DMJ

Graves airing this dirty laundry on Twitter isn't a great look, but if this is a shoot, I can understand the feeling of betrayal. To put it in some context, Bret Hart had some pretty legit reasons to be upset with the WWE by 2000, but I never got the sense that he cut himself off of friendships with "the boys" (like Austin, for example) just because they continued to work with the WWE. I'm sure he had mixed feelings about Owen staying in the WWE in 98', but based on his book, it sounds like they remained close and probably just avoided talking about the business as much as they could. And I bring up Bret because he might be the poster boy, warranted or not, for being the "Bitter Ex-WWE Guy" (even years after returning to the fold). So, yeah, CM Punk getting upset with Colt Cabana about benign visits to the WWE locker room or refusing to remain cordial with anyone who works for the WWE is kinda lame. You can take the moral high ground and regard WWE as an evil company without necessarily painting every one of their employe - err, independent contractors - as equally guilty. Its the WWE, not the Nazi Party. I mean, I don't like what Jimmy Johns stands for, but if a close friend started working there because he loves sandwich-making, has a family to support, and is going to get paid there much better than he would making sandwiches for local/independent sandwich shops, I think I could separate our friendship from his employer's awful policies/politics.

Mark me down for "I'll believe when I see it." I don't think they release the figures, but I'd be super curious to see what the Network viewership for the Greatest Royal Rumble was. I'm going to wager that it under-performed - that while it was a hugely profitable live event, the actual number of Network views was considerably lesser than one would expect considering this was a supercard featuring a Reigns/Lesnar cage match, an Undertaker match, Cena vs. Triple H, and a Royal Rumble too. Its proximity to WrestleMania kept me from watching it (I was just too burned out to care about another 4+ hour show) and I don't think I was alone in that. Then again, if Lesnar/Reigns had been a fantastic match (and I thought the first 5-7 minutes were fantastic) with a better finish, I don't think I would've felt as indifferent. If they do go ahead with Lesnar/Reigns, I wouldn't discount Money In The Bank shenanigans to rear their head again. I'm also going to just throw this out there - with Rollins gaining steam and Ambrose potentially being ready for a return, I wouldn't be surprised they ran some sort of Lesnar vs. The Shield match (essentially a 4-way for the title) that would ultimately lead to The Shield feuding among themselves over the gold (with Ambrose probably playing the heel ultimately).

Dude, the pre-show started 2 hours ago. You're not tuned in to the Network yet? You're gonna miss the best friggin' match on the whole card (205 Live Guy vs. Some Other 205 Live Guy in a Quarter-Filled Stadium match)! Guess you're not a real wrestling fan.

I'm kind of in the dark here - what exactly is Rollins doing that the guys in developmental are being told not to do? Wasn't the common knock against Rollins that, as a heel, his offense was too flashy, but now that he's a face, its fine? As someone who only watches the PPVs (over the course of several days because who has time for these death marches?), I've definitely missed the Seth Rollins turnaround story. His match at Mania was okay - better than average even - but I thought it was more like when your lead-off hitter gets a single at the top of the 1st. They accomplished what they needed to. It was a good start to the show. The Rollins/Miz match at Backlash wasn't bad either, but maybe because I haven't been on board for Rollins' recent RAW run, I wasn't drawn in the way others were. Again, it was an above average match, but I think it sits squarely in that 3-3.5 star range (good not great) and I didn't really see anything new out of Rollins. Also, not to be too snarky, but as I don't watch RAW, I know I must've missed the episode where we learned what a Seth Rollins is. Is he still the Architect? What does "Monday Night Rollins" mean more than just being a pun? Does he have a new motivation? Just seems to me that Rollins being the top babyface on RAW has happened by default more than by anything he's done to expand his character based on the admittedly limited amount of the "new Rollins" I've seen. No kidding aside, what am I missing?

