DMJ

Maybe cuz of those tweets about Cena? I really have no evidence behind this, um, theory, but I could see Triple H being the type of guy who believes that calling out a guy of Cena's stature when you're still just an "indie guy" means you need to be humbled a little. Or maybe its just the usual "We'll get the fans behind him by making him lose all the time!" idea that they seem to believe is the way to get someone over when, aside from Daniel Bryan (kinda) and Bayley, it has worked for absolutely no one. I don't know. One question I do have, and I"m not sure we'll get an answer until we have some hindsight, is whether this WrestleMania build and the general lack of excitement around the event is more because of the Covid-19 crisis or because of the card/build? Obviously, the Covid-19 factor is massive and I'd say is probably 80% the cause of disinterest...or is it 90%? Or is it really just 70%? I mean, lets say everything was "normal," we weren't in quarantine, and the WWE was able to produce the intended build-up and go-home shows that they had mapped out originally. How excited might you be? Pessimistically, I believe that, in some ways, we've actually seen what the WWE intended and it wasn't all that great. The build for Edge/Orton has been fantastic, Reigns/Goldberg good, but McIntyre/Lesnar has been paint-by-numbers. Lynch/Baszler has had a decent build and Flair/Rhipley too, but I think its apparent that these two matches were Option B when they realized Rousey wasn't going to be back for the show. Taker/AJ has been an absolute mess to me, a match that I think just about anyone could've fantasy-booked better than the WWE has. Cena/Wyatt is meh, but I wasn't expecting gold considering how much Wyatt's been exposed to be the same ol' Wyatt he was a year ago. I don't think I'll ever be interested in a Kevin Owens* or Seth Rollins program ever again so pairing them up is like pairing a shit sandwich with a diarrhea milkshake. The rest of the card is filler despite presumably featuring a bunch of acts that deserve better, including the company's most consistently great worker (Daniel Bryan) and two acts that have really hit their stride after some lulls, Asuka and Sami Zayn. (I'd also throw The Miz in there as a guy who should be taken in consideration for a top spot every Mania season at this point because he's still one of the top 5 guys at selling a match on the mic and making it seem like a big deal.) So, yeah, that was a really long-winded question, but how do y'all feel about it? In a world without the Covid-19 crisis, how does this card/build make you feel? Excited? Underwhelmed? Somewhere in the middle? * I don't even dislike Owens really, its just, he's been involved in so many cringe-worthy storylines and feuds over the past 2-3 years that I just don't think he has any "edge" or "cool" factor left. Even his adoption of the Stunner gets an eye roll from me.

On the 1st page, I mentioned how whittling this show down to just 5 matches would be ideal. Then it became a 2-night deal and I thought, well, maybe 7 matches would be okay. But I hear they're still doing a SmackDown Women's Championship match? There's still gonna be a RAW Tag Team Title match and maybe a SmackDown one? Why? Why on Earth would the WWE waste their time doing this? Is it just the public service of having people check to make sure the fast forward function works on their remotes? I thought that was what Owens/Rollins was for. I can kinda understand when you've got 40,000 people coming out that you want to provide lots of "bang for your buck" and you need 10 matches to fill a 6-hour show. But this is not that anymore. This is a 2-night TV show that, based on AJ's promo about his match against Taker being a "Boneyard Match" and what I'm expecting out of Wyatt/Cena and Edge/Orton, isn't really going to be very heavy on traditional wrestling wrestling. I'm expecting AJ/Taker to be almost like the Broken Matt Hardy match at his compound, Wyatt/Cena to be very similiar to the Boiler Room Brawl match, and Edge/Orton be a Empty Arena brawl that starts in the ring but finishes somewhere else entirely. On the typical show, having 3 of these type of matches on the same card would be ridiculous and too much...but on this particular show, its the opposite, its the "normal" matches that are going to feel weird and kinda like a dress rehearsal. And, even when SNL films their dress rehearsal, they do it in front of a live audience. I've seen a few empty arena matches over the past few weeks, on that one episode of SmackDown and on Dynamite, and once the novelty and uniqueness of it wear off, its just hard to see it as something one would want to watch for any real length of time - especially when the stakes are as meaningless and lame as the current WWE Tag Team Title scene or Smackdown Women's Championship.

As someone who has only watched a couple minutes here or there of the crowdless, Performance Center shows, I still think this is all just a bad idea. That being said, I do think the WWE can mitigate things a bit and this is a step in the right direction. There is an undeniable novelty to the shows from the PC. If there wasn't, websites like Vulture wouldn't have covered it. It is different and bizarre and like pizza with hotdogs baked into the crust, there's a group of people out there who are going to want to try one slice. If I were the WWE, I'd trim this show down to 2 hours on 2 nights - maybe 5 matches total, if that. I know, I know, 2 hours is alot of time for 3 matches - but that's where you get creative and fill some of the time with video packages, interviews, and other randomness. Maybe pre-tape some sort of really convoluted, over-the-top 24/7 title thing where we see the title change hands three dozen times, almost like a live-action MC Escher painting with all sorts of production tricks. Its going to be hard enough to make Goldberg/Reigns or Lesnar/McIntyre feel like a big deal in the PC, why make things harder by making it the 4th or 5th match on a 3-hour show on Night 2? The WWE should be trying to keep the novelty of these matches as special and unique as possible and the first step to do that is to limit the number of matches.

Yeah, I don't get it. I get postponing. I get cancelling. I don't get holding fake sports for no audience. With other sports, I can understand holding the competition because a competition doesn't require spectators (I worked the ticket booth at enough middle school basketball games to know that attendance doesn't matter) - but a fake wrestling match? I just don't see the point. Another thing I don't get - the questions regarding how they will extend storylines or "write around" WrestleMania. Umm...we saw them extend Baron Corbin/Roman Reigns for at least 12 weeks past its expiration date. The WWE has been operating with "hamster wheel booking" for years now. Kevin Owens had two separate feuds with Shane McMahon in a 2-year span that were unrelated. Can you name a main roster guy that is more over in 2020 than he was in 2017? In fact, some guys are less over now than they were when they were in NXT. So, yeah, I don't understand the concern about them having to recycle stories or "slow things down" or come up with "side feuds"...their main feuds feels like side feuds and they haven't had anyone with any sort of real momentum since Daniel Bryan in 2014. The hamster wheel was going to keep spinning with or without Mania. Drew McIntyre's meteoric rise won't be affected because, surprise, there was no meteoric rise to begin with. He was just a guy positioned to beat Lesnar the same way Rollins was and, as much as I hate to say it, was/is less over than Rollins was a year ago.

If I could place money on it, I'd bet it will simply be postponed. Looking at the Raymond James Stadium schedule for the spring of 2020 and there is not a single event going on that brings in even 5% of what WrestleMania does. Some of them are charity events that could easily be rescheduled or relocated or, in the case of the Best Buddies Friendship Walk for individuals with disabilities, turned into part of the Mania weekend and get the WWE even more positive PR.* Some of them are also events that the performer might be actively seeking to drop from their own calendar (*cough* Justin Beiber *cough*) due to low ticket sales even before the coronavirus scare. * I'm not sure if Vince has/had a family member with moderate-to-intensive disability like JFK did, but I will say, the WWE has consistently made itself available to many charities related to people (especially kids) with medical issues, disabilities, etc dating back to the Hulkamania years and maybe before. (My father, a clinical psychiatrist for the past 40+ years, believes this is because wrestling itself "speaks to" individuals with cognitive disabilities/mental retardation the same way Disney/Pixar movies do, but I think there may be something more to it)

At this point, I'm predicting that they will move the show into May or June. By doing so, they can do what other major festivals are doing and deny refunds as your ticket will be good for the future date. I assume (could be wrong) hat this is what the airlines are doing as well, which will allow international and fans from out of state to make it to the show. Flat-out cancelling doesn't seem like likely and, if they move it to the PC, I'm guessing they'd have to refund all the tickets. Obviously, people are still going to have to reschedule their lives to make it and I don't know about the availability of the stadium, but I would again assume that Tampa sees Mania as a top priority considering it brought in an estimated $165 million to New Jersey last year.

That's definitely an odd take. I understand that the audience isn't forced to attend the death march that Mania has become, but if you need to "pace yourself" to get through a pro-wrestling show, maybe the show itself is too long. And I say this as a massive Guided By Voices fan who gladly attends their 3-hour, 60-70 song shows with a huge grin on my face and a beer in my hand at all times.

Wasn't sure if this should be its own thread, but I'm really wondering how the coronavirus panic is going to impact WrestleMania. Here in northeast Ohio, there are 3 confirmed cases and there are colleges who are extending spring break, shutting down classes, the Bernie Sanders rally was cancelled, MAC conference games are getting played in empty arenas - - - and most are expecting the virus to spread even more over the next few weeks. Knowing that Mania is also a big tourist destination, one has to be wondering exactly how many pounds of shit is Vince emptying into his pants right now. I can see him wanting to hold the event no matter what (as we know "the show must go on" with him), but at a certain point, it might not be up to him. The panic around this virus is huge, there's also a not-so-healthy sense of xenophobia attached to it, and events like these are getting cancelled left and right (SXSW, for example).

Just coming in to say that Cena vs. The Fiend is beneath Cena at this point. He's a bona fide star and The Fiend, as much as his fans hate to say it, is still Bray Wyatt from 2018, 2017, 2016, etc. He had some buzz a few months ago, but giving him the title was a misstep and the Goldberg squash was the nail in the coffin. This is like if they brought The Rock back in 20whatever and decided to have him feud with Ziggler or Sheamus. Sure, Ziggler and Sheamus were somewhat over at that time as upper midcard heels, but they weren't Wrestlemania main event guys. Or, to bring it to 2020, if they brought The Rock back to feud with Seth Rollins. Rollins has a ton of accolades and titles and has main evented a ton of big PPVs...but does anyone consider him at the same level of The Rock? Or Cena? Or Lesnar (who he beat twice)?

I don't think the relative success of bigger UFC and boxing shows is really a relevant comparison to where the WWE is today. With UFC and boxing, while there were down periods, the model has always been that a bigger show is going to cost at least $50 in the US and, if I'm not mistaken, for the very biggest matches, closer to $100. The WWE, meanwhile, is not only putting out a terrible, repetitive product featuring less and less actual stars, but spent 5 years training the audience to think that their biggest shows of the year were worth $9.99 and that because the Network is available 24/7 and the best bits are typically put on YouTube, you don't actually have to watch any of - RAW, SD, NXT, PPVs - live. I just don't see the WWE having much success trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Sure, ESPN+ giving them a huge rights fee will offset any financial loss but I wouldn't expect the actual number of PPV purchases to reach the same level (1 million or more for Mania) as they were in the pre-Network era. I just don't see a million people agreeing to pay 6-7 times what they were spending a year earlier on the kind of shows the WWE puts on these days.

I don’t watch the weekly shows but is the EC card finalized for this Sunday? If I had a ticket, I’d be pretty pissed. No Reigns, no Bryan, no Bray, no Lesnar, no Goldberg, no Rollins or Owens?. I’m not even a fan of all these acts, in fact I loathe some, but in terms of star power, this show is really lacking. Are Becky and Charlotte even on it?

I think its pretty clear that Rollins is going to be back in that spot. They just can't quit the guy.

This (and the post below it) are even better reads on it than I attempted. I absolutely agree that there is a difference between bringing Piper and Warrior back in 96' and Goldberg back in 2020, but I still think the criticism of the WWE utilizing part-timers is a very weird projection from some fans and that its one that ignores the historic use of special attractions to build big shows, especially WrestleManias. Like I posted a couple pages back, it often seems like these fans are upset because the part-timers don't show the same obsessive loyalty to "the industry" (read in Triple H voice) that they do. Also, on a separate note, I did watch The Fiend/Goldberg match and, based on what I saw, both guys looked like absolute shit. I hate to be that guy because I'm a chubby piece of shit myself, but when Bray initially came back, there was talk about his new physique being part of his transformation. He did not look "new and improved" at Super Showdown. Goldberg's spears looked half-speed and sloppy and the Jackhammer was terrible. So, yeah, just piling on at this point but, even if you're glad Goldberg won, he looked just as bad here as he did against Taker. Cena and Reigns are going to have to perform some miracles with these two.

