DMJ

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.

So, I don't follow UFC, but based on the little bit of news coming out of Saturday night, sounds like some real shit went down. Can someone clue me in what *really* happened? Like, why would the guy who won the fight then attack his opponent's coach? And then for his goons to come into the octagon and sucker punch McGregor too? Any chance this whole thing was a work? I'm just super curious because this seems like a pro-wrestling angle where the evil heel Russian defeated the babyface (only McGregor is not really what I'd call a babyface before this), but in order to build up to a rematch and make McGregor a sympathetic figure with a reason to get a rematch, they had to have the Russians and his crew attack a defenseless coach (a Jose Lothario in 96' figure?) and then have his henchmen prevent McGregor from making the save with a sneak attack. Is UFC about to have its for "unsanctioned" match or what?

I'm curious how all this will play out as RAW and SD ratings continue to decline and look like they'll be heading in the sub-2 million range by the end of 2018. Obviously, January-to-April is WrestleMania season and ratings tend to pick up then. What's interesting to me (and why I'm bumping this thread) are the following thoughts/questions: - The highly-advertised and politically controversial Last Man Standing returned to FOX last week and did a monster rating, the highest a FOX comedy has had in years with some 8 million viewers tuning in. When the show was originally cancelled from ABC, Tim Allen openly criticized ABC for sabotaging the show by moving its airtime and argued that Friday night is a "death slot," believing his show deserved a better night. I'm not sure how all this will play out in 2019. SmackDown seems locked-in for Friday nights based on the press releases and Last Man Standing (if the ratings hold) should be shuffled around to anchor another night...but its a little bit of a gamble. If Last Man Standing ends up average 5-6 million viewers on Fridays this year, but falls to the 3-4 range on a Wednesday, that's a problem (and one Tim Allen may be particularly vocal about). SmackDown is lucky to get 2.25 million viewers every week. On a cutthroat network like Fox, how will this all shake-out? - And, also, how long will a sub-2.5 million viewership SD last on Fox? Right now, it seems that Fox is going to put all their promotional force behind the show and that is LOTS of promotion...but what if that doesn't give it the nudge to that 3-4 million range that Fox is likely expecting/hoping? Would that mean a move to FS1? If it does transition on Fox Sports, it will undoubtedly be the highest rated regular program on that network, but like their years on SyFy and UPN/CW, it doesn't exactly come with the prestige of being on FOX.

Oh, I'd wholeheartedly agree that the crowd's booing was all about Elias' Sonics comment and nothing else. I just also, personally, liked Owens' lines/delivery about them being "great guys" (though I think that nonchalant dickish comments like that are better served by pre-taped, edited videos rather than in front of the live crowd).

I don't watch the show, so I didn't see it live - here's the link for anyone else who missed it: I thought people were exaggerating when they talked about this segment getting "nuclear heat," but, really, I'm not sure the WWE has intentionally (or even unintentionally) got a negative response that went this long and got this loud in years. I also gotta say, as tired as I am of Kevin Owens in the ring, I still think he can be money on the mic. (Bonus point for Renee Young's Detlef Shrempf reference!)

Watch this become the storyline for an episode of Total Bellas/Total Divas next season.

I'm interested in Nitro and will probably buy it (or try to get it through the library), but am curious how it compares to Death of WCW. My fear is that I'm going to read 500+ pages of information that I've already read and reread and reread through Death of WCW. Does it offer new insights? New sources of info? A different take on what went wrong and right?