I just read the deal is 5 years of SmackDown for $1 Billion and that it will air on Fridays on Fox. Interestingly, Fox's Friday Night line-up has been the topic of some discussion recently as they announced they were reviving the cancelled ABC sitcom Last Man Standing to anchor their new Friday night comedy block. Somewhat odd about this decision is that, when the show initially started in 2011, Tim Allen was fairly outspoken about how Friday evening was a relative "death slot" compared to the prime real estate that Home Improvement and other sitcoms had in the "sitcom boom" era of the 90s. 20 years later, competition/reality shows and a handful of ultra-successful dramas have taken over the spaces that used to be held by forgettable sitcoms like Suddenly Susan. Tim Allen's right-leaning vehicle came off like a relic. But then Roseanne happened and TV execs realized there is still a market for family comedies. I wouldn't be surprised if, when SmackDown comes to Fox in 2019, they reshuffle where Last Man Standing resides - especially if it does Roseanne-like numbers and can actually challenge the "hipper" comedies that NBC offers. Another question remains, though - will SmackDown remain live or return to a taped format? And what happens when/if the ratings dip well below the 2.5 million weekly viewers they're averaging now?

The more that comes out about the Cena/Nikki Bella split, the more it feels like this is all a work. Anyone else getting that feeling?

I'm hoping that this segment won't be what the actual storyline is build up around and this is just the WWE doing "See, When The Cameras Are Off, We're All Actually Friends!" shit because it was at the NBC Upfronts (there's also a pic of her hugging Steph and Triple H from Ronda's Instagram out there). Now, to be sure, this sort of crap does and should bother fans, but I'd still be really surprised if they went out of their way to air this on RAW (unless they already have?) just because that would be going too, too far. I could see them doing something similar on RAW where Nia makes the challenge and Ronda hesitantly accepts, but I sincerely hope it will not end with the two of them skipping up the ramp like Laverne & Shirley the way this video did. They don't have to rush into a blood feud or anything and I'm not even sure you need someone to turn heel, but you have a month to build to this match and there's no reason it can't be good-to-great.

I know he's not really in the running for longest, but I'm curious to know how Dustin Rhodes would fare for those of you more knowledgable about exact dates of his really good/great matches.

In a funny way, that's one of the great ironies of this whole Reigns debacle. There have been times, even as recently as this past Sunday, where the booking seems to overcompensate based on what is expected to happen rather than what the reality is. Like, let's have Samoa Joe troll the crowd with submissions to make sure he doesn't get cheered over Reigns, when if you would've just let them go out there and have the kind of hard-hitting matches they've had on RAW a couple times, at least a third of the crowd is going to pop for Reigns. Instead, 100% of the crowd shat on both guys. At WM31, they expected Reigns to get booed, so they book Rollins as a "crowd-pleasing" spoiler. The reality was that Reigns came off great and at least half of the audience was cheering him on. And even if it was less than half, the audience noise evaporated in the dome anyway. This year, same thing. Reigns and Lesnar are putting on a great match for about 5-6 minutes - but, for some reason, they decided they couldn't just let Reigns win a competitive match cleanly, so they have Lesnar go Suplex City mode and hits a series of F-5s that Reigns still kicks out of. Then, its needless blood too. All of the nonsense to do what? Make Reigns look tough? He'd look tougher and earn more of the crowd's respect just winning a regular hard-fought match! I know there's even more examples out there too.

- I'm thinking Ruby Riot's match with Charlotte had an effect too. I know its not saying that much when you look at the rest of the card, but it was basically the Match of the Night at Fastlane. On my blog I gave that match and the main event (a 6-way involving Cena, AJ, and others) both 3.5 stars, but if you ask me today which match I'd rather go back and watch, I'm definitely going with Riot/Charlotte. The WWE has had a pretty solid run of multi-man matches over the past 2-3 years, so its almost not special anymore when they get the formula right again - but Charlotte's babyface run has had so few memorable matches that it makes the one with Riot stand out as maybe the best match she had pre-Asuka of her whole SmackDown career. - The first Lashley video definitely hypes him as a big deal and the amateur wrestling and MMA footage is 100% a nod to Lesnar. I think the plan is to heat Lashley up, its just typical WWE nonsense where Vince almost seems to want to bury a guy to see if they can overcome the bad booking instead of just, y'know, playing to a talent's strength. Like how they had Lesnar lose his first match back for no reason. Or, after investing months into Ryback, had him do a clean job for Mark Henry at WM29 for no reason. Or pretty much everything they did with Daniel Bryan between September 2013 and January 2014. I'm sure there's other examples too. That being said, its going to take work to make him a credible main eventer - but I predict he'll be steamrolling through guys soon enough and may even get a W over Reigns. The lingering question I have is where Braun fits in.

