DMJ

I know not everyone is as wordy as I am, but on this topic I really would like to know why Cena-Reigns would be such a disaster. The Cena hate is nowhere near what it was. Daniel Bryan's career is a question mark and Ambrose is nowhere near as over as he was last year (ditto for Cesaro if you want to include him), so if Mania were tomorrow, Reigns wouldn't really be taking anyone's "spot." Lesnar will probably be on the undercard. Austin might be on the undercard. The Rock and Ronda Rousey might be on the show. I don't see how Reigns/Cena in a Torch Passing match is going to turn away viewers in 2016. In fact, if you take Lesnar (and Austin and The Rock) out of the equation, is there a bigger match the WWE could run? Cena/Taker maybe? Even a Shield three-way isn't a big as Reigns/Cena.

Good question. I don't think people will turn on the match. I think things will be genuinely split. Obviously both guys have their detractors, but the "Cena hate" has included a certain amount of begruding respect for the past 2-3 years. His biggest critics complain most about him winning all the time, not necessarily that he's not a good wrestler. The "5 Moves of Doom" thing is so 2007 and, unlike "The Savior" CM Punk, Cena didn't walk out just because he's not main eventing WrestleMania (note - Cena hasn't main evented one for two years now) or leave the WWE for Hollywood like The Rock. The "Cena hate" is a part of the show, but its almost "tongue in cheek" now, no better illustrated than when Cena returned at that Rumble a few years back - at first, the crowd erupted in cheers, then they realized they were cheering Cena and booed. There is a certain type of fan who hates what Cena symbolizes eventhough, in 2015, Cena symbolizes (a) consistently having the best match of the night and ( doing it a match or two before the main event. People who don't see things that way will cheer on Reigns because he symbolizes someone new and fresh. Reigns also has his detractors and, like Cena from 05' to at least 07', there is plenty to dislike in his character and arguably one-dimensional in-ring work. Personally, I think Reigns has improved tremendously over the past year (look no further than the shitty, dull Orton match from last year's SummerSlam compared to what Reigns was able to do through just his selling and bumping against Bray Wyatt last month), but I'm a Cena guy these days. Like I rooted for Hogan at WM6 (eventhough I felt, deep down, even at age 6, that Warrior would take it), I'm going to go into the inevitable Cena/Reigns clash cheering on the incumbent...knowing full well that Reigns is going to get "the torch." Fans who poo-poo the match outright will be the minority (or should be). Neither guy is a "part-timer," neither guy is the boss's son-in-law, both will be (with Bryan gone) the likely number 1 and number 2 babyfaces on the roster. In fact, your question has me pretty amped for the potential in that match and its build-up.

Pros - * The novelty of watching Hogan's first major heel match post-BATB 96'. * The number of small details, from Michael Buffer's introduction to the finish, that WCW threw in to try to cement Hogan's heel status. Even The Giant's "finisher stealing" is kind of clever. * Hogan's stalling in the beginning is fun. * Beefcake gets beaten down. Cons - * I'm glad someone else mentioned Bobby Heenan being in "no condition to perform." Earlier in the show, he cheered the Outsiders by accident in their match against Sting and Luger (and then stumbled his way through an apology after a rather long, notable silence) and you can tell Dusty and Tony are peeved. His commentary in this match is a touch less awkward (at least he doesn't cheer Hogan), but his unprofessionalism is still pretty noticeable. * Its not only bikers that cheer Hogan - its a very loud, seemingly large number of kids! Tony and Dusty wisely ignore the crowd on commentary, but it doesn't help because there is such a huge disconnect between the story Hogan and Giant are trying to tell and the one that the fans in attendance think they're watching. * While Hogan's stalling is kinda cool at the beginning, unfortunately, those initial moments are probably the high point of the match. There's a hammerlock exchange that is particularly tedious. I'd have to dig through my reviews, but I believe this is my least favorite match of theirs in terms of in-ring efforts. Someone wrote that the Giant wasn't very good yet and I'd agree, but to play devil's advocate, his matches with Sting and Luger from the previous PPVs that year were significantly better, meaning that it took two to stink up this one as Giant had proved to be "workable" by this point. * Hogan's post-match interview is reminiscent of some of his more recent WWE work, where he just kinda jumps around between different bullet points. The spray painting and beatdown of Ed Leslie is cool (I'll never tire of seeing the Booty Man get punched), but Hogan is noticeably scattered in his actual speech - mentioning his 22-year friendship with Beefcake, then referencing Ric Flair and Arn Anderson, then bringing it back to Beefcake in a kind of roundabout way, then finishing up with more about Flair...its not great.