Just finished viewing... - Thought Hardy/Orton was a fun opener. I'm usually very bored by these two, so with the stipulation, lots of chair shots, that crazy screwdriver thing, it made for a match that wasn't a classic or anything, but at least entertaining. Its the kind of match I think a casual fan would enjoy and not be bored by and I kinda dig that more than the spot-heavy, super athletic matches we get on RAW from guys like Rollins and Balor every week. - Thought Joe/AJ was strong and hard-hitting. Someone mentioned that AJ is "past his prime" somewhere in this thread and I just don't see it. To me, his execution is still remarkable, his bumping is great, his offense looks punishing. I'm not knowledgeable about wrestling outside of WWE so I know he's probably not a Top 10 worker in the world, but if the WWE is "fast food" wrestling, AJ Styles is the fucking In-n-Out Double-Double (or whatever you think the best fast food burger is). I also don't mind that Joe's "lost a step." In the WWE, it actually means his matches aren't just thrown together go-go-go and guess what else? He still hits hard as fuck, looks menacing, and even when he's cutting corny promos, has a great sneer (I'm also not as down on the children's story stuff, though its obviously not all-time great work from the writing team). The problem with this match was the last 3 seconds. Just a bizarre way to go for a feud like this and I don't think the babyface should be tapping out and retaining the title on a "the ref didn't see it" technicality. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Joe and AJ laid their shit in extra tough and worked extra hard (at least to my eyes) because they knew the finish wasn't strong. - What else can be said about Lynch/Charlotte? Yet another case of WWE having an act that is immensely popular, on the verge of selling a ton of merch (the right design and I'm buying), and super dependable in the ring and yet they just don't want to steer into it. Even shutting down Charlotte for a post-match handshake made me (and the live crowd) like her more. It was the "Austin" thing to do. Maybe that's the long game they're playing? But, again, if so, you don't have to be so subtle anymore. Tell Lynch to keep being this same badass character, tell Flair to keep being her same character, and tell the announcers to acknowledge the audience shifting to Lynch's side. That's kinda all they did with Austin IIRC. Its not a matter of changing the characters or their motivations - its a matter of presentation to me. The crowd's already decided "their guy." - Liked most of the main event, didn't like the run-ins, wasn't amused by the table spot, and scratched my head at Lesnar's return. A month ago, the audience was upset because Lesnar wasn't on TV enough, wasn't defending his title, etc., etc., but a month later, he comes back to a huge ovation and "Suplex City" chant because *big surprise* he's still a mega-star and neither Reigns or Braun are. Vince did a masterful job getting the crowd to cheer Reigns' victory at SummerSlam (by tricking the live audience into thinking he was going to get cashed-in on by Braun) but this felt like the opposite. Was it a big surprise? Absolutely....but it also sorta re-inserted Lesnar into the fray as the badass babyface. I don't know about anyone else, but after the asskicking he gave on Sunday, I kinda want to see him win the belt back. I mean, why not, right? Reigns and Braun were main eventing PPVs when Lesnar was champion and not around, so what would be different? As we've debated elsewhere, if nothing matters anymore, why not put the title on Lesnar for another year? By the sound of the crowd, they were happy to see him. I thought it was cool. Can I give this sort of booking a new name? Michael Bay Wrestling. Michael Bay Wrestling is big explosions (shocking events), huge numbers of casualties, nonsensical superheroic feats, and, above all else, no actual human emotion, gravity, and 5 minutes after viewing, you won't remember a single scene let alone the whole plot. Sunday's main event was Michael Bay Wrestling. Strowman and Reigns had a HIAC match. I think (?) it was okay for the first 10 minutes. Then two guys that weren't in the match took a huge bump. Then (shocker) another huge star came back and destroyed everyone. And, 5 minutes later, I realized, this whole thing was designed to just sell me popcorn.

Had the company had any foresight, keeping Owens off of TV after that and then having him return tonight to screw Strowman (but accidentally screw Reigns?) would've made some sense, been a decent surprise, and given them a reason to do an Owens/Strowman/Reigns triple threat match for whatever next month's show is.

Yeah, it would've been interesting. Bryan was so over in 2013/2014 that even if he had lost to Lesnar, then lost to Lesnar again a month later, I still think it would've been kinda tricky getting to Cena/Lesnar and eventually Reigns/Lesnar because many fans would've really wanted that redemption arc (Bryan eventually avenging the losses) over rooting on someone else to do it. Compare that to, say, if Rey Mysterio or Punk had been in the position or what happened to Cena - fans would've or did readily accept them losing to Lesnar without too much grumbling. But Bryan? At his peak, he really was super over in a way that fans were really emotionally invested in him as "their guy" and were accepting no substitute. At least in 2013/14. He's cooled off since then, no doubt, but at that time, he was red hot.

