DMJ

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).

My god what a fucking dork Seth Rollins is. Like, he had to be the first guy to challenge Punk. He is that dumb idiot you went to high school with who couldn't help but leap onto the most obvious joke at the most obvious time even though it was usually not crafted in a clever way or even remotely funny. Like, the guy who saw they were serving hot dogs in the cafeteria and had to make the lamest dick joke as quickly as possible because he was more proud of getting their "first" rather than actually saying something clever or truly subversive. He's the "Buck Fush" patch of wrestlers - just too damn obvious to be clever and also less cool than just coming out and saying "Fuck Bush" in 2004 or whatever. And I'm gonna just go ahead and say that he's probably bad at sex. He's bad at wrestling. He's bad at Twitter. He's bad at not taking pictures of his dick and not dating Nazis. If he couldn't keep it in his pants long enough not to be the first idiot to "call out" CM Punk, I'm thinking he's a 2-hump chump too. Lord knows what Becky sees in him, but, then again, wrestling's weird because I never really "got" Stephanie and Triple H either.

- Just tried to get through that Lana promo. Eeesh. Its a chicken-and-the-egg scenario to me. What was worst - the awful, awful script or Lana's awful, awful delivery? I know people like to just say, "Well, its Wrestlecrap, so its supposed to be bad," but one of the core ideas behind the whole concept of Wrestlecrap is/was that these angles are supposed to generate fan interest and profit. That's why the fails are funny - they weren't designed to be fails. Hulk Hogan going to the Dungeon of Doom (where the water is not hot) was supposed to lead to record buyrates as the Hulkster tried to slay yet another huge monster. The purpose wasn't to create a meme 30 years later. This is the difference between a show like Tim & Eric (or the Eric Andre Show), where the sketches are poorly-acted and poorly-filmed and off-putting, as part of the "meta/anti-comedy." In pro-wrestling, or at least in good pro-wrestling, purposefully having talent perform poorly-written scripts is not going to achieve the goal of making me buy a ticket to see a show. Maybe there are fans who do enjoy this storyline, though, so I'm only speaking for myself. Still, objectively, the writing and delivery were garbage. (Like, is Lana explicitly told to refer to her boyfriend by his full name every.single.time she says it? Is that part of the "joke"? That Bobby Lashley is always referred to as Bobby Lashley while Rusev has no first name?) - CM Punk being a talking head on a WWE Weekly Wrap-up Show is sorta interesting but not really? Kinda like if you went to go see Penn & Teller and all they did was talk about other people's tricks? Or, for the Rush fans out there, an "Evening With Neil Peart" where he plays absolutely no drums and just talks about other band's drummers? I'm sure CM Punk is going to deliver a bunch of pseudo "hot takes" (that will pale in comparison to what you can find here, on Reddit, on just about any podcast, etc.) and we'll have lots of wrestlers trying to score points off him by challenging him to get back in the ring, but with an in-ring return probably not in the cards currently, this development doesn't have me any more excited about the product than I was before. I'm as big a fan of CM Punk's promos as anyone and would love to hear him verbally tear down Seth Rollins or Baron Corbin or whoever in the build to a wrestling match. Hearing him shill for the WWE and pretend to be excited about WWE wrestling is not intriguing.

I've been called out for over-analyzing it, but I don't think it helped that he was in Hobbs & Shaw and is presumably close with The Rock. You can say that a caemo doesn't mean anything, but The Rock himself used a cameo in The Mummy Returns (I think?) to eventually springboard to superstardom (with some career ups-and-downs, mostly ups for the past decade). If there is one guy you'd want giving you advice on how to go from headlining WrestleMania to starring in big-budget action movies, having that one guy be an ultra-successful producer in his own right and your cousin is a very lucky position to be in. And I think Vince, or at least Triple H, know that and may already be looking at Roman as having one foot out the door. (This also explains why Seth Rollins getting the big rub from Lesnar may have been an easy call for them - I mean, Rollins has a face for radio at best.) I've discussed it elsewhere too, but to me, it is really telling how the WWE has treated John Cena over the past 2 years. I know, he's been super, super busy - but considering how far the company has gone to bring back The Rock, Austin, Hogan, etc., etc., I find it very, very interesting that John Cena - who, for years, was put on that same pedestal as arguably the only post-Attitude guy to be on the same footing as those legends - has been noticeably absent. I mean, if I told you, in 2016 or even 2018, hell, 6 months before the debut, that SmackDown would be on FOX and that they were going to load the card with every legend possible for the debut episode, how much would you have bet that John Cena would be there? I feel like I would've taken that bet for $10,000 without hesitation. Like, absolutely no way that John Cena is not going to be there if he were alive and breathing. I would be dirt poor and probably wifeless today had that happened. And people don't find that weird?

