DMJ

I'm just curious what other people say about matches, especially obscure ones that I've never heard anyone mention. Actually, my first stop after watching a match, if I want to read people's take on it, is this website. Going to profightdb (where they have the Meltzer ratings for most of the major shows) and searching for a match is really easy, so, its not like I dug through crates of Observer issues from 13 years ago to find the info. The disparity between how much I enjoyed the match in 2015 and how little a respected wrestling critic liked it in 2002 was interesting to me. If he had given it even 2 stars, I wouldn't have even noted it, but to basically call it a shitty, considerably below average match, when I feel like its somewhat of a hidden gem, was why I felt compelled to mention it.

Watching King of the Ring 2002 today, I just finished Lesnar vs. Test. I have to say, I really enjoyed the hell out of it. Super stiff at times with plenty of proof that, months into his career, he not had "It," but had enough "It" to make his opponent look like an absolute monster just by taking it to him. I'm not an encyclopedia of Test knowledge, but I can't name a better Andrew Martin match I've seen, let alone one I'd jump onto a Forums to post a rave review of. There's a bunch of cool moments, including Brock grabbing Test by the hair and clocking the spit out of him with a clothesline, Brock showing remarkable agility that, as far as I know, he hadn't really shown he could do yet by slipping out of some of Test's big moves, and Brock showing just the right amount of emotion to tell a very clear story of a monster getting "tested" against someone his own size for the first time. Even the hiccups worked for me because, with how hard these guys hit eachother, instead of it coming across as "Oh, they forgot the next spot," it read to me as "Oh, they're both trying to shake the cobwebs because neither guy has ever been hit that hard before." The only flaw is the finish which features a wholly unnecessary and oversold bit of BS. Even pre-UFC, there should've been no shame in losing to Lesnar clean, but hey, I'll admit, there is some hindsight at work that makes me think that (I'll admit, I wasn't watching WWE at the time, hence the reason I'm revisiting this stuff, so maybe they really did have a valid reason to try to protect Test). Dave Meltzer gave the thing a half-star. I know I'm hardly as critical or remotely as knowledgeable, but, man, he's off by, at the very least, 2.5 stars. If Lesnar had that same match tomorrow against Titus O'Neill, people would be calling it a low-end MOTY candidate and clamoring for a rematch for the belt.

Great example with Luger. One that I thought of was Bret Hart. Depending on where you go, who you ask, and when you asked it, you'll get all sorts of response about the Hitman. In the 90s, Hart was promoted by the WWE as an incredibly talented technician, masterful storyteller, tough-as-nails underdog that used his unparalleled skills to best all sorts of Goliaths. He was the embodiment of The New Generation. Then, Montreal happens and, over the course of the next decade, Hart is painted in "Bret Screwed Bret" terms - a self-centered "traditionalist" who turned his back on tradition by refusing to do a job, overrated in his in-ring performances, "boring" and vanilla in his promos, retroactively made to seem like conservative/old guard when he actually played a huge role in the "main event style" that dominated the WWE landscape for the next decade both in terms of work rate and theatrics (is there any more proof necessary than Survivor Series 97' with its extended crowd-brawling, finisher theft, and Authority run-in?). …And a significant portion of the audience, especially Attitude Era-and-After fans, bought it. For these fans, Hart is overrated and dull. These fans love to say that Benoit or Angle was a better technician. That Shawn Michaels was better at pulling in fans' emotions. That Hart lacked the charisma of Austin and The Rock and Cena and, thus, had no charisma at all. That Hart's criticisms of Flair, HBK, HHH, and others are proof that he's bitter and jealous. Sometimes they go as far as to say that Owen Hart was actually the better overall worker of the two in an effort to explain away the relatively high number of 4+ star matches Bret had in his career, as if Bret only deserves half-credit for his matches against his brothers, Curt Hennig, and Stone Cold. I've read straight-faced arguments from the mid-to-late 00s that rank Randy Orton and Chris Jericho as better workers than Bret Hart and can only think, "This is the power of the WWE's spin on shaping the legacies of pro-wrestlers." This is also why there are many rabid Bret fans that might place him too highly - because they need to trumpet his greatness in order to counteract the WWE's lengthy smear campaign against him.