I'm not a huge Hall fan or anything, but just for some balance, I do think Hall did some "little things" really well. I just watched The Outsiders/Luger & Sting match from Hog Wild 96' yesterday and all four guys are pretty decent in it, so I'll use it as an example. I'm a fan of Sting's selling and comebacks and he is definitely the anchor of the match, but Hall and Nash really get their characters over - Hall, in particular, comes across as such a beatable bully that you really despise the guy. He throws his toothpick. He mocks his opponents' signature poses. He drags his boot across Sting's face to add insult to injury. In terms of pacing, too, both he and Nash take their time, so the crowd is with them from beginning to end. Unfortunately, there's also some slip-ups (Hall telegraphs the Razor's Edge reversal blatantly and struggles to hit the fallaway slam on Sting), but overall, after viewing the match, I was still interested in the characters. Not a glowing review, but I could see how, on character alone, a guy like Hall or Nash could sneak into someone's list at #99.

Depending on what style of wrestling your sister digs, there will be something she'll enjoy on Spring Stampede 94' and Slamboree 94' shows. I just watched those a year ago and they're absolutely great, partially because of the variety of matches. They're not all masterpeices, but as a whole, really watchable.

That story is in Chris Jericho's latest book. Definitely an interesting coincidence. This might be a stupid question but is Victoria a big drinking town? Does it have other regular sport teams or concerts coming through or is WWE coming a huge deal? Could it be one of those things where fans are tailgating before and by the time the show starts, things are already getting rowdy? I bring this up because as someone who lives in Ohio and is familiar with OSU on Saturdays during the Buckeyes' football season, I know firsthand how otherwise decently civilized masses can degenerate into hordes of car-flipping, couch-burning idiots within a span of hours (and that even if it only happens once every few years, there's a "culture" that exists even during "mild" seasons).

I'm admittedly limited in my recent viewing/memory of Finlay, but I did watch the awesomely brutal Regal match from UnCensored 96' a few months back and noted in my review (Kwang The Blog) that I feel like Finlay came in with such a straight shooter gimmick that fans didn't really know how to respond to him. Regal is a great example too because he was the exact opposite - the guy got great heel heat no matter who he fought, whether it was Sting or Johnny B. Badd or Marcus Bagwell (I'm sure someone can point on some even lesser babyfaces that Regal had relatively hot matches with). Also, Finlay doesn't play to the crowd in that match at all, really just focusing on brutalizing his victim in a way that I don't remember many other good guys doing then or really ever. The same can be said for Chris Benoit pre-Horsemen because, despite some strong showings, the crowds are pretty dead for his matches. Compare that to Eddie Guerrero, a natural underdog babyface in 96': In his match with Konnan (also a good guy at the time) from that same period, Guerrero gets really strong pops even up against another clean-cut do-gooder. Konnan wins with a questionable/borderline cheap maneuever and the crowd is audibly disappointed because, while Konnan isn't booed at any point, as the match goes on, the crowd veers from 50/50 to noticeably 75/25 in Eddie's favor. I know that's a long (and completely tunnel-visioned, "missing the forest for the trees") answer, but it stood out to me that Finlay was just too gruff and vicious in his style to get real crowd support in a way that "natural" babyfaces like Bagwell seemed to do just by standing up to Lord Steven and his Blue Blood brethren.

