DMJ

Totally concur. The only match on the show I rated above a 3-and-a-half. While I understand the arguments made by some that Banks took too many risks and the match featured too many high spots, I'd argue that the setting was appropriate for such big spots (RAWs and house shows are not) and that, to their credit, the big, risky spots were treated as important and game-changing in a way that not a single thing was in Styles/Cena or Rollins/Balor. Also, I believe that the concerns about Sasha Banks' risky decisions are a little bit misguided and almost misogynistic. Countless male wrestlers have wrestled hurt or taken insane bumps and, for years, were held as bastions of the sport. Just three years ago, John Cena put over Daniel Bryan with an elbow swelled to the size of a grapefruit and needing immediate surgery - his efforts and willingness to do "what was best for business" were praised far and wide. Speaking of Bryan, there are people who want to see him wrestle again despite the fact that it could lead to permanent brain damage. Mick Foley became a beloved figure almost entirely based on a reputation for mutilating his own body for the fans. Ditto for Jeff Hardy. You can hate the risks that Sasha and Charlotte took, you can call them stupid, but they paid off and Banks and Charlotte both came out of that match as even bigger stars than before.

^ Damn. That's pretty awesome. I had the match at 4-stars, but almost want to retroactively push it to 4.5 out of frustration with SummerSlam. Obviously the super smart fans or those that have been following NXT and the CWC closely knew Gargano and Ciampa, but I happen to think there are loads of fans like myself who would call themselves big NXT fans but only really catch the Takeover shows and maybe one NXT/CWC show every couple of weeks. The type, like myself, who'd definitely buy a ticket for a Takeover show, but not necessarily know every character (if you would've told me that that was Billie Kay *and* Ember Moon's debut, I would've believed you). I mention this because of how impressed I was at what I'd call a relatively "cold" match (it certainly didn't have the months-long build of the other title matches or the "marquee" appeal of Roode's debut) featuring one team that actively works a methodical style and a "no-frills" gimmick (which, of course, makes them great and unique compared to most other teams in the company) and a team of two guys that, save for their humorous Glorious Bomb videos, I don't think have really been given any character development or personality, at least to "part-time" fans like myself. The heat and excitement and suspense in this match was built almost entirely between bells for me and, boy, did I get caught up in it. In summation, I cared more about the outcome for a match I couldn't have told you was even on the card before it started then I did for Balor/Rollins and that match was designed to crown a champion of the entire fucking UNIVERSE.

I thought that was Nakamura's best performance in NXT yet. The match against Aries seemed a bit flat at times and, against Balor, I thought his selling was inconsistent. Last night, though, I just thought him and Joe put on a great physical contest where every strike and submission and grapple looked like it was taking energy out of both men. I didn't necessary like Nak kicking out of the Muscle Buster, not because Nakamura ended up winning, more because I feel like they could've played up the rematch as Nakamura hitting Kinshasa twice but not proving he could actually withstand Joe's finisher. Who should challenge next? I'm on board for a rematch anyway, but I do understand the complaints about predictably and repetitiveness. To some degree, though, I feel like NXT Takeover crowds (is the next one international again?) are "buying in" on the prospect of seeing a Match of the Year contender, not necessarily on whether or not the outcome is expected/unexpected. Joe/Nak II, based on the intensity of their first meeting, sounds like a MOTY contender. I'm gonna post my full write-up over on my blog, but just wanted to note - Bayley remains my pick as the best babyface in wrestling, woman or man, and what a year for Cleveland. First, we win the NBA Title, then we stay classy during the RNC, and finally, our hometown hero, Johnny Gargano gets to shine on the big stage. When he started showing up on NXT, I thought, "Well, he'll be good enhancement talent," but last night felt like a character-defining performance from him and Ciampa, the kind of match that exceeded expectations by doing nearly everything right and made both teams look stronger coming out of it. I'm not ready to see Revival on the main roster yet just because I don't think they should be dropping the straps, but they're obviously ready.

