DMJ

Agreed. I don't expect Sting to be a ratings draw or anything, but he's always going to be over and has a "gravitas" that you can't earn overnight or just by winning matches. He's not quite at the same level as The Undertaker in terms of mythology and all that, but there was also never a year where The Undertaker went completely silent, stood in the rafters, and sent a bird to the ring and ended up more over than he'd ever been. The WWE had no interest in using Sting the way a 90s wrestling fan would - which is, dumb or not, to write his character like The Crow, like a dark comic book hero, like an apparition. Can things veer into Ultimate Warrior in 98' territory? Sure. They could. Or we could get moments that might raise the hair on your arm a little, the kind of stuff that people write fan fiction about (except it won't feature Taker or Bray Wyatt).

I read Pat Patterson's biography this year - or maybe in 2019? - and would say, if you haven't yet, its a good read and feels honest. I know he had a co-writer/ghostwriter, but like Rocky Johnson's book, its still in that top 10% of wrestling books to me that is worth checking out, full of good stories, and feels like it was written without bitterness, anger, or "in kayfabe" (and, at least where I am in Cleveland, 100% free to read just by ordering it through your friendly neighborhood library).

This and the sequence at Survivor Series where Nia was supposed to be cleaning house and tossing people out of the ring but all the women just willfully flung themselves over and between the ropes instead are very telling. It's like, "Yes, I'll work a match with her, but also, I'm gonna protect myself first and worry about how it looks later."

I love how Aries has a quote about how the country has been "set up for civil unrest." By who, Austin? The only people spreading lies about widespread voter fraud, which would've required hundreds if not thousands of individuals across many states to commit treason in order to *idiotically* have Biden win the Presidential election but for Democrats to not take over the House or Senate (I mean, if you're going to rig an election, why not rig it for full control?), are Trump supporters who bought into his bullshit. Trump never even admitted that he lost the popular election to Hilary in 2016. In his mind (and words), he drove the narrative that he "crushed" Hilary. He didn't. He said he would "crush" the "worst nominee in the history of the US" Joe Biden. He didn't. Every poll, every analyst, everybody except Trump and his most rabid fans, knew this was going to be a very tight race. That is why they can't comprehend that a 50/50 win could go either way and that it went to Biden, fair and square. They believed Trump's false narrative that he was the most popular President in US history despite the inarguable fact that HE WASN"T. His supporters seem to believe that he was *more* popular in 2020 than in 2016. But because this is PWO I'm going to circle back to a point that is Pro-Wrestling. It has been said by many a wrestler but when you're cutting a promo, when you're running down your opponent, when you're calling him an egg-sucking dog or a jabroni or a son of a bitch, you *still* make sure your opponent is somewhat protected. The philosophy is that a heel or face shouldn't run down their opponent too much because if you end up losing to a "loser," you've lost to a loser, and if you beat them, you didn't beat anyone - you just beat a loser. In other words, even heels like Ric Flair would give credit to Lex Luger's strength and physique and even The Rock would give credit to Triple H's craftiness and cunning. In this election, Trump and his supporters treated Biden as a joke. They called him the worst nominee for POTUS ever. Some even smeared Democrats as child-molesting Satan worshippers. Well, Donald Trump lost to a child-molesting Satan worshipper now, I guess, and that is a hard pill to swallow. The small irony is that, in some ways, this is also what happened in 2016 as many Democrats (and Hilary) underestimated Trump and believed Americans would have to be crazy, racist morons to vote such a monster into office. Well, it happened. He won in 2016. In a tight race, fair and square. I expect this post to be deleted, but I had to vent somewhere - sorry! Also, fuck Austin Aries and Chris Jericho for not understanding the basic idea that, historically, when record voter turnout happens, Democrats do well. To make another wrestling reference, its kinda like how, at a small indie show, you might see lots of people wearing Austin Aries shirts. But when you go to a big WWE show, you'll see way more John Cena shirts. Just because your fanbase is "rabid" doesn't mean its representative of the people outside your indie world bubble. The country is split. If you can't concede that, you're blind. If you do agree that the country is split, then it shouldn't be hard to understand that one candidate defeated another fairly without a massive conspiracy.

