DMJ

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.

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.