BAD - The debut of "RockaBilly Gunn." I remember being pretty interested in who Honky Tonk Man's protege would be in the spring of 97'. Why I cared is a question I don't know the answer to, but I'll chalk it up to being just a lame 13 year old wrestling fan. Anyway, in the weeks before Rockabilly made his debut (at an In Your House, don't remember which one), I believe Honky Tonk Man had asked both Gunn and Road Dogg to be his man. They both turned him down. This was intriguing to me because it meant that his mystery man wouldn't be either of those two guys, opening things up to a possible debut of a new superstar or maybe a former WCW/ECW talent. Then, it turns out it Gunn was the protege after all - turning the entire build-up of the debut into a complete waste of time and serious disappointment. GOOD - Its astonishing, but there is a guy who had not one, but two amazing debuts in the WWE. His name is Sean Waltman. Not only was his RAW debut as 1-2-3 Kid a star-making moment, but when he returned to the company the night after WrestleMania 14, it felt like the WWE had just struck a direct hit at WCW's warship after months of misses doing similar segments (Jarrett's shoot, Cornette's shoot). X-Pac joining DX revitalized the should've-been-dead faction and while I'm not sure any DX segment would ever hit the same "I can't believe I just saw that!" peak, there are less than a handful of moments throughout the entire Attitude Era that meet that high water mark. I vividly remember seeing the segment and instantly grabbing my phone, modem connection be damned, to call my friends about it.

I actually really enjoyed this one. Here's what I wrote on my blog... "Pillman [back] as a babyface is weird to watch after he had so convincingly played the villain as part of the Hollywood Blondes...Pillman looks motivated to keep up with Regal’s energy, stiffness, and execution. Unfortunately, around minute 5 or 6, it becomes noticeable that Heenan’s headset isn’t working and Tony Schiavone has to fly solo for an awkward stretch, hurting the presentation of what is an otherwise very good match, especially if you’re a fan of watching Regal stretch a dude out with a variety of submissions. In fact, this is possibly Regal’s most impressive PPV bout yet and certainly Pillman’s best PPV [singles] match since 92’. There’s an awkward miscommunication in the final third, but at least it leads to a nicely-executed “Regal Roll” (as Tony calls it). I’m not a huge fan of the finish, but in terms of quality wrestling, everything but the last 5 seconds is marvelous. (4/5)" I'm willing to admit that I reviewed this within the first couple months of getting the Network and going on a WCW binge after years of not having watching anything other than WWE or WWE-made DVDs, so I tended to rate many matches considerably higher than I might today.

One of my favorite pop culture writers is Chuck Klosterman. In one of his best pieces, he writes at length about how important it is to have a nemesis and an archenemy - and goes on to explain how these two people are not the same. Full text here Basically, your nemesis is a bit like your rival - you are constantly in competition with this person and want to beat them, but you harbor begrudging respect for them, maybe even secretly appreciate them. Your archenemy is someone you loathe. According to Klosterman, Larry Bird's nemesis was Magic Johnson. They were the leaders of their respective teams at a time when their teams were competing to be the best team in the NBA. However, Bird's archenemy was actually Isiah Thomas of the Detroit Pistons, a guy who notoriously insulted Bird by questioning whether his popularity had more to do with his skin color than his, y'know, averaging a double-double each of his first six years, winning three championships, etc. So...how is this wrestling? I thought it'd be fun to discuss who someone's nemesis/archenemy is. For example, John Cena's nemesis is Randy Orton. Their careers have been intertwined for over a decade and they're arguably the WWE's version of Rock/Austin (more on them below) for the 2000s. They've faced each other countless times, but even in their most intense battles, there has always been an underlying respect between them. Cena's archenemy is Edge, though, the guy that cost him his first and second WWE World Championships, building his career as The Cena Spoiler. Back to Rock and Austin. Austin may have hated the Rock...but the Rock was a wrestler, a worthy challenge. The Rock was Austin's nemesis. Vince McMahon was Austin's archenemy. Now, as Klosterman goes on to explain, this doesn't always work both ways. Austin's archenemy was Vince McMahon, but McMahon's archenemy wasn't Austin - it was Ted Turner. Austin was McMahon's nemesis, but even at the height of their feud, McMahon was always somewhat open about wanting the Rattlesnake to join him as his corporate champion. McMahon wanted Turner to die penniless. Finally, Klosterman posits that if you don't have a nemesis and an archenemy, you can't truly be great. I'm not sure this is the same in wrestling. I mean, Sting had a nemesis (Flair) and an archenemy (Hollywood Hogan), but I wouldn't call him any greater a character than the Undertaker (who only had a nemesis - Kane) or even The Ultimate Warrior (who only had an archenemy - Rick Rude). ANYWAY....I'm hoping others will join in on the fun. Who was Ric Flair's nemesis? Who was his archenemy? What about the Hulkster? Was Bret Hart's archenemy Vince or Shawn or was it really Triple H all along, the one guy he, to this day, has never said even a halfway respectful word about?

