DMJ

I rarely agree with Vince Russo's opinion on things ("Matches need to be shorter!" "You have to do whatever it takes to get viewers no matter what!"), but other than saying that on the most recent episode of JR's podcast, he did actually say something that I've seen echoed elsewhere and couldn't agree with more - the 3-hour RAW concept is a short-sighted money grab that is hurting the company's ability to seem "cool," "must see," or any other buzz word. If I'm not mistaken, it also is hurting the show's rating (as you are averaging out the ratings of 3 hours and not 2 - in theory, this wouldn't be a problem if the show's hours were all earning the same rating or even improving as the show went along, but when you lose hundreds of thousands of viewer with each half hour, it's no wonder nobody aside from NBC/Universal was interested in TV rights). At this point, I'm not sure WWE will ever go back to 2-hour shows, but, man, in the long run, I think it would do wonders for their ability to make it seem like a relevant broadcast (and potentially also have the effect of boosting interest in SmackDown, which seems like such a wasteland/dumping zone show). Like the WWE Network, the short-term loss is undeniable...but in the long run, there is so much more potential for wrestling to "heat up" again if they can find a way to leave the audience wanting more. Right now, the audience is getting way more than it wants and the ratings and subscription numbers show it.

I'm glad I found this Board because I just saw this match for the first time and was curious about others' view. To me, this one ain't pretty - the piledrivers through the wooden board and onto the chair both look pretty lame to these eyes - but the rest of the brawling around the ring and Funker's offense looks so passionate that it is hard not to really enjoy this one "warts and all." I would've preferred a better ending, but reading about Blanchard's issues here definitely explains things a bit.

Forget working WrestleMania 31. The only PPV I could envision a guy looking like that working is Slamboree 93.

The Big Show/Lesnar rumor seems like someone just trolling AND trying to make it seem less likely that Cena wins. Pretty much anyone else on the roster would be a better pick (if Lesnar retains) and if we know it, they know it too. I'm under the impression that Lesnar wins, but what I'd love to see happen tomorrow night is some sort of foreshadowing regarding what Cena is going to do AFTER Night of Champions as I expect he will still be a major part of the show moving forward. I'd also like some foreshadowing about who Lesnar's next challenger will be - and, in my opinion, the best choice is a "tweener" Orton.

The Attitude Era backlash would have to be so tremendously on the "being contrary-just-to-be-contrary" scale for it to hurt Austin, in my eyes. I understand and totally agree with the argument that the Attitude Era wasn't perfect or near-perfect and the more one dissects it, the more negatives appear. But it doesn't change how engaging the Austin/McMahon angle was. You can downplay the t-shirt sales and the mainstream success and the sellout-after-sellout crowds and say "Hey, just 'cuz its popular, doesn't mean its good" all you want, but good god, to not consider Austin a thoroughly awe-inspiring character who cut passionate, great promos and delivered action-packed, captivating main event matches is to be willfully ignorant. Austinmania, his promos and in-ring body of work from late 96' and on, would "hold up" had it happened in any era, even if it was just in one territory decades earlier. The fact that he DEFINED an era, on the national stage, means his footing near the top of the all-time greats list is set in stone.

I was in attendance for this and, though, WrestleMania 14 + the next night's RAW might be the best 1-2 punch the WWE ever produced in 48 hours, I'd put King of the Ring 98' and this RAW from Cleveland being a personal favorite. Elsewhere on this episode, Brawl-For-All debuted. In hindsight, this was an awful idea, but it's another cool thing to say "I was there" to. Similar to the Brawl-for-All, Regal debuted in the WWE in this episode - again, it didn't lead to anything great really, but at the time, it was a big deal to me and my friends (who loved him in WCW and thought he was going to be a much bigger deal in WWE). In terms of other "1-2 punches" of PPV + RAWs/Nitros, I'd be interested to hear what other times people remember as being really remarkable. Obviously, in this case, plenty of credit goes to King of the Ring 98' (which was the type of show where, when it was done, you called everyone you knew and asked them "Did you see that?!?"), but this RAW was really just an awesome continuation of it and great way to start building towards SummerSlam. (Fancy that - you can actually build towards a PPV more than 3 weeks ahead of time.)

