Parties

I think it's super-lame that "Tables, Ladders, and Chairs" is the last PPV of the year: really laughably dumb theme that if you explained to anyone outside the wrestling bubble would seem bizarrely stupid. I've long felt that Survivor Series should be your "blow off" of the calendar year where you culminate the major feuds, crown new champs, etc. Then have December be a "feel-good" show (fresh pairings, tags, trios, unusual stips, more comedy, a holiday vibe) that ends the year on a happy note and serves as a light-hearted breather between ending one year at SS and starting the next at the Rumble. Make it a gift to the fans who put up with your bad booking all year: go out as entertainment rather than yet another trolling screwjob heel win in the main event. That said, this might be a year in which the concept works: having Reigns win the title in a TLC match isn't the worst idea, esp. if it's a good match where he can reclaim some of the edge they keep taking off of him every week with these horrible promos. I expect they'll hold it off until the Rumble and make the third time the charm, but it'll mean more tonight than it will a month from now. I just don't see how Reigns losing again helps anyone.

I think Cena's actually a good opponent for him. They haven't faced each other in what, 12 years? It's a fresh match in context. I expect Taker to win against whoever he faces, as there's been no indication that this will be his retirement. Cena's the right combo of top star who can afford the loss while looking formidable. Plus he's as safe an opponent as possible, and one capable of putting together the sort of match that WWE/Taker want. Having Taker face an Owens/Rusev/Ambrose in some effort to "big league" those guys feels pointless right now: a win won't help the young guy much (Brock already broke the Streak and the crowd doesn't want to see Taker lose), and Taker beating one of them comes off as a burial (even if it isn't). To repeat what's been said a million times already: Taker is a really weird commodity right now, in that he lost so much without the Streak and the company doesn't do anything meaningful with him. Yet to the average fan he still probably has the aura of being the living legend and one of the only legit stars. He feels very neutered: a guy who thinks he's healthy enough for two matches a year and doesn't really want to retire, but who is also kinda running out the clock in hopes that a retirement-worthy angle will eventually come to fruition? Or that he can retire during a more prosperous future for the company? There's a weird loyalty going on right now where Taker and Vince need each other, but are both checking their watches.

Last year’s show had 2 hours, 20 mins of wrestling on a 6 hour (4 hours + 2 preshow) extravaganza. Here’s a semi-realistic card that adds four extra matches (13 up from last year’s 9) by adding only 30 more mins in-ring. Roman Reigns vs. Brock Lesnar (w/ Paul Heyman) [World Title, “The Brawl to End It All”; Special Guest Referee: Steve Austin] - 20:00 John Cena vs. The Undertaker - 15:00 Nikki Bella © (w/ Brie and Alicia) vs. Sasha Banks (w/ BAD) [Lumberjack Match, Divas Title] - 10:00 (Nikki reclaims the title she never should have lost at the Rumble, then drops it here to tweener Banks: Ric Flair accompanies Charlotte to support her during her lumberjack appearance and get chopped by Banks) The New Day © vs. The Usos (w/ The Rock if available) [Tag Titles] - 15:00 HHH vs. Sheamus [“It’s Not Texas Death, It’s Last Man Standing” / Safari of Endless Run-Ins / Loser Goes Home with Steph] - 17:00 Kevin Owens © vs. Sami Zayn (IC Title; “I Quit” Match) - 14:00 Stardust vs. Goldust (“Texas Outlaw” Dusty Rhodes Tribute Match) - 12:00 Dean Ambrose vs. Tyler Breeze (Piper-Adonis WMIII Memorial Hair vs. Hair Match) - 8:00 Rusev (w/ Lana) vs. Bray Wyatt [Culmination of Wyatt Face Turn] - 13:00 Alberto Del Rio © vs. Ryback (US Title; Abrupt Schnozz Finish Introduces Surprise Debuting Heel Aligned with Del Rio) - 4:00 Finn Balor/Chris Jericho/Dolph Ziggler/Neville vs. Samoa Joe/Luke Harper & Erick Rowan (w/ Zeb Colter)/Titus O’Neil (Workrate Smark Heart Attack Opener vs. Four Best Bases) - 12:00 Pre-Show: Becky Lynch vs. Paige (#1 Contender's Match) - 6:00 Pre-Show: Andre the Giant Memorial Battle Royal (Braun Strauman defeats Jack Swagger, Kane, Mark Henry, The Miz, R-Truth, Big Show, Darren Young, Los Matadores, The Ascension, The Dudleys, Lucha Dragons, Adam Rose, Alex Riley, Bo Dallas, Curtis Axel, Damien Sandow, David Otunga, Fandango, Heath Slater, Zack Ryder, & 5 more Nostalgia Act Old-Timers/NXT Guys/Yoshiaki Fujiwara) (14:00)

