DMJ

I'm curious what others' opinion of Samoa Joe coming in and putting Adam Cole to sleep on NXT is. I'm kinda split. On one hand, I don't think Adam Cole should be a main event fixture, a multi-time NXT Champion and never have. I just don't "get" what about him makes him a top guy. I understand how Gargano earned his way there: great tag run with #DIY + major storyline with Ciampa resulting in being positioned as a capable singles guy + awesome underdog performance against Andrade = believable underdog part-time main eventer. But Cole? I think you can pretty much mark the decline of NXT as when he started getting pushed stronger and stronger as a "main eventer." Say what one may about Bobby Roode or Drew McIntyre, but at least Roode had achieved some level of main event status in Impact and McIntyre has size. Cole looks like a high schooler. So seeing him getting choked out doesn't really bother me because, personally, I've never found him to be the least bit intimidating and I'm not a fan. But on the other hand, if Samoa Joe isn't cleared to wrestle, him choking out main eventers (even coming from behind to do it) is something that seems like a creative dead-end and, along with Cole only barely beating the untrained Pat McAfee, further solidifies the idea that Cole is a 200-pound high schooler that we're inexplicably meant to believe is also some great top-level talent. Ultimately, I came away from watching those segments wanting to see Samoa Joe kick people's asses and, if that was the goal, that seems counterproductive.

The cringe level here is staggering, especially Triple H's comment. Truthfully, its never been cool to be a wrestling fan in the true sense of cool - I'm talking James Dean cool, or Bob Dylan circa 1966 with the long hair and shades cool. That level of cool is impossible for any wrestler to attain because wrestling is, even at its most grotesque and violent, still always a bit camp. But, that being said, Triple H is still wrong. Current wrestling is still uncool. Having a nostalgic appreciation of older wrestling is, comparatively, "cooler" because there's automatic detachment (and detachment is a critical part of coolness). So, wearing a true vintage Von Erichs tee-shirt to a BBQ? Kinda cool. Wearing an Adam Cole Bay-Bay shirt? Not cool now and I'm going to go ahead and say it won't be cool in 30 years either.

^ I agree. I'd also just throw out there that I think Vince has, since its inception, been more hands-off about SmackDown. He views RAW as the flagship (as do many fans) and is seemingly way more scrupulous with that program. So, by the time it gets to be Thursday night or Friday morning, and he's reviewing the script for SmackDown, his mind already is partially thinking, "Fine, do whatever, but what do we have ready for Monday?" Whereas, on Sunday night or Monday morning, I doubt even a single brain cell of his mind is thinking about what they have planned for Friday's show. So maybe the SmackDown show is a better representation of what the writing team is pitching, while Raw is famously being torn up and rewritten by Vince every week.

