Corona

I was amused by a couple of John Petrie's observations on the Raw where Kane was first mentioned by name: http://web.archive.org/web/20081118140102/http://rspw.org/petrie/970630.txt

As things stand, the Network is brilliant for when you don't really care what you watch, but if you're searching for something specific, it's a nightmare. Particularly, it's rubbish when the show hasn't been chaptered and you have to fast forward and guess where in the card a match is likely to be. I don't like how the chaptering specifically spoils the ends of matches, too.

http://www.rspwfaq.net/2014/04/the-smark-rant-for-wwe-wrestlemania-30.html Ignoring the factual error (Punk's casket was clearly visible), you cannot describe anything as "one of the worst booking decisions in the history of wrestling" until it's had a chance to play out! Scott Keith in reactionary moron shocker. This also indicates one of the weaknesses with the star system and Scott's play-by-play-without-really-saying-anything approaches. Normally, the idea of watching a 25 minute **1/4 match would be ridiculous to me, surely a waste of time. But this is shaping up to be one of the most important matches ever (or not - we don't know yet, but it seems likely) and well worth half an hour of your time. It's like how the Taker / Foley HIAC is rated low by a lot of people, but damn, it's worth watching!

People still say Scooter? He reviews the 90 minute version. His reviews bring hits to his blog which = money. Apologies, feel free to call him whatever you want Extend my surprise to the fact that people actively enjoy his lazy reviews.

I don't understand why Scooter keeps reviewing Raw. He's obviously not enjoying it, not least in part because he's writing and only paying a bit of attention. Is he getting paid for it? I'd be annoyed if an employee churned out that little effort. If he's not, what a waste of time.

Thanks for the insight. On what basis?

http://imgur.com/a/tvdGe Dreadful spelling aside, I'm surprised (or rather, not) that it all has such a last minute feel about it. The long scripted segments are awfully formatted, and amazingly prescriptive. It's also mildly amusing that the matches have no notes.

Much appreciated. Looks like tonight, I'm going back to the 80s!

I'd like to propose Corona's Truism: Life's too short for Undertaker vs. Kane.

Loss, heroics once again. Thank you.

To my shame, I never really got into WCW. I've seen a handful of matches, but never sat down and watched a year, a wrestler or even a whole PPV. I bought a set of WCW PPVs, Clashes and Nitros, which are currently sitting on my hard drivel but I have too much choice of where to start. Just go with the first PPVs (dated 1983)? I could, but I suspect there's a lot of filler and not much fun. There's plenty of "top WCW matches" articles and posts out there, but they tend to be too subjective to be reliable. So, I turn it over to the assembled masses - give me something to begin on, please. I don't even really know what I want. I'm good with cherry picking matches, but would prefer a run of PPVs and / or Nitros to really get stuck into. The Megathread on WCWs dying days has a certain morbid fascination, but as I'm currently watching 1994 WWF, two sets of terrible wrestling may kill me.

Out of curiosity, why would HHH book himself into a match against Steiner that he knew would be horrible? Why not distance himself massively?

Updates periodically on this dog-ugly blog here. It's not very good and I'll get bored soon, but in the meantime... The purpose really is to track the changes from Raw as a generic early 90s squash-a-thon to the story-driven interviewfest that it became, via Yokozuna, Stone Cold and Stephanie McMahon...

Any other matches you haven't seen that you'd like to pass comment on?

Full thoughts later, but every single mention of The Streak (and there were approximately 7,000 of them) served as a reminder that Punk had no chance. Awful, counter-productive commentary.

You know what Scott's good for? If you're planning on watching a US PPV, and are interested in getting an idea of the show in advance. Scott will almost certainly have "reviewed" it at some point, so you can find out what the match lengths and interesting spots that you may have skimmed over are. He's out of his depth on anything other than vaguely describing what's on screen, though. You can tell when he's talking absolute shit, because he'll use one of: "basically", "pretty much" or "single-handedly". These are such tells that he's not really confident in what he's saying, or that he's over-simplifying for whatever reason. "For whatever reason" usually means he hasn't bothered researching or doesn't understand, btw.

New Jack doesn't seem like the most stable of individuals.

To be honest, the subtlety was what made me think I was making it up. It's not exactly a byword for WWF, is it?

There's a real sense of fun when the reviewer wants to like something, but becomes increasingly exasperated by how far it falls short of expectations. As you say, the flip-side of Smarky McSmark seeking out something he hates and griping about it isn't fun for anyone. You know what you're getting on Raw, adjust your expectations accordingly.

I've been watching WWF TV from '98 to the point that I can no longer stand it. Somehow, I've survived 1999 unscathed, and just started on 2000. The McMahon-Helmsley era is dominating, and Trips is a little keen to end Kurt Angle's undefeated streak (through other people, not by bothering to fight by himself.) Also, Steve Blackman has (for no discernable reason) been helping Kurt win against the odds. Trips warned Steve not to help Kurt against Kane, so Steve attacks Kurt, drawing a DQ win. Afterwards, it's implied by Stephanie that she helped Steve figure out what to do. Very early foreshadowing of their love? A co-incidence? I don't know, but I liked it.