DMJ

I'm not a Sheamus superfan, but I don't think he necessarily belongs in the discussion because I don't think he can really be called a "top star" like Orton. If you do include Sheamus, then throw Del Rio's name out there too - a World Champion, a Royal Rumble winner, a PPV main eventer, but obviously a huge disappointment in terms of impact.

I can see what Dave is saying (and I'm someone who thinks that Dave not being more pro-Miz is ridiculous at this point). There's an upper level that Miz is just not a part of. That upper level is incredibly thin - Brock, Cena, Reigns now, Orton, Triple H when he's around...and that might be it. AJ is on the cusp, but he's challenging for the US Title right now (which is kind of a step down). Jericho certainly isn't at that level in 2017 and maybe had two runs at that level at any time in his career. I think they wanted Rollins there, but it didn't materialize. Ditto for Ambrose. Braun Strowman looks like he could get there - but we'll see (he might end up at that slightly below upper tier where Big Show and Kane have spent most of their careers after an initial big push). When all is said and done, The Miz's career will resemble that of a Jericho more than it will The Rock. Jericho has never been a "dominant" guy - even at his peaks, he was a cheater, an opportunist, and the guy at the right place at the right time. Dave doesn't give enough credit to Miz for his in-ring improvements or his consistent greatness on the mic for quite awhile now, but he's not wrong here.

To the point on how hard it is to "freshen" Orton after so many years, I'd just note that when the feud with Lesnar began, Orton got a HUGE pop for RKOing Lesnar. The moment he went into the crowd was awesome too. Even fans like myself who generally are bored or uninterested in Orton were interested in him. Then the match happened and it underwhelmed...which is kind of what tends to happen with Randy's big matches. Also, I'd second the point about others taking lemons and turning them into lemonade. Extreme Rules 2014 comes to mind and has been sort of alluded to by others in this thread. I thought the Kane/Bryan match was really fun - that making it a wild, cartoonish "kitchen sink" PG hardcore match worked (flaming tables, kendo sticks, a forklift - it was zany entertainment and the crowd was hot for most of it). Earlier in the show, John Cena lost a steel cage match to Bray Wyatt because a little girl singing "He's Got The Whole World In His Hands" distracted him...and I liked that mostly ridiculous match too. Speaking of Cena, around a year later, he made a squash match where he took 20some suplexes in a row into a seminal event, easily one of the top 5 "must see" matches of the 2010s. I'm guessing some people here forgot Orton even wrestled Lesnar before reading this post. It would've taken a great performer to make "The ring has cockroaches on it!" work...but how many big, tough heels in the 80s got mileage out of being afraid of an animal 15 feet away? How terrified did the heels of the 90s always seem of Taker's generally harmless "sorcery"? Orton didn't need to devalue himself to the level of Hogan in the Dungeon of Doom ("This water...it's not hot!"), but no-selling it entirely? Came off as "I'm too cool."

I'd have It end in some sort of DQ with Braun coming out looking like the subjective winner. Reigns beat him clean before Mania, so Reigns can take a "loss" here. Somehow build up to what I'm guessing will be the big MITB match (?) to declare a new number one contender. I'm all for them finagling things towards Reigns/Joe and Braun/Rollins, for two examples of options. Reigns and Joe would probably have good matches and I can't imagine someone I'd like to see get dominated and destroyed by Braun more than Rollins.

