCW. It didn't matter who you were, you couldn't beat Goldberg. The hype for the match was about "can Nash break the streak?"

3. How often has Dragon even had promo time before winning MITB? Look at his stuff in other companies and it is clear that he can talk.

1). If Zeke isn't bad, then Batista was the best bodybuilding like wrestler ever. Zeke is big & strong (the type of wrestling I grew up on, so naturally I like that), but he's stiff, slow, awkward selling, limited moveset... Makes names like Goldberg look like perfection (which he really was)..

2). Partially true, BUT during that time, he mainly took out all of the NWO members until he was downed by Nash. Whether it was the black or red.

3). Yes, he can add ing to the end of noth. But, he bores me. I have done research a LONG time ago, if you remember back about a year ago, when I was totally against him. I STILL see nothing special. A good in ring competitor, but not a bonafied ticket seller. And I think he's given quite enough talk time. Even dating back to NXT & his feud with Cole which was mediocre. Besides, it's wrestling. The talking is secondary. Even in ring his matches are very, CENA like. Predictability at it's finest.

1. Zeke is just as awkward at selling as most big-men who are trying to portray monsters are (because you have to sell a little, but not too much- Kane and Abyss are particularly good at selling while still being big men because they get the psychology- things like stumbling backwards with the first few shots before finally going down to a bigger strike).

2. But he wasn't doing it to save WCW from the nWo. He was doing it just because his job was to wrestle and they happened to be his opponents. Therefore, he wasn't a part of the WCW vs. nWo angle.

3. I remember that debate, and which matches of his did you watch? He has already proven that he can sell tickets through his work in ROH, PWG, and other companies. And really. Which non-WWE matches of his have you seen that you thought were "predictable?"

4. You keep flip--flopping here. If the talking is secondary, then his in-ring prowess should be enough to get him over.

5. The problem with his feud with Michael Cole was that it had no resolution whatsoever. Whatever they were planning to do (and they were planing something; the "less Daniel Bryan, more Bryan Danielson" promo proves that) was thrown under the bus and forgotten about in favor of the Nexus angle.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

I disagree. Fans wouldn't accept Morrison as an immediate main eventer in TNA because he had been an upper-midcarder in WWE. They would accept him as an immediate main eventer in TNA because a lot of them believe that he should be a main eventer and WWE and isn't. It is all about the way the fans perceive you. Nigel McGuinness was a main eventer in ROH and came in to TNA as a main eventer and no one questioned it because the fans saw him as a main eventer. If someone like Val Venis or Chris Masters were to come to TNA and immediately be given a main event push, fans would crap on it because they don't see either of those guys as main eventers.

I disagree. It's not how fans perceive you. It's about how many fans you have. I didn't even know who Desond Wolfe was before, so I didn't like him being tossed right up top. Didn't make sense, as it didn't with a lot of people. You have to realize too, most wrestling fans still don't know anything besides WWE, and some know TNA as the alternative. Being a top dog in ROH doesn't warrant any top position if you transition to WWE/TNA, because the fanbase & exposure is smaller. As opposed to say if Masters went to TNA... Or ROH... He'd sell tickets & be in demand. Kind of MacroEconomics in the sense of the supply & demand theory. You supply a group with a big name product (name for this matter), and the demand is in to see this person. Even take a guy like D'Lo Brown. When you see him on Impact just on the scene, he gets chants, simply because he worked in the big market as a midcarder. People know who he is. Now say CM Punk before he hit the WWE, he didn't get that, ya know... Almost like say Kevin Durant going playing for Ruckers park during the lockout. He's automatically going to be accepted as the big draw, not only because he's good, but because he's been good & right on the cusp of superstardom in the big leagues. Whereas say, if a Ruckers park legend (we can use Raefer Alston as an example), when he came, not many knew who he was. Even though his talent was insane, there was no demand or hype because he came from a much smaller market.

Being the big fish in a little pond is one thing, but doesn't warrant you being the big fish in a big pond. You're a little fish... Whereas if you are just a goldfish in a huge sea, you can go to a pond and become the great white shark (maybe not the best analogy, but whatever).