I would scoff at the idea of self-help, but I thought DDP's "Yogas for Guys" thing was ludicrous when I first heard about it at the start of the 2000s. Over the years, it seems that DDP has had tremendous success, though - not only in PR terms with him being looked at the guy who saved Jake Roberts and Scott Hall - but financially. I found this article through a cursory search on Google and its from 2014. It says since 2012, he's sold over 100,000 units of his DDP Yoga product. If all of those units were just the basic DVD pack (selling now for roughly $50, but originally $60), that's a cool 5 million bucks. I'm not sure what his profit margins are, but you'd have to think they're very, very good. DVD sets are cheap to produce and the brand drives for repeat customers. Plus, the entire operation is online, meaning his most expensive overhead is probably just storage? Marketing? If anything, DDP Yoga has only seemed to become even more popular since 2014 too with the explosion of wrestling podcasts. He's probably reaching more ears now than ever before. I'm not sure Ryback will find the some success, but one never knows. Legion of Doom got in on the ground floor of Zubaz and made a ton in the 90s. Duff McKagan was an alcoholic rocker, but he invested in Amazon, Microsoft, and Starbucks in 94' and probably made more money off of that than GNR and Velvet Revolver royalties combined. I don't know if Ryback-brand Vitamins is his ticket, but if he gets involved in the right product, on the ground floor, and it takes off, he'd be quite a spokesman.

Cobra vs. Craig Pittman from Fall Brawl 95' is one of the most entertaining matches in WCW history.

Agree with above comment. 3 hours is just too damn long. I know there are fiscal reasons why getting rid of the third hour is not going to happen, but, man, it just makes me think how much more possible another "hot" era would be if they cut RAW down right now. The last time I felt like WWE was legitimately "cool" again was 2006 - oddly enough, the last time they spent a summer building up the birth of a new brand/actually caring about the brand split, influxing both shows with fresh (if not young or even good) newcomers, and momentarily putting the brakes on their Chosen One (in that case, Cena) to push the guy that the internet wanted in the main event (Rob Van Dam...again, I'm not defending 2006 IWC sentiment, I'm just drawing some comparisons). The best segment of the show was the last one - which is the right idea. You shouldn't waste a segment that good in Hour Two when nothing else you have to offer is remotely as "must watch." I do think RAW is lacking a bit of star power. Cena's absence is going to take some getting used to now that he's healthy and, considering Lesnar ain't gonna be around much and Orton is a Blue Brand guy and your World Champion, Dean Ambrose, is on Tuesdays too...who is RAW's biggest "name"? I like the sounds of Reigns/Rusev, but its a step down for Reigns when they kind of need him in a more prominent spot now more than ever. Here's hoping Balor, Zayn, and Cesaro are booked strong in the next few months because RAW lacks a big name babyface currently. Did anyone else want Jericho's "back-up" to end up being Big Show as much as me? I've been a proponent of Show back in the tag division for awhile now and JeriShow/Enzo & Cass is a program I'd enjoy far, far more than seeing Enzo or Cass thrust into singles competition well before they need to be. With Charlotte and Sasha Banks opening the show, was this the first time that a "divas feud" kicked off RAW? If so, it wasn't a bad segment and I'd welcome more of them (especially if it means less purposeless Steph and Foley intros)...but I wouldn't call it a walk-on homerun either. Enzo and Jericho's involvement was a welcome addition, even if it didn't make much sense. Some Mark Henry return, eh? All in all, if you aren't DVRing these episodes or watching an abbreviated version, you have way too much time on your hands.

