DMJ

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.

I just watched In Your House: Season's Beatings from December 95' (just in a Christmas mood, I guess, plus I'd never seen it) for my blog* and I was amazed at how watchable the show was. Now, aside from the main (Bret vs. Bulldog), there's not really a "good match" anywhere on the show. BUT what the show does do very effectively is present 6 matches that serve a purpose and the booking is solid throughout. The opening match sees Razor Ramon tag with Marty Jannetty to continue his feud with the Million Dollar Corporation (specifically The 1-2-3 Kid). In a real smart move, though, some of the attention is placed on Goldust, who is sitting in the audience and gets a mid-match interview with Todd Pettengill - who he then hands a love letter to to deliver to Razor later. Meanwhile, in the match, the babyfaces win - but neither Sid or The Kid eat a Razor's Edge, so, even the heels come out without full comeuppance (which furthers the feud without finishing it the way the Crybaby Match would in February). From there, you get a very mixed-up and poorly executed angle/match involving Jeff Jarrett, Ahmed Johnson, Lawler, Dean Douglas, and Buddy Landell - it is a total clusterfuck but its designed to accomplish two things: make Ahmed Johnson seem like a monster and re-introduce Jarrett (who also enters the Rumble and attacks Johnson). Again, its not a great segment, but its purposeful and feels important to the characters involved. The Hog Pen match is similarly clever in that it also delivers the two things it needed to - Helmsley remains undefeated, but we still get to see the snob covered in slop and pig shit. Deisel's slow-burn heel turn is also continued in both his match against Owen Hart and his post-main event showdown with Undertaker. Speaking of Undertaker, his match against Mabel is everything you'd think - its not good - but it also doesn't overstay its welcome and gives the Deadman a decisive win in a Casket Match in under 8 minutes to keep him hot for his Royal Rumble title shot a month later. To me, I'd rather watch the worst 7-minute match ever than a mediocre 14-minute match because at least the former doesn't overstay its welcome. Again, even if the audience doesn't care, the characters look at their matches as important. In a sense, the show has no filler because every match is either designed to push a storyline or adorned with enough gimmicky ornaments to make them watchable (you're kidding yourself if you'd rather watch Shanghai Pierce and Terra Ryzing actually wrestle a standard match than the Hillbilly Jim-refereed gaga with live pigs we get instead). The main event has been discussed elsewhere on this forum so I won't overdo it, but after a slow start, it ends up being an excellent Bret Hart title defense. And the whole thing wraps up in something like 117 minutes as each match flows into the next without too many needless commercial breaks and backstage BS. Its not a great show - hell, there's a segment with Savio Vega that features some terrible, terrible outright racist jokes from Lawler - but it shows more creative thought and planning and consideration for details than anything the WWE presented (and that includes the NXT shows) in 2019. Today, you can look at a card and point to all sorts of "filler matches" even on the Network Specials/PPVs, but, even with a talent level considerably lower than what they have now, a show like this has no discernible filler because, for better or worse, every match served a purpose. I mean, I liked Aleister Black/Buddy Murphy as much as the next guy, but what the fuck did that match really mean? Today, the idea of presenting "good matches for good matches' sake" has become as stale as what Season's Beatings must have felt like in 1995. Everything old can be new again. Maybe having wrestling matches end with heels falling in pig shit is what we need more of. * CHEAP PLUG - If you go over to Kwang The Blog, you'll find my Top 10 WWE Network Matches of the Year. Great bathroom reading!

Will be posting my annual Top 10 WWE Network Matches of the year over the next couple days, but just wanted to ask, for WWE at least, was there any better performer than Daniel Bryan? I have him in 3 of my Top 5 matches of the year. I could see an argument for Charlotte Flair (she has 3 matches in my top 10), but Bryan beats her with all of his promo work. Granted, I'm not a weekly viewer and I semi-soured on the NXT main event formula this year. For example, I have Biance Belair/Shayna Baszler on my list and Cole/Gargano are a maybe for Honorable Mention.

