DMJ

Will post my full review over at Kwang The Blog tomorrow (hopefully). A few thoughts I didn't necessarily see mentioned or not mentioned enough... - Fun opener. Felt like "the best kind of house show match." It was light, a little silly, but everyone maximized their minutes. R-Truth and Alicia Fox are entertaining. Carmella has quietly earned recognition as "Most Improved" in 2018 (and maybe even 2017) from where she started. - Rollins/Ambrose felt like "the worst kind of house show match." My full scathing review will be at my blog, but this match had everything working against it - from loathsome commentary to even a bit of a "bait and switch" for the live crowd to the lackluster build to the layout of the match itself. What I'm referring to with the "bait and switch" is that when you spend a month of RAW promoting a match for a PPV entitled TLC and use the phrase "TLC" every time you promote a match that is built as the main draw of the show (at least on the RAW brand), fans are going to expect it to be a TLC Match...or at least something close to it. Also, Rollins wrestling 20-minute mini-epics on RAW every week when the rest of the card is woeful reruns containing the likes of Bobby Roode, Apollo Crews, and Baron Corbin, you're going to stand out as a "great wrestler." On a show with AJ, Bryan, Ronda, a healthy Rey Mysterio, and a motivated Randy Orton, you don't look quite as impressive. - Can we talk about how fun that Orton/Rey match was? It was resthold-free and wrestled like two guys that, backstage, said to each other, "We're two of the biggest stars of the past 20 years and they put us in the midcard, let's go show them how it's done." Orton, when motivated, which seems like maybe 3-4 times a year in a good year, can be really good and Rey is Rey. That Bronco Buster onto the chair on the outside of the ring was batshit crazy awesome. The audience was more engaged for this "throwaway" match with a third of the build than it was for Rollins/Ambrose. - They need to think about giving Graves a break on these shows, pulling him from a match or two for each brand. I like his commentary for the most part, but his work during the Rollins/Ambrose match was abysmal. I was actually shocked that the live crowd turned on it because I thought it was only fans watching at home that were being tortured. They should be lucky they didn't have to listen to 10+ minutes of Graves and Renee Young bickering back and forth while Cole tried (unsuccessfully) to get the match over.

I didn't see Rollins' initial tweet. How lame if he felt the need to stick up for Creative. I get it - the job is hard and these people are friends or co-workers who he feels empathy for and wants fans to have empathy too - but, and I hate to sound like I don't care, but I don't care. Defending Creative is only one step away from "If you don't like it, don't watch it." Personally, I don't watch RAW (and it boggles my mind that anyone does), but the 2 million fans still watching have every right to criticize even if they don't know the full story about why certain crap gets put on air and some ideas, that might be great, don't (the answer is VINCE). The recent Guy Evans book Nitro does a great job of showing how certain decisions were out of Bischoff and Russo's hands at certain points, that you can't just book a real wrestling show like Extreme Warfare 2000, that there are variables and factors that fans aren't privy to that make impacts. It is a much fairer assessment of the end of WCW than Death of WCW, but it also doesn't deny that bad creative was an issue and that Bischoff and Russo made errors that fall squarely on their shoulders. There's no reason to defend the writers (still headed by, if I'm not mistaken, Vince, Stephanie, Dunn, and a bunch of the same guys who've been in charge for over a decade) when we're talking about a scripted TV program. If you can't blame the writers (esp. Vince) and you can't blame the wrestlers and you can't blame the production crew or USA, then who should be criticized for what RAW has become?

