DMJ

Man, I really like Charlotte and Bayley, but that segment on RAW was just awfully uncomfortable - just absolutely dreadful. Charlotte is not good enough to go 10+ minutes on the mic. I think I could list on one hand the number of wrestlers that can go that long so its not a knock against her. At certain points in the segment she was mocking Bayley's photos and obviously didn't even recognize Ivory (I think it was?) in one of those photos - her insult was something like, "I don't even know what to say about that picture" which is just awkward in a wrestling promo. Same for Charlotte mocking Bayley's poetry by trying to read it off the Titantron and failing because the print was too small. There were just all sorts of "goofs" in there that seemed to be because the writers/producers are telling her to "wing it" and lining up props for her to use (like the pictures and the poetry) and forgetting that she's not The Rock and didn't train in Second City and improv'ing jokes is easier said than done. THEN you have Bayley coming out after what felt like an hour of getting run down on the mic. Why wait so long to come out? Just poor, poor production choice. To make matters worse, Bayley is put in same position as Charlotte essentially, asked to speak her mind for 5+ minutes via promo instead of just coming in and knocking Charlotte's block off. Still a fan of both women, but this segment deserves all the criticism in the world for its lay-out.

Just watched this for the first time and, wow, what a great piece of business this is (in the words of Steve Austin). My wife was in the room with me for this and, as she's not much of a fan, I know something is really special when even she gets drawn in by the end and is smiling as widely as I am. Tremendous entrances for both guys to set the stage and just a flat out brawl from the start. Anyone who says Flair wrestled the same match every time should be pointed to this as this is the Nature Boy almost doing an Attitude Era main event with much of the match taking place outside the ring, Funk bumping all over the place in great heel fashion, and the "wrestling" portion really kept a minimum as these two just hate eachother so much they're not even interested in winning at times. Both guys end up blading and one can't help but think about how much a match like this just wouldn't happen in today's WWE - not because there's a ban on blood but because, even in "blood feuds" like Zayn/Owens, guys can't seem to help themselves from delivering convoluted, overly choreographed high spots that Flair and Funk don't waste their time with. Great finish and all-time great post-match. Honestly, Funk wings that chair into the ring towards the end like he doesn't care that it might decapitate someone standing in the wrong place. There are just no fucks given for the last 5 minutes as the two sides just don't stop attacking eachother as JR and Caudle try to wrap up the show. It is unpredictable, wild gold that, again, the WWE seems almost completely incapable of today (though that one time when Reigns destroyed HHH for,like 10 minutes at the end of a PPV in 2015 was somewhat close). I don't know if the entire match/segment is 5 stars because the match itself, while highly entertaining, isn't necessarily a great wrestling match in terms of technicality or athleticism or even story. However, if you can get there based on character work, intensity, and heat, this one gets there. I'm thinking I'll go no lower than 4 stars on my blog. How much do you love this?

Ha. Just saw this... https://www.reddit.com/r/SquaredCircle/comments/5nv7ey/lucha_underground_reportedly_coming_to_netflix/

I have Netflix and Amazon, but would've added Hulu just for Lucha Underground. I think a small company could do decently trying to link up with one of those services. Last I read, Netflix's offer for LU was too low, but the number of eyes on their product could increase by what? 10 times at least? I know the math isn't so simple as saying LU gets 100k viewers on TV currently and Netflix has 75 million subscribers so they would automatically become the most watched wrestling in the US, but it would clearly benefit the company in terms of exposure and potential future profits through increased merchandising and potential mini-tours. I also don't see how releasing Season 1 on Netflix in 2017 and then Season 2 a year later and so on and so forth isn't just pure profit - I mean, those shows are essentially paid for already and, at a certain point, sales for these older episodes on iTunes must drop off almost entirely, right? I don't know enough about Amazon/Hulu/Netflix's dealings for current programming or how profitable LU is for the El Rey Network or any of that stuff, but some one, somewhere, in some wrestling company should be making their top priority getting episodic wrestling on one of these streaming juggernauts.

I'm genuinely surprised Snoop wasn't inducted yet. I thought that happened last year when he accompanied Sasha to the ring.