When asked about sending wrestlers to represent the WWE to the NWA Women's show, he also said something along the lines of, "We have our talent under contract because we want them to work here." This makes some sense to me...but its still shitty and counter-productive and not even 100% factually accurate. Especially for NXT talent, who have competed on EVOLVE shows semi-recently and, if you look back 5-6 years ago, were competing in places like Chikara and PROGRESS. And there's also those pesky Mae Young Classic that featured if not completely "signed" talent, at least a couple women who were heavily featured in other companies (Princesa Sugehit comes to mind immediately and I'm thinking was at least on some sort of long-term handshake deal with CMLL?). The decision also strikes me as another example of even Triple H, NXT's "proud father," not knowing or not being able to accurately define what NXT is. Or maybe just being afraid to admit what it is. In this same press conference, he was once again asked if NXT is still a "developmental league" or an actual brand. He can eyeroll all he wants when he gets that question, but the audience doesn't know the answer. Its stories are self-contained. It is barely promoted on RAW, SD, or on Peacock (where ads for Hell in a Cell play before and during shows). While SD and RAW titles are defended on big "PPVs," NXT titles never are. It definitely isn't an equal brand to RAW or SD. But developmental means lesser and Triple H won't call it that either. Its different. But what is it? And here, with the NWA Women's show, is a small opportunity to maybe help define what NXT is - the WWE's version of an indie fed, a legitimate brand unto itself that caters to fans of "indie" wrestling, a brand that is first and foremost about great wrestling not "the corporate machine" - and Triple H smirks and laughs off the idea of letting NXT women compete elsewhere. Its a tone deaf response that will allow Impact and/or AEW to score easy points if/when they let any of their talent compete. Instead of being willing to cross-promote, clearly very much the "cool" thing to do in the eyes of fans in 2021, Triple H scoffs. Granted, this may have been the edict passed down by Vince so I'm not laying all the blame at Triple H's feet but, yeah, no matter who is saying it, its still the wrong decision. Once again, instead of positioning NXT as the "in-store alternative," the company has made it clear that NXT is just the WWE's little developmental holding cell, a place for talent to "compete" but not really (because the titles don't mean anything), to learn to be big main roster stars but not really, a promotion where its been a long, long time since anyone got a real promotion (Kevin Owens, Asuka, and Bianca Belair are basically it). Meanwhile, outside of the WWE bubble, wrestlers continue to prove the WWE's model obsolete, building their brands and telling stories across multiple promotions and platforms. So why not let some of the NXT women get some "indie cred"? What's the worst that happens? It can't purely be the freak occurrence that an NXT talent would get injured? Having two NXT women compete against eachother on an NWA show also eliminates any idea of having an NXT talent put over an unsigned talent. Its such an easy way to curry support from the "smart" audience, the audience that 100% chose AEW over NXT because, well, one company feels like an authentic alternative and one still feels like the minor leagues.

Ahh. Do you remember if that was like the "day of" or the previous night? I vaguely remember they did a show before WrestleMania VIII that featured a sitdown with Hogan but I swear it aired the night before (or maybe even a week before).

Question - I was rewatching Survivor Series 91' this morning while I was exercising, and wanted to know, is Tunney's announcement that Roberts and Savage are off the card something that was announced before the show - like on Superstars - or was it really a true bait-and-switch where fans who ordered the pay-per-vew the night of the show or purchased tickets the day of the event were expecting Roberts and Savage to appear? I mean, yes, pulling them from the show even a week before the show itself is still a weaselly, bullshit move in an era when people would presumably buy tickets based on what had been advertised for months prior (for example, the Ultimate Warrior was featured in the local promotion for SummerSlam 96'), but I was just curious what the timeline was. Was Tunney's announcement aired on the Superstars (or whatever show) before Survivor Series? Or was it aired for the first time that night?

Was watching an old PPV on the Network yesterday and noticed that they're advertising Hell in a Cell but not In Your House. I know its not a big shocker to anyone how little promotion actually goes towards NXT, but one would think they (the WWE, NBC/Universal) would at least run an ad or two on the Network itself. If it wasn't for this forum and r/sc, I wouldn't even know there was an NXT show this weekend.

Its damn near impossible for me to reason why anyone of sound mind would willfully compete in these type of matches, period. It makes even less sense when you've already proven yourself capable of making the same amount of money wrestling a standard match and doing all your low-risk signature spots. For Moxley or a Cactus Jack or whatever, I guess I can understand that there's a "return to my roots" thing, that they came up and built their name on hardcore matches and thus will always want to prove they still have the guts to wrestle gory matches. For Arquette, I think it really came down to him being an adrenaline-seeking, attention-seeking addict with a history of doing reckless and self-destructive things (I'm not sure if he's sober now, but he's been open about his drug addiction and alcoholism in the past). I could be ignorant about it, but I was not aware that Cardona has a history of these type of matches. It seems like a silly idea for him to "go against character" and prove his toughness for no real reason. I mean, are there indy feds out there that aren't hiring Cardona because he won't stick himself like a pig and bump on thumbtacks? Does he reason that this will make him more marketable somehow?