Big, sweaty guys are gross...when they are sweaty. You can be big, no shame. You can get sweaty - we all do. But take a shower. Don't walk around with a stinky ass ham for an hour either. Granted, Mandy Rose is the one that went in for the hug, so should take some blame for having her velvet (?) dress ruined (and her not expecting that to happen is probably the bigger issue because it makes her look like an idiot who has never encountered or know the basics about perspiration), but I wouldn't chalk up this angle as an example of having contempt for the audience. If the audience is filled with big, sweaty guys who think coming to a wrestling show, or going anywhere where they'll be in close proximity to others, is a great idea after engaging in rigorous physical activity (like exercising), they deserve to be mocked. After I go to the gym, I sweat so much it looks like I just got out of a pool. I go home or use the gym's showers before I go to work or out for dinner. If I do stop somewhere, like a grocery store to pick something up, I'm mindful to give people space and I'll even apologize for my B.O if an unforeseen circumstance comes up. Now, there are countless other examples of the WWE mocking their own fans, so the point still stands. As for the Beauty & the Beast thing they seem to be building towards, I don't mind it either. It usually goes one of two ways - Mandy Rose ends up liking Otis and turns babyface or Mandy Rose ends up breaking his heart. Either could work. Its a tale as old as time (pun intended). Of course, the WWE is so ham-fisted (also pun intended) that they'll probably make it really lame by inserting unnecessary sexual innuendos and having Corey Graves go overboard on commentary (to no comeuppance) that will further detract from what could be a perfectly fine little side story.

I am really curious what others thought of this match, so thought I'd share my thoughts. Maybe someone can do one of those nifty play-by-play posts. Here's what I wrote in my blog: Main event time - The Kabuki Warriors defending the Diva Tag Team Championships against Becky Lynch and Charlotte Flair in a TLC Match. This one reminded me of the Cactus Jack & Kevin Sullivan/Maxx Payne/Nasty Boys wars of 94', matches that are almost painful to watch because of the level of violence and, even more than that, the shocking number of moments when it seems like the competitors are taking no precaution at all for their opponents' well-being and may actually be "shooting." At various times in this match, its obvious that the adrenaline pumping through all four women is high and they want to pop this crowd with the craziest, nastiest TLC match possible. It was an incredibly valiant effort, but, even before Kairi Sane suffered a concussion (which could've happened at any of ten different moments, but I tend to believe occurred when she seemed to have gotten tripped up by the apron attempting to splash both Lynch and Flair through a table), it seemed like the match was just a non-stop stream of risky moves performed with just a touch too much zeal. In my reviews, I tend to criticize the lack of urgency displayed in many modern matches. This match had urgency, but it was arguably misguided. Even the commentators noted how few attempts there were to actually win the match - everyone was too busy just leveling each other with any weapon they could find. And while Charlotte Flair certainly deserves a ton of criticism for manhandling (and viciously slapping) a clearly out-of-it Kairi Sane towards the end of the match, its important to note that almost immediately after she powerbombed the concussed Sane through a table, Asuka german-suplexed her on the arena floor. Sure, the floor has padding, but that's still a nasty, nasty bump (not to mention getting powerbombed through a table from the ring apron later on). Later, Becky Lynch would get in on the action by hitting a pair of Becksploders on Asuka into a stack of ladders, a move that didn't look all that good, but because Lynch didn't get much elevation and was probably somewhat exhausted after 20 minutes of brutality, could've easily resulted in Asuka getting sliced by the edge of a ladder or worse. By the time the end came, the audience was clearly unsure how to react. Its notable too that, despite the violence, there was no "This is Awesome" chant at any point - which may have been because so much of the match took place on the floor in front of the announce tables and not in the ring, where the live crowd could actually appreciate what the competitors were doing. When considering what to rate a match like this, though, I must admit that there is a part of me that does enjoy the queasy feeling that a match like this will give you. Is there something sickening about those squash matches the Steiners used to have where they took insane liberties and nearly paralyzed guys? Oh yeah...and they're also kinda great. What about the aforementioned Cactus Jack/Nasty Boys matches from 94'? There are moments in those matches where guys are being struck in the back of the head with chairs and shovels without any warning at all. What about the stiffness of Vader and Stan Hansen and the infamous Foley/Rock I Quit Match with the two dozen unprotected chair shots? If one is going to criticize the women for working "unsafely," it's equally wrong to speak highly or fondly of the men who did the same (or worse) in the 80s and 90s. Granted, if you've never popped for this kind of stuff and have always hated it, sure, snub your nose at the rest of us...but I'm willing to admit that matches like this, especially when you're not inundated with them (which we're not), can be thrilling and engaging in a way that highly-choreographed, overly rehearsed spotfests just aren't. This match did not seem rehearsed. It did not seem choreographed. It was wild and dangerous and we saw the real results of real danger. This match was Flair, Lynch, and the Kabuki Warriors showing how unhinged and violent they could get - and I, for one, was impressed and sickened and shocked and bought in to the tension and suspense. For better or worse, one of the few "must see" matches that the WWE produced this year - which is what I think is the best definition of a 4-star-or-higher match. (4/5)