I read two comments in a row in the Roman Reigns thread that "the fans will turn anyone who is at the top" and saw Bryan's name mentioned - that he eventually would've been turned on by the crowd. I disagree. The original plan seemed to be to have Bryan drop the title to Lesnar at SummerSlam (as Cena did). I'm even willing to believe that they would have had Lesnar do the same Suplex City beatdown and use it as an excuse to have Bryan not get a title rematch (because of "injury") and maybe have Cena come in as the knight in shining armor as Lesnar's next big challenger. But in that scenario, I don't think Bryan would've been booed against Lesnar (who had just ended the Streak) at Summerslam and I don't think Bryan getting his ass kicked in a complete mauling (the way Cena did) was going to hurt him after SummerSlam - if anything, he probably would've garnered even more sympathy from all the fans - the "smarts" that would've seen Lesnar squashing him as them continuing to hold Bryan down and the "marks" who would continue to view him as an underdog who got taken out by a bully (classic David v. Goliath). Similarly, and I know times are different (but how different?), I think Steve Austin is worth mentioning. His run at the top wasn't super long, but I'm not sure the fans would've turned on him. I actually googled "Steve Austin Booed" and this topic has been covered elsewhere, but basically, from what I gathered, while there are 3-5 instances of Austin getting a negative or 50/50 response, they are clearly outweighed by the hundreds of times he got the biggest pop of the night. Someone mentioned that in parts of 99' and during the build-up to WrestleMania XVII, Austin's reactions were lesser than they'd been in the past - and while I do think that's true, I think "turning on him" is a bit overdramatic.

Not to sidetrack this more, but I do think if we're talking about the importance of Benoit, the biggest "selling point" (for lack of a better term) for him being a historically important figure is the double murder-suicide, not anything he did inside the ring. Had he just retired or become a trainer at NXT, I don't think he'd be an important figure in wrestling history despite his technical prowess and winning all sorts of Observer Awards. This is why, as much as I love Eddie Guerrero, I'm not sure he's more historically important than Rey Mysterio. I don't know enough about lucha libre history so I can't speak on that, but I do know, if you're just looking at stardom in the US, Mysterio was more influential in-ring, the more popular TV character, and had a longer run at the top. His name is not only synonymous with the WCW Cruiserweight Division but when people talk about WWE wanting a major Hispanic star on the roster, it is only referred to as WWE searching for "the next Mysterio" - a guy who can make them boatloads of money because Rey was so popular for so long that he's almost more comparable to The Undertaker than just your 2-3 year "top guy" (like Batista).

I'd presume that if he is coming back to face Taker, the match with AJ won't be long after. I just don't see how Michaels would want to come back and have a match that didn't actually push him in any way. It'd be like Kobe Bryant coming back for a 1-on-1 game against Steve Nash or Allen Iverson while LeBron is standing on the sidelines. That's the match that would get buzz and even the WWE knows it - they based a whole Table for 3 episode on the "What If...?" potential. Then again, this is the company that dragged their feet with putting Lesnar in the ring with anyone that wasn't Cena, HHH, or Taker for the first 2 or so years after his return.