Voted Sasha/Bayley. I'm not even a regular NXT viewer, but that match legit had me tearing up. A large part of that was the production around it, the video packages, the build, etc. that didn't happen between bells, but I don't think its wrong to include that stuff when thinking of a true MOTY list. I will say that before I put a final list together, I'll likely rewatch Lesnar/Reigns. The one and only time I watched it from beginning to end was the night of...and by that point, I was pretty inebriated. I remember enjoying it, but I don't remember enjoying it as the best match I'd ever seen or seen all year or anything. Anyone else rate the Cena/Lesnar/Rollins triple-threat from Royal Rumble 2015 highly? Looking at my database, I had that at 4.5. I know Austin and others raved about it on their podcasts too (Austin may have called it the best triple threat ever).

I'll try to explain the Ziggler hate a bit, but I'll preface this by saying - I think this forum is much harsher on him than most others. In many other corners of the IWC and among many knowledgable fans, Ziggler is still well-liked. But the "backlash" against Ziggler is essentially based on the fact that he oversells, his ring attire is ugly, his offense is somewhat lackluster, and that, character-wise, he can be grating because he openly talks about how he is more interested in "stealing the show" than winning matches. Unlike Cena, who at least pretends that winning and losing matter because he wants to be a role model and live with a Never Give Up spirit, Ziggler is almost the quintessential 50/50 booking posterboy - and he almost seems proud of it as long as he got in a few big, concussion-causing bumps. He is a "work harder, not smarter" worker and, in this forum, where guys are credited for doing so much more with so much less, the Ziggler hate is completely reasonable. Of course, there are still plenty of places around the internet where wrestling a "safe style" is seen as a bad thing and, among those fans, Ziggler's recklessness, overacting, and desire to "steal the show" have made him incredibly over. Personally, I think he can be very good in certain matches and roles, but won't deny that I've grown to be much less of a booster since 2008-09 or so, when I thought his performances were much better because, at that time, his act and efforts stood out more. The roster is that much better today than it was then, so, I don't think he shines as brightly. (Oddly, the opposite is true for Kofi Kingston to me)

These don't fit in with the actual name of this thread because the two guys I'm about to mention were both really good/great workers, but I really dug the Mr. Perfect and Bret Hart Hasbros. Sure, Bret's slanted head and painted-on sunglasses didn't make much sense, but in my personal WWE Universe, what mattered more than anything was whether or not you could actually do more than one or two moves with the figure. The fact that Hart's arms weren't locked into a goofy position (I'm looking at you, thumbs-up Duggan and bear-hugging/posedown mode Hogan!) made him the most versatile toy in my collection. Full disclosure, the wrestling fed I really focused on was the one I created on my own using GI Joes. I created my own names for all the characters, made championship belts out of paper, tape, and pennies (not dissimilar to the current WWE Tag Team Titles come to think of it), and even booked house show loops. I kept track of title histories in a notebook where I also wrote down each month's "PPV" card. Fuller disclosure, I did this to an age where I knew to be kind of embarassed about it and used to lock the door when I busted out the toys.

Talk about digging yourself into a hole and then trying to get out of it by shoveling further down. I know the Reid Flair thing was a big deal in the IWC, especially among older fans who saw/heard about it, but I can tell you - based on the middle school I work at - most kids really didn't even catch it or care and I'm thinking most "casuals" weren't made aware of it unless they frequent boards like this or news sites. Personally, I didn't like the segment - but that's mostly because I feel like it was too obvious a "hail mary" play/uber cheap way to try to get heat for a match that will STILL likely be soundtracked by crickets. I'm also not a huge Paige fan. So, WWE apologizes for something that I'd wager 70% or higher of their audience didn't take any offense to or care about - thus, drawing unnecessary attention to their own lame attempt at getting publicity by bringing up a real life tragedy at a time when, as Flair pointed out on his podcast this week, the whole world is mourning even more recent tragedies.

