Coffey

It may have made more money, but where would it leave the company if Brock was put over Cena, Punk, Orton and Sheamus this year before losing to The Rock or The Undertaker or Steve Austin at WrestleMania 29 and then likely bailing? I think having Lesnar lose now to Cena, giving them plenty of time to rehab him before WrestleMania 29, is probably the best compromise. Of course, feel free to kick me in the balls if Hunter beats Brock at SummerSlam! Yeah, I understand the outrage of Lesnar losing his first match but in reality the idea of him beating Cena, Orton and Punk to then lose to Rock at WM29, and then the next day both him and Rock are gone, would be significantly worse. I've yet to see Dave or Bryan bring that up. If this years WM did 1.3 million buys with that completely botched build of Rock/Cena, they have plenty of time to rehab a Brock/Rock match. But the HHH thing is really scary because with Cena, Punk and Orton you have guys that will work stiff with Lesnar and go above and beyond to put him over, where as with HHH I just can't see him working that style with Brock (look how easy Brock was working with him on Monday) and the HHH cartoon brawl special with the sledgehammer bullshit will absolutely kill Brock's aura. I wasn't looking at it like this at all. I was looking at it from a Brock, the big, new, nasty, monster heel comes in & crushes a mentally defeated top babyface in John Cena partially because of him doubting himself (you know, that whole losing to The Rock thing that WWE apparently just shrugged off). The money match for me wasn't the big Wrestlemania match. It was the re-match with John Cena when he "finds himself" again and comes back to defeat Clubber Lang. If what Dave is saying is true, they consider that money well spent if John Cena gets more cheers. That's worth $5 million to them, I guess. This is SO fucking stupid! John Cena for the first time in forever, was actually starting to get some sympathy, and that was from a smark heavy Chicago crowd. Brock was DESTROYING him. Then Cena just pops up hits his finish, wins anyway and cuts his shitty promo. Instead of getting back support, it was more of the same old shit which led to crowds turning on him in the first place. Again, Brock should have won. There's no justification otherwise. They had it. It was right there. It was magic. And they squashed it all in five minutes.

I'm curious if he wrote this before RAW or after RAW. Because if he wrote this after RAW, then I'll never listen to anything he ever says again. He also tried to play the "he lost his first fight in UFC too!" card which just makes him look like a damn fool.

I have no recollection of this match whatsoever. Despite the outcome, was the work any good? EDIT: The whole thing is on YouTube. I just watched it. I don't remember that match at all for a reason. Very forgettable. With really bad commentary too. I don't remember Piper being that bad!

HOLY SHIT! Oak Express. Mother of God.

Maybe I am too naive and pessimistic. I am obviously overly-critical, stubborn & thick-headed. That being said, at this point, I think Brock is damaged goods and I would rather have Batista come back. I would rather see C.M. Punk Vs. Batista than anything that they can do now with Brock Lesnar. I sure as fuck don't want to see Triple H Vs. Brock Lesnar.

Yes but as a fan, I can't help but feel like it would be so much more special if it was not given away on free TV multiple times already.

It turns out, that Cena did just win the match. He's not out, he's moving on to Johnny Ace & Tensai. Brock, after Triple H verbally embarrassed him to start RAW, is now apparently going to do shit with Triple H, if he does anything else at all (reading about his backstage blow-up). So, yeah, all that crap about "the big picture" and Brock "probably" should have won. OF COURSE HE SHOULD HAVE FUCKING WON. And this is exactly why. WWE can't follow-up on shit and they proved it again. Brock IS just another guy, now. Clubber Lang lost to Rocky in the first fight, Mickie lives and the movie ended after half an hour. That was the story. John Cena, after a year of build-up, talking about how he "has to win" against the Rock, loses and then there's no consequences. He just beats Brock at the next show and smiles and cuts a babyface "I'm OK you guys!" promo. Why the fuck did they even bring Brock back? $5 million dollars for an ego stroke? Really? And this is a publicly-traded company?

