DMJ

I know it'll never happen, but part of me wishes they'd have Harper win the battle royal and then immediately be Reigns' first challenger for the belt at Extreme Rules. If the plan is for Reigns to demolish a monster in his first title defense/feud, as has been rumored to happen with Big Show, then give me Harper instead. He looks intimidating, he's solid in-ring, and he already has pseudo-ties with the Authority. Storyline-wise, you use him just like I think they'll use Show - as a guy being "used" by the Authority to weaken Reigns so that Rollins can swoop in to take the title. Harper is a bajillion times fresher than Show, even if he hasn't been booked well (or at all?) since December, but has the size to be a believable challenger for any champion as long as you give him a tad bit of juice. edit - Whoops, Harper is the ladder match. Never mind.

Did anyone else get a chance to listen to the pitch-shifted version of the Sting promo that opens the Live Audio Wrestling podcast (Review-A-Raw) today? If not, check it out, it starts the show and then they talk about it up to minute 8. They adjusted the audio and it sounds like it was Dolph Ziggler who cut the promo. I'm not 100% sure if that is actually who did the promo or if they adjusted it to make it sound that way, but iwas wondering if an audio expert would weigh in.

Wasn't the original plan for bringing back ECW in 06' to have them be their own touring roster designed for smaller venues? At that time, they didn't really have the roster depth or "names" to do it, but right now, it seems totally believable that this could be a profitable idea. Back in 06', it seemed like they didn't have the right peices/people in place. Big Show, RVD, and Angle could help pack a small venue, no doubt, but when the rest of the roster was relative nobodies (Mike Knox), guys that the audience had already seen for years (Hardcore Holly), or "personalities" that nobody really cared about (Kelly Kelly), it is easy to see why this would fail. Compare that to today's NXT brand and it is just night-and-day. The NXT roster has established guys that can perform and are over with the die-hards (Owens, Balor, Zayn), FRESH midcard acts that people haven't tired of (and you can't teach that), and, instead of one-dimensional non-wrestlers, an actual women's division with two characters that bring "name value" as much as any other womens' wrestler on the indies (Charlotte and Sasha Banks). Throw in the very wise decision to also have Triple H and Ric Flair on the show and you have a card that is undeniably a "step up" from any TNA house show I've been to or the cards I hear RoH or DragonGate or anyone else is running. Plus, even if you can't get HHH or Flair at every show, if they bring NXT to, say, Canada, you could have Bret Hart make an appearance. In NY or Texas? I'm thinking Bruno, HBK, Austin, Foley, JBL, Taker....it just seems like the "NXT Tour Formula" could definitely work in multiple cities in a way that ECW wouldn't have in 06' or the "major indies" would have difficulties with due to a lack of name talent.

This topic was really hard for me think of, but, as I read some "dirt" about her on reddit recently (not sure of the accuracy), I'm going to say Sunny. In interviews, she comes off as incredibly full of herself and, while there was a time I thought she was great and hot and all that, when you read the gossip about her relationship with Chris Candido, it is hard not to feel bad for him and not to really lose respect for her as anything more than a tramp. Of course, her sexuality doesn't really make me hate her - I mean, it has no effect on my enjoyment of the show - but, yeah, she just seems like somebody that I would have no desire to meet and someone who, if the stories are true, seems like a pretty cold skank.

Really real. I like Ziggler more than many people on this thread, but in the age of One World Championship, being the number 5-6 guy on the roster's pecking order is just not enough to be considered for the title. I mean, right now, as it is, you've got Cena, Reigns, Orton, and Bryan ahead of him. Then, on the heel side, you have Rollins and Rusev (not to mention Lesnar, who is probably on his way out, and Wyatt, who I don't see as a World Champion-type guy). Throw in Sheamus and Ambrose as guys that could, if they get hot, return to the main event scene in 2016 (if not sooner). Plus, we've now seen TWO part-timers win the big one (Lesnar and Rock), so, Triple H doing it isn't as absurd as it should be. As this is wrestling, if things get stale, you just flip one of the top guys from heel-to-face and Ziggler's spot remains where it is. It is completely realistic to me to think the next couple YEARS of champions are going to be an amalgamation of Reigns, Rollins, and Cena, with Orton in the mix too. Maybe Bryan if he gets hot again. Maybe Ambrose if he gets as hot as he was last summer. Ziggler is going to have to leapfrog a bunch of talent in order to rise to that upper, upper level.

