Scarlet-Left

That's fine by me.

My first preference would be for WCW, any year prior to '97. I wouldn't mind WWF, but I'd rather book an indie than ECW.

I'd be interested... but I have minimal experience. I posted a few WCW ('95) fantasy bookings on the TEW site and a few modern ones somewhere else, but that's all.

Does anyone else know why Cesaro was the only person to express disappointment with the brand that picked them?

Am I right in thinking that Kalisto just promised to "do a good lucha thing"?

Del Rio's on Smackdown. Go blue team! I'm content now.

I have to say (don't know how things are coming across on the television) the draft centre special is really good. Also, I'm waiting for Del Rio. If he goes to Smackdown then I don't really need to watch Raw.

Didn't know where else to post my thoughts (since they don't warrant a thread): It's just an aethestic thing, but I'd be much happier with a return to two world titles if they created another championship committee/organisation (kind of, sort of, like NEVER in New Japan). As in, you could have the 'WWE World Heavyweight Championship' on Raw and, let's say, the 'IPWC World Heavyweight Championship' on Smackdown. Instead, we get this bizarre middle-ground where, instead of seeming to have two legitimate world title, it just looks like a protracted succession dispute. For example, is the 'World Heavyweight Championship' not a WWE belt? Is the 'WWE Championship' not a world heavyweight title? Edit: Heck, why don't they just literally reactivate the WCW belts?

She was just in a three-way with Bliss and Carmella. I don't understand.

I enjoyed the show. I don't get the criticism of Aries not selling his taped up ribs. Corey Graves was talking about the fact that he hadn't shown up in the injury report and might just be playing mind games, before the bell even rang.

I, personally, thought the Zombie was a little disrespectful to the channel and its audience. Like what would regular viewers of the channel's content think if they decided to stick around to catch this new show? ECW: "This network sucks, and science-fiction is dumb! Please, watch our show!" I've heard that Sci-Fi actually were attracted to the idea of characters like Undertaker and Kane, so what was the point of making fun of them when they're admitting that two of your biggest stars (certainly in terms of mainstream notability) fit their idea of good television? Peculiar.

"So, what's the finish? You pin me, one-two-three?" *Shenanigans ensue, twenty minutes later* "What the hell was that? I was supposed to win that match!" Edit: Script notes: "LOL, get it? Wrestling's fake!"

"You can't wrestle!" What an awful crowd. It really took away from my enjoyment of the main event (which was stellar), to hear the crowd keep jerking themselves off.

I read the gimmick as a dominant split personality. That's certainly how it was played during his feud with Goldust. I don't see where you're getting "wacky spaceman" from. And you think he'd be given more opportunities if he reverted to his old character? Otherwise, I don't see how his gimmick was hurting him.

I know that, but at some point he had to realize that it was a go-nowhere gimmick. It seems like staying as Stardust probably led to him burning out since WWE obviously didn't have any further plans for the character. Why is it a "go-nowhere gimmick"? I don't really understand what that means. It doesn't seem like any more of a "go-nowhere gimmick" than zombie mortician.

I actually enjoyed his Stardust gimmick. I thought it was a lot of fun, and never understood where all the clamour for a return to 'Cody Rhodes' was coming from. I'll be sad to see him go, and I genuniely thought he was shaping up to be a lifer like Taker; what with his wife and his brother being employed there and NXT briefly becoming the Dusty Rhodes memorial show. Edit: Also, who is David Amell? Wrestling journalists are some of the biggest hacks in the world, I tell you.

I'm pretty sure most are referred to as a first-name/last-name combo that, quite explicitly is not their real name for trade mark purposes (and to, essentially, screw them over if they leave and try to make it somewhere else). I hate the practice, personally, just for that aspect, but also I hate the fact that the names they tend to come up with, usually, sound like the protagonists in some white-collar failure-in-life's unfinished novel. Names like Braden Walker, Curt Hawkins, Solomon Crowe and so on. As it stands, I certainly don't think it adds to the realism of the product. I, personally, find it more believable that some borderline psychopath would enter the wacky world of pro-wrestling calling himself "Kane" than that an accomplished amateur wrestler would want to break continuity with his old career when he turned pro and change his name to something so obviously fake as "Dolph Ziggler".

When was Sid ever a first-name only guy? It was Sid Vicious, Sid Justice, Psycho Sid, and so on.

It was integrated by Sputnick Monroe wasn't it? Or am I confused? Where did I read that?

The WWE ought to bring back weight divisions, since, otherwise, having a women's division will always seem regressive. It, effectively, represents the idea that female competitors cannot hang with their male counterparts. As an example, if the Big Show wanted to challenge for the United States title, he could, and the resulting match of Kalisto versus Big Show wouldn't be met with controversy. This is despite the fact that the former is at a distinct disadvantage in terms of his size and strength. So, why would it generate controversy for, let's say, Asuka to challenge for the US title, even though the resulting bout would be far more evenly matched? Obviously, the average male competitor would be at size and strength advantage against an average female competitor but, again, I'd asked why such uneven contests would be more controversial than uneven contests amongst the men themselves. Obviously, the real answer is that man-on-woman violence is a social taboo, but I'm talking about wrestling as an art form, which should creates it's own self-consistent narrative. A heavily aging non-wrestler just competed against a zombie god of thunder and lightning in a cage match, for Christ's sake! If you can accept the notion that all wrestlers are almost entirely incapable of halting the slightest forward momentum, even when they hit the ropes, then why can't you buy the idea of a woman having a competitive wrestling match with a man? Those are just my thoughts, though, and I may not have expressed them clearly enough.

Eh he doesn't really count as he wasn't a full time wrestler for a long period of time like some of the stinkier names dropped in here like Tiger Ali Singh and Jeff Gaylord. Did he even have any other matches besides the Baba match? Tiger Ali Singh? He always seemed pretty good, to me.

They continue to upload episodes of NXT without time-stamps... it's really annoying.

I hated the crowd. Cheering for Sasha during the women's match was disrespectful, as was chanting "you can't wrestle" to a guy who clearly can. Smart fans, often times, come across as bigger marks than casual fans, through their ability to convince themselves people they dislike are poor performers. I appreciated that the women's match, sort of, