DMJ

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.

Re: Velveteen getting ruined by Vince My point was the opposite - I think Velveteen Dream should absolutely leave NXT. There's nothing for him to do there. He should've won the NXT Championship at least 12-15 months ago, had a brief run with the belt, and then called up to the main roster. And the argument that Dream was "too green" to be an NXT main eventer in 2018 is ridiculous. He was very over and he was great against good opponents (which NXT has a plethora of). At no point has Adam Cole been more over than him despite having more "in-ring skill." Plus, it goes without saying that, If "in-ring skill" meant 20 years ago what it means today, The Rock would've never gotten the big push he did at Survivor Series 98'. That spot as Corporate Champion would've gone to a "good hand" like Al Snow. I know I'm preaching to the choir but putting on 45-minute mega-epic spotfests does not make you a good wrestler or a star. Will Vince ruin Velveteen Dream? Yeah, most likely. But keeping him in NXT is equally boring. Would the WWE main event picture not look better with Velveteen Dream being built-up as a potential babyface challenger for Brock? For Wyatt? Even for Nakamura? We know the guy is excellent as the foil to other larger-than-life characters (see his feud with Aleister Black). We know his character pops off the screen and that he has natural charisma. We know his gimmick is fresh and different. We know that he can hold his own and put together a good match against arguably more "skilled" opponents. But, with his recent injury, it is likely that we've seen the peak of Velveteen Dream already. If he's known for being injury-prone, he won't get "the rocket." Plus, even if he did get "the rocket," would it be a stronger push than what Aleister Black or Ricochet or Andrade got? I mean, they're all just kinda treading water with momentary snippets of being somewhat relevant.

I'm not sure if the chain-of-command is just so long that Vince doesn't actually know who is "hot" and when or if he just plain doesn't care. I know, I know - its all about the 'brand" and its intentional that nobody "breaks out... But even if you set the ceiling at a Kane-in-98' level or Mankind-level or Triple H-level or Randy Orton-level (y'know, guys that were over, sold merch, etc. but were never going to abandon wrestling or become mega-stars outside of the company), they don't even let guys reach that level. My eyes roll every time someone says Drew McIntyre could be a bigger star or that Matt Riddle has a huge future or that Gargano or Ciampa or Aleister Black can be difference makers. Its far more accurate to say that they've likely peaked and would need a JBL-like repackaging and an insane grassroots support (ala Daniel Bryan) to become permanent main event guys. I mean, for how many years was Ziggler a "future main eventer"? For how many years was Kofi a "future main eventer"? Look at Braun Strowman. Look at Sasha Banks. Look at Balor. The number of "can't miss" prospects they've missed with over the past 5-6 years is insane. And much of that is because they let guys die on the vine. Matt Riddle and Pete Dunne winning a tag team tournament is "big news"? Its a lateral move at best, a meaningless trophy they can place on the mantle right next to their hamster wheels. Pete Dunne turned heads close to 3 years ago and he's less interesting and less intriguing now. Do more people know his name? Probably...but less people are excited about it. Ditto for Matt Riddle, who came in as a big name and is now...just a name. Keith Lee just had a breakout moment at Survivor Series, got tweeted about by THE ROCK, practically became a star overnight, and is now...the NXT North American Champion. Big fucking whoop. The guy got a mega-response at one of the biggest shows of the year and they give him the *secondary* title on their least-watched, least established brand. No wonder the company has no momentum going into the friggin' Royal Rumble and all the talk this week was about a taped show on a booze cruise.

^ I'm guessing you're hinting to Ronda's return? Aside from Baszler, I don't see anyone else possibly winning the thing. Becky/Ronda, hopefully in a singles match, could be a fun feud. I do wonder what that would mean on the SD side of things. I'm guessing Charlotte will challenge Bayley because, well, that seems to be the only other woman they really care about around Mania season. They'll probably add Sasha in too somehow. As much as I generally dislike big multi-man clusterfucks at WrestleMania, part of me wishes they'd do just that with the SmackDown Championship - Carmella, Lacey Evans, Ember Moon, Nikki Cross, and Alexa may not all be world-beaters, but the whole company, every roster, all seem so stale. Even NXT. Maybe throwing some of these characters together can lead to some new angles. Cross, in particular, has proven with Regal and Alexa that her character can get over as a foil to more "serious" characters. Maybe they should give her a shot?

But, to us, who were "in the know," that part of Austin's career/gimmick was much clearer than to the millions (...and millions!) of Austin/Rock/WWE fans who hadn't watched much wrestling before 98'-99'. I was in high school back then. My friends and I were wrestling fans since the early 90s and had watched countless tapes and read all the magazines and were obsessed with WCW, WWE, and whatever ECW we could get at 2 AM on local TV. But the jocks and newer fans who got into it in 99'? They had no idea that Austin's gimmick was based on being held back by Eric Bischoff. It was inessential to understanding his character. Case in point - I remember around the time of the Higher Power angle, we were talking about who the Higher Power of the Ministry could be in lunch and I said to some buddies, who were newer fans, that I thought it might be Ted DiBiase because he had been the guy who first brought in the Undertaker. They had never heard of him, but proceeded to say, "You're probably right, I bet you it is Ted The Bossy." So, yes, while Austin's back story definitely was a part of his character, it really was very minuscule compared to what the company did for Mick Foley (the sit-down interviews with JR, the callbacks to the Jimmy Snuka splash, the consistent reference to him as "Mrs. Foley's Little Boy") to make him seem like an average joe that was not particularly physically gifted, but was a man of the people and refused to quit. And, in that sense, I do see that parallel to CM Punk and Daniel Bryan, guys who, from their first introduction, were really presented as "non-WWE" and "alternative" who were now going to "sink or swim" in the "major leagues" after toiling away in the minors.

I didn't think the joke was all that bad. Every time I've heard that joke in the past, in various forms, the intention has not been all that vicious, its been that the woman is such a "wild child" that even she forgot if she had a kid or not. It can certainly be interpreted as slut-shaming, but I really think Triple H was referencing Paige's all-around image as "wild" rather than her promiscuity or history of drug abuse specifically. I genuinely dislike Triple H for many reasons, but even I don't think it was a super malicious comment. But directing that joke towards Paige, who has clearly been trying to leave that "wild child" reputation behind, when you're a corporate figure but even if you're just a colleague, is a stupid move. Paige has been pretty open on Twitter about the guilt and embarrassment she's felt over the years, not just with the sex tape but with all the other drama before her return. It was just an unnecessary snipe that I'm guessing Triple H would and could make in-person and get an uneasy laugh from Paige...but to a reporter? Just woefully inappropriate.

- I'm expecting Edge to be announced for an ultra-safe match at the next Saudi show. I don't think he's coming back for a long run considering the risk, but if you believe the rumors, guys like HBK and Taker were getting anywhere from $500k to $2m for their Saudi appearances. For $300k-$500k, for one night of work in a well-rehearsed match against a safe, trust-worthy opponent, and basically no big bumps, I think its too good for Edge to pass up. WrestleMania pay-offs are nowhere near that - which is why Shawn hasn't come back. - Austin and The Rock still seem like longshots to be in full programs and unless they are permanently done with Roman Reigns being a top babyface, putting Reigns against them would be the dumbest move possible. I tend to think Reigns will be facing Wyatt, but if they do go with a special tag match for him, I'd expect he'll be paired with the bigger, more popular stars rather than against them. Maybe Rock & Reigns vs. Corbin & Co.? I mean, that feud has another 3 months in it, right?

I will say this in defense of this stable: I already like it more than the Undisputed Era. Faint praise, I know, but what has always bothered me about the UE is that they are almost all interchangeable in size and relative style. There's no brawler. There's no "young lion" (like Orton was to Triple H in Evolution) or grizzled mentor (like Flair was to Triple H in Evolution). Adam Cole is the leader, but unlike Rollins in this new stable, its not because he has more experience or is more accomplished than the others. Its hard to imagine Arn or Tully leading the Horsemen while Flair spent the 80s in tags, but its not all that difficult to envision Roderick Strong or Kyle O'Reill in Adam Cole's spot and Cole in theirs (Bobby Fish's mustache makes it impossible for me to take him seriously in singles, but the point still stands). So, I like that Akem and Rezar are the tag team muscle. I like that Buddy Murphy is that "next breakout star"/"young lion" and that Rollins is the establised leader because, for better or worse (okay, just worse), he is a top guy in the WWE and that means partnering up with him is a kayfabe wise move for the other 3.