Same feeling. I've tended to like the McIntyre/Lashley matches from this year, but Lashley's wins at Mania and Backlash felt decisive enough for me not to be invested in Drew's chase anymore. So what happens at HIAC? Does McIntyre win and then have to defend against Lashley again and this just goes back and forth forever? Or does Lashley win and McIntyre is now "buried"? After Mania, McIntyre needed to be put into some major storyline not involving the title that would've kept him from that scene until SummerSlam (where he could have presumably challenged again). I'm not sure what storyline would've been - maybe Aleister Black or Keith Lee attacking him, maybe getting drafted to SmackDown, maybe (puking in my mouth a little) something to do with the Fiend - anything just to keep him from looking like The Guy Who Lost At Mania.

I think what's interesting and maybe getting lost a little bit is that this is just the most recent example of AEW doing something very different than the WWE has ever done and actively hyping a signing of someone to a non-kayfabe backstage position to generate buzz and goodwill for the company. Only Vince Russo (and Ed Ferrara) getting signed to WCW to take over creative comes to mind in the 90s and that was almost immediately criticized by some early online writers/critics/RSPW posters. And there was obviously some WWE promoting and tweeting about when Eric Bischoff and Paul Heyman were hired to steer RAW and SD a couple years ago, though its not like their signings were hyped on screen. With NXT, they've been more open about who the producers/trainers are, but that's also because that brand has always been promoted as "developmental" where having agents and coaches and trainers is built-in to the premise of the show. On SmackDown or RAW, though, it is far, far more likely to see someone like Baron Corbin assume the role of a 100% kayfabe authority than it would be to see Bruce Prichard show up on screen and start booking matches. But with Big Show and some other names in the past - Jake Roberts, Arn Anderson, Dean Malenko - it does seem like Tony Khan is trying something a bit outside of the box and not only pulling back the curtain and saying, "Yes, I'm hiring all your former favorites as agents and scouts and coaches because that's how the business works and we're not hiding it." Again, compare that to, say, how Gerald Brisco and Pat Patterson were described as Vince's "stooges" (not as producers) whenever they were on-screen. It's a clever marketing move too because wrestling fans have long memories and love nostalgia, two things that a 3-year-old company can't necessarily provide. So, instead, with some key hires, they've now not only built up that connection to NWA/WCW but also the late 90s and early 00s. And they've done it by hiring guys and gals (Serena Deeb comes to mind too) that fans see as true wrestling fans and true wrestling personalities, rather than, y'know, bringing in a Freddie Prinze Jr. or an ESPN reject.

Fuck it. I still think calling Randy Orton the best wrestler in the world is ridiculous in 2020/2021. Like, sure, I can understand a hypothetical situation where a motivated Randy Orton had a series of great matches against a variety of guys over the past 18 months. But that's not what happened. He had some good-to-very good matches with McIntyre (but nothing MOTY level), a very, very poorly-received falls count anywhere with Edge at Mania last year (though I did think their Backlash match was much better), and a series of WrestleCrap-worthy matches and segments with Bray and Alexa. If you're not going to acknowledge the Tribal Chief, at least acknowledge Daniel Bryan, who, in that same stretch of time, absolutely OWNED the Thunderdome with just great match after great match. To me, if you're speaking strictly in the US, Bryan is still at the top and then there might be arguments for 2 involving Omega, Reigns, Moxley, yadda, yadda...but Randy Orton? C'mon. You might as well fucking say Goldberg.

Ordered! So excited to read this! Congrats!