During the last conference call, Vince and Barrios (maybe?) reported that the Beast in the East Special was a huge success. To me, that show featured a bunch of things that we don't typically get, which may be one reason why it was not only a success in terms of viewership but critically.

I think I'd put Snuka on my list too. As others have said, it's hard to explain but there's something about Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka that crossed over with non-fans in a way that puts him right there with "Hacksaw" Jim Duggan in terms of guys that even non-fans could pick out of a lineup (side question - does anyone else know people that pronounce Duggan as "Doo-gan"? Was that a thing?). Like the Road Warriors, I think part of it has to do with Snuka being sort of a "typical" 80s wrestler in the eyes of a public who saw his physique, his crazy hairdo, and his leopard-skin tights (my non-fan friend once referred to them as "jungle panties" when we were in middle school) and thought thats what a pro-wrestler is (a musclebound wildman). So, I'd go DiBiase (first name I thought of), Jake Roberts, Snuka, Hacksaw, and Hogan...but there's a pretty wide gap between some of these guys in terms of who I think the biggest "names" are. Curious - anyone see a case for Honky Tonk Man?

In no specific order, but numbered for sake of keeping count - 1. No real heels who cheat or take shortcuts or do anything sneaky 2. No squash matches to make us anticipate Big Wrestler A vs. Big Wrestler B 3. No "dream matches" left because everyone's fought everyone a dozen times on TV already 4. No differentiation between the way shows are produced 5. The announcers 6. The 20-minute opening segment promos 7. 3-hour RAWs 8. No reason to watch any other TV programming 9. No "ladder" for workers to climb (i.e, trading meaningless wins and losses) 10. The ridiculous amount of recycled gimmicks 11. Most matches being "you do your shit/I do my shit" instead of telling logical stories with momentum shifts 12. 99% of entrance themes 13. Overexposure and annual heel/face turns for everyone but John Cena 14. The current Authority storyline offering nothing new to the formula 15. "Smart" fans "hijacking" shows with "smart chants" instead of just booing/cheering That's all I got for now, but I'm sure I could think of more with more time.

To me, this is kind of similar to the Austin/HBK poll in that I think one can objectively look at their careers and say John Cena has had more 4-star or higher matches than The Rock and that Cena can do things in the ring that The Rock never could, but if you just put it up to which guy I'd rather see in a ring, wrestling or cutting a promo, 9-times-out-of-10, in 2015, I'm going with the Rock. Part of that could be that, as a current WWE fan, I've spent the past decade watching Cena and, while I've enjoyed plenty of his matches and promos, there are stretches of his career that I think went way below even the worst runs of The Rock's career (for example, worst feud - Cena/Laurenaitis or Maivia/Sultan?). Also, even with the overexposure of Cena in 2015, I think I would've answered this poll the same way in 2005 and 2007 and 2009 and so on.

How about when Curtis Hughes came to the WWE in late 90s and was Chris Jericho's bodyguard/tag partner? The craziest part was that he'd lost a ton of weight to the point of being almost unrecognizable, which kind of hurt his aura, but probably added years and other benefits to his life.

To defend the "Bryan Should Main Event Every WrestleMania!" fans, it was abundantly clear in 2014 and at the start of 2015 that Daniel Bryan was the most universally beloved babyface on the roster. Historically, the top babyface should be wrestling in the main event or at least the second-most promoted match on the card. The rumor going into WM30 was that he'd be feuding with Sheamus, who has never and probably will never be as over as Bryan was at the time. Going into WM31, Bryan had no storyline at all - he wrestled in a 6-man ladder match for a meaningless title. I'm not saying there's been a conspiracy to hold Bryan back, but I do think there have been some unfortunate, unforeseen circumstances that will make his aborted title reign and limited "comeback" a great "What if..." talking point for years to come. In the end, WrestleMania 31's main event exceeded expectations and Brock Lesnar surpassed Bryan as the most "must see performer" somewhere between ending the Streak and destroying Cena at SummerSlam last year, but to say that Bryan, if he were to return, should be used in NXT while RAW desperately needs stars is like saying Ric Flar should've been used as a trainer at the Power Plant instead of coming back to WCW in 98'.