Just to clarify when I'm discussing part-timers, etc. coming in and taking prime spots on the card having historical precedent... - WrestleMania 11: Lawrence Taylor main events the show. I'm starting this far back because, if you go earlier, we're talking about a vastly different landscape with way less TV and PPVs where the biggest stars were all "part-timers" in the sense that you wouldn't see Hogan or Warrior wrestle a match every week like you see Seth Rollins today. Moving on... - WrestleMania 12: Roddy Piper* and Ultimate Warrior come back and are immediately thrust into major positions after several years off. Warrior squashes the guy who was supposed to win the King of the Ring in under a minute. - WrestleMania 14: Mike Tyson comes in, knocks out the former World Champion with one punch. I'm not criticizing it, in fact, I think all the Tyson/Austin/DX stuff is about as perfect as could ever be - but I can see the WWE stans crying foul if it happened in 2020 because, well, that's what they do in 2020. - For the next couple of years, the WWE didn't really need any older stars to bolster their roster because they had Austin, Rock, Mankind, Taker, and Vince himself. Of course, that didn't stop them from eventually bringing in Shane McMahon and putting him in a prominent spot despite not being a trained wrestler. - The Rock and Austin distance themselves from the company in 02' and actively resist and turn down offers to come back. I don't have any concrete evidence, but I'm willing to bet money that, between 03' and 07', Vince sent offers that they turned down. And we do know that, in that same 4-5 year time frame, Vince did bring back Hogan for a major run and then a couple one-off PPV main events, signed Bill Goldberg to a 1-year deal, brought back and pushed Kevin Nash a couple times, and was able to get Austin back a couple times in non-wrestling roles that still made him come off as the biggest SOB in the company. Shawn Michaels also came back in 02' (I think) and, despite being an asshole in the 90s, put right into PPV main events for pretty much the rest of his career. ** - Starting with WrestleMania XXIII, Vince has attached a major celeb or once-in-a-lifetime return for nearly every subsequent WrestleMania. They may not be getting booked over the rest of the roster, but more and more TV time is spent in their matches than, say, on whatever Finlay was doing that year. Donald Trump. Floyd Mayweather. The Mickey Rourke stuff from 25. Bret Hart at XXVI (plus, could be wrong, but by this point, weren't Shawn and Taker working considerably less shows a year?). The Rock being booked as the focal point of WrestleManias 27, 28, and 29. I could go on from there, but the recent history doesn't need to be gone over. Has the over-pushing of "part-timers" increased and become more glaring this decade? I'd agree that it has...but all I'm saying is that it is nothing new. * Piper would come in for brief stints and get pushed very hard as a top guy multiple times in both WWE and WCW in the 90s. ** To be clear, I'm not saying these sorts of pushes weren't warranted or what the fans wanted. They mostly were.

- Not surprised that the neckbeards are losing their marbles over this. The Firefly Funhouse sketches were a breath of fresh air. His new entrance was killer. Then they made the same mistakes they made the first three times they tried to repackage him or make him a bigger threat, overexposing him and not playing to any of the inherent strengths of his character. Did he "deserve better"? Yeah, maybe? But kinda not? The bloom was off the rose. The Fiend was not heralding in a new era of great WWE programming as much as they may have wanted to believe that he was. Kinda like the SmackDown deal hasn't led to a boom period despite the WWE wanting it to. What really bugs me is the hatred for "part-timers" even though the part-timers are the only guys who have any aura or presence and aren't nerds. Like the belief the WWE Championships must be held by guys that wrestle 150 matches of year because these fans hate to see performers who are less dedicated to the company than themselves. I want to tell these fans to get a life and realize, just because they consume 500 hours of WWE programming a year doesn't mean Brock Lesnar or Bill Goldberg needs to give a single shit about anything more than the cumulative 2 hours they put in. Criticizing the company is fair (hell, I love doing it myself), but I don't get why "part-timer" has become such a dirty word when much of the "good ol' days" of wrestling that these fans bring up - even during the Attitude Era - featured special attractions and stars from yesteryear and guys that came in, got major pushes, and then left for softball season.