I really do appreciate and respect others having more tolerance for people like Drake Weurtz and hoping that he gets the help he needs. But, personally, its very hard for me to have sympathy for him. Its kind of a chicken-or-the-egg thing. Was Drake brainwashed/radicalized? Yea. But he then devoted his time and energy to brainwash and radicalize others, spreading ridiculous conspiracy theories on top of (according to the report) spewing thinly-veiled racist comments at colleagues, causing conflicts over vaccinations and flu shots, and parroting the nonsense that contends that anyone who voted for Biden (and Biden himself) is a child sex trafficker. So, yeah, he needs help. So do all the other QAnon idiots. But they don't want help. They think help is the "liberal agenda." They are anti-science, anti-doctors, anti-medicine. I know its a cliche, but, yeah, this is Idiocracy shit. The more these views are tolerated/respected, they more they are welcomed into the mainstream, and that is a bad thing. There are some views and there is some rhetoric that should be mocked and ridiculed for being backwards and dumb and the people who espouse these belief should be marginalized by shame. I'm not against free speech. Neo-Nazis should be allowed free speech. But I have no problem with them being as close to universally hated as possible and mocked and ridiculed like they were for decades and decades. These Qanon morons deserve the same disrespect. You can have your ideas. You can share them. But being a racist conspiracy theorist nutjob comes with consequences, including getting fired from your job (and, to be fair, dude deserved to be fired months ago based on the report). Fuck this dude. There's thousands of people still dying of Covid every day around the world (India right now is going through hell) and this fucking idiot thinks its all a government hoax to kidnap children? Fuck him.

Ahh, I did not think that one all the way through then. I'm not going to consult Crazy Like A Fox or anything, but I guess I also thought that Brian was like Jericho in the sense that he believed WWE to be a better long-term possibility for singles success (seeing as the cruiser division had surpassed anything he could do physically and there was almost zero chance of him going up against Hogan, Savage, etc). Meanwhile, you look over at WWE around the time, Pillman vs. Michaels is much more within the realm of likelihood.

After watching the doc, I'm willing to say - with some confidence - that if the accident doesn't happen, Pillman thrives in 98' the way Foley did as I think, as much of a partier as he was prior to the injury, it clearly added a ton of gas to that fire. Austin needed challengers and Pillman, even if he had had to adapt his style to just brawling, makes a ton of sense to have been in that mix. There's easy gold to mine in Vince having to find a way to trust Pillman to take care of Austin, but not being 100% able to.

Someone in the RAW thread mentioned that it looks like Shelton Benjamin will be used as a jobber/Main Event talent despite solid work with the Hurt Business and it got me thinking about the inevitable Shelton Benjamin Hall of Fame induction. Now, I'm not talking about whether he deserves to be in there or even if he'll be inducted one day - I'm pre-supposing that, some day, whether its 2025 or 2030 or even sooner, the WWE will have inducted so many of their "A" talents that Shelton Benjamin will be inducted as well. But what would that video package even be like? The awkwardness is almost fun to envision. On one hand, you'd have all sorts of guys, maybe even Lesnar and Angle, talking up Shelton's amazing physical gifts and athleticism, maybe you'd have Kofi mention how funny he was with his Momma or how innovative he was with his acts of balance and agility, I can see Cedric and Lashley talking about having him as a teammate, etc. Its not like its hard to find nice things to say about Shelton Benjamin and this is before anyone talks about any out-of-the-ring things. At the same time, that highlight reel would still feel pretty thin. While Shelton did some cool feats back in the day (springboarding from the ropes onto a ladder, for example), his innovations are kinda footnotes to what Kofi Kingston perfected - a bit like how Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain dunked years before Dr. J, but Dr. J is still credited as the man who brought it to another level. Shelton has a ton of title reigns under his belt but titles have never meant less and didn't mean all that much when he had them*. The Shelton's Momma angle was...well...let's just say it wasn't the worst angle the WWE ran in the mid-90s, but how memorable was it really? Benjamin's gimmick has mostly been based on him being a good wrestler, period, but he didn't even get a run with Heyman or a McMahon at his side, something that other "bland shooter types" have had (Benoit and Curtis Axel come to mind). I'm not sure what my point is, really, aside from just to say that Benjamin seems like both an underachiever and an overachiever at the same time. I'm not sure he was ever going to be a top, top guy - he just wasn't a big enough personality to reach that level and the 2000s was famously a time where the glass ceiling didn't budge and didn't change much at all between roughly 02' and 09' - but he also kind of should have a longer resume of memorable angles, segments, and matches considering his tenure and talent. Like, there's an alternate universe where Shelton did get a great manager or he linked up with MVP much earlier or the WGTT existed at the same time as the New Day and Usos...