I went very high on Lesnar on my GWE list, but I must say, his last few years have really tarnished him to me. Which is kind of a weird stance to have too when you consider how high Flair, for example, ranked despite being in quite a few stinkers by the end of WCW. Maybe the difference is that Flair was at least trying and Lesnar almost seems to be actively not trying? In other words, with Flair post-96', you can see that he still desperately wants to put on consistently great performances but can't, while with Lesnar, he doesn't seem at all interested in being consistently great even though he still could be.

I feel like this has been lost in the conversation. While drawing houses and TV ratings are great metrics related to business, I don't think its a total slam dunk that more people knew/recognized Jeff Hardy in 2008 than Daniel Bryan in 2014. Hardy was over, sold a ton of merch (though there's also been discussion here and elsewhere regarding why Bryan's merch didn't fly off the shelves), and obviously, the Hardys as a team being a big deal from 99' through 01' gives him the edge of being more known by folks who stopped watching after the Attitude Era...but Daniel Bryan's Yes Chant crossed over into other sports during a time when pro-wrestling actually began to get respectable and respectful coverage by mainstream sports sites/companies. The ubiquitousness of both meme and nerd culture in 2014 compared to even 08' also leans things towards Daniel Bryan as he, at the peak of his popularity, was hip in a way that Hardy (and even Cena) never were. Sorry, JNCO pants, bright colored belts, and a tank top was never a cool look anywhere at any time in history. Throw in the "What's Real?/What's An Angle?" story bringing more buzz to the company than Hardy, for all his popularity, never did in any of his angles and I think the scales are much more even than some are suggesting. I mean, how many USA Today articles was Hardy the subject of?

There is photographic evidence that the Bruise Cruise happened (google it - well worth your time), but I'd really love to read/hear an interview with someone who attended. People have requested the same on reddit, and so far, no one has responded. C'mon, PWOers, one of us nerds must know somebody who got drunk with Bobby Eaton in the tropics!

I'd have to re-listen to it, but it now makes his interview with Chris Hardwick even more interesting. Towards the end he talked about the decision of whether or not to have kids and, at the time, I interpreted what he said as being that he was leaning towards having kids, but now that I recall, it was kind of an open-ended response.

I liked the segment and thought it was one of a handful of really smart production/booking decisions that helped the show. The show didn't need a big return between Nak's heel turn and the main event. It needed a palate cleanser and Braun going into the crowd provided that. The match was what was it was and I understand why some, like Austin on his podcast, criticized the treatment of The Bar. Obviously, it didn't help that Braun just handed over the titles the next night either. But on WrestleMania night, that segment was designed to provide lighthearted entertainment and I thought it did it well. Long-term, this is not the type of stuff I want to see Braun do every week and I certainly don't want to watch entire PPVs where every segment is treated with cartoonish/"Anything Can Happen!" zaniness, but on a 5-hour show? It has its place. Similarly, I really respected the execution of the SmackDown Tag Titles Match (and I'm sure The Bar would've preferred to be in the Usos role for that too). Now, it wasn't a "good" match at all, but boy did it accomplish what it needed to. The New Day got their entrance (which is really all the "WrestleMania moment" they need), the Bludgeon Brothers got to look dominant, and the Usos dropped the titles without really dropping the titles because the match was so brief and positioned as such a bathroom break that nobody is going to remember that loss. It was practically a phantom title loss so The Usos didn't suffer anything from it. Plus, if you were paying attention and not using the opportunity to use the restroom or grab another plate of snacks, you actually got a decent 4-5 minutes of action. It was far better than the US Title Match where somehow all 4 guys came out of it looking worse for having been involved.

