DMJ

The fall of 2005 was an interesting time in the WWE. In the months after SummerSlam 2005, the Rey Mysterio/Eddie Guerrero paternity angle was long over, Hulk Hogan and Chris Jericho left the company, and Batista and John Cena's ascension to the top of the mountain was complete. As is typical for the WWE, September and October were relatively quiet months with fairly unremarkable pay-per-views. The waiting game until January's Road to WrestleMania had begun. And then Eddie Guerrero passed away in November in the midst of a friendship/rivalry storyline with real life buddy, Dave Batista. A couple months later, Batista, then-World Heavyweight Champion, suffered a tricep injury that led to him vacating the title (it was picked up by Kurt Angle soon after in a battle royale). My question is - how would WrestleMania 22 have looked had Eddie not passed? Had Batista not been injured? The show's actual main event, Cena vs. Triple H, seemed set-in-stone already as the two were purposely kept separate in the fall of 2005 (when Triple H returned from a bit of a hiatus IIRC), but what happens on the Blue Brand? Does Rey Mysterio still get the nod to capture the gold? Does Orton get that spot instead? What does Angle do? I'm curious to read fan theories as well as any other information people might remember from the tim about what direction the WWE might have been going.

I didn't see the battle royal, but to me, the division has actually, somehow, and most likely due wholly to the work of the trainers Vince and Triple H hired and put into position, become the best it has been in at least a decade. At Night of Champions and Hell in a Cell, Nikki Bella was fantastic. I wrote about this in my review elsewhere, but I don't care how much her matches are "choreographed/staged/scripted" - the fact is, if she rehearses just one good match a month and then has that match on PPV, I'm happy. Her match against Brie at Hell in a Cell was physical, structured simply and effectively, and made her look like a dominant heel. It had arguably more logic to it than the Ziggler/Cesaro match it followed and was more "personal" and engaging than the Tag Titles match that came after it. Brie has improved considerably as well, but as a scrappy babyface, I don't think she needs to do much but take bumps, sell, and have a few signature hope spots/offensive maneuvers. She's not fully there yet, but she's made a ton of progress. I'm more impressed by Nikki, but again, when you think of where both of them were a year ago, they have really come around in-ring. Alicia Fox has a great character, natural charisma, and has also made progress in-ring from where she started. Why she isn't challenging for the Divas Championship more is not clear to me. Considering Paige's age and that this is her rookie year, she's already achieved a lot and there is room for growth. Huge future for her. Not a Future Hall of Famer yet, but probably more well-rounded than Lita ever was. Emma is also a young rookie with lots of upside. The pieces haven't all fallen into place, but she's coming up to the main roster with considerably more experience and more natural athleticism than the models-turned-wrestlers that dominated the division for the past decade. AJ is the best "mic worker" of the whole bunch, but I wouldn't say she's the best wrestler. Others would disagree. She deserves to be holding the title, but those that put her "leaps and bounds" ahead of every other female talent are overrating her. Still, the fact that she didn't take her ball and go home with her husband and still works hard in the ring has only made me respect her more. Even if she leaves after her contract is up, AJ has only helped the division since returning. Elsewhere on the roster, you have a reliable hand in Natalya and another young (26), energetic talent in Naomi (Trinity on Total Divas). Not bad role players and the same could be said for Layla and Tamina, who probably won't last much longer but are serviceable, especially in non-wrestling/managerial roles. For example, having Layla take Emma or another NXT grad under her wing could be a fine angle as it plays to Layla's strength of typically being excellent in multi-person story lines like the LayCool stuff or being Low Ki/Kaval's mentor. ( I know they've done that a little with Summer Rae, but Layla would be better working with someone who actually has, y'know, personality.) With those pieces in place, plus Charlotte Flair in NXT, the WWE's Divas Division is actually one area where things actually make sense and wins/losses DO seem to count and matter. The "pecking order" is clear to regular viewers. The story lines have made sense. There are "issues" between the performers that lead to matches that lead to more matches. Can you say that about the IC Title or Tag Team Championships?

