Steenalized

Normally I agree, especially the way they handle cage matches. This one worked because the idea is that Ambrose wants his hands on Rollins. He should he was willing to fight anyone and everyone in his way to make that happen.

I've liked every match more than the last.

Within the last two weeks or so, Loss.

Ambrose swinging at everyone who gets near him. Perfect.

Damn good match that went way better than I expected. Rusev's selling made it.

Me too Johnny. It's about the best possible use of him.

Stream's been fine since I made my comment. Also please stop using Hogan, that crowd couldn't care less.

I'm having major streaming problems on my Xbox for the first time since the initial issues at launch.

Just like Montreal. Very meta.

I think Brock beating Cena decisively would work very well. Not an Ultimate Warrior vs. HHH level squash, but a 10 minute match where Brock dominates and cuts off any Cena comebacks quickly. Make Brock look like a destroyer instead of going 20-25. It's not going to happen but it would cement Brock as the kayfabe top guy.

Possibly in the states....you guys love the punitive damages. If the suit were filed in Canada, not so much. Either way, there would be no (realistic) way to get damages for tv monitors up to what the remainder of the contract, had it been legally breached, was worth. You think Vince McMahon isn't getting that suit litigated in America and that an American court is going to choose Canadian law? I really wish we had a copy of it, then we could know for sure. The screw job and Bret's actions happened afterwards, sure, but the contract dispute and a counterclaim are coming if Bret sues on it.

My point being, you can tell someone you can't afford to pay them, there is no actual breach until you don't pay them. Had the contract been actually breached, then Bret would have been free to leave at any point, and I don't believe he was. I believe he gave notice that he was leaving on x date, and remained under contract until that point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticipatory_repudiation Luckily I didn't get my JD from Wikipedia. Here's the easiest way to tell that the contract wasn't breached - Bret never sued for damages. Why? Because he didn't suffer any. They came to an agreement to release both from the terms by allowing Bret to negotiate a deal with WCW while under contract with the WWF. Repudiation occurs when you flat out state you will not be honouring the terms of a contract. If McMahon tells him his contract is hoping to bankrupt the company, and gives him a chance to go find a better deal, the contract wasn't repudiated. Neither did I, but this isn't about dick waving. Bret didn't sue Vince for damages because litigation is a huge drain on time and money. Everyone knows this. Why sue Vince and probably have to sit out for years when he could just take the immediate, guaranteed cash? Could it be because one is clearly the better option? And, like Dylan pointed out, Bret sorta KO'd Vince. Vince told Bret "I cannot pay your contract." If XYZ Construction calls ABC Plumbing tomorrow and says "hey, we can't pay you what we said we would for the subcontract" do you really think that there wasn't an anticipatory repudiation? Vince was unequivocal in his refusal to pay Bret and honor the contract. "Reasonable creative control" is a messy term even if the parties did define it. That means if it all did go to litigation, that the court has to find a meaning to it, not drop it out and follow what Vince McMahon says.

No, it doesn't, see the wiki article I linked above for easy access. If something requires both parties to agree to it and one declines, then the other party can't do it. Vince wanted Bret to drop the title in Montreal. Bret did not. Therefore, Bret's "reasonable creative control" means he can block Vince from having Bret drop the title in Montreal.

My point being, you can tell someone you can't afford to pay them, there is no actual breach until you don't pay them. Had the contract been actually breached, then Bret would have been free to leave at any point, and I don't believe he was. I believe he gave notice that he was leaving on x date, and remained under contract until that point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticipatory_repudiation

Fair point. But did Vince actually breach the contract, or did he just tell Bret he couldn't afford it and that he could/should negotiate with WCW? And once Bret didn't just bugger off, I would still hold he was a douche for not just agreeing to drop the belt. Telling him he can't pay on the contract and to go talk to WCW is effectively a breach of contract. And Bret's contract specifically gave him reasonable creative control. Who was Bret to tell Vince what to do? He was a guy who had a contract with Vince that said he gets reasonable creative control, that's who. Allowing him to negotiate with a third party is not a breach. And, legally speaking, "reasonable creative control" is meaningless unless it was further defined in the contract. But it seems like Bret wanted closer to full creative control by dictating how/when he would or would not lose the title, and full control may not have been reasonable, Vince didn't just let him negotiate with WCW; Vince told Bret he was not going to honor his part of the contract. That's a repudiation and a breach. "Reasonable creative control" is not 'meaningless', though it can be a quagmire for future litigation. Thing is, "reasonable creative control" was defined as Bret and Vince having to agree to it. So it was defined.

Fair point. But did Vince actually breach the contract, or did he just tell Bret he couldn't afford it and that he could/should negotiate with WCW? And once Bret didn't just bugger off, I would still hold he was a douche for not just agreeing to drop the belt. Telling him he can't pay on the contract and to go talk to WCW is effectively a breach of contract. And Bret's contract specifically gave him reasonable creative control. Who was Bret to tell Vince what to do? He was a guy who had a contract with Vince that said he gets reasonable creative control, that's who.

They did have Brock lose immediately after his return, mind you. And had him lose at the previous Wrestlemania. WWE hasn't exactly treated him with kid gloves.

I'd argue for Bret, but I honestly don't know what argument there is in favor of Vince.

Three or four (though not as big as the Rock) I could see happening, but the heart wants #1.

That's a terrible idea. Cena is in no way comparable to the Honky Tonk Man and is without a doubt their biggest draw. Like BRM just said, no one can take his place right now either. Cena should be putting guys over, and he has been, but squashing him would do nothing to help business and might ruin his aura for the kids who buy all that merch.

Out of those choices, Cena by a landslide overall, but AJ has probably had the best 2014.

Making the 7'4" Andre look even bigger? I think that's making him look 7'4", no way in hell was he that big.

Not sure which of your list I'd drop off, but I love Show in his match vs. Henry at MITB 2011. Though that's more of a Henry showcase, I think Show's pretty tremendous in helping Henry look like a beast.

Heidi and Candace are pretty good at the rag doll bumping in their intergender matches. I haven't seen any Seleziya Sparx intergender matches yet, but I know for her it's the gimmick that she's as strong as a guy. I'm kinda with stomper though, I don't really like the idea of women being able to physically stand up to male opponents. That sounds sexist, but I have the same issue with a tiny guy standing up to someone considerably bigger unless it's booked very well. Rey Mysterio can do it, your average indy guy can't. There's weight classes in boxing and amateur wrestling and MMA for a reason. Pro wrestling is a different beast, but it does trigger my sense of 'this shouldn't be happening'.

I don't think it's a bad thing, it's actually what kept me coming back here. Whenever someone did argue for Shawn, Kurt, etc. their opinions were respected, not laughed off. I think it's good that PWO stands as a place where revisionist history of wrestling (not a pejorative) is something of the standard. Like JvK gets at, PWO isn't a contrarian monolith, it's more that PWO isn't drinking the WWE kool-aid narrative of who the all time greats are.