C.S.

Nothing personal against you, doc, but I honestly despise bullshit sentiments like this whenever I see them on message boards. The whole, "oh, I'm above all of this, and why are you getting worked up when there are more important things to worry about?" attitude just smacks of false piety to me. Of course, world affairs, personal problems, etc. are "more important" - but we're on a wrestling forum, so it's perfectly fine to get angry about wrestling here.

Anyone watch the WWE 24 behind-the-scenes special about WM XXX? While it did take us backstage during the event, it didn't really reveal nearly as much as I thought it would. I guess I expected too much. It felt like mostly fluff. The Connor Michalek stuff still gets to me. So sad.

Worst Rumble match ever? Don't know if that's irrational anger or the truth. Bryan being eliminated that early was complete and utter bullshit, and Bray being thrown out like nothing after being in there for so long was pointless - not to mention all of the other dull eliminations that had no impact. Whoever laid out this Rumble must've been asleep. Reigns winning got completely shit on by the live crowd, and even Rock couldn't save the day. I've never seen someone so overprotected (Rock endorsement, Rusev elimination, Authority coming in for a heel reaction, etc.) and it meaning less than it did tonight. I feel genuinely bad for poor Roman, because if the WWE hadn't forced it and let him come into his own for another year, he would've been fine. Now it's just Lex Express 2.0. Bubba was a fun surprise, but did R-Truth becoming D-Von strike anyone else as racist? "Oh, he's black too, so no one will be able to tell the difference." It was lame as hell and immediately cooled Bubba off as just another midcard act IMO. If he's only coming in for this one match, using silly nostalgia is fine. But if he's back for good, this was a shitty way to go about it. The World Title match was a lot of fun - definitely an early MOTY contender. But I do think Brock over-relies on the German Suplex, which baffles me, because he's not Reigns - he knows more than five moves.

From Inquisitr.com (a site I've never heard of, so take it with a grain of salt): ...a humiliating mic gaffe that occurred at the latest SmackDown taping may be the straw that finally broke the camel’s back, thus burying the WrestleMania anointed one once and for all. Just what did Reigns say that would make the entire company face-palm and draw up a new main event? Well, according to reports from individuals who were at the taping, he said Andre the Giant “never referred to himself as a giant” while cutting a promo directed at the Big Show. The comment drew immediate guffaws, retweets, and reddit comments... http://www.inquisitr.com/1779607/wwe-roman-reigns-humiliating-smackdown-moment-may-be-end-of-wrestlemania-hopes/ This is the first I've heard of this "gaffe" being mentioned or treated as a big deal in any way. Changing the WM main event because of it - if Roman is still indeed in the plans for that - seems unlikely to me, but WWE has been pettier in the past. What do you all think?

I would love to see them at #1 and #2 and then be the final two at the end. The crowd would be something else. I'd love Bryan to be #1 and Reigns to be #30 (or at least a pretty high number). The reactions online would be priceless.

Not Russo alone, because he was in and out. It was a revolving door of bad bookers, worse ideas, and inept management. Who can forget that horrible Nitro under Kevin Sullivan's watch, which saw Hogan have a staredown with Wall, who was on top of a building from a distance no one but a superhero could see. That wasn't Russo. I'd argue that the Sullivan regime, post-Russo, was far worse than anything Russo ever did. Remember The Dog? I realize Sullivan had success previously, but that didn't translate the second (third?) time around. But I'm not blaming Sullivan either. WCW was dead in the water by then.

I thought the "Death of WCW" book was a fun, if informal, read. Those expecting it to be the Bible of WCW's demise, however, are bound to be disappointed. I never had such lofty expectations for the book, so I liked it for what it was. I do think the blame Vince Russo gets for WCW's death is ridiculous, though. The ship had already been sinking long before he got there. Also, he had to deal with a myriad of political bullshit, which wasn't the case as much in the WWE where he had more "protected" status. Anyone would do worse in those conditions. Plus, he left and came back, etc., so it stands to reason that a lot of his time was devoted to putting out political fires and dealing with the mess that was WCW's internal structure instead of just being able to concentrate on his job. I'm not being a blind Russo defender and apologist - a lot of his ideas were indeed bad - but his stints in the WWF and WCW are apples and oranges. In the WWF, he was given the support he needed and a fighting chance to succeed. That wasn't the case in WCW, which was already a toxic environment, with several people out to undermine him at every turn. It's like an average student: Give him help, support, and encouragement - he's bound to do better. But criticize him, write him off, and penalize him - he's only going to sink further down. "Russo killed WCW" is a lazy, simplistic, brain-dead argument that deliberately ignores the details and nuances of the situation. If that's why everyone is criticizing the book, then I agree.

Didn't think of the potential heel turn seed-planting - that would indeed be awesome - but would they really kick off that angle in some random media interview? I have my doubts. When has WWE ever been that clever?

Reigns addressed his "haters" and sounded like a blithering idiot in the process. The funny part is, you have a guy like me who is kind of getting like a mixed vibe from time-to-time. I get a lot of love and then you'll get the hate in the middle of it but its just funny, the perspectives you know, the differences between the love and the hate. As far as the hate, it makes me laugh. Everybody is a critic. Every critic I've ever had, they weren't wrestlers [laughs]. Every wrestler I've ever had critique me, they were always into my stuff or what I'm doing out there. For a non-wrestler, someone who doesn't even know how to lock up, and if we did lock up, they wouldn't know what to do, for them to critique any of us, it really does pop me. And then: That’s what haters do. They hate because they hate their lives. http://www.craveonline.com/sports/articles/814477-roman-reigns-talks-royal-rumble-injury-return-haters Yep, the old "you ain't a 'rassler, so who are you to criticize me?" bullshit. That always annoys the shit out of me. So, a non-cook can't taste a chef's food and know it's bad? That's basically what he's saying. Not that I think Roman is bad - he isn't - but this type of thinking, to me, is arrogant and doesn't bode well for future improvement. It's made even worse by his smug "they hate their lives" remark. So, if we don't think Roman is the second coming of Superman, we hate our lives? Fuck off with that!

