DMJ

This weekend, I rewatched SummerSlam 2001 on my epic journey through WWE and WCW pay-per-views I missed when I lapsed as a fan (thanks, InVasion angle!), but I did notice that the show was headlined by The Rock vs. Booker T. It made me think - how many WCW or WWE pay-per-views were legit main evented by two non-white performers? Is this it? I also find that what really hurts the WWE is that they really undervalue the sizeable portion of the audience that is African American and Hispanic and young. I teach at a middle school in Cleveland, 80% African-American or so, and there are tons of wrestling fans in the 6th, 7th, and 8th grades. They are the typical 11-13 year old fans - love Cena, love Reigns, love Bryan, hate Rollins, love Ziggler, fear Lesnar - basically, the ideal audience the WWE targets. They wear WWE shirts (though, they are often the WalMart/K-Mart line, not the official Shopzone stuff), and keep up with the show via TV (few have the Network as that would require a credit card). Many still "believe" in a weird way - they know it is fake, but they can't really wrap their heads around HOW it is fake (for example, in a recent chat, I mentioned there was a rumor that Heyman would turn on Brock and allign with Reigns and Reigns would turn into a bad guy and their minds...were...blown. They didn't get it. Their response was that it was impossible because Reigns is a good guy, which, in their minds, means he will always be a good guy - aww, the innocence. They also don't "get" the idea that the show is scripted to increase drama, getting genuinely upset with Rusev's shtick in a way that no smart fan ever would. Kayfabe is not dead to them, no matter what HHH says). To me, you give them a Titus O'Neill push, you've got a license to print money because what you'd be doing is giving them a character that they can really get behind and see themselves in, even if he's just an upper midcard type guy.

I'm not as surprised by Vince's appearance (which was likely airbrushed a good deal - I mean, I'm not saying the dude isn't in great shape, but from what I know about magazine/commercial photography, if the public is seeing it, it's been touched up), as I am about the ridiculous word choice. "Better than ever at 69"? If I read the article, is that fact confirmed by Linda? If yes, I think I taste my lunch coming back up.

Just watched X-Pac vs. Tajiri from SummerSlam 01' and this thread came to mind. I must admit to having thought that, by 01', Waltman was terrible and that I couldn't enjoy his work anymore as the character had gotten so stale (this is during the time when "XPac Sucks" was a thing) - but that match, aside from the ending, is really, really strong and could've been a 4-star if it had been given more time and ended cleanly.

I'm sure someone could disprove this thought in a half a second, but Shawn Michaels returned at SummerSlam 2002 and the buyrate for that show was 40k less than the year prior. So, Shawn Michaels returning at WM32 is going to pop what exactly? Network subs? Attendance? Didn't WWE have to paper some of the Alamodome for the 96' Rumble in his own hometown for what was a very telegraphed "Watch Shawn win the big one in his hometown!" main event? I'm not saying HBK on a card doesn't appeal to me or many fans, I'm just saying, in 2016, I'm not sure he's a difference maker any more than he was 10 years ago or 20 years ago when he, y'know, wasn't a huge difference maker.

One of the "problems" with Bryan is that you can look at the first 30 minutes of the show and say, "Well, he got a 'tepid' response" or "He's still not a great promo" or "Reigns is more marketable and the crowd is coming around for him"...but then its time to wrestle and Daniel Bryan's offense is so fan-friendly and "interactive," his selling so engaging to watch, and his comebacks so dramatic that you forget all the shortcomings and are reminded as to why Daniel Bryan not being in a main event or not winning a Rumble is so irksome. If Reigns had a resume that featured even 3-4 better-than-average singles matches, it wouldn't be an issue - but I just haven't seem him wrestle a singles match that was able to sustain fan attention and deliver a good story yet. Aside from the finish, I thought tonight's match was actually a pretty darn good TV match - and it was almost entirely due to Bryan's energy and connection with the audience.

I believe it has been officially announced that Rikishi is going in this year. I was never a huge fan of the guy, but I know there are some who like him (and love to bring up that SD match with him vs. HHH and the Radicals as if it was the biggest TV match ever), so, this is not a surprising choice - especially considering the popularity and success of his sons thus far. Still, he's someone I would probably not have on my own personal shortlist and can think of quite a few guys from pre-Attitude Era that are equally as deserving. When people say "Koko B. Ware is a Hall of Famer" as a note to talk about how the Hall of Fame is not only full of mega-stars with long resumes of championships and main event angles but about other aspects of the WWE's programming, I feel like we could probably say the same about Rikishi now. Good midcard act, goofy Stinkface spot, danced when he put sunglasses on, "did it for the Rock," but did nothing for me as a fan.