I think I found THE moment (at least in terms of what is on the Network). In February 94', Mero wrestles Jimmy Garvin at SuperBrawl 4 in what is really a pretty lame match. As per usual, Mero relies heavily on arm drags, wrist locks, and side headlocks. Its not a total stinker or anything, but it's not going to raise eyebrows or qualify as "must watch" for even the biggest Freebirds fan. But, then, at Spring Stampede, Johnny B. Badd's offense is noticeably crisper, with much more variety, and the pace he cuts is electric. And this above-average outing is against a still-green Diamond Dallas Page, no less. The match just exceeds any expectations one could have based on what else is of his is on the Network prior to it. So, yeah, as Hollinger wrote, something clicked in that time frame because those two matches are just night and day when comparing Badd's energy level, the variety of his offense, and his transitions.

I have had practically no issues at all with my Roku 3. When I'm streaming the PPVs live, the image quality takes a noticeable dip...but if you just start the show, say, 10 minutes late, it helps a good bit. I've told anyone interested that if you don't already have a device/game system/Apple TV, the Roku 3 is really good. Very easy to use and set-up (I think I set mine up and was on the Network within 20 minutes of purchasing it from Radio Shack) and you also get access to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and tons of other apps.

I think Ryback wasn't really fucked till WrestleMania 29. I know Mark Henry is a favorite of some people here, but Ryback needed to win there more than any other match he'd had the previous 4 months against Punk or the Shield. Plus, it was Ryback, not Henry, who ended up as Cena's next opponent, while Henry didn't challenge for the title until July. Personally, I don't think he's improved THAT much since then, but I think he has an "it" factor that comes across in his promos and matches. In protected settings, against good workers, there's no reason you can't make money off the guy. Fortunately, when you look at the WWE roster, there are enough guys that can make Ryback look good, that he doesn't need to be great himself to be in great matches down the line.

I wasn't TOO internet savvy in 96' or anything, but I can speak at least a little bit for late 97'-98', which isn't necessarily "light years" ahead of 96'. Specifically, I'll mention Montreal. It was known, on the day of the show, that Bret Hart was going to WCW by most internet/dirtsheet fans. Like CM Punk's Money In The Bank match against Cena in 2011, there were still some serious question marks, though - does he win against HBK and drop the title on RAW? If he does drop the title to Shawn, is it clean or through a cheap tactic? Does Bret even show up? How can he even work a match against Shawn when the two have legit beef? Going into the show, the internet fans were expecting something historic and possibly even unscripted...but we just didn't know what it would be. I think, and I could be wrong on this, in 96', there was the same sort of speculation surrounding who Hall and Nash's mystery partner would be. I think people expected someone big...but I don't think people necessarily expected Hogan in big numbers. I know that I personally (and I'm guessing many fans agreed) felt that Hall and Nash were coming in to eventually LOSE to a babyface Hogan, the same way Hogan had steamrolled through all the other monsters in WCW. In hindsight, Hogan's turn made so much sense...but at the time, like today with Cena, I don't think anyone ever thought they'd see the day when the industry's top hero (even if he was getting booed - again, Cena comes to mind) would become a full-fledged villain.

Yeah, definitely a let down. I wasn't expecting a heel turn or anything groundbreaking, but as someone who thinks "serious Cena" can be pretty good, that promo was just not special at all. Not only that, but it seemed a little quick considering Cena's return to RAW was kind of the big selling point for tuning in this week. Reminded me of the old joke about the guy who complains, "The soup was lousy and there wasn't enough of it." I also really question the idea to have Cena wrestle this week - I understand he's the top draw and all that, but man, that beating at SummerSlam should've kept him out of action for more than 8 days.

I have a Network-related question to pose for discussion... So, Lesnar is not likely to be defending the title at every "Special Event" between now and Mania, but barring some fluke win, it does seem like he will be champion for the next several months, if not all the way up to WrestleMania 31. This has led many to theorize that the WWE could headline upcoming "Special Events," such as Hell in the Cell and TLC with matches such as Triple H vs. Reigns and Ambrose vs. Rollins. One talking point has been that, in the "post-PPV" world, you've already "sold" these Special Events with Network subscriptions, meaning, you don't need to worry about buyrates anymore and that gives the company more flexibility to run shows without a World Title match. We saw this already at Battleground IIRC. But, as a Clevelander gearing up for the sale of tickets for the upcoming TLC PPV, it *does* make me wonder how attendance for PPVs will be affected if at all. I'm a big enough fan of the midcard and the TLC gimmick itself to say that I'll likely go no matter what. I'm also a Network subscriber who gets enough mileage out of the Archive to be renewing regardless of whether Lesnar is appearing monthly or not. But I'll also admit that I don't always go to RAWs, SD tapings, or house shows in my city because, well, they cost money and they're not "big deals" when they happen so regularly in this area. My question is - do you think attendance for PPVs, which in WWE especially, have almost always featured a main event title match (even if it wasn't the hottest match on the card) will be affected by Lesnar's reign, or, more broadly, the idea that these are now "Special Events" and not PPVs that the WWE needs to invest more into selling?