I just watched his match against Ultimo Dragon at Hog Wild 96' and really, really liked it. Not as good as the Psychosis match from the previous month's Bash At The Beach, but in terms of show openers, I thought it was great. The unique setting (the ring is elevated off the ground and the padding around the makeshift stage/ring looks especially thin and unforgiving) adds to it and shows how fearless Mysterio was at the time. Again, not an all-time classic (there are some noticeable hiccups), but when things click, its a fun one.

Just throwing it out there because the idea sounds crazy in my head, but is there any chance that Taker is returning as a heel at Battleground? If he costs Lesnar the title, I think the audience is going to boo him. Sure, when the lights go out, the pop will be huge, but when Lesnar gets screwed a second time, I think there is going to be opposition from the audience. Granted, JR could get the angle over much better than Cole and Company will, but essentially, Lesnar beat Taker fair and square and now Undertaker is holding a grudge. The whole "He has a right to be angry, but NOT THIS WAY, Undertaker, bah gawd, NOT THIS WAY!" This enables Sting to return as the Vigilante, out to beat the Undertaker at WrestleMania 32 because the Undertaker has forgotten that he once fought for justice or whatever. There are all sorts of holes in this scenario, but if Taker does screw Lesnar, I don't think it is going to affect Lesnar. Hell, it probably won't even affect Taker all that much if the commentators ignore how heelish that would be (which is totally possible).

Just watched Pat Tanaka as "El Gato" in WCW at Great American Bash 96'. Pretty decent match considering the crowd is dead (at one point Konnan hits him with a powerbomb to the arena floor) and almost makes me wonder if the crowd would've been more enthused if they had just brought him out as Tanaka.

Look no further than No Way Out 2002 for how WWE would have botched the nWo. I just recently watched that show and it really counters any claim that WCW "got lucky" with the nWo storyline in 97-98. WCW was able to keep that angle red hot for a long stretch, while, in one night, WWE basically debuted it and destroyed it in a span of 3 hours. Here's some specifics - - Show starts with nWo coming out and cutting a promo that is remarkably similar to a John Cena speech of today. The crowd boos them at first, but then, they just ask the WWE Universe for a chance and say that they have come not to destroy the WWE, but to be a part of its awesomeness. This pandering is supposed to sarcastic, I think, but it comes off as genuine. - They outnumber Austin backstage. Offer him beer. He turns them down. They walk away (while the Charlie Brown Christmas theme plays ala George Michael on "Arrested Development"*). - They outnumber The Rock backstage and ask him for an autograph. The Rock agrees. Hogan mutters something under his breath and the Rock owns all three in a promo. Again, instead of jumping him, the nWo walks off without incident. - At the end of the show, the nWo helps Chris Jericho retain his title (eventhough Jericho has no link to the group). After spray-painting Austin, they run away, fearing that Austin will get up and whoop all three of them. Basically, everything that made the nWo cool (their defiant, cocky promos, their We're Above Everyone attitude, and their gang beatdowns on hapless babyfaces) are gone and, in their place, we have a triad of jobbers who come off as less intimidating than Too Cool (hell, they're less intimidating than X-Factor). * Okay, maybe the song doesn't play, but it easily could've.