Forgot where I read it, but I think the idea behind Omega/Moxley being the closer is that, as an "Unsanctioned"/"Lights Out" match, it technically shouldn't be happening as part of the "sanctioned" show. The added benefit is that it makes the ending to Cody/Jericho even more up in the air. If Jericho retains, the crowd will probably be pretty disappointed, while one would imagine that Cody winning would also lead to some "burn out" (as the crowd, having gone crazy for Cody's victory, would be spent for Moxley/Omega). Its hard not to just say Cody/Jericho should be the main event, but then again, I'm intrigued as to what Moxley/Omega are going to bust out in a stipulation match, as the closer of the first post-TV show PPV. Moxley strikes me as a guy with that Foley-esque mind for big, attention-grabbing moments and seemed very resentful about how his match with Lesnar didn't allow him to achieve that kind of moment. I'd be shocked if their match didn't feature at least a couple insane "WWE would never allow this!" spots. If this event was $15 cheaper and I could convince my wife to watch it with me, I'd be buying. Sadly, I don't think I'll have much luck with the latter, which makes the wishful thinking for the former a non-starter anyway.

To be fair, this doesn't sound too dislike situations in many workplaces. In the heat of the moment, in this case when you're in Saudi Arabia and you feel like you've been abandoned and you're wondering when you're going to get home, you're probably going to say things out of anger. Your emotions are heightened. A couple days later, you're back in the US, the ordeal is behind you, people are making jokes and then the boss brings you into a meeting to talk about it and your attitude is different. To put it in terms that I use with my MD/ASD students, you've gone from the "Red Zone" (angry, yelling, mad) back to the "Green Zone" (calm, happy, "ready to learn"). Plus I would wager that Vince's speech began with a disarming pseudo-apology - something along the lines of, "I'm sorry there was confusion," which places some of the blame on the workers who were confused - and featured a line or two that put himself in the shoes of the talent ("What a weekend, huh, pals?" or anytime he used the word "we" to collectively describe an experience that he and his inner circle did not actually experience). Vince has been referred to as a Jedi Master. He certainly knows how to verbally disarm a lockerroom and present (false) empathy with his "the WWE is a family" bullshit. This is all before we even get to the intimidation factor of this guy being in control of your career and having a history of being punitive and very shrewd about how he can both overwork you and underpay you simultaneously.

EDITED because of the retraction someone posted above. Kept this part because I thought it was worth discussing: I do believe that Seth is still liked and appreciated by his peers. I get the feeling that they sympathize with his frustrations and while they may not agree 100% with his tweets or even necessarily how positive he is about the company, I do think they respect his effort, experience, etc. I mean, we have a thread here based entirely on how terrible we think Seth Rollins is. I know it comes with the territory when you're an athlete/entertainer, but, to his co-workers, he's a real, living, breathing human being who does appear to be trying. I don't think anyone here has ever even accused him of laziness or indifference. He clearly is a hard-working guy. Unfortunately, to me, he works harder not smarter, embodies the whole concept of a "video game wrestler," and, by defending WWE Creative and making claims about being the best wrestler on the planet, has essentially positioned himself right in front of the basket waiting to be dunked on.

Maybe FOX didn't want a more sports-based product and that was all just gossip? Whether FOX wanted more a realistic, sports-like production or not, though, its still undeniable that Brock Lesnar is a bigger star than Bray Wyatt and, if you're FOX, you'd want as many big stars as you could get. (Same as USA) And even though it is kinda silly to even have to say what we all know, if this was the longterm booking, the WWE really has no fucking clue what they're doing anymore.

Watched the Balor promo. I also didn't think it was too good. For starters, that "shoot" comment about "laying down for someone just because they have a new mask" was stupid. You can get "shooty" and talk about "bad creative" without completely exposing that there is a writer/booker who is laying out the finishes of every match and choosing who wins. I think Jericho did a great job of it a few weeks back with his promo introducing the Inner Circle. He got his digs in against the WWE's creative without outright saying, "Jake Hager was told to lose and he followed the script but now that's he in AEW, we're going to book him to win more!" Second, all the lines that referenced "this business" reeked of Triple H putting words in his mouth. I honestly can't believe they never marketed a tee-shirt with Triple H's face and the phrase "This Business" right below it. It was like a drinking game for awhile with him and you could get sloshed every Monday Night if you took a shot each time he said that phrase in one of his endless, breathy promos. Finally, maybe don't talk about how there are boys in the back who don't look like wrestlers when you, yourself, are what? 210 soaking wet? Even in the relatively smaller world of pro-wrestling in 2019, Finn Balor is relatively small. Maybe the point was more that Balor is handsome and Gargano isn't? Okay. Fine. But here's the "ting," if you don't accentuate that handsomeness with some extra pizzazz or (for lack of a better term) flair, you're just a handsome guy in a cool leather jacket. Compare that to Ric Flair's extravagant suits and robes or "The Model" Rick Martel's get-up or even Shawn Michaels' ridiculous mirror-covered chaps and zebra-print leather daddy stuff. Or if you want a modern equivalent, just look at Velveteen Dream. It all exudes confidence, arrogance, narcissism. Even if you're going for "low key cool guy" (which we can debate is even a gimmick worth pursuing anyway), there are ways to spruce it up. I'm not saying Balor should be wearing over-the-top shit and coming out with a feather boa, but you can't knock the other guy for looking like a fan when you yourself look like a fan (who just happens to be handsome).