I liked this game. I think the word "historically" is really key here because it goes beyond great matches, title success, even popularity and being "the top guy." History is also about symbolism - which is why someone like Patrick Henry is a more well-known Founding Father than, say, Benjamin Rush or John Jay. Or why JFK is historically more important than James Monroe despite only being in office for less than half of how long Monroe was President. Or, if you're a basketball fan, why John Starks was immortalized in a Beastie Boys song and was a household name if you were a basketball fan in the mid-90s, while Terry Porter is completely forgotten. So, Cena is more important than Hansen because Cena symbolized the number one company in the US (if not world) for about a decade. Goldberg, to me, is historically more important than Angle because Goldberg represents WCW's last major star and, with the mishandling of his character, the company's symbolic downfall. AJ Styles is more historically important than Orton because, 20 years from now, nothing Orton accomplished will matter beyond the WWE record books. What has he done? AJ Styles, on the other hand, symbolizes the "non-WWE mega-star," a guy that could've retired without ever stepping foot in a WWE ring but still been regarded as somewhat of a legend for having high-end matches in a number of non-WWE rings. After the success of All In and the rise of indie wrestling culture over the past 5 years, AJ Styles might go down as the "Iggy Pop and the Stooges" to The Bullet Club's "Ramones" - the guy who, whether he knew it or not, was paving a road that had never really been traveled before.... Except, arguably, by Daniel Bryan (which is why I voted him above Hardy). I do think the Bryan/Hardy thing is a close call, but I lean a bit more towards Bryan just because, he really did build a huge legacy as a technician during the early-to-mid-00s when indie wrestling was still mired in that post-ECW/Ruthless Aggression Era glut of being all about blood n' guts hardcore wrestling (at least the shows I went to prior to 2005 or so). Bryan symbolized something different. Jeff Hardy, on the other hand, definitely inspired lots of future performers and the TLC matches were seminal - but I'm not sure he deserves all that credit for "stunt wrestling" on his own. Sabu was mythic too and Jeff's most historic/symbolic moments were all shared with others (his brother, Edge and Christian, etc.). It just seems like pointing to just Jeff because of his popularity is giving him credit as an innovator that I'm not sure he deserves. Lastly, I went with Batista over Edge. I don't think either are really historically important. Batista got my vote based on the mainstream movie success, though I'm kinda willing to see the argument for Edge here - and it has nothing to do with Edge's in-ring skills. Edge might be more historically important simply because, in 2005, he might've been the first guy to ever truly be "made" and turned into a main event star just based on internet fans turning against him and forcing the company to make him a heel and use his real-life drama as an on-screen storyline.

Completely concur with the general sentiments here. On paper, this felt like a "can't miss" to me. The talent is there to make this a great show. Nikki/Rousey makes some sense. With their E Network shows, the Bellas are a top priority act so they were going to be featured and having Rousey demolish her also cements her status without "wasting" more viable opponents...but it still sounds kinda like a rib to me. Trish vs. Alexa seems pulled out of thin air and feels nothing like a "passing of the torch" (if that's the intention) because Alexa is a heel and Trish is so beloved. Hogan/Rock this isn't. Sasha couldn't have got this spot? Bayley? Even Charlotte in a one-off makes more sense if you're talking about "No. 1 Diva vs. No. 1 Modern Era" (though, again, this would also likely require WWE to actually listen to their audience and turn Charlotte heel because there's no way she'd be cheered over Stratus). But Bliss? The easy, clear booking here would've been to build towards a Bliss/Nia/Rousey threeway match. Lita vs. Mickie James is a match I don't even know what to think of. Lita was never the greatest worker so putting her in a singles match seems iffy. I'm a Mickie James fan even today, but she's undeniably been presented as a wrestler from the previous era. Reminds me of those matches you'd see at an old WCW Slamboree: Wrestle Reunion show. Again, there are fairly easy solutions here - you could build James to challenge Rousey or maybe play on "Weirdo Mickie" vs. "Weirdo Ember Moon" and you could have Lita tag with Bayley & Sasha vs. the Riot Squad. Becky/Charlotte seems like a lock, so there's that. The Mae Young Finals could be good. I'm crossing my fingers that Baszler (or, if not, Nikki Cross) has her main roster debut here. I think just about anyone could've fantasy-booked this to be a potential WWE Show of the Year with a fair amount of variety in match types and and, instead, we have a show that doesn't look like its going to appeal to anyone, even those of us who are really high on the company's women's division. Also, it seems like it'll be overloaded with 1-on-1 matches that counterproductively limits the amount of talent that gets time in the spotlight. I just don't get it.