I forget where I read it, but the President of Netflix (or whatever) was asked about account sharing and piracy and said that he didn't regard it as a problem because the value of Netflix outweighed the desire to pirate their shows, like House of Cards, Arrested Development, etc. I think in the same interview he said that Netflix doesn't actively pursue "account sharers." I think the WWE has even less to worry about. I know a number of fans who downloaded the PPVs after they happened and watched them last year...but when the Network began, they got legit accounts and love the service and are more than happy to pay $10 a month. Those fans who are still pirating will pirate no matter what - the WWE needs to say "fuck em'" for now and, in a weird way, actually just ignore them and hope their fandom grows to the point that they don't want to risk missing the next show. Is it really THAT much easier to pirate from the Network than it was from PPV? To the point that this should even be on their priority list? I kinda find that hard to believe as, in my experience, the same folks I know who hadn't paid for a PPV in years, were the first ones to sign up. I know that I didn't even bother pirating (I just didn't watch PPVs) and the WWE is on track to take $120 from me this year after receiving maybe the same amount over the past 4 years combined.

* Not as down on this show as some. I thought it was an improvement from the last pay-per-view, but that was probably because the last one was pretty dull throughout, and had not a single match I'd find any reason to rewatch (including Cena/Brock and Sheamus/Cesaro). * The match of the night, if not the main, was arguably the Bellas one. I really found that to be hard-hitting and, though obviously choreographed and planned out, was still really nicely executed. As actresses, the Bellas still have a long way to improve, but in-ring, Nikki Bella really turned a corner over the past few months, especially when it comes to PPV "big" matches. As I don't actively watch much RAW, I could care less if she (or really any diva) rehearses one match a month for PPV, wrestles that one match well, and then stinks up the joint 29 other nights out of 30. That seems like what we got here and it was an engaging, believable, physical 8-10 minutes. * I would've loved Rollins/Ambrose a ton more without the first table spot. It just wasn't the right way to start the match. When the actual match began, I thought we got to see loads of nice spots and intensity. Had that match started in the cage, gone through the same motions, and then maybe had an additional 10 minutes of back-and-forth, I think I wouldn't have minded the Wyatt run-in so much. It still would've been anti-climactic, but at least it would've felt like Wyatt had put an end to an epic battle where no man was going to come out alive. The way it came off, it just wasn't a MOTY candidate. I'd still probably say it was the best and most exciting bout of the evening, but much of that has to do with my personal interest and the crowd's interest in these three characters. * Ziggler/Cesaro was decent, but I don't get the "sweep" ending. I think the time I've spent on this forum has also begun to make me rethink just how great I thought Ziggler was over the past 4-5 years. I still think he is incredibly skilled, but some road agent needs to help him iron out the overselling and help him generate some more impressive hope spots. * Rusev/Show was pretty damn good. Not as great as Bossman/Vader or anything, but when's the last time you saw Big Show bust out as good a submission hold as he did here? Also, loved how Rusev looked dominant, but that it also made sense as he, from the very start, obviously had a strategy (get Show on the mat by attacking the legs) and then relied on that strategy the whole time. THAT is how wrestling maneuvers can be sequenced logically to make it completely conceivable that a 7'0 300 pound guy will lose to a considerably smaller opponent. Also, Rusev suplexed the motherfucker and I didn't expect that at all. Overall, not a 5-star classic, but I don't know if there was a single DUD on the show, which I think keeps it at average or above. I found the tag match to be the lowpoint of the show, but others have called it one of the highs. To each their own, but unless you really needed that last 5 minutes to be spectactular, I'm not sure if the other 2 hours and 50 minutes were bad enough to warrant anything more hateful than a "meh, it was okay." The chief complaint is the repetitiveness of the programs, which is totally valid, but my recommendation is, skip RAWs and SDs like I do and you'll be less tired of some of these performers.

My band is playing tonight, so I won't see this show till tomorrow (and likely Tuesday), but I am excited for some of the matches. I thought the last show was a little flat - nothing terrible, but nothing great the entire night (save for Ambrose's run in). I'm hoping tonight will be a different case and the show will actually feel meaningful.

