Dylan Waco

Of course regular WWE fans have bagged on the angle at various points myself included. If I wrote anything in this thread to suggest or imply otherwise I retract it right now - but I don't believe I have. I don't doubt that the highest percentage of people supportive of the angle have been Punk fans. That's akin to saying the fans happiest with the Super Bowl result last year were Green Bay fans. Though I am curious how one would define a "Punk Fan" using the jdw double cap/proper noun Having said that.... I actually think if we looked close at those who don't like the angle and have been very high on the criticism the highest % would be folks who have long since given up on the WWE and are at best casual viewers. There may be a variety of reasons for this, but I do not think it is a coincidence. Noting that fans have loved parts of this angle more than others isn't surprising either. I've been back and forth on it a few times myself and I'm probably as much of a guy that could be dismissed with the WWE Luv label as you will find on this board. The disagreements are more nuanced than "this is the greatest thing ever" v. "this is a total failure" but the two types of fans engaged in the discussion are not going to be able to find any common ground if they can't get past "WWE Luv" v. "WWE Hate"

I can't be the only person who assumes he will return under a different name sooner or later

I think the "changing of the goal post" commentary in general is fairly bogus and has a lot to with people just wanting to play "gotcha." Ignoring the initial hyperbole that surrounds any "shoot" promo I think most of the discussion of the angle has been fairly measured with most people waiting for the moment when things go totally off the rails and hit the brick wall of shit. If anything what makes this angle special is the fact that it is a modern WWE angle that does not feel like it has totally fallen apart, gotten boring, or killed someone more than it has helped. Will it get to that point? Probably. But despite missteps it does not feel that way now and I don't think noting the failure of Nexus by this point in it's progression has anything to do with goal posts being changed.

I specifically said it was not a personal comment and it wasn't. The problem in making that point is that there is almost no way it does not come across as personal no matter how you preface it which again is one of the primary reasons I have done my best to hold my tongue and stay out of this thread. Look at the people who have been more critical of the angle. Look at the people who have been more favorable/looking for the positives in it. This is a pattern that seems to be pretty constant on other boards - those who are WWE fans and/or follow the modern product fall into camp B. Those who are not WWE fans and/or don't follow much about the modern product fall into camp A. There are exceptions and it is not a hard and fast rule but the trends are there. I don't think it's a coincidence, and I don't think it can be chalked up entirely to hysterics from WWE loyalists v. hysterics from Vince haters. It's deeper that hence the talk of target audiences. Now let me be clear. I have no problem with arguing about this stuff, discussing it, et regardless of whether someone is a casual or hardcore fan. I also agree that the angle has not been perfectly booked, that there is still a high liklihood it will be fucked up, et. Where I disagree is that this is business as usual for the WWE, that the angle is already bad, or with the suggestion - and I may be reading you wrong here - that Punk is being eclipsed and losing steam by the things going around him. I also disagree that Punk taking time off with the belt would have felt less shooty than the stuff with HHH but that is a perception issue and I'm not sure I would feel the same way had the Loose Cannon gimmick never happened.