What's silly to me is that it does seem like when Steph or HHH have been involved in a major storyline over the past few years, they've repeated the "Daniel Bryan Storyline" (screw babyface repeatedly for 9 months before losing in the final battle) when the show would probably be just as successful if they tried, say, promoting Steph more like Vickie Guerrero, who was foiled and embarrassed almost every week but was victorious just enough to make her effective and worth fearing (another example - Vince himself). I don't think we need to see Steph get put through tables or have fake feces dumped on her by Seth Rollins, but at this point, her motivations are unclear to me. Why again does she hate Reigns and Rollins? With Vickie and Vince you could always point to the previous week or month and say "Austin did _____ so Vince is really steamed" or "Vickie wants revenge for _______ and now she's on the warpath." Steph's character has been written very poorly for being such a focal point of the show and part of that is because, though she's constantly around, she doesn't actually do anything or have any sort of struggle. She's kind of a stick-in-the-mud for the sake of being a stick-in-the-mud. She dislikes Reigns because Reigns wouldn't go "corporate" in 2015? She dislikes Rollins because he failed her and Triple H when he was "their guy" 2 years ago? Is that what we're meant to believe is still bothering her?

I had to google James Dudley and was surprised he wasn't Scotty on Star Trek. With all due respect to Mr. Dudley and his role in the WWWF, Lemmy Kilmister is a rock icon whose popularity and name has actually increased over the years, not unlike The Ramones. In 20 years, there will still be kids rocking Motorhead shirts based on the iconic logo and maybe knowing Ace of Spades from a video game just like everyone and their teen sister has a Ramones shirt these days even if they can't name a single song. Lemmy's legend has also been promoted by modern stars like Dave Grohl and in a recent documentary on Netflix (that was also airing constantly on VH1 for awhile). Unlike Drew Carey, a stand-up turned sitcom star turned game show host, Lemmy is cool and always will be cool. Rebels don't go out of style. Drew Carey will be lucky to be remembered as the second host of The Price is Right in 20 years. His show may have been popular in the mid90s, but it wasn't a pop culture phenomenon. It wasn't Cheers. It wasn't Seinfeld. It wasn't Friends. Lemmy may be a cult hero, but cult heroes like Lemmy only gain notoriety over the years. Again, there are plenty of bands that outsold The Ramones in the late 70s and 80s, but how many Styx tee shirts do you see around town? Who do you think will still be remembered in 2050 - the Sex Pistols or Foghat? EDIT - I make this point just to say that the WWE is dumb if they think Lemmy isn't a big enough name to induct in their Hall. If he was big enough to perform at two Manias (?) and he's only going to gain in coolness over the years, he's more worthy than most.

If I were them, I'd have Fozzy (or, preferably, a better band, but hey, its WWE) come out and do a mini-Motorhead set ("Ace of Spades," "Motorhead," "No Class"?) or something. Sure would be a nice way to add music to a 4-hour speech-a-thon. They do it for awards shows, so, its not like it would be totally out of place. That or take my real suggestion - bringing Todd Pettengill out to do one of those medleys he used to do for the Slammys. That shit was sick.

Anyone interested in discussing this? In terms of hot crowds and wrestlers being over up and down the cards, yes. Even guys like The Godfather who weren't much in the ring served a hugely valuable role in the opening match during this time. The matches on TV weren't often great, but they were almost always fun. There were a lot more crowd participation spots then than there are now. In some ways, I feel like WWE in 2000-2001 was like when you "master" Extreme Warfare Revenge after however many "years" in the game. You have a roster of guys that can be paired together ad nauseam for 95+% scores and your company is the top global promotion and you have guys coming out of your development with 100 Speed or 100 Technical or 100 Brawl and, basically, you've "won" the game because, short of your top 20 guys (all are over at 100%) getting injured at the same time, you're just inserting different guaranteed awesome pair-ups to infinity. As fun as it is to succeed in the game, you're also left with no challenge. It gets boring. This is why I think the post-2001 WWE drop began. The WWE's roster was stacked with mega-talented guys who were 100 Over in EWR terms during that 00'-02'. They could run Austin/Angle in the main event. They could run Rock/Angle in the main event. They could run HHH/Austin. HHH/Foley. Foley/Rock. HHH/Rock. HHH/Angle. Taker/Austin. Rock/Taker. Jericho/Austin. Jericho/Rock. HHH/Jericho. All were essentially guaranteed to be over and to score a good butyrate and there was no risk of failure. The same was true everywhere on the card - from the IC Title program (how many times did we see a mix of Angle/Benoit/Jericho/Guerrero/Edge/Christian in the early 00s) to the Tag Division (Hardys/Dudleys/E&C, but also Los Guerreros and WGTT). Eventually Mysterio, Lesnar, Booker T, RVD, and HBK would be around too. In that span of 00'-02', you had a roster featuring 20+ Hall of Famers at any given moment. (Not to mention "names" like Show and Kane that may not have been my cup of tea from a work perspective, but always had a program going on of some sort). But reshuffling the same deck of cards, no matter how many aces they had, didn't translate to fresh, engaging stories. They brought in Hogan, Goldberg, and Scott Steiner and the numbers didn't improve. In a financial sense, the company reached all-time heights of profits and ratings during these years (I think), but from a creative perspective, they were actually already on the decline by 2000 (or, at the very best, had plateaued) in my opinion. In 1999, the WWE conquered WCW and from that point on, the incentive was to stay on top and they succeeded. But in 97'/98', they were still throwing stuff against the wall and it made for a run that, in my opinion, is much more interesting to rematch and, as a young teenager, made me much more passionate as a fan.