Found a link that has Orton at the number 5 spot for most WWE PPV main events as of 2016 and he'll be number 4 before all is said and done, easily. Looking at everyone else on that list, aside from Kane, Orton is probably the guy I enjoy least (though, Triple H might come close). In what way do you mean lackluster, though? In terms of great matches? Reliability for good work on TV/PPV? As a character? Luger and Orton are an interesting comparison because they were both relatively protected throughout their careers to an extent that a guy like Jericho, even at main event level, never was. I also think it will be interesting to see how fans 5-10 years from now look back at Orton's "peak." I, personally, started watching wrestling around 91'-92' when I was 7-8 years old, so, by then, Luger was an established star, but was also not really that great in-ring. In 98', I'm 14, seeing cruisers and ECW for the first time, watching Austin and The Rock and Jericho and the Outsiders, all these fresh characters, and Lex Luger was a kind of a one-trick muscle guy to me. Sure, him beating Hogan was cool - but to me and my friends, he was old hat. Its only been recently where I've gone back to watch Luger's work in the late 80s and been astounded at how entertaining he is. I wonder if the same will be true for fans of today. Watching Orton now, he's pretty boring and his endless feuds with Cena and Triple H kind of blurred together to me, but, in 2025, will Orton's peak years (2004-2007?) be remembered as highly as Luger's 87'-90'? Is one of the issues that Orton has wrestled like a bajillion matches on TV versus Luger's TV output?

I wouldn't be surprised if they give him a couple month suspension. Hopefully that will let him know he needs to ease off the hazing and, though I think he deserves more of a punishment, I can see it also being looked at internally as an opportunity to test some of the newer commentators on a main brand, silver lining on a grey cloud that happened at the right time - post Mania is always a time when the WWE seems to be willing to try new characters and performers, so, a 6-week vacation for JBL that the WWE paints as a suspension wouldn't shock me at all (it also helps that if they do it soon, they can claim they handled it "swiftly" before any major outlets were to break the story - even if we all know this has been documented for over a decade now).

Haven't read the original source material, but someone on Reddit posted notes from Justin Roberts' book regarding JBL. Basically, "mauro" the same - JBL is a bully whose "razzing" borders on sociopathy. Also, just thinking of the guys who have had the most to say about JBL vs. those that are his friends - JBL does seem to have a pattern of picking on "weaker" newcomers like Roberts, Styles, and Miz - while I'm guessing JBL didn't try that shit with Eddie or Brock or even any of the second-geners because, like most bullies, its much, much easier to just pick on those that can't defend themselves or have any allies. Can we start a "JBL is a Vile Piece of Human Garbage" thread or can that honor only be bestowed on JR? I feel like we could fill a few pages worth of examples of him being a scumbag.

One almost silly question (but actually, not that silly) is what's in the future for the Hardy Boys. Broken Matt story redux? Just a couple month reunion tour and retirement? Jeff Hardy is nearing 40, but when he left the company, he was main eventing as a singles star. Hardy may not be everyone's cup of tea and I don't think he's going to be pushed to the moon once the reunion dies down, but 10 years ago, during his first comeback, it was obvious that longtime fans and new fans were behind him. He's got a "name" and credibility, he's got a bit of a "timeless" gimmick and popularity, and he's got a fresh batch of guys to work with - I don't see a title run in his cards, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him challenge for the title in some multi-mans (Elimination Chambers, Money In The Banks, etc.) over the next year or so. Maybe I'm crazy, but even in 2017-2018, Hardy/AJ, Hardy/Reigns, Hardy/Strowman, and odd pairings like Hardy/Zayn or Hardy/Owens are things I want to see as long as Jeff is still capable of at least somewhat good performances.