I'm no fan of American imperialism, but like many entertainers who are/were against endless war, I tend to veer on the side that believes shows like Tribute to the Troops and USO tours can and should exist not so much to show the support for the war, but to show support for the people who are away from their families, serving our country. I know its corny, but its the old "Support the Soldier, Not the War" thing and, as I do have extended family in the military, I feel pretty comfortable saying that the troops on the ground are not living high on the hog and their families do make sacrifices and they don't all share the same "Nuke Em' All" worldview (though, obviously, like in any profession or working for any company, there's an undeniable pressure for some level of indoctrination of that company's tenets - for example, I'm a public school teacher and, over time, I've become pretty staunchly pro-union and pro-public education, two things that I definitely wouldn't have considered being important to me before entering the profession). That being said, I do hope that the WWE are able to bring the same level of performers and production to the troops this year when it is untelevised. That, to me, would be more telling and worthy of criticism if they don't. Supporting the troops by bringing them a fun holiday show shouldn't be a PR move.

Just saw this for the first time. Not really sure why - just kinda jumped out at me as something I'd never seen it when I saw it mentioned in an article, I guess. I watched the whole Bragging Rights 2009 show and was pleasantly surprised at how not bad it was. THE PROS - * He's not the first to do it in an Iron Man match, but Orton tapping immediately to the STF in the first 5 minutes. It sells the move as devastating effectively and "sets the table" for how this match is different than your typical match. * Cena getting color. * Orton sending Cena through a light wall and then trying to blow him up with friggin' pyro. Is it ridiculous? Cartoonish? Laughably outrageous? Yes, yes, and yes. But this is a Cena/Orton Falls Count Anywhere Iron Man Match, so, I'm not sure realism was ever going to be in the cards. * Orton hitting a hangman DDT onto the arena floor. * Orton trying to stall around minute 40 by making an exhausted Cena "chase" him to and from the ring. * Cena winning the crowd over with his comeback, which featured Cena sending Orton through the timekeeper area and hitting him with an Attitude Adjustment through a table. * The quality of production and camera work. The aforementioned light wall, pyro area, announcer table, and timekeeper wall can all be described as "set pieces" or props and sometimes these things just don't break the right way, or the camera misses the best angle, or the big spot is ruined by not being mic'd correctly or just not looking as devastating as it should. Here, every big spot was captured correctly, looked like the right level of violent, and made those big crash, boom, bang noises that you need to elicit a real "Ooooh" from the audience. THE CONS - * I'm not a fan of Iron Man Matches and 60 minutes is a long time to invest in any match, much less a John Cena/Randy Orton match - two guys who, if you've been watching wrestling for the past decade, you've probably seen wrestle at least a thousand times each. The match never gets slow or boring - but its really hard to call a 60-minute match "must see" unless it is basically flawless and features performers who are so captivating in a match filled with so much emotion that you're on the edge of your seat from beginning to end. That's a very high bar. The very nature of the stipulation makes this a tough sell as an "all-time classic" because, while there are lots and lots of great moments, its still quite a commitment to sit and watch an hour long match that... * Plays a lot like a superhero movie and features both guys doing, for better or worse, Themselves with a capital T. SuperCena is in full effect - selling and selling and selling for 20 minutes only to tie the score with an inside cradle and, later, no-sell the exhaustion of wrestling for 40 minutes by performing two Herculean shows of endurance and strength (carrying Orton on his shoulders up two stairs and then, after that, from the arena floor all the way into the ring and onto a table). Orton keeps the restholds to a minimum, but still plays the hits from beginning to end - lots of seething, lots of banging his arms and fists into the mat, RKOs out of nowhere, lots of frustration and crazy eyes. If you find either of these characters irritating, this match will bug the hell out of you because it is basically The Most Cena-ish Cena vs. The Most Orton-ish Orton and it goes on for a full hour. On my scale, a 4-star match is something I would recommend or consider "must watch." This is close...but not up to that level because, ultimately, its not a "must see" match and I don't think it is good enough to warrant devoting a full 60-minutes to watching unless you are huge fan of either guy.