I haven't followed WWE in a while, so I hope you don't mind that I'm out of the loop when it comes to a lot of this. All I know is from stuff I've read online. What I'm wondering, from reading this, is why it was decided that Del Rio should get involved. I understand that it builds a new star and doesn't take away any of Punk's credibility. But Punk is the most exciting wrestler the company has, and he's in the company's hottest feud in a long time. Now the feud goes from Punk vs. Cena, with authority figures involved and the title at stake, to Punk vs. Cena, with authority figures and Kevin Nash involved and the title around the waist of someone who had nothing to do with either man until last night. Now, it's less than twenty-four hours after that happened. Maybe they'll reveal that it was a big corporate plot, like with The Rock at Survivor Series, to get the belt away from two guys who can't be trusted. That'd be logical. Either way, though, the fact that all of these people keep getting shoved into the feud takes some focus away from Punk vs. Cena, which only a month ago was by pretty much all accounts a great, captivating angle. Even if it's still good, it's been diluted. I don't really understand the difference between trying to build a new fanbase and pandering to fans who abandoned them a decade ago. It's not like Loss is arguing that WWE should go back to doing raunchy angles and showing vehicles getting destroyed. He's saying that the angle could be executed better. "Better angles" doesn't seem like something that would appeal only to former wrestling fans. Unless WWE just markets itself better (which, to be fair, has pretty much been their focus for that last however long it's been), that's pretty much the best way to bring in new fans and retain the interest of current ones. My point is that Loss idea of better and the fanbase idea of better may not be the same. In fact I would argue that they almost certainly are not the same. I wish Punk had stayed off tv for at least a few weeks and didn't think much of his return promo but other that that I think the angle has been quite good all things considered. I am a WWE hardcore fan and thought a tourney the night after with Punk being ignored was actually the logical thing to do. Loss hated it and thought that was the beginning of the end. Perhaps I'm not the best representative of what a WWE fan would want and perhaps Loss is not the best representative of someone who the WWE should ignore. The point is that those fans who haven't closely followed the product in years are probably not going to find this stuff as entertaining as those of us who have for a variety of reasons and that for those same reasons I'm not certain the WWE gains much by listening to those criticisms (a moot point really..do they listen to any criticisms?)

Silent Roid Rage?

I don't see how it was poor writing. The finish set up a new heel champion with multiple quality challengers. Del Rio is not over enough to be the champion. That's my point. And I have always hated the idea of putting a title on someone to get them over because it never works the way they think it will, yet they never learn. Not sure how they really set him up for success any more than they did Miz either, and Dave going on for months about Miz being someone who can't draw TV ratings ... it just looks like they're setting Del Rio to go down the same path. It didn't have to be exactly how I wanted, but this mindset of blaming fans for not enjoying bad TV instead of blaming the people who produce it for its flaws has to stop. I know people here like Punk, but liking Punk is preventing people from being objective. I've REALLY been trying to avoid getting to deep into this thread because I think the real issue here is a divide between guys who still regularly watch the current product and have been accustomed to putting up with a certain level of WWE bullshit v. guys who gave up years ago and are going to immediately hone in on obvious deficiencies as a sign of total failure of an angle. Having said that I think this post really deserves a response from someone who clearly falls into category A. For starters Del Rio is over. Period. Is he Austin or The Rock when they won their first title? No. Is he JBL or Jack Swagger when they won their first title? No. He's probably closer to the Miz, accept for the fact that he's better in the ring and his mannerisms seem to generate more heat than any body language tricks Miz tosses around. If you are a hardcore WWE fan - and I fit the definition better than anyone on this forum I would guess - it is pretty much indisputable that Del Rio is over as a heel and has been since the moment he debuted. It is absolutely arguable that Del Rio was more over in the past, that the Big Show feud/move to Raw hurt his momentum, that he stood out more on SD, et. But saying that the goal of putting the title on him in the first place is to get him over is something that strikes me as a gross exaggeration given the reactions and responses the guy has gotten for the vast majority of the time he's been with the company (incidentally he is VERY over with the casual set that I watch ppv's with also for whatever that is worth). Secondly I don't believe that fans should be blamed for being critical either and think there are many ways the WWE could do a better job responding to their fan base. Having said that the push of Punk and his status in the company strikes me of something that is almost assuredly linked to the reactions of the WWE fanbase. He was not a pet project or a favored son or a Vince fetish based on anything that we know. The fact that he is main eventing and the focus of shows now is because of the fact that the WWE decided to listen to the fanbase at least to some degree. One can point to the involvement of Trip or Del Rio's win as proof to the contrary if you like but their are two problems with that thinking. The first of which is that Del Rio's win did nothing to diminish Punk's star and in a bizarre way may have enhanced it given the circumstances. The second point is that - at least up until this point - the HHH stuff has not felt overwhelming to me (much to my surprise) and if anything it has ENHANCED Punk as he is shit talking the king of the castle right to his face, in his company, which fits his image perfectly. A third sub point related to that comment is one that I want to preface by stating that I don't mean it to be dismissive or trollish. You have long been one of my favorite posters on these forums and I respect your opinion on virtually everything even when I disagree. Having said that, I can't think of a single good reason why the WWE would want to listen to the criticisms you make. Based on what I know of your viewing habits from reading this board you are at best a casual viewer of the modern product. You seem indifferent to the WWE at best and generally seem averse to the people who have leadership roles/ownership stakes in the company. I am not arguing that you are unfairly biased against the company - just that you aren't their target audience and while the counter argument that they need to do things to win back fans that left them years ago is a valid one I am very skeptical about it being a sound business strategy. There are a ton of reasons for this that I will expand upon if asked to do so, but basically I think it is more logical for the WWE to try and build a new fanbase/expand the current one they have and hold on to the committed hardcores than it is to try and pander to older fans who abandoned them a decade ago. Finally it may be true that some of us can not be objective when talking about an angle involving Punk. Having said that, that is a two way street. It may in fact be that you can not be objective when talking about an angle that involves HHH. I will grant that there are ample reasons to be skeptical about any storyline involving Trip that doesn't end with him looking like a God and his foe looking like shit. Having said that three of the best angles of the last ten years in wrestling were the Summer of Punk I, the Punk heel turn v. Hardy and the rise of the SES and the Rey feud so there is ample reason to be a "mark" for Punk as well. One can argue that this isn't a "special" angle in the sense that it isn't super shooty, they didn't let Punk roam around the indies/take time off before returning, et. But does it feel like business as usual WWE to me? As a guy who watches as much or more WWE than anyone here I would say absolutely not.