Not to be too morbid/insensitive but considering that the Limo Angle just morphed into the Paternity Angle and that the Paternity Angle ended up being a total joke with a lame punchline (it was...Hornswoggle! So funny I forgot I laugh!), I kinda wish that entire storyline would've been in the house when Benoit did his thing. And, while I know the original concept had some people intrigued (probably myself included back in 2007), when you consider the way Mr. Kennedy turned out in TNA and you really look at his track record of even just "good" matches, I don't think even the original concept, executed perfectly, would've bore fruit.

From reading everyone's comments, I feel like one of my questions has been answered - Is Roman Reigns still being "groomed" as the next John Cena? No. Once the rocket was strapped to Cena's back (I'll say 2005), there really never seemed to be serious conversations about the likelihood of him "spending some time in the midcard." Now, obviously, 10 years later, Cena did end up competing for the US Championship and blah blah blah recent history....but we're talking about Cena essentially voluntarily stepping down to open up the main event and maybe extend his own lifespan in the process. For Reigns to fall into the midcard in 2016, after only really a year and a half as a "top guy," puts him in a category of workers that will never be remembered as being "The Man." Its still esteemed company to be in - Eddie Guerrero, Chris Benoit, Chris Jericho, Rey Mysterio, Booker T, and Kane all followed similar trajectories of peaking in the main event but spending a majority of their WWE careers slightly below it - but its not necessarily the position that I believe the company was hoping for when it came to Roman Reigns. All evidence pointed to the WWE wanting Reigns to be the next John Cena, not the next Edge. To me, that's the big story coming out of this week. Not since SummerSlam 93' can I really recall a moment where, in the span of 24 hours, it became so crystal clear that Vince had decided to pull the plug on what was seemingly his top investment.

I'm not sure if this deserve its own thread, but I am curious what other followers of the current WWE product feel about Roman Reigns after this week's shows. I found it to be a very interesting two nights. At Battleground, Reigns got pinned by Ambrose clean, but even before that, one of the big stories of the match seemed to be that Ambrose and Rollins were almost actively serving as avatars for the "smart fans," at certain points teaming up (despite their years-long, bitter rivalry) to "bury him" via a powerbomb into an announce table. RAW opened up with Stephanie calling him a loser. I might've missed it (I was half-watching, admittedly), but was there any sort of retaliatory statement out of Reigns? Did Foley stand up for him? Did the commentators? Reigns got one big win early in the night...but it was, without question, in the "colder" of the two fourways. Call them "indie darlings," call them "the fresher talent," call them the whatever you want but Rusev, Cesaro, Owens, and Balor represent a "next generation" and their match felt like a bigger deal than its counterpart weighed down by two guys - Jericho and Sheamus - who, rightfully so or not, seem out of place on a show built around "RAW's rebirth." I don't think its just in my head, either. I think you can compare the placement of the matches and the commentary and tell which match was presented as more important. Then, the main event. Reigns did some roaring at the tail end, but for the majority of the match, he was stoic, no longer tossing out those sly grins or smiles that he'd been punctuating his offense with since last year's Mania. This was Reigns working an emotionless style on purpose, leaving plenty of room for Balor to play the clear underdog babyface. Even when Reigns has a clear size advantage (against AJ Styles some months ago or Daniel Bryan in 2015 or even against Rollins), he's always shown an ability to use facial expressions to get across anguish and rally support from at least a portion of the audience. Last night, there was none of it. All the while, the commentators seemed more hesitant to heap praise on the guy than at any time I've heard since his debut. This doesn't feel like the start of a "redemption" story either. So, what does everyone else think? Am I reading to much into this or did the ending of RAW seem like it could be summed up as "The Birth of a New Star...The Fall of Another"?