The fact that Ron Funches is on there actually makes we want to watch it now! Dude's pretty funny.

Sure, there's a babyface character in there...but I think (hope) WWE is wise enough to see there's little reason to turn him anytime soon. Taker was a face less than 2 years after his debut and made a ton of money for Vince in that role and he was literally death incarnate. Bray will be a face one day and probably a fairly popular one considering his entrance, if you've been in attendance for it, is one of the best/funnest parts of a live event and that he routinely gets cheered in his matches. Did anyone catch a supposed picture someone snapped from the SD taping tonight? The pic I saw on Facebook, which may or may not have been real, showed a truly awful attendance - like almost TNA level. Curious if anyone else saw it.

I don't see how Hennig was underutilized. If anything, his career was salvaged a bit by going to WCW after he was essentially retired in WWE. I do remember that they were teasing a feud (and potential in-ring return) with Hunter Hearst Helmsley before he left, but I'm not sure that would've set the world ablaze considering that, while one could argue that young HHH is more tolerable than HHH post-00', in late 96'-early 97', he was still trapped in a one-dimensional snob gimmick that didn't really get interesting till Chyna showed up. I think Bret Hart and Tugboat might be neck-and-neck here, the first and only time I'd have them as equals in any department. I know Tanaka was around for a bit in the mid-90s and looked on Wikipedia and learned that Paul Diamond was on the WCW roster for a cup of coffee around the same time. Considering how repetitive and stale the WCW tag scene was in 95'/96' (I mean, how many Harlem Heat/Nasties or Harlem Heat/Stud Stable matches does one need to see in life?), it would've been sort of cool to see Tanaka and Diamond re-team. Matches against Stars & Stripes or Luger & Sting or Faces of Fear or, later, the Outsiders, would've been neat.

So is Cesaro/Reigns tonight then? If so, I am really, really hoping for a Cesaro upset. More than that, I'm wondering why they didn't finagle the tourney so that Cesaro/Reigns would happen at Survivor Series? To me, that's a match that one could reasonably expect to fill a solid 15 minutes on the card and actually get Reigns over a bit. Like against Bryan at FastLane, I think fans would begrudgingly cheer the guy if they saw him put on a great match and win. Cesaro has the skills to get him there.

Ronda Rousey was/is a heel the same way one could say LeBron James was a heel for the Heat, Michael Jordan was a heel, and Mike Tyson was a heel. Rousey was a babyface when she first started grabbing headlines because everyone loves an asskicker. At a certain point, though, she became unbeatable and I think the moment during the fight when it became clear that Holm actually had a chance to beat her, there was almost a collective shift to rooting for the underdog. Look at Michael Jordan. He was everybody's hero for those first few playoff runs, especially before the first championship win. Then, once the Bulls were ridiculously dominant, it became about watching to see if anyone could manage to win 4-out-of-7 against the GOAT. Hell, Jordan was such a heel, his hellishness turned the notoriously polarizing Charles Barkley into an unlikely babyface in 1993.

I was firmly behind the "Give Reigns the title, keep him face" idea, but I may be jumping ship to the "Give the title to a non-ex-Shield guy" now. Have Romans get screwed out of the tourney by Triple H sooner than later. He turned down the offer, he gets screwed. Then, use the tournament to build a new babyface champ to drop the belt to Lesnar at the Rumble. Ziggler works. Cesaro works. I'd rather not Ambrose get it, but that's just a personal choice. I don't think winning the tournament is going to make a full-time, legitimate main eventer in one night - but I don't think it would do that for Reigns either. To me, you should use the tournament to create as many intriguing feuds and characters as possible to get us through January. If Reigns wins, what happens to the rest of the roster? Where does anyone go? I think everyone and there mother knows Reigns is the guy the company is looking to push hard in 2016...but for the last two months of 2015, I don't see why they can't pull a bit of a swerve and have an unexpected, plucky underdog take home the victory. If Ziggler wins, you can have Ziggler feud with whoever he beats in the finals (Owens? ADR?) and then *also* have Reigns in a high profile feud with an Authority-hired bruiser like Sheamus. (I also love the idea of Ziggler bringing up the fact that he survived last year's Survivor Series main event and that he defied the odds again this year)