Just finished watching - yeah, I stretched my viewing over 2 days and avoided spoilers/reviews. I'm a fairly big Reigns fan, or at least one that generally agrees he's one of the company's most consistently good-to-great performers and that he's had some really excellent bouts with Styles, Sheamus, and others over the past few years that he deserves loads of credit for (I'd take his matches against Wyatt, for example, over any that Ambrose had with Wyatt). I don't mind Reigns positioning as a top talent. ...but that match was, after a very strong opening, just not good and its not just Taker's age that made it that way. This needed to be a homerun performance out of Reigns and it wasn't. The botched tombstone reversal was UGLY but that finish was almost equally botched. What exactly was that? Reigns came off the ropes, Taker was out of position (?), they collided, Reigns (wisely improvised and) struck him with a right hand, and then Reigns bounced off the ropes again (twice) before hitting him with a final spear. It was disjointed and just not as fluid as the final spot of The Undertaker's career should be. Again, I think it was Taker not being ready, but the result is the same - a match that started off good, then got derailed, and then never recovered (arguably because, by not doing that Piledriver spot, we essentially saw the Deadman get beaten by nothing but Superman punches and Spears, nothing poetic, nothing symbolic, nothing that nobody hasn't kicked out of before.* At the end of the day, that was probably the worst match Reigns has had on PPV in years. It also happened to be one of the very few that needed to be great to silence his critics. Fair or not, Reigns kind of needed to do a "carry" job here (like, say, Cena did against Khali that time or HBK did against an equally passed-his-sell-by-date Flair) and it didn't happen. Not a woefully bad match (not even close to the worst of the night), but undeniably flawed. If that match is better on rewatch, I'll never know because I don't want to find out. * Yeah, I know, there were chairshots too. Good ones even. But chair shots are basically throwaway moments in these sorts of matches.

* Wish they would've played up DDP saving lives more than just his in-ring career. I really liked his speech and enjoyed Bischoff's intro, but, to me, the HoF is the one time I don't mind the WWE really trying to pull at heart strings and having Jake or Scott say some words would've been cool. Maybe have Bischoff and Hall, for example. * Beth's speech was probably my favorite, though. I liked her thanking her husband, but loved her name-checking Chyna. Her mention of Chyna felt like the most "controversial" thing to happen all night but hopefully it will also open the door for her to eventually get inducted. I'd love to hear an argument as to why her induction would be too big a blemish when everyone whose spoken of her agrees that she had a good heart, but a damaged, troubled life that led her down destructive paths. Her in-ring accomplishments are more than good enough to warrant a spot. * No disrespect to Dana Warrior or the football player because their speeches were nice and all but...that award should be mailed to the winner each year and turned into just a video package. * I mentioned above that Beth's mention of Chyna was the most controversial thing said all night. When it came to avoiding controversy, Angle should be given another gold medal. Not only did he list every major opponent of his career that wasn't Chris Benoit, he also made sure not to mention any from that "Florida territory" - even the ones that are in the WWE today (Sting, AJ, Joe). I get not thanking Dixie Carter or Jeff Jarrett, but like others said, Angle seemed more interested in just late 90s/early 00s nostalgia fun than actually looking back at the entirety of his career (did he even say a word about Brock or Triple H and Stephanie?). Just kinda weird. Overall, fun background event while I worked on lesson plans for school.

There was a time - not sure what year, maybe 2008? 09? - when it seemed like they were going to do a similar angle with Ziggler (heel) and Maria. I don't know anything about Maria's work after leaving WWE, but her look and "gimmick" at that time definitely lent itself to being the innocent naive girl who shacks up with the overly confident jock. Missed opportunity there as I saw chemistry between them. Enzo is a good example of a modern babyface manager. Undersized and an easy target, but willing to go toe-to-toe with anyone and entertaining on the mic. But to answer the original question, I think you don't book a babyface manager. You book a heel manager and you wait for their catchphrases or schtick to become beloved. Certainly worked for Cornette during his face run in NWA in the late 80s. For another example, I think, in today's world, a manager like Slick would've probably gotten over as a face eventually - cool suits, cool entrance music, could dance, natural charisma. I'm not sure Jimmy Hart or Fuji would've (Hart and Fuji were never "cool"), but Heenan? He would've been no less popular than Heyman is now - a guy who, at the very least, is typically cheered by 33% of the audience no matter how much he tears them down.