I'm surprised people are "poo-pooing" the idea of Lesnar/Orton so fast. To me, he's not a bad choice. He has the Legend Killer gimmick and him somehow winning would probably propel him to a position as the number one face - a spot he might need to fill *momentarily* this fall with Bryan out, Ambrose still hovering in the upper midcard, and Cena, well, I'm not sure how you come back from that in September. Cena should probably stay off TV till November, in my opinion. But Orton wouldn't win and we all know that - and that's okay too because a loss to Lesnar will do more for Orton's future than a victory over just about anybody on the roster, especially if it is a quality match (which I'd admit would be a toss-up, but motivated, Orton has delivered in the past). I don't see Orton minding the loss either as it could be used to give him a much needed and well-deserved vacation (and a vacation FROM him for his growing number of detractors). When Orton sits outs, you bring back Cena and, the whole time, you've still got Reigns and Ambrose rounding out the card. Now, personally, I like the sound of Jericho/Lesnar (more than Orton/Lesnar even) for similar reasons - even after losing to Bray on Sunday, Jericho would probably leave after a loss to Lesnar MORE over than he would by beating anyone else on the roster. Plus, there's no shame in exiting after a Night of Champions loss to the Beast Incarnate (he's already announced that this is his last show with the company for now). I don't love the idea of a Cena rematch just because its too soon. I'm not opposed to it at WrestleMania if the rest of the card is good, either, but 4 weeks after SummerSlam? Too soon and it wouldn't allow for a big build to their "rubber match." As for who should actually dethrone Lesnar? Like most fans here, my dream is for Daniel Bryan to come back and do it at WrestleMania. Honestly, a part of me feels like a sadist for that feeling, though, considering the severity of Bryan's injury. Barring that, Ambrose is my favorite face right now, so, I'll say him...but I don't see it happening. Pipe dreams both. If their back is against the wall, I wouldn't mind The Rock or Batista doing it. I think those are marquee matches and believable contenders. But I don't see The Rock doing it. As for Batista, well, I could see him never wrestling again; he can string together a career in Hollywood now doing Guardian sequels, straight-to-DVD movies, SyFy originals, and walk-ons as "Tough #2" in major motion pictures for the foreseeable future. If he does return, I see him working like the Rock, only against the safest of workers that he trusts. I'm not sure if Brock falls in that category. Reigns is probably the guy I'd like to see do it LEAST on the current roster, but there is time for him to improve his skills and emerge as someone worthy to be at the top of the card. Right now, he's not. Cesaro, Ryback, Titus, Sheamus, Swagger, and Ziggler all strike me as guys that Lesnar could or should destroy on a random episode of RAW...but are they Network Special Worthy? I think they fall pretty far under the regulars listed above in terms of appeal and credibility. I know people don't *care* about Randy Orton or Jericho here, but their resumes are impressive and they're still more well known than the guys listed above. They're always a promo and video package away from being "big deals." Are they at their career peaks? Are they the most physically impressive? Of course not, but they have name value to many fans. Personally, I think Ryback/Lesnar and Sheamus/Lesnar would be awesome...but I can see, from a company perspective, why those ideas are probably not being seriously considered when they run down the list of possibilities. In summation, put me in the "Anybody but Taker" camp.

The birth of the nWo revitalized wrestling in America. It led to a career rebirth for Hulk Hogan and remarkable matches and storylines for everyone from Randy Savage and Sean Waltman to nWo rivals like Lex Luger and Diamond Dallas Page. For more than a full year, we saw the WWE forced to push their own creative juices to keep up with WCW, a true competition between two promotions the likes of which we'd never seen before as fans. While, in the end, no one could applaud the booking of the show, if you were a wrestling fan, the build up for Starrcade 97' was thrilling in a way that hadn't been experienced in years. Meanwhile, in the aforementioned WWE, without the nWo, Vince McMahon has no impetus to update his own show with more adult-oriented storylines and characters. Without that, we get Rocky Maivia "The Blue Chipper" and not The Rock. We get Shawn Michaels the Boy Toy and Hunter Hearst Helmsley the Blue Blood and not DegenerationX. Without the middle fingers, beers, and DTA attitude, what does "Stone Cold" Steve Austin look like? The nWo brought "must see" back to wrestling programming, led to competition that raised the stakes for both companies, and, by bringing a spotlight to WCW, even helped make guys like Eddie Guerrero, Steve Regal, Chris Jericho, Rey Mysterio, Psicosis, Raven, and Chris Benoit household names. Sure, it also indirectly led to the downfall of the same company it brought to #1, but had it never existed, whose to say the company would've lasted much longer anyway.

