Steenalized

That's for sure, but Reigns' punches and elbows when Bryan had submissions on looked legitimately fierce and he did a fine job selling too. I still don't want to see him go over Brock though, it just doesn't make sense to me within the context of the WWE's logic.

I'd rather not see Reigns go 20+, even with Bryan, so that's fine.

The interference finish didn't bother me at all. Easily the best match of the night so far and Rusev still looks great coming out of it.

Because Triple H has been dreaming of it for years.

Correct, but proving actual damage in defamation is often the biggest hurdle. If he raises defamation per se then he won't have to show a loss of business or some other damages. He still has to show at least negligence on Punk's part. The publication element is pretty obvious, so it comes down to whether the statements were false and whether Punk was at least negligent. He won't need 'documentation,' testimony could be sufficient particularly if it goes to court. Which, playing the odds, it likely won't.

The WHC got to close out WM20 and being the Raw title for a long time made it seem like the bigger of the two.

I get JvK's point that commentary is a major part of the aesthetic of wrestling. In my personal experience though, good and great commentary clearly raises a match, bad commentary is something I can typically tune out. Live wrestling as an experience in itself features no commentary. I can't say commentary is a necessity then for wrestling and I'm not even sure if it's important. More that it's beneficial, really beneficial if done right, but I can get by without it.

While that's generally true, Amann will likely go after Punk for defamation per se, which includes "indicating that the plaintiff is unable to perform or lacks integrity in performing his or her employment duties." Punk pretty certainly did that much and with defamation per se the court will presume harm.

I don't think this is that important in this case, there's almost zero chance that if what Punk said wasn't true that he is unaware it wasn't true. It is important since that's one of the elements of defamation.

Dr. Chris Amann performs on WWE programming as a character named Dr. Chris Amann. Wouldn't that make him a public figure? I doubt that brings him to the level of public figure within the meaning of defamation. The definition in Illinois as far as I can find is "(1) persons who achieve such a degree of general fame and notoriety in the community that they are considered public figures for all purposes and in all contexts; and (2) persons who either have voluntarily injected themselves into a public controversy in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved, or have been drawn into such a controversy, thus becoming public figures for a limited range of issues." If you can reasonably infer who a defamatory statement is about, then it still counts. Vince McMahon is a public figure. Amann isn't.

Cena still does too many terrible and childish insults, but he can hype a match better than anyone in the company.

Even if they have, it's not something they say and broadcast regularly. Doesn't make it any less of a poor decision either if they actually want heat.

That bothered me too, do they put zero foresight into these types of things? Maybe they figured Show would be a face again by the time it aired.

The Nevada Athletic Commission is the same athletic commission that covers all boxing in the state. There might be some exceptions, but as far as I know the state athletic commissions that regulate boxing regulate MMA.

That's true compared to other sports, though on the other hand, I've been watching a lot of B1G wrestling this year and that makes the WWE look like Toronto.

It's hard for me to imagine something so patently offensive in a single segment or angle that I'd stop watching. It'd take an accumulation of bad booking, characters I don't care about, an uninteresting wrestling. It's happened to some extent right now, but it's nowhere near as bad as the mid-00s when Evolution pushed me away from WWE for about 6 years.

Because that's where stadiums are and people travel to them, sometimes from hours away.

It would, but drive out to Oshawa, let alone someplace even further, and it won't seem out of the ordinary.

They don't get it directly, but you better believe it affected their TV rights fees this round and whenever it comes back up.

ehrmmmmmm, no. way short on asians & latinos - the cultures associated with those ethnicities are huge in significant portions of the US. put it to you this way: i live in southern california now. whenever people want to go out for a decent-priced meal with friends here, it hardly ever seems to be burgers & fries or what have you. feels like it's almost always carne asada or ramen or pho or korean BBQ or bubble tea. that's a cross-section of america that isn't really represented in these shows. also seconding comments about portrayal of people of color as the bigger issue. i actually like the usos' whole act a lot for some reason, i guess just because you never see samoan wrestlers presented as basically normal dudes like that. even the war dance feels like the exact kind of pregame ritual you could see in a NFL locker room. that's what i'd like to see more of, personally. Whites are 77% percent of the US, 88% in the WWE isn't far off. Samoans, a fraction of a percentage in the actual US demographics, take up "too much" of a share if you care bout that. You're also having a sort of localized bias and not realizing what a huge percentage of the US is, namely rural and suburban whites. Living in Chicago for 8 years before this January, it would be easy to think the US is pretty evenly split between Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics with a nice chunk of Asians, that everyone was a liberal or democrat and goes out for ethnic food, etc. etc. That's not how much of the country is (most of it, geographically and even demographically). Not to defend WWE for their BS gimmicks like new day, or to pretend like they aren't awful when it comes to any sort of racial sensitivity. But whites being 88% of the roster isn't crazy. Disproportionate, yes, but also what percentage of wrestlers in general are white?

True, if anything Samoans have a hugely disproportional representation in the WWE both now and historically. I also wonder how those numbers stake up against say main characters in network prime time television. On a related note, they only seem to want one masked wrestler, as if multiple masked people would confuse us.

And an all time great robe.

Name of worker: Jackie Fargo, with Bill Dundee and Jerry Lawler Promotion (and year): Memphis, 1979 Link to promo: Why you think it's great: It's subdued. It's not full of emotion, no voice raising, not even a lot of emotion, but it's not Jake Roberts-type either. It's three wrestlers sitting on a couch, talking, explaining what's happened and what's going to happen. A basic layout of who is involved, what the fans should expect, and why they should show up. It's not the best promo ever but it's an excellent example of how to promote a match.

Funny thing is that to me, my #1 title change would be Austin vs. Michaels which you guys on the show brushed off like nothing. I was about 8 at the time and that match was absolutely huge to me. God only knows how many times I watched WM14 on VHS, especially that match.

About 15 minutes in and enjoying it already. Big thumbs up to Will for calling out kids who were fans of heels, that's just not right.