Yes, this was an undeniably great match. I wasn't expecting much because this isn't necessarily a match that gets talked about and, as I was only just starting to come back to my fandom in the summer of 05', I wasn't aware of any sort of "buzz" around this. I'm guessing, at the time, this was considered some sort of Shawn Michaels "carry job," but its not. Masters bumps with gusto, executes the basic things well, has great facial expressions, and never looks lost or gassed even as they work through some tight sequences. The story is simple-but-effective and, as the OP stated, Michaels looks particularly motivated to "make" Chris Masters. Its almost like watching Flair vs. a young Sting or Luger (with the face/heel roles reversed) as Michaels unselfishly makes the Master Lock look like the most devastating finisher ever in 3 separate instances (before the bell, having to escape it with an uncharacteristic mule kick to the balls, and then, ultimately, having to escape it by kicking his way over the top rope). Sadly, in hindsight, a match that should've put Masters on the fast-track to the main event scene and served as a start to a great run actually ended up being his career peak. To this day the WWE makes this same mistake with countless guys. They'll give someone the spotlight, have them shine even in a loss (think Keith Lee at last year's Survivor Series), and then immediately ice them with the false notion that they can reheat them anytime. Regardless, this is a really good match and going 4-stars on it is not at all an exaggeration. Worth watching.

I'm much more excited about the news that came out regarding a potential Steve Austin doc. I know he has some not-so-hidden skeletons in the closet himself - the domestic abuse arrest, being estranged from his kids - but I feel like he'd also be much more likely to open up about those things and admit his mistakes (like Jake Roberts, Scott Hall, and others have done) than Vince McMahon would ever admit. Plus, to me, the impact Vince has had on pro-wrestling, mainstream media culture, etc. is well-trodden territory. I mean, is there really anything to the Vince story that hasn't been chronicled? Austin, on the other hand, is kinda like Flair or Andre - sure, us die-hards know all the ins-and-outs of his career and even some of his more infamous out-of-ring hijinks, but it's FUN to revisit the highlights and it will be nice to see it all in one tight production with context and insights from celebrity fans and his peers. Comparatively, I can't think of anything less fun (even in the nostalgic sense) to sit through all that "comedy" (Kiss My Ass Club, every time a McMahon was involved in some sort of feces-based angle, etc.) or hear Vince and his family spout off their usual revisionism or phony "we put smiles on faces" jingoism. A McMahon documentary talking about how much of a "genius" he is just sounds like something we've seen a dozen times before in their DVD sets and on the Network.

Yea, it almost seems like Vince or whoever had no confidence in Kamala or Taker being able to actually work longer than 5 minutes, but the 5 minutes or so we do get is actually way better than expected. Undertaker hits the Old School early, but once the action spills out of the ring, the brawling is pretty good. The chair shot isn't captured great by the camera, but it sounds like he really cracks him (which is almost better than if we had seen that it was actually a weak shot). Then, as the OP said, I love Kamala's reactions to not only the ineffectiveness of his initial body slams, but then when the urn ends up in the ring. This match could've stood for a bit more brawling, maybe more interference/interaction between Kim Chee and Bearer (as their limited interaction gets a great reaction), and, truthfully, at least one false finish or even having Kim Chee getting stuffed in the casket as well. Maybe this match benefits from being so short, but to me, it almost seems like a shame they didn't get to throw at least one more momentum swing or twist to this match because everything they did do was pretty good.

Very sad news. Tracey was the real deal. As a kid, I liked the Southern Boys/Young Pistols and remember recognizing Tracey when he became Freddie Joe Floyd a couple years later. What immediately comes to mind with Tracey Smothers, though, is that he became a semi-regular here in Cleveland, wrestling for Cleveland All-Pro run by JT Lightning (and Johnny Gargano's stepdad, I think), which sorta morphed into Pro Wrestling Ohio which sorta morphed into Absolute Intense Wrestling. For the past 15 years, Tracey was just always on these shows and I know its true for other regional/indie promos throughout this half of the county (if not the whole country). And he always seemed like he was having a good time, glad to be there, and appreciative. Its also fun to look at some of his opponents over the last decade on Cagematch - its a real who's who of "true" indie guys like Grado and Luke Hawx and Mad Man Pondo and the list goes on.

It truly is a lethal lottery.

Doing jobs is part of a "push" now. Same as being part of a shitty/comedy stable. And being somebody's sidekick. Its all the "brilliance" of Vince McMahon's longterm booking. It took like 10 years for Drew McIntyre to go from semi-decent push to midcard filler matches to 3MB comedy to being Ziggler's sidekick to beating Brock Lesnar. Matt Riddle, Slapnuts, and T-Boz are going to be mega stars in 2030 and then who'll be a "bad booker"?