On the subject of Ryback... Yes, the major factor to the crowd response was that he was the hometown guy, but I also think it was caused by a loud part of the audience who wanted to "defy" the WWE's plan - "hijack" might be too strong a word, but it was close to that. Cheering Ryback said (a) we won't conform to the rules of heels and faces (pretty common these days), ( we know you want us to cheer for Reigns so we'll do the opposite, and © we would chant for Randy Orton or Curtis Axel, but they're equally unimpressive these days, compared to Ryback, who still looks like a million bucks and is being "held down" (not really, in my opinion, but I can see why some people in the audience would think so). It didn't hurt that the "Feed Me More" chant was pretty over about 15 months ago and wrestling fans have long memories. That being said, I do hope they give him another chance as a babyface monster one day in the future.

Sleeze, you didn't mention Batista or The Rock, the only two names that I could think of on Sunday night that would pose a threat. Now, I'm not saying you can't build up anyone else, but those two names strike me as having a significant chance of doing it, especially if you consider that one of them could cost Lesnar the title at a prior date, leading to a feud without the title in time for Mania. If I were a betting man, though, I'd have to put my money on John Cena. That beating was so brutal on Sunday, there's almost no way I can see him not getting revenge in the future.

So many thoughts, but I'll ask this one... Was that the best lumberjack match ever? I understand the argument that it didn't "honor the stip," but when honoring the stip usually means we get the same lumberjack match every time, I'd much rather get what we saw last night. It started out traditionally, with the heel getting tossed back in a couple of times, then Ambrose getting tossed back in, and then, just chaos and Ambrose taking people out left and right. When Rollins was headed to the back, everyone I was watching with (myself included) were shouting about how "it can't end this way," so upset, and when the Usos & company dragged him back, we were cheering. The match turned a room of 30 year olds (mostly non-fans who just showed up to drink beers) into little kids. My knowledge of wrestling history is admittedly limited to mostly WWF post-90' and some WCW and I know lumberjack matches are a pretty old thing - but was that the best lumberjack match ever? If not ever, is it the best the WWE has produced?

I'm watching this show right now and it made me wonder - is this night the first time Heenan had ever done commentary with Solie or am I drawing a blank on them working together elsewhere at the table? The matches they call together have been really fun to watch, if for nothing more than just hearing them together after so many years of hearing Heenan with Gorilla, Vince, or Tony Schiavone most of the time.

I totally agree that these scenarios would enhance Brock as a threat...but I think him winning with an F-5 or two isn't going to kill his momentum or anything. I expect that to be the finish and I think its the right way to go. For example, last year, it would've probably cemented Bryan even further if he had one with the Yes Lock, but him debuting that knee-to-the-face move was so killer and he didn't suffer at all from not making Cena tap. I'd also add say that, in these "big match" situations with two powerhouses with such established finishers (F5 & FU) like we have here, I'd prefer the suspense and thrill of a 3-count finish rather than a submission one.

I've just finished watching all the 92' and 93' Clashes and PPVs on the Network and I wasn't very impressed with any of his matches from that sampling. Then again, like most guys, it seems like he looked better depending on who he was working with (and maybe whether or not that person was motivated at all). The feud with Maxx Payne? I didn't like at all. I thought his match against Foley at Clash #21 was below average, and didn't like his matches against Smothers (WrestleWar 92') or Ricky Morton (Clash #18) either...but I did think his match with Regal at Clash #25 was pretty good. Reading the above comments from other posters actually makes me a little excited for watching through 1994, though, as it seems Mero got better somewhere in that year.

