DMJ

So, Triple H turns on Rollins tonight?

Obviously this conversation could be its own thread, but when it comes to rating matches (as I've started doing - please check out my blog as I recently posted ratings for hundreds of WCW and WWE matches), I'm definitely willing to admit that I give "bonus points" for the full presentation, production, etc. I, personally, couldn't look at any match as only what happens between the sound of the bells. To do that, you'd have to ignore the crowd's investment or post-match shenanigans or the commentary. I'm not saying I put huge weight on those things, but, to me, that's why I would say Outsiders/Luger & Sting & Savage at Bash at the Beach 96' is a "must watch" for contemporary wrestling fans even if there isn't a single actual wrestling sequence in the whole thing that's memorable. With that in mind, I see Bayley/Banks as an easy 3.5 if you look at just the story told by the performers in the "meat" of the match…but factor in the effectiveness of the pre-match video, the "big match feel" that the crowd brought to it, and the post-match scene and I had no problem boosting it up a full point to a 4.5. Some video games critic once wrote that the pinnacle of gaming design is when playing or completing a video game will make the user cry because bringing that level of emotion is incredibly rare for not only video games but any medium. We all might have movies or songs that make us cry - but how many wrestling moments are there that really draw that sort of reaction? Obviously, trolls will bring up the annual Hall of Fame ceremony, but I'm talking about "in the moment" examples that happen in the ring in the context of an actual wrestling show. There's Savage and Liz reuniting at WM7. There's the occasional retirement announcement/speech on RAW. There's been Daniel Bryan and Shawn Michaels and Eddie and Benoit finally living their "boyhood dream." That Bayley win and the "Curtain Call" ending achieved a similar feeling on a smaller level and I don't think one can overstate how remarkable that is when you also reflect on the history of women's wrestling in the WWE. I'm not going to call it a watershed moment because the momentum of the "Divas Revolution" could vanish in 6 months, but if it does all end, I could think of no better ending to the story of the NXT Divas than what happened last night.

I'm not sure on his health, but I wouldn't mind Rowan returning to help Wyatt and Harper. The "Clan" should've never broken up to begin with, but hindsight is what it is. All three benefitted from being together and though one could argue it would be a "step back," I don't see how reforming would be *worse* than what each guy has done for the past year. In fact, it would've only helped the Taker feud back in February/March. Plus, considering how little they did apart from eachother (at no point did they even really feud with each other in a notable way), the "reboot" wouldn't defy logic...like Ambrose turning on Reigns would. If you're going to have Ambrose turn on Reigns, do it when Reigns is in some position of power, fame, top guy status. THAT would make sense. Turning on Reigns now would have such little impact and, as someone else pointed out, potentially hurt Reigns because Ambrose's "jealousy" (which I'm guessing would be his motive) would come off as him being a bit like CM Punk going after Cena, the downtrodden, overlooked, "unmarketable" guy finally saying "Eff You!" to the cherry-picked guy that's being "groomed." A year from now, though, when Reigns is World Champion, having earned it through a series of challenges, on top of the world, enjoying the good life, Ambrose turning on him would be a total dick move by a jealous asshole. What would Ambrose be envious of in 2015? What "spotlight" has been on Reigns since Mania? By my count, it's Ambrose who got a 1-on-1 title shot more recently. In 2016, Ambrose/Reigns could be money...but in 2015, it's short-sighted midcard fodder. Besides, for all the talk about how much WWE worries about Cena shirt sales going cold, do they ever think that killing Ambrose (even if he is, like, 4th or 5th down the list of sales) isn't such a smart move?* * Separate note - Am I crazy but, this time last year, wasn't there a news item about how Ambrose's merch sales being pretty strong?