[SONICdopeFRESH]

I am looking at it from that angle, and I have com to the conclusion that that angle makes no sense.
Look at my earlier boxing analogy with the Ali-Frazier fights. Just because there was more than one does not make either of those fights any worse.
You are completely discounting match quality and a number of other important factors. Lets look at ratings (or some equivalency): In the world of movies, the measure of success for a movie analogous to live ratings/PPV buys in wrestling would be the opening weekend numbers (since there hasn't been time to get the word out if the movie was worth seeing or not). Star Wars made $1,554,475 in its opening weekend. The Empire Strikes Back made even more $4,910,483. Why did ESB do so much better in its opening weekend that ANH? Because the first movie was so good that people were willing to go see the second one without even waiting for reviews (because they were so certain the movie would be great). Return of the Jedi made a whopping $23,019,618 in its opening weekend because the first two had been so good.

Hogan vs. Goldberg II wouldn't have drawn sh*t because the first one stunk. Compare that to Taker vs. HBK. The match at WM 25 was so good that it made people buy WM 26.

Simply being the only match the two men ever had does not inherently make a match better, which is what you are arguing. Trying to figure out which match was the icing on the cake is hardly relevant.

Can't go the Star Wars route, simply because I have never seen one of their movies. Honestly have no idea of anything relating to it...

But we're not talking about one match here. We're talking about perhaps the 2nd biggest match the WCW had in the late 90's, aside from Sting v. Hogan. Why? Because Goldberg was the hot commodity, and it's against Hogan, who was the head of the dominate stable in all of wrestling. The drama was off the charts. It alone made of for the match maybe not being a 10/10. Also, gotta give credit to how the announcers (especially Heenan), made it seem like a bigger than life thing. It wasn't your typical well worked match. It had the feeling of the Super bowl. Not to mention, when you think Georgia Dome, if you're a wrestling fan, you think Goldberg v. Hogan. Everything about it was big. Partially thanks to it being the 1st & only time the bulls locked horns.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

1. Zeke is just as awkward at selling as most big-men who are trying to portray monsters are (because you have to sell a little, but not too much- Kane and Abyss are particularly good at selling while still being big men because they get the psychology- things like stumbling backwards with the first few shots before finally going down to a bigger strike).

2. But he wasn't doing it to save WCW from the nWo. He was doing it just because his job was to wrestle and they happened to be his opponents. Therefore, he wasn't a part of the WCW vs. nWo angle.

3. I remember that debate, and which matches of his did you watch? He has already proven that he can sell tickets through his work in ROH, PWG, and other companies. And really. Which non-WWE matches of his have you seen that you thought were "predictable?"

4. You keep flip--flopping here. If the talking is secondary, then his in-ring prowess should be enough to get him over.

5. The problem with his feud with Michael Cole was that it had no resolution whatsoever. Whatever they were planning to do (and they were planing something; the "less Daniel Bryan, more Bryan Danielson" promo proves that) was thrown under the bus and forgotten about in favor of the Nexus angle.

1). Allow me to sound childish, but Zeke is doo doo draws (for any who don't know what this means, it's the equivalence of poop). But seriously, he just reminds me of a stiff worker. Say Sid like. Except, he doesn't have anything that says top dog about him. Not memorable on the mic, accompanied by meager ring skills. You can only watch a Zeke power clothesline so many times before you really get dumb bored. That's the thing too. I am all for stiff big men (sounds so wrong). I mean those guys that try moves, and maybe just make it seem like "ouch." You know, guys like Hawk, Animal, Sid, even Goldberg. The bigger guys that were rough in ring, but still had an arsenal of moves. Honestly, Zeke's moveset is worse off than mark Henry's. Might be because guys like Bill DeMott, Bigelow, a younger Kane, the big men than could actually go in the ring, spoiled me. I mean, I don't mind seeing Zeke beat some people up. But just not as the WHC or a long reign IC champ. He needs to adopt a powerslam or 2. A spinebuster, and maybe even a delayed vertical suplex. He literally just does a clothesline, bodyslam, a horrible torture rack or book of Ezekiel.

