|
 http://bleacherreport.com/articles/69939-the-93173-debatemy-take I blew up the picture as much as I could and without looking for a specific number, I started counting. There look to be 28 equal-sized rectangle blocks of people on the floor (6 rows of 2 columns at either end with 2 on each side) and 4 pyramid shaped blocks around the ring. I counted each block to have 15 people along the bottom edge and 25 people along the side. For the pyramid, it appears to be wide blocks wide at the base (60) and narrows down to what looks to be the same number at the top as the block (15). I counted 11 rows and made each row have 5 more people. That makes 28 blocks of 375 and 4 pyramids of 375 for a grand total of 12,000 on the floor.
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 04:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:52 |
|
|
TL posted:I'm doing some preliminary research into maybe booking a Wrestlemania weekend vacation to Phoenix. Has anyone else here done that? Any tips or advice? I work in hotels so I can get a deal on a hotel room, but is it difficult to get, say, a rental car that weekend? Do flights sell out quick? book your flights now, arrive on a thursday, a rental car is a must because phoenix has poo poo public transportation, and attend the DGUSA and Ring of Honor shows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 04:18
|
|
|
grody but still def posted:Post some examples please. And you are insane if you think the IWC was just as big or bigger in late 99-00. Do you have any idea how much lower percentage of people even had home computers back then? Matlock posted:Former guys who worked for the company during the period say most of the stuff in the book is right. One guy with a mullet says it's all bullshit. LividLiquid posted:It also got much of the story correct. I will say this again, as so many are having problems comprehending it and would rather nitpick my posts and be intentionally and deliberately obtuse. I think the list is funny. I think it probably has a lot of truth in it. I think the same about the book. I also think neither should be taken as gospel. If somebody wants to find the image of the bird-poo poo advertisement, go right ahead. Until then, it never loving happened and was made up or was just a joke.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 04:20
|
|
|
I spent like an hour today again looking for Cena face and not finding it is mocking me 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 04:31
|
|
|
Speaking of WM26, anyone ever see a wrestling event at a football stadium? I'm looking at the $150 range, which appears to be the cheapest floor tickets (i.e., back rows of the floor). Given the choice between back of the floor versus front of the lower level, which is better?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 05:03
|
|
|
HHHH posted:Speaking of WM26, anyone ever see a wrestling event at a football stadium? I'm looking at the $150 range, which appears to be the cheapest floor tickets (i.e., back rows of the floor). Given the choice between back of the floor versus front of the lower level, which is better? I haven't seen wrestling is a football stadium but back row of the floor is terrible generally, you wont be able to see over anyone in front of you. If you cant afford front of the floor you want to sit up a little higher.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 05:09
|
|
|
HHHH posted:Speaking of WM26, anyone ever see a wrestling event at a football stadium? I'm looking at the $150 range, which appears to be the cheapest floor tickets (i.e., back rows of the floor). Given the choice between back of the floor versus front of the lower level, which is better? Unless you're in the first few rows, you're better off not being on the floor. You'll be spending more time watching the big screens than the actual ring.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 05:10
|
|
|
HHHH posted:Speaking of WM26, anyone ever see a wrestling event at a football stadium? I'm looking at the $150 range, which appears to be the cheapest floor tickets (i.e., back rows of the floor). Given the choice between back of the floor versus front of the lower level, which is better? Never get floor seats if you don't have the first 3 rows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 06:15
|
|
|
Yep, that's what I needed to hear. In the meantime, I found this WM26 price map: https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B7C7K9K0PlP4YTU3Mzk3NWMtMjcxZC00YjQ4LTkwMjUtNjM4NTc3ZDA1YzEy&hl=en $155 gets you in the end zone and prices go up exponentially from there. I think I'll go for the $80 or $100 sections.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 06:30
|
|
|
I went to WM23 and sat somewhere in the equivalent of sections 124-126 on that diagram, about 2/3 of the way up. The view was fantastic - the titantron was partially blocked by the lighting rig but other than that you could see everything really well. Plus, the crowd in that area was great and the price was very reasonable. Sitting up in the $25 seats would probably be too far away but likely would still be better than most floor seats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 06:38
|
|
|
HHHH posted:Speaking of WM26, anyone ever see a wrestling event at a football stadium? I'm looking at the $150 range, which appears to be the cheapest floor tickets (i.e., back rows of the floor). Given the choice between back of the floor versus front of the lower level, which is better? Get the front of the lower level.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 06:45
|
|
|
I'm leaning toward the $755 tickets, would those be the best? I mean, is there any bad seats in that range?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 07:29
|
|
|
Tightosp posted:I'm leaning toward the $755 tickets, would those be the best? I mean, is there any bad seats in that range? there could be if you don't get the first few rows unless you're really tall.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 07:35