I don't think I've seen a single full episode since the first season, but the few times he was on Total Divas, Mark Carrano gave off dipshit vibes. And that was him presumably on his best behavior on-camera in set-up scenarios designed to make the company not look too bad. However, in the WWE's defense, I've also never met a Human Resources head that didn't give off dipshit vibes.

Again, its all relative, but just as points of comparison using football and baseball, the average ticket for a Super Bowl is $4000+ (biggest game of the year), while the average price to see a regular season game is still going to be over $50 (think a RAW taping). In major league baseball, which may be a better comparison because teams play so many games, a single ticket to a World Series game is still in that $1000-2000 range, while you can actually go see a regular season game for $40 (think a TV taping or house show). Of course, there are far more nosebleed seats than great, lower level seats, so these baselines are a bit low if we're talking about great views and proximity to the ring. Also, one reason its cheaper to see the Indians or any other team play is because they're not going anywhere. If you miss seeing the Indians in April or May, you can see them in June, July, August, or September. This year, next year, 5 years from now. So, if one is to believe even a fraction of the hype that WrestleMania isn't just your average house show or TV episode and factor in that WrestleMania is the biggest show of the year and it happens only once a year (if not a once-in-a-decade or once-in-a-lifetime opportunity) there should be considerably more urgency from fans to want to attend even during a pandemic.

And looking at the website, its not like tickets are super expensive. There are 2-day combo tickets that don't seem to be in the nosebleeds for $320. That's $160/night. Its more than I would pay, but then again, I've already attended a WrestleMania, don't live anywhere near Florida, and can barely muster the energy to watch WrestleMania from the comfort of my couch or on a treadmill over the course of a full week. I know its all relative - what might seem super expensive to one person wouldn't be so bad for others - but in years past, there seems to have been no issue getting thousands of fans to spend thousands of dollars in tickets, lodging, food, merch, and travel. With limited capacity and plenty of people craving live entertainment, they really shouldn't have had so much trouble selling out the venue even if it was mostly Floridians who live within 3-4 hours of travel. I know I traveled to Detroit for WM23 and didn't even get a hotel (a little under 3 hour trip from Cleveland).

I'd chime in that the emergence of more widely available longform interviews/podcasts has also shed a bit of a light on certain performers' out-of-character dispositions - positive (Kevin Nash) and negative (CM Punk on Oral Sessions). There were shoots available for decades, of course, but free podcasts not only rendered those obsolete but also reached a far wider audience. So, you take the increased exposure and much larger platform of a podcast and add the unfiltered comments of a guy like Austin Aries and, well...the result is that you have a guy that I can no longer watch without thinking, "Good wrestler, total self-righteous shithead." Even pre-Covid, his attitude in interviews wasn't just irritating, it was insulting and made it very clear that he does not appreciate his fans. Having the attitude of, "Everyone else who doesn't eat like me or gets sick is a fat loser and its their own fault because their diet causes cancer" might be great as an on-screen character to get an on-screen reaction, but carrying it over into supposedly out-of-character interviews? That's a hard pass. Finding time to exercise, trying to eat healthy, trying to quit alcohol or tobacco or whatever - they're challenging for lots and lots of people. Hearing someone say, "Well, it's just a matter of will power and if you can't live 100% clean, that just means you have no will power" doesn't "inspire" me. It makes me think you're a condescending prick that I don't need to support. So, if I see you on an indie card, I'm not going. I'll spend my $20 to see an indie show where Kevin Nash waves hello from a stool set up in the ring for 5 minutes over spending $20 to see Austin Aries have a workrate-heavy, technically flawless mini-epic for 30 minutes. And it 100% has to do with my feelings for them as people over me not thinking Austin Aries is a very talented pro-wrestler.

