Steenalized

I agree that Reigns was at least as pivotal to the match as Lesnar, but I consider it a feather in Lesnar's cap too. Like Dylan said, Reigns sold, bumped, and hit Brock with such stiff shots, and even got the crowd into his come back. Brock meanwhile played his role to perfection and I adored his selling from the ring post spot on.

Was never a fan that I can recall, but hope she's happy with whatever comes next.

Current favorite wrestler to watch: It's gotta be Lesnar right now. Last fun match you saw: Lesnar vs. Reigns, WM31 Wrestler you want to see more of: To beat a dead horse, Lesnar. to give a different answer, Silas Young. Unforunately I can't make the next AAW show on 4/10 with him. Last live show attended (if applicable/different from last time you answered): An AAW show back in like September/October. Match you're most looking forward to watching: Whatever catches my fancy next on the Memphis set I'm working through when I get the chance. Last fun interview/promo you saw: Loved Lesnar's promo about Reigns going into WrestleMania. Last interesting thing you read about wrestling: I read Hooker in about two days, really good read. There's definitely bias to it, but it's an autobiography, you should know that. Still a fascinating read. Last worthwhile podcast you listened to: Exile on Bad Street 2, but generally speaking if it's on the PWO-PTBN network I'll listen to it and endorse it. And Wrestling Culture and VOW podcasts. Most fun you've had watching wrestling lately: Wrestlemania XXXI. My interest in it slowly built up and then I really enjoyed the show both as a spectacle and as a quality piece of work. Favorite recent post on this board: All of mine, I'm the greatest. Also, just love it here in general, both old and new posts. Favorite thing about the wrestling landscape in the past three months (if you live in the past, then go with your past three months of time-traveling): I can't say much here since the build to WM31 sucked hard til the very end, when it was passable. I haven't been able to follow much indy or Japanese or lucha stuff, so that's out.

Listened to about 2/3rds yesterday and finishing today. You're awesome, Kriz, this is like an even denser (and I mean that in a good way) WO Sin Limite when Dave goes deep into wrestling history. I didn't know much about UWF either, seeing as how it died before I was even born and have only seen some mentions of it through watching Crockett stuff from the time.

Not an MMA fan but I still enjoyed listening to this even when that was more the focus. I agree that Brock is absolutely fascinating as a person and that talk really piqued my interest. The intro song made me laugh pretty hard too, so well down, Bix.

If it's that good, there's a solid chance they re-air it. I know they've done it before with good promos that debut on Smackdown.

One of the biggest drawbacks of the HIAC gimmick is that is really killed the need for a cage match. Especially since the WWE uses escape the cage rules, which already sucks.

Right, but I don't know if the move to PG is really a function of it being a publically traded company as much of it being a large company in need of multiple revenue streams. Even if Vince was 100% the owner of all stock, he still needs ad revenue in this day and age (or needs a TV partner to pay him rights fees who then recoup that through ad revenue). PG was the step to take there because of revenue concerns, not corporate concerns, per se. You saw that happening more than a few times in the territory days too where promotions lost sponsors or TV outright because of blood, language, etc. The problem with being publicly traded isn't that shareholders can vote, it's that having to report the financials every quarter is a killer. Those are killer to the extent that it can lead to ousting current management because of bad performance. The idea is that if XYZ corp has a shitty quarter or year, they need to shake things up because otherwise the voting shareholders are going to start putting new people in. I'm not certain that the WWE shareholders really have that power, which means the fear shouldn't exist. The financial reporting requirements might be embarrassing, sure, and a legal requirement as a cost of doing business for all that capital they took in, but depending on the corporate structure/stock structure, I think that the fear of unprofitability is overblown. EDIT: I will add that the WWE's valuation and stock value are important to the McMahons in the extent that they can leverage them either through selling shares, like Steph did for whatever she was buying (a new house?) and for loans for expenses.

