DMJ

Well, in two weeks, when the next Last Ride episode airs and Undertaker's still wearing that Blue Lives Matter garbage, we will likely see some upset responses from fans. Of course, in his defense, police brutality - while undoubtedly an issue - wasn't the number one issue in the country when they filmed those interviews. Its not even clear if they filmed the interview during the pandemic (I'm thinking it was before). I think Undertaker or another producer would probably have the sense to have had him wear something less controversial if they had the benefit of hindsight, though I don't think they'll go back and blur his shirt or anything. Or maybe they will? To be clear, I think Taker wearing that shit sucks and I thought so before George Floyd's murder, but 6 months ago, I probably would've considered "ACAB" to be a really radical notion too, that it was just a "couple bad apples" and that there were more "good cops" than bad. I think most people held that view. Now, though? "ACAB" doesn't seem as extreme.

I had not seen the three hour documentary about the Lex Express and all I can say is...Holy shit. This is less of a "doc" than just a bunch of mostly raw, unedited footage. I'm only 30 minutes in and I can't imagine what the rest of this is going to be like. It starts with a lengthy, lengthy music video that was definitely made back in 93' and I'm guessing played on Superstars and stuff? Think "Tell Me A Lie" but more patriotic. We then cut (kinda) to the USS Intrepid, but its being captured by a single camera so it is dizzying, sea-sickness-inducing "fan cam" style. At points, the cameraman zooms in on random fans and it just crazy raw, uncut. I'm guessing they were going to edit this all down. So far, no "talking heads," no post-production at all, just random and rather minor (to my knowledge) sports celebrities* attempting to slam Yoko mixed with some random WWE stars like Bob Backlund (still sporting long hair) and Scott Steiner. Also, for those that still have The Last Dance on my mind, at one point Scotty fucking Burrell shows up to try to slam Yoko!

I sorta mildly agree with what you said, but I also think you're overstating how detrimental the on-again/off-again thing with Bayley has been and how "on fire" Sasha has been since coming to the main roster. Like most everybody, the booking hasn't been helpful to Sasha - but, for her, I'd argue its been particularly messy. Her position since the call-up has always reminded me of what Bret said in Wrestling with Shadows about his position in the fall of 97'. I don't recall the exact quote but he basically says, he got all this heat by turning on the fans, but then they moved it all to Shawn (I think this is in reference to how Shawn screwed Taker at SummerSlam 97') and now, with Austin and Taker as the babyfaces, Bret was basically a guy the fans didn't really hate as much as Shawn and could no longer cheer. Banks had been the top heel in NXT and really established her character as the arrogant, cocky "Boss," but upon getting called up, that straightforward character seemed to get forgotten as Charlotte was the clear Alpha, Becky Lynch and Bayley were the underdog babyfaces, and Sasha was...well...she wasn't actually a dominant "Boss" (that was now Flair), was no longer the girl talking down to the fans and getting heat (that would be Alexa Bliss), but was also not somebody everyone would naturally root for like Bayley or even steampunk-era Becky. They had her win and lose championships left and right - which did, at the very least, give her some credibility as a capable worker - but it did her no favors in the character department as it just made it seem like she could win or lose any night. It also meant that, because she'd already won multiple championships, each win became less meaningful than the last. Its hard to sell an emotional "boyhood dream" storyline when you reach the mountaintop in your first year on the job. Even recently, when she came back from an extended break, they had her almost instantly in the title picture (which made sense) but lose the actual matches (which made less sense). That has nothing to do with Bayley. Losing to Becky, even in good matches, killed her momentum. Its been like that in almost all her programs. I'd also add, personally, that I think the lack of focus on who her character really is has resulted in her becoming one of the least consistent promos on the roster. There have been times when she just looks lost out there. I would be too if my gimmick was being "The Boss" but my win/loss record made it clear that I wasn't on the same level of Becky, Charlotte, or Ronda. Nikki Bella was booked stronger than Sasha ever was too. Its kinda hard to get that character over when you're at the same credibility level as Nattie and Carmella. So, yeah, I'm a fan of Sasha and think she has a ton of talent, but the WWE's inability to make her the star she should be has very little to do with Bayley.