Stopped watching wrestling entirely for a good 4-5 years around the end of 2000. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what the final straw was - but Undertaker as a biker, the switch over to TNN, the nu-metal inspired theme songs and oversaturation of the WWE brand, and the fact that the war with WCW was essentially over by the end of 99', my fandom was weakening just as the WWE was seemingly going more and more mainstream. As weird as it sounds, though, I can say with 100% certainty that it *wasn't* the Austin heel turn. My fandom was already pretty dead by then. To be honest, I actually think the moment that made me say, "Fuck this shit, I'm gonna start going to see punk bands and try to meet chicks" was the "I did it for the Rock" angle. I was a big Austin fan and when he came back only to feud with Rikishi, who I never saw as anything more than a midcard comedy character and the ratings just seemed to go up and up and up...I knew there wasn't anything "cool" or "outsider" about being a wrestling fan. So, yeah, I'm going to say that Rikishi's push was the jump the shark moment for me for the WWE.

Totally agree that this is going to lead to a Sheamus cash-in, which is just so, so, so lame. If this year hasn't proved that they need to take a break from the MITB concept (I'm not saying forever, but 12-15 months where no one is holding a briefcase is not too long to ask for when the company goes close to that without it mattering when it is held by someone), then nothing will. The briefcase is in the hands of one of the least over/relevant characters on the current roster and, even if it were on someone more over (like an Ambrose or Cesaro), I still don't think it could be used to thrust anyone to the next level in today's 50/50 booking scene. Personally, I'd have Reigns win it. As a heel, face, or someone in between, I think he's somewhat bankable as a WrestleMania opponent for Lesnar, Cena, Triple H, The Rock, or Ambrose. What I presume this is going to come down to, above all, is what the original plans for Mania were regarding Lesnar. He is the centerpiece and I think all the other pieces on the board will be arranged around whatever his storyline is, including the championship.

Just watched this for the first time. Thought the good outweighs the bad. Bad commentary that detracts from the match, lethargic crowd that seemed maybe "burned out" on cruiserweights/Japanese wrestlers (this match followed Malenko/Dragon and Madusa/Hokuto)? I feel like, watched in silence, with the right music in the background, this match would be more appreciated. I'm not very knowledgable about Liger, but I always felt like he was a babyface or a "tweener" in WCW (based on what I've seen), so I like how he works heel here. Compared to Malenko, Liger seems to realize early on that the crowd *wants* to boo the foreigner and while Mysterio isn't a "hometown guy" either, Liger wisely takes the role of the de facto villain around minute 2. This is also why I think criticisms of Liger not showing "urgency" are misplaced - any time he took between moves was used to show classic heel mannerisms (clapping his hands as if he had "wrapped it up," playing to the crowd, etc.). There are a couple of noticeable hiccups, but when sequences or high spots do click, I'd say this eviscerates anything Dragon/Malenko did earlier in the night. A hotter crowd and a more serious batch of commentary playing up the "dream match" idea and this match becomes a WCW MOTY contender for me. Without that, I'd still give it 4 stars.

I know he's a bit of an anomaly, but wouldn't Brock Lesnar be an easy example of a guy who lost a bunch of big time matches but was successfully rehabbed back into being an immensely over top heel/character? Rusev loses to Cena - fine. But what was the point in him then losing to guys like Ziggler and, I believe, Cesaro or Ryback at one point too? i'm not even down on Ziggler, Cesaro, or Ryback….but losing to them after losing to Cena was the opposite of what Rusev needed. See Bray Wyatt for another example of a guy that, for whatever reason, people still see as having a "bright future" and being "money," but who won't be a big star anytime in the near future because it is far easier to rattle off the names of guys who've beaten him (Cena, Reigns, Taker) than the guys he's beaten (uh…Kane? Ryback? Jericho?).