I just watched the "DX Confidential" interview and, again, the thing comes off as such a revisionist history of things that it is almost unbearable at times. For those posters who detest the WWE's overhype of HBK, steer clear because it will largely enrage you. The Pros: - At least some credit given to the originality of the Chyna character and how important she was at getting Triple H over. - Footage of Shawn Michaels "retiring" at the post-WM14 press conference. Basically, all you see is him getting held back by Shane McMahon and then storming out of the building. I'd never seen this footage or really knew about it as I always figured Shawn left quietly without incident. How foolish for me to think he'd be so classy in 97'. The Cons: - The continued WWE push of DegenerationX as a truly revolutionary stable in professional wrestling when, the fact is, while they sold a ton of merchandise over the years, they didn't really "create" much new. You can really sum up their actual landmark moments into just a handful (Rude appearing on Nitro and RAW on the same night, the Mike Tyson storyline [which was really more about Austin], and the X-Pac "shoot" the night after WM14). Everything else was sketch comedy and dick jokes and much of it really wasn't THAT original (for example, the nWo parodied the Horsemen in 97', almost a year before DX parodied the Nation). I'm not saying they weren't popular or that the whole DX marketing campaign hasn't been a huge seller for the company for going close to 20 years, but in terms of actually changing the face of a wrestling promotion (and arguably the national wrestling landscape), I'd rank DX well behind the Horsemen, the Freebirds, the nWo, the Hart Foundation, and probably even the Dungeon of Doom and Moondogs. When you throw in international stables (which I admittedly know nothing about) and others I'm forgetting, I'm guessing DX barely rank in the top 10 of truly game-changing stables. - Very little mention of the Outlaws and X-Pac. The 98' version of DX was arguably more important and prominent than the original 97' group, so, I felt like it would've been nice for, at some point in the interview, Road Dogg or Gunn to make an appearance via Skype if they couldn't be there in person.

Savage comes to mind as a real-life cartoon. I mean, wacky clothes, wacky voice, wacky facial expressions. I'm not saying he didn't come off as human at times, but man, there are horses of different colors, but Macho was like a horse from a different planet (The moon? The stars? Venus?).

I might've said this in another thread, but I'm really proud of the thought so I'll shamelessly write it again here. They say that, on Saturday Night Live, you have years where the writers carry the show and years were the performers carry the show. I think the WWE is somewhat similar, especially in the modern RAW era of the past 20 years. For a good part of the early Attitude Era, the in-ring talent was kinda weak (especially compared to WCW), but the writing/production/presentation made the show seem "hip" and "must see" (The Godfather, Val Venis, and New Age Outlaws certainly didn't get over 'cuz they were putting on mat classics). Today, it's the opposite - Sheamus and Cesaro have been booked horribly, their characters are completely bland, and they have no direction, but bell-to-bell, they deliver. The same could be said for a number of other guys too, including the Usos, who sell tons of merch despite the fact I'm not sure they've been involved in a single genuine, layered with actual dramatic twists or turns to it. I mean, did Harper & Rowan ever actually make things personal? We're in a "performer driven" era of RAW right now, but I'm not sure thats because the performers are great, or because the writing has just been so consistently terrible over the past few years.

Having watched a whole bunch of 92'-94' WCW pay-per-views this past summer, I must say one of the things I took away from that was just how good Orndorff still was at getting crowd reactions and, though his in-ring work probably couldn't be considered his peak, he still has quite a few solid outings against Steamboat and at least one fairly good brawl with Cactus Jack in there. Also, he consistently had those Paula chants following him every time he was on screen, so, when I got to 94' and it seemed like the Paula chants were going away, it is genuinely surprising and kind of sad.

People who wrote Austin/Goldberg in 98', I have to ask - what about Austin/Hogan in 98'? To me, that would've been the biggest match possible at that time and, arguably, at any time after. In 2002, Rock/Hogan brought in (estimated) 850k, but I'm thinking, 3-4 years earlier, wrestling was even hotter, Hogan was still much more protected as a performer, and the InVasion hadn't happened and died yet. At the same time, though, in 98', the WWE's reach wasn't as global as it would be a decade later, which is why I think, looking at WrestleManias 20 and on, you have considerably higher buyrates (upwards of 200-300k more buys) even when domestic TV ratings and general American "mainstream buzz" is obviously not what it was before WrestleMania 20. So, yeah, if you could take TODAY's WWE brand and reach and then take the magnitude of heat Austin and Hogan could generate in 98', you'd have the biggest PPV match of all time (which I'd say would still probably max out around 1.5 million buys).