Obviously cards are subject to change. But here in Cleveland, the radio advertisements for Fastlane (in March, I believe) are hyping the following matches: Styles/Bryan (WHC Title) Ambrose/Rollins (IC Title) Lynch/Charlotte (Women's Championship) No mention of Brock or Braun (let alone any returning guy like Taker, HHH, or The Rock). I'm thinking none of those matches are actually set in stone for Fastlane, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

Yeah, I also read that he fought A-Wall again the next night on Nitro, so whatever happened, he must have been medically cleared. Based on what I've gathered (which is pretty much nothing), it might be that he had a unscripted "false alarm" after the match - loss of breath, chest pain, etc. - that required him to need oxygen and EMTs at Mayhem, but did not actually suffer a heart attack or anything. It just feels like WCW, as many tasteless decisions as they made, wouldn't run this sort of angle so closely to the Paul Orndorff injury? Plus, I can't seem to find much about it online, which means, it probably wasn't mentioned again or used as storyline fodder (because, if it were, I think there'd be more hubbub about how tasteless it would be). EDIT: So, I kept watching Mayhem today and, lo and behold, as he's getting carted off to the back and General Rection is making his way down the aisle, Bigelow gets off the stretcher and sneak attacks him before his match against Lance Storm. It was all a swerve.

Quick question that I'm sure someone here can answer - I'm watching Mayhem 2000 and after the Bam Bam Bigelow/A-Wall match, Bigelow is taken out on a stretcher and the announcers treat it like a legit injury. I haven't finished watching the show so I"m not sure if they bring it up again or this is just a swerve for a future angle, but did Bigelow legitimately hurt himself? Suffer a heart attack? Concussion? He doesn't look great in this match, but again, its WCW in late 2000 and his opponent is A-Wall, so I wasn't expecting him to put on a clinic or anything.

I'm a huge homer for Gargano (being from Cleveland and having great memories of watching him wrestle since 2006), but I'm not super into the turn. I'm not sure if there's a word for it, but to me, its almost like, in the late 90s, I used to be in e-feds where people created characters, wrote text-based promos and "competed" with one or two people writing out the matches, etc., etc. all through email and message boards. When it started, you could essentially envision a character based on their name - my character was Owen Masters (son of the supposed legend Larry Masters), his finish was the Master-Plex, and, as the name and pedigree hinted, he was clearly meant to bring to mind Mr. Perfect and Owen Hart. There were guys like Mortal Kombat-inspired Johnny Star and the cocky Johnny "Hotbody" Michaels (in retrospect, there were always lots of Johnnys in these feds). I remember feuding with Hatashi (whose entrance theme was "Big Me" by Foo Fighters and was, you guessed it, a monster sumo whose promos were written in a style that would now be considered blatantly racist). Inevitably, though, the creator of one of these characters - purposefully developed to be one-dimensional so that you and your opponent could engage in a war of words that could be understood and purportedly enjoyed by others - would listen to one too many Smashing Pumpkins songs and decide to have their character "go dark." Guys originally created to be a hybrid of Hulk Hogan and Austin like "The Rebel" Jack Eastwood would now deliver "promos" full of (literal!) bad high school poetry in dark gray, gothic fonts atop black backgrounds. Imagine if, in WCW, not just Sting turned into the Crow, but Luger did also, and so did both Steiners, and because why not, so did Public Enemy and Rey Mysterio Jr. This was the e-fed world in 97'-98'. And that's kind of how Johnny Gargano looks to me right now. Like, yes, Gargano failing to beat Ciampa and being driven to this dark, moody "emo" character makes total sense and I can see exactly what he's going for with it - but that doesn't mean its good (and its certainly not original). It feels like something a 15-year old would "fantasy book" because of how "cool" it theoretically is for a hero, like a John Cena, to become an anti-hero. But what they're forgetting is that, like in an e-fed, a good character in wrestling shouldn't need to be constantly refreshed if there is progression in their opponents, reasons for various feuds, different short-term and long-term goals he can strive for. The Ciampa/Gargano feud needed to end or be suspended for a little while, no doubt, but who the hell thought turning the best babyface on the brand into a generic, pouting heel was clever? Its not even that Gargano's turn feels forced - its that its not remotely interesting and has actually only served to make him feel lesser than he was as the underdog who couldn't win the title. Now, I'm not sure where exactly that underdog babyface character could've gone, but I think, if it were my job, I'd be able to come up with some pitches. I could go on and on with how much I dislike the turn, but I'll stop here.

