DMJ

I read the rumors about Taker/Drew. Good god, why? I mean, if Drew had defeated Rollins consistently in the fall, then Reigns consistently after that, I could see it. But Drew McIntyre is a Dino Bravo-level heel. Even Taker/Reigns II feels senseless considering Reigns defeated him at Mania a couple years back. I'd still prefer that over Taker/Drew, but not by much. I'm not sure there is a Taker match I'd be super interested in seeing - but if I had my pick, it'd definitely be Daniel Bryan. Bryan has proven he can carry just about anyone to a good match (Big Cass) and I'd love to hear him go off on The Deadman just being a "marketing tool" to sell dolls and t-shirts, etc.

I was actually just thinking about this in the bathroom (full disclosure: I keep my copy of Death of WCW in there and was reading the section about how promoters don't know when to put their new big star over their old one.) My thought was: WWE has had multiple opportunities to do a big "passing the torch"/"dream" matches to make the next big superstar (or in the case of Sting/Taker, just do it to do it). They did it at WrestleMania VI (and, arguably, WrestleMania III, though, I think that one is somewhat debatable as Hogan was already "The Man" in alot of ways). But really, for the most part, when those opportunities have come up in recent times and even in the 90s, Vince has been very, very gun shy. They couldn't figure out how to do Brock/Austin (when the easy answer was that Austin was willing to do it if it was promoted as a big match). They never capitalized on a Flair/Hogan dream match despite WCW doing their biggest PPV buyrates to that time when they had a chance in 94'. Speaking of 94', they didn't have Hart beat Flair or Hogan on TV or PPV (in fact, while Flair putting over Hennig on RAW was great, in hindsight, I think one could argue that Bret should've got that rub). Bringing that up to the current day, I think Reigns not holding a clean victory over Brock Lesnar is INSANITY. In fact, that WrestleMania 34 loss, to me, is almost Starrcade 97' level of booking ineptitude. They also never really did a full Cena/Reigns program and now all we can hope for is an "After The Fact" rivalry much like what Cena and The Rock did. The Rock didn't pass the torch - Cena was already at the top and The Rock hadn't been a WWE performer in half a decade. Imagine Cena coming back in 2020 to put over Rollins or Reigns - I mean, it's not really "passing the torch" when you willfully put it down and retired 2 years earlier. Really, only Austin beating Michaels, Brock going over The Rock at SummerSlam, and Michaels beating Bret at WrestleMania 12 strike me as true "passing the torch" moments where the victory felt like it happened when the loser was still at their peak and the victor was a rising star who then became the focal point. I guess Batista beating HHH and Cena beating JBL in 05' (and then Cena beating HHH in 06') kinda counts, but do seem lesser in hindsight. Also in that "lesser" camp would Benoit, Guerrero, CM Punk, Daniel Bryan, etc....all had huge victories and were very popular, but the WWE never really seemed to go "all the way" with promoting them as the new face of the company. Which, to bring me back to my first point, is why WWE Reimagined is kind of a silly concept. Its not that the WWE couldn't have run some of these dream matches (Taker/Sting, Flair/Hogan, Hart/Hogan, Cena/Taker, a true Cena/Reigns program), its that they didn't. And when they did, like the multiple Reigns/Lesnar matches and the first Rock/Cena Mania match, they somehow opted to go with The Last Big Thing beating The New Big Thing.