This is the reason, I think - http://blog.ctnews.com/politicalcapitol/2012/10/31/nbc-anchor-brian-williams-on-flood-of-mcmahon-ads-during-sandy/ Yeah, it seems minor, but a cursory google search of "Brian Williams Linda McMahon" brought that up and I'd assume, when it happened, even if the rest of the planet didn't care, to the McMahons it was a huge insult and assault on their campaign.

What are they drawing in CoCoa Beach? I'm more interested in their March show in Ohio. HHH as a P amuses me to no end. I'm predicting good things in terms of attendance, as long as the WWE is smart in promoting the show. I went to a TNA show in Columbus a few years back - Angle, Mickie James, AJ Styles were all there - and the crowd wasn't too small. Honestly, I've probably been to better-attended AIW shows here in Cleveland, but AIW does a nice job of (a) filling a small room to make it seem more crowded and (b ) building a bit of a "casuals welcome" audience where you have 80% of the audience being the loyals and the other 20% being the hipsters/punks/kitsch-lovers who come to one show a year to get their fix of "underground wrestling" because it is "something different." (I'm not saying that as a negative either because I'm definitely closer to Category B more than a loyal attendee). But, yeah, my buddies in Columbus are going...though, they've also announced Money In The Bank will be there this June, so, it'll be interesting to see if some fans will choose one over the other.

I haven't read the Observer piece, but I'd be surprised if that is even in consideration at this point. Reigns is going to have to really get booed, loudly and clearly, at the next few TV shows and tapings for me to be convinced that the WWE will alter their plans. I think this is one of those times where it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and is a duck. Bryan's job is to make Reigns look good and lose and that is what will happen. I really, really hope I'm wrong - but my gut is telling me that Reigns is going into Mania to face Lesnar, as a babyface, and the WWE is going to let the chips fall where they may, dealing with the consequences afterwards. Which is the same thing my gut told me would happen at the Rumble. The one short-sighted thing about this is if they have Reigns win clean. I'm not sure who/why/what I want to see instead, but I'd love for Bryan to have an "out" so that, in 3-4 months time, you can have him challenge for the belt again against a heel champion.

I'll go months without watching a single episode of RAW, SD, or anything else now and I consider myself a pretty big fan. Prior to the Network, I would buy maybe 1 PPV a year (2 at most) since at least 2005. Prior to that, I hadn't watched RAW, SD, or any other PPVs since 2001. The Network has allowed me to watch even LESS of today's product and still get my fix through watching old content and restricting my watching of the current product to the special events (PPVs). Thanks to the internet and podcasts, I also feel like it is easier than ever to not "watch" TV, but still keep up to date with all the goings on, results, events, etc. So maybe the question really is - what would cause you to stop following the current WWE entirely? The answer, to me, is probably not any one specific thing. When I was 18 it was easy to turn it off and not follow one bit because my friends didn't care any more and I got more interested in other things...but now that I'm 31, I find it to be a fairly simple hobby. Maybe when my work life, family life, etc. gets busier, I won't have time for it, but I think I'll probably be at least a casual fan for a long time.

1995 time he could have been booked a little better. I really enjoyed his matches against Rick Rude over the US belt in 1993 alough I never saw the series they had on Saturday Night as we never got that in the UK but the previous encounters I saw from a PPV/TV Special and the match on Worldwide were pretty impressive. I also enjoyed his feud with Austin as well and its a shame that he got stuck with feuding with the Parker stable in 94. I do feel after he dropped the US belt he should have been pushed to a main event level. I feel like the Parker feud actually gave us more good matches than bad out of Dustin. He had a really great brawl with Bunkhouse Buck at Spring Stampede (?) maybe and the storyline with Arn Anderson turning on him, leading to the 94' War Games was well-executed in my opinion. I just watched Halloween Havoc 94' and Anderson/Rhodes is probably the best match on the card, which isn't necessarily the highest praise when you consider that card, but is still worth mentioning for what it is. Plus, without the Stud Stable, Terry Funk comes back to do what? Probably something far less than entertaining. I'll admit that, 20 years ago, when I was 10, I didn't really like anyone involved in the storyline except for Dustin and thought all the southern gimmicks were trashy and stupid and that Buck and Funk never did any "cool moves." On re-watch, though, that stuff is great 'rassling.

