Loss

Big Show and Kane will be figured in somewhere because they are Big Show and Kane. Bryan/Ziggler vs Show/Kane is such a laughably horrible idea that I had to share it.

I could see them putting Bryan with Big Show. I know.

I think switching gears would have been a mistake. Lesnar-Bryan still has appeal down the line, but I'd rather see them rebuild Bryan first. My bigger problem is that they don't have anyone at Bryan's level for him to face on the show, yet they had a program in reserve for the far less over Randy Orton, who has been on the shelf for months himself. The priorities of this company never cease to amaze.

There is a big movement to recognize beauty in people that aren't conventionally attractive. The fat acceptance movement has also gathered some momentum. Any type of shaming is pretty frowned upon now. Lots of cultural changes happening.

Vince's head will explode if someone explains the millenial "body positive" concept to him. Also, Big Show has trimmed down considerably. He's probably leaner than he's ever been.

I wish we had Flair-Valentine from this show too. Possibly an all-time double header candidate.

I am waaaay behind reading this thread, but in response to something yesterday about Austin, has anyone else gotten the impression that he's speaking code language to say he'd have to take steroids and painkillers to make a return to the ring at this point and that he'd rather not put his body through that? Of course he can't come out and say that, but think about it. If Austin returned to the ring, it's not like we'd get a clean Austin.

If Larry Zbyszko does not reference golf and work the phrase "proverbial game of human chess" into his speech, we riot.

They are boxed into this dated mindset that they can draw with minorities by just putting someone in a token role. Remember, they have been looking for *a* Latin star to replace Rey for years now. Only one.

Separate incidents. Rock's problems with Shawn go back to 1985, when the Midnight Rockers were working a show promoted by Lia Maivia, Shawn was being the worst version of Shawn and a teenage Rock wanted to kick his ass. Most of their issues, though, were in 1997, with Shawn and HHH pretty determined to make sure Rock never became a top guy. Bret was supposed to pin Rock on an episode of RAW and nixed it so Rocky could win by DQ, thinking he gained nothing by beating Rock but it could hurt Rock. HHH and Shawn were pretty angry at Bret over that one for whatever reason, possibly because Bret had refused to put over HHH in the European title tournament a month earlier.

I get the point you're making, but I don't think people would have been as offended if they liked most of what WWE was doing at that point. Smackdown had an angle around the same time where Al Wilson actually died. I realize death in itself isn't necessarily offensive, but it's also the same type of soap opera storytelling, and it's not remembered with the same amount of vitriol. Why? Because people generally liked Smackdown at that time and were able to look past it. People weren't really into RAW in 2002-2003. Along the same lines, why did most people love HHH in 2000 and hate him in 2002? It's not like he had a mass regression as a worker during that time. It's that in 2000, his strong push hadn't gone so long that no one thought he could be beaten, whereas by 2002 that was clearly the feeling. This meant the nearfalls in 2002 didn't get the pop they did in 2000, which is a big part of the house style. In addition, people liked WWE in 2000 more than 2002. You can point to bad stuff in just about every good era, and good stuff in just about any bad era. But with a few obvious exceptions, I don't think there's a single angle that will turn most people away. I think it's usually the overall composite takeaway of the watching experience as a whole that leads to people either becoming fans or jumping off the bandwagon.

Kidnapping Stephanie and leaving her tied up in a boiler room, the brawl with Austin in the funeral home where they attempted to embalm him alive, Dennis Knight being sacrificed ... the same stuff happening in 2002 would have been panned like crazy, but no one seemed to care enough to bash it too much in 1998-1999. The reason? Because when a wrestling company is hot, they can do no wrong. And when they're cold, they can do no right.

I don't think Bryan should win the title until they are prepared to stick with it for a few months at a minimum. That's what people want that they still haven't received -- not just a title win, but an extended title run.

Katie Vick was an issue of time period more than content. WWE was already cooling off and people were sick of HHH, and that just made it worse. As an angle, I don't see how it's demonstrably worse than just about everything the Undertaker did post Summerslam '98 through 1999, or Mae Young giving birth to a hand. The difference is that those things happened when they were popular.

I think Roman Reigns did a job to somehow prove that he isn't hand-picked. Because if he truly was hand-picked, he would have won, right? More meta booking.

They actually do already own USWA Texas footage from my understanding. It showed up in the documentary portion of the last Steve Austin DVD.

February 1 - February 7 is up: http://placetobenation.com/this-week-in-90s-wrestling-february-1st-7th/

In Regal's case, I think he meant cosmetically, in the sense that all he cared about was his body, not improving in the ring. He put Bagwell in that category too.

Regal thought he cared more about how he looked than how good his match was also.

I was referring to Reigns as "he" there being the heel. Rock endorsing Reigns backfired in such a big way that I don't think we'll see it happen again.

I agree with that. Fans were booing Reigns because he was there, but they were really booing Vince McMahon.

I wonder if Rock would even agree to involvement with Reigns in any creative from here forward unless he was a heel.

No. It was the night after Wrestlemania X-8, when Rock was in the ring with new babyface Hulk Hogan and called Kevin Nash "Big Daddy Bitch" in a segment that went nearly a half hour.

No, he's wrong. D-Bry v. Kane was a gimmick match blowing off a big time feud. It deserved to go in the main slot Of course I think it should be in the main event slot, but after the way he was treated at the Rumble, it makes no sense.