Heel or face, ADR's gimmick was uninspired. JBL updated the Million Dollar Man gimmick by bringing in the over-the-top entrance and giving it a "Southern Business Man" twist that brought the "Cocky Rich Guy" gimmick a flavor that had not yet been done before. It was an obvious callback to a classic heel, but there was enough freshness to it that it got over. What did Creative or Del Rio bring to the gimmick that JBL or DiBiase didn't? A different car? An announcer (doing the same schtick that Armando Estrada did better for Umaga or Sharmell did for King Booker) instead of a Virgil? A scarf instead of a cowboy hat or Million Dollar Belt? DiBiase's greed inspired many of his feuds and storylines (buying the title instead of winning it fairly, treating Virgil like shit, trying to come between Dusty and Dustin, etc.). JBL's wealth and borderline racist taunts against Eddie Guerrero and later Rey Mysterio made things personal in his feuds. But how did Del Rio's gimmick or even the idea of his "Destiny" play into his feuds with Edge? With Christian? With Cena? With Punk? With Big Show? Heel or face, unrealistic portrayal of Latinos or not, Del Rio's character lacked any teeth, whitebread masquerading as pumpernickel, completely devoid of any meaningful trajectory. Del Rio was failed by the writing team just as much as his "inability to connect with the audience." Someone wrote they believed Del RIo was "just an entrance" - unfortunately, when that entrance had been done to death already, he wasn't even that.

Definitely can't wait to hear the details about this firing. As others have said, not completely shocked - they've done nothing with him for months (if not a full year now) and at no point did it seem like that would change. Oddly enough, I actually feel like his in-ring work has been much more consistent in the past 3 months than at any other time - maybe not ever reaching the rare peaks of possible greatness he showed hints of when they actually pushed him, but just, well, less annoying and "forced" as a character, more confident in just being himself and not playing Mexican JBL and letting his ring work do the talking. Funny, when the WWE doesn't go overboard in pushing someone down my throat or place ridiculous pressure on someone to come in and light the world afire and let them just develop organically, I tend to like them more. Too bad.

Supposedly, the fan is a stalker and has been harassing Orton and his girlfriend via Twitter? Not sure I understand how that even works (Can't you block people on Twitter? Why would you agree to take a photo with someone who is legitimately harassing you? Is she a "Perez Hilton"-type who celebrities begrudgingly have to do photos with or else face some media backlash on a blog?), but I do think, if this does somehow get onto TMZ or whatever, the WWE's best option is to ignore it anyway. Had this been John Cena, though, I think calling out the company for its Be A Star campaign would be warranted, but considering Orton is a heel, I think its okay - especially considering just how "PG" calling someone a "Latino Ms. Piggy" is. Racist? No more than saying someone is the "Black Donald Trump" or that someone looks like a "White Oprah." The Ms. Piggy joke is an obvious reference to her weight (or maybe facial features), but again, its far from foul-mouthed or crass. The sentiment is nasty, but since when should a heel live by the "if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all" code of conduct? In the Twitter Age of pro-wrestling, wrestlers who promote their characters in a *relatively* decent manner (it's not like Orton is going onto Twitter and making AIDS jokes or ridiculing kids with cancer) are doing it right. Orton plays an arrogant, entitled douche, so, he does on Twitter too. As long as he keeps it somewhat clean and PG, I don't see how it is any worse than the trolling Triple H does.

The above posts regarding 95's Feud of the Year (American only) made me go back through WWF and WCW's pay-per-view cards from the year just to see if there were any other months-long feuds worth noting... Undertaker vs. Ted DiBiase's Million Dollar Corporation: Multiple PPV matches, none I'm dying to see again, though, I remember watching Taker/Kama sometime this year and being a bit surprised it didn't totally suck. Bret Hart vs. Jerry Lawler: Not my cup of tea, but haven't seen it in years, so, maybe it's better than I remember? Hogan vs. Vader: Too lopsided to be considered, but thought I'd mention it. Hogan vs. Dungeon of Doom: If you like your wrestling fantastical, campy, and embarrassing, this isn't your Feud of the Year, this is your Feud of the Decade. Flair vs. Savage: I actually haven't seen many of their matches from this year (I'm currently working my way through WCW PPVs and am about to start 94'), but maybe this was WCW's best rivalry that year? ...Speaking of Savage in WCW in 95', not sure if it would count, but I always liked the ongoing tension between Luger and Savage and how Sting would try to keep things cool. If it doesn't count, I'd say Luger/Savage at least deserves to be considered the Near-Feud of the Year. In summation, Axl Rotten/Ian Rotten - the best feud of a year of bad feuds? Sounds kinda right, I guess, but forced to make a choice with a gun to my head, I'd say, tell my wife I love her.

Russo doing this will answer the question of how much work someone is willing to do for the chance to earn $18.