On my blog, I'd describe my ratings this way: 0 - Absolute dud. Insulting to the audience. Absolute waste of time - not even "so bad its good" territory, just bad. 0.5 - Very bad, but at least one glimmer of watchability. I recently rated the 50k Double Ring Double Elimination Battle Royal from GAB 89' with a .5. Its really not worth watching, but it doesn't overstay its welcome and Sid's in it, so, y'know, half-point. 1 - Actively bad, but maybe not necessarily because of lack of effort. It could be a real bad finish. It could be a totally dead crowd. It could be a bad pairing (for example, I gave Nikki Bella vs. Carmella from TLC 1 star because Carmella is super green and while Bella has improved over the years, she really couldn't elevate the match to even close to average). 1.5 - At least they tried, but not worth watching. 2 - Close to good, but not good enough. 2.5 - Average match and by "average" I mean good in the sense that, if you like pro-wrestling, an average match is a match you would expect to see. 3 - Slightly above average match. Good not great. 3.5 - Almost great. Almost worth rewatching/revisiting. 4 - Really strong match. Worth watching/recommending. Match of the Year contender, but probably not Match of the Year. 4.5 - Near masterpeice. Match of the Year caliber. Highly recommended viewing. In all of 2016, in the WWE/NXT, I had only 2 matches rated this high. 5 - Masterpiece. Worth watching and rewatching. The stars need to align for these too - for example, the perfect match in front of a dead crowd is not a 5-star match. A bad finish can definitely prevent a match from getting 5 stars. In WCW/WWE (the promotions I'm most familiar with), you'd be lucky to get one of these once every few years.

I'm not on Twitter so I didn't know Braun was getting love there, but hearing that he is reminds me a bit of late fall 2013 (I think) when Roman Reigns was actually pretty over with a growing portion of the mainstream audience and the "IWC." There was still some Cena hate around and Ambrose was still considered the "natural heel" of the group and Rollins was the one that the real "in the know" fans thought was going to get forgotten, but Reigns wasn't super unpopular. IIRC, he was even kinda cheered at Royal Rumble 2014 (when the fans weren't booing the shit out of everyone not named Daniel Bryan). But once the actual push happened, the backlash began. Like it did with Cena before him. I expect the same will happen to Braun too. They love you as "their guy" until you become their guy.

The Coach said WWE will never bring her in, that they aren't in the business of rehabbing fallen, broken stars. He's wrong on so many levels, but I love the redditors who actually agree. These are the same neckbeards that will argue that bringing CM Punk back is the "only way to save wrestling."

Maybe it's just me, but I still think there's $ in Rousey in the WWE, especially if she's game for Steph or Charlotte or some other heel bringing up her most recent loss. I guess we'll have to see the numbers for the PPV, but as a non-MMA watcher, it did feel like this was the most mainstream/hyped show since Punks debut (and that one might've seemed even bigger to me cuz I'm a Clevelander). Rousey/Steph would be ridiculous...but no more ridiculous than Shane/Taker or Shane/Angle. Plus, isn't Steph like undefeated? Charlotte would be better, but I see it as a less likely scenario considering how much the McMahons love to get their annual cosplay on in April. Like Mike Tyson, I think, in due time, people will forget how Rousey lost and her legacy of dominating MMA for a time will be what holds up. To MMA and boxing aficianados, Tyson/Rousey might mean something different, but to the general public, 20+ plus years past his prime, Tyson stands for quick, ruthless knockouts and is a nostalgia celebrity, George Foreman is a grill, and Holyfield isnt even in commercials. Rousey might never achieve the longevity of Tyson, a larger than life personality with a wild past and comeback story, but she definitely has a post-MMA career if she makes good choices.