You could argue that the original Vince turn on Austin began with Austin being a bullying aggressor "exposing" Vince as the true figurehead. Andre-Hogan is another instance of Hogan being patronizing and dishonorable to a "friend". I liked Bret's heel turn a lot as well, as a lot of it was based on America has started to embrace a lot of creepy values, Austin's a jerk who's getting cheered for being obnoxious, I got screwed out of the world title repeatedly, and Shawn Michaels is a cowardly tool. Sentiments one can get behind, or at least understand. It was in tune with the notion that a heel believes that they're the one who's acting sensibly in an insensible world.

In a show of terrible segments, Reigns and Sheamus sounding like two particularly moronic eight-year olds arguing over rights to a treehouse was really something. The attempts to write Cena speeches for Reigns are just awful. Like, it's a bad, hack idea that comes off much worse than I would have expected. To hell with the haters: I liked the Rosebush for the second week in a row. The dude's delivery works for me, even if the whole thing is just Vince's way of taking unsubtle digs at whichever midcard talent pissed him off this week (and with the understanding that said insults will probably get increasingly nasty/distasteful over time). Looking forward to finding out which ninety-five pound Diva is now considered an overeater, and which guys are being demoted to jobber status for getting off the gas / parking in Vince's space / coughing during a conversation / etc.

Funny that the "Abdullah or Funk?" Black Ninja question played itself out again later via Chainsaw Charlie, in which Cornette was pushing for Foley's tag cohort to be Abby, not Terry, because he thought it'd be a better visual having the Butcher buzz his way out of that box on RAW.

What are the great post Angle feud matches? The Regal stuff, the Finlay stuff, the MVP feud, the feud with JBL built around breaking each other's hands. The Orton title switch is a very good instance of making a young prospect. Benoit was a midcarder after dropping the world title. He became the Smackdown guy who they'd use to try to get good matches out of Sylvan Grenier, Kennedy, Snitsky, Edge, Booker, etc. There was at least one Elimination Chamber where he put over HHH for a title win. He was put into a long feud with Orlando Jordan. He was pretty clearly a player-coach who they were using to teach guys on the road and turn bad wrestlers into mediocre wrestlers. This notion that Benoit doesn't have an incredibly good resume is revisionist history. Understandable, but the guy was a phenomenal wrestler, both of Great Matches and of week-over-week strong performances in meaningless three minute Nitro outings. I'm not the biggest NJ 90's juniors fan - we can all take apart the structural flaws in those matches now - but even in that flawed style he was as good as anyone and at worst comes off as the world's best Dynamite Kid. More power to you if you don't wanna vote for him, talk about him, or ever see one of his matches again. Personally, I think Chinatown's one of the best movies ever made and that Caravaggio was a helluva painter. I agree with Jetlag that I'd have him below Regal and Finlay, but right now Benoit's hovering somewhere between #50-55 on my list.

With the possible exception of the amazing two-part Crockett overview, this was the best episode yet. For both better and worse, Cornette is one of the more fascinating guys in wrestling history, and this was a strong primer for what made SMW unique.