|
|
|
Just stressing what everyone else has said, unless you can get right up at the front row of ringside don't go for ground level, go for the first ring of the lower level and you should get a really good view of EVERYTHING. Remember, wrestlers are loving HUGE, you won't have any trouble seeing them unless you're in the nosebleeds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 09:23
|
|
|
Don't forget to bring binoculars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 09:30
|
|
|
So I'm watching the raw from 2/9/98 thats on WWE/24/7 right now. During a tag match vs. LOD, they keep announcing Jeff Jarett and Barry windham as the NWA north american and NWA heavyweight champion respectively. My question is, how the gently caress did this happen and why were they promoting it on TV? I thought WCW bought out the NWA and merged titles 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 10:19
|
|
|
CaptainRapesAlot posted:So I'm watching the raw from 2/9/98 thats on WWE/24/7 right now. During a tag match vs. LOD, they keep announcing Jeff Jarett and Barry windham as the NWA north american and NWA heavyweight champion respectively. My question is, how the gently caress did this happen and why were they promoting it on TV? I don't know for sure, but I imagine that was after WCW binned the NWA roots entirely and had their own WCW belt created.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 10:29
|
|
|
Jagtpanther posted:I don't know for sure, but I imagine that was after WCW binned the NWA roots entirely and had their own WCW belt created. I believe so, didn't Jim Cornette bring the belts into WWF?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 10:37
|
|
|
CaptainRapesAlot posted:So I'm watching the raw from 2/9/98 thats on WWE/24/7 right now. During a tag match vs. LOD, they keep announcing Jeff Jarett and Barry windham as the NWA north american and NWA heavyweight champion respectively. My question is, how the gently caress did this happen and why were they promoting it on TV? The "Big Gold Belt" fiasco is the piece of history you're missing. Basically, in 1991 Flair beat Sting to regain the NWA title, but was recognized as the WCW and NWA champions, as WCW was slowly moving away from the NWA as a whole. When he had a tussle with then-WCW head Jim Herd, he left to the WWF, and was stripped of the WCW title, thus separating the two belts officially, as he still technically held the NWA title for several more months, to the point that Bobby Heenan was hyping him up over it on WWF television, but when Flair actually debuted in the WWF the NWA stripped him. WCW didn't really care at that point, as they were severing ties with the NWA completely, so the NWA belt just went into limbo for awhile before finally being fought over in a tournament just about a year later, where it was won by one Shane Douglas, who immediately after winning it spat on the belt, and declared the formation of ECW. The NWA no longer being associated with WCW and thus not being any kind of threat or insult to the WWF meant that, probably with some pushing from Jim Cornette, the WWF let NWA show its belts around a few times, most notably in Dan Severn (who held the title for something like four years) wandering around wearing the heavyweight strap. The NWA meandered around for awhile before finally joining up with TNA, who, of course, dumped them five years later when they no longer felt they needed them. Basically, everyone dumps the NWA eventually.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 10:37
|
|
|
Didn't NWA actually choose to disassociate themselves from TNA? I think I recall them doing a kayfabe thing where they stripped Christian of the belt for "not meeting his challenge obligations" or something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 10:41
|
|
|
Everything I've ever heard indicates that's more of NWA pulling a "they didn't dump us, we dumped them" sort of deal. TNA took up the NWA-TNA name at first so as to piggyback on it, but once they started landing TV deals they cut the namesake ties but kept the belts, and in doing so were still beholden to the NWA's bookers and directors, which apparently always pissed them off, Russo in particular, thus they were constantly doing stuff without the NWA's approval, the NWA was always getting up their rear end about it, and apparently there were issues wherein TNA was refusing to pay the NWA certain fees they were supposed to for use of their belts. I know there were reports as early as March of '07 about Panda lawyers meeting with NWA lawyers to negotiate the split, so I think the NWA's whole stripping-them-for-not-being-up-to-snuff thing was more of an attempt at both saving face, and trying to make a big deal out of it for sake of publicity, as the NWA leaving TNA was pretty much the only big NWA-specific story in years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 11:36
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Didn't NWA actually choose to disassociate themselves from TNA? I think I recall them doing a kayfabe thing where they stripped Christian of the belt for "not meeting his challenge obligations" or something? I thought this situation was always the NWA being upset that TNA didn't run title changes by the NWA first, as if the NWA mattered enough to merit this treatment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 11:39
|
|
|
Was the Shane Douglas spitting on the belt and stuff a work or a shoot?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 12:35
|
|
|
Capsaicin posted:Was the Shane Douglas spitting on the belt and stuff a work or a shoot? it was allegedy a work constructed exclusively by tod gordon, paul heyman, and shane douglas. nobody else knew about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 12:40