I agree that Punk was never a great athlete or very fluid in the ring. He wasn't even graceful like, say, Shawn Michaels or John Morrison or even Jeff Hardy, who could do acrobatic things like springboards. And what's funny, as someone else said, is that the same can be said of The Miz. Now, I do think Punk's striking and submissions put The Miz's offense to shame and Punk is the better in-ring worker and all-around performer - - - but when The Miz is booked right, which is almost always as a chickenshit heel, his lack of great offense doesn't matter because he gets great heat with the Yes Kicks and the clothesline-in-the-corner and playing to the crowd. And, for the past decade, The Miz has proven to be in the 10th percentile as a promo. So, in the end, I think Punk is just not giving respect where its due and, honestly, should feel a little embarrassed. CM Punk toiled and toiled and worked and worked and studied but, in the end, he's not all that much better than The Miz. Meanwhile, on the flip side, The Miz (like Mark Henry) has proven that being a "WWE System Guy" is not the worst thing in the world and isn't something that should be completely dismissed or disrespected.

Yeah, I'm speaking from a position of not watching NXT weekly and only seeing their RAW stuff, which comes off as vapid to me. Or worse - the kind of stuff that Michael Hayes or Vince think will get black wrestlers over (think Cryme Tyme). I compare this to The New Day and Usos who were probably pitched lots of stuff that made them roll their eyes but somehow managed to get their actual personalities, interests, and *intelligence* into their characters. On another topic - and I apologize in advance for this lengthy rant, hence the spoiler tag. If you don't want to read, don't feel like you need to. Its about the Miz/CM Punk stuff: In summation, CM Punk's tweet came off like an R-rated version of a Disney movie where the new kid in school gets bullied until the final scene - when all of the bully's friends realize that the new kid is actually cool and the bully was just an insecure dickhead.

Yeah, and to be extra clear, I'm not saying its not a good line. Its a terrific line and I love the way Heyman delivers it. I believe it every time. Its really no different than the countless times any other heel used the word "guarantee" or "promise" or just came out and said, "...and I'm walking out of <insert city> the World Champion." When a heel makes a promise, its not necessarily about whether they deliver on it - its about whether you believe they can deliver on it. Ric Flair made you believe he was able to outsmart, outwrestle, and outthink any challenger that came his way - - but the stats don't lie. Dude lost. Alot. In big matches. It didn't change me from thinking he might just eke out of WrestleMania 8 with the title. I was an 8-year old idiot kid, but Ric Flair was also that damn good at making me believe that when he said he was going to beat someone, he was. It may be a bit on the nose, but I like how Heyman has simply updated the verbiage by using the word "spoiler," which is just a 2020 version of saying "I guarantee ______ will happen." Its a minute twist on classic heel shtick and because it has come true a couple times, it still works - even if I do think he used the line to build up matches that Brock lost (not only against Rollins, but possibly/probably against Reigns before SummerSlam 2018).

Is Heyman's streak actually intact? I could've swore he used the spoiler line the two times Seth Rollins beat Lesnar. Ugh...I threw up a little in my mouth as I was writing the words "two times Seth Rollins beat Lesnar."

I know people are gonna shake their head and think I'm crazy but... For a couple years there, Matt Hardy was a guy I often found to be quite good at making rather cold matches/feuds huge with live crowds. I used to describe it this way: Matt Hardy may not have the best match on any night, but he never had the worst match on any show (I think that stopped at some point, but for awhile there, it was shockingly true - which might also have something to do with the WWE product from 02'-09'). And, in that time, he wrestled just about everybody - including lengthy rivalries with Kane, Snitsky, and others. Now, I'm not saying he's up there with Flair or Daniel Bryan, but considering Matt Hardy was often considered the less charismatic/dynamic Hardy and maintained the same ridiculous Hot Topic look WWWELL past its expiration date, he deserves some credit for keeping fans engaged when a lesser worker could've ended up like Scotty 2 Hotty or The Dudleys or all the other guys who got good responses in 2002 but were clearly getting lukewarm-at-best responses by 05'.

I want to like the Street Profits, but they strike me as "overproduced" and desperate to get their slogans and catchphrases over and it comes off as unnatural. I also think the idea that they are "naturally charismatic" is vaguely bias/prejudice/racist - the idea that because they are young and black and handsome that is somehow the equivalent of having personalities. So the producers have told them to smile alot and speak loudly and be cartoonish but, ultimately, none of it has any substance.