On my review blog, I'm going to have to preface this entire show with a brief blurb about how formative this show was for me as a kid. I was 7-and-a-1/2 when this aired and my older brother taped it on our family VCR. Over the next 5-6 years, I would put this show on countless times, often when I was playing with my toys (GI Joes that I used as wrestlers in my original WWF ring with only one rope [the top and bottom long gone] in a fantasy fed that I kept track of in a notebook and built up with PPVs and everything). By the time I was 15, I was well aware that I was too old to be doing this, but how could I drop my fed when The Scavenger [the Zangief figure from the Street Fighter line] had finally earned the right to face Colonel Kill for the title at MegaBrawl? Anyway, even watching this back today, I couldn't help but enjoy it. Is Nikita great? Nope, but, man, Sting is. His selling, as overwrought as it may be to some, brought me back to being that 7 year old kid. They stretch maybe 4 minutes of action to twice that and I love how Sting continuously sells but never "dies" as Steve Austin might describe it. Its this kind of performance that makes it possible to draw a line from what Sting did in the early 90s to what Cena did in the 00s, letting everything register but constantly looking like all he needs is a chance to catch a breath and he'll be right back into this match. Of the other matches I watched dozens of times between the ages of 7 and 13, matches that I watched and re-watched on self-recorded VHS tapes (WrestleMania VII, Havoc 91', SummerSlam 91'), this one is probably in the upper tier of that very limited and admittedly weak set. Compared to the entirety of wrestling, its shit - but when you're a kid and a Sting fan, this match was awesome.

With Ronda on the roster, I think its a real possibility. In the past, I could see there being some hesitation about filling an 8,000+ venue, but now, in a big marketplace with the right card (I'm thinking Asuka vs. Rousey, Charlotte vs. Becky, Nia vs. Bliss, Sasha vs. Bayley, IIConics vs. Naomi & Nikki just to spitball), those tickets will sell just fine.

EDIT - Sorry, just learned how to upload an image into here.

I'm so glad to have read this here - I actually came on just to note how much I think this match is getting slept on. I get it that people expected a squash, I understand that people wanted a squash, but Nia Jax has never looked invincible and Alexa Bliss, at least in my opinion, has lived up to the "5 Feet of Fury" thing by being sneaky and clever and taking cheapshots and shortcuts. As you said, she gouged eyes and went after the legs. Plus, by giving this 10 minutes, I thought it was a nice way to keep the RAW Women's Title looking equal to the SmackDown despite Charlotte/Asuka getting more pageantry, better card placement, etc. A totally above average match that told a great story from beginning to end (love Mickie James getting tossed around early) and gave the crowd a feel-good moment late in the show.

I'm as confused as everyone else it seems about this Roman booking. I mean, he really has nowhere to go now it seems. Even the heel turn so many have been clamoring for would make little sense now - what would the impetus be? He didn't get screwed, he lost clean and decisively. And, as others have pointed out, by kicking out of a half-dozen F5s, he comes off less likeable than AJ and Strowman and others who've been put down by 1. Again, as others have said, they fucked Roman in multiple ways. First, by trolling the audience and having him kickout of Lesnar's finish multiple times, teasing the anti-Reigns audience into booing him even more. Then, by having him lose the match - a match which was layed out so poorly that, if you wanted to say Lesnar and Reigns only "know 2 moves" and are repetitive and boring, well, here's all the ammo you'll ever need. It truly is an incredible feat what they did there - they made Reigns look like a chump in kayfabe by losing, they helped build the case that Roman sucks as a performer (despite having several outstanding matches over the past 2 years), they still managed to make it seem like he's been "forced down our throats" by having him kickout of multiple F5s, and they also went with having The Guy Who Only Does It For The Money defeat The Guy Who Does It Because Its In His Blood. I can't think of any reason why they went with Lesnar over Reigns at Mania. If Reigns wins in Saudi Arabia, it won't help either. At all. They've fucked him. And, thus, they've fucked themselves and wasted 3 years.