Definitely not the worst all-time, but the first thing that came to mind was Flair's tutelage of the Miz, which led to several weeks of Miz botching Figure 4s on live TV.

The coolest K. Allen Frey aspect of things were the Best Match bonuses, which I don't think I've heard of anyone else in wrestling doing. Genuine environment of letting guys get themselves over.

I am in no way saying this to justify Meltzer's "Women, amirite?" remark - which did come off quite badly, but in the name of armchair psychology: hasn't Meltzer in the past talked about having some ex-girlfriend who *he* characterizes as a complete lunatic? The one whose hair he smashed a banana into? He's talked about her a couple times, and whenever he makes a "Women are irrational and sometimes one gets into terrible domestic arguments with them" remark (this isn't the first time), I assume he's comparing whatever Wrestler/Fighter X did to that time Big Dave had to lay the banana hammer down.

Was not expecting Adam Rose: Sassy Rupert-Era Gossip Columnist to be the highlight of this show.

BAD vs. Bellas has also looked like a genuinely hot feud every time they've squared off. They had a trios match on Smackdown that was much better than it should have been: it was worked as a match where everyone wanted to prove that they weren't some irrelevant supporting cast to the Charlotte Show. Both teams had swag, trash talked each other believably, worked stiff, and everyone executed well in-ring. Were it not for the usual WWE nepotism/racism, I would be wondering why BAD-Bellas wasn't the division's main feud, with PCB in the back seat.

My own reaction to each is a bit different, and I think they get very different pops. The Blue Pants cheers were a reaction of a fun element of surprise, the comedic absurdity of her character/push, and amusement at the idea that the company bothered to make something of a to-do over someone who the fans think "they got over" or received said push based on their reactions. But at least for now, it's a Hack Meyers "Shah!" pop. The crowd marking out over something they feel they created in the second match on the show is different than the reaction to what Banks has shown in NXT and what people hope she can maintain on the main roster. A large percentage of these crowds had no idea who Banks was prior to the creation of BAD, which has been presented as the third most important act in an infamously bad, mismanaged three-way feud that never should have happened. To them, she's the latest new girl in a decade-long string of new girls who went nowhere. The crowd has been Massaro-ed and Kaitlyn-ed into assuming that she won't matter and probably won't be on the roster in two years. The other percentage of fans know Banks, and have a variety of reactions to her, but I'd say that if there's been crowd apathy to her matches or in-ring performances, it has more to do with the way the division's been presented. To my ear, Sasha is getting reactions that are as good or better than any of the other Divas. It's just that it's a dubious achievement when none of her peers are over at all.

Me in the Brock GWE thread back in July: I'd forgotten about Bret-Austin and would wanna watch it again, but if memory serves it is better. I buy the story of it enough to think it is still the changing of the guard moment from New Generation to Attitude and Austin's rise. Savage/Steamboat hasn't been all that great the last couple times I've watched it: kind of a banana peel finish too. I don't much like Austin-Rock from 17 as Heyman telegraphs it hard when he's on color - great atmosphere, but I don't think much of the match aside from being a big angle. I like their match from 19 more as it has more of a Jurassic Park vibe in the two Attitude Era titans at the end of their real runs. Sasha/Bailey Iron Man has Banks heeling on the kid, which particularly stands out at a time when no one in WWE works heel.

OK, but how does a Rollins win benefit that? Wouldn't the payoff be Reigns winning over the crowd with his prowess and then... you know, winning the match? To me the whole thing felt too much like proxy-HHH (Rollins) getting a main event Wrestlemania title win by simultaneously outsmarting proxy-Rock (Reigns) and proxy-Dana White (Lesnar). All of which led to more horrible garbage with the Authority as the company's top stars. Cerebral Assassin strikes again.