I'd be really curious to know how many people paid for his site. In this day and age, I find it really hard to imagine there is a huge demand for any paid wrestling site, let alone one like his, which offered very little in terms of content (from what I saw advertised) and didn't have the track record and reputation for quality that other sites (like the Observer, Torch, etc.) rely on so strongly. I subscribed to one paid site in the past, for about 2-3 months, just to hear the shoot interviews (this was in 07'). I forget which one, but it wasn't expensive. I got to hear lots of cool stories. But now? 7 years later or so? You can get stories on Austin's podcast, JR's podcast, Jericho's podcast, and Cabana's podcast. Austin's, in particular, is one I listen to weekly just because Steve is such an entertaining talker that just hearing him talk about India Pale Ales is good for the drive-in to work. You can get wrestling analysis, almost daily, from the LAW. I don't listen, but have good friends who really like Ring Rust. All of these are 100% free to download. There are also dozens of fan-made podcasts (and I'm probably wildly underestimating by saying "dozens"), many of them niche, but some quite good (I listened to Da Sharpshooters for a long time just because the hosts were funny). Whether you want to hear someone's thoughts on last week's Fast Lane PPV or Clash of the Champions 9, you could probably find an hour of talk devoted to it on iTunes. For free. I hate to make the comparison to pay vs. free porno, but to me (and to, what I assume would be 99% of people), if you are paying for porn in this day and age, you're either a major porn freak that might need to seek counseling or you're not sure how to work the search function on google properly. For wrestling, it's the same. If you are so starved for wrestling content that you're going to pay Vince Russo for his thoughts, I don't understand your existence and recommend counseling.

They found the guy to replace Rey Mysterio.

It won't compare to Taker losing, but... If Rusev beats Cena again at Mania, that might be the second biggest shocker in WrestleMania history.

* I think I'm the only person who liked the Goldust/Stardust match. To me, it told a really clear, emotional story. Goldust was apprehensive with every strike, hesitating, only going on offense to knock sense into his brother. To me, this is how you work a Brother/Brother match where one guy doesn't want to even fight. I like that approach way better than the opposite, when you have two brothers wrestle like they're bitter enemies or, worse yet, total strangers with no emotional connection. It is easy to get the brother vs. brother storyline over in promos and backstage segments, but Goldust represented it in his in-ring actions so well...and I thought Cody did too. The fluke pin finish made sense too - Goldust has always been the better, smarter wrestler throughout their run as a team and he outsmarted his brother, defeating him without getting vicious (which was the opposite of what Stardust attempted as he constantly tried to hurt his brother, embarass him, or cheapshot him, rather than trying to outwrestle or defeat him respectfully). Throw in the best Stardust promo he's ever delivered, one that did a better job of defining his new heel character than anything he did as a face or tweener in the past 6 months, and I'm more excited about where this storyline is going than just about anything else on the Mania card. * Overall, I thought the show delivered on its promise of being a two-match card, but didn't do enough to surpass it. The HHH/Sting segment did nothing for me. Three months after Sting's arrival and I'm still not sure what his motivation is. What is his issue with HHH? Why should I care? What is at stake? Its not like HHH was destroying Sting's legacy prior to Survivor Series...or after it! As a viewer, I'd like the WWE writers to sink their teeth into this clash of personalities and characters and tell us an epic story of historic jealousies, distrust, and hubris, of HHH's maniacal drive to eradicate Sting (maybe for his mentor Flair? maybe for his mentor Vince? maybe just for himself?)...but that hasn't been expressed nearly enough for me yet. * Thought the tag match was good, but, as others have pointed out, there was no drama to the match because Cesaro and Kidd are barely a real team. As a viewer, they come across as two regular, singles guys paired up by "invisible bookers" rather than two characters with shared personality traits that have bonded together organically and now have a shared mission. I like them both as workers and think they do awesome moves, but they needed a gimmick BEFORE they won the titles, not after. * Of all the questionable finishes in tonight's show, the Ambrose/Barrett one was the absolute worst to me. So, so stupid. It is a wrestling trope for the cowardly IC Champion to try to run away from the challenger, accept the countout loss, and retain. It is also a wrestling trope for the babyface to pull him back in the ring. What there is no precedent for, as far as I know, is for the referee to call a match because the babyface doesn't LET the heel escape. Essentially, that's what happened, right? I'm not saying a better finish would've saved what was a pedestrian match, but man, I honestly care about both guys LESS after that and the finish didn't help. * I liked the last two bouts, but don't see either as a MOTYC. Call it a "video game match" or whatever, but I was on the edge of my seat for Lesnar/Cena/Rollins and, watching in a room with mostly non-fans, that match had our attention and our beers spilling with every big kickout or bump getting us on our feet. Tonight's two last bouts were good, and a better crowd may have helped them significantly, but if I'm not shouting at my TV in mark-out mode, I'm not thinking MOTY.

