DMJ

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.

I totally buy that Cena told WWE he didn't want to do it and applaud him for it. And they had to listen. He's maybe the only guy, save for Lesnar and Taker, that really can tell Vince to fuck off. Vince might be upset with John Cena not doing this show, but after he's finished having his feelings hurt, he's going to need John Cena. And, if the trend of bringing back stars from yesteryear continues, he's going to be calling Cena for the next decade. Vince doesn't have the credibility to say "You'll never work here again!" when you look at the number of guys he's rebuilt relationships with in the past.

Jimmy Redman - your positivity/optimism is appreciated, but I'm still kinda bummed about how this show was handled. I just can't shake the feeling that somewhere in Titan Tower someone is wringing their hands in anticipation for this show to flop just so they can play know-it-all and say, "See, nobody cares about women's wrestling! They couldn't even fill a 16,000 seat arena!" And it pisses me off because the WWE did little to nothing to make this show appealing to a wide enough audience to sell out that arena and make it a must-watch show and they could've. As you wrote, there are a ton of positives about this show and about this card. But I would've loved to see them actually stack the deck and give us the loaded card that many of us were fantasy booking months ago. I really believe that if they would've treated this like a WrestleMania - hell, like a SummerSlam - with feud-ending battles, guest stars in prominent spots (Maria Menounos, Cyndi Lauper, etc.), even a McMahon match (I know plenty are aghast at the suggestion, but if you're throwing every selling point you can on a show, there's room for a Steph match), this could've been the WWE Show of the Year. The fact is, while the MYC Finals and the NXT Title matches have a chance of stealing the show, to the mainstream audience of fans, these are unknowns. Meanwhile, Asuka, Nia Jax, and Carmella are getting minimal spotlight despite being the focal point of their respective brands for much of 2018. The way this card is booked is like if they decided to fill up the next WrestleMania card with 205 Live talent. Sure, the matches would be way better than anything Shane McMahon or Triple H or Randy Orton or the Hardys would do, but how many tickets would it sell? Which is to say that, critically, this show will probably be very good and I'm excited about it. But I wanted this show to be a blockbuster, to be a hugely profitable show that exceeded internal expectations and turned heads. When this show is over, we still won't know what the ceiling is for a loaded women's wrestling supercard because this isn't that and it has everything to do with the booking/marketing/planning and nothing to do with the talent.

So Lesnar/Strowman is set as a singles match for the vacant title. I'm curious where they go with this. On one hand, Strowman winning the title at this show - even with it being mired in bad publicity - is still the kind of thing the WWE's A/V department can make seem like a glorious, beloved moment, retroactively presenting it as a "culmination." In the present, it will feel lackluster and exactly like what it is - a guy getting the title at an international house show due to injury/illness that changed booking plans. (Even if Strowman was pencilled in to win that title, I'd have to see those plans to believe it.) Or they give the belt back to Brock. He seems locked in to fight for UFC as early as January (based on what I read online) and they just ran a months-long storyline about Lesnar keeping the belt hostage so it would be interesting how they handle those issues - especially considering that the natural guy to dethrone Lesnar would be Reigns. It seemed to me like the company was actively working to steer the title picture away from Lesnar (even with him involved at Crown Jewel, that felt like a special appearance) and I hope they do that. Of course, Vince has a boner for putting the title on Brock and that panic button is going to be hard not to press. I'd put the title on Strowman and then find a way rush Strowman/Ambrose with Ambrose winning the title. Ambrose should be able to thrive as RAW's top heel and has a built-in challenger in Rollins. I'm not sure how they get there, but to me, RAW needs a hot angle at the top, for the belt, and Ambrose/Rollins fits the bill. Plus, considering what they did with Rey after Eddie's death, the cynic in me believes that Reigns' illness could be that extra element that leads to Rollins getting the top babyface spot.