That was brutal. I counted at least three headlocks or rear chinlocks where Owens basically laid down on the mat next to or behind Reigns, and the action in the match basically ground to a complete halt. And it was really early in the match, so it can't be because he was already gassed, could it? Was he trying to get heel heat by doing that, or do the agents tell him to do it? I cannot for the life of me understand the logic behind wrestling like that in a Main Event on a PPV. So BORING. I'm not going to defend it, but I tend to think it's both him trying to draw heat and probably agents telling him to do so. As little as I liked the main event, I will say, I kinda preferred it to his bout with Rollins at HiaC. By that point, I'd really tired of Owens wrestling these super spotfest matches where nothing registers or is sold - here, we got a match that actually had a clear story of Owens controlling and Reigns getting in small flurries before a comeback. It wasn't a great match, but at least it had an internal logic before the predictable schmozz finish.

Starting this thread more to ask a question than to review the match, but here goes... This is Funk's return to an NWA ring after a lengthy absence, essentially challenging number one contender Ricky Steamboat for his spot on the totem pole. At Wrestle War 89', Funk had attacked the newly-crowned World Champion, Ric Flair, which makes the outcome of this match almost ridiculously predictable - and yet, like so many of my favorite Funk matches from the 90s (with shame I'll admit to not having seen most of his work prior to this), he and Steamboat manage to throw in enough odd switch-ups and swerves to have left me puzzled and intrigued as to what would happen next. If the "wrestling" itself isn't out-and-out impressive and technical (compared to the variety of offense he put into his series with Flair, the Dragon is almost a straight brawler here), one can be amazed by how much heat and drama they create just through the clash of styles and character. At times, Steamboat seems out of his game just because Funk bumps in and out of the ring in such weird non-linear routes, the methodical Dragon is like a boxer who can't land his next punch because his opponent's head won't sit still on his shoulders. Funk, meanwhile, lands enough of his wild swings to keep himself in the game and when he does take control, he doesn't settle for just sharp jabs, he's going for broke with neckbreakers and piledrivers. I loved the ref bump that doesn't lead to the finish - again, coming into this match, its impossible not to see a screwy Funk win a mile away, the victory propelling him in the rankings and giving legitimacy to his future title matches against Flair, but when it doesn't happen when it should happen, you begin to question what should be unquestionable. The actual finish is a bit deflating (some color would've helped), but I dug the post-match appearances from both Luger and Sting. Everyone whose on-screen for the last 5 minutes of this show now has some focus coming out of the event - Funk looks even more dastardly and needing a comeuppance from Flair, Steamboat can go after the US Title without it coming off as dropping down a rung, Luger is continuing to cement his heel status, and even Sting gets a touch of subtle character development by not necessarily running off longtime ally Luger, but at least showing his commitment to the babyface side. I gave the whole thing a 3.5/5 rating on my blog. ...but The Observer rewarded it 4-and-a-Quarter stars, which just seems a bit high to me. I enjoyed this, no doubt, but I usually look at 4-star stuff as matches worthy of revisiting. This, to me, was a match that I enjoyed because I'm watching this string of Clashes and PPVs and even some of the TV shows on the Network in sequence for the first time ever. This was not a rerun for me - though, I do know roughly where things are going and have seen some of the segments/matches before (for example, the "I Quit" match at Clash #9). Even with fresh eyes, though, is there really enough good wrestling action in this segment to warrant a rewatch or make it highly-recommended viewing? I'm not sure. So, did Meltzer reward the booking of this match and post-match storyline development or was there really enough good action in it between bells for it to warrant such a rating? Did he add stars because Funk comes back with no ring rust and looking like a million bucks? Because Steamboat is effortlessly fire here? What might you rate it?

I always felt like the issue wasn't whether Hart would literally trash the title like Madusa did, but that, even if screwy, you don't want your unbeaten Champion showing up on the other guys show. Yeah, him having the actual belt and bringing it on Nitro would've been a big deal (as it was when Flair brought his to WWE 5 years earlier), but in 97, things were slightly different and a larger portion of the audience was already "smarter" (I know my 13 year old self was thanks to RSPW) and having the actual belt wasn't as big as having your recognized mega-star World Champion show up having never lost the title. Had Madusa shown up without the physical belt, no one would've thought, "Hey, that's the WWE Women's Champion" because that title was hardly promoted or defended, especially by the end of her WWE run. Bischoff knew that and that's why they needed her to bring the belt. They needed the tangible object to make the symbolism work. But Bret Hart was a mega star holding the company's most prestigious title and had been in a multi-year feud Shawn Michaels. The physical belt was certainly a symbol, but it wasn't as necessary a prop. His Championship legitimacy was well established with or without the actual belt. Having him drop it to Shamrock would've been a cop out and Vince knew it and wanted finality so Bret needed to be beaten not because he was going to bring the physical belt to Nitro (he probably owned a replica one anyway that he could've brought out), but because you can't have your World Champion jump ship without suffering a loss to his top rival and the guy so clearly positioned to take the title from him. Austin and Taker wouldn't suffice in November 97 for a number of reasons and they're really the only other legit options. I've always felt like that was understood by everyone involved.