J.R. on foxsports.com: "Who is the biggest star in the history of the Royal Rumble?" Pat Patterson

I just shook my head when I read that. How does a situation like that even occur? - Victoria spent her own money promoting the show, yet another Knockout was used in the ads, and Dixie's ditzy response was, "Yeah, I heard," as if she had no control over it? (Which maybe she didn't, if she's as incompetent as this story makes her seem?) - They end up promoting another pizza place that isn't Victoria's. How/why does that even happen? Mistake, malice, incompetence...what?

I remember Bret's book mentioning a WWF Title defense against Savage in, maybe, Japan? The agent came up to them and gave them a quick finish - "Bret wins with so-and-so" - and no other details, Randy was insulted because he felt he was being treated like a jobber. Bret consoled him and said (I'm paraphrasing) "let's show them what we can do out there." I think it ended up being 30+ minutes, but I could be misremembering what I read. I wonder if any tape exists of that match. That incident is never really touched upon as another potential reason why Savage left the WWF, but it wouldn't surprise me if he held onto that.

I always go with Stevie Richards in these types of threads. Very solid in the ring and was able to seamlessly transition into so many different character types: goofy sidekick (Raven's Nest/Flock), comedy stable leader (bWo), plucky underdog babyface (before ECW's first PPV), believable HBK-type main eventer (Barely Legal push), and intense conservative "cult" leader (RTC). That's range, which most wrestlers don't have - and he was believable and credible in every incarnation.

My ideal scenario is for Sting to beat Trips (I'm not wild about that match, but it'll do for these purposes) and then for Taker to come out post-match and point at Sting. Honestly, Taker vs. Sting isn't even something I want to see, but enough other people are clamoring for it that it would make no sense for the WWE to ignore one of the few guaranteed money matches it has left. With Sting winning this year, he can safely lose next year to Taker, with the match also serving as Taker's retirement. If they have to use Taker this year, am I the only one who thinks Taker/Brock II makes the most sense? (Assuming Brock loses the title before then. If not, then no, obviously.)

Did anyone watch the Royal Rumble "Lottery" special with Santino? I was under the impression that we'd see wrestlers pick their number for the Rumble. I'm glad that didn't happen, because the surprises are the best part of the match - but what we did get was pretty underwhelming... Santino drew "random" numbers and talked about the significance of each one (e.g. "3" led to a video package about Stone Cold winning three Rumbles, Mick Foley competing three times in one Rumble, etc.). Fun, I suppose, for those people who don't already know all of this stuff. But the stats released on WWE.com each year are usually a lot more detailed. This show barely scratched the surface. The cameo by Kane was easily the best part.

I agree with the three posts above mine. Taker vs. Bray would be a terrible creative decision and a bad match. Even when Bray was booked well, he was an overrated character with a definite ceiling. But now? It's even more of a lopsided mismatch, story-wise. Honestly, I don't see it happening. It sounds like internet fanboy bullshit and not anything credible or logical, but who knows. I could see Taker skipping this year's WM entirely.

An awesome and very legitimate defense of TNA from TJ "Manik" Perkins: http://www.cagesideseats.com/tna-impact/2015/1/20/7856949/tj-perkins-aka-manik-says-tna-is-a-life-saver-not-a-career-killer "Being here has saved my life."

Or they knew something bad would happen but thought Rey was bulletproof, could withstand it, and would never get booed. They miscalculated badly on that one, obviously.

Yeah, I realize he's season 3, but there are a couple of guys who auditioned for earlier seasons, didn't get in, tried again in later seasons and got in then. I thought maybe Morrison was one of them.

Should we read anything into this? Cover of the WrestleMania magazine: From https://twitter.com/BrosB4Elbows/status/556494984422379521

Weird, I just watched the first episode of TE Season 1 last night, and I don't remember Morrison being on it. Was it a blink and you miss it thing?

Except, your original post had nothing to do with a podcast...or at least you weren't clear about it. I'd love more programming like what we got with Austin/Vince.

Roku 3 here as well, but occasionally PS3/4. Haven't tried it on my phone in months.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Shawn Michaels vs. Razor Ramon from WrestleMania X (the inferior IMO SummerSlam rematch was mentioned) and Bret Hart vs. British Bulldog from SummerSlam '92 (another match of theirs was mentioned instead). Can the Royal Rumble match itself count? If so, Royal Rumble '92 was pretty damn awesome. I remember the Bret Hart vs. Bob Backlund (heel turn) match from Superstars being very good, but I have no idea how that holds up. Their rematch at Survivor Series was memorable for its theatrics, but I can't remember if the match itself was anything special outside of the Towel gimmick. Their "I Quit" match at WrestleMania a few months after that was one of the most disappointing ever. These were good, but "not best match ever" caliber, so I hit the strikethrough button because I didn't want to erase what I had already typed.

That would be an incredible waste of time and money for very little reward. It wouldn't drive a single new person to subscribe to the Network, and most of the episodes would remain unwatched. A 5-minute daily news show is an outdated concept when WWE.com and the rest of the web exist, and I can't imagine anything else compelling enough that the WWE could devote 30 minutes a day to. But you're right, the WWE Network has a lot of problems content-wise. I just don't think your ideas are viable solutions to those problems.