Everyone says that, I don't know how true it is. From what I understand, those public shares have next to no voting power compared to Vince thanks to the different classes of stock. They have to do things like report to the SEC and other formalities that they wouldn't if the WWE was solely privately held, but given how legally almost all the power is still with Vince, the whole stock price fluctuation and company market cap seems like dick waving more than anything. I do agree with you on a point you raised before, however, that since it is a corporation, it is prone to bloating and bureaucracy, like the ever growing size of the writing team.

We'll probably find out how alive/dead Chicago is for now based on the Extreme Rules crowd next month. I sorta see what you're saying, Grimmas, but there are also towns with great wrestling history, like Baltimore comes to mind, where the WWE went there recently and the crowds were nothing special or downright bad. Not even talking attendance, really, though that has to play a part, but crowd noise.

I meant that for anarchist, not you, apologies. He did include the word basically, but not as part of his all-caps emphasis.

What is it that makes a city/town/area consistently hot in terms of crowd reaction? Territories and towns historically have gotten hot and peaked in attendance from time to time thanks to great booking and promotion, like JYD in New Orleans, but I don't think New Orleans generally carries the reputation of being a hot crowd nowadays. Chicago, on the other hand, is consistently regarded by wrestlers and fans alike as being arguably the most vocal crowd in the US, but why is this? Part of it is the layout of the Allstate Arena, which all things considered is pretty small and leaves everyone right on top of the action compared to say the United Center, which is like a half an hour away (God and traffic willing). Osaka has the same reputation, but I've never heard of the Bodymaker Coliseum being a building renown for its acoustics, but maybe it is. So, my question is this: what makes some crowds so consistently hot, while fans in other towns range from hit-and-miss to sitting-on-their-hands and silent?

This is an idea I kicked around in my head for a while and I think it fits in this thread, so I'll bring it up. And I think that while Matt is obviously generalizing, there are some truths to what he's describing. Anyhow, I wonder if 'infectious booking' as I've dubbed it in my mind, is the way to go. In most places, we see that a small group of fans can hijack a crowd or turn it in another direction. This is super common in NYC, Toronto, Chicago, Philly, etc., and less so elsewhere, but I think you're getting it across the US at this point. The WWE might be better suited trying to appeal to this vocal minority, realistically I think that means playing them/working them in the direction they want, then use their vocal nature to get the rest of the crowd to follow around. I don't mean to say that the WWE should book solely to appeal to smart fans, but rather they can try to harness the vocalness of fanbase 1 to drag up fanbase 2's interest. Easier said than done, but I think guys coming up from NXT can be a show of this if they don't keep getting the Dunn-Vince treatment.

Smart fans thought it stunk at the time. I'm guessing the vast, vast majority of people watching on their TVs or who were in attendance didn't think it stunk. The reanalysis of the match as an actually good, effective piece of wrestling is recent from what I know.

Given that last post, he makes for a good board Rusev too.

Related to that, lots of boards have a "questions that don't need their own thread" thread. Is that off limits too? I get that if you have a question that can legitimately spark a conversation and discussion, make a thread. But sometimes people have little one off questions that this place is good for answering, but don't require discussion. I used the "Comments that don't deserve their own thread" thread for that before, but now there might not always be an appropriate thread to put it in, unless I really go digging and bump up a several year old topic because it might be relevant.

Way to leave out the modifier of "basically" and way to not understand the nationalistic fervor that the Olympics generates the world over, let alone other international competitions.

I'm a fan of people working the replaceable twin gimmick when any idiot should be able to tell otherwise. Like the Bashams.

