Originally Posted by Seth82
"You've now reached the point where you have almost no analytical credibility with me when it comes to the WWF. I'm not saying you have a personal hard-on and it effects your judgment, only that you can no longer evaluate all wrestling by the same criteria. Has it occurred to you that the direction the WWF is going is imply not to your taste? I spoke to an awful lot of people after Summerslam. I mean real people, not guys who stay up to 3 a.m. to call you on some sportstalk radio show or Observer readers, just mainstream people who enjoy wrestling. While nobody was confusing Summerslam with Wrestlemania III, they were also sophisticated enough to realize that this was the summer show and was deliberately low-key so as not to destroy the specialness of Wrestlemania but that it was tons better than any other MSG show this year. If you want to throw in the 25-30 folks on the computer wrestling board I frequent who are very hardcore fans, several of whom subscribe to the Observer, the general impression was pretty much favorable. Nobody was going crazy as they did for the first Clash or Wrestlemania IV (Yes, your fabled failure drew mostly excellent notices online) but people were happy, especially with the Hart Foundation-Demolition match. How can you give that 1 1/2 stars when in the same issue you rate a Phil Hickerson vs. Jeff Jarrett match with 3 1/2 stars? All I'm saying is that you don't like the current WWF style of matches and too many of your readers simply like what you like and don't like what you don't like. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd think about it. I'd also look more at what a promotion is attempting to do and how well they succeed. It was my impression that Summerslam was supposed to be, basically, the year's best MSG show, and it was. I doubt many viewers were all that turned off and suspect most enjoyed it well enough that they'll buy the next WWF PPV show. When Wrestlemania V rolls around, it will still seem like a more important event and it will cost more and people will pay it unless the promotion turns them off. That is more important than how well they draw in Philadelphia the next month. Your comment that, ipso fact, the ridiculous Flair-Luger blood angle on the PPV Bash was a success because live gates were up immediately was the most naive thing I've ever read by you. Don't you think infuriating the PPV audience was more significant than live audience, a totally different and relatively microscopic portion of the potentially vast PPV audience. The NWA's biggest problem is they never take the long view. Like children, they live in the eternal here and now. People are turned out of the blue (Windham, Luger, Murdoch, Garvin) with no build up because they need heat at some shows. They good good notices on Clash and think they've won the wrestling war. They draw a few good live gates and suddenly Dusty and Jimbo are convinced they've been right all along and should continue to run the organization even after Turner spends good money on it. You can't criticize a cowboy movie because it doesn't have ray guns. The WWF style tends toward fewer holds with much more set-up for each. Criticizing it for not equalling the workrate of some other promotion is besides the point. Workrate is all well and good, but smart fans put too much emphasis on it. Five moves aren't necessarily better than one well-executed and well set-up move." -- Bill Kunkel, Woodhaven, NY
|