I don't want to be trivial, but do you really add a snow-flake for the potential social or political significance of a given match? Should I be marking Iron Sheik vs. Sgt. Slaughter down for its jingoism and xenophobia? Should I be marking the Dudes with Attitude angle up in 1990 for its commitment to equal rights (for black guys, JYD, for both South Americans and Giants, Gigante, for the disabled, Orndorff, and for the mentally challenged, Rick Steiner)? We also don't seem to do this for other historically significant matches ... Do you give Hogan vs. Andre an extra snow flake for the booking behind it? Do you give extra significance to the Ron Simmons title win? I am being serious on this. I don't add a snowflake, because star ratings are pretty dumb and uninteresting to me. Talk about stuff that gets overstated in the evaluation of a match. Look: I'm not saying that two women having a MOTY changes western civ. But the fact that two women did have the MOTY is unprecedented (unless you really like prime Joshi more than every other amazing thing that was happening in wrestling during its peaks) and does mean something, especially in the context of current events. Sheik-Slaughter's still brilliant, and I don't think the rah-rah jingoism changes that. With Sasha-Bailey, we're talking about politics improving a match, not hurting it. Hogan-Andre is a lousy match and pretty overrated angle that's been recontextualized in history by benefit of the Pontiac crowd. So actually yes, we absolutely do give extra props to matches that are historically relevant just for their size/scope. I'm not a huge Simmons fan, but his title win was cool, and to this day the fact that it happened in Baltimore is all the more noteworthy. The crowd reaction speaks to the significance of a black world champion, even if by '92 that accolade meant far less than it would have to a mid-80s Butch Reed.