I'm with you. The Rumble is fine, but it's sorta grandfathered in. I would prefer Survivor Series have at least one Survivor Series type match, though I don't think it's necessary to have the whole show that way. MITB, EC, and HIAC can happen from time to time, but yearly, pre-planned shows is not how they should be done. The former two should be saved for when there is a legitimate reason for a bunch of contenders to want to lay claim to the title or contendership beyond, "hey, I'm a little above midcard level." HIAC can be a show if it's the main featured match, but I shouldn't know that when November rolls around, it's HIAC time. Make it mean something where one feud has risen to such a level that these two guys need to be locked into a cell. Having multiple matches of that on one show devalues it, so does having it preordained that this is the HIAC show. The gimmick matches are fine by me, even MITB, but having them as calendar staples is crap. The Rumble is the exception, though even there I'd be fine if they changed the reward from guaranteed title shot at Mania to something else.

Johnny, did you up the caliber of questions given who was on this time? In the first two episodes I felt like I could have been competitive, though I wouldn't have one. This time I felt I would have embarrassed myself unless I got lucky with a lot of the headlines.

As far as the ending goes, it didn't bother me at all (nor did it raise it, for what it's worth), but I did love that the moment Rollins got the belt he ran like hell. He knew better than to celebrate in that ring with Brock and Reigns right there. And the camera shot of him sprinting down to the ring with the briefcase was excellent. EDIT: Grammar

Zero qualms about that being a five star match, I put it a shade lower (4 and 3/4) but can see it moving up to 5 and at that point who cares, I'm splitting hairs. Incredible match, so well laid out with Reign's comeback attempts and both guys sold great. Loved Brock bouncing around the ring and finally bumping on the third superman punch. I'd like to add kudos to Reigns for being one of the few guys who can make a spear look good.

To go with the idea of Brock in MITB, my thought was that he wouldn't even be in the match, but would show up, destroy everyone, take the contract, and leave. Only he gets a title shot since he has a rematch clause and the physical briefcase. Sends the point that he's not to be messed with. Downsides are that it probably makes your MITB contestants look like crap and you burn a Brock appearance on an unbilled showing.

Agreed with that, WingedEagle. It was there to start, and still is there but now it's in the backstage. His actions, antics, and work have gotten him over well beyond simple heel heat of being the foreign menace. And guess what, I don't care that you (anarchistxx) think this is your magic evil buzzwords of "outdated, stereotypical, xenophobic." It's not really outdated, given how hot it's shown it can be. I don't know if you know this, but every two years we have this massive international dickwaving contest were basically every country in the world treats the other as a hostile enemy as we all start to outcompete each other. And it's a pretty big deal. If you're beyond nationalism as an intellectual concept, cool, I can get that point, but that transcends whether Rusev is a good worker or not and whether he was over or not. He is in many peoples' minds and by all reports other than you (hyperbole, sue me) is over with the crowd. So what should the Rusev character be to you? The generic "I'm a super athlete and I'm here to win and be the best" that never draws a dime ever? Bobby Lashley and Kozlov and lots of other due that too. About the only guy it really works on is Brock, who clearly is a freak athlete. Rusev as the Russian menace is a good starting point to start his heat, a throwback to wrestling history (yes, there are some throwbacks to wrestling history we should not have, this one is pretty innocuous) and something that they can parlay into another character trait.

Wrestling isn't exactly a bastion of progressive world views and it's characters are often simplistic characatures of things society reviles. Even now, the evil foreigner is an effective heat magnet. Call it xenophobic or outdated, I generally agree, but it's not outdated in the sense that it. still. works. It can draw money if done right. Bray is semi protected. He also just jobbed to taker, came out of the Cena feud looking neutered, disappeared for months, and had a lackluster beef with Ambrose that included a loss. This is nowhere as strong as Rusev has been. And again, Brock is not really a heel, either booking-wise or crowd reaction-wise for certain. The character is a throwback and if left unevolved it would probably die out eventually. Doesn't mean it needs to die now, nor should it never change. He is a super worker in my opinion and in the opinion of plenty of people I respect. Quit using mark like a pejorative, it's utterly tacky. And sure, you're the martyr of Bray Wyatt sucks and now you're right, congratulations.