I liked this match more than most. I think part of that had to do with the way I watched the show - I didn't bother with the first two hours (and really can't understand anyone who thought that was worth watching), watched the first 60 minutes on Sunday night, then broke up the next 4 hours over the course of the day - a match or two here, two or three there, finishing with the last two bouts as I cooked dinner. Unlike the crowd, I was super psyched when this match started - loved Nakamura's entrance, always get hype when AJ shows up, and while I thought it started slow, I found the last 10 minutes to be fantastic. I thought this was Nakamura's best showing since his debut and AJ, as always, was excellent throughout. I thought the finish great too - a Kinchasa counter into a Styles Clash? Hot dog! Then, the post-match angle. Great piece of business that, as someone else said, was even greater because we'd seen it not happen after Asuka/Charlotte. I don't use half-stars on my blog and I also typically include post-match angles as part of a match's score, so I'd say its a 4 (aka a "should watch"/"must watch").

I really liked this match, but I preferred Gargano/Almas actually. I wrote it on my blog, but as few will read that, I'll just say it here too: I know its wrong to criticize a match for what it didn't deliver rather than just focusing on what was done and whether it was effective or not, but yeah, I think there's something to be said for the expectation of violence and that, in 2018, that can still mean blood and furniture damage. Obviously, this was not a "soft" match and, in terms of emotion, had more weight than maybe any other grudge match in WWE history, but I still have that nagging feeling that it didn't quite live up to my expectations. Admittedly, that's not necessarily a fair judgment to make, but its what prevents me from going all the way to MOTY status. 4-stars, but not the 4.5 that Almos/Gargano was (on my scale, I don't do quarter stars, so a 4 is an excellent/"must watch" match and a 4.5/5 is a rare, all-time masterpiece).

I was not as high on this. Part of it, to me, was the context. After everything we'd seen in the ladder match to open up the show, starting the match with such a loose structure and then, in general, keeping that loose structure going meant that they were going to have to bust out every signature move/high spot they could think of to keep things moving. They did that and they did it well, but it still felt "less than" in comparison to the insanity of the opener. If one had swapped the two on the card, I think I would've likely appreciated everyone's effort more, but obviously, with the way the Undisputed Era's story went, that wouldn't have worked as well. There were individual moments in this match that I really liked, but as a whole, it didn't leave me nearly as excited as any of the previous AOP multi-team matches either. I'm hoping the AOP get called up soon as it could only hurt them to stick around longer and not regain the belts.

Shifting this back on course... I'd love to see Reigns get a nice long run with the belt. As someone else mentioned, he has some real contenders that he would work well against - Balor would be my first challenger, then maybe Owens/Zayn if they come to RAW (though I'm not an Owens fan right now), all leading to either the eventual Shield 3-way at SummerSlam or just Dean Ambrose (who will have turned heel on Reigns by then) at SummerSlam. You know the minute Ambrose "turns heel," the crowd is going to get behind him even more too. Eventually, Braun comes-a-calling in the fall. (Of course, there's also rumors around Lashley and Batista I won't even get into) As much as I love Joe and Miz, I actually think they'd be better used against other opponents rather than challenging Reigns in 2018. Joe would be stupendous on SmackDown - vs. Bryan, vs. Nakamura (I liked their NXT matches alright), vs. Styles obviously. Miz, meanwhile, is probably the only guy that could make me care about Rollins or Balor right now. Basically, you can insert any babyface against The Miz and you've got a decent #2 or #3 program on the RAW side (see what he did vs. Ziggler in 2016). So, yeah, you can call him the ace or just the "top babyface" or whatever, but Reigns has plenty of angles/storylines that could work ahead of him and there's no reason he should be taking a backseat to anyone, including Strowman (as entertaining as he is), following Mania.

And, just to be clear, I'm a Cena fan, so its not like I'm trying to disparage the guy's whole career. A few pages back I even implied he might be the most versatile promo ever too. I just found this particular point to be worth discussing because I'd never heard him actually speak about it.