Definitely in the camp that won't be watching live, though, I'll end up watching it all in pieces, bit by bit, over the course of a few days. I'm not down on the whole card - Goldberg/Lesnar has me curious, Reigns/Taker should have a big match "feel," and I'm actually hoping we do get a marriage proposal out of Cena (the 7-year old in me still loves the Savage/Liz "Match Made in Heaven" build from WM7 to SummerSlam 91'). What has me less excited is just about everything else and, maybe most of all, just how laborious getting through a WrestleMania has become. I'm not even going to bother with the Pre-Show - not because I'm not interested in those matches (I'm typically a fan of SmackDown's women's division, I like Neville, and the Andre Battle Royale is usually fun) but because if I tacked that on my viewing schedule, I'd finish watching WrestleMania around the second night of Passover. I already hate the completist/OCD part of me that is going to have to grin and bear Rollins/HHH and Jericho/Owens.

At a house show in Montreal, Sami Zayn gave an emotional post-match speech that (based on what I read) congratulated Owens and talked up their history and even made Owens get a little misty. I didn't watch the video (too busy enjoying the new GBV record), but just reading about it left a bad taste in my mouth. Its not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things or anything, but it's these little things that keep pushing me towards believing The Miz and Charlotte are the only two heels in the company who "get it" because instead of getting emotional, Owens should've kicked Sami's teeth down his throat.

Ahh, I didn't research it too much - I just assumed it would be on the Network because why the hell would it not be on the Network? Thanks.

A much-heralded classic, I watched this for the first time ever recently (and watched it again 2 weeks later) and I sheepishly admit I'm not sure I agree with some of the 5-star talk. I understand there's a sense of "You Had To Be There..." involved, but I've been watching all the major shows (and some of the minor) leading up to the event via the Network and I feel like I have a fairly firm understanding of just how big this match and rivalry was. There is no doubt that this is an all-time great feud and, even before a punch is thrown, this match kinda starts off with at least a star or two based on aura and build alone. I get it. I also totally understand the praise for the story and execution of the match. The brawling is top notch for the first third and Funk going after the neck to control his opponent is not only great logical storytelling but effective in putting Flair in peril - the story and execution is pretty much flawless. Then, once that table is introduced and Flair goes on offense, the match goes to that "next level" for me. So why am I hesitant to call it a 5-star match? What imperfection is there? I think this is where my personal taste comes into play. There's nothing necessarily "wrong" with this match objectively, but it wasn't a transcendent viewing experience to me. After seeing it, I'm not rushing for my phone to talk about it. I'm not sure re-watching it a third or fourth time is going to reveal nuances I didn't catch. Maybe I was ruined by not seeing this match in its time and seeing too many other more gory I Quit matches over the years. I came here to see what others feel about the match, but only because I'm curious if there are others like me who might believe it a tad overrated. My feelings on this match are not dissimilar to how I feel about Flair/Vader from Starrcade 93' - I like the match plenty, but when I read that its someone's favorite match of all time, I'm kind of puzzled. Am I alone or are there others who almost think they had a better I Quit match in them that could've happened at Starrcade 89' and really capped off their rivalry in more brutal fashion?

So, did they just air Southpaw Regional one time only? I can't find it anywhere on the Network. I've been searching the usual spots (I even tried the Search function itself) but can't locate it. I know I can get it on YouTube, but I just find it really hard to believe they would produce a special that got some decent buzz online and then not actually keep it available. Any tips on locating it on The Network?

Haven't rewatched it in years but Bret Hart vs. Mr. Perfect from SummerSlam 91' was my favorite match ever from ages 8-12. I know the KOTR match is widely credited as being better, but in the moment, as a kid, Hart/Perfect was such a star-making, emotional story that I still think I'd get caught up in it if I popped it on 25 years later.

from my blog (published 12/28/15)... You probably won't find it on many people's Year End lists, but I enjoyed the hell out of tonight's opener - Asuka vs. Emma. Unlike what we've been getting on the main roster over the past few months, here was a women's wrestling match with a clearly defined hero taking on a clearly defined heel with the fans firmly behind the side of good. Asuka's offense was every bit as sharp and devastating as one would expect (her backhand combo is a thing of beauty), but, as someone wholly unfamiliar with Emma's ballyhooed work in NXT in 2013-2014, I was equally impressed by what she did here, cutting off Asuka at the right time, using crafty dirty tactics to try to get her opponent disqualified, controlling the "heat" part of the match with her offense but not doing anything so flashy that it ever got its own pop. This is how a heel should work. Very strong and well-executed match with great twists in the closing minutes. (4/5)