Overall, very good but not great...but I'd almost argue that it has very little to do with anything that actually happened between bells. For starters, this was essentially an unpromoted match, meaning you really didn't have the "air" of it being a big deal the way you would had they saved this exact same match (move for move) for SummerSlam. Similarly, as this was on a TV show, you're stuck with accepting a 4-minute commercial break (thankfully there was only one during the match). Again, this may just have to do with time constraints or whatever instructions they were given, but Banks' suicide dive and Charlotte's moonsault were BIG moments that I feel like would've been sold longer and given more room to "breathe" on a pay-per-view show rather than on RAW where, literally within 2 minutes of Charlotte backflipping from the top turnbuckle to the arena floor, we were seeing them trading submission finishers. Too rushed. Finally, the post-match. I sound like a broken record at this point but, again, just seems like it would've been a bigger moment in Brooklyn. The Pittsburgh crowd did their best to show their NXT love and obviously were behind Sasha (and Balor), but you really can't compare the crowds of a city like Pittsburgh (or even my beloved Cleveland) with the atmosphere of a NYC crowd. ***1/2 is how i rated it. It will likely make many lists of Best TV Matches of the Year, but I doubt it will make my Top 10...which is just a bit sad because I'm fairly convinced that, if you adjust the setting and add an extra 2-3 minutes of just ssstttrreeetttcchhhinng time between the big spots with ample selling or just letting the performers bask in the "Holy Shit" and "This is Awesome" chants that they received, this would've been an easy 4 stars.

Definitely a strange choice. I didn't watch and haven't watched regularly in awhile, but is Del Rio injured? Isn't he on SD? I'm actually a bigger Ziggler fan than a Del Rio one, but Del Rio was my pick to challenge Ambrose for a number of reasons. I'm guessing Ziggler is turning heel in the build, but it won't freshen him up unless they really alter just about everything about him. Maybe even give him a bodyguard like Nash suggested.

Was that roughly the same time period as Cornette's NWA stable in the late 90s? I remember that idea really sucked too, the kind of angle that, to a knowledgable wrestling fan made some sense, but, to the fan who had only recently been tuning into wrestling thanks to the nWo and Steve Austin would probably have come off like the dumbest "rip off" of the nWo, even if only because of their name and the fact that, IIRC, Cornette's goal was to somehow "take over" the WWE and written it to traditional wrestling.

The League of Nations immediately jumps into my mind. ADR and Sheamus weren't exactly hot before teaming up, but this stable put them in 3 Man Band range. Del Rio and Sheamus didn't even make the PPV card last night, so, just goes to show where they are on the pecking order...

Fan of this one too. On my blog I described it as "tightly packed with good work, nice sequences, and credible pin attempts." I gave it 3 stars and would've had it as my MOTN except I enjoyed the Macho Man/Flair match more. Meltzer gave it 3 and a quarter FWIW. DDP was awesome in 95.