Yea, hate to piggy back, but wasn't there a stretch where SD was getting higher ratings than RAW in 02'? A cursory google search also reveals that SmackDown 1000 outperformed the RAW from that week and in the last week of 2016. That being said, this week's very cold RAW did no favors to SmackDown, which did a miserable rating too.

And it wasn't just Houston that didn't turn up last night. RAW posted its worst ever rating (an average of 2.29 across 3 hours) ratings this week. I'm not sure if Vince is in panic mode or not. We'll find out on Monday if we get some sort of "shake up." I wouldn't be surprised to see Vince himself on the show or maybe Shane. Maybe they bring back Owens or Strowman early (not to wrestle, but just to appear and lend some spark). Is Wyatt still around? What brand is he even on? Cena's due to come back soon, right? To promote Bumblebee?

Yeah, the images that are going around (just google "RAW Houston Attendance") are reminiscent of some of those really sparsely attended SD shows from years back. They should absolutely be worried. By my estimate, its look like they had maybe 6k-7k people in an arena that can hold 18k. While Vince and Co. may have been able to turn a blind eye to those because SD has always been the "B-show," is taped, and doesn't have the brand power of RAW, this show's failure to sell tickets is (at least) "half inexcusable" - which is to say that when you build your whole late summer/fall programming of your show around guys you knew wouldn't be around in November/December (namely DX, Undertaker, and Lesnar), you're running a big risk for when those guys aren't around. Then, when unforeseen instances take away your next biggest names (Roman Reigns and Braun Strowman), you're left with big gaps on top. As has been said countless times, the entirety of the brand is what seems to be driving the ticket sales more than one specific act (hasn't it been confirmed that Lesnar's advertised presence doesn't generate that much of a boost compared to non-Lesnar shows?), so it can't be interpolated that RAW attendance has do with any failure on the part of Rousey or Rollins or any other specific talent. What I think it does show is that these bigger names (Rousey, Rollins, Ambrose) are not big enough on their own to entice people to RAW and the rest of the roster - even acts I personally love - have been made to be such "small potatoes" that the sum of the parts are worthless. Considering that Banks, Bayley, Balor, AOP, and The Revival were, at different times, key parts of NXT shows that had no problem filling 2-3k auditoriums without a TV show or anything more than print/radio advertisements, this just goes to show how poorly the Creative team has done in making any of these acts worth watching/supporting. And the fact that this was in Houston matters too. The greater Houston population is something like 6.5 million people. I live in Cleveland, where the area population is closer to 2 million people. We both have indoor arenas that seat 18k. That tells me that filling an 18k seat arena in Houston in December shouldn't be that tough if you've got 3 times the population.

Last week I derailed the thread into a discussion about Lars Sullivan and I regret it. So, my repentance will be to try to stick to talking about just the TV product. Let's play a game where we list why the Seth Rollins/Dean Ambrose feud is a flop. I'll start. Seth Rollins, for as much as I don't "get" his appeal, is clearly above being the IC Champion and feuding with guys he's already feuding with - Ambrose and Ziggler - so, its kinda like, the definition of a filler feud or a "wait and see" regarding his chances as a potential WrestleMania main eventer against Brock. I know there's at least a half dozen other reasons, anyone else want to chime in?

I only watch WWE/NXT (and old stuff) and will post my annual Top 10 Network Matches in December, but I did want to jump in and ask: "PWO ain't got no love for Daniel Bryan vs. The Miz at SummerSlam 2018?" I don't know. I really, really liked that match. Its not my number one MOTY, but I think it stood out most because it wasn't a borderline spotfest, false finish-loaded "epic" but rather an excellent match between two strong characters with plenty of history. Will definitely make my Top 10.