Maybe I'm just an idiotic WWE mark who is easy to please but I have found FAR more to enjoy in this angle than to be disappointed/annoyed by. I didn't have any problem with tonight either. In fact I thought it was a great ppv.

I'm just puzzled that John even gives a shit. I wasn't even aware he watched or followed the modern product

I think it's pretty clear that Satanico is one of the best wrestlers who ever lived. I say that as someone who has just started watching Lucha in the last few years and has probably seen no more than 20 Satanico matches total - if that. It is just evident that he is an extremely versatile talent, can work with anyone, and does all of the little things you want that separate the "great" from the "very good."

Sting was a perfect natural foe for Vader. He was of course a charismatic babyface who could sell and take a beating. But more importantly his power spots looked impressive with Vader and Vader's big bumping style looked more organic and less ridiculous against a guy as "strong" as Sting.

Totally agree on Embry. In several years time if there is ever another GWE poll Embry is a perfect example of a guy that was totally ignored the first go around who I would hope would at least be in the discussion.

I should note that there are maybe three matches I've seen all of this year I like more than the Drew Mac v. Masters match from Superstars this year.

All of them are good but that's one of two that got a lot of time. The other was from earlier this year and is actually the best match they ever had. They had a two minute match on SD that was about as good a two minutes of wrestling as is humanly possible. There are several other Masters matches that could be added to Eric's list. Notably the Luke Gallows singles match from last year is the key one that I think was left off.

All of them are good but that's one of two that got a lot of time. The other was from earlier this year and is actually the best match they ever had. They had a two minute match on SD that was about as good a two minutes of wrestling as is humanly possible. There are several other Masters matches that could be added to Eric's list. Notably the Luke Gallows singles match from last year is the key one that I think was left off.

As an aside how the fuck does Primo Colon still have a job when Masters doesn't.

I wouldn't say I'm happy about the Masters release, but the prospect of him working for a local indy like he did a few years ago makes me happy and it's beyond obvious the WWE was never going to do anything with him.