Before this thread got derailed with talk about Ricochet, there was some discussion of Drew McIntyre. I liked Orton and Drew's SummerSlam match more than most and I even thought the Clash of the Champions match was a perfectly fine feud-ender. Then, last night's match happened...Just yuck. There were so many logic holes and this type of stipulation/setting just isn't a great fit for a guy with McIntyre's skill set/style. The best parts of the match were when they were just wrestling. Everything else around the cage and on top of it was awkward looking. It was not a creative match, it was not a captivating match, it was not even a highly physical match. It was a chore to watch. The piped-in "This is Awesome" chat was comical because this match was not at all awesome. And to top it all off, Drew McIntyre lost, clean, in the middle of the ring, to a guy that who he has beaten twice before. I get that Orton is as credible as they get, sure, and can beat anybody on any given night, but this really felt like Drew LOSING more than Orton winning. Its hard not to see this as the WWE opting to create the "next Sheamus" rather than go all in on the first Drew McIntyre. Sure, Drew will probably eventually get another title run and be treated like an upper midcard-level guy when the company needs him to be, but being a perennial top guy? I didn't see it in January, I didn't see it in April, but I must admit that the WWE was making me believe it could be possible these past few months...only to make me realize I was right the first time. McIntyre hit his ceiling last night and that ceiling is 40-year old Randy Orton (which, admittedly, isn't all that old...but because Orton started so young and has been a top guy so long, he seems like he should be 8-10 years older than guys like Kofi or Ziggler, when he's basically the same age as them - and only 5 years older than McIntyre and RAW's hottest new superstar Keith Lee).

I just watched this for the first time this morning and thoroughly enjoyed it. I'd definitely consider it a career match for Triple H (and Batista too). I wouldn't necessarily call this a "carry job," though, because Batista puts a ton of gusto into all the bumps he takes and, impressively, delivers big power moves from beginning to end when he needs to. For a guy who was sometimes criticized for being gassed and unable to work long matches, on this night, Batista knocked it out of the park. In recent years, Batista has openly stated that he wished he'd been around during the Attitude Era rather than the "PG Era" and this match shows why - he and Triple H are clearly reveling in the barbarism they get to show off. They'd do it again at WrestleMania XXXV (or was it 34? I forget). I also like that this match is really simple in structure, pacing, and big spots. They don't overreach. They don't flood it with nearfalls. They don't finisher spam. They don't get cutesy with anything. Its a Hell in a Cell match so you don't need run-ins (even though a Flair appearance would make sense storyline-wise) and ref bumps and convoluted ways to have both guys out of the cage or on top of it. The match can just be a goddamn bloody brawl in a cage with weapons and, done correctly, you don't even need to use multiple finishers or some insane bump through 2 tables off a ladder to get to a believable ending point. (4.5/5)

I agree with everything above. The term "Self Conscious Epic" comes to mind with this match. As the poster above noted, this may not be the first of its kind - I mean, would Warrior/Savage at WrestleMania VII count as a self conscious epic in a way? - but this match definitely comes across as two guys that know the ingredients for a great match, start by sprinkling them, and then, by the end, are just pouring them on to the point that the match loses any sense of realism. It starts out decent - the usual slow-build that comes with these sorts of matches - and when Angle takes control, Shawn is perfectly fine selling. I liked the hope spots. The buckle bomb gets a massive reaction (it was a pretty rare move to bust out in the WWE back then and still is). Then, things get wonky. Angle starts the match teasing Ankle Locks but abandons that strategy. Michaels gets a cut under his eye, but Angle doesn't exploit it (which, if he was a better improviser, maybe he could've/should've). He hits the buckle bomb (seemingly going after Michaels neck), but then goes for suplexes to target Michaels' back before applying a rear chinlock to slow him down. There's no rhyme or reason for anything Angle does even though it all looks good. Michaels, meanwhile, is getting beaten down so bad that him springing to life becomes less and less believable. Kicking out at 2.9 can be awesome - but when you're doing it for every single nearfall from the very start of the match, it loses its luster. This match didn't need a ref bump. This match didn't need Michaels taking a nasty fall on the outside and seemingly injuring his ankle - only to then survive the dreaded Ankle Lock for the amount of time he did. What was Angle doing going to the top rope? Was he going to attempt a flying forearm? Since when does he even do that move? His lone top rope move has always been the moonsault so the finish seems like it was designed to "look cool" rather than actually make sense. I'd still consider this above-average because the crowd is definitely into it, I think the commentators do a good job of giving this a big fight feel, and there are some spots and moments that are really good. I wasn't bored by it. I didn't catch myself checking my phone while watching. In some ways, had this match and matches like it not become "the blueprint" for so much of the garbage we see today, it would probably be easier to enjoy. This is Michaels and Angle as the Godfathers of a style of match that we now get on NXT every week. But in isolation, in front of this crowd, in this context, it obviously pleased the fans of 2005 more than it pleased me.