This is one I don't feel super strong about, but one that I think would've been pretty cool. After SummerSlam 2013, CM Punk entered a feud with Paul Heyman and his newest client, Curtis Axel. Despite a strong attempt to repackage Axel, fans still viewed him as nothing more than a minor henchman like the ones Batman routinely knocked around in the old TV show. At Night of Champions, though, Punk was forced into a 2-on-1 handicap match. Outnumbered, Punk had at least a slight reason to worry. This is where my fantasy booking comes in. At the actual show, Heyman debuted yet another client - Ryback - who was, like Axel, a bit cool when he was given the spot as the next "Paul Heyman Guy." Within a matter of weeks, Punk would vanquish all three in a feud that featured some entertaining promos, but little else, and based on how rote and unremarkable it was, it probably even helped make Punk rethink how much longer he wanted to stick around the WWE. What would have been better? I say, at Night of Champions, Axel and Heyman should have gotten the advantage through some chicanery. Punk then gets beaten down by not only Heyman and Axel, but maybe the Real Americans with Zeb Colter as well. With a 3-on-1 advantage AND Heyman and Zeb laughing at the carnage, you would no doubt be hearing the Cena chants. Cue the music of Punk's former tag team partner and real-life buddy Kofi Kingston! The high flyer from Ghana runs out, cane in hand, which leads the Real Americans, Curt Axel, and their managers to clear the ring...only for Kingston to turn on Punk! At this point, Heyman enters the ring and Kofi hugs him. The next Paul Heyman Guy is noneother than the grinning, charming devil, Kofi Kingston. I know this sounds crazy, but hear me out... 1) The Punk/Heyman angle had peaks and valleys, but ultimately, especially after SummerSlam, was too predictable, too unremarkable, too meaningless. But Punk has a history of working better with his real-life friends and having that "steal the show" attitude when he is in the ring with someone else he feels is as "underutilized" as himself. Kofi Kingston probably fits that description when you consider that, from what I read, Kofi is one of Punk's best friends in the company (and was his travel buddy on Punk's personal bus). 2) There's not a million great reasons or ways to turn Kofi Kingston heel, but in this instance, it would've worked marvelous. Why not have Kofi complain about Punk's ego? About how, when Kofi was injured, Punk never called? Or about how, when Punk became World Champion, he never gave a shot to his "best friend" Kofi? About how selfish Punk is? That Punk had the chance of a lifetime to be a Paul Heyman Guy, but he turned on Paul Heyman just like he turned on Kofi, and his issue with CM Punk is that while he calls himself the "Best in the World," the truth is, when it comes to friendship, he's the worst. To me, you get THAT build and you get a CM Punk working hard to help Kofi get over (which I believe he would've done out of respect and friendship) and you have a really great feud that could've propelled Kofi up the ladder (and, speaking of ladder, what about Punk/Kofi in a Ladder Match at TLC?). I'd also be willing to wager that Punk didn't want to put Ryback or Axel over (and shouldn't have), but might have actually gone to bat for Kofi to steal a win over him just because of how much it would help solidify him as a top heel. So, who should've been the next Heyman guy after Axel? I say Kofi. (( Also, who should've been the next Heyman guy INSTEAD of Axel? Cesaro. ))

I re-watched the whole show this week. In context, this match really suffers. The opening contest is a hardcore match. Then, you get an ultra-sexualized Trish/Steph match. After this match, you get a Triple Threat Tables brawl. Then, even more shenanigans with the Rock/Angle main event. While this match is definitely more engaging and exciting than any of the other matches I've mentioned, it hurts the "specialness" of a match like this when you surround it with other heavily gimmicked matches (to me, at least). Out of context, I think this match would seem incredible because of how unique the stipulation is and, to be sure, Austin and HHH work really hard and pull off three distinct contests. I actually think the finish is well-executed (though, when you look at the post-WM17 storyline, you wonder why it was the finish unless they thought Austin vs. HHH would headline SummerSlam?), but I understand the argument that the wrong guy won.