^ Absolutely. I also interpreted Big E (and Xavier and Kofi's) comments about not wanting to be split up a little differently. I think what they mean is that, in wrestling, you have guys turning on each other all the time - its pretty much the end of every tag team or stable - but they want to be one of the exceptions. I don't think any of them are particularly against stronger singles pushes, just, if the way to get there for Big E is for him to turn on Kofi and become a generic heel and do a jealousy angle, he'd rather continue to play a role he enjoys and that has yielded him the biggest success of his career. On a separate note, anybody else read about Fox wanting Trump to be on SD? I'm not sure if it was just clickbait or its coming from a reliable source or whatever. I'm also not super up-to-date on who is in charge of Fox Broadcasting vs. Fox News Corp. vs. Fox Sports in regards to the political motive. I always assumed Vince wanted Trump to appear again while he was President or running for office (I was genuinely surprised he wasn't at any of the past 3 Manias), but that someone, somehow, convinced him that having The Donald around would be more trouble than it was worth. I'm also not certain Trump would even do such an appearance - though, I guess they could entice him with the promise of Big Macs and some sort of golden shower show? The McMahon/Trump friendship is too well known for this to be controversial or to inspire fans to boycott or anything like that, but I still think the optics would be negative for both sides. Trump appearing on a "rasslin' show" is just more fodder that points to him being "low class" and the WWE, as a company, going "all in" and basically endorsing Trump is going to put their talent in a really awkward social media/Twitter position of having to defend "grab em' by the pussy" (I wonder what The Man thinks of that), border detention centers, refusing to pay respect to John McCain, calling Mexico a "shithole country", friendship with Putin, continued attacks on Obama and his citizenship, etc. Aside from Vince, I'm guessing Lars Sullivan is one of the few guys backstage who would want to have his picture taken next to Trump right now. (Not to say there aren't other Trumpsters backstage, just that being affiliated with the guy is undeniably a divisive move when you're a celebrity/athlete - easier to just say out of it, which is what the WWE should do.)

- Actually watched more of Raw than usual based on the hype about Heyman coming in as the "Executive Producer" or whatever his title is now. I still think the show has fundamental flaws that nobody can fix. Namely, the 3 hour running time. As good as this show was - and there were some parts that were entertaining and felt fresh - I still found myself fast-forwarding through most of it. Granted, had that been an option in the late 90s, I'm guessing I would've fast-forwarded through much of those shows too. I mean, The Godfather and Steve Blackman seem like a great guys and all, but if I could've got my fix of Steve Austin and The Rock without sitting through their matches, I would've been just as happy. - What was with the "Hot Asian Wife" thing? Super creepy and I'm glad (hoping) it will be dropped. Its 2019 - a wrestler feuding with another wrestler for the right to rape their wife is gross. - On the flip side, I liked the Maria angle (or at least the start of it). Its trashy, for sure, but the stark difference is that in the "Hot Asian Wife" angle, the nameless wife has no agency. They are a prize to be gambled and won. The Maria angle has given a talented, wasted non-wrestler a new role to play, albeit a very crass one, and a way to get heat. I'm hoping they don't go too too far into the cuckold thing - in fact, having put the pedal on the gas this week I'm hoping they cruise for awhile and just make this about Mike wanting to "prove he's a man" by winning wrestling matches while Maria berates him - but I could just as easily see this devolving into something really putrid and gross (for example, "Twist: Mike likes being cuckolded" or "Twist: The father is a black wrestler because, well, you know what they say, pal!") - Liked the opening angle. Didn't like the Michael Cole "serious" voice and other wrestlers sending their thoughts and prayers to "Bobby and Braun." It was a wrestling angle on a wrestling show. The actual spot and the production around it was excellent (loved the high camera angle looking down), but once they came from the break, it should've been time for another match. Keep the show moving. I know, I know, they have 3 hours to fill so they need to fill it with replays and the commentators expressing their sadness, blah blah...but the show does seem to lack "urgency" and even after a well-produced, great moment, a good quality TV show should be ready to keep you glued to your seat for the next thing. The next thing was a New Day/Viking Raiders match. Not exactly the hottest two acts I can think of right now (and I say this as a fan of both). - Ricochet/Styles is already a more interesting feud to me than Rollins/Corbin ever was. Speaking of Rollins, yeah, the stuff with Becky was cringe-inducing. Hopefully Heyman is going to wrap up this entire storyline at Extreme Rules and move them away from each other. Becky Lynch is supposed to be this cool character but I'm far more interested in the Bliss/Nikki Cross storyline right now. I think Becky could still carry a good feud, it is such a shame that she has been sandbagged with Lacey Evans and we haven't seen her mix it up with any of the more interesting women on the roster. There really is potential for good, character-based feuds there that they don't even seem to want to try at all. I really, really pray this isn't building to a Andrade & Charlotte feud (again, I say this as a fan of both, just not interested in seeing Rollins & Becky's real-life romance become the basis of storylines).