So glad I purchased Nitro a few weeks back. It is, as others have said, a fantastic read. Strongly recommended.

Looks like we may have (hopefully) seen the last of Lars Sullivan for awhile. http://www.ringsidenews.com/2018/11/22/lars-sullivan-caught-using-racist-joke-message-board-battle/ http://www.ringsidenews.com/2018/11/23/lars-sullivan-discovered-making-derogatory-comments-stephanie-mcmahon/ http://www.ringsidenews.com/2018/11/23/lars-sullivan-claims-got-ronda-rousey/ I can't find the link but someone on reddit also posted a lengthy rant about immigration and Democrats "bribing minorities" with "free stuff." Good riddance to this racist meathead. I wouldn't be surprised if they keep him signed for a little bit, maybe even have him come out on Twitter and apologize for saying what he did when we he was younger, but as others have pointed out, dumbasses do dumbass shit and, at plus-300 pounds and over 6 feet tall, this guy is literally one of the biggest dumbasses on Earth. So, yeah, even if this is just "the first strike," I'm guessing this guy's the Randy Johnson of saying stupid things that could get him fired and will be future-endeavored in the, um, near future.

Like most things with the WWE, I think, for me, it comes to limiting viewing. I only really watch the Takeovers, the occasional NXT episode, and the PPVs. I also watch a lot of it while doing cardio on an arc-trainer/eliptical (sorry, the humbebrag is non-intentional). Because I watch shows while exercising or when I get a spare 30 minutes at lunch or other times, I end up watching shows in chunks and rarely in their entirety. It makes enjoying them much easier and limits how annoyed I get with things that I would probably despise if I watched these shows in one setting - from the non-stop advertisements to the corny commentary. I don't think Mauro is a great commentator, but when you only hear him once every 2-3 months, its not so grating and the enthusiasm works. I also think distance and time help. I used to think Schiavone sucked - but when I rewatch the WCW stuff from the early 90s, I think he's pretty solid.

I had this thought before Survivor Series too. Its a ridiculous irony. When the fans clamored for him to be the top face, they attempted to cut his legs out after SummerSlam 2013 until they just went with it at WrestleMania 30. He gets injured, blah blah blah. He comes back and they put Reigns over him in the build to WrestleMania 31 and then is gone again. That run was so minor its easy to forget and, in hindsight, they made the right call with Reigns getting the nod as Bryan would be out again soon after. He comes back years later and, thanks to time and the usual change-over of fans, he's over again but not that over. You could point to booking or whatever, but the truth is, he wasn't at that 2013/2014 level. Not a knock against him. His SummerSlam match might be MOTY. I love the guy. But facts is facts. Very few guys ever get to the level Bryan was at 5 years ago and its no slight against him to say he didn't reach that peak of popularity again in 2018. And, somewhere, somebody in the WWE offices was probably relieved by that. The Daniel Bryan thing had cooled down. No more hijacked shows. No more Twitter campaigns. The boat was not being rocked by fans demanding one thing and only one thing and booing anything else offered like they did in 2014. Thinking the saga was over and in a bit of a bind, they decide, "Hey, let's just turn him heel. It will generate interest, it will give us a fresh match for Survivor Series, who cares?" Only they forgot something. Daniel Bryan got mega-over as a heel. Daniel Bryan is ridiculously captivating. So, if the plan was to treat Daniel Bryan like any other upper midcarder - like, say, Owens or Nakamura or even Orton at this point - and just move him up and down the card, they might run into a problem. Because whether they continue to book Bryan as a heel (and I don't see how they can't) or they somehow spin him back into a babyface role (which I don't see happening soon), the audience is going to find him again and they're gonna love him. Part of me almost hopes they have AJ Styles squash him with a Brogue Kick at WrestleMania this year.

