DMJ

I'd have to rewatch, but does Simmons even come out with the belt? I mentioned in the Megathread that I wanted to open up discussion about Simmons' title run and I might still. One topic would be the booking of his title run in terms of main event feuds. At the previous Clash, he wrestles Cactus Jack and it's nothing special. Then, at Havoc, he wrestles Barbarian. You can see why - Barbarian is in great shape, almost a mirror of Simmons muscularly, and, I'm thinking based on his WWF tenure, seen as more of a "name" than Cactus Jack. But, in hindsight, they may have been better off flipping things. Muscles or not, WWF past or not, Cactus Jack was a better, more intriguing character and one that, potentially, could've carried Simmons through a really good Havoc match - especially if they would have let them use some sort of stip (preferably not one based around retrieving an article of clothing from a pole). That means, at CoC XX, they should've run Barbarian/Simmons and maybe let it end with some sort of beatdown to get Jack more over as a threat.

She's not hideous or anything, but saying that no other woman in wrestling "is even close" is absurd to me. She looks like she came off an assembly line set to "Generic Man's Fantasy." I can think of at least a half dozen women in wrestling who have a more unique look that, to me, makes them more attractive. Again, though, different strokes...

Haha, too, too true. As someone else said, there really isn't much of a link between the storylines on the show and the stock dips (and, in the same sense, the inevitable rises that occur prior to every WrestleMania season like clockwork). The only connection that might be made, or at least seems reasonable to me, has way more to do with longterm booking and "star making" in that, if ratings continue to drop and hit record lows for an extended period of time, it looks bad for the company, which, over time, would likely effect the value of the stock. But one single booking decision or the "People are tired of John Cena" argument is naive to the fact that there is more to the WWE product than The Streak and whether Cena should turn heel or not.

^ I have to disagree. While I see your point about the "therapy" line, I think JR was referring to just the whole idea of bringing Flair back at all in 2013, especially in a party atmosphere like LA for SummerSlam. I don't think he confused Mania and SummerSlam, he was just speaking about how AT SummerSlam, Flair had been drinking with the boys, possibly trying to "have a good time" a little too much for someone who had lost their son just a few months earlier. As Flair is notorious for wearing his heart on his sleeve and overdoing things, the result is not a shocker - Flair getting quite emotional on the panel and arguably "too real" compared to the squeaky clean, PG-rated, canned publicity shoot they were going far.

While I might fix the actual phrasing of the message, I think that this one idea that costs zero dollars, can be started as soon as Monday, and will, at least, go a little way towards getting them in the right direction (especially the part about the popularity of wrestling with women). I also like the idea of maybe changing hiring practices a little bit in relation to diversity, most importantly on the Creative side. For example, if you look at the producers/creators/writers of some of the more popular "high-tier" shows, like Scandal or comedies like The Office, 30 Rock, and Parks and Rec or Orange Is The New Black, and you will find women of color, men of color, etc. Shonda Rimes (creator of Scandal) has created a show that stars an African-American woman, which, for years, meant the show would've really only been picked up by an "urban" network (see The CW, BET, etc.), but has crossed over huge with white audiences thanks to smart storytelling. Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, and Mindy Kaling's shows may not be/have been ratings juggernauts, but they attract the demo that we're talking about here. So, in a nutshell, if you can attract college-educated writers and allow them to construct story lines that would appeal to college-educated audiences, you might make wrestling appeal to more educated people with money. But, personally, I think that would actually shrink the audience and not grow it. If we're talking about growing the audience, regardless of education or income level or gender or race demos, what they should do is take just 5-6 of the ideas presented throughout this thread and do them all. The WWE has done a decent job of being everything to everyone, but what they need to do is be BETTER at being everything to everyone. If you're doing comedy, make it funny. If you're going with an adult theme storyline, know where the "hokey line" is and don't step over it. Be consistent in rules and storytelling, including even the vaguest notion of win/loss records, so that guys don't win championships after 5 months of a losing record (see Jack Swagger). And, as Boondocks mentioned, use a "Fake it 'til you make it" mentality to promote the show the way you want it to be seen (even if that means blurring the truth about what it actually is).