Count me in as someone who believes this "Greatest Wrestling Match Ever" is a trolling swerve. And, personally, I like the idea. I know Edge and Orton have a ton of accolades and all that, but neither one has ever had their wrestling been their strongest selling point. Edge has been the Ultimate Opportunist, he's been a guy willing to go to extremes, he's even been something of a tag specialist, but he's never been pushed as this particularly great wrestler like, say, Kurt Angle or Benoit. Orton gets a bit closer there as the company has certainly played up his natural abilities and expert timing, but they've always done that to support the idea that he's a calculated, cold killer, a Viper who strikes without trepidation. I'm expecting that we see something dastardly out of Orton that ends the "match" in under 5 minutes. Of course, they've already had Orton do just about everything in the playbook to Edge so I'm not sure what that will be. Another Con-Chair-To wouldn't seem like a big enough deal. Maybe a "Pillmanizing" with the chair around Edge's neck? Wasn't that what Orton teased when he first snapped on Edge at the RAW building to Mania? I'm not sure how you gimmick that without Edge being put in danger of being paralyzed but that's a different discussion. The point is, when they pull the bait-and-switch, I'm not going to be crying "false advertising." Or I could be wrong and they're going to give Edge and Orton 30+ minutes in a straight-up wrestling match and it is no way going to be greatest wrestling match ever, or probably great at all. They really should lower the bar and call it "The Most 'We Hope Its Good' Match Ever."

^ I definitely misinterpreted your comment about Rodman. Every point/counterpoint you gave made total sense to me and I even learned a bit as I wasn't as aware of all the minutae in some of those series and years, especially in the western conference.

Short answer, "No." Long answer, "No, but..." Charlotte shouldn't be dominating 3 brands at once, nobody really should, but, then again, Flair checks a ton of boxes. She's got name value. She's a terrific worker and can be counted on to have good matches. She carries herself like a star and, if I'm not mistaken, is not injury prone, doesn't shy away from the spotlight, and has, according to rumor, wisely politicked to be maintain her cred and status. She's not the best promo, but, man, how many times have we seen Sasha get a live mic only to get caught like a deer in headlights? Before this year, Bayley was the same way. I've always liked Becky and Bliss, but it took awhile for Becky to find a winning character and Alexa Bliss, as others have said, is now seen as damaged goods due to injury. I'd put Corbin, Del Rio, and HHH above her, for sure. Maybe even Shawn Michaels too. I know I'll get shit for it but Mark Henry might be on the list somewhere above Charlotte. I know it wasn't prolonged, but remember when they tried to make Koslov a big deal? I put Charlotte in the same place as Cena - yes, sure, she's been booked really, really strong and has never not been "in the mix" at the top of the card - but the division is comparatively smaller than the men's roster so that's bound to happen when you're also the most consistent, the most reliable, the biggest "name," take the least amount of time off, carry yourself like the biggest star, have the most marketable look in the eyes of the boss, and seem to be the most "corporate."

He led the league in rebounds-per-game as a Piston, Spur, and Bull from 91'-98' with an average of 15+ in most of those seasons, an absurd amount especially for that era (when the league tended to be bigger). That's not "flashes of brilliance." The Worm was the best rebounder in the league during his Bulls run. He was also the best rebounder in the league during his Spurs years. The Spurs not getting to the Finals had much more to do with the competition in the West in the 90s. They were competing against some very, very good Rockets, Jazz, Suns, and Sonics teams. That depth didn't exist in the East during the Bulls run as once Chicago took hold, the Pistons collapsed, the Celtics collapsed, and my Cavs flamed out after a strong 91'-92'. The Bulls would eventually get challenged by the Pacers, Knicks, and Magic, but these teams didn't peak at the same time (the Knicks in 94', the Magic in 95', and the Pacers were strong throughout but not a real challenge until 98'). Even at their best, none could topple the Bulls consistently, while, in the West, things were murkier as, on any given night, the Rockets, or Jazz, Suns, or Spurs were the best team in the conference. I mean, look at the monsters of that time - The Admiral, The Mailman, Sir Charles, The Dream, even the Kemp/Payton Dynamic Duo. As I noted, my Cavs were a consistent playoff team in the 90s for awhile, but look at our roster. We weren't threat to anybody. The Spurs were dangerous that whole time, they were just in the stronger conference. The more things change, the more things stay the same as far as that goes. But back to the topic at hand: Dennis Rodman. MJ put up with his shit because MJ cared about winning and having a guy that could get in the opposing team's head and contribute 15 rebounds a game consistently helped them set regular season win records, which meant home court advantage in the Playoffs, which helped them win Championships. If that guy had been Anthony Mason or Dale Davis, he would've wanted them on his team, but getting the best meant you had to put up with his shit, and Rodman was the best.