I agree with the idea that, on paper, this match looks like a worst Clash main event ever, but it isn't. Dave Sullivan is gone within the first two minutes (addition by subtraction) and the first half of the match is basically Hogan just getting destroyed before Sting comes in with a pretty good hot tag. Tenta is the MVP, Sullivan is spirited but looks almost ridiculous against Hogan, and The Butcher is just awful, but the crowd is engaged throughout and its not like there are a dozen and one rest holds - its not the best match of anyone's career, but, man, can you imagine how bad this could've been with Dave Sullivan actually involved? Or if they had tried to play up the Butcher/Hogan feud with staredowns and drama? It is to the viewers' benefit that the feud is talked up a great deal on commentary but is never manifested in the story of the match in the ring. By not being as terrible as it could be, this match sneaks into "decent" range.

I'm not sure I see it that way at all, doc. Ziggler was not a popular indie guy. Wyatt was not a popular indie guy. I had never heard of Jon Moxley being a future WWE main eventer prior to the Dean Ambrose work (my first glimpse of him were those awesome videos on YouTube where he was going after Mick Foley). From what I know, I'm not sure Harper or Ambrose were even top tier indie guys like Bryan Danielson as much as they were journeymen with good reputations for brawls. Reigns IS going to be a star (and had potential to be a huge one had they not rushed him into the position they put him in now) and he wasn't a popular indie guy. Rusev was not a popular indie guy as far as I know. The Miz, Swagger, and Sheamus, who now seem like lifetime midcarders more than future main eventers (though, there was at least a brief period of time when they seemed like bigger deals) weren't popular indie guys. To me, the Daniel Bryan-CM Punk-Cesaro-Rollins love only owes a very small amount to their work on the indies. Look at Sin Cara and Del Rio - they were very popular in Mexico and that reputation had many internet fans thinking they would be WWE main eventers, but their WWE work did not live up to expectations. The same may be said of Sami Zayn and Kevin Owens, who benefitted tremendously from their indie cred in NXT but will have to prove themselves considerably more once they get the call-up. The majority of the audience will have no idea who they are, just like they had no idea who Kaval was. I think there's a misconception that a "smark" fan, like the thousands who booed Reigns in Philly, are educated on today's indie scene or even have any interest in it. Its easy to say that Bryan/Punk/Rollins are proof that Ring of Honor churns out future main eventers when all you do is look at those three and pretend that other guys who are not as universally beloved by the "smart" fans but still valid upper midcarders/potential main eventers (Reigns, Sheamus, Wyatt, Rusev, Ziggler) are light years less popular. If that were true, every RoH talent would have a legit shot at stardom in the WWE and I just don't buy it. Chris Jericho has talked about it on his podcast. Learning how to get over in multiple territories makes it easier to go into the WWE and get over because you know how to get over. This is what Ambrose, Bryan, Punk, or even a Luke Harper has over their co-workers who didn't have that experience...but that certainly doesn't make it a prerequisite for success, it does not make an indie background serve as a guarantee for getting over, and it certainly won't lead to a de-emphasis on other types of talents the WWE scouts (college football players, amateur wrestlers, etc.). Finally, doctor, the WWE has brought in a large number of indie talents over the years (which is what I think you mean by "listening to the fans"), dating back to the 90s when they brought in the likes of 2 Cold Scorpio, Al Snow, Chris Candido, and others, but, ultimately, the roster has, for at least the past two decades, been about balancing a variety of talents in terms of size, style, gimmick, and even backgrounds.

How many actual episodes of GWF were there? 40-60? As someone else who remembers this fondly as after-school programming, I wouldn't mind having the entire run of that available on the Network. Watching the one episode they posted was great, but I'd be more up for the Eddie Gilbert and Patriot stuff, as well as, IIRC, the segments where they had a correspondent who was 15 years old and talked about how "hot" GWF was at his school.

I think it has more to do with the weather here in the states because usually the stream works out great for me, but today, it's been the worst it's ever been. I'm in Cleveland and we're getting hit with a foot of snow right now, but I know the northeast has been up to their nose in the stuff for days.

That's interesting criticism coming from Regal because, as I've re-watched the PPVs and Clashes from WCW 92' and on, I've found that they had really good chemistry.

I don't remember the specifics, but in one of the Punk podcasts with Colt, he told a great story about working some WWE tour of Mexico and only getting paid like $500 a show or something ludicrous like that (I think he said in the story that he asked for more and they did raise his pay...which sounds like a pattern based on what Del Rio said). Now, to Joe Schmo, $500 a night for working 20 minutes is going to sound like a lot of money, but I'm guessing those were fairly big houses and that his name was used heavily to promote the show and, obviously, there's a lot more that goes into being a wrestler than just 20 minutes of work. Maybe someone recalls the exact story better than me and can share it.