Not sure if I should be posting here, but looking at the title, I thought I'd ask... As I'm a relatively new poster, what is the etiquette for starting a thread in the Microscope? I'm rewatching WCW 92' stuff on The Network and I was really curious what people's views are about Ron Simmons and his World Title run. Was he more over in late 91' against Luger than he was in 92' when they gave him the belt? I've heard that his title reign was done to take heat off of Bill Watts' infamous comments in an interview (the exact wording escapes me, but the story goes that it came across as racist and eventually was one of the reasons Watts got fired), but barring that, was Simmons still in line for a title run? I thought Doom were pretty dependable for good matches in 91' and Simmons had a great look and could actually do good work against quality opponents (vs. Luger at Havoc 91' and I just watched a pretty solid-if-unspectacular match against Cactus at CoC XX). Am I wearing rose-colored glasses? What was the critical reception of Simmons at this time? Anyway, I just thought this discussion would be better in a Microscope thread, but didn't want to be presumptuous. Maybe I should move it there or a mod can if they feel its worthwhile? If it's not, I'm still curious about people's thoughts on him at this time. I do think, whether it worked or not, his build and the vignettes of him at FSU were really well done - which was almost a rarity when you consider WCW's production quality compared to the WWE's even back then.

He had a TV match with Big Show around 05'/06' (I think) that I remember really liking...largely because Triple H actually sells everything. I liked the Hardy matches from 08' a good deal. WM30 was definitely his best match in years. Oddly enough, I remember thinking the DX vs. McMahons & Big Show cage match was fun, they had a pretty good bout with Rhodes & DiBiase later on, and I really liked the Evolution/Shield match at ER. Could or should a list of Triple H's best matches really include this many tag bouts? Never considered him a tag wrestler, but...

I agree with so much of what everyone is posting above, but this one sentiment really bothered me. Daniel Bryan main evented Extreme Rules in the truest sense of the word. His match went on last when most believed it wouldn't. One can spin that any way they want, but it doesn't change the fact that Bryan's title defense went on in what is regarded as the main event. As for his lack of RAW screentime since Mania - Daniel Bryan's father died, which means that on one episode of the build to ER, he basically needed to be written off entirely. Ditto for this week and the build for Payback. Other than that, he's been on TV plenty. Whether you like the angle or not, or think Kane is over or not, it's not like Bryan hasn't been on the flagship show every week for a considerable number of minutes. If I'm not mistaken, either, he had the most TV matches of any wrestler in 2013. In 2014, he'll probably still be in the Top 3. I have to agree with Dave Batista when he said Daniel Bryan can't be in every segment. Finally, the solution offered by the poster above - and by others, so I'm not just knocking him - was that, as Wyatt is busy with Cena and Shield/Evolution is red hot, Bryan should be getting clean victories over mid-level heels like Kane and Ryback. Um, isn't that EXACTLY what IS happening? I understand that people wanted to see him defend and defeat Batista and Cena...but if you blow those feuds in May and June, you really are leaving yourself with nowhere to go for SummerSlam and September's show, when a lot of fans are going to need to renew their Network subscriptions but might need a really good match to help motivate them. Depending on the severity of this injury, we may never know if his title run would've gotten better, worse, or something in between. Still, when people call this the "worst title reign in WWE history" after a little over 6 weeks and one PPV main event (that I actually thought was entertaining for what it was), it sounds a lot like much ado about nothing to these ears.