This board is awesome. For years, I contributed to another (I won't say the name because I think that'd be poor form) and felt like one of the only posters who had actually witnessed wrestling in the 90s and could write fairly confidently about American pro-wrestling of the past 20 years. Then I found this place and realized how little I knew. I am so appreciative of the fact that for some odd reason my login still works as, if there was bullying to be done, surely I would be one of the easiest targets here. But the fact is, I'd rather be the dumbest guy in a room full of intelligent, well-versed, knowledgeable wrestling fans than the smartest guy on a board populated by fans who, much of the time, subscribe to a "flock-like" mentality of what is good and what is bad and can't even really defend it. Here at PWO, you'll find posters that praise Bunkhouse Buck and others that call him the drizzling shits and that is much more interesting to me than reading redundant "Turn Cena Heel" arguments.

Couldn't agree more. Especially when the "beard" joke came from Triple H. Dean Ambrose making a joke like that is par for the course in today's WWE, but why is Triple H taking potshots at the guy who, I thought, was meant to be the Authority's prize talent at this point? Also, and I could be way wrong here, but at a time when WWE is actually in a bit of a hole in the whole "top level draws" department, don't you think it would be wise for them to actually keep the ONE heel not named Brock Lesnar who gets heat looking at least a little bit strong? I'm not saying Seth Rollins needs to steamroll through people, but is it absurd to think he should be modeled a bit like classic heels of yesteryear who consistently got the upperhand through dirty tactics and were only made to look like fools when it was absolutely necessary (and often times got their heat back soon after)? I'm thinking DiBiase, Flair, Curt Hennig...hell, Triple H should know a fair bit about that sort of character considering how snuggly he wore that hat himself. Rollins is not going to intimidate people with his look or haircut, but if consistently "finds a way" to win, he comes off as a real threat to anyone.

IIRC, they kinda tried to put the Yes chant someone else (Big Show) in the build to Survivor Series 2013, but it didn't work at all and Bryan just got hotter.

So, in a recent interview, Stephanie McMahon was asked about the possibility of CM Punk returning. She replied, "Never say never." Now, I'll be the first to call this a big peice of non-news. "Never say never" is a non-response, a civil and courteous answer that allows fans to speculate, but certainly doesn't guarantee a return is imminent. Still, it does seem a *little* surprising just because it is probably more friendly and open-minded a response than Punk probably deserves. I wonder if the same question was lobbed to Triple H if he would have responded the same way. I almost think Triple H (or Vince) woud've used the opportunity to needle Punk and his fans by noting that Punk walked out on them and, maybe more importanty, point to the emerging group of indy talents in NXT or Ambrose and Rollins as guys that have potential to be "bigger than Punk ever was" (true or not, I almost think Triple H would say something like this just to prove his point). Do you think Triple H would've handled the question differently? Do you think Stephanie handled it wisely? Do you think CM Punk gives even a stain of a shit?

My vote is 99' with Val Venis, Road Dogg, Godfather, etc. As for Jarrett in 95', I have to admit I was 11 at the time and at the time, I didn't think Jarrett was a bad champion. In 1995, if you were like me and didn't know Jarrett's history or that he was even a second generation guy, you could look at him as a "rookie" and say that he was, like Razor Ramon and Shawn Michaels, a guy that could be a main eventer in a few years. Ditto for Ahmed Johnson in 96'. They were the New Generation and they had star quality (or, at the very least, the power of the WWE machine pushing them strong). If, in 1995, you had told me that WrestleMania 15 would be headlined by a Jarrett/Bret feud or a Jarrett/Diesel feud or even an Ahmed Johnson/Vader feud, I think I would've found that to be totally possible. But 96' was a crazy year and nobody saw the nWo coming, Austin coming, The Rock coming, etc. In 95', Ahmed Johnson and Jeff Jarrett were being groomed so their IC title reigns meant something. Conversely, in 99', Godfather and Road Dogg had peaked and Val Venis, while still fresh, was such a cartoon character that there was no moment I thought he was going to be a World Champion. As someone else said, the Mountie and Dean Douglas were transitional champions, so their reigns were never THAT serious (same for Piper), but before 99', in general, the IC title was still a big deal because it was the title given to guys being groomed for a real run...and that includes Marc Mero, who, if IIRC, the WWE signed to a pretty huge deal.