NXT's slide in quality started a long time before Covid, but it also doesn't help that - even for a WWE-centric fan - NXT no longer looks or feels any different than RAW or SmackDown, and how many hours of the same thing can one reasonably watch? I know some people see worlds of difference between the PC Center, Full Sail, the Thunderdome, and wherever else they've been filming for the past 7 months, but it all looks kinda the same to me and I never forget that there's not actually a full live crowd (even if that crowd is less than 500 for NXT and 8,000+ for RAW). For a time, NXT did feel like WWE's own "alternative" brand, but that changed a long time ago and now, even a side-by-side comparison in production doesn't yield much contrast.

I just watched this for the first time and expected to read lots of praise for it. I'm a bit surprised that this wasn't a universally-loved gem. Maybe it just caught me on the right night, but I loved this match and think it really deserves some love. - Red hot crowd. - Amazing pace. This match just doesn't slow down. - Fantastic Bret performance. Him running into the turnbuckles - backfirst and chestfirst - always pops me. Love some of his counters and roll-ups. - Nash shows off an arsenal that I'm not sure he ever bothered to utilize again in any match where Bret wasn't his opponent. - The commentary on this show is legendarily bad. I'm a Gorilla fan, but he doesn't mix well with Savage and Art Donovan is beyond awful. Somehow, this match was so good that it drowned out the historically terrible commentary. Gorilla's appreciation for what he's watching is apparent and infective. - Shawn and Neidhart get huge reactions for their spots. Nothing really to fault there. - Is it overbooked? Yeah. Probably. But I kinda like that there are moments - Diesel botching a catch, Diesel tossing Bret into Hebner and Hebner *not* going down like he was shot, Bret hitting Diesel with a punch that sends him into the ropes and stumbling like a boxer - that make the match feel like more of a fight than a choreographed dance (even with all the "extras" like the uncovered turnbuckle and the Shawn bump at the end and the screwy finish). - Again, the pace. This match has the crowd at a 10 from the first bell and never lets them go below that. To me, a 4-star match is a "must watch" and I'd say this is a must watch for WWF/WWE fans. Having never seen it, I always viewed it as the "lesser" of the Diesel/Bret PPV matches, but I think it stands up with all of them. When you think of what else the WWE was presenting in 94', I'd even go as high as 4.5-out-of-5.

https://imgur.com/a/EUpe7G6 So we can now add sexual harassment to the list of reasons why Lars Sullivan is a creepy shithead.

I know this will read like a "complaint for complaining's sake" post but its a shame that Sasha and Bayley will have to work their Hell in a Cell match on the same show with 2 other Hell in a Cell matches. Just makes it less special to me. Also, I haven't watched RAW in awhile but why is this Drew/Orton feud even continuing? That Ambulance Match really did feel like the end of the feud as Orton not only got beat, but also got his comeuppance from all the legends. A Hell in a Cell Match with Drew feels like a hat on a hat. I'd have much preferred Drew not even wrestling on the show, but maybe being involved in some big angle/segment with his next challenger - whether that's AJ or (I"m puking in my own mouth) Bray Wyatt.

I've been liking Rollins okay recently after years of not digging him too much, but here's what I'd do with him honestly (and maybe where the WWE is going with him if he does go to SmackDown?).... - Shows up on SmackDown for a couple weeks. Maybe some backstage moments with Roman, reminding him that they used to run the company together and without Heyman. By bringing up the "good old days" and teasing a crowd-pleasing Shield reunion, this would sorta make Rollins a tweener/face, a friend trying to bring their friend back to his "old self." Obviously this goes against Rollins current gimmick, but it isn't unheard of to have this happen when a character jumps from RAW from SmackDown (see Charlotte). - Roman destroys Rollins. - Rollins goes off-screen for awhile (paternity leave) and when he comes back, you can either bring him back on RAW as the heel character (which is actually what he's been the best at) or if the crowds are behind him, as a face to try to get revenge on Reigns on SmackDown. Basically, put Rollins on SmackDown for the sole purpose of establishing heel Reigns even further as a badass with no allegiance to family or his old Shield buddy. Accomplish that in 3-4 weeks and give Rollins a much-needed break from TV.

