Loss

While I tend to side with Punk, if there's one criticism I do think is valid, it's that he is pretty aloof at times. What's best for CM Punk was not always what was best for WWE, yet he seemed to think it was. Cena seems far more capable than Punk of stepping outside of himself.

Vince has good and bad like anyone else, but when he's on his game, he's a great booker. I can't see anyone suggesting him here.

This was a fascinating tidbit in the latest WON. I'll drop it here because I think it's worth discussing in the context of this thread:

That was the reason, yes. But I think because they closed the show with it and because of the incredible reception he got that night, it seemed like he was their guy. People had the same hope the month before when the crowd hijacked the Cena-Orton TLC build with a "Daniel Bryan!" chant that got progressively louder and louder to the point that it threw everyone off that was in the ring.

It's ok to link matches. That's very useful! Thanks for sharing.

They should have come up with a storyline reason he wouldn't be on at least every big show. As it stands, it's going to be obvious to everyone in his last match that Brock is just doing a job.

Since I've had a lot of requests to add more years and content to it and I haven't been able to devote time to creating the threads, I think I'm just going to open everything up and give people the ability to start threads themselves. The reason I've wanted to start the threads myself is that I've been following a very specific style. However, if you can adhere to this, feel free to start things yourselves. I'll add folders for all years shortly. - Make sure you are spelling names correctly - Use vs instead of v. or vs. or Vs (Tech writer pet peeve - I'm a stickler for consistency) - Include the promotion name, show name if applicable and date in parentheses next to the match (Example: WWE Royal Rumble 01/01/15) - If there's a gimmick attached to the match, include that after the show name and date separated by a comma - Example: Magnum TA vs Tully Blanchard (NWA Starrcade 11/28/85, I Quit Cage Match) A few notes on thread tags: - Tag the date in the following format: January 1 (That way, users can click on the tag and get a "this day in history") - Tag the promotion (For WWWF or WWF era matches, also add WWE so these can be sorted either way) - Use thread tags to tag each wrestler in the match - Tag any gimmicks associated with the match (I Quit Match, Cage Match, War Games, Ladder Match, etc.) - If it's someone who has had multiple names, tag them using their name from the match along with their most generally recognizable name (Example: A Claudio Castagnoli match would get both a Claudio Castagnoli tag and a Cesaro tag). Do first and last names too unless it's a case where that's how the wrestler is billed. 'Goldberg' is fine. 'Nash' is not. The reason I'm specific about this is not because I'm just wound up tight, although I probably am. It's more that the tags can be really useful for people in finding similar matches if they are applied to threads uniformly. I'll pin this thread so people can ask questions here if they have them.

I have come to think it wasn't so much that they didn't want to push Bryan. How many times have we heard that Vince sees him as his own creation, a great worker that Vince taught how to be a star? If you recall, Vince felt after HIAC that Bryan had been elevated from the Orton feud and they were simply moving on to the next challenger. I think the issue was that Vince had the ceiling lower for Bryan than it actually was, and he underestimated his popularity based on the disappointing Summerslam buyrate (which was later revised and bumped up quite a bit in one of the more underreported stories of the past year - the difference between '13 and '12 ended up pretty small in the end). Vince I think saw him as more of a Chris Jericho type than a top star in the company type, so he was going to be protected but just below the very top level. What I don't understand to this day is why they did the angle with Bray Wyatt in the show-closing position in January if they had no plans for him. Did that just get far more over than expected?

I think with the political climate being what it is, it's harder to get heat because of the polarization. What makes you a babyface to half of the viewers probably makes you a huge heel to the other half. I can't remember the last current events issue where pretty much everyone had the same opinion. So the more I think about it, the more I do think loading up the roster with babyfaces and only having a few heels might be the best approach. In a way, they've already done that.

Jumbo-Kawada is for sure great in a different way than most All Japan matches of this time period are great. While I really do like the match, I also understand those who don't. It's a very understated match.

Not everyone can be a main eventer, but shouldn't the goal be for everyone to hit their ceiling as much as possible, at whatever level that happens to be? I realize wrestlers intersect and that this is an impossible standard, but it would be cool if they tried anyway. Even in failure, it seems like they'd be so much more successful.

I think a better two-a-penny comparison would be an old WON complaining about someone's lack of push.

"You guys" is the type of generalization we've asked everyone to stop doing. This is a site where a lot of people, yourself included, look at things critically, and I don't think throwing that out helps anything. People were complaining about those things in 1998-1999, yes, but I don't recall much complaining in 2000 when they struck a balance. If you can point out all of these complaints about the WWF in their hottest year ever, which was 2000, that would be great because I don't remember them at all.

Kane and Show were Vince projection. There was no audience demand for them to headline. Chris Jericho should have been groomed to be the successor to Austin and Rock. He was the #3 merchandising draw in the hottest year the company ever had. The potential was there until he was typecast as a guy who was just below that level because of all the start-stop pushes. I don't think the world title should be a merry-go-round at all, but I don't think they should be so stingy with TV main events and the challenger role in title matches.

I don't have some smark utopia vision of what WWE can be in my head. More than anything, I just want them to start elevating more guys to main event status. That's what made 2000 WWF great - oftentimes if you got a big pop one week, you were in the RAW main event the following week.

Vince doesn't respond to crowd reactions as much as he responds to data. And that makes him a great promoter in many ways, but it also only assesses things as they currently are and almost completely disregards potential. Live reactions show the potential of something to catch on if they invest in it.

WWE loves to talk about creating new stars as if it's this complicated thing. Why does it have to be more complicated than this? - Fans start to respond to a wrestler on the undercard - Give wrestler lots of wins and move him up the card I don't think every guy who gets a pop has potential to be a long-term draw, but I don't understand not running with even hints of something special to try to get everything possible out of it. That's why Vince talking about millennials having a fear of failure was so amusing to me.

Also, the surest way for WWE to avoid "bitching and moaning" is just to put on more good shows and let people who get big pops win more matches than they lose. Why is that so hard?

Call it unfair if you like, but I always have and always will judge a wrestling company more on their missed opportunities than their successes. Take just about any wrestling company in history and the *chances* they've had to do something special and if they did it even half the time, they'd all be great.

I am highly amused at the LEVESQUE NEWLYWED GAME filling time right now on the Network.

No, you look at it the right way. I looked at it the wrong way before.

I agree that it's endearing. The problem is that he's the go-to guy when people have questions about stuff.