I just saw this for the first time and really liked it. I didn't think the turn was TOO telegraphed, though, I think any longtime wrestling fan would go into this match with at least a little bit of awareness that the turn was a possibility. I like how Dustin's comeback doesn't seem unrealistic because he really is the young lion in this group and the elbows are obviously such a beloved Rhodes-trademarked move (that are sold so well by Funk and Buck) that I'm totally willing to believe they could reverse the momentum of a match. When Dustin doesn't tag in Arn right away, it made sense to me because of his fire and because this whole feud has been a personal one. Then, when Anderson comes in, he doesn't just attack Dustin, he milks the crowd pop and seems fired up to finally get to unload on the heels...only to turn with a DDT (on the Network, it is shown in all its glory). As someone unfamiliar with the feud, as a first time viewer, I'm guessing Anderson's reasoning was that Rhodes didn't tag him in? That this was an act of disrespect? Even if it wasn't that (and was more along the lines of Anderson just hating the Rhodes family), the turn worked for me and I thought was really well-exeecuted. Throw in the fact that everything that came before it was really engaging, action-packed, and passionate, and I am left eating my hat about anything bad I ever said about Bunkhouse Buck. This rivalry (and I've only seen stuff on PPVs and Clashes so far) has been tremendous fun.

This happened today. http://deadline.com/2014/09/wwe-stock-falls-concern-online-subs-838740/

In terms of Network Era PPVs, I'd say this one was right in the middle (based on the scores I've given to the other shows and how this one scored). Overall better than Payback and Battleground, but not nearly as good as WrestleMania, Extreme Rules, or, in my opinion, SummerSlam, which benefitted from better build-up and fresher matches. I'd put it pretty much neck-and-neck with Money In The Bank, but if forced to pick a show to rewatch, I'd probably pick Money In The Bank in a heartbeat.

Disappointing ending to what could have been a great, arguably even historic, match. Not only did it make Rollins look a bit foolish, but it really just put the "who cares?" cherry on a "why try?" sundae. I wouldn't say any match on that show was absolutely terrible, but I'm not sure there was any part of it that I really thought was excellent. That final match could've left me happier, but with such a putrid ending, I almost have to say I liked the one-sided squash at SummerSlam better. At least that match left me with the feeling of "I've never seen that before."

The Divas match was the first one I thought was better than I expected it to be. Everything else has been as good as I thought or somewhat underwhelming (part of this is probably cuz I'm not AS down on Jericho or Orton as others and was confident they'd, at the very least, get the crowd to care, even if it was just a 3-star match). The best part of the night so far was Ambrose's return and even that, from a logic standpoint, was ridiculous.

Cool ending to that match, though I wasn't captivated by the first half. It definitely got better as it went on, but I'm not sure I'd call it "must see." So...is this what we get cuz Reigns is out?

I know I'm giving WCW way too much credit here, but I kinda liked the Sherri "turn" in this match...if one can even call it that (bear with me). So, Sherri comes out wearing Sting's make-up and the immediate expectation is that she is going to screw the Stinger and reveal that she was with Flair all along. She spends the whole match cheering Sting on and even trying to get the ref to break up a pin when Naitch is using the ropes for leverage. This is what one might expect from a face manager, but, again, it just seems to be leading to a predictable turn. But then, Sting inadvertently nails Sherri with a crossbody that knocks her out and one that Flair dragged her body into. It is not only a great looking spot, but it completely made me rethink how "predictable" this was because when she comes into the ring and begins to attack Sting, it comes across to me more like she was getting revenge for Sting's careless high-flying rather than her executing a flawless plan devised by Flair. So, in a weird way, it wasn't a swerve at all. Sherri really WAS coming to cheer on Sting and be a good guy for once...but Sting's recklessness forced Sherri to reconsider and join the dark side. Further evidence of Sherri's good intentions is the fact that her purse isn't loaded with a brick or anything else nefarious. If you look at it that way, the turn is the opposite of predictable because you go into the match expecting Sherri to screw Sting, but she really doesn't screw him as much as his own devil-may-care aerial tactics screw him...but you still end up with Sherri joining Flair, not as part of an elaborate plot, but as an in-the-moment, heat-of-passion decision.

No joke, I would be so much more excited to watch 60 minutes on WCW's midcard storylines (Blood Runs Cold, Raven's Flock, West Hollywood Blondes) than another minute of hearing the history of the nWo, the Montreal Screwjob, or the Austin/McMahon feud. Those horses have been beaten dead to me, while so much of this other stuff is untapped.