Man, what an absolute bummer. It'll be interesting to see what they do now. I almost feel like they should have him come out, admit the neck injury, and then have Stephanie strip him of the title. That way, you can always say he never lost it and you can turn Payback's main event into some sort of tournament/scramble/6-man match involving Evolution and the Shield. The only silver lining I can see here is that, in 97', Austin's neck injury ended up leading to him being even more over than he was before it. He continued to appear on TV regularly and his character just got stronger and stronger. Maybe a few months of Bryan doing something similar could keep him fresh and potentially even lead to another WM main event.

Simple, I know, but... Favorite match since coming to WWE and why? Insight on CM Punk's departure?

I am definitely in the camp of being a wrestling superfan, but not actually watching all or most of it at this point. I read the results on Tuesday morning. I listen to Review-A-Wai and maybe read some columns. I watch stuff that sounds "must see" or gets praised on here or by my friends. I DVR RAW and SD every week, but am lucky to watch even one of them over the weekend. Then, its Monday again, and the cycle repeats. I like to stay up-to-date, but with the Network now, whatever time I do have to watch wrestling is going towards old WCW PPVs more and more (as a kid, I rarely ordered a WCW PPV and they were far less common at the video store). I do believe this would be different if RAW went back to 2 hours. I think taking out that third hour would be "addition by subtraction" and, instead of looking at RAW as a chore to get through (even WITH the option of fast forwarding), I would probably be more inclined not to fast forward anything at all.

Just watched Beach Blast 92' on the Network and my initial thought is, just like a great album that suffers from poor track sequence, this is a great PPV that suffers from an absolutely atrocious match order. It was mentioned in the Rude/Steamboat and Steiners/MVC threads that the reason the tag match closes the show is because of the Steamboat/Cactus angle they run. In hindsight, couldn't they have had Rude/Steamboat in the main and then had Jack do the run-in post match? Would that have been too repetitive of similar angles where the main event winner is immediately attacked by his next challenger? But the issue with the main event and it's "non-finish" isn't the only odd decision. Equally as puzzling, to me, is having the second last match end in a DQ that is also really just a draw (technically, Arn is DQ'd for going off the top rope, but it reads as more of a "no contest" once the ref loses control). The opening contest, while good, has a bit of a downer ending, with Pillman dropping the Light Heavyweight Title to Scotty Flamingo. Why not swap those matches? In my mind, if you take this same show, with the same exact finishes, and flip around the order, you have an all-time great PPV. As it is now, it's not so much a roller coaster of emotions as a jerky, start-stop ride on the Scrambler. Better match order? - 6 Man Tag - Simmons vs. Taylor - Steiners vs. MVC - Valentine vs. Bagwell - Light Heavyweight Title Match - Cactus vs. Sting - Rude vs. Steamboat

I'm not sure any of them were necessarily "nightmares," but I'd put all of the Rock's matches in the past 3 years on this list. Again, I wouldn't say Rock/Punk at Royal Rumble 2013 was terrible or that the first Cena/Rock match wasn't engaging, but I think its fair to say that there were high expectations and they weren't quite met. Unlike Rock/Hogan at WM or any of the Cena/Punk matches from that timeframe, for example, I just don't see any of the Rock's matches being things people rush to see again.

If no one backstage is calling him out on that shit, then their producers are sleeping on the job. If someone in the back is telling him to keep up the good work, the longterm plan must be for him to be a babyface. Nothing else makes sense.

But to defend Ross's comments a little, let's look at the ending of the Barrett/Big E IC title match. Barrett wins clean and LEADS THE AUDIENCE in a clap, hands over heads like its a Tesla concert. That's the type of stuff Santino and Emma do. Barrett is a fine worker and I get that the fans want to cheer him, but unless I missed the memo, he's still a heel that should be trying to get heat, not trying to lead the live crowds in cheers like an NBA mascot. What irks me is that some will point to Barrett as this incredible worker when an incredible worker used to mean someone who can get heat as a heel and pops as a baby face. I think it still does.