So tonight's Hell in a Cell and I'm not surprised there's been little discussion of it around these parts (or other forums I frequent or Facebook). It definitely feels like Taker/Brock "III" should be a much bigger deal, especially considering how big their SummerSlam match felt going into it (and how much I think the general consensus was that it was pretty awesome in the moment and delivered). Not having Brock/Taker on many shows together and not having them do another big pull-apart brawl (granted, doing it again wouldn't have been original anyway) or some other sort of "add feul to the fire" angle was a real misstep here. It also doesn't help matters that you've got Cena in an unadvertised match (and one rumoured to be his last for a month or two). Considering that this might be Cena's last appearance for awhile, you would want some eyeballs on it. My prediction is that he actually retains tonight and drops the title on RAW in some sort of big show-ending angle, but, to me, this is exactly the type of thing you should be trying to get people to subscribe to the Network for.

How about Big Show's World Title run in late 99'-early 00'? * First, he wins the title after being inserted into a match that was a legit blockbuster - Austin vs. HHH vs. The Rock - when Austin is injured and kayfabe run over by a car. Fans didn't really care because, prior to this, Big Show hadn't really achieved much in the WWE (in fact, IIRC correctly, he'd lost to Steve Austin on his first RAW in the company and went on to lose to Mick Foley at that year's WrestleMania, going 0-for-2 in the two most important matches of his debut year with the company). The fact is, being booked to serve as a replacement for the top babyface in the company was a rough position for anyone to be put in...but things went from bad to worse. * His first opponent and the guy given the job of trying to add some credibility to Big Show's reign: 80s Star/90s JTTS, Big Bossman. Obviously Ray Traylor was a solid hand and his feud with Big Show was "So Bad-It's Good" level...but it was also truly tasteless and, because Bossman was not regarded as any sort of top contender for the Championship, the outcome of their match at Armageddon 99' was never in doubt. Big Show pinned him in under 4 minutes despite interference from Big Bossman's right hand man, Prince Albert. Yup. Nothing screams "World Heavyweight Champion" like 4-minute title defenses and interference from a guy named after a penis piercing. * Big Show ends up losing the title to Triple H on the January 3rd 2000 RAW in a lackluster match. * While Big Show would go on to wrestle as a part of WM16's main event, his comedic turn on an episode of Saturday Night Live led to him getting repackaged as a silly babyface who impersonated other wrestlers. This brilliant gimmick elevated him to new heights of stardom and credibility, revitalizing a career that seemed to be heading to distaster. Except the exact opposite happened actually. The schtick wore thin within weeks and Big Show was written off TV for the remainder of 2000 and sent to OVW to lose weight. In summation, Big Show's WWE Title reign, possibly designed as a "last ditch effort" to get him over, was a complete disaster that not only failed to establish Big Show as a credible main event talent and failed to entertain fans, but it seemed to set into motion the man's professional downfall, one I'm not sure he's ever fully recovered from.

I'm actually just now watching the 2002 WWE PPVs for the first time as I was one of the hundreds of thousands of fans who stopped watching in late 01' through, in my case, the summer of 05'. My biggest takeaway from the spring of 02' is that Austin was still the top act. Maybe not the freshest. Maybe not the best in-ring performer. But like Cena today, his crowd responses are the most consistently strong and emotional. His match against Big Show at Insurrextion (a nothing show if there ever was one) is a great example of how good and important Austin still was - that match screams "filler" but is essentially the best house show main event match you could ever want and totally gets the crowd engaged more than the actual main event (HHH/Taker). If there was any ego on the roster worth placating, it wasn't Hogan's, it wasn't Rock's, it wasn't HHH's...it was Austin's. Somehow, keeping Hogan heel is kind of key too. I'd have had him tease a face run and then have him and the nWo screw HHH out of the title. Then, let Hogan be the heel champion he was in WCW while you find a way to give Austin a much needed break (say May through July). Then, once you've given Hogan his last real main event run (maybe he retains against HHH, Taker, and, I dunno, tags in an 8-man with the Outsiders & XPac against Hunter, Taker, Kane, and Flair in that time), you bring Austin back and have him beat the Hulkster for the title. I don't think ANYTHING would've stopped the decline in popularity that hit the WWE in 2002, but if there is *one* potential feud that could've lessened the blow, it was Hogan vs. Austin.