I haven't been keeping on everything AEW but is the expectation that they will be doing non-televised house shows? Because that's part of the reason NXT tickets might have went from strongly in-demand to lesser. At first, there was that novelty of seeing the NXT roster in your own hometown - but like comparing house shows to TV tapings, once it becomes clear that what you're seeing is now just a touring show, it does make it less "must see." Even SummerSlam is supposedly doing just fine selling tickets right now while Extreme Rules isn't. The audience isn't stupid. SummerSlam is a "big show" and everything else, including TV tapings nowadays, are seen as skippable. Also, NXT does, over time, lose its biggest stars. When the first NXT show came to Cleveland (2015, I believe, but it could've been earlier), the card featured Hideo Itami, a Banks/Flair/Bayley/Bliss fourway, Cesaro vs. Balor, and Kevin Owens vs. Neville. Cleveland has a strong indie wrestling base (AIW does great attendance for its big shows for awhile), but I'm not sure today's NXT roster would do as well. I could be way wrong, but I've never viewed Adam Cole or Matt Riddle as being "indie draws" the way Balor and Owens were. I know the last time NXT was here, Ricochet and Gargano (Cleveland's own) were heavily featured in the print ads, but even Ricochet seems like a step down from years past when you might see someone like Nakamura.

He's obviously correct, but... Heyman is kind of known for using "fresh" talent and reinvigorating old ones. Even during that initial ECW revival, it wasn't like he was pushing The Sandman as the champion. He revitalized Big Show, was attempting to revitalize Test and Hardcore Holly, and was clearly building up CM Punk and at least attempting to get Kevin Thorne and Mike Knox over. Plus, on RAW currently, most of the main eventers are under the age of 35. Rollins, Reigns, Corbin, McIntyre...they're not exactly "the old guard." As for Bischoff, Tyler Breeze's point rings truer. Bischoff is kind of infamous for not knowing when or how to elevate the young talent he had. Plus, the TNA stint was kind of also infamous for regurgitating old storylines (see "The Band"). But, at the same time, Bischoff's handling of the cruiserweight division and foreign talent in 95'-96' was way better than ANYTHING the WWE has ever done in that department. I mean, has the WWE successfully built a cruiserweight from the ground-up that got over as much as even Billy Kidman did? They've spent the last 20 years trying to find The Next Rey Mysterio and they haven't even figured out how to get a masked wrestler as over as La Parka was in 97'.

Kudos to the WWE. I was thinking last night that, even though its bad publicity, Seth Rollins' Twitter tirade did take some attention from AEW, which has really been on top of the wrestling news cycle for the past few months. Again, I don't think Rollins helped his cause very much, but it at least had people talking online about the WWE, which nobody was doing in May or June (aside from other negative attention from the Saudi deal). So...y'know...at least it was something? This news story, however, is actually a definite positive and win for the WWE brand. Heyman is overwhelmingly (rightly or wrongly) beloved by wrestling fans - for ECW, for SmackDown, as an on-screen character. Bischoff is a little bit of a different story, but I do think that, compared to say Vince Russo, he's got some goodwill built-up. Its a mix of "Distance Makes The Hard Grow Fonder," nostalgia for WCW, and him being humanized a bit from 83 Weeks and other interviews/twitter. So - kudos to the WWE for, at the very least, getting a major news story out that isn't negative. Also, I too am fascinated as to what this means for Triple H and how it makes him feel. Ditto for Kevin Dunn, who I can see being hesitant to change up the production style while Heyman and Bischoff will likely want to inject their shows with noticeable changes (especially Bischoff, who, for better or worse, does seem to subscribe to the philosophy of differentiating his show from what the other show is doing).