Did anyone else lose 2-3 minutes in the middle when the feed faded out and played an Evolution video promo? Anyway, this was a fun match, but would be cringe-inducing if I cared at all about the longterm potential of any member of 3MB. For example, watching Jinder Mahal take a needlessly risky bump during a comedy midget match or even selling for Torito like he was Mighty Mouse would bother me if I thought he were worthy of better. So, in terms of psychology and pacing a show (I mean, they kind of set the bar sorta high in terms of high spots for an opening comedy match), this was absolutely awful...but I'm not going to say it wasn't entertaining and, as these two teams essentially exist in their own bizarre universe, it's not like someone should be watching that and saying, "Well, if Kane doesn't put Bryan through a flaming table, this show peaked" or "Cena and Wyatt should be a bloodbath based on how hardcore Torito/Swoggle was." Maybe that's just how I view it, though.

I won't go into too much needless detail, but I'm excited for this show and think, if they can call this the "average" Major Event we can expect via the Network, there'll be no problem securing more and more buyers via XBox, expansion into Canada, and other means. To me, this feels about right for what is essentially the "real" "first" Network PPV (Mania being Mania, this show seems more like the "blueprint" for future Network special events). I would've never paid $50 for this card - but $10 for an intriguing Shield/Evolution 6-man, Cena vs. Wyatt in a cage, and Daniel Bryan defending the title against Kane, and I think this is well worth the price of admission. Throw in two more solid midcard matches (the IC match and the triple threat) and there's just nothing to complain about it at that price point.

I will add this - the middle school kids in my school think Bray Wyatt is creepy as all hell and tell me their younger siblings leave the room when he's on. To me, the gimmick is over with the audience it was intended to get over with. As for us older fans, I think we're supposed to enjoy his in-ring work and, while I'm still not his biggest fan or anything, I thought his Mania match was pretty cool. I don't think anyone over the age of 12 should be afraid of any PG-rated TV character, so that specific criticism is a little silly to me. I liken it to how I hated and feared the Undertaker in 91' when he was going after my hero Hulk Hogan. My dad watched with us and probably thought it was idiotic and anything but scary. Today, at age 30, its easy for me to say "Well, Taker WAS scary and dark and Wyatt isn't as good," but that's typical "Back in my day..." stuff.

I believe in the stockholder's meeting they announced they will be adding all the Clashes soon. Can't wait. I think there's a 2-outta-3 falls match between Flair and Eaton in the early 90s that I remember absolutely loving as a kid that I can't wait to see again and also one show where Sting gets taken out early by Cactus Jack or Abdullah the Butcher, then wrestles Rick Rude later in the night, and, again, as a kid, I thought it was the best wrestling storyline ever done. Man, I miss being 8 years old, but god bless the time machine that is the Network.

Yeah, I don't think anything after 95' or so really touches what he did prior to that year, but I think there were a few matches/feuds I enjoyed a great deal. I thought the match against HBK at WM24 was awesome and that he had some good matches against Edge and HHH in 05'. I think one missed opportunity during that final run in WWE was to have somehow had him work heel (or at least heelish) against Cena.

SummerSlam 95' on the Network Surprisingly not as terrible as I would've thought by just looking at the card. Decent opener, a surprisingly decent Taker/Kama Casket match, and I'm right now watching Bret Hart wrestle Ka - err, Isaac Yankem. Still to come is the ladder match which I haven't seen in at least 2 years and Diesel vs. Mabel, which I'm expecting to be god awful, but haven't seen before.