I think its as simple as Bryan being a ringer brought in to make sure the match doesn't stink. He's had the golden touch in the Thunderdome and, while there will be fans in attendance, I still think the presentation is going to be noticeably "off" and not like a true WrestleMania. Having Bryan in there all but guarantees that the match will be no less than good, maybe really good. I also think, from a storyline perspective, I can see Vince believing that adding Bryan adds intrigue. When it was first rumored that he'd be part of the match, the initial reaction was that he was there to take a pin so Roman wouldn't have to, but I'm not sure Edge is leaving with the title. I'm feeling its more likely that Reigns wins, but how? And does that mean the big story coming out of the show is Edge (heel) vs. Bryan (face) and Reigns goes on to feud with another challenger like Big E? I'm not exactly thrilled by an Edge/Bryan feud, but then again, Bryan's golden touch means it could be great.

I'm an Intervention Specialist (Special Ed. Teacher) who works with students with multiple disabilities/ASD/cognitive disabilities and we use a curriculum called Unique/News-2-You. This week's News-2-You Newspaper is all about WrestleMania! Just thought I'd mention it in case anyone else out there works with this population of students and may not have access. PM me and I can send the PDFs, which are leveled from just pictures to Advanced (still pretty basic, maybe 1st grade level reading). John Cena is mentioned in the newspaper, which I found funny because I don't think he'll be there but is obviously the most recognizable wrestler to anyone born after 2003 - which would be the audience for newspapers written for students ages 5-20. What was more interesting to me was how prominently Bianca Belair was featured. That put a smile on my face. I don't think the WWE necessarily has any input in these things aside from maybe licensing photos. The word "wrestling" is said throughout. Championships are referred as "belts" that you win. The newspaper explains that wrestlers are people playing characters. It also says the wrestling ring is like a stage for the wrestlers to tell stories. Basically, it explains everything that us nerds spend our lives debating - is it a sport? is it an art? - in a succinct article that individuals with cognitive impairments can understand. One of the comprension questions at the end asked students if the sentence "John Cena is the best WWE wrestler" is a fact or opinion and that also made me laugh because I feel like that talking point could be a thread here.

The Hall of Fame Ceremony itself would also be more exciting, at least to me, if it was a tighter run show and there wasn't already a glut of podcasts, YouTube videos, etc. where most of these guys have spoken - often much more candidly - about their careers in great details. Like, what is the draw of hearing Rob Van Dam thank colleagues and tell stories for 20+ minutes? You can find interviews and podcasts with him everywhere. Kane? Not exactly a guy I'm curious to hear speak for a half an hour. (Though it could be worse, I guess, if we were somehow all forced to listen to his Libertarian podcast.) In years past, there was some intrigue in hearing guys like Austin and Bret and whoever talk because, even just 5-10 years ago, there was considerably less exposure and content. But, in this age, where we literally are getting hour-long documentaries about guys like Ron Simmons and Yokozuna where we have dozens of talking heads waxing nostalgic? I don't need any more trips down memory lane with these same narrators. A tighter run show that was more segment-based with maybe pre-taped speeches would make it more interesting to me. Or, I dunno, maybe they can guarantee one crazed fan run-in every year and people can bet whose speech will be interrupted and who will take them out.

Yea, I think I'm leaning towards giving Best Buy a call and seeing if what I'm really looking for is some sort of Android tablet - though I must admit that I'm not super knowledgeable about which brands are actually worth trying and because what I'm looking for is kind of specific, I'm hesitant to just buy any old thing from Amazon based on customer reviews. Like, its still unclear after hours of research whether Peacock or even just the Peacock website will work on a Samsung Galaxy.