I'm hoping that one of the ideas they have is to return to some squash matches ala NXT (where the idea of JTTSes has actually helped create buzz about the clear victors (your Corbins or Balors) *and* the jobbers who put them over, such as Breeze, Swann, and Dillinger). I'd go a step further and use locals or generic NXT undercard guys. For example, Orton is boring as shit at times, but I'm not opposed to watching him work a 5-minute squash where he essentially "plays the hits" and murders some jabroni. Then, as Corbin does the same elsewhere on the card for a few weeks, the idea of an Orton/Corbin match would be a bit more appealing. Instead, we'll likely get that match within the first month, cold, and it'll have no intrigue. For another example, yeah, the AA/Usos matches could be good, even great, but would it not be better to build up AA with vignettes and then "exhibition" matches where they just toss around and destroy locals, giving the wider audience a chance to familiarize themselves with their signature offense before we get AA/Usos?

Watching the RNC...not because I'm a fan, but because it's in my city (Cleveland). A few thoughts so far... I liked Scott Baio in his Chachi and Charles gimmicks, loved Bob Loblaw run, but this aging Hollywood Republican schtick is not nearly as interesting as it could be. Maybe a diva on his arm would've helped? The Lone Survivor got huge pops. Makes me wonder how long it is before one of the GOP bookers thinks about giving him his own push in a small local territory to see if he could ever be a national star...based on the current nominee, a lack of political experience does not seem to be an issue. Like most RAWs, I feel myself getting bored and turning this off before the main event.

I'm a bit surprised to see so much hate on this match. I thought it was actually pretty good. I don't really understand the "This match buried the Horsemen" argument. Yes, they lost on their home turf...but they were outnumbered and outsmarted. Should they have been outsmarted? No...but wrestling has its tropes and babyfaces getting turned on, whether its the numerous times Sting teamed with Flair or Dustin Rhodes making Arn Anderson his tag partner in 94', is a common one. I understand hating the swerve for its repetitiveness, but as someone else said, at least we didn't see Curt Hennig clean house and then turn - he turned the first second he got in the ring - and if they had played their cards right, Flair vs. Hennig should've been a money feud. It just fizzled out, though. Positives: - Benoit is outstanding here. He comes out of this match looking like he too could've been poised to be a bigger factor in the destruction of the nWo. I would've liked to have seen him in almost a "B-team Killer" mode, working his way through the nWo's lesser guys until maybe getting a shot at Syxx. - People hate on Bagwell so much, but I thought he was more than serviceable, bumping into the cage, eating chest chops, and in the rare moments he was on offense, delivering acceptable, standard heel fare (chokes and taunts). Some reviews seem offended by his mere presence in this match when, if you ask me, its Konnan who is the obvious weak link, doing nothing to draw heat and not selling much. - Some reviewers have implied that this match was "heatless" or that the "We Want Sting" chants showed how little the crowd really cared about the participants. My interpretation was different, but maybe I need to get my ears checked. I felt like they popped pretty well for Mongo and Flair's entrance (not to mention Hennig's). I think I heard sizable cheers when Benoit fought back from being in a 2-on-1 position. The crowd loved Syxx getting cut off and beaten down the second he came in. The "We Want Sting" chants, to me, were totally reasonable as, for the majority of the match, it did seem that Hennig was not going to participate, meaning that the crowd may have been thinking, "Who will the Horsemen's mystery partner be?" The Stinger coming into this match as WCW's fourth member would've been awesome and not out of left field at all. Can you blame fans for being conditioned to believe Sting would show up in the last 3 minutes of the show to save the day in the fall of 97'? When you factor in his history with the Nature Boy, I actually think that would've been the better finish from a crowd-pleasing standpoint, but its obvious that the bookers felt, right or wrong, that the nWo needed to win this match in order to maintain their dominance leading into the storyline's climax at Starrcade. I guess you can hate the booking so much that it spoils the match, but watching it in full today, I thought it was a solid match with enough cool moments, crowd interest, and even brutality (Flair getting his head slammed is just nasty) that it worked for me.