23 is a top five Mania of all time in my opinion. It has the best Mania MITB match, the Battle of the Billionaires, Taker-Batista, and Cena-HBK. All of those matches are either extremely entertaining or really great. Agreed, 23 is the best of that bunch. 24 is worth seeing for Flair-HBK, Big Show-Mayweather and Undertaker-Edge. It's also an outdoor stadium show with a cool setup, which always adds to the shows for me I actually like WM22 just a tad more, though, my feelings on 23 are admittedly tainted from having attended it, but, as I was stuck in the nosebleeds, it was actually a pretty lame experience to be honest. Plus, as I drove home the same night, I think I had maybe one adult beverage. Not exactly the recipe for a thrilling night of watching 4 hours of ants wrestling. But 22, to me, is a really good show. Edge and Foley deliver a great hardcore spotfest. Stratus vs. James is one of the best Diva matches I've seen (save for a botched finish, but compared to 4-5 botches per match for most Diva contests, that's actually exceptional). Shawn Michaels and Vince McMahon have a really fun, emotional brawl, and Cena vs. Triple H wrestle (I think) their first match and it has a "big match" feel. I don't remember loving Angle/Mysterio/Orton too much, but it definitely is a "moment." There's a MITB too and, if you're a fan of the genre (as JR might say), it's good for what it is. Plus, as it was at the Allstate Arena, the crowd seems a little hotter for the bigger spots which I think is something that is sometimes lost when you wrestle in front of a crowd three times as big. There are a few duds, for sure, but I could see myself rewatching WM22 before wanting to see WM23. (Another nitpick - HBK and Cena have a better match on RAW a few weeks *after* WM23, which left me with a bad taste only because I'd paid good money to attend Mania. Again, that's more of a personal, completely bias opinion based on being a scrooge)

Also, and again this is one of those really trivial things that is funny to think about 13 years later, but in the SmackDown episode that I'm referring to, the main event is HHH/Rock/Angle for Angle's title. The finish is Austin "screwing" Triple H by taking an incapacitated Earl Hebner's arm and doing the count with it. It gets a huge pop and adds even more heat to the Austin/Triple H rivalry... But, if the Austin story is that he'd do anything to win the title, surely he should've HELPED Hunter win the strap so that he could win it off him at No Way Out because, according to the logic of WM17, he *needed* Vince's help to beat The Rock (and was confident he could beat Triple H). Anyway, completely purposeless post here, sorry for the distraction. It's not like doing any one of these things would've helped this angle, but that's a conversation for another thread. Watching episode of 2 of Legends House now...

RIght now, they're airing a SmackDown episode from February 2001 that came right before the launch of the XFL and it brought me back to a question that I'm sure has been asked and answered a million times - WTF with Austin's heel turn at WM17? Was there ever an adequate explanation as to why the Two-Man Power Trip would form when, 2 months earlier, Austin and Triple H were in a very personal, bitter feud? On a side note, this is actually a really fun episode. It's obvious they were trying to spike this rating to get as much XFL "xposure" as possible (and it did work...until people saw the XFL and tuned out in droves as weeks passed). There was a Hardys/Dudleys hardcore match, Jericho vs. Tazz for the IC title, Miss Kitty doing a striptease, a 3-way divas bout that isn't half bad, and, here's the biggest shocker, all of the company's main event talent were in attendance and involved in at least backstage segments (HHH, Austin, The Rock, and Angle) which is more that can be said for SD episodes today. But I do ask again - WTF with the Austin heel turn? Was it ever adequately explained?

To me, Sheamus joining the Authority/Evolution makes sense and could be a hot angle for the spring. Basically, have Evolution take out The Shield early in the night, leaving Daniel Bryan prone to a numbers game. The main event is Bryan & Sheamus vs. Orton & Batista and just when you think Sheamus is going to come in for the hot tag, have him turn heel. The next week, Sheamus cuts a heel promo about how he has come to his senses and joined Triple H because Triple H is the man who led Batista and Orton to superstardom and now Triple H will lead him there too. Sheamus in that spot also works because, with Batista taking time off, you can really stick him where Batista was - as a tag partner to Orton and immediate World Championship contender. Plus, like Batista, Sheamus is one of those guys that gets a heel reaction from "smart" crowds (see his match against Orton the night after WM29) sometimes, so, actually letting him work heel will probably lead to bigger reactions for him as well as the kind of "internet backlash" that a lot of this storyline has been based off of anyway.