Finished the show today, some thoughts... - Bayley/Alexa was my MOTN and I'm not sure it was all that close. It wasn't that the match was all that special, but it got the "little things" right from beginning to end. Great seeing Alexa back in the ring being "herself," cocky, arrogant, clever. Really liked the spot where she got a full head of steam and then just stopped short and slapped the taste out of Bayley's mouth. Liked the two sunset-flip powerbomb spots (Bayley tooks her on the floor and that's insane to me). Liked the intriguing developments involving Nikki Cross too. Good build to the match too with a clear, understandable story explained in the pre-match vignette. - Ricochet/Joe started a bit too slow for me but was good. - I liked the Bryan & Rowan/Heavy Machinery match for what it was but much of that credit has to go to the audience, who was more engaged in this match than any other. The match itself was fine, though maybe a bit long, and I don't know, I just tend to like matches where the faces get cheered and the heels get booed. Or, if that's not happening, the workers involved do something interesting about the unexpected dynamic. In this case, Otis and Tucker just did their usual stuff and some of it is borderline awful (The Caterpillar is maybe the most unfunny, lame, "please find me funny" shit ever). Their Bushwhacker-inspired entrance also reeks of somebody saying "You'll be like the new Bushwhackers!" and then some other agent going, "Yeah, and do the dumb march too!" At least Enzo & Cass freshened up the NAO shtick with their own catchphrases. What are Heavy Machinery doing that's new? A slower version of the Worm? I still like Otis, but man, whoever is "coaching" him is an absolute idiot. Tucker? I don't know, seems about as interesting as wallpaper. - The main event was basically a worse version of the main event of SuperBrawl: Revenge, a WCW PPV I just reviewed on my blog a week or two ago. Only, at SuperBrawl, it was Ric Flair changing the rules so that Scott Steiner could cheat Kevin Nash out of the title. And guess what? Every part of the SuperBrawl: Revenge main event was better. It started way hotter. Flair's ridiculous rule-changes as the match were going on were much more entertaining. Steiner's offense was better than Corbin's. Nash's selling was better than Rollins'. Yeah, that match was dogshit except for the table spot. And MOST shocking to me is that the commentators blatantly and repeatedly talked about how the match was a disgrace to the Universal Championship. It was literally a Vince McMahon "trolling the audience" main event and, hey, I can understand why a promoter might do that once in a blue moon with a really hot heel act or to build towards a more rewarding win for the babyface later on. I can understand that. But that's not what this is. Stomping Grounds had trouble selling seats. The gate was horrible. So what does WWE decide to do??? RUN IT AGAIN at Extreme Rules in a Winner Takes All Tag Match with the same four characters that just absolutely stunk out the half-empty joint at Stomping Grounds. And the same can be said fro the Reigns/McIntyre feud. On commentary, after the match, Cole and Co. repeatedly noted how this was the end of the feud, that Reigns had single-handedly bested both Shane and McIntyre and he would be able to move on with his career. Only that's not what happened. The feud continued again. Even though the storyline reached a natural conclusion and it is obvious the audience is eager for some fresh match-ups. I'm not sure whats been worse "doubling down" this week: Seth Rollins doubling down on the WWE being "the best wrestling on the planet" or Vince McMahon doubling-down on Baron Corbin and Lacey Evans being worthy of main eventing PPVs?

Yeah, I've been on the anti-Seth bandwagon for awhile now (at least 3-4 years). In fact, most of the posters here - or at least the ones I tend to read and respect most - have been critical of Rollins for years now. The only thing I think that's ever really been debated is whether or not he's "over." I tend to think he stinks but does have a sizable fan base compared to others of the current era. Sadly, in today's world, he is technically "over" because he probably is in the top 5 merch sellers and most recognizable names of the current roster. Others think he's actually not really over at all. They might even point to the same merch sales and say, "How can you say he's over when Cena probably still outsells him in merch and hasn't been on the show for month? That Taker and DX probably outsell him in merch and are retired?" Its kind of the same debate that people had/have about Triple H for years. Is he a top guy himself or is he a guy who worked with the top guys? How much is it propaganda? How over was he really? If the company tells you a guy is a "top guy" for 5+ years straight, its true. Rollins kind of falls into that category in a way that, say, Daniel Bryan wouldn't. Organic vs. Manufactured. But again, Rollins fans might say that Rollins did get over organically, that he earned his spot. As far as dating Becky goes, I'm sure there are some fans who are jealous or bothered or whatever - but the anti-Seth sentiment has been there for a long time. It didn't help that the McMahons came out on TV and made an angle out of the show sucking when Seth Rollins was the top guy for that entire time. Baron Corbin wasn't wrestling himself for 3 months in the fall of 2018. Rollins and Ziggler got booed during their Ironman Match. The Ambrose/Rollins feud got shit on everywhere by everyone. Then Rollins had to open up his mouth about the WWE being better than NJPW, insinuate that Dean Ambrose is a whiny baby, and troll every wrestling fan with an internet connection by claiming to be the best wrestler on the planet. If this is all part of a double heel turn for he and Becky, it would actually be kind of brilliant...but I think he actually believes that being a suck-up, being a corporate shill, and ending his tweets with #TeamWWE is going to endear him to people. Like how Steve Austin's popularity shot through the roof when he became Corporate Champion in 98'.