I can't imagine that the Ambrose heel turn was pencilled in for last night originally. The Reigns news is really sad and I'm hoping he's back sooner than later. They fucked his character/booking immensely over the years, but he had a great series of matches in 2017 and I liked the Braun feud for all its cartoonish violence. If his departure means they're moving Rollins up to being RAW's top babyface, I'm glad some people finally get their wish - but, personally, I'm not excited about the prospect. Vince, if you're reading this, please bring up Velveteen to RAW. He may not be ready to main event, but he's an "impact player" that can make a difference on the show instantly if you ask me. Was there any mention of Cena on the show? Any update on whether or not he and Bryan will be at Crown Jewel?

Yeah, and I was gonna make this an edit on my post (which was overlong to begin with but I've had a few Lagunitas Born Yesterday) - Its important to remember that Edge debuted in June 98', when WWE was still in competition with WCW. In hindsight, the competition was over, but at the time, WWE was still in "throw shit against the wall and see what sticks" mode. They were still running the NWA angle with the New Midnight Express and Dan Severn at King of the Ring 98'. Edge was a new guy, with a good look (arguably a rip-off of Raven), and they invested in him and, as sek69 said, he got progressively over in various angles/storylines. He wasn't a super worker, but geez, if you look at his career and think Seth Rollins has had a more entertaining WWE run than Edge did, I don't know where your argument begins.

Maybe this belongs in the microscope, but I'll post it here and it can be moved if it fits... I'm not an Edge fan (though, I'm also not super anti-Edge the way some here are), but I'd say that he did actually prove his value over time and that, while the company was behind him from the beginning, he was pushed the way Triple H should've been pushed more than as a guy that was pushed past his level of overness. As many people have said, Triple H was "a guy who worked with the guy who made money." Edge was the same...only they tried to push HHH as more than that and I don't think they ever did with Edge. Also, I know one knock against Edge has been that he's a guy that excelled in gimmick matches and I'd agree wholeheartedly that he was. But its also worth mentioning that during his run, gimmick matches were super common, especially on PPV. I mean, yeah, he's not Bobby Eaton, he was not a great mechanic - but he had the luck/happenstance to arrive and perform during a time when the style he was best at (big gimmick matches) were the bread n' butter of nearly every PPV. There were loads of guys like Randy Orton who existed at the same time and, in my opinion, under-performed in the same match types. So, yeah, Edge benefitted from having plenty of TLC in his matches, but if that made things "easier" for him to get over, why do I like his matches more than Orton's? More than Kane's? More than Del Rio's? More than Triple H's post-2000 or so? Even Angle (I guy I'm higher than on than many here) never really stole the show in a gimmick match the way Edge did in some of his gimmick matches, which I often found pretty entertaining even if the psychology was stupid. In summation, I'd take Cena/Edge in a TLC match over any Cena/Orton match. I liked the Edge/Taker feud more than any HHH/Taker match. If Edge-haters whole argument is that he was only good in "gimmick matches," that's fair, but how many pure technical masterpieces were/are happening these days? Gimmick matches are kind of the WWE's "thing" and have been for a long awhile.

I think your point is really valid, though I also think that many fans complaining about this show won't be watching. I'd love to see the numbers, but my thought is that the GRR show, the Australian show, and this show do worse than the typical PPV. These shows have been endless slogs featuring mostly recycled matches and while live crowds love seeing guys like HHH, Shawn Michaels, and Taker, I'm not convinced that they "move the needle" on The Network in 2018. I mean, when all was said and done, wasn't it somewhat confirmed that Brock Lesnar wasn't the long-term game-changer they thought he'd be? And Triple H is? I don't buy it. The sad part is that it doesn't matter if 0 Network subscribers watch this show. This show has already netted the WWE enough money that even if only 10% of subscribers view it in whole or even in part, its irrelevant.

Sadly/unfortunately, this is actually how they should've been doing it all along. Like how Beyonce and Mariah Carey performed for the Qaddafis. If you're going to perform for ruthless dictators around the globe for huge, huge paychecks, try your best to do it in relative secrecy. The WWE have unwisely treated these shows as WrestleMania-level spectacles and promoted the hell out of their deal with the Saudis when, if they' had not gone out of their way to make these shows a big deal and treated them like an MSG house show, for example, they wouldn't be in the position they're in now.