Late to the party, but I just watched Cesaro/Cena from this week's show (never got around to watching last week's). The truth is, it really does take me 2-3 days to get through RAW - an hour here, an hour there, a day between. Anyway - is anyone else of the mind that Cesaro/Cena, without the commercial breaks, may have been better than either of the Owens/Cena matches? I was a big Cesaro fan going in (but one whose fandom has cooled since it seemed there was little chance he'd ever get "The Push"), but somewhere around the 23-minute mark, I just realized if there is anyone capable of having a really great 60-Minute Ironman Match with Cena, it is Cesaro. I really enjoyed both Owens/Cena matches, but could pick out flaws here and there (the anticlimactic "outta nowhere" ending to the first, the early finisher spamming of the second), but this week's Cesaro/Cena just worked for me more. Lots and lots of impressive moves and I felt like, for whatever reason (maybe something as simple as comparable body types?), both guys submission moves looked pretty snug and realistic (something I never thought I'd say about the STFU). Even Cena complaining to the ref about the last nearfall made sense - Cesaro's shoulders were down, but Cena had an unclear, insufficient pin (JBL explained "Cena was caught in Cesaro's legs") so the ref's count was late in Cena's opinion, but justifiable to me, the viewer. Cena looked legitimately spent at the end, so I didn't see the purpose of the post-match AA to Owens, but it's not like that hurt the 30 minutes that preceded it. I'd give it 4 stars and, on a PPV with no commercial breaks (the fact they cut to a break in the first 2 minutes means we really have no clue what the first quarter of the match was), I could see that being a 4-and-a-half match. One could say "It needed 5 more minutes," but those 5 minutes were there for the live crowd and we just weren't privy to them.

I agree that this is not too surprising of a leak, but I do find it that funny that... a) It seemed a sizeable amount of these rules were broken blatantly during Michael Cole's heel run, especially when it came to running down Daniel Bryan every week Announcers can't say "Our industry" or "This industry," but there was about a decade where I could've sworn Triple H uttered that phrase in every one of his show-starting monologues on every episode of RAW he was on (which was all of them).

On the topic of the New Day's overness... I went to MITB a month or so back and, from the start of the show to even after, the "New Day Sucks" chant was BY FAR the biggest ongoing chant. The previous night, they ran an NXT show, so there were plenty of NXT chants ("Fight Owens Fight," for example) but the New Day stuff reminded me of going to random shows a few years ago and hearing "We The People" randomly shouted every 20 minutes or so. The New Day chant broke out pretty much anytime the cameras were off (pre-show, post-show, parking lot, on the line for merch - it was insane). I'm not going to say it was as omnipresent as Fandangoing, but I'd also say, the New Day gimmick and wrestlers involved can actually be a hot act for months to come, where as Fandango was a one-dimensional gimmick that only reminded me of how underrated Glenn Gilberti kinda was.

* First, this special really showed just how much WWE can benefit from producing something different than the usual. Different crowd. Different entranceway. Different announcers. Even different camera angles. It was just such a breath of fresh air that I would easily say it added at least a half-point to every match. * I really liked the opener. Probably my favorite Jericho match in years. Again, I'm not sure if that has to do mostly with the presentation, the crowd's involvement, or even the novelty of seeing Jericho after a long absence, but I also thought the pacing of the match and all the counters were great. Jericho seemed to be having fun and, maybe more than any match since the Cena "debut," Neville struck out to me as a guy that could actually last - maybe even in a role not dissimilar to when Jericho, Edge, and Christian were all long-running IC/European championship-level guys. * I'm a Nikki Bella fan but I must admit, she's been losing me these past few outings. This match was kinda like her title reign to me. It started out pretty sloppy, then eased into some respectable work and great effort, and then hit the wall with a real anti-climactic thud. (While she's still champion, I don't see anyone on the current main roster taking the title from her in an interesting way.) * The Lesnar squash was fun, reminiscent of watching Sid take out dudes back in the day. The post-match was the "bonus" for me because, before Big E and Woods came out, I must admit to being a bit disappointed that we didn't see them. * Balor/Owens was great fun and part of that fun was the "Japan-ness" to it. I'll be the first to admit I'm seriously ignorant and unknowledgable of Japanese wrestling beyond what I've read in books or seen bits and peices of - but the streamers and flowers, while probably not special to many on this board, come off as really cool and unique to a US-centric viewer like myself (and probably a majority of WWE fans). Then, you had the match, which continues Owens' streak of quality outings. I wasn't personally invested enough to call this a MOTYC but I'd assume the NXT die-hards and Balor fans enjoyed it more than I did - meaning, to me, it was a B+/A-, but I wouldn't doubt that those more invested in the storyline and Balor's progress wouldn't put it above that. * The "main event" was misplaced and featured two characters (Barrett/Kane) that are so cold, it is impossible to care. I would've loved Cena/Ziggler vs. New Day or Cena/Ziggler vs. Rollins & J&J Security or even Cena/Ziggler vs. Harper and Bray or, really, just about any two other than Kane and Barrett. Overall, a really good 2-hour show and one I'd easily recommend (save the main event) due to the watchability of most of it.