I'm a big Rusev fan and I think Lashley has quietly had better matches than he's been given credit for since coming back to the WWE - the Reigns match was a stinker, but I liked the Balor sprint at Mania and the LMS against Strowman - but I have zero interest in this angle or really anything on RAW these days. It just sits in my DVR list until I delete them. But I'd also note that it doesn't surprise me that this big scandalous angle is not having the same effect as similar storylines from yesteryear (such as the Edge/Lita Live Sex Celebration or, even years ago, the suggestive segment with Warrior and Sensational Sherri). The big difference, to me, is that those angles all involved characters that were over. Edge and Lita were despised in 2005/2006. Warrior was popular and Sherri was hated. But Lashley and Rusev and Lana have each had their legs cut out from them multiple times and have been treated like non-factors. In Rusev's case, its been what? A 4+ year process of making him "just another guy"? People are comparing this to Dreamer/Raven/Beulah, but this reminds me so much more of the Kane/Lita/Matt Hardy garbage (which was probably more over than this too) and the Nidia/Jamie Noble stuff and all those other tacky, terrible midcard angles they've run over the years. Its trashy, it involves a bunch of characters the fans are not invested in, and, according to the numbers in the report above, it is driving away every segment of the audience. Like, who is this supposed to appeal to?

Biggest takeaway: Vince's email is [email protected]? Anyone wanna try and find out? For shits and giggles, I might try to email Stephanie. 2nd Biggest Takeaway: Maybe this isn't a "semi-work" like I suggested earlier and maybe Triple H really was presented with the idea and explicitly wanted it to be more "teethy" - meaning he wanted to make sure the racism shined through.

I didn't think this was a work, but I'm beginning to think this is one of those "gray areas." Like, yes, he has a legit beef with the company - especially the TV shirt design department - but I highly doubt Triple H or Vince were at all involved. Not defending them because lord knows I love criticizing and shaming them, but before today, I doubt Vince could even pick Myles out of a lineup. Hell, even after today, I don't think he could. But part of me is thinking that his Twitter comments are also designed to rally support for himself and get his name out there after months of being off TV - especially now that NXT is a 2-hour show and the current Cruiserweight Champ just kinda did something similar and was essentially rewarded for it. The same can be said for Sasha Banks, to some degree, who "took her ball and went home" and returned to a major push while other workers toil in the shadows with no push in sight. It used to be that getting over in front of the cameras was how you got pushed. Now, you've got just as good a chance of getting a push by getting over on Twitter as a disgruntled employee standing up to your corporate bosses. So, yeah, I'm totally with Myles and there's plenty of evidence to suggest McMahon's views on race are about as enlightened as our President's, but I'm not sure he had his fingerprints on this particular incident. Though, of course, the buck stops at the top so he's not void of guilt. That being said, I do think Myles might also be working a little bit.

Completely agree. Not only is his appearance unimpressive - kinda reminds me of Baron Von Raschke - but I'm also going to admit that I don't view him as a "star" on the same level as other MMA or boxers they've brought in over the past few years. With Brock, you had a guy who had dominated the WWE when he came in, then left and proven he was the real deal in the UFC, then came back an even bigger star. With Ronda Rousey, you have the most famous female MMA fighter in the history of the sport, a woman who had totally broken through to the mainstream. With Floyd Mayweather, you had a self-promoting, media-grabbing machine who was the most famous boxer in the world and did not let anyone forget it. Like I said, I'm excited about this match because I'm really curious about what it will look like. But Cain Velasquez being a main eventer in the WWE moving forward? I don't see it. This match against Lesnar is just about the only one I am interested in. Granted, I haven't seen his other matches and I know people said he looked great, so maybe Velasquez/Reigns or Velasquez/Bryan would be fantastic matches...but I fear that, if you look at the rosters and consider Velasquez a babyface, we're more likely going to see him feuding with Baron Corbin and Dolph Ziggler anyway.

I'd also point to WCW here, just for history sake. If AEW strikes on a really hot angle - like, say, Randy Orton showing up and RKOing Kenny Omega - that number is going to go way, way up. I know that particular example is unrealistic, but hear me out: Hulk Hogan turned heel and the nWo started and WCW hit record ratings. I think AEW is more likely to somehow hit that sort of buzz level than WWE is because, well, WWE has actively booked themselves away from ever getting a "hot hand" while AEW seems to be running a playbook (or wanting to run a playbook) that will actually be driven by getting a "hot hand."