Some thoughts on RAW... * Liked the opening segment. When it comes to promos, Ambrose is effortlessly charismatic and enjoyable when he isn't burdened with selling Wyatt's meaningless drivel or having to counterbalance Reigns' awkwardness. Similarly, when Orton goes out and just has fun, he comes off as likable. It was nothing special from either guy, but it was also kept short, made perfect sense from a character perspective, and led to New Day. Anything that leads to New Day is solid right now. * Liked the tag match too, especially the finish. Way better than any of the New Day/Dudleys matches we've seen thanks to a faster pace and a crowd that cared about all five performers. * Cena/Ziggler was good, not great. I'm not as down on Ziggler as others around here and think he was actually his "best self" here. Sure, he was going from overselling to no-selling in the blink of an eye, but he was doing it in the confines of a straight-up singles match and, compared to recent Cena/Owens or Cena/Rollins, it wasn't like they were hitting nothing but finishers out there. In this context, with this sort of escalation of big moves, I was able to buy into the comebacks. In a ladder match where Ziggler is taking "He Should Be Dead!" bumps, for example, him springing back to life every couple minutes is much more annoying. Like the tag match, the right man won too. * Wish they weren't positioning Sasha as a face, but not worried about it. She's getting cheered now, getting over, but, in due time, when the Divas Revolution storyline wraps up, she's good enough to establish the Boss character as it should be. It won't be hard either as there is still plenty of good will to milk out of Charlotte's heritage and Becky Lynch being the "steampunk geek girl next door." * Man…not a fun night for Roman Reigns or Bray Wyatt. Still don't think it means that much in the long run as Reigns doesn't draw that kind of reaction every night in every town, but the clock is ticking on what I assumed the plan was (heating Reigns up for another Rumble win and WrestleMania main event). Wyatt getting "Husky Harris" chants in one city on one night is also not a huge deal…but, to me, the takeaway is that these two need separated STAT. The good news is that Hell in the Cell is going to be the blow-off. The bad news is that its a month late and neither side is coming out of this feud looking better for it. * Who would've thought that, out of Lana, Rusev, Ziggler, and Summer Rae, it is Summer Rae who is coming out of this months-long storyline smelling like money? I don't even think its so much that Rae has improved her character work by leaps and bounds as much as its Rusev being practically castrated from a win/loss perspective, Lana being pulled off TV without a trace (to the point that fans have almost forgotten her), and Ziggler being on the same hamster wheel he's been on for years (which only hurts Rusev for not being able to beat him). Only Summer Rae has momentum coming out of this clusterfuck of an angle. * Don't even know what to say about the main event. Is Kane/Rollins confirmed for Hell in a Cell? Will it even be for the title when Kane has shown no interest in that? Am I crazy or was there some foreshadowing of Kane/Big Show feud Version 489? I was on board with this feud when it was about Rollins escaping Kane, the ultra cheesy demonic psycho, chasing him every week. Weeks later, Kane has destroyed Rollins at every turn, the villain has gotten his comeuppance numerous times, and I no longer care.

Just cuz I was the one who brought up Brock/Rock, let me clarify that I was only listing that match as an alternative to Rock/HHH, which is what I've heard is the plan. If one would argue that HHH/Rock is better than Rock/Brock, I'm all ears. Hell, if you think both options are *equally* bad, I'd listen to the argument…but, to me, if these two are the sole options, Brock/Rock is the better alternative. After writing the OP and considering that Vince really only views a handful of guys as being worthy of matches against any of these part-timers, my vote would really be Rock/Reigns or Rock/Orton (in that order). Also, if people are bothered by Brock/Rock talk, I'll go out there and say that nothing annoys me more than when people suggest Kevin Owens or Cesaro in those positions as if there is really any chance in hell that in 2015-16 they would even be in consideration.