Slightly off-topic, but regarding the Wyatts split, what shocks me more than anything is that, at the Rumble, they teased the reunion and the crowd was going crazy and, had they reunited, I think the WWE would have gotten (and would have deserved) to get away with it even if there would be little storyline reason why Rowan would turn back heel. They had a chance to reunite them in a way that would've gotten a "pass" just because it would've been a moment and they didn't. Why the hell not? If Wyatt/Taker is going to happen, lord knows it is a MUCH better decision to put Wyatt back with his "family" for that build because then you really have Taker going up against not one monster, but three. Wyatt was hotter with his minions, so, you boost him by putting him back in charge of a stable, and, while I see great things for Harper and possibly even for Rowan in terms of being the "monsters of the future," let's be honest - they have nothing in place for them at Mania save for the Andre battle royal. They get a better rub as Wyatt's back-up in a match with Taker than they do as entrants in a 20-man battle royal. This is one Rumble complaint I haven't seen spoken about to death, but it was a fairly big one for me - especially considering that it happened early on in the Rumble. It was, to me, as I was watching, my first clue that the WWE had totally miscalculated the booking of the match.

Actually, when they released the Quarter 4 Earnings, the SummerSlam numbers were 30,000 purchases higher than were originally reported. While this didn't equal the previous years show, it was much closer than many people believe. I'd be interested to look back how did it compared to Brock's return at Extreme Rules 2012 or the Brock/HHH cage match the next year or the few Punk-headlined PPVs without Cena because I'm really curious to know, if you look at just the past three years, if there was any single performer that can be pointed to as more of a draw than another. SummerSlam '13 was about as loaded a card as the WWE has put on outside a Mania that I can remember this decade.

Talking about it with a friend tonight - After Mania, Lesnar is most likely out (if he's not - he should retain there because he's the best thing going for the company today and the Rumble proved it). John Cena is either going to squash Rusev at Mania or lose...in which case, I think you're in a tough spot with Cena because he's already feuded with everyone on the roster and almost needs to take the same break Orton is now. If Rusev survives the Cena feud, he'll likely be fed to Reigns. Reigns is your top face, Rollins is your top heel, and who knows where Ambrose and Bray fall into things post-Mania (I'm not even going to mention guys like Cesaro or Ziggler because they certainly don't seem poised for any major pushes based on what I saw at the Rumble). Sting won't be around, though, I wonder how valuable he is even going to seem after the WWE Universe realizes that Sting in 2015 means a guy wit a receding hairline who wrestles in a tee-shirt. Daniel Bryan's momentum and idea of him being The Man will, unfortunately, after WrestleMania, probably be nothing but a fuzzy memory the same way Punk's run in 2011 seemed when he quit last year. In summation, after WrestleMania = No Lesnar. No "main event" Bryan. Directionless Cena with 1-2 "fresh" matches in Reigns and Ambrose (who are both faces). Directionless Ziggler. Directionless Cesaro. Most likely a "tarnished" Rusev. If the solution is a heel turn for Reigns, the WWE made the exact mistake we all said they shouldn't make - rushing Reigns to the title. You don't create "the next John Cena," the next mega-popular, kid-friendly babyface that will sell merch and grant kids' wishes well into the 2020s, by having him turn heel 12 months after he turned face. You'd be creating Randy Orton actually, which is fine and great and useful, but that's certainly not the bullseye they are aiming for. The burial of Daniel Bryan is frustrating as a fan, but what lies ahead over the next 3 months is even more frustrating because what seems to be coming down the pike is a whole lot of protecting Reigns at all costs and keeping everyone else on the same hamster wheel they were on in 2014. And no Lesnar to at least make 2-3 PPVs a year "must see."