2). While Goldberg DID take out the whole roster, once he became US champion, he started to shift towards mostly all nwo opponents. By the time he was WHC, with the exception of say Meng, he was targeted by the nWo, & pretty much beat up the whole B team & other members. Not to mention his short feud afterwards with Nash.

3). Again, selling tickets for ROH, PWG, and indy promotions are one thing. That's 1,000 fans in an arena. 20,000 fans nationwide. Out of a pro wrestling fanbase of how many millions? I'm talking WWE here. Not slighting his ROH work, because his matched did have a bit more to it. I'll give it to him, as I do by saying he's hot stuff in the ring. Not really my style I prefer watching, but I can't slight what he CAN do in the ring. It's just in the WWE, he hasn't done what I've seen in ROH as far as keeping suspense of the match. It (his WWE matches), are worked almost in a Cena like fashion. You know what's coming next. He hasn't used some moves I've seen him use in ROH (such as Cattle Mutilation I think it's called), and that could be contributed to the fact he's in the ring with guys less talented, but he can change up from time to time. Maybe do something he didn't do the week before, and in a different order.

4). It is secondary. While I don't believe he's the best talker, he's alright at it. BUT, in the WWE, especially with the direction it's gone now, it takes much more than a good match to get over. This isn't the Benoit era, where most of your show was dedicated to in ring. You know, the 2 minute promo before the 15 minute match. This is an era, where we get 30 minutes of wrestling, on a 2 hour show, which features (commercials taken into consideration), 100 minutes of on screen time. Most of the time is spent with talking. It's not WRESTLING anymore, but rather entertainment.

5). I think people gave too much credit & got behind it because he said his name was Bryan Danielson, not Daniel Bryan. To most WWE fans, that meant nothing. It was like "what are you talking about." To those that followed him in ROH, they may have felt he'd get loose. But that type of spotlight, could've easily propelled him into being a star. I just feel he has underachieved in the WWE so far.

[Big Red Machine]

I disagree. Fans wouldn't accept Morrison as an immediate main eventer in TNA because he had been an upper-midcarder in WWE. They would accept him as an immediate main eventer in TNA because a lot of them believe that he should be a main eventer and WWE and isn't. It is all about the way the fans perceive you. Nigel McGuinness was a main eventer in ROH and came in to TNA as a main eventer and no one questioned it because the fans saw him as a main eventer. If someone like Val Venis or Chris Masters were to come to TNA and immediately be given a main event push, fans would crap on it because they don't see either of those guys as main eventers.

I disagree. It's not how fans perceive you. It's about how many fans you have. I didn't even know who Desond Wolfe was before, so I didn't like him being tossed right up top. Didn't make sense, as it didn't with a lot of people. You have to realize too, most wrestling fans still don't know anything besides WWE, and some know TNA as the alternative. Being a top dog in ROH doesn't warrant any top position if you transition to WWE/TNA, because the fanbase & exposure is smaller. As opposed to say if Masters went to TNA... Or ROH... He'd sell tickets & be in demand. Kind of MacroEconomics in the sense of the supply & demand theory. You supply a group with a big name product (name for this matter), and the demand is in to see this person. Even take a guy like D'Lo Brown. When you see him on Impact just on the scene, he gets chants, simply because he worked in the big market as a midcarder. People know who he is. Now say CM Punk before he hit the WWE, he didn't get that, ya know... Almost like say Kevin Durant going playing for Ruckers park during the lockout. He's automatically going to be accepted as the big draw, not only because he's good, but because he's been good & right on the cusp of superstardom in the big leagues. Whereas say, if a Ruckers park legend (we can use Raefer Alston as an example), when he came, not many knew who he was. Even though his talent was insane, there was no demand or hype because he came from a much smaller market.

Being the big fish in a little pond is one thing, but doesn't warrant you being the big fish in a big pond. You're a little fish... Whereas if you are just a goldfish in a huge sea, you can go to a pond and become the great white shark (maybe not the best analogy, but whatever).