A few quick thoughts (as my full review will be up on my blog soon enough)... - Loved everything about Baszler/Sane except the last 60 seconds or so. Add 2-3 more minutes of action, better integrate the outside-the-ring shenanigans with the Horsewomen and Sane's allies, maybe tack on a slightly more clever finish, and I think it is the best match they've had and a Top 10 WWE MOTY contender. Sadly, it didn't quite get there the way it was. - The Gargano/Black storyline and match aren't clicking for me. I go into more detail in my blog, but the gist is that while it all makes storyline sense and follows understandable logic, this also means that its a predictable "going through the motions" storyline involving two guys that are ill-fitting in these roles. Black works best as a foil to more colorful, charismatic figures (his match against Dream remains his NXT watermark, for one example, but also paired against a chickenshit like Adam Cole, he was much more engaging). Here, you have Black doing the dark, brooding thing against Gargano, also doing a "dark" version of himself. I'm not even saying Gargano isn't a good heel, just that he was special as an underdog babyface. As a heel, its going to take some really great work for him to feel that special. This match wasn't it. - I don't think any match was worse than good (not including the opener, which was more of an angle). 3-out-of-5 matches were, to me, in that 3.5 star range. As I often point out, though, to me, the mark of a 4-star-or-more match is one that I think is worth rewatching or telling your friends about or is at least in the conversation of a Top 10 MOTY for that company. I don't think any match hit that level (though the women's bout had a chance too if they hadn't rushed that last fall). A 4-star match is "must see." I'm not sure if anything on this show was "must see." In summation, the word I'd use to describe this entire event was obligatory. This event felt like it occurred because the calendar dictated that it needed to occur, not because there were any intensely heated feuds that were going to peak at this event. As much as I liked Baszler/Sane, that rivalry probably peaked at Evolution. The Gargano/Black feud needed to be wrapped up, but again, it felt like the match was obligatory more than something people were actively anticipating. Ditto for the War Games. And, to make matters somewhat worse, I'm not sure they set up anything for the January Takeover (they do one before the Rumble, right?) show either when this card really needed some surprises or storyline development to set the table for a card with more variety on the horizon.

I'm going to pick two that I was there for because Defend Cleveland. (Both shows were held at the Gund Arena, now Quicken Loans) 03/2/98 - Build-up to WM14 with DX starting the show by talking down their respective opponents: Owen Hart and Steve Austin. Austin arrives to a huge pop, but there's some mindgames played as Kane and Bearer show up too. Austin comes out looking like the toughest guy on Earth, promising to take them all out and Mike Tyson for good measure. - Later in the show, Michaels and Tyson go nose-to-nose. The crowd is owed money because while they paid for the whole seat, they were only using the edges here. Masterful work out of Shawn on the mic as he tells everyone to clear the ring and practically begs Tyson to deck him - only for it all to be a swerve as Tyson has joined DX! In the arena, you could imagine what JR's call was because this was executed so well. - Hot main event angle that starts off with Shawn hitting a Sweet Chin Music on Austin on the stage. This leads to Bearer and Kane cutting a promo in the ring but getting interrupted by the return of the Undertaker. Tons of fire, lightning, crazy special effects for the closing segment and the crowd went (justifiably) insane for it. When nerds fantasy-book angles involving Taker and Sting, this is the type of hair-raising, ultra-campy horror movie production they are envisioning. When its done right, like it was at the end of this show, it makes for compelling TV. - Elsewhere on the show, Cornette is around to lead the lame nWa angle, the Marc Mero/Sable drama is showcased, and it is announced that Gennifer Flowers will be at WrestleMania. Kama and Steve Blackman wrestle and the crowd chants "boring." Not much substance to this show, but a perfectly fine snapshot of what the WWE was doing to combat Nitro in the weeks leading to WrestleMania. * Bonus - The Austin/Kane match did actually happen in the end in as the post-RAW dark match. I don't recall too much about it beyond Austin winning and probably drinking some beers in the ring. 06/29/98 - The previous night, Kane won the WWE Championship from Steve Austin in a First Blood Match so the show opens with Vince and Co. celebrating Kane's victory with the full red carpet on the mat. Austin arrives, though, and demands a rematch tonight! Great opening segment. At the end of the show, Austin wins back the title to a mega-pop. Elsewhere on the show, Undertaker and had a good in-ring segment too to explain his actions (and he also appears in the main event). - The Brawl for All Tournament begins on this show. It was a trainwreck. It was a shit show. It was also pretty novel for the WWE to attempt something like this. Bad as it was, if you were a fan in 98', you remember the Brawl for All. This being the debut of the concept makes it a historically important show (if you count WrestleCrap as relevant wrestling history). - Looking at a review of the rest of the show, there's some other elements that scream Attitude Era: Owen Hart and Ken Shamrock feuding, Val Venis getting involved with Kaientai, Edge in the rafters, Mick Foley's bump from the night before aired ad nauseum...