Well, having Corbin feud with the new champ worked so well with the last guy who beat Lesnar at Mania, how could the WWE resist?

I was not expecting to like the Undertaker doc, but damn if it isn't quite good. Obviously, "The Last Dance" (Michael Jordan and the Bulls documentary) is in my mind so I was going to make immediate mental comparisons - fair or not - but surprisingly, so far, this holds up better than it should. Its definitely the most revealing doc ever made about Taker and I like how unguarded he is - at one point, early on, even kinda laughing off the idea of the Streak as being nothing more than an excuse for him to only wrestle 1 match a year. There were some unexpected talking heads - Jericho and JR, for example, who probably filmed their comments years ago - and I like that they didn't edit out the botches in his match against Reigns. I'm guessing/predicting that we're going to get one more "last ride" match out of the Undertaker at next year's Mania, but who knows? Every time I think he's finally done, he tacks on another match. At first it was just the "non-canon" Saudi Arabia shows and the Cena squash (which was more of a "segment" than anything), but then the tag match in 2019 happened and now the AJ mini-movie.

Yea, I maybe didn't explain my feelings too well there. Its not necessarily about how he'd pair with a Braun or McIntyre or even The Fiend, Lesnar, or Reigns - who could all be Champion when he finally gets around to cashing it in - its mostly about the lack of depth to his character. There's been guys like him for ages in the WWE, from "Hacksaw" Jim Duggan to Rikishi to Polka-Dot Era Dusty, who are undeniably over but they're too comedy-based to be World Champions (to me). I'm not even saying Otis can't become a more serious character - I've been on the "Big E Deserves A Main Event Run" train for a long time now - but the present-day Otis, with the grunt and the ham obsession, is just too low brow. That's just one peron's opinion, but to me, he's fine in small doses, but I can think of 4-5 other guys that I'd be pushing as singles stars before I got around to Otis.

I fast-forwarded through most of the match, but I liked the Seth Rollins/Mysterio angle. I can't believe I just typed that. This has to be the first thing Rollins has done, aside from the odd match here or there, that I would wholeheartedly say was really good. I'm also going to note that I don't think that angle/segment would've worked well in front of a live crowd, which is kind of the silver lining. It was still too long of a match, but it was also surreal to see him keep that emotionless expression for the length of the match and not tag-in and work his usual style. And speaking about match length - this was the first RAW I even bothered to fast-forward through since maybe the post-Rumble show and I thought too many of the matches were too long. Like, yeah, on one hand, I want to see McIntyre/Andrade, but I don't want to see it in this setting. I'd much rather they ran these shows like 3 back-to-back episodes of Superstars or a jumbo-sized edition of an Attitude Era show where no match goes longer than 6-7 minutes. I found myself only watching the angles and gimmicky things - Becky's announcement, the Alexa Bliss segment, the Shayna backstage stuff, and even the ridiculous basketball skit - because (a) these are actually the only storyline-driving segments anyway and (b) the wrestling is just tedious in this setting. I likely won't be watching another episode anytime soon, but if I were forced to at gunpoint, in this setting, I'm going to be honest and say I'd rather see 5-minutes of Asuka hijinks and violent angles (even if they're fake) than a 15-minute wrestling match featuring my favorite two wrestlers.

- I like Otis as much as the next guy but...I dunno...too goofy for me as a "Money in the Bank" winner. I'd have preferred AJ or Rey win, personally, as I think they're the only two guys capable of pulling something decent out of Braun. - I like Bray's puppets showing up in the empty arena. I think they should keep doing it when the crowds are back. At this point, him as a credible heel threat is done - he's simply lost too many times and, at MITB, got outsmarted by the "dumb monster" Braun Strowman. Bray definitely still has his fans, though, that buy his merch and eat his shit up and, as a midcard babyface act, this act could be okay. I loved the Firefly Funhouse stuff. Let him do more of those with guys like The Miz or Rollins. Just don't make them actually wrestle each other. - I'm glad Asuka won. She's definitely been the best thing going in the WWE for months now, even before the pandemic. - That was the worst "Doink" I've ever seen. Could they not find the right wig? Was the internet down and they couldn't see a picture of what Doink's actual make-up looked like?

