DMJ

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.

I don't watch EVOLVE. Is Styles supposed to be an unlikeable blowhard like Heenan and Ventura were? Their casual racism was often met by incredulity by their broadcast partners. They were presented as disrespectful, small-minded heels. JBL was cutting pretty darn racist promos in 05/06 if I recall. Ric Flair "stole a kiss" from Becky Lynch this year (in the words of Billy Madison, "That's assault, brotha"). We haven't been "denied" anything in my eyes, except maybe the bathroom break opportunities we used to get when Torrie Wilson was the most promoted female athlete on the roster. Thanks but no thanks on a return to that version of women's wrestling. There are all sorts of TV shows and movies I love because I loved them as a kid. When I watch them now, I may catch a joke or line that I don't appreciate now (homophobic jokes are rampant in so many beloved comedies of my childhood, for example) and I'm okay with that. The past was a different time and I was a different age. I can still laugh at Caddyshack even if there's all sorts of objectifying of women in it, for example. What does not tend to happen is, I see a comedy today and I say, "Man, that was pretty funny...but it sure could've used some more jokes aimed at queers." I also don't watch wrestling and say, "Corey Graves would be a better commentator if he called Kalisto a beaner more." Keep the past in the past, enjoy it for nostalgia and for what it was in its time, but move on.

Fuck Joey Styles. Glad he got fired. Hope this ends his career. No reason to feel sorry for the guy at all - he revealed himself almost 10 years ago as a guy who thinks America was better when everyone looked like him, believed in his God, and thought life began when something drips out of a dick. Sadly, things could look up for him - making jokes about sexual assault, anti-Obama tweets, xenophobic rhetoric, and anti-choice views...Trump may put him in his cabinet.

I wouldn't be surprised if they sget Reigns involved in some sort of "special guest" match - maybe team him with The Rock, maybe team him with Rousey (if they can get her), maybe they even have Goldberg wrestle again - something "big" but I don't see them doing Reigns/Lesnar over Lesnar/Shane, I don't think a Shield 3-way is on the horizon, and I don't even buy Reigns turning heel to face Rollins. I guess they could run Reigns/Owens if Owens manages to hold onto the title for awhile, but that certainly doesn't scream "main event" on a card that will include bigger names.

I don't see how Kalisto doesn't win and reset the division. Plus, the division will benefit from being presented more like it was on the Network, with Mauro and Bryan involved and more familiar talents, like a Kalisto, holding the title while lesser known talents like Perkins and Cedric fighting to upset him. I'm a Kendrick fan, but he wasn't the guy to build the division around any more than Perkins was. Also, the argument that RAW "needed" the cruisers to fill their 3-hour runtime makes sense in a world where the WWE wasn't putting on 3-hour shows, of varying levels of quality, for a number of years prior to the invention of the division. The cruiser division, as it was introduced, wasn't adding anything but filler to the show - and you can do the same by just adding other forms of filler (more Curtis Axel, more Bo Dallas, more squash matches). Moving them to SD will help the Blue Brand more than it will hurt the RAW brand.

So, I just watched this for the first time and expected an absolute shitshow, a match that just falls apart instantly between two guys who dislike eachother so much, they can't even stay professional for long enough to have a match. Now, this is a below average match for sure - Triple H's unnecessary blading comes off as trying too hard, the layout of having the babyface dominate most of the match is questionable, Steiner's thong being as visible as Lita's is a tough image to deal with, and the finish is obviously angered the crowd - but, for years, I'd heard that this was one of the worst title matches ever and I just wasn't offended by it as much as I should've been. Poppa Pump botches an under hook powerbomb at one point but his suplexes (and he throws like a dozen of em) are all well-executed. The striking isn't much to write home about it from either guy, but it's not like they're egregious. Ric Flair's constant involvement is a plus to me and the post-match makes a rematch a desirable and common sense next step to the feud. As the second act of their feud, it's a serviceable 15 minutes. Is the hate on this match based more on the hate of the two workers involved or did I just blink and miss what gave this match such a bad reputation? I'm gonna give it 2 stars on my blog and I know title matches should be better than that...but let's be honest, many aren't and few have a reputation as bad as this one.

If they're smart, they will darken arena more and maybe allow fans to come down and fill empty seats because having your new show full of guys that many are unfamiliar with wrestling in front of a crowd clearing out of the arena is not gonna be a good look.

I have main event at 4 but a definite top 10 WWE match of the year. Rest of the card was garbage mostly. Rollins/Owens was one where if you hate current WWE style, it was everything one could hate but if you like this type of stuff, it could be seen as good. I'm in the middle of those camps but wouldn't put it past 3.5 stars. Gallows and Anderson have more in common with Men on a Mission than New Day in that I can't think of a MoaM match I would want to rewatch and I can't think of a Gallows and Anderson match I want to watch either. Rusev/Reigns was a solid streetfight that would've worked on any other card in any other position, but the cell was a wholly unnecessary backdrop, the card already featured 2 cell matches too many, and as an opener, methodical brawling isn't quite as good as a kickoff as gimmicky ladder match or cruiser action or fast paced tag match.

Ooof. Bad idea. That crowd is gonna be deader than SummerSlam's.

Just watched this for the first time.Pretty awful stuff. Someone posted, I think in the GWE forum, that Hall is a guy that's been in some good (even great) matches but never a match where you say, "That was great because of Scott Hall." This is a bad match that is only semi-decent because of Hall, though. He's over and his prat falls and selling are fun. I might have mentioned it on here or just in my blog but Dusty in the nWo was such a shit idea. Not just because he was WCWs biggest cheerleader. Not just because the nWo already had valet/manager types in Bischoff, Liz, and Vincent. But because Dusty Rhodes in 1998 was not cool. Hall and Nash were hip - they wore their bandanas like Tupac and winked at the camera and called Zybysko a dinosaur and it was that attitude that may them appeal to 14 year olds. Dusty was not cool to any 14 year old in 1998. They let Dad hang out at the high school beer bash with Hogan and it was funny because Dad/Hogan went over the top with his new gimmick, but the fat, lisping Grandpa wearing Wranglers made no sense. What did they kayfabe gain from having him around? Bischoff was the nerd they let in because he had power. Vincent they let hang around because he was the bagman. Ted DiBiase was the money. Nick Patrick could help them cheat. What could Dusty do for them except help them beat Zybysko? Just so stupid to me.

Not worth being on the list, but as long as we're veering off into other guys that had really good matches with Rey, I'd put Cody Rhodes up there. Its the only match from WM27 I think I'd ever want to rewatch, though, I'll admit to not watching anything from that show since it happened.

Damn. I'm sure all the Shawn haters would be against this and I'm not even the world's biggest HBK fan, but I'd definitely loved to see that match-up. I doubt it happens, though, just cuz if Michaels wasn't coming back to fight Daniel Bryan, I'm not sure what would entice him to come back and fight AJ.

Mick's right. Based on fan response, the fans sometimes decide a woman flashing her chest in Section 137B is the main event - which is as it should be?

https://www.facebook.com/RealMickFoley/photos/a.150133228350157.28288.126269440736536/1440544925975641/?type=3 (includes picture) They'll "main event" like Lesnar/Ambrose "main evented" Wrestlemania, I reckon.

Is Paige still on Total Divas? I think she is. I'm also thinking that there's probably contractual stuff with E! that prevents her from filming another show. I only mention this because, if I was Bravo or really any other reality-centric channel, I'd be all over this shit. A reality TV show about this couple, her family, his ex-wife, their relationship with the WWE...I mean, honestly, there is not a single aspect of this story that isn't ridiculous drama.