Watching RAW last night & when Triple H starts talking about Brock not getting a private jet & shit anymore, it looks like Brock is about to tear up.

If we're just talking about WWE, I think it is definitely in the conversation & honestly, maybe it is just because it is so fresh in my memory, it might literally be the worst. At least from a business-standpoint. Nothing else even comes to mind sans the botched InVasion. If we're talking about the history of all of pro-wrestling though, WCW did a lot of things, in my opinion, that were worse. But it was definitely a bad decision and showed a lot of ineptness on WWE. But we all already knew they were inept. I guess that still does not excuse them. I also have no problem with them saying that Brock is "just another guy." You know what happened with Brock last night? The same thing that happened with The Miz in the "I Quit" match. It was basically a 2-on-1 30 minute snuff film and in the end, Cena just hulks-up and wins anyway. Just like last night.

I'll be the one to say it. Not ironically, not speaking through hyperbole, John Cena winning last night was the worst business decision that WWE has ever made. In the history of pro-wrestling, it's up there with giving away Goldberg/Hogan on free TV in terms of squandered potential revenue. And that's if we just look at it in a vacuum as just a match outcome, while ignoring things like John Cena looking at the camera, post-match, smiling and literally saying "I'm OK!" They paid Brock Lesnar, a guy doing 1 million buys in UFC, $5 million to come in, get hot-shot against the top guy in the first month, and then lose clean in the middle (I guess you can argue the "clean" part). So he's just like everyone else now. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It would be an entire chapter in a "death of WWE" book.

I don't think so. I think it looks generic. I do really like the Train Wreck though, which he never does anymore. That move looked brutal. But spitting on your hand and doing a Claw hold sure as fuck isn't going to get you over in 2012. HA!

I think is biggest problem is that he just looks stupid as fuck. Say what you want about wrestlers not all needing to look the same, but what does Albert bring to the table? He's big? Everyone in WWE is big. He's fat? They have other fat guys too, like Brodus Clay and Big Show (also both big). He's a big doofy white guy with a silly, stereotypical Japanese gimmick doing weak-looking offense in painfully long squash matches. Meanwhile Skip Sheffield on Smackdown looks like a fucking murderer and it running through people like Goldberg and looking like he killed them in the process. I think they're just doing it all wrong. The guy, the gimmick, the pace...it's all wrong.

By the way Dylan, Richards vs Elgin is my # 1 so far for this year. Discuss. Actually I would like to hear what you liked about the match. I know you thought it was one of the better ROH matches in years and I'm curious why you rate it at the top of the heap now. I second this. My thoughts are at DVDVR but to state again... what a stupid fucking match. Perhaps I will re-watch it again to be able to write my thoughts before taking the big step of defending it here. What do you like about the match? Was it the big moves down the stretch that I listed (all no-sold)? Was it the kicks of death? Was it the crwod reaction the last 5 minutes? The stupid transitions or lack there of? Can I weigh in, because I *liked* that match (as much as I can like any Davey Richards match) and I know exactly why: It made Michael Elgin a star and I believably thought that he was going to defeat Davey Richards and win the World Title. It made me care about the outcome. It made me care about one of the people in the match (so that I was actively rooting for him) and root against another. It drew me in and made me express emotion. It made me care about who had the belt. The moves themselves were pretty business-exposing but wrestling is never really about which moves are used, and never has been, right? I mean, it's dumb because they have raised the bar so high and killed near-falls but by the end of that match, I was standing up and actually counting along with pinfalls thinking that Richards was beat. So that's why. I will say that I find it interesting that I hate Davey Richards because of all of the Smark stuff, like the no-selling and killing of moves...and that made him the heel to me, which caused me to become emotionally invested in the match. Weird how that worked. Also I had more problem with Davey Richards' "Hey guys, glad that match is over. By the way, here's a promo because I'm okay" than I did about anything in the match.

Which I guess forces me to ask the question, what is a classic match in "the traditional sense?"