I don't know where the fresh opponent is on Smackdown though. Unless they wheel out Taker. I was talking to a friend about this the other day. What's so odd to me about the NXT call-ups this year has been that they've called up guys like Tyler Breeze and Apollo Crews and TJP - guys that may have been "ready" in terms of technical ability but certainly weren't ready to get over - and kept the Samoa Joes, Nakamuras, Austin Aries, Roodes down in Florida when these are the names of guys you could have had as your potential "fresh new opponent" had they been brought up 6 months ago. Love them or hate them, you have guys in NXT with established characters and decent-sized built-in fan bases that can freshen up your show tomorrow and they're not getting younger. Ditto for the tag scene. American Alpha get called up despite not really hitting their peak in NXT yet while The Revival and #DIY (hate that name, tho) are much more polished acts. Its not quite the same situation, but look at the difference between American Alpha and Enzo & Cass and its really clear - one team had "peaked" in NXT and was ready for a bigger stage, the other needed a few more minutes in the oven. (Yeah, I know, mixed metaphor, sue me) Also, as much as I like the Zayn/Strowman storyline and even some of the Cesaro/Sheamus pairing, its worth noting that not having Zayn or Cesaro get drafted to the Blue Brand (seemingly out of spite because so many people had predicted one or both to get drafted) showed minimal foresight too.

Maybe the best one that sprung to my mind was... Vader losing to Shawn Michaels at SummerSlam 96'. Now, Vader's losses to Hulk Hogan were one thing - but the WWE knew how to rehab a character and were more than halfway there with Vader, having had him destroy Gorilla Monsoon and, if IIRC, Yokozuna during the build. He also may have scored a pin on Shawn himself at an IYH? I don't remember all the details, but even if Vader wasn't quite as credible as he'd been a few years prior, to the WWE audience, he was a fresh monster and had considerable size and strength advantage over Michaels who was also a somewhat unpopular champion. They could have made him the WWE's biggest heel in forever by having him take the title. I attended SummerSlam 96' and I definitely wasn't the only 12 year old rooting for Vader (in my Undertaker sleeveless tee, natch). On the RTA ride home, I remember listening to a group of older fans (they were probably 22-23 but to me they were the most knowledgeable people I'd ever heard speak) talk about how Vader would win the title at "IYH: It's Time" instead. He didn't...and he also never really recovered from the loss, never again appearing as a legit title contender, even after he did score a win over The Undertaker at the following year's Rumble. As for Booker T - I wasn't watching at the time so I don't know, but was he really that hot in 03'? I recently rewatched the 2002 PPVs and while Booker is over, he's kind of over in that half-comedy way with Goldust that makes me think, while he should've beaten HHH for storyline reasons, I'm not sure he actually "sunk" after WM19 because he was already kind of at that upper-midcard spot. Again, I could be way off. Ryback - the loss to Punk hurt his career...but the loss to Mark Henry at the WrestleMania a few months later might've been the one that actually killed him. Why they had him lose that match (and then segue into a feud with Cena) was such a head-scratcher to me back then and still dumbfounds me today.

On JR's podcast, he stated, pretty emphatically, that a loss in a wrestling match has never killed a career (in reference to the Lesnar/Goldberg match last Sunday). Now, I don't think he thought back through the annals of wrestling history before he made that statement, but it DID make me rack my brain... Has any wrestlers career been "killed" by a major loss? I feel like arguments can be made for somebody, I just can't think of who right now. Conversely, there are an insane amount of guys who actually had their career MADE by a loss - Steve Austin at WM13, Mick Foley at KOTR 98, to a lesser degree Daniel Bryan when Sheamus squashed him and even Shane McMahon (whose win/loss record is probably shit, but was [and in some places still is] beloved for how bravely he's lost). Again, I know I'm missing a bunch, so, I thought I'd open up the convo here. Name guys whose careers were killed by a loss (if you can) and/or name some guys whose careers were made by a loss. If you can do the former, you'll be proving good ol' JR wrong (and that's always fun)! Have at it!

