DMJ

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.

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.