^ Totally agree with all of that. I just don't know if, even without being overproduced (which is likely) and in a 2-person team, should we shine in this role. If anything, I think she'd benefit from doing what Barrett did. Go elsewhere, learn the job outside the WWE umbrella, and when you come back, you'll have the confidence to be yourself. Barrett has been on NXT for what? A couple weeks? And he's already made a positive difference through sheer confidence and being himself. Right now, she's kinda just a generic commentator but female. We don't need "female Byron Saxton" (and I'm not even slagging Byron Saxton, just saying he's kinda vanilla) when Beth Phoenix being Beth Phoenix could actually add something to the mix.

- I have been pretty down on NXT for awhile now, but I liked the main event. In front of a live crowd, I think that would've been a "star-making" match for O'Reilly. I know he's not everyone's cup of tea, but I thought he shined here and I'm going to also give credit to Balor a bit. When's the last time he had two back-to-back Takeover/Network Special matches that were as good as the one he had against Thatcher at XXX and the defense here? I wholeheartedly agree that the heel/heel dynamic took away from it - but, again, I think in front of an audience, O'Reilly was fighting from underneath for a lot of the match and that it would've made him the de facto babyface. (They also drilled it into everyone's head on commentary and in the build-up that he was the underdog, which generally makes you the babyface even if you're not actually a "good guy".) - I second whoever said that the Swerve & Adonis/Legado storyline/rivlary would be better off without the title or any mention of the numbers 2, 0, or 5. The fact that they're fighting over a meaningless, irrelevant piece of tin in a completely lame "division" makes their feud feel less important than their work deserves. Just have this rivalry be about Legado being bastards and Swerve & Adonis standing up to them. - I like and support Johnny Gargano as a guy I've watched from his earliest days here in Cleveland. What I've struggled with over the past couple years is why they've opted to book him like the Big Show or Kane. He gets over as the ultimate underdog but they turn him heel to add a wrinkle to his feud with Ciampa. Then they turn him back to a babyface only to, a few months later, turn him heel again. Each turn gets him further away from what made him feel like NXT's heroic anchor and someone you wanted to root for. - I don't think the WWE is actively working against making Ember Moon a successful character. I just don't think the WWE is actively working to make Ember Moon a successful character. As someone else said, having her big return come immediately after Toni Storm's big return detracted from Moon, who really could and should have her "aura" played up. Or are characters no longer welcome on USA? - Now that Mauro is gone, the next weak link is Beth Phoenix. I think Beth is probably a swell person, she was a great in-ring performer and sports-entertainer, and she probably has a lot to contribute backstage as a producer or trainer. Her commentary has been a not-so-solid C- forever and I'm not hearing improvement show-to-show or even year-to-year. I wish it wasn't true, but she just isn't very good. I almost wonder if part of the issue is that she's not playing any sort of character/role. She's just this voice that never speaks about her own experiences, comes out against anybody (heel or face), or has any distinct personality.

As someone who doesn't watch the weekly programming, I get most of my news and "follow" the major storylines by reading threads here, Reddit, and, most importantly, watching the monthly PPVs. I feel like no one has talked about Otis in months. When was the last time Otis was even on one of their major shows? Was it Money in the Bank? I don't think he was on Backlash or Extreme Rules. Was he involved in the Mandy/Sonya match at SummerSlam? I forget. If he was there, it wasn't in a big enough spot for me to mention him in my match reviews. I don't think he appeared at Payback or Clash of Champions either (based on my match reviews). I get it - the roster is loaded, Otis is featured on SmackDown weekly (I wouldn't know but I presume he is), he might've even wrestled on a Network Special pre-show in that time, but we're talking about a guy that they seemingly are giving a push to not appearing on one of their PPVs/Network Specials since May. We've talked for ages about 50/50 booking making everyone seem like just a guy, but another cause of nobody being a star is that even when someone seems to have momentum, they often disappear from the spotlight for lengthy, lengthy stretches and when we see them again, they're not fresh, they're just less over because if they're not worth being featured when they're on a "hot streak" (like winning the briefcase), why would I care about them after 6 months of putzing around in the midcard of one of their inessential, mostly-filler TV shows?