On the flip side - and only because I just read Becky's most recent Tweet - if there was a question how to stretch Becky's popularity to last till Mania, there's a built-in feud with Nia now that can help fill the gap (plus the Rumble win in January that should get her the title shot).

I'm not sure how you'd do it, but to me, you gotta find a way to either strip Lynch of the title tonight or have her taken out of the match for some other kayfabe reason - basically, go "full Austin" and have Shane and Steph agree that she "went too far" and that because she was the gang leader, she needs to be punished. I think the audience would generally be okay with the gaping plot hole of Shane punishing Lynch for the same thing that the male brand members have done before every Survivor Series show for years now because Lynch is that over. Then, at Survivor Series, she attacks Rousey again and it draws even more ire from the McMahons. The Reigns/McMahon feud and the subtle tension between Cena and the McMahons (Laurenaitis, really) never worked because the audience could see through them. But with Lynch, you've actually got a talent that the crowd loves, her talking points have been all about being "held down," and as good as Rousey is, I'm pretty sure the WWE knows that one day not too far in the future, there'll be a backlash to her in the WWE and she'll need to be turned (in a role she'll probably be even better at). Hard to say what will happen with Lynch come Mania. Echoes of the Bryan situation in the fall of 2013. You can job her to Rousey a hundred times, but if the support doesn't die down and she's still the most over character in the division in February, you'd have to insert her into the match.

Rousey's facial expressions aren't great, but I wouldn't say she looked "uncool" during that segment. In fact, when her music kicked on and she came to save the day, there was a portion of the crowd that popped huge for it (and it did further establish her as a bad-ass). Unfortunately, she has been positioned to be the babyface hero who runs down and cleans house the way Hogan or Austin or Taker or Sting or The Rock would've been in their primes except she's been a professional wrestler for less than a year. She actually kinda erred on the side of still selling her damaged arm when, really, most times, the babyface hero might sell it for a little as they come down the aisle but then immediately stop selling (so that they can deliver their offense as impactful as possible). I'm really hoping they don't drop the ball on Becky Lynch. She is as ready to be a household name as any wrestler of the past decade.

There are rare times when I'm so much of a fan of a wrestler that I want to buy their t-shirt and would actually wear it. I want to buy a Becky Lynch shirt. Unfortunately, aside from my Network subscription and one-in-every-3-or-4 years attendance of a PPV, I have qualms with giving this company any more money. I'm guessing sites like these - https://www.teepublic.com/t-shirt/1665191-becky-lynch or redbubble - are paying licensing to WWE, which means, Becky Lynch probably sees $0 for buying a shirt there, but it still feels less icky. Any thoughts?