In like 2015 or 2016 (I think), one of Austin's recurring talking points was that he didn't think Seth Rollins had done enough to establish his character. He said, more than once, something along the lines of, "He's 'The Architect.' Okay...what does that mean?" And its not like Austin doesn't think the guy is talented as he also praised his triangle match with Cena and Lesnar as the best triple threat match he'd ever seen. I think his "What is a Seth Rollins?" question remains unanswered in 2019. So, Seth Rollins doesn't seem to take criticism from fans in stride, seemingly doesn't like criticism from his friends (Ambrose), doesn't seem to have much respect for his peers in the "indies" world (Ospreay), and doesn't like criticism from established, highly-regarded writers (Wade Keller)...I'm just curious what level of superstar he actually would take constructive criticism from. Like, does it need to be an Austin-level guy for him to get a clue or could Nash explain to him why he's not over? Or would Nash not want to because Rollins is soon going to replace him as "Worst Top Guy" in WWE History from an attendance standpoint?

What's extra irritating/lame about these Rollins quotes and tweets is that he doesn't have to share any of these thoughts. I know that seems so obvious but with every additional tweet he is doubling down on this laughable idea that the WWE provides "the best wrestling on the planet" and that he himself is "the best wrestler alive." I can understand defending the company, but there's a much better way to do it than the statements he's ostensibly come up with himself. I don't think the "he took his ball and went home" line is even the most unlikable thing he said in this interview. I think him admitting to having "more leeway" than others is actually far worse because it implies that he's actually got the power to make things better and firmly believes that the current product, specifically his own storylines and matches, are as good as they possibly could be. He sucks so much I'm actually turning on Becky Lynch a bit too. Like, what do you see in this idiot?

I'm not sure what they could change, but to me, its not even about what they change tonight - its about what they change on Sunday. For example, I think it'd be a step in the right direction to somehow make the Universal Title match a 4-way: Rollins vs. Corbin vs. Reigns vs. McIntyre for the title. Nobody wants to see Corbin/Rollins and I don't think Reigns/McIntyre has much heat either. But making that match doesn't make things interesting in and of itself. What they'd need to then do is actually switch gears and, on Sunday, have something happen. Tease dissension between Rollins and Reigns (by having Reigns pin Corbin for the title), do a Brock cash-in, have Shane screw Rollins (when everyone thinks he's gonna screw Roman), just something. Giving Brock the briefcase was the first interesting thing to happen in the Universal Title scene since WrestleMania - and even that story is only really "title adjacent" because, until Brock cashes in, he's really just on the periphery. Meanwhile, Baron Corbin is the top contender. Even in the heatless, completely dead WWE there are clearly guys who are at least somewhat over (Rollins and Reigns, for example). Have the guys who are somewhat over feud with each other and you at least have a feud that is somewhat over. But feuding Reigns with McIntyre? Rollins and Corbin? The audience knows this shit is a holding pattern and its not even a holding pattern that offers decent wrestling.

I'm curious what the WWE relationship is with Cena right now. It just seems very murky. No big retirement angle, but he also appeared at Mania...but in a comedy sketch with Elias. Then you also add in the fact that he wasn't heavily featured at last year's Mania either. But he did do one Saudi show. But now he's not doing any Saudi shows. And on the interview circuit, from what I've seen, he's been wishy-washy about whether he's going to wrestle again. It just seems like when the ratings went to shit last fall and with Roman out, Cena would've been Vince's first call. The ratings are still down and house show attendance is sagging too...but still no Cena appearances? Just all seems very murky to me. I know the WWE doesn't regularly promote guys that are no longer on the active roster, but then again, they always keep Undertaker and DX/Triple H in their marketing. Cena felt like a guy they would never truly stop promoting, but I haven't heard his name uttered in what feels like at least a year (aside from the surprise Mania appearance).