I'm excited about the Rock in WWE whenever it happens. He's a legit movie star and that brings importance to anything he does on the program. I'm not going to say he can do no wrong or that relying on him for ratings bumps is great longterm strategy, but he's the friggin' Rock and he's still more "must see" than just about anyone on the active roster. …but boy am I not interested in seeing him going up against Steph and Triple H. On the list of options of what to do with him, that really rates pretty low for me. Reasonable alternatives I could get behind would be obviously a match with Brock (mostly for the Heyman/Rock verbal jousting in the build-up), a tag team-then-feud with Roman Reigns (could be a great way to turn Roman heel and give him a huge Mania match), or something totally out-of-the-blue like just having him show up and be involved with relatively random guys where he just comes in and lays out heels with Rock Bottoms (Miz, Barrett, Sheamus, etc.) until someone like a newly-turned Orton drops him with an RKO or Rusev attacks him. Orton/Rock, Rusev/Rock, Wyatt/Rock, or even Rollins/Rock would all work in that sort of scenario for me.

As an overall year, I'd put him at the top of the WWE. Lesnar has been excellent too, but his aura as a part-timer makes his "nothing" matches (like squashing Big Show on Saturday) seem top notch even if they're nothing better than average. For my money, Lesnar is more "must see," but Cena's been a constant for a decade+ so its hard to view him that way anyway. Here's what seals it for me - * The Triple Threat from Rumble is probably still my MOTY * I liked Owens/Cena 1 a good bit * Cena/Neville was cool * Cena/Zayn was cool * Cena/Cesaro was cool * I liked the Rusev/Cena "I Quit" match even if it was cartoonish * Last week's 30-minute segment/matches with New Day proved he's still RAW's "MVP." As good as New Day is, against lesser opponents, they merely overshadow their foes. Up against Cena, they came off as a legit main event act. * The Cena/Rollins match at SummerSlam was great until the finish * The Cena/Rollins RAW match where Cena got his nose broke was a strong TV match * Cena/Rollins in the cage was solid on Saturday, it just sucked from these two already fighting like 6 times this summer already Reigns has quietly had a good year too, arguably a Top 3 in the WWE, but there were also some really weak moments - his Rumble performance, his SummerSlam performance, his 5-minutes-too-long-and-cop-out-ending match against Bray Wyatt at Battleground (I think it was?) - that keep me from putting him on the same level as Cena. If Cena is leaving for awhile, he left after a pretty darn strong 10 months.

Crowd seemed quiet during most of the show, to be honest, which made me wonder if the producers had their hand on the dial. For example, there was an audible "We want Sasha" chant at the start of the Divas match and then it just kinda stopped as soon as it started. My full review is on my blog - overall, the worst Network Special in 11 months if you ask me. Not out-and-out terrible, but also not a single moment was special aside from *maybe* the freshness of Jericho/Owens, which was a good-not-great match. Cena/Rollins was good too, but when every time they wrestle they hit a B+/A- minus range, it makes it hard to appreciate them hitting that same mark again. Lesnar/Big Show was meaningless and a waste of everyone's time - the segment where he tossed Bo Dallas around was ten times better. I think the producers wanted a "Please Retire" chant for Big Show's exit (which explains why Eden Stiles would announce "Let's give a round of applause to Big Show!") but didn't get it because either the crowd didn't even care enough about the guy for that or maybe, like me, they just feel bad for the dude. I'm not a Big Show mark or anything, but, man, he's a 7 foot, 450 pound, former World Champion and he actually got the premise of the match over through his historically-based and passionate promos leading up to it (with no help from Heyman or Lesnar, mind you). He was made to look like a complete chump…which makes Mark Henry and Cesaro look like chumps too. I hope this isn't what the WWE's house shows are normally like because I don't see why anyone should pay $30 a ticket to see a show with so many video recaps, NXT advertisements, and backstage segments.