To me, if you're inducting the nWo, you should include (nearly) everyone or limit it to just the original 3 members. I just think its hard to draw the line when the fact is, the criticism that the nWo was "watered down" is not 100% the case - sure, it did nothing for Michael Wallstreet or Bubba Rogers and their inclusion did nothing for the nWo, but what about Buff Bagwell? Konnan? Scott Steiner? Friggin' Randy Savage? Curt Hennig came late to the party, but was the central figure in one of the nWo's biggest storylines. Does that mean Horace Hogan gets a ring? I hate to say it, but yes, yes it does. I'm not demanding equal time for Vincent when its time to give speeches and I'll also add that anyone who joined post-1999 should be ineligible (sorry, Ron and Don Harris) because nWo 2000 was just such dogshit and the WWE shouldn't go out of their way to induct Nazis. The WWE Hall of Fame has, at least since it became a televised event that they sold tickets to, all about getting the bigger legends on the show (because you're not going to sell out an arena without making sure you have "name" talent - most notably Hulk Hogan, who has seemingly either been inducted himself or inducted someone else at like 90% of these things. This year he'll be inducted as part of the nWo, one of these years they'll have him induct Eric Bischoff, and on and on...Triple H and Flair are in that same category too as I'm guessing one or the other will be inducted Batista. Similarly, I would not be surprised to see someone "Austin-adjacent" get inducted this year (maybe Heyman?) as, with Austin seemingly back in good graces with the WWE, I could definitely see him being there this year.

Not putting Reigns over Brock Lesnar at a WrestleMania is, to me, the defining non-moment of Reigns' career and really takes away much of his importance to me. His list of other kayfabe accomplishments is not so impressive either. As I referenced above, he couldn't beat Lesnar at either WrestleMania opportunity. He didn't retire Undertaker. He didn't retire Triple H. Him beating cancer should've been a massive story but was treated like no big deal. He's won a ton of championships in an era in which championships don't mean anything. I hate to beat a dead horse, but even when he's not been the recognized WWE/Universal Champion, since his return, Brock Lesnar has been treated as the absolute top guy, even usurping Cena and Undertaker at this point. Beating him was supposed to be Reigns' coronation, but he failed twice and nobody remembers that he eventually did beat Lesnar at a lesser show. From a non-kayfabe perspective, I guess his biggest impact on the WWE product was that, as part of the Shield, he was a catalyst for the company to produce quality six-man tags? To be honest, looking at this decade, I don't even think Roman Reigns is the most important wrestler in the WWE let alone the world. Daniel Bryan had a bigger impact on the product than Reigns has.

This could be moved to a more relevant thread, but as good as Lawler is as a wrestler is as bad as he is as a commentator. One of the all-time worst. I've not just come to this conclusion today nor have I been screaming it for 20 years - it is just one of those ideas that I think I've always been partially sure of, but am now willing to say, full stop. During the New Generation years, the commentary in WWE was woeful but just because he may have been the "best of the worst" doesn't mean he was good. Plus, I actually think his prevalence on commentary hurt his matches and angles, even against Bret Hart. I never "got" that feud because, to me, as a 10 year old kid with no knowledge of Lawler's background, it seemed like former World Champion Bret Hart was feuding with a slightly pudgy commentator who told bad jokes. And unlike Bobby Heenan, whose family of clients was filled with heavy hitters who did the fighting for him, Lawler's prized combatants were an evil dentist and Hakushi (who was, admittedly, super cool, but kinda came-and-went). Moving on from 95' and into the Attitude Era, Lawler's in-ring appearances for the WWE dwindled down and he became all about catcalls. His infatuation with women's breasts was not funny then, even to a now 13-14 year old DMJ, and it has not aged well at all in the time since. And while Jim Ross did make some legendary calls during this time frame, calls that would justifiably make his case for being the best pro-wrestling voice of all time, there's not a single match I can recall that I walked away thinking Jerry Lawler did anything remotely special or good. He has no 92' Royal Rumble performance like Heenan does. Was he even on commentator during Hell in Cell 98'? The only things anyone remembers are JR's calls. Ditto for every heel turn of that era or any time Vince McMahon did something particularly dastardly. Lawler's legacy as a commentator is "puppies." That's it. I'd argue that Lawler was actually at his best during the PG Era, basically just praising John Cena every week (Did he coin the phrase "Big Match John"?). He wasn't really a heel, he was no longer just objectifying women for 2 hours a night (though, he still did often find time for that), and because he had become RAW's "Not-So-Dirty Uncle," he had become wallpaper except when a heel needed to get heat and would berate him. He was fine in the role, but not iconic. He helped The Miz get even more over. He probably took an RKO or two somewhere in that timeline. So, when I read the post above and see the phrase "had two good years," part of me is left wondering, like, were those years 2007-2008 or something? Because it certainly wasn't 97-98. I know its a matter of taste. Jerry Lawler probably helped sell a lot of Diva calendars and DVDs in his time. But to me, even when I was a sex-crazed teenager with his hormones running wilder than Hulkamania, I did not tune in to wrestling to see half-naked women and was not entertained by a guy making corny jokes and "innuendos" that barely counted as innuendos. You could see half-nude women practically anywhere by then but especially on the internet (which, for those who possibly didn't know, was in fact aorund by the time I was 12 and was already filled with so much porn). And because that was Lawler's bread-and-butter, his few wrestling-related insights were always just a stop-gap before the next reference to a woman's body.