Yeah - I will watch the random episode of 205 Live maybe twice a year, but I don't "get" the need for it no matter how great it is as its own stand-alone thing. I really liked Jack Gallagher when he was on the main roster and his offense was bad-ass enough for me to accept him as a threat to just about anyone. No different than Balor or Mysterio in that regard. Ali moved up from 205 and doesn't stick out as "too small" at all. According to wikipedia, Almas is 210 and 5'9. The Universal Champion is 6'1', 217 pounds. The WWE Champion is 6'0 and 212. This ain't boxing. Weight divisions when your main eventers are only 10 pounds heavier than the guys in your cruiserweight division makes no sense to me. As someone who does not watch it regularly, 205 Live looks like a hamster wheel/holding cell from the outside. I'll admit I'm ignorant about all the minutiae and details of the brand, but is it not that? Is it not just its own insular little world of "small guys" putting on good matches for good matches' sake in 3/4ths-empty arenas?* * I'd call them "half-empty" arenas, but that's the attendance for the main roster shows these days.

Not sure which thing above is more ridiculous. 1) People who want Undertaker to "retire in peace" like the WWE has a gun to his head and he has to perform. I don't know Taker's contract situation, but if Daniel Bryan can say, "I'm not going," the Undertaker can say I'm not going. 2) Mansoor defended his anti-Semitic goofing as something he did when he was a "dumb college kid." Like Lars Sullivan's bigoted rants, I can understand that people make mistakes and deserve forgiveness/second chances. People can change. I still think having these abhorrent views means that if you do lose your "dream job," that's completely fair. You are/were a bigot, you let your hatred show, now you don't get to wear spandex and pretend to fight for a living. Go do something else. I guess what I'm saying is - fuck Mansoor and fuck Sullivan. If they've changed their views, that's great - I still can't find myself ever cheering for them or appreciating their "work." Not different than the Harris Twins.

Goldberg hit two spears immediately, but couldn't get the pinfall. Undertaker did a sit-up which almost counts for a "high spot" for him nowadays. A few minutes later, Goldberg ran into the post and got busted open - supposedly hardway. Also, on Twitter, Goldberg said he was knocked out for a second. Taker hits a decent chokeslam and a decent Tombstone - but Goldberg kicks out. There's a collision that brings them both to the mat, but Undertaker maintains control soon after and delivers a Snake Eyes - only for Goldberg to counter with a third spear! Goldberg attempts a Jackhammer, but ends up having to settle for a Brainbuster. Taker kicks out, but is very slow getting to his feet. Goldberg tries to get Taker up in a powerslam but he can't and they both go to the mat. Taker then delivers an awful-looking chokeslam. After the match Taker looks pissed as Goldberg gets helped by a trainer I did not like this match and I'm someone who liked Goldberg's last run against Lesnar (and Owens). I'm also probably a bigger fan of Taker than many here and feel like, for a long time, his "aura" really was enough to carry a bad match into something interesting or "important." This match, though, didn't have any "big fight feel" and I didn't get any sense of a story being told. It started off interestingly with Goldberg trying to "shock and awe" his way to victory, but from there, it was just bomb-throwing with a couple random moves thrown in. There was no escalation - it felt like Undertaker went to the Tombstone as his fourth or fifth move when, back in the day, he would progress there with some other signature moves (the Flying Clothesline, the Old School, even the Triangle Choke). There's an audience for matches like this - as the review above shows - but I'm not it.

I'm not going to defend Kofi's statement as that would be ridiculous but, since he's become champion, I can imagine every "old school" agent/producer/Vince McMahon asskisser has been in his ear about how, now that he's the champ, he needs to "represent the company" and all that BS. I think he fully knows about the human rights violations - how could he not considering the bad press the WWE gets for even during these shows? - but he's given verbiage and his job is to speak it. Just like his promos on SmackDown. And, yes, to whoever said it above - you can and should blast Goldberg, Taker, and Shawn Michaels for working these shows. I can't hide the schadenfreude I feel towards Shawn Michaels fans/apologists who somehow believe that being Born Again means that he's not a greedy scumbag. Did the drugs make him an even bigger scumbag in the 90s? Sure...but it was there all along and him coming out of retirement to do a Saudi show proves where his heart lies. At least in Taker's case and especially in Goldberg's case, they've been open about the fact that they'll do anything and promote anything at the right price, that wrestling is a business. Michaels has put himself out there as a man of faith.

