DMJ

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.

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.