Am I mis-remembering but, during an Aleister Black match, didn't Mauro make some sort of comment like "He's trying to...end...Tommy!" (in reference to Aleister Black's previous ring name). I don't remember exactly how he shoe-horned it in (maybe there was a reference to the band The Who?) but I do remember it. Or maybe I only falsely remember it? Did it happen? That. That right there is why people think Mauro enjoys the smell of his own farts too much. If Mauro toned things down 30%, like, literally, cut out every third comment he was going to make, NXT commentary would be much, much better.

- I also buy that Cena was a potential cut at some point. At the time, the roster was massive and they had lots and lots of guys with impressive physiques and charisma*. Even the rapper gimmick is an idea that I could see making lots of eyes roll backstage with producers/agents thinking, "Vince finds this funny now and we're selling some merch, but this won't last and Vince will get bored with it." - I didn't think there was too much revisionist history with the Austin story. Austin has apologized on his podcast for his role, but he's also been consistent with his belief that putting Austin/Lesnar on free TV with no build in a KOTR Qualifying Match was a dumb move...and I agree with him. Austin said it best in the documentary too, something along the lines, "I don't like tooting my own horn but I'm kind of rare." Even at that time, aside from maybe The Rock and Hogan (who was on a big nostalgia run, iirc), Austin was still THE biggest star in the company and that warrants favorable booking. Even in the doc, Vince's side of the argument was that they wanted to get Lesnar over strong (which they could do and did without Austin), wanted a shocker moment (when you start there as your main intention, its not a good thing, see Russo-era WCW), and felt like, "By the time we have it at a WrestleMania, everybody will forget that it happened." If that last line isn't a great summary of why people don't give a shit about WWE's hamster wheel, repetitive booking in 2020 and why attendance is down and subscriptions aren't going up, I don't know what is.

- I voted The Rock. When I think of pro-wrestling history, not just WWE and not just the past 20 years, The Rock got the nod because, in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, The Rock will still be more famous than any wrestler ever. Granted, that's not exactly because of his wrestling career, but one day, people will ask who the most popular wrestler of all time was and The Rock will probably, by the revisionist pen of father time, be that (and, yes, that means surpassing Hulk Hogan). Nothing to do with influence or style - just the fact that The Rock is such a huge mega-star that his name will live on much longer than Bret's. - I voted Liger. To me, again, I wasn't focused on just WWE. The Undertaker, if anything, is important because of the time he put in under one gimmick and his streak (not WrestleMania wins, but WrestleMania matches, which will probably never be close to touched and symbolizes the fact that he was a top guy for close to 30 years). But...you can write a history of pro-wrestling without mentioning The Undertaker. I'm not sure you could do it without Liger (if you're being truly fair to non-US wrestling). The longevity is there. The wrestling under the same gimmick is there. The influence tops Taker easily. This was a close one to me. - I was surprised to see Jericho over Goldberg in votes so far. I voted Goldberg. Granted, this could definitely, definitely change in a few years time if AEW continues to do well. But, for now, I'm going to give Goldberg some serious credit for being the last true WCW Superstar. Like I wrote about Undertaker and Liger, I'm not sure you can write an objective history of pro-wrestling without having to mention who Goldberg was and what he came to represent: WCW's last hope that, in some ways, the company failed (rather than the other way around). Jericho, on the other hand, is a really important figure now - but, in some ways, for all his talk about being ahead of the curve, its not necessarily true. The NJPW buzz was there before the feud with Omega. He was a driving force behind AEW, obviously, but I credit Cody and the Bucks more for the groundwork they laid down while Jericho was still in the WWE. Jericho wasn't the first wrestler with a podcast or a successful book and his rock band, while profitable, is not some huge crossover success or artistically-lauded endeavor. - I went with Nash and now I'm regretting it. I think this is where my age bias shows because I don't know much about 70s/early 80s wrestling so I instantly linked Nash to nWo, which did, briefly, topple the WWE machine. - Bryan took this. Oddly, part of the reason for this is because Bryan didn't get the exposure of TNA - which, fairly or not, will likely always be remembered as a "failed promotion" even as it enters its second decade of existence. Its not a fair assessment, but it also means that AJ Styles, who will justifiably be remembered by many as Mr. TNA, will also be forever linked to the silliness of 6-sided rings and reverse battle royals and Eric Bischoff and Hogan's failed attempt to remake WCW. Meanwhile, Daniel Bryan will be remembered as the ultimate indy wrestler, a guy who traveled the world and made a name for himself in various indy promotions before coming to the WWE and becoming the biggest star on the roster all through sheer talent and an underdog persona (that will, again, incorrectly be assumed to have been his gimmick on the indies as well). In 20 years, when people talk about the indy wrestling boom of the 00s, Daniel Bryan will be the name (probably alongside CM Punk) that comes to symbolize that entire era - while guys like Nigel McGuinness and Low Ki will likely be, unfortunately, forgotten.