First of all: watching these two side by side is a great use of an hour on Thanksgiving morning. Still the two best matches of the year anywhere, from what I've seen. Reigns-Lesnar is a victim of bad booking. I’m not someone who can dismiss lousy booking and view match performance in a bubble: to me, a match’s quality is inexorably linked to what it means, where it leads to, what’s at stake, who benefits, and if it moves your storytelling down the proverbial field. The Rollins turn was somewhat entertaining in the moment, but in hindsight, Reigns should have won. It was his finest hour: took a brutal beating from Lesnar, got really tough crowd behind him, and for one night was the genuine badass conquering hero that achieves a happy medium between what fans want him to be and what WWE wants him to be. Lesnar’s initial onslaught is really well-executed. The strikes from both guys are excellent and it’s worked like a true main event title fight. Reigns initially smiling his way through the suplexes before finally starting to sell them as knockout blows was the best character work of his career. That is who people want to cheer, and it made stuff like Brock’s big lariat off the apron to the floor mean so much more. One knock on this match is that the crowd pretty much dies after a few minutes of slowed-down Brock dominance. You can dismiss this as the nature of modern crowds who’ve been taught to zone out during any and all control segments, but it does feel like the air comes out of the stadium while Reigns sells on the floor and Brock catches his breath. The moment of Reigns’ big comeback - with the three Superman punches and a spear - is everything you want in wrestling. The crowd initially wants Brock to overpower him, but with just a few well-timed strikes and some genuinely fantastic selling from Lesnar, suddenly the crowd is really swept up in Reigns favor. And then comes that finish. Which, while well-executed by all three parties and still genuinely suspenseful even when you know what’s happening, is still not as satisfying or productive as a Reigns win, or even Brock retaining. And while I’m someone who actually likes shorter “big fights” and thinks that stuff like New Japan main events actually suffer for being 30 mins, this one feels a little too short: under 15 mins total even with the Rollins junk. It feels like it’s missing something partially because of the screwjob, but also because I wish there had been even just one more segment of Reigns and Lesnar throwing bombs or hitting each with some plunder. It could have used just a little more apocalypse to put it over the top. Best Mania main event of all time. Probably the best Mania match of all time, coming at a point in history when everyone (no one louder than me) is criticizing the company for missed opportunities and failures to create stars/moments/drama. There’s no denying that this is the second best match of 2015, and superior to anything from 2014 as well. So here’s why Sasha-Bailey is better. Sasha-Bailey is a triumph of good booking. From the moment Bailey’s music hits, you’re watching a triumphant spectacle. The match hasn’t even started yet and it’s already the most fun, jubilant, entertaining moment WWE’s put on in ages. The crowd is elated just to see her. And then you get an even more fantastic entrance from Banks where the fans go insane. With these two contrasts, you’re perfectly the tale of two cities in modern WWE fandom. You have their best babyface since Bryan going against the cool heel who fans both love to hate and cheer. I’ve talked about this elsewhere, but the greatness of Sasha is in large part that she’s young enough and booked as such. Her character is a reflection of early 20s self-absorbed celebrity, the very same kind that people both love to hate and cannot stop watching in every magazine, TV show, and album of now. The music, the gear, the guards, and Escalade entrance deliver the greatest moment she’s had yet, and just a perfect presentation of the character at exactly the right time. Getting booed when announced from Boston was tremendous as well. Crowd for this match is much better than that of Mania, partially due to the roof on the sucker. (Full disclosure: I was there - in the nosebleeds - at Bailey-Sasha live. Even if I hadn’t been, I think I would still put it over Reigns-Lesnar.) As a sidenote: NXT’s announcers are hit or miss, but this was a hit. Graves can sometimes be overbearing and Strikeresque in the way he hits stuff too hard. He still has some bad moments here of getting tongue-tied and underplaying/telegraphing Bailey’s chances, but he’s a pseudo-heel. Saxton as the Bailey Believer was great. Brennan as play-by-play was always focused. They didn’t add a ton to this, but at a time when WWE announcers tend to detract from matches, coming out neutral ain’t half bad. The fluidity of chain wrestling early is great: both lightning quick and smooth in their counters and pins. Banks going for the Cesaro corner suplex and instead opting to just kick her opponent really hard in the knee to send her smashing to the floor was awesome heeling. Banks’ beatdown work as a heel champ has no wasted motion: it’s all obnoxious, cruel, and aggressive. Screaming “You’re a loser” is a little over the top, but would you put it past DeSean Jackson, David Ortiz, or JR Smith to do the same? During the first big comeback after the heel control, you get some very good selling from Bailey on her arm and Banks checking her nose and teeth for blood. The Eddy Guerrero comparison gets thrown around a lot with Sasha, but you really see shades of it here. There is some cooperative stuff in the women’s match that in execution makes it arguably worse than Reigns-Lesnar. Hanging someone in the Tree of Woe that then requires them to do a sit up just so that Bailey can hit an elbow drop is silly, even if Del Rio now does an even worse version of the same thing. But I’ll take a superior story over flawless execution. The working over of Bailey’s hand was tremendous, and to me takes more brains and skill than Lesnar and Reigns hitting each other until they bleed hardway. Banks’ plancha over the ref is my favorite spot of the year, and the reaction live was some overwhelming Gladiator shit. Bayley’s comeback is better than that of Reigns. Banks’ bumps off the suplex into the corner and getting dumped on her head off the top rope are way more vicious than any in Reigns-Lesnar. Anyone who thinks this is only fierce and violent by “women’s” standards isn’t watching the match. By utilizing submissions so well and playing off the hand storyline, you end up with more genuinely suspenseful nearfalls. Reigns-Lesnar is a match where you know what’s going to be a two-count. With the women, you don’t know how or when or why this match will end. All of the pins make sense, and both look like an attempt to win and a believable finish. The selling from Banks by the end is tremendous. Then a bizarre, entirely unfathomable thing happens: they give the people what they want. The face wins, with great fortitude. Has the feel-good celebration. Crowd absolutely loves it. You can criticize the 4 Horsewomen thing here, as many did on this board. What can I tell you? For me, it didn’t help, but it didn’t hurt. I’d have been more OK with it if they hadn’t booked a rematch shortly after in which Banks was supposed to go back to being a no respect heel. But as a single moment, I actually think the four of them plays great as genuine and heartfelt. We’ve seen the whole movement get torn to shreds on the main roster, but the unity of the four of them felt right in that building on that night, in what people assumed would be Sasha’s last night in NXT. Last and most importantly: Sasha-Bailey is telling a feminist story, in a year in which the rights and roles of women were heavily contested worldwide. I’m sure that many of you roll your eyes at that notion, especially in light of what the Divas Revolution has become. So goes the Bro Internet. But what was achieved in this is far rarer and much more impressive than two heavyweight hosses having a slobberknocker - even one as great as Reigns-Lesnar.