Yes and no. Yes, Alexa is obviously a very attractive female and that beauty definitely doesn't hurt her. There's no argument there. But Paige was/is also super attractive and couldn't make any of her various roles work since returning to the company. Charlotte Flair is attractive, has the "pedigree," and has been positioned as the top female worker in the company. She still couldn't get over as a babyface no matter how hard they tried. Lana could only do one thing - Rusev's evil Russian manager. Any other role? Pretty much woeful. Nikki Bella and Brie Bella are gorgeous, but Brie was not good in the ring and not much better in the promo/acting department. Nikki eventually became pretty good in the ring (or at least had made huge improvements in her last few years) but, yeah, on her best day, she still couldn't touch Alexa in the promo department. Even at her peak, Nikki couldn't "own the stage" the way Alexa has. And the list goes on of beautiful, beautiful women - Stacy Keibler, Kelly Kelly, Torrie Wilson, Sable - who didn't have the versatility of Alexa Bliss, who couldn't get over as a babyface and a heel, who couldn't be taken seriously as a wrestler and manager. So, yes and no. Yes, she's gorgeous and that undoubtedly helps her get her character over, makes her even more popular, etc. But, no, if it was all about looks, if it was all just her appearance, she wouldn't be so successful in multiple roles.

I haven't watched all of the Bliss/Bray storyline so I can't judge every segment. What I will say is this - I've generally enjoyed Alexa's transformation and involvement and I think know why. To take a slight detour, I watched Backlash 2005 this week for the first time ever and reviewed it on my blog. One of the storylines in the lead-up to the show was that Viscera was trying to sleep with Trish Stratus and they had formed an uneasy partnership to try to take out Kane and Lita. I'm not sure who was face or who was heel in that feud (by this point, Lita was getting booed out of buildings for cheating on Matt Hardy IRL but Trish's actions suggest she was also a heel?), and it doesn't really matter in this case. What was noticeable in Trish and Viscera's segments together was that Trish made it work. The storyline was not clever or original or particularly well-written, but her innate charisma and ability to play off Viscera, not exactly a guy known for being a great promo or character, made it passable. In fact, when Viscera ends up ragdolling Trish later in the show, its actually kinda great and entertaining despite being such a trashy development in a story that is already in the gutter (I mean, at one point, Trish even makes a straight-up racist comment about Vis' supposed love of chicken). We saw this time and time again with Stratus, though. Was she a great actress? No, not really. But realism isn't necessarily always the best measure of a talent's ability to get a story over. With Bliss, I find the same thing to be true and, from what I have seen, this is the case with her current storyline. Its not so much that her acting is giving this storyline depth or realism, its that she's naturally charismatic enough to pretty much carry any segment or role they put her in. She has "It." She has chemistry with any performer you put her in the ring or in a segment with. I'm not going to say every segment or angle she's ever done has been a home run, but she made Braun Strowman interesting at times and her feud with Nia Jax was great too. The ability to pull D- programming to C+ level is something not every performer can do.

I'm not 100% sure how Twitter really works with influencers and all that. Are there WWE personalities who are influencers? Who have side deals to promote other products? I don't have a Twitter account myself so I don't follow say, Nikki Bella, who I would assume has a high enough profile to be paid to tweet about certain products. I'm guessing Woods is just taking the next logical step to secure his own Twitter audience (is that what it's called?) and further establish his own brand outside of the company. Which is smart. I don't think he's trying to get out of the company, though. Then again, at this point, if he's saved enough money, making enough money outside the ring, and has offers to further transition into being a "media personality"/host, leaving a company run by a family who is chummy with our openly racist President wouldn't surprise me at all.

Oh, I knew all of that too. I didn't say pro-wrestling or the WWE would be better when Vince dies, I (and Ryback) said the world. And I'm not naive enough to think one shitty person dying is going to lead to world peace or end world hunger, but it couldn't hurt. I'd also just say, as much as I think HHH and Stephanie are shit people too, I wouldn't quite put them at the same level as Vince as Vince most likely covered up a murder, helped facilitate and celebrate sex trafficking with his ties to Moolah, and also probably knew of multiple sexual assaults that never got reported or taken seriously.