This is one of those matches where the entire concept is so galling to me that it was impossible for me to call it good - even though, in a vacuum, in a "video game wrestling" sense, it works because (a) as much as I don't buy Cole as a top guy, his execution is undeniably sharp and Dunne - while overexposed at this point - is just as good and (b) the crowd was definitely into it by the end. Cool moves, crowd that was into it, no real dead spots, those ingredients usually make for a good-to-great match. Unfortunately, in my opinion, this is like having hot dogs and potato chips for Thanksgiving. It was simply the wrong match to have. Not only had Cole wrestled a WAR GAMES match before, he had taken a mega bump from the top of the cage through a table in said match, and also wrestled a ladder match on Wednesday (that I didn't see, but, lemme guess, he took some bumps off a ladder?). If I'm not mistaken, he also wrestled on SmackDown? Adam Cole not just taking the DQ loss or having his stablemates bumrush Dunne before the bell and beat him down with weapons or put him through a table and then give Cole the cheap makes him one of the dumbest heels ever and, instead of me watching the match and saying, "Wow, that Adam Cole sure is tough!" I'm left thinking, "Wow, the WWE really does not give a shit at all about building stories or characters, do they? WWE is just Cirque De Soleil or Ice Capades, where stories from 24 hours earlier don't matter, its all just the same show every night, like the circus." So, if you like the circus, if you like the athleticism of gymnasts doing floor routines, if you dig the Ice Capades, then you might really like this match. Unfortunately, I found it insulting, another example of Vince McMahon and Triple H mocking their own fanbase for actually maybe possibly thinking that a wrestling match on Saturday night might actually mean something on Sunday. * Edit - Also, the idea that Cole "only" putting in 14 minutes makes this match different than the 30-minute ones we're used to just goes to show how trained we are. This match was at least 10 minutes too long if you think about what it really should've been/could've been.

I think blatantly attacking the guy on Twitter is unnecessary keyboard warrior shit. But criticizing him, like any other performer on the show, is fair game to me - especially on a forum or when people write thoughtful reviews of the show. I don't mind him as much as others here, but defending him by saying, "Well, he's got to be good because he also calls fights for HBO" or "If he was so bad, don't you think the producers (Cole?) would tell him to tone it down"? Those things are all true, but it doesn't mean I have to think he's good. Its the old "Nickelback sold a billion records" thing... I don't use Twitter, but I imagine there are lots of really ugly, nasty tweets that go beyond just criticism. Hell, I saw a post on Facebook that showed a picture of Brock Lesnar's daughter and the comments were just appalling. I don't think anyone is defending those sorts of comments. Nobody wants to see Mauro Ranallo go through a mental health breakdown, but hey, he also has the option (I think) of "silencing" (or whatever the word is) the people who do tweet him with negativity. And, yeah, as for Corey Graves, he's a fuckboi who let a little bit of praise go to his head and thinks he's a genius.

Maybe I'm just super optimistic and positive, but I kinda think he's doing these big spots now because he's wise enough to see that - like with the aforementioned Foley or Jeff Hardy - if you're going to base your career on crazy stunts, it might be wiser to do them in your youth and use that reputation to carry you into a less dangerous style where you can really make bank on your persona/character and all the merch that a character like Darby Allin can generate. Of course, Foley and Hardy still took bigger risks in their late 30s than most did their entire careers (and arguably needlessly so), and both can still be viewed as somewhat cautionary tales despite the money they earned - Foley's is 54 but moved like he was 80 last I saw (unless the DDP Yoga has helped? Haven't really been keeping up with him) and Hardy's risk-taking behavior seems to exist on both sides of the in-ring/out-of-ring coin. So, yes, Darby Allin may need to look elsewhere for role models, but Hardy and Foley are also probably in the top 15-20 range for most successful wrestlers of the past 25 years - maybe even Top 10 - and if you're going to be compared to guys like that, it is really telling that Allin is already being compared to those sorts of acts rather than, say, Necro Butcher or Sabu or other guys that were kinda known for craziness but were also almost immediately seen as "too niche" or unmarketable or not what the WWE would ever want. If they could, the WWE would definitely sign Allin (and probably proceed to do nothing with him despite his marketability).