Just watched this in full for the first time in many years, maybe even since it happened. Wow, such a sad, sad match to watch because, before the accident, this match was definitely headed to 4-star territory and maybe even higher because you can really tell that audience was going to friggin' explode when they saw the Stunner. As others wrote, Owen is fantastic here and their chemistry is remarkable. I like how, with Bret, in his feud with Austin, you still had a guy that wanted to win cleanly because he was all about personal pride over anything - it was generally Austin who made Bret "go vicious." Owen, on the other hand, is "naturally" a cheating, despicable heel so he actually seems to enjoy trying to break Austin's hand and has no qualms about, at one point, trying to walk away from the match when the going gets rough. It's a dynamic that, frankly, Austin really hadn't worked with much on PPV that year (or ever beforehand?) as, if you look at his 97', he was generally feuding with babyfaces and tweeners and none of whom were willingly to play a cowardly role like Owen did (Bret, Shawn, And Taker being his singles PPV opponents that year, plus the Final Four and Stampede match). Obviously, Austin's health was the biggest victim of the accident, but one also has to feel a bit bad for Owen too and how this match and, based on what I've heard, an inability for him and Austin to ever really talk it out and discuss it must have affected his career. Owen was never going to be a longterm main eventer, but there was no doubt a natural, organic rematch that could've happened between the two. In fact, as a house show opponent for Austin post-WM14, he may have even been the ideal. I don't think there was enough trust for that to happen and Owen was relegated to not just midcard duty, but almost lower midcard duty for quite awhile afterwards, first being used to put over HHH and then eventually in the tag scene with another guy that was rumored to not be someone Austin liked, Jeff Jarrett.

I get that and give credit to the company for being poetic...but if a tree falls in the woods and 30 million people don't see it because they were watching the Finals instead, it's not a "moment" to anyone but the most insular fans.

But isn't the point of the briefcase that Ambrose could've cashed in at anytime? Like the big Draft show coming up? Or even the very next night on Raw? It just seems like they picked the very worst option. Again, I haven't watched it or read detailed results so I could be dead wrong, but even if you argue that the WWE wanted to have the "crowd leave happy" and needed to immediately take the title off Reigns due to the Wellness Violation, it still seems like they made an extra unnecessary and counterproductive step because, unless Vegas was vehemently against Rollins and pro-Reigns, I doubt the crowd would've shat on Rollins leaving with the title. The Ambrose switch was a good idea, but it just seems so narrow-minded to do it on a night when you know you haven't maximized the amount of eyeballs you've got on your show. Ambroses victory will be as remembered as that time Dolph Ziggler became a World Champion on a random episode of SD.

Still haven't finished watching the MITB show, but obviously couldn't avoid reading about the title change. Has anyone talked about how ridiculously poor the WWE handled this happening on the same night as the biggest sports story of the year, if not the decade? I mean, they basically guaranteed themselves absolutely zero coverage from any mainstream sports sites when I think one could argue that Ambrose's first title win might've actually gotten at least a little play on a slower news week. I'm a Clevelander, so I'm obviously bias, but of the dozens of texts, Facebook messages, etc. that I've received since Sunday night, not a single one has even mentioned Ambrose, someone who is actually pretty popular among my circle of wrestling fans (and, honestly, among my friends, any World Title change would usually lead to a series of phone calls and texting from across the country as a way to keep in touch). I did read that the Raw rating went up a bit, so I could be wrong...but it still feels like a lost opportunity to elevate Ambrose in an important way. I mean, to Clevelanders at least, it's like having Hogan slam Andre on the night John Lennon was shot.

I predict we won't see many, if any, "big" returns. I haven't watched in close to two months (aside from the Network specials) but aren't they keeping Kane, Show, and Henry on ice? All three seem like surefire returns to Smackdown to me. I wouldn't be surprised to see The Boogeyman show back up either as he seems to have maintained a decent relationship with the company (he appeared on Swerved at one point) and has the kind of gimmick that could consistently answer the question "What do you wanna fill segment 4 with this week?"