I am a huge Bryan fan/mark and even I must admit to hoping Reigns wins here. Bryan/Brock is a dream match for me and I'm really excited to see how good of a match Bryan can have with the relatively green Reigns, but at the end of the day, Reigns is "the guy" and if WM is going to be sink-or-swim time, then, it needs to be sink-or-swim time. Bryan lost at Rumble and, kayfabe-wise, isn't entitled to anything...other than a rematch for the title he never lost, which could've been an option for post-Mania or pre-Mania. It still can be. The build-up to this match has been good, a clear example of making lemonade out of lemons, but only if one considers what the WWE's intention was - an intention that I dislike, but can't deny. The plan was to cool Bryan and even tease a bit of a heel turn, to not turn Reigns into this year's Batista. In that regard, it worked. Bryan is less hot than he was and his talking points haven't been about how he's an underdog fighting for what's right. He's come off as a bit of an entitled prick, actually, though, one that I still want to root for because he's not lying when he says he never lost his title or that he's the best wrestler in the company. Reigns, meanwhile, has been made to look a bit arrogant and cocky - but its worked at making him seem less like "The Next Cena," which was what many fans seemed to hate about him. After floundering at the Rumble, I do think the writers and Reigns have picked on a better tone for his character, one that might still be a tad one-dimensional, but seems less "needy" in terms of fan approval, less vanilla, and more driven by his personal ambitions than the "I'm doing this for the WWE Universe!" grandstanding that Cena butters his bread with. Reigns may not be the most interesting character, but a stoic, level-headed tough guy is one that pairs well with just about everything, whether its Rollins or Rusev or Daniel Bryan or John Cena down the line. Pretty excited for the show.

Just saw this for the first time in my journey (which has now devolved into a weird form of masochism) through WCW in the 90s on the Network. It is as bad as everyone says, but I feel like this could be Exhibit B in the case for Brutus Beefcake being one of the worst workers ever (Exhibit A would be the Starrcade 94' main event). I know some have defended his 80s work, and that might be true and all, but, man, he is just unbelievably, laughably bad here. Recall, if you will, that the lead-in to Savage's ridiculous elbow drop on Hogan is that Beefcake, after applying his finishing move (one that he, we are to believe, is a MASTER of and has used to win countless matches), simply lays Hogan down and celebrates a victory he has not secured by ANY traditional method (like, say, pinning the Hulkster or having the referee lift his arm three times). Instead, he just assumes that he was won and celebrates by flexing his muscles. I actually give some credit to Sullivan and Savage, though. While it is over-the-top, Savage's selling at least gives this match a bit of drama, and Sullivan's offense looks like Lesnar-level brutality compared to whatever Beefcake thought he was accomplishing. Finally, Hogan's no-sell of Vader's powerbomb caps off one of the worst matches I've ever seen.

Just thought I'd add that John Cena is challenging for the US Championship on Sunday.

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.