I thought that was all kayfabe - like all the bogus Twitter drama and "wrestling is fake - but I'm not!" stuff they did during the build to Mania. She was just playing the character of the former Champion who lost the title in screwy fashion (the finish to the Mania main event). Even the comment about her broken hand was "on brand" for her. Plus, based on her most recent tweets about the 24 Special, she's thankful and appreciative of her WWE run. I think her desire to start a family is legit, so I'm not expecting her back any time soon...but I definitely don't think we've seen her last match. At 32, she's got years ahead of her in pro-wrestling and Vince and Co. will always regard her as a bigger star than anyone on their own roster. I'm not sure we'll ever see her as consistently on TV and house shows, etc. like we did in 2018-19, but I wouldn't be surprised to see her make an appearance (at the very least) at WrestleMania 36.

- I don't think there's been a bad Takeover, but part of that is that the shows, compared to the main roster's, are considerably shorter and only happen every 3 months. Injuries have also stalled more than a handful of storylines. Calling any of them a "one match show" feels a bit hyper-critical...but, again, that's compared to the average main roster PPV that sometimes feature a total sum of 0 good matches. - I don't think NXT needed the North American Title. Its a "midcard title" for a brand that, at any given time, really shouldn't have a genuine midcard. Its a minor league. Take Velveteen Dream, for example. Why is this guy fighting for a midcard title when (a) he's been over enough to challenge for the NXT Title (a minor league championship) and (b) his best feuds/matches have really been about the clash of personalities anyway. If you've got wrestlers trying to win the second tier championship in a minor league, you've run out of storyline ideas for characters that should be, by definition, being developed with characters that shouldn't need titles to give them value/meaning. All the singles in NXT's midcard should be fighting to climb the ranks to be the NXT Champion - that's it. Its not like on the main roster where you have 30+ guys and 1 Championship isn't enough. Its NXT and they really only have what? 7-8 guys at any given time that are getting prominent exposure? 1 title is/was plenty. For another example - Ricochet. Did he need to win a title? If the answer is "Yes," they should've made the NA Title Ladder Match into a Number One Contender's Match and let him win that. Then he could've challenged Ciampa (or whoever was champ at the time). They created the title to seemingly give him and Cole something to do, but did the title add anything to that feud? If you want to "strap the rocket" on someone in NXT - a developmental minor league - just strap the rocket and put them on top of the show like they did with Owens, Nak, etc. The "rocket" doesn't go all that high. Its not like the NXT brand is depended on to bring in huge revenues or needs stability at the top. Its a developmental minor league that is fun to watch, period.

Just saw that 98k people purchased the show - that includes international, online, etc. based on the news story (which was pulled and maybe altered from the Observer). Any way you slice it, that is a very respectable showing for the first show. I thought 50k would be impressive, so 98k is tremendous and, if they can sustain it for another couple shows, real proof of concept. AEW is batting a thousand right now in my eyes and I haven't even seen all of DoN so I'm not even talking the wrestling-side. They're crushing it at getting buzz/positive PR on social media (Ocasio-Cortez!), on reddit (inclusivity for people with sensory disorders!), in the podcast world (Moxley torching WWE Creative), and in getting a TV deal (bringing 'rasslin' back to TNT!).

I too suspect that the "line" was going to be something like Dean Ambrose claiming to be dealing with "the real serious medical threat of being around all the infected scum in Chattanooga while Roman Reigns is pretending to have cancer in Miami." While I think he's going overboard saying that the WWE would lose sponsors - that's kind of a toss-up as some stuff gets traction in the news cycle (Moolah) while some stuff is just ignored (pretty much ever depiction of a minority character from the 80s through 2005?) - the IWC would certainly be in an uproar. And, of course, Vince and Koskey would probably relish in it as being "good heat." Another facet of the Moxley interview I love: the outing of Koskey as Chief Yes Man. Like how the Punk podcast outed Dr. Amann as, at best, being just complicit in the company's mishandling of performer's injuries, Ed Koskey has now become a name that we can attach to RAW's terribleness. Based on what Moxley said, Koskey seems to be there for all of the major creative meetings (which makes sense as he's RAW's head writer), but it seems like the extent of his input is to laugh at Vince's jokes and help him procure more props for his "comedy sketches."