Can you even count Bryan's run? He wins the title, and like a guy who has sex in a horror movie was immediately punished by having him and his girlfriend get chased around by Kane while begging for mercy. His whole run was 64 days and he was injured/not wrestling for half of that. I'd put "heel-dominated" at Summerslam 2013 with the creation of the Authority, which is two years, three months and counting.

It is remarkable that for at least three years now it's been a heel-dominated promotion at a time when everyone is banned from getting actual heel heat.

This is the case for many, many publicly traded companies. Re: "Vince doesn't like the current roster" which was my midsummer talking point of choice: a lot of it has to be his age. He's 70 years old - what does he have to talk about with Tyler Breeze and Sasha Banks? He already lived in a complete wrestling bubble back in the 80s when he was the same age as the roster (or younger). He's openly resentful of "millennials" because that's the word that the Wall Street Journal uses to describe that thing that he hates: his mortality and increasing lack of relevance.

So one other thing I'll say here: today I watched the 1987 Slammy Awards for the first time ever. It was maybe the best wrestling show I've seen in months, and it barely has any wrestling in it. But it was just amazing to watch an hour of WWF that was laugh out loud funny, hip, eclectic, self-aware, and a viable part of the zeitgeist of its day. Even at it's corniest, it was 100x more entertaining than anything on tonight's show. All of which is to say: one of the most dire and boring parts of the company right now is that it is all so gravely humorless. Almost zero joy, spontaneity or excitement around anything that happened tonight. The contrast between 40 year old Vince and 70 year old Vince should surprise no one, but it's incredible when compared side-by-side.

At least as of now (and yeah yeah yeah we shouldn't judge it til we see it fine yes cause that's never what we do on message boards), every scenario toward Mania (Reigns vs. Brock, HHH, Cena, Owens, anyone) is better without Sheamus in it. And I say that as someone who likes Sheamus and thinks Reigns-Sheamus will be a really good/great match. If you're giving Sheamus a two month run, what's the point? I'm not even opposed to short term runs as we've seen a lot of very long ones in the company over the last several years, but he's the wrong guy, wrong time, wrong gimmick, wrong opponents. All to serve what? HHH getting to cosplay as the champ by booking himself as top heel, cutting the same horrible Emperor of the Universe promos, and making the guy in the company he most associates himself with in delusions where he's some Olde Norse roided up version of Lemmy or whatever be the one carrying around Hunter's belt. Also: WOW I forgot that Sheamus got knocked out of the first round of the tournament. You know, to swerve marks! That guy who's totally sucked and lost all the time for months? It was a clever ruse!

I feel like I should be more creative in my loathing of this, but man does it make that tournament look completely awful if Suitcase O'Shaunessy can come out and negate it all in twenty seconds. MITB remains the dirt worst. The untold negative to Mania becoming a stadium show is that Vince and co. are now addicted to that crowd and uninterested in anything that happens the rest of the year. Which likely means somehow pulling out four more months of "Can Reigns win the big one?"

If the guy walking out as the new champ opens his evening with a 2015 "Gettin' Jiggy Wit' It" joke to put over how lame he is, then let me just hand over my entire wallet now you brilliant architects you.