I did not enjoy his later WCW run at all. I think if you want to talk about guys who "made the most out of the least" in WCW in 2000, there are other guys that spring to mind. Off the top of my head: 3 Count, Lance Storm, "Above Average" Mike Sanders and some of the other Natural Born Thrillers, Chavo Guerrero, and Booker T. The booking and storylines were god awful, but l felt like they generally worked hard to wrestle good matches and get themselves over. Douglas might've been shackled creatively, but, at the time and on re-watch a couple years back, he struck me as a guy who - like Konnan, for example - wasn't putting forth much effort. I'd almost call it "hangover wrestling": doing the bare minimum, same ol' shit, going through the motions at 75% speed. I'm guessing he knew that he'd not be welcomed back to the WWE so, unlike Chavo or the Natural Born Thrillers, he wasn't auditioning for a job when WCW went down. Still, if you're looking at the few highlights from WCW 2000, I'd look elsewhere personally.

I had not seen any episodes of the show before today and started with the Herb Abrams one. I thought it was cool - but I'll also readily admit that part of what drew me in was that I didn't know all that much about the UWF. I'm looking forward to watching the Dino Bravo, New Jack, and Schultz episodes too. My friends have all told me that the Benoit and Snuka episodes are great, but I feel like I already know those stories. Ditto for the Screwjob. I also think, to a "non-fan" or even someone like myself who didn't witness it first-hand (I was 6 when it started), they did a good job of spinning things to how the UWF could've been a success - except it was run by an out-of-control cokehead and, if you scratch at the surface, it was already clear that in 1990, most of the "big names" were well past their Sell By date. We have hindsight too, though. And, really, if you think of what Paul Heyman was doing in 94'-95', he also brought in a bunch of these stars to buoy ECW's cards. If you picture it the way a non-fan would, someone who didn't know where these talents were in their particular careers, its amazing to think that there was a wrestling company that featured Cactus Jack, Andre the Giant, Jimmy Snuka, "Dr. Death" Steve Williams and Terry "Bam Bam" Gordy, Bam Bam Bigelow, and Sid VIcious. In a mythical world where all these guys were 100% healthy and at their prime, its a real-life video game of outlaw bad asses. I think that's maybe what Foley was implying when he said the UWF had star power and he's not wrong.

The topic of the validity of The Last Dance is much more interesting than talking about RAW, but I totally get it if this comment is deleted. I see the documentary as being mostly focused on the NBA and the Bulls and obviously Jordan (as the biggest NBA star ever who played for the Bulls). I'm only now finishing Episode 5, so I'm not sure what is covered in Episode 6, but if it does eventually get to Jordan's divorce - widely reported to be based on his philandering and gambling - then that will kinda discount Ken Burns' criticisms. But even if it doesn't delve into that highly personal realm of Jordan's life, I'd still consider the documentary to be fairly objective and a great representation of the real subject - which is the sport of basketball, the NBA's rise in the early-to-mid-90s, and Jordan's role in that world. I don't think the producers of the film set out to make a film that gave equal weight to Jordan's on-court/off-court career. They could've, but they didn't. To me, it'd be the same thing if someone wanted to make a documentary about The Rock or Austin in the 90s. You have to choose what your theme and subject is going to be and, remember, much of this archival footage is coming from an unfinished (?) documentary about the Bulls' last season together. They weren't necessarily filming the team hanging out and getting into mischief at bars and clubs. I wouldn't expect a 10-hour documentary about Steve Austin's career and impact to discuss spousal abuse and divorce and all that muck until around hour 9, when his life went off the rails. And then I'd expect Hour 10 to basically rebuild his image as a guy who has turned his life around. I expect the same out of The Last Dance and I don't think that's "cheating" or "spinning" things to an egregious amount. Its storytelling. Ken Burns makes highly objective documentaries, but, man, they can also be some of driest, most boring slogs to sit through. His criticisms are valid, but to me, they're a bit unnecessary and misguided. There's too much propaganda on cable (*cough* Fox News *cough*) for him to damn a sports documentary that intentionally focuses on the basketball life of the greatest player of all time and does, multiple times so far, make sure to get in some shots at His Airness as well. (Seriously, Jerry Krause seems like a bastard, but Jordan's comments directly to him are also pure bullying and don't seem at all playful. Almost to the point that Krause becomes sympathetic.)