That would be very cool, but I, unfortunately, understand the bad position the company put the roster in and don't necessarily hold them super accountable. Refusing to do the show will piss of the boss(es), maybe cost them their livelihood, and while there used to be at least a modicum of hope that one could overcome the bosses' personal dislike by getting over with the live crowds in a grassroots fashion, those days are gone. On the list of people/groups one needs to be over with to keep their job, the general American audience isn't even in the top 5. That point's been made in multiple other threads here. That's why my anger is being directed towards Shawn Michaels and I would really like to see that anger gather steam among other fans too. Like the McMahons, at least with Kane we've known this dude was a "me first" Libertarian who doesn't necessarily see the problems (human rights violations) in certain Middle East countries as something the US should be entangled in. "If corporations, like the WWE, do business there, its their right and choice," he'd likely say. So, with Kane, we can call him a lot of things but not necessarily a hypocrite. Michaels, on the other hand, wrote a whole book about his faith and values, but is showing his true colors here. Fuck that dude.

As a kid, I hated Shawn Michaels so I was vehemently pro-Bret after Montreal. Even as late as 2010, I enjoyed (often drunkenly) trying to chant "You Screwed Bret" chants when I was at shows in Cleveland as most other fans - young and old - looked at me like I was an idiot (which I was). Though, by that point, most of the hate had really subsided and I just found it funny because Michaels had really become this lovable "young grandpa" figure in WWE canon. So, I know its schadenfreuden-esque, but part of me hopes that Shawn Michaels is the one that gets the most shit for being in Saudi Arabia. We've known the McMahons (and Triple H) have no scruples and only care about the bottom line and the brand. Michaels, though? He's ending his retirement for this. He signed a new contract for this. He made a choice that he would sooner wrestle in Saudi Arabia for, say, a million dollars than wrestle at a WrestleMania for a hundred thousand. So, yeah, I'm fully behind him getting met with "You Sold Out" or, if someone more clever than me can come up with something involving the words "blood money" or "Kashoggi," that'd be great too. What will be interesting is that as I wrote above, the McMahons care about two things - the bottom line and the brand (remember Steph saying "Philanthropy is the future of PR") - but here they have a Sophie's Choice decision to make. That Saudi money is BIG and the contract goes for 10 years, but their brand could take a major hit here and potentially in the future. And we haven't brought up the McMahons' longtime friend in chief.....

Here's what I wrote about Alicia Fox in 2016... "Alicia Fox's Scissors Kick continues to be one of my favorite moves in the WWE as, no matter how many times she delivers the thing, it almost always looks like her opponent is not expecting it and she's delivering it with utter recklessness - it is just beautiful in its sloppiness like a JBL clothesline." And in 2014... "I’ve been a big fan of Fox since her character took off a few weeks ago and I've always enjoyed her matches – not because she is a great worker, but largely because, especially in her first years, she was so sloppy it looked like she was legit hurting her opponents. This adds a level of danger to her matches that is rare in the divas division, kinda like when Vader would be potatoing dudes in early 90’s WCW. Fox has tightened up her in-ring skills since then, but she also just looks much more comfortable too, her natural charisma no longer hidden behind insecurity and botched scissor kicks." I think I was a bit harsh when I kept using the word "sloppiness," which I regret, but also, I'm not sure what other word one could use to describe why she is fun to watch. I mean, how else would one describe the Steiners or Nasties in the early 90s? Or the aforementioned JBL Clothesline? And unlike those dudes, who seemed to almost be malicious with their treatment of opponents (especially jobbers in the case of Steiners and ECW alumni in JBL's case), I don't think Fox's physicality comes from a bad place as much as someone (rightfully) instilled in her that "laying your shit in" isn't a bad thing. I could be way off too, but even for how vicious some of Fox's scissor kicks looked in the past, I'm not sure she's ever knocked anyone unconscious like Brie did a few weeks ago. So, yeah, Alicia Fox is a pretty underrated performer and I'm glad someone in the office recognized that before many of us came around to seeing it.