Haven't seen anything myself as far as the "raw" footage (if anyone has access, feel free to PM me a link, I can't deny curiosity as much as that may make me a bad person). Not a super-scandal just because its not like this involves a McMahon or Cena or a more prominent diva, but man, you gotta believe the whole WWE roster and staff have been put on notice about filming themselves doing anything sexual/alcohol/drug-related. New Day may be a huge money-maker, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Xavier off TV a week or two, which may be unfair to some but almost needs to be done to set an example that there are consequences for stupidity. Is Maddox even in the company anymore? The "crime" here isn't having a threesome. The crime is the stupidity of filming it and not deleting it instantly in an age when even D-list celebrities like Paige, Xavier Woods, and Brad Maddox can be targeted (though, to be sure, its Paige who was targeted - very few people tuned into RAW to see Brad Maddox do anything, even less are curious about seeing his junk, I'm guessing). As for the Paige movie...I'm a big fan of Stephen Merchant and though I haven't seen all his work, I loved The Office, Hello Ladies, and the second season of Extras (more than the first, which I thought lacked some of the big laughs I was expecting). He's hilarious whenever he's on a talk show or podcast and you pair that with The Rock (who can be great) and set it in the world of independent wrestling and I'm psyched. The idea of it being about Paige and her family is actually a negative to me, but here's hoping they've used their story as just a launching point and not as a blueprint they're sticking to.

Fortunately, in that scenario, we will know ahead of time to stop watching at midnight. (Though, in last year's case, skipping the entire show was your best bet at having a good WrestleMania experience)

50-70? I'm guessing most every staff member or white person over 35, including HHH and Steph, don't know what "skeet" is. I was in college at the time that Lil' Jon song was ubiquitous and I needed it explained to me then. Michael P.S Hayes may claim to the "blacker than Mark Henry" but I'm guessing dude couldn't tell the difference between Lil' Jon and Lil' Bow Wow.

On Taker/Reigns - Part of me feels like Vince is kind of showing his genius, or, at the very least, has stumbled into a really interesting dynamic. So, Taker is the ultimate babyface to many, of course, but the next 30 days are going to be filled with plenty of people talking about how Reigns should go over him, how Taker is a 1-match-a-year guy and that it is his time to put over someone other than Brock before he retires. And so, even though they might despise Reigns, these "smarts" who love to say things like "Booking 101 dictates..." will actually be rooting for Reigns because if they cheer Taker, they'd have to admit to themselves that they actually do want part-timers to win matches over "the future" and pretend there's a difference between Taker beating Reigns and Goldberg squashing Owens and The Rock beating CM Punk and Lesnar beating Ambrose etc. etc... Plus, as others have said, even if they don't fully turn Reigns, the more he veers in that direction, the more he'll be perceived as potentially turning and the less people will openly despise him. As Taker threw down the gauntlet, Reigns can spear him every week for the next 4 weeks, throw him threw a table, and dominate him and though it will get booed, there will also be a sense that these are heel actions - which means some people will like it because, if the feud were to be so one-sided, it would telegraph a Taker victory at Mania, which would, again, make some people even more rabid about wanting to see Taker lose! TLDR? If Reigns wins, he becomes de facto heel (which is what he is now much of the time) but gains some cred because beating Taker is a big deal. If Taker wins, Reigns gets some begrudging "smart" cred as a guy "held down" by part-timers. Win or lose, Reigns is the talk of RAW and has inched even closer to that "Most Controversial Star" territory that was Cena's tag for years. On Goldberg - Speaking of part-timers, I expect the Goldberg disapproval to only grow over the next 30 days. Goldberg grabbed headlines in November, but its March and he had a cameo role in is own championship win on Sunday. Lesnar's star has faded a bit too. This is beginning to sound a lot like what derailed their match a decade ago - and, at least at that time, Lesnar was still regarded as still being a capable worker when he was motivated. Nowadays? Lesnar's coming off a pretty disappointing 2016 where he put on stinkers against Ambrose and Orton. Essentially you got the WWE hoping Goldberg is able to maintain his current popularity level for the next month by probably hitting spears and jackhammers, but with each day, I think it will trickle down the way it often does with returning stars that don't really offer anything but nostalgia (see The Rock or Batista). The WrestleMania crowd is hard to read/hear due to the size of the stadiums, but that next night on RAW should be interesting when Goldberg and/or Lesnar show up...