Couple more 99 WCW matches worth looking at are La Park v. Eddy from 7/1/99 and Lenny Lane v. Kaz Hayashi from Fall Brawl. The Eddy v. Parka match is not blowaway great, but it is a very well worked match, that gets a good bit of time and showcases both guys well. Parka takes some neat bumps, brings the schtick, takes over with a chair and Eddy's wild sprinting comeback finish was cool. Most importantly for the purposes of this set it gives you a look at two guys who were quietly putting on quality matches every week while just being lost in the booking gaps. Hayashi v. Lane is probably the best singles match of Lenny's career and was probably the last really good WCW cruiserweight singles match for a year a half. Hayashi is fucking awesome with his big spots and pacing here and Lenny and Lodi actually work well around that. Some great nearfalls and probably a good piece of evidence for the "Hayashi was one of the best in the World" theorists. I think Silver King/La Parka v. Kendall Windham/Curly Bill was a super fun match from Saturday Night too, but I'm not sure it really fits on a yearbook set.

There are matches and parts of matches where he doesn't look good. In the tag I mention above he really hurts it by having an awkward sequence with Silver King, which keeps the match from being "holy shit great" despite being excellent up to that point. Having said that I thought he tried harder to inject certain character tricks, gestures and mannerisms than most guys that would go on to ape his spot heavy style. I think he's a guy who eventually could have gotten really great in the right setting.

Watching some 99 Blitzkrieg over the last couple of days and there are two matches I would argue strongly for and a third that I would like to see make the set as it is brief and exceptionally well worked. The two matches I think for sure should make it are his debut v. Rey (first week of Feb I think) and a tag from Thunder with him an Kaz Hayashi v. Silver King/Juvy. They Rey match is just an extremely dynamic match, with Rey actually trying to ground Blitz being part of the story and both guys hitting some insane shit. It goes less than ten minutes from bell to bell and is probably one of the better non-ECW matches I've seen from the States out of 99. The tag match may be even better. Aside from a strange bit of miscommunication in the last few minutes that is saved by Hayashi almost killing himself on an insane Asai spot this is really a tremendous match with two extended heat sections, a hot crowd, really fun heel work from Kaz and Blitz and Silver King looking like he is having the time of his life in a U.S. ring. The more "I would like to see it, but totally get why it wouldn't make the cut" match is Van Hammer v. Blitzkrieg from Sept. Maybe six minutes long, but very fun big man v. little man wrestling, with some neat cut off spots and some different looking stuff from both guys. Probably the best Van Hammer match ever if that matters, but I think it is more noteworthy to show how fun a worker Blitz was at such a young age even against a dude like Hammer. He also has a very good match with Malenko from that year and a good t.v. match with Juvy to go with the SS99 match (to go along with the four way that I assume got enough pimpage via Meltz and co. to be an "automatic" pick) that I would at least consider. Also - and I assume this is obvious - but Hak v. Bigelow from SS99 has to make the set.

Honestly between this and the needless bit with Johnny Ace that seemingly meant nothing and went nowhere, I am hoping this leads to a Cena heel turn/corporate champion coronation at Summerslam which is also the ONLY way this angle can be salvaged. The bottom line is that Cena's goody-good babyface, all about "honor" act does not mesh at all with the willingness to keep what is obviously a "paper" championship. The fact that he employed the logic above is comical to the point of absurdity and either illustrates that the WWE is now the least logical television enterprise in history...or this storyline is going somewhere else.

Do you have access to the Zhukov matches? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on those

I rated this the best match in WCW history for the Smarkschoice poll. The number of falls didn't bother me at all and in fact I think the fact that they got that many falls in believably is one of the reasons the match is so incredible.

The first time I saw this I thought it was a very good match that danced around the periphery of being great without ever quite getting there. I'm hoping to pick this set up soon and will watch this with a close eye because on first watch I actually preferred the Slamboree sprint/brawl they had from 93 which is a position you seem to think is pretty off base.

I got about ten text messages at once that day and then my wife called. As soon as she said "his whole family is dead" I immediately said to her "he killed them." I don't know if I really believed it 100% but I immediately thought that was the most likely turn of events.