Renee was definitely put in the booth as part of the Women's Revolution deal. And I'd theorize that her initial contract may have also been coming up and there was interest from networks and sports channels. As a backstage interviewer, she was clearly a natural and she's obviously a beautiful woman to boot - if ESPN hired Jonathan friggin' Coachman, I'm guessing ESPN and Fox Sports had their eyes on her too (probably even back when she was working in Canada). As I said, I could be way off but I could see the WWE possibly re-signing her to more a lucrative deal after her first expired and then, as the pay's gone up, thinking, "Hey, if we're going to get the most out of our investment, she should be on TV more." What non-wrestler role is on TV the most? Commentator! We'll make her a commentator...even if that's not what we hired her to do or what she excels at. There's also the added thought that, based on what her husband said, the overproduction and micromanaging of every aspect of the show includes the commentary and because she is being overproduced, her commentary suffers as she can't use her natural instincts to actually do the job correctly. I mean, don't we already know that to be somewhat true with Booker T? Or do we all actually believe that if the real-life Booker T was sitting on your couch, watching a match with you, he would be the same annoying dweeb with the inane (and stolen) catchphrases that we hear in the WWE? I tend to think that Booker T has more insights than "shucky ducky quack quack" and sometimes get the sneaking feeling that Vince McMahon might just have a documented penchant for minstrelsy. Or not? Maybe I'm wrong and Renee, Booker, Graves, Jerry Lawler after 95', and Mick Foley are all just really, really bad at their job.

I'm only 25 minutes in and this is already a "must listen." Obviously, the ads every 10 minutes are annoying, but they're only 90-120 seconds or so. I'd put this right up there with the CM Punk podcast and Austin's best episodes. On NPR they call them "driveway moments" when the story is so good that even when you reach your destination, you want to stay in your car and keep listening. That was exactly what happened to me when I got to work. I'll also admit that I was wrong the countless times I theorized that Moxley's unhappiness had less to do with Creative and more to do just being burnt out on life as a WWE wrestler (the injuries, the travel, even the wrestling itself). I believed he had far more creative lee-way than what seems to be the case and that many of the bad ideas he talks about originated from him. Which is why I kinda soured on him - because I thought, "Wow, this guy's idea of what's good is terrible." Its nice to hear that he thought all the prop comedy over the years was stupid and only got worse as time went on. I also liked the part where he mentioned that there are plenty of guys backstage who speak up, but that its not so easy because (a) even meeting with Vince sounds like an hours long ordeal, (b) convincing him of your vision as opposed to his is not easy, and (c) the label of being a "complainer" may not mean you'll get fired, but its still not a good thing. I'm figuring things are going to get very interesting over the next couple years if AEW stays afloat. If I think of how the company's treated some of their "main eventers," it makes me wonder if we've haven't seen the last of Prince Devitt, Kevin Steen, and Bryan Danielson after all...

As others have said, considering the level of brand awareness/current lack of TV presence, even 50k would be a huge number. I can't verify their accuracy but the numbers I came across from TNA ranged from 10k-40k for their PPVs, with an average around 20k (?). Despite some bellyaching, the $50 price point does not seem to have hindered sales too much. In fact, the overall positive reception for the show makes it seem like this was well worth the price on PPV. I did not order the show and I have not seen the whole show (I am admittedly more of a "WWE-centric fan" and have limited knowledge/exposure to indie wrestling save for local shows) but based on what I did see and read about it, I'm more likely to buy the next one. If there are another 8-12k fans like me, who were "fence-sitters" this time around, AEW has the potential to do an even bigger number for their next show. From what I've read, I have not seen many fans say they regretted their purchase.

Or worst of the bunch? Or somewhere in the middle? If that list of ideas ever does leak or get reported, its possible that it actually has some good ideas on it that Vince refused for whatever reason - even out of just spite or stubborness. I don't consider myself someone who blindly sees Vince or HHH or Stephanie or Shane as infallible creative geniuses - just as I don't think Kevin Sullivan, Eric Bischoff, Vince Russo, Paul Heyman batted 1.000 when they were in charge of different companies. They all had hits and misses. Right now, though, it does seem like the WWE is missing way, way more than hitting and this title is just not something I am interested in. As for people shitting on it and speaking great things about the Hardcore Titles of yesteryear - I don't know what to say about that. The 90's/00's Hardcore Titles of WWE and WCW were an unfunny joke that I disliked when I was a teenager and, on rewatches, its still a part of those PPVs and shows that I don't like. I don't know of really anyone who appreciated those titles back then outside Crash Holly's involvement and, in WCW's case, Norman Smiley's work (which was also comedy-based). Maybe I missed the critical reassessment of Brian Knobbs and Al Snow's Hardcore Title runs, but I thought we all agreed that shit was nothing special.