I know everyone's going to focus on Lee's moveset, but I think the dude has a very rare thing that you don't see much - the Hulk Hoganesque ability to be a huge dude but still naturally vulnerable and likable. Yes, his comebacks and the moveset can be a bit "indyriffic" (as someone else described it above), but, man, when he "fires up," part of me wants to see him point the finger, hit the big boot, and then flatten a dude with a senton (instead of a legdrop) for 3. Simple, effective, classic babyface stuff. Also Hoganesque is the "Bask In His Glory" poses. Is there anything more narcissistic than Hogan's posedowns? Like, he was just showing off that whole time, right? But as a kid, I loved it and would pose along with him and CHEER for this guy who was literally just showing off how ripped he was like a total asshole. Lee exhumes that same weird thing where his arrogance/cockiness comes across as *fun* and something I wanna do with him rather than something he's doing to brag or make himself seem better than the fans (as compared to, say, Orton, whose poses, even when he's been more face than heel, have always come off as 100% smug and entitled). I'll have my full review over at the blog eventually, but I really, really disliked the Gargano turn. Why are they steering into the same creative dead-end street they had to spend months backing out of not too long ago? Gargano was never as over as he was before the last heel turn and this one is not going to go any better. Meanwhile, Ciampa being a badass babyface is fine - except he's much better as a badass heel. Hamster wheel booking and not even good hamster wheel booking.

There's some hubbub online since the rumor that the Bellas are going to be inducted this year started spreading. I'm on-the-fence/indifferent about it. The fans that are bringing up things like "How can the Bellas be in when The Undertaker isn't?" weird me out because, well, that's just such a silly argument/criticism to make for what the WWE Hall of Fame really is. A criticism that I do understand and feel more akin to making is (a) the fact that the WWE inducting only one female talent/act a year is obvious tokenism and (b) if that token is going to the Bella Twins in 2020, why them and not someone like Molly Holly or Stacey Keibler? It just kinda seems like they *jumped* from Trish, Lita, and Ivory right to the 2010s and skipped some of the equally worthy talents. (Not to mention Chyna [inducted individually] and Sable* and Terri Runnels and even Debra McMichael who may/may never get in from the Attitude Era) * There's always been speculation that Sable would get in the same year as Lesnar, but I'm not sure that's a guarantee.

Hey, don't bash it too much - they might replace Roode with Ziggler and then we'll really be fucked.

On the subject of the Baszler/Lynch angle, I don't think it would've been better if they had done this stunt "hard way" because gross, BUT I thought it was very stupid to not only have the fake blood look like strawberry Kool Aid but also have Shayna obviously wearing lighter makeup to make it stand out more. She looked bizarrely pale compared to any other time in any other setting ever. I got heavy vampire vibes from the whole thing and that is just an unnecessary parallel that the WWE steered right into. I'm getting the feeling that they really believed Rousey was going to be back for Mania and then figured out she wasn't in the past 2-3 weeks. I'm a Shayna Baszler fan so I'm not opposed to her getting a spotlight match at WrestleMania, but I do think there were better ways to get from Point A to Point B if this had been the plan all along - including having had Baszler win the title at some point in November/December/January so that Becky Lynch would've been chasing the title going into Mania (the same way Austin went into WrestleMania XV as the challenger or the way that Hogan went into WrestleManias V and VII as the challenger or o put it more bluntly and in more cinematic terms, the Rocky III storyline). Baszler losing at Mania is, to me, Becky "slaying a monster" that is not yet a monster. I mean, yes, to the NXT audience, Baszler is coming off a great run - but to the RAW/SD-centric viewer, she's not a "name" yet. And based on what I saw on Monday, some might assume she's doing some MMA-meets-Anne Rice gimmick.