In a quote that is too ridiculously hyperbolic to make up, Ted Cruz called the past 24 hours "some of the darkest hours in American history." This reminded me of Tony Schiavone calling every Nitro main event, no matter how terrible or inconsequential, "the biggest event in the history of our sport."

Just saw this for the first time as I'm watching Slamboree 96'. The poster above gave it 1.5 stars and I can totally see that when looking at this match out of context, but as someone watching the show from beginning-to-end, I'd notch it up to an 3-stars compared to the other Battlebowl matches (which are all really short and save for a move here or a move there or a short segment [for example, the Steiners facing eachother], mostly atrocious). This match, though, is interesting and engaging from even before the bell rings as Flair refuses to come out until Savage has already made his entrance (and been jumped by Double A). From there, the match just never slows down, contradicts itself, or betrays the blood feud that Savage and Flair were having at the time. So many little things executed properly and so few things to criticize aside from the match being very short (which makes total sense). When I rate matches, I tend to think anything 3.5-or-higher is something worth revisiting and while I won't put this match up at that level, it is, by a wide margin, the best thing on the show up to that point.

Billy Gunn in 1999. I'm not going to argue that winning the Intercontinental Championship or the King of the Ring at that time was still really meaningful, but Gunn's string of victories as a singles star that year just came across as such as an obvious attempt to get him over outside of DX and the New Age Outlaw team that I don't think ANYBODY, even the biggest DX supporters, were really rallying for. I won't go as far as to say he didn't deserve it - the guy put in his time and certainly deserved a chance based on the success of the Outlaws, his look, and his in-ring skill, which I don't remember loving but certainly wasn't offensive. Still, the push annoyed me because it was so forced and inorganic. Any time Prince Albert or Test was pushed too.

Depends on if you think the best player of his generation returning home to try to end one of the longest droughts in sports history for a fan base that has suffered through a ridiculous number of cursed moments is an example of "evil." Since when are underdogs evil too? Golden State was heavily favored going into the Finals. At no point, even when the Cavs were up 2-1, did Golden State become the underdog. Steve Kerr said it best in Game 4 when he reminded his team that the Cavs were just 7 players and that they would tire if Golden State outlasted them. That is pretty much what happened (mixed with JR Smith and Shumpert shooting terribly and Igoudala having the best series of games of his career). Golden State was relatively healthy throughout their entire run. The Cavs lost two All-Stars. I'm not sure how many Good vs. Evil fairytales you're familiar with but, typically, the hero is the one faced with insurmountable challenges on their quest for glory. This time around the challenges were so insurmountable that they weren't…uh…surmounted. With the odds stacked heavily against them, though, the Cavs fought valiantly and bravely, gave everything they could (Dellevedova needed to be hospitalized for dehydration/exhaustion after Game 3 for chrissakes), but couldn't reach the mountaintop. Their effort was inspiring, especially in the closing minutes as, despite having lost the game with minutes left, with the crowd chanting "Let's Go Cavs!" and "MVP," the team (particularly JR Smith) refused to go down without sinking one more shot. These guys are pros and they've played a lot of basketball and they knew it was hopeless, but they went down fighting till the last 10 seconds. Golden State is a fantastic team and I don't think they played dirty or cheated or anything of the sort. They won fair and square. But it wasn't a Cinderella story and it wasn't "Good triumphing over Evil." It was the expected outcome of a competition between a very healthy, very good, very motivated team and a bruised-and-battered, less skilled, but also highly motivated team.