That match alone is the reason why I'll never hate The Ultimate Warrior and why when asked who the best ever is, the conversation always has "or maybe Randy Savage" thrown in there somewhere. :-)

Here's a talking point that I just thought about while reading & replying to the TNA thread: Can a great match prior to a feel-good moment make the moment seem more important? Not even necessarily a feel-good moment, any moment I guess. Like, I remember that Elizabeth & Randy Savage reuniting at Wrestlemania VII was a big deal. But would it have been that big of a deal had the Warrior/Savage match not just happened? It's sort of hard to look at it from that perspective because it also tied-in with the kayfabe in-ring retirement of Savage (for losing that match) and Sherri turning on Savage. But it does sort of tie-in with what Loss & I were talking about a little earlier in the thread, where knowing what's going on matters to help make a match better. But on the flip-side can the match make the goings on better, because pro-wrestling isn't always just about the bell-to-bell portions of the show, especially in the United States. What I'm asking is, a vignette/segment can add heat to a match but can a match add heat to a vignette/segment to make it more memorable? Obviously I think that it can but what are some good examples? I guess if the feud involves a really heated match that it would, by default add a lot of tension to any interaction afterward, even in a non-wrestling capacity. I mostly remember shit like The Brother Love Show or Piper's Pit or Jake's Snake Pit being used to set-up matches though, not for post-match shenanigans.

Over the years in TNA, the most enjoyment that I have received has not been from actual in-ring work (from a technical standpoint), but from comedy segments. I really like Eric Young's current gimmick & I'm a fan of Robbie E. & Big Rob Terry too. Madison Rayne & Karen Jarrett even has their moments. Some older stuff were things like the Angle Thanksgiving dinner & the funeral for Team 3D. I remember the guest list had names like "Pat & Sylvan" on it too. Scott Steiner promos (or using a Pogo Stick mid-match). Actually, come to think of it, I like Eric Young a lot and have liked some of his previous stuff too (like World Elite) but I'm not sure if he's ever had a good match. He was using the Piledriver as a finish for awhile, and it was built-up as being disrespectful because it was locker room etiquette that it was banned, or something. But the matches themselves, I don't remember any of them so none must have stood out. I remember liking the Jarrett/Angle Last Man Standing match too, but I was in the minority when it happened & it has probably aged even worse.

I can't wait for the live YouShoot. Of course it will be filled with dumb shit, like questions about how big Batista's dick is (like all of them are), but just seeing his body language when he's asked questions about things like David Arquette, or World Champion: Vince Russo will be entertaining. Plus, maybe it can be a drinking game where you drink whenever he tries to make himself the victim in a situation.

Bringing this topic back because of Russo's recent departure from TNA wrestling (On February 14, 2012). Also, because of this And his Facebook picture: ...and his upcoming "You Shoot" on June 1st: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=playe...p;v=J6BCVFBSLCA

This is certainly valid, but it does seem a little odd to me when we can get through both The Royal Rumble & Wrestlemania (not counting Elimination Chamber) without there being some sort of buzz. I suppose there is some recognition for The Undertaker Vs. Triple H & maybe C.M. Punk Vs. Chris Jericho, but I don't think anyone is wetting themselves over either. Usually one of those shows seems to have a breakout match and that's just WWE.

It just seemed like a standard-fare RAW match to me, no different than a lot of weeks when they trot out Daniel Bryan, Dolph Ziggler or Jack Swagger. I mean, it barely made me pay attention as I was distracted by a couple of things and if a match is great, it would draw me in. But to have it as the third best match of the entire year so far? There's no way...

You missed your calling as a politician.

Brisco, Patterson, who else? I see what you did there... But seriously, I don't care how big a part of the show they are, I'm not watching solely based off of knowing those dudes are going to be there. I don't care if Will Sasso is a fan or not, I don't want to see them or them shill their shitty movie.

I don't either. It wasn't some insider stuff. It was just a kayfabe storyline to use against a guy whose entire gimmick is being Straight Edge.

I can't find anything on Jim Ross' Twitter saying anything about Strongbow dying. And all sources I can find via Google credit Jim Ross for the news. Did he delete the post or something?