Being a big name helps you sell tickets, but it doesn't mean you will be accepted as a main eventer. Do you really think that people would have bought D'Lo as a main event act in TNA right away (even back in 2003)? I am a HUGE D'Lo fan (I couldn't stop myself from cheering for him during his ROH run, even though he was a heel), and I sure as hell wouldn't have.
Your argument falls apart because you are completely discounting the possibility of creating a star, which is done by booking a guy in such a way that he looks like a star. How many fans did Brock Lesnar have as of Wrestlemania 18? I doubt that anyone who didn't know about and follow OVW had even heard of him. Five months later, he won the WWE Title, and it was completely believable because he was made to look like a star. He plowed through the Hardyz, Bubba Ray Dudley, RVD, Hulk Hogan, and The Rock.
The same was done with Desmond Wolfe. He came to TNA, and was put against and made to look like he belonged in the ring with Kurt Angle, and so he was accepted as a main eventer.

[Big Red Machine]

I am looking at it from that angle, and I have com to the conclusion that that angle makes no sense.
Look at my earlier boxing analogy with the Ali-Frazier fights. Just because there was more than one does not make either of those fights any worse.
You are completely discounting match quality and a number of other important factors. Lets look at ratings (or some equivalency): In the world of movies, the measure of success for a movie analogous to live ratings/PPV buys in wrestling would be the opening weekend numbers (since there hasn't been time to get the word out if the movie was worth seeing or not). Star Wars made $1,554,475 in its opening weekend. The Empire Strikes Back made even more $4,910,483. Why did ESB do so much better in its opening weekend that ANH? Because the first movie was so good that people were willing to go see the second one without even waiting for reviews (because they were so certain the movie would be great). Return of the Jedi made a whopping $23,019,618 in its opening weekend because the first two had been so good.

Hogan vs. Goldberg II wouldn't have drawn sh*t because the first one stunk. Compare that to Taker vs. HBK. The match at WM 25 was so good that it made people buy WM 26.

Simply being the only match the two men ever had does not inherently make a match better, which is what you are arguing. Trying to figure out which match was the icing on the cake is hardly relevant.

Can't go the Star Wars route, simply because I have never seen one of their movies. Honestly have no idea of anything relating to it...

But we're not talking about one match here. We're talking about perhaps the 2nd biggest match the WCW had in the late 90's, aside from Sting v. Hogan. Why? Because Goldberg was the hot commodity, and it's against Hogan, who was the head of the dominate stable in all of wrestling. The drama was off the charts. It alone made of for the match maybe not being a 10/10. Also, gotta give credit to how the announcers (especially Heenan), made it seem like a bigger than life thing. It wasn't your typical well worked match. It had the feeling of the Super bowl. Not to mention, when you think Georgia Dome, if you're a wrestling fan, you think Goldberg v. Hogan. Everything about it was big. Partially thanks to it being the 1st & only time the bulls locked horns.

1. How can you not have seen Star Wars? It is one of the most famous movies of all time!

2. Whether or not you have seen it is irrelevant. What matters is statistic, and the comparison we can draw. The sequel had a much better opening weekend than the original because the awesomeness of the original made them trust that the second one would be worth their money, enough that they didn't even wait for reviews before getting tickets. Similarly, a wrestling match that is good makes people want to see a rematch. Therefore, only happening once does not make a match inherently better or more special, as if it were good enough, the company would have done a rematch (the obvious, logical, business move to capitalize off of a major match-up, and wrestling is, at its core, a business).

3. And Flair vs. Steamboat wasn't the same? You had the people's hero babyface against the leader of the most dominant heel faction in wrestling at the time. Flair (and Warrior, at that time) were the hot commodities. Why are those matches any different? Those matches also had amazing atmosphere... but they were good enough that the company could actually promote a rematch. The atmosphere in Goldberg-Hogan was helped by the fact that it was the first time they had wrestled. The fact that it turned out to be the only time they wrestled is (and was) irrelevant to the atmosphere, or any of the feeling about the match (especially since no one knew that it would be the last time they would wrestle 1-on-1). The only thing that fact is relevant to is the stupidity of the bookers and not even close to top-tier quality of the match. Atmosphere and booking/build-up can help a match be great, but it can't be everything.