Eeesh. I listen to loads of podcasts and multiple wrestling ones, but even making that available to download sounds like a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

I think the main events are pretty exciting, personally. I know on Monday morning everyone and their mother is going to find some way to say "Same old shit!" or "It was so predictable!" but right now, I'm really not sure how things are going to end in either of those matches. In Cena/Rollins, you have Super Cena (who "never loses") going against Seth Rollins, who is not lighting the world afire as champion. It seems cut-and-dry that Cena should win, except Cena already has the US Title and, as we saw on RAW, the WWE just came out with a "15x Champion" tee-shirt that will be pretty meaningless if Cena wins on Sunday. You have Sheamus waiting in the wings with his briefcase but he's less over than Rollins so if the belt find its way to him, one has to figure they'd be "hot potato-ing"it back to Rollins in September (maybe in a 3-way with Cena). I'm not sure Rollins dropping the title for a month to Sheamus does anything for anyone, but its a possibility. I predict that Rollins retains through shenanigans, but betting against Cena has been a pretty foolish gamble for a decade now. If there is concern about flagging ratings and Lesnar won't be around to lift all ships beyond Sunday, it wouldn't surprise me to see Cena get brought back to the main event. I mean, where else does Rollins even go as champion? Reigns/Rollins was a "gimme" after the Mania finish, but 4 months later, with Reigns in a ho-hum feud with the Wyatt Clan, I'm just not seeing it as the big Fall program. Then, in the match I expect will close the show, you have Lesnar and Taker. Again, its hard to be 100% confident in either guy winning. Lesnar should win, no doubt, but Taker dropping two-in-a-row to the Beast is hard to see when you consider that WM32 might be Taker's "Last Ride." Undertaker winning will make the "rubber match" necessary, but it would probably hurt Lesnar more than the Mania loss (which came across exactly as intended - the opportunistic Rollins screwed Lesnar, Reigns, and the fans). Lesnar/Taker III is also going to be a tough sell if their match is as disappointing and "humanizing" for the Deadman as their last one was. After that match, the general feeling among my friends was that we never wanted to see Taker wrestle again - win or lose, I'm afraid we'll have the same thoughts after Sunday. If Lesnar wins, they could still run Taker/Lesnar III, but man, talk about a waste of Brock's talent. It was brought up multiple times during Lesnar's title reign that simply standing up to the Beast will get someone over - that, at the peak their 2014 popularity, Ambrose or Ziggler losing to Lesnar would have made them bigger stars. A year later, that's still true. Of all he's done since winning the title, Rollins mattered most when he was Lesnar's target. There's also big potential in Reigns/Lesnar. If Lesnar wins, there's multiple directions you can go with him - but there's only two directions you can go with the Undertaker: retirement or revenge. That's it. Taker needs to win if they ever want to tell a story with him that doesn't involve the Streak (like, say, Taker/Cena at WM32). So, yeah, I expect to hear that everyone and their mother knew what would happen at SummerSlam on Monday morning, but right now, I'm pretty unsure how things will pan out.

Bryan/Cena at 16a? Man, I think that's one of the top 5 matches of the past 15 years, maybe longer. Great build, great back-and-forth match, emotional ending...I can understand people hating the swerve at the ending, but I'll readily admit I hate the post-match because I got worked - the intention was for me to say "Fuck you, Triple H! You stole the spotlight again! You put yourself over the most over guy in the company! I hate you!" and thats exactly what I did. I'm not as down on the HBK/HHH epics as other people here, but I wouldn't put that in my top 10. Maybe not even my top 20. I won't go through and list, but off the top of my head - Cena/Bryan Hardy/Punk (Ladder) Bret/Perfect Bret/Owen Lesnar/Punk Lesnar/Rock Bret/Undertaker Ambrose/Rollins (Best Lumberjack match ever?) Eddie/Rey and just to throw it out there - Hogan/HBK somewhere in the top 20. As much as that match is cartoonish and HBK is super unprofessional, it was the match that brought me back into being a WWE fan after 4-5 years of not caring at all about pro-wrestling. I've rewatched it since and it is an absurd match, but its also the last Hogan match that interested me at all (I didn't see any of his TNA matches and his feud with Orton the next year was a meaningless joke). I'd readily rewatch Hogan/HBK for its surreal value before I'd rewatch HHH/HBK. Anyone else have any secret enjoyment of that one?

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).