It kinda surprises me that Thatcher wasn't signed earlier. It feels like, just in terms of sheer size, he would've been on their radar for awhile. (Yes, in today's WWE, being 6'3'' means you're essentially a "big man," which is why Orton, whenever he's in a Rumble or some other position where he stands around a bunch of the newer guys like Andrade, comes off looking like an absolute giant).

Is there an Orton thread in The Microscope? I'd love to add my paragraphs and paragraphs of Orton thoughts, but I'm hesistant to do it here... Quick question for debate: Does Brock Lesnar need to win at WrestleMania? I pose the question because I'm kind of split on Drew McIntyre getting the Rumble win and the shot at Lesnar and potential show-ending match. On one hand, I like that we have someone fresh in the main event. I'm a bigger Roman fan, but I didn't want to see Reigns/Lesnar again. I'm not a boxing or MMA guy so Tito Ortiz or the big boxer guy eliminating Lesnar and then challenging him at Mania was not appealing to me. I don't want to see Edge permanently paralyzed and I wasn't counting on The Rock or Cena or CM Punk or Batista to magically appear and challenge Lesnar either. But...I'm not invested in Drew McIntyre at all and I don't think I'm going to be in 10 weeks. On RAW, the crowd chanted "You Deserve It" but does he? I feel like its a Pavlovian response to anyone new getting put into that position. The same chant would've happened had it been Sheamus or Cesaro or even Keith Lee, who most fans didn't know existed 3 months ago. And you can point to this great match and that great match in McIntyre's past, but its a matter of "What have you done for me lately?" with him too. What has he done lately that's been good? Has there been a groundswell of support for him that I've missed? Was he getting big babyface reactions at live shows and TV? I don't watch the weekly TV often, but I watch the PPVs and I didn't see him breaking out. I mean, before eliminating Lesnar and the Rumble win, we were all in agreement that McIntyre was dead in the water, right? That teaming with Ziggler and Shane had not been good? You look back at Ryback at his peak and I see a guy who was at least 10 degrees hotter than McIntyre has ever been. Could Drew McIntyre have been "the guy"? Sure. But you needed to plant the seeds way, way earlier for me. I should've known that this guy was a big player months ago. To me, he was RAW's version of Baron Corbin in many ways. Yes, he's a better in-ring performer with a better look, but were his reactions bigger? Plus, you could argue that the same would be true of anyone. What if they had run videos hyping Sheamus' return for the past 2-3 months? He could've re-debuted at the Rumble and Brogue Kicked Lesnar out and it woud've been an identical reaction if not bigger! Or what if they had actually had Kofi focused on getting a rematch and revenge since October instead of just going right back to New Day hijinks? To me, McIntyre winning is fine, but its not good writing. I didn't see the momentum going into the show that the Rumble winner should have. Which is why I kinda think Lesnar needs to win at WrestleMania. The Beast remains more credible, more entertaining, and a bigger star than anyone else on the roster and Drew McIntyre really isn't even in the conversation unless you're talking to pure fantasy booking, in which case his name could just as easily be replaced by Keith Lee or any other personal favorite.

Drew McIntyre winning would be...something. I'm not a fan of the guy, but I've been talking about how stale the WWE main event scene has been and McIntyre getting the "outta nowhere" push would be undeniably new and unexpected. I'd be curious to see if they could get him over as a challenger for Lesnar considering McIntyre has always struck me as a natural heel and, in that position, you'd typically have a popular babyface. Of course, they could permanently castrate him and have him win the Rumble only to challenge for the NXT Championship - which I've seen suggested as a way to get the NXT Brand over, but anyone who would do that would be such a massive nerd and would definitely make them look like a total coward for not going after Lesnar. At least if Reigns wins, one might argue that him challenging Bray makes sense because he did technically "slay the beast" at SummerSlam a few years back and Reigns is on SmackDown.