And I'd just add too that the reason it felt like Roman Reigns was getting "forced down our throats" was because, as others have alluded to, the WWE did an awful job with his return. Him coming out and getting a title shot against Goldberg just by saying "I'm next" did feel undeserved. I know its a different era and blah blah but when Warrior challenged Hogan at WrestleMania VI, but that didn't feel undeserved because Warrior was coming off a monster year and was built up as the most logical challenger. Roman Reigns, upon coming back in February 2019, was in a largely forgotten feud with Drew McIntyre, got paired with and essentially overshadowed by the Undertaker in a tag match, did not even appear at SummerSlam, was kept out of the title scene for months, feuded with Baron Corbin for much of the fall and was part of a 10-man match at Survivor Series (where one could argue the real spotlight ended up being on NXT and Keith Lee), all leading to a Royal Rumble appearance where he was overshadowed by an all-time great Lesnar performance and the return of Edge. You could say, "Well, he was the Rumble runner-up!" and all, but so was British Bulldog once. 2nd place is the first loser. So, when it was time for Reigns to challenge Goldberg, of course the audience shat on it. The company had spent the previous 10 months keeping Reigns in upper midcard purgatory but not really giving him any credibility or truly pushing him. A guy on a hamster wheel is not engaging or captivating and pushing him right into the title picture just slaps the audience in the face by admitting, "Yeah, basically, nothing matters and we can insert Wrestler A into Slot B whenever we choose because there's no such thing as momentum." To be honest, for similar reasons I'm not a fan of the Drew McIntyre push, but at least they gave him the Rumble win and I will admit that, by comparison, he is "fresher" than Reigns. EDIT - And, once again, someone else (this time sek69) has basically said what I wished I could've wrote in a more concise and better way.

Yeah. That Ziggler match and the Ambrose feud are what I consider the turning point when it went from 20% of "smart" fans feeling he was overrrated and overexposed to where it is now - which I'd say still is less than half but much closer to 50%. The Ironman Match was absurd. Just to remind everyone - Rollins, the babyface, took a 2-0 lead early and then mocked Ziggler (making Dolph sympathetic for some reason). The crowd, rightfully, shat on it by counting down each minute Royal Rumble-style and making a buzzer noise. The next day (or hours later), Rollins called the fans' reaction disrespectful on Twitter. A couple months later, the crowd chanted "This is Boring" during Rollins/Ambrose as their non-TLC match at TLC underwhelmed. I don't remember if Rollins went and cried on Twitter, blaming the fans for not appreciating a shitty match, but it didn't matter by this point. The Rollins/Ambrose feud stunk but there was a belief that, in the ring, these two guys had the chemistry and ability to make everyone forget all that. They did the opposite. Ambrose's over-the-top hygeine promos are actually the only thing anyone remembers from that feud and while the memory isn't necessarily good, the fact that he did those promos and then, months later, went on TIJ and admitted how shitty is was and how he knew it was creatively stupid, the whole ordeal helped birth (or rebirth) Jon Moxley. To me, those two programs sunk Rollins. He's supposed to be a "super worker" but he has the worst Ironman Match maybe ever. He's supposed to have great chemistry with his friends, but he stinks out the joint against his best friend. At the time he was supposed to be a fan favorite, but when he gets booed, he cries on Twitter (can you imagine Cena doing that? Cena got "You Can't Wrestle" chants for years and either no-sold them or turned it to his favor by stealing the show with "sports-entertainment"*). He's also never been a great promo. Rollins will always have his fans because he's been pushed into that position. He is every bit this generation's Triple H. He was never a star in his own right. He got over due to his work as part of a group and his ability to be "The Guy Who Makes Money With The Guy Who Makes Money." Seth Rollins' greatest feature is that he can be inserted as a foil to just about anybody because he has no real character of his own - and that means he's been able to spend a lot of time at the top against Cena or Lesnar or Reigns or Wyatt or even Sting without needing to carry any of the real weight. And when he did have to carry the weight - against Ziggler and Corbin - he flopped miserably. * Cena's performance at ONS 2 is just so unbelievably great.