Yea, the AA being a transition move now is annoying. I've found that, though it's also happening in NXT, the fact that I only watch the Takeover specials has helped me because I'm not as familiar with those workers and their signature spots. That kinda goes double for the women's matches. Joe kicking out of the Kinchasa on Saturday irked me, but at least I hadn't seen it 1000 times already like I have with Cena/Owens/Rollins, for example, who have their finishers kicked out every single week. At SummerSlam, the most protected finish was Miz's and it still feels that way today. I'm not sure this sort of style will "kill" the business, but it definitely makes things much harder. Look no further than the CW division, which was DOA partially because nothing any of the CWs is particularly impressive when midcard heavyweights like Cesaro, Big E, and even Harper regularly hit suicide dives onto arena floors. On Sunday, Kalisto hit a Standing Spanish Fly off the apron ONTO THE ARENA FLOOR and I'm not even sure they teased a countout. It was such a mind-numbingly stupid spot that it took me out of that match entirely. Properly sold, Kalisto is an idiot for doing a move that would hurt himself more than his opponent, especially when he should know he can only win the title by keeping his opponent in the ring. Just negative number psychology there.

Just posted my full reviews of both shows on my blog. Definitely enjoyed certain matches more than most here, including the Nak/Joe match and Male Team RAW/Team SmackDown Survivors match, which, at times, kind of felt like the best possible Royal Rumble match they could put on today. It was full of insane spots (the spear to Shane), fun comedy (Owens/Jericho's list shenanigans), nostalgia (Shield reunion), and good character development/storyline advancement (Braun came out of this super strong and, though I don't really like either guy, Wyatt and Orton were both due for a chance to be seen as relevant which their victory allowed). It was not your average Survivors match - it was more akin to a MITB ladder match if anything - and I was okay with that. I certainly wasn't bored by it and am surprised that others were. As for Saturday night, anyone calling that the worst NXT special yet obviously enjoyed The End...of the Beginning and Unstoppable shows more than I did.

If Lesnar loses, it will be due to Shane-nigans, which isn't a bad way for him to lose, just disappointing to me personally cuz I really loathe these two wrestling at WM. I don't know who else I'd put up against Brock, but I'm in "anybody but Shane" camp. I'm also hoping that Goldberg can still "go" somewhat as I wouldn't mind him squashing someone at Mania in a 10 minute (total with entrances) segment. That may seem to contradict my statement above, but on a 5 hour show, Id sooner enjoy Goldberg crushing a shit-talking heel (they could almost literally run the Jericho/Goldberg feud from 20 years ago) for 10 minutes than a 45 minute Shane vanity segment like last year.

Didn't that shit already start at SummerSlam? Maybe a build towards Cena/Taker? Or The Rock confirmed for the Rumble?

I'm guessing Sid was going to be a transitional champ back to Flair sooner than later, maybe with the longterm idea of building towards Flair/Vader anyway. I'm not a Sid hater at all, but I can understand what Strummer is saying. There's all sorts of knocks against the guy that would make putting him at the top of a promotion, even at the peak of his career, a questionable decision for more than a month or two (which is kinda how his career turned out). He was always over and had a great look - but he was not a great worker, his character was always more over than his feuds (because even his best matches were just tolerable), and he didn't fit the mold as a true longterm main event guy in 90s WCW (where one was expected to be able to put on good matches) or 90s WWF (where one was expected to be a sympathetic/superhero babyface - a role Sid never fit because he was always more of a untethered tweener). Plus, Sid kind of had a knack for bad timing. Reading through his Wikipedia page, there's some unfortunate injuries at important times, a failed drug test according to Meltzer before WM8, and the softball stuff. With Sid, I think you have a guy who actually got pushed and utilized quite well, all things considered. I don't see his story as "What could've been..." the way one might for a Magnum TA.

I thought the whole match was really fun. Brawling in beginning was spirited and stiff, the commentators and crowd are obviously enthralled and loving it, loads of fun weapon spots and scenery getting destroyed - it needed 5 more minutes to really be worth seeking out, but as it is, it is just a really enjoyable viewing that reminds you how, in 98', though the nWo storyline was dying a slow death, WCW did have an intriguing undercard with over acts ready to breakout as main event players.