The Outlaws beat the Usos at last year's Elimination Chamber PPV and the Usos were far more over and deserving of not having to lose to two old farts, so, it is not impossible to see the Outlaws win. Still, I think the Ascension goes over here because while the loss to the Usos didn't matter in the grand scheme of things (the Usos were over and were able to bounce back and get even more popular and stay credible despite the loss), if the Ascension loses, you might as well as release them because I don't see them "getting hot" as dominating heels if they can't dominate two retirees. The undercard definitely leaves much to be desired - especially as you have the talent represented in the undercard that could've actually produced some good action. For example, get rid of Adam Rose and Big E, and that 6-man turns into what would probably be a great 10-minute sprint to kickoff the show. Drop one of the other tag team matches (my pick would actually be the Tag Title one just because its the least fresh and could probably be held off till Fast Lane anyway, especially as we'll probably get some Miz/Mizdow tension in the Rumble itself). The Divas Match should be a 3-way or 4-way (not a tag). Rusev should've defended the US Title on this card (in place of the Tag Team Title match) because (a) the show is in historic Philadelphia and (b ) I haven't seen him really defend the title all too much since winning it. A squash over someone, even a someone like Heath Slater dressed as Uncle Sam, would've been good filler, especially considering that the Rumble consistently has the second highest audience of any "Network Event" every year. When you have that many extra eyes on your product, you need to be more strategic with how you highlight certain characters. Rusev will probably have a good run in the Rumble, but to me, he's a talent you should highlight independently of the battle royal.

Anyone interested in music about dead wrestlers, can check out the lo-fi, homemade album I made 5 years ago under the name Double Murder Suicide. Here's a review of the first album (there are also three more I made from 10' through 2012): Here's a review of the first one - http://cokemachineglow.com/records/joshua-goldberg/ PM me if you're interested in links to free downloads of any of the albums. I'd describe it as Ramones meets Guided By Voices meets early They Might Be Giants if every song was about wrestling nostalgia and tragedy. Labors of love that I'm proud of, even if they were probably heard by less than a 100 people around the world.

1. Cena vs. Bryan (SummerSlam 2013) 2. Cena vs. Punk (Money In The Bank 2011) 3. Lesnar vs. Punk (SummerSlam 2013) 4. The Shield vs. Team Hell No & Ryback (TLC 2012) 5. Daniel Bryan Gauntlet Match (vs. Cesaro, Ryback, Swagger) (RAW, 7/13) 6. The Shield vs. The Wyatts (Elimination Chamber 2014) 7. Sheamus vs. Bryan (Extreme Rules 2012) 8. The Shield vs. Evolution (Extreme Rules 2014) 9. Rollins vs. Ambrose (SummerSlam 2014) ( *This gets a spot mostly because I hate Lumberjack matches and this one is the best one I've ever seen. For overcoming what is typically such a terrible gimmick takes a great story with great performers) 10. Shawn Michaels vs. Undertaker (WrestleMania 26) Honorable Mentions - The Usos vs. Rowan and Harper (Battleground 2014) The Shield vs. Evolution (Payback 2014) Christian vs. Del Rio (Ladder Match, Extreme Rules 201?) I will admit my "ballot" is a bit bias as the Network has allowed me to watch way more of the current product, especially the PPVS, than I did from 2010-2012, when I just couldn't justify spending $60 on a show like Capitol Punishment (Capitol Carnage?) no matter how good it may or may not have been. I'm sure I missed a ton of matches that were better than my honorable mentions, but those matches do stand out to me from this year as quite good. I would also add that I do think the past 2 years have seen much better in-ring action than the 3 years that came before it. I mean, I'm not as down on Edge, Orton, Cena, etc as others...but even their biggest fans would probably have to agree that their "peak matches" in that timespan were not as good as the peak matches we saw from Bryan, Punk, and The Shield starting in '12.

Great question. Here's some that are probably not number 1 for anyone, but would likely make my top 20 and haven't been mentioned yet - Bret vs. Taker (HBK as Guest Ref) from SummerSlam 97' - I remember this match just having such a great "big match feel" at a time when WCW was still the industry front-runner in the US and, though Bret has said he prefers his other bouts with Taker, if I had to choose one to rewatch out of ones I've seen, I think this would be the one I'd pick just because of the story told. Guerrero vs. RVD (Ladder Match, RAW, May 02') - I remember seeing this match out-of-context as I wasn't watching WWE at the time and just being blown away by the violence and agility on display. A car-crash match, to be sure, but one I like to show to non-fans because of the entertainment value.

No knock on Balor's incredible talents and, personally, I don't find these things to matter to me as a fan, but looking at WWE's history, is there really a feeling that a non-North American guy under 6 feet tall could really be the focus of the WWE? I mean, sure, we saw something close to that with Benoit, Guerrero, and Mysterio, and if Finn Balor can achieve THAT level of success, he'd be a Hall of Fame caliber guy, but I just don't know if he could seriously be considered a potential "next guy" like Reigns, Ambrose, or Rollins.