- As much as I think it is one of the most amazing matches ever - by my own definition of what can be great wrestling, mind you - I wouldn't put Foley/Taker HIAC on the list. My qualm is that, as I believe Foley alludes to himself in his first book, going off the cage through a table was a spot he nicked from the first Michaels/Taker match. Was Foley's leap way crazier? Absolutely. But Michaels and Taker brawled on top of the massive cage, Michaels took bumps up there, he dangled from near the top and fell through a table. Foley added to the insanity, but Michaels/Taker was undeniably insane for the WWE at that time - which is I'd put that match on the list and not Foley/Taker HIAC. I'd also add that, after Michaels/Taker HIAC match, we saw the WWE move relatively quickly towards using the NWA/WCW/"classic" chainlink cage uniformly and away from the big blue bars of the 80s and first half of the 90s. (I'm not enough a historian to remember if they used the blue bars in the 70s.)

Its also one of those things where, kinda like Daniel Bryan being buried for months before winning the title at WM30, even if they do re-sign Drake Maverick and come out later and say it was all a work, I won't buy it. The WWE didn't have to cut Maverick or anyone, really, during the pandemic. Whatever Maverick or Logan or Zach Ryder were making, the WWE could've stomached those expenses. If Conor McGregor or The Rock decided they wanted to do a match, Vince would have no trouble finding the money to pay them. And they'd probably make more for a single match than what they pay these guys to wrestle 100+ matches a year. So if Maverick gets re-signed, it'll likely be because someone gets in Vince's ear and pleads Drake's case, arguing that this will be good PR. If they wanted to stage an attention-grabbing, multi-week fake firing "work" to get somebody over, I doubt it would revolve around the Cruiserweight Championship and have Drake Maverick at the center of it.

In response to the anonymous accusations filed with the Orange County Board of Directors today and read for the public record, World Wrestling Entertainment issued the following statement to PWInsider: "These accusations aren’t true. Employees know they can confidentially go to Human Resources, not the public. Notwithstanding the appropriate protocol, no one would be fired if they were uncomfortable with their surroundings. We’ve made accommodations for individuals upon request." (from https://www.pwinsider.com/ViewArticle.php?id=135788) ------------------- The WWE's response is so cartoonishly evil it's funny. Like, I can't read it without imagining Conan O'Brien doing it in a sarcastic, mocking tone with wild eyes. Even if you take it at face value, it is an awful quote. "Employees know they can confidentially go to Human Resources" - Uh, yeah, and they know that they will possibly lose their job or be strong-armed into continuing to report to work. That's why they made it a public comment. That sentence doesn't their case at all. Neither does "Notwithstanding the appropriate protocol," which reads like victim-blaming. Also, kinda hard to say nobody would be fired for criticizing or going against the company's wishes after the biggest day of layoffs in what? A decade or two? Ever?

- With Lars, it may also be the case that he's still not making "main roster" money or that, because they can add time to his contract due to his injuries, he's still seen as a "bargain." It could also be as simple as Vince being just high on the guy. We've always known that Vince is the decision-maker, but Arn Anderson's podcast has made it even more clear just how important it is to be one of his "his guys." - I would be shocked if Marina Shafir or Jessamyn Duke were cut. They're in the same boat as Mojo. Someone near the top - maybe not Vince, but probably Stephanie or Triple H - are wise enough to know that you don't cut Gronk's best friend or one of Ronda's close friends during a pandemic no matter how little value they currently have. - I know we talk about the wrestlers needing to unionize, but aren't the writers, cameramen, and other technical/production staffers not part of their respective unions? Like, if you or I - who are not part of the Writers Guild - were hired as writers, I don't think that work counts towards guild membership (which means we also don't make any money on royalties or anything for the characters we created - unlike Spike Ferestein, for example, whose used creating the Soup Nazi into his calling card). To me, those are the people that should be unionizing first - especially the cameramen and other technical staff - because there are already very powerful unions they could become chapters of.* Vince could fire the writing staff, Vince could fire the wrestlers, but what are you going to do without cameramen? Without the people driving the trucks? Without the people rigging the lights? Or am I wrong and all those positions are filled by union workers? * Not sure if "chapter" is the right word.