I think Shane winning the Best in the World Tournament was tremendously stupid and felt like something only Vince Russo would think is good. That being said, I agree that Shane isn't the worst guy to have in 3-4 matches a year - especially with Shane in a heel role (which I've heard is the endgame - I haven't watched the weekly programming for so long I don't know). His batting average the past couple years, to me, has been higher than Taker's and HHH's. Very faint praise, but... I thought the Hell in a Cell with Owens was very good and helped me forget the awfulness of the Taker one (maybe my least favorite match of the decade). I thought the match with AJ and the tag with Bryan were slightly above-average (largely due to who else was in there). I thought the Survivor Series 2016 match was like one of those "kitchen sink" hot fudge sundaes - no substance, no vitamins, a total mess and you feel gross having enjoyed it...but you enjoyed it. And you won't want another one for a full year at least. At least that's what I thought of it and, again, Shane was just one participant out of 10 so its not like he's the sole reason that match worked for me.

The question was who would replace Reigns with and we got the answer at this show. At WrestleMania, they dealt a huge blow to any chance Reigns had of being a transcendent star by having him job to Lesnar and at this show, they did the same thing to Braun. The ceiling for him is now set after a woeful 2018. There was once a feeling he could be "the next Taker" or "the next Brock," a truly larger-than-life attraction with-or-without the belt that, if treated seriously, could make real money. Moving forward, though, now its just a question of just how identical his career will be to Big Show's. Not a knock against Show or his career, but Strowman could've been more. If WrestleMania XIV happened today, Shawn Michaels would've retained over Austin. If 2018 Vince switched places with 1987 Vince, Andre would've beat Hulk at WrestleMania III. I'm with the argument that 2018 has been the WWE's worst booked year. Even dull years like 95' could almost be excused just based on the thin roster. In 2018, there's just no excuse for what they put on TV. And the truth is, the root of these problems actually goes back years now as the company staunchly refused to listen to their fans and build up the stars the crowd was behind. They've had opportunities to bring guys up the ladder, but they staved it off and now, years later, those could-be superstars are too cold/stale/stagnant to feel like they could be main eventers (see E, Big).

Didn't watch. Won't watch. This show sounds terrible. If its not worse than any of the later WCW shows, its as bad from the sounds of it. Like, those later WCW shows were bad - but they had 3 Count and Mysterio and Juventud and Scott Steiner was entertaining and Mike Sanders was kinda cool sorta (I'm actually reviewing those WCW shows now on my blog and they are terrible, but there are moments of entertainment). But this show sounds like it would be worse because it would be longer than even the worst WCW PPV. Lesnar is champion again? Why? Shane McMahon won the World Cup? I don't care if this is all "build up to Survivor Series," this shit is ridic.

I believe he's referring to the last Saudi Arabia event here and I wanted to just point out how much I loathe the idea that just because John Cena or anyone who was on the last show (or, if you're a fan, watched the last show), that means you're not allowed to be opposed to the event now. There's nothing wrong with changing your opinion or stance on an issue over time or when new information is brought to light. Also, I'm not sure Dreamer even knows what point he's trying to make in this incoherent rant. Is he comparing the Saudi Arabian fans to Americans post-9/11? I'm not sure the metaphor works. Saudi Arabia wasn't attacked by a journalist who got beheaded. I get it - "the show must go on" after a tragedy. But this wasn't an act of terrorism against an entire country. This was a government-backed murder that the Saudis failed to cover-up. And, to be clear, no one is saying the common people of Saudi Arabia don't deserve entertainment or that all Saudi Arabians are monsters - but its been made abundantly clear that this show is about putting a smile on the face of the royal family. So, fuck off, Tommy Dreamer, for saying that this show is about putting smiles on people's faces when half the population isn't even allowed to attend. I know its a thin line, but that's why I think its different when artists perform in Israel, for example. Netanyahu isn't bringing Radiohead to Tel Aviv as a political PR move or because he was super into In Rainbows. Finally, Dreamer mentions how after 9/11 "all political turmoil was set aside." Its the same now. A vast majority of Americans and American politicians, on both sides of the aisle, believe the WWE going to Saudi Arabia is a bad idea.