The spot was obviously screwed up, but It didn't take me out of the entire contest plus, to me, I can look at it and say that Charlotte was actively getting out of position because she was wisely trying to avoid Bayley's premeditated elbow drop attempt. It was a botch, but Charlotte had been using the ropes and cutting off Bayley so well throughout the match that I felt like it was easier to overlook it than it would've been had the whole match been full of gaffes or had Charlotte not been showing great ring awareness throughout her heel run. I can totally understand if this makes me come off as a fanboy of these two and I'm not sure it's not true, but from bell to bell, that was MOTN to me and, not to bring up another issue but, it was a match that kept me engaged without a million dangerous high spots (a common critique of Sasha/Charlotte but one nobody has levied against Gallagher/Neville which featured at least two really dangerous direct-to-the-neck bumps).

Legitimately surprised that people hated the Bayley/Charlotte match. I thought it was terrific. Another great performance out of Charlotte and I thought Bayley, while not the most technically proficient worker, continues to make me want to see her fire up and start clubbering. When Cena or Reigns or whoever is taking a beating, I'm just waiting for them to "get their shit in" because that's how their matches always go. With Bayley, the hope spots are well-earned and emotional and, while her offense sometimes seems like it's buffering, I can get caught up in her struggle and believe that it's because she's so full of emotion, she can't think straight. I also thought the finish worked - Bayley didn't cheat, Sasha ran in unsolicited, distracted Charlotte from hitting a moonsault to the floor and then got the referee to see she had a handful of tights during a pin attempt. It's not like she tossed Bayley a pair of knucks or held Charlotte's feet down from outside the ring Rude/Warrior style. As for the 4way - my biggest gripe is that Nia Jax is involved. Even in kayfabe, she hasn't earned it. Like in NXT, she's a big monster who loses all her big matches. In a perfect world, we'd get Sasha/Bayley and the women's division on Raw would be more like the one on SD where you'd have someone for Charlotte to face that was credible and interesting and over separate from being a "horsewoman." On SD, you have/had Naomi, Becky, and Nikki all involved in separate angles, while on Raw, aside from Dana Brooke, I can't name another female talent.

Wrote nearly the same exact words in my review. I don't watch 205 Live or RAW regularly, but in terms of Network Specials, this was the best match in the division's run by a couple country miles. First half was nothing too special, but the second half was just brutal, borderline dangerous at times. The crowd was into it, which obviously helps, but there's also a reason they were into it - Gallagher is a much more interesting babyface than TJP and Neville is a much more interesting heel than Kendrick was. Take two guys with established characters that are relatively over and throw them in the ring and you're bound to end up with a better finished product than just trotting bland, vanilla guys likes TJP and Rich Swann and hoping they win the crowd over just by wearing joggers and Nikes and doing the splits. Great and ridiculously brutal moments included Gallagher's back suplex off the top rope, Neville's release german suplex off the ropes, and Gallagher's awesome headbutts. I wouldn't mind seeing a rematch at Mania as there's simply no reason to believe adding another guy would make things better or that Neville and Gallagher won't still be the most and arguably only guys in the division over enough to deserve that spot.