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Didn't NWA actually choose to disassociate themselves from TNA? I think I recall them doing a kayfabe thing where they stripped Christian of the belt for "not meeting his challenge obligations" or something? I'm sort of glad Russo didn't get to ruin the history of another long-running title.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 12:59
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:The story has always been that Russo was hotshotting the belt too much. NWA took off. No idea what actually happened. I thought it was lame, since TNA Champion sounds like a title you'd win at a Hooters. Plus having Christian as the NWA champion and talking to Muta about how the've both been NWA Champ was a pretty big markout moment for me. L Double, that belt was ruined ever since Shane Douglas threw it down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 14:03
|
|
|
I wouldn't say ruined. One black mark on your belt's lineage isn't nearly as bad as half of your title changes taking place in a two-year span. Oh, WCW title. Poor, poor, WCW title.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 14:09
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:I wouldn't say ruined. One black mark on your belt's lineage isn't nearly as bad as half of your title changes taking place in a two-year span. Oh, WCW title. Poor, poor, WCW title.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 14:12
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:I wouldn't say ruined. One black mark on your belt's lineage isn't nearly as bad as half of your title changes taking place in a two-year span. Oh, WCW title. Poor, poor, WCW title. I still love how DDP's 3 reigns were equal to orton's first reign, which people say killed all his momentum. Way to go, WCW.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 14:12
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Remember, wrestlers are loving HUGE, you won't have any trouble seeing them unless you're in the nosebleeds. I don't know, they don't look so big on my TV.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 17:18
|
|
|
grody but still def posted:Dan Severn. I realize the NWA was in a bad way, but they couldn't possibly have done better than Dan Severn being their champion for four years? I just looked at the history of the title post WCW and pre TNA. Depressing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 17:49
|
|
|
CaptainRapesAlot posted:So I'm watching the raw from 2/9/98 thats on WWE/24/7 right now. During a tag match vs. LOD, they keep announcing Jeff Jarett and Barry windham as the NWA north american and NWA heavyweight champion respectively. My question is, how the gently caress did this happen and why were they promoting it on TV? WWE was doing an NWA invasion angle and bought the rights to use the belts on TV. WCW split from the NWA long ago and made their own brand new belt. Speaking of this month's 24/7 offerings, Lord Steven Regal's last match on WCW Nitro is on this week's programming, wherein he shoots on Goldberg.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 18:13
|
|
|
grody but still def posted:Dan Severn. What about him? <---
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 18:44
|
|
|
Burrito posted:I don't know, they don't look so big on my TV. Television does not do these men justice!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 20:46
|
|
|
Chilly McFreeze posted:Sitting up in the $25 seats would probably be too far away but likely would still be better than most floor seats. I was in those super-high cheap seats at WM24. Yeah, I get to say I was at a Wrestlemania, but that far up, even the screens were hard to see at times. Still, it'd be better than being behind thirty rows on the floor, I'd imagine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 21:17
|
|
|
TL posted:I realize the NWA was in a bad way, but they couldn't possibly have done better than Dan Severn being their champion for four years? Who would have been better? Severn was the biggest name they could put the title on at the time who wasn't in WWF, WCW or ECW. Having the NWA title carried out on UFC PPVs like it was a legit championship was the highlight of the belt from the NWA/WCW split until... maybe now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 22:57
|
|
|
Weird Uncle Dave posted:I was in those super-high cheap seats at WM24. Yeah, I get to say I was at a Wrestlemania, but that far up, even the screens were hard to see at times. I get to claim the WH2K record for worst Wrestlemania seat; I had 2nd to last row in the top deck at WM17.  well, unless someone here had a seat behind a pillar or in the bathroom or something
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 23:15
|
|
|
Weird Uncle Dave posted:I was in those super-high cheap seats at WM24. Yeah, I get to say I was at a Wrestlemania, but that far up, even the screens were hard to see at times. Also at WM24 - sat right at the back of the floor level, the only positive thing about it was that I was about 10 metres away from the stage, and I got a shitload of the Mayweather dollars. Plus some great photos of the (losing) wrestlers as they walked backstage after their matches.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 23:48
|
|
|
Carlton Banks posted:I get to claim the WH2K record for worst Wrestlemania seat; I had 2nd to last row in the top deck at WM17. Was it even possible to see the ring/wrestlers from there?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 23:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:52 |
|
|
The A-Team Van posted:Was it even possible to see the ring/wrestlers from there? Barely, I watched the show on the screen for the most part. My friend rented some binoculars and I borrowed them a few times. The seats sucked, but it was worth it since it was my first WM (plus it helps that it was one of the best ones)
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 23:58
|
|