For me, watching WWE is akin to fast food or why I've seen loads and loads of Law & Order (every variety), Criminal Minds, and even NCIS and Blue Bloods. I know that there is better shit out there. I know the WWE is an awful company - like McDonalds is. Hell, NCIS and Blue Bloods are stuck-in-the-Bush-years conservative wet dreams filmed and put on primetime for viewers twice my age. Courtroom/police procedurals like 9-1-1 and Prodigal Son are formulaic garbage. But they take zero effort to watch, are very convenient, and are still kinda fun to talk about it. Now, I don't watch the weekly programming and haven't for at least 15 years, but I do watch the monthly PPVs (usually while on an eliptical - again, its a brainless way to not just watching the counter and think "When can I get off this thing?") and continue to go back and watch shows I've never seen. And if I'm being completely honest with myself and everyone here, part of it is because, on boards like these, I can't debate or speak on NJPW or the territory days or the indie scene or lucha libre or RoH or even AEW with any authority. And so it is much, much funner for me to talk about the WWE in 96' or 06' or 2016 than it is for me to talk about eras and promotions that I have no clue about. Like with music, I've just reached that age or part of my life when finding "new" things (even old things that are new to me) feels like work. And so, instead, I put on the new record by the bands I know I already love - Guided By Voices, Stephen Malkmus, Kurt Vile, Ty Segall - and watch Bret Hart matches I've never seen before on the Network even though I know there are vast universes that I am choosing not to explore out of sheer laziness. So the WWE gets my $9.99 which I'm no prouder of than the Double Quarter Pounder I ate earlier this week or the fact that I've seen more episodes of Franklin & Bash than Breaking Bad.

Shit like this makes me think that maybe I underrate Seth Rollins and that he is secretly a great heel. And then I see him "in character" on RAW or PPV and realize, no, he's only accidentally a great heel IRL and that, when he's "in character," he's just flat-out boring.

Yes, let's not forget that at one point, regardless of what one thinks of his talent, Zack Ryder was one of the top 5 babyfaces on the roster and got over organically. There was money left on the table with him too. Wrestling fans have long memories and, not dissimilar to Luke Harper or Dean Ambrose, many fans view him as a guy who was "held down." There are a dozen guys one could name who either aped his gimmick in the past or are still aping it today. Plus, from the podcasts I've heard, he's well-liked by his peers. I wouldn't call him a "game-changer" at the level of Rusev, but Zack Ryder is definitely worthy of another look by AEW, Impact, etc. Edit: And I'll throw Ember Moon and Sarah Logan onto that list of "should-be signed" talent. Solid in-ring skills, not at all overexposed, and unique looks...they're no-brainers for AEW if you ask me. Again, not game-changers, but you could do far worse in filling in your women's division plus because they were barely used on WWE TV, Logan and Moon don't feel at all like WWE castaways to me.

One theory I heard floating around (and someone would have to do some investigating to figure out the timeline) is that Bryan and others were flown in to Florida to presumably tape a month's worth of shows leading up to Money in the Bank. Then, with wrestlers already en route, Vince dropped the bombshell that they would actually be going live and having weekly shows. Maybe Bryan or others will find a way to get themselves "written off" after a week or two, but who knows what carrots and what sticks Vince is using right now. There's also been some scuttlebutt about whether going live is being demanded by USA/Fox and, if they breach it, could be opening themselves up to some sort of re-negotiations that would be bad for the WWE. I can see Fox and USA and Vince all wanting to go live as it would be a major coup to be the only live entertainment broadcast going on. Of course, as Mania showed, the issue is that without a live audience and the fact that nobody believes wrestling to be legitimate, its doubtful any new fans will be entertained or drawn in by WWE programming over the myriad of options they have elsewhere. Being the "only game in town" just doesn't work if "your game" sucks. Ironically, if one looked at the most universally lauded aspects of WrestleMania, they'd find that going live is not only the unsafest, most short-sighted way of creating content, but also the exact opposite of what people want to see right now. The only complimentary things written about Goldberg and Lesnar's matches were back-handed; Every mainstream website - and quite a few covered WrestleMania this year - either ignored that these matches took place or forgave the WWE for them because "they just needed to get them over with." Meanwhile, the highly-produced Boneyard and Firefly Fun House matches generated more buzz than anything since Ronda Rousey's debut. While replicating those types of matches on a weekly basis may be going too far, one of the WWE's greatest weapons has always been their production department. Just about any documentary you could find on the WWE Network right now would make for better content than whatever the WWE is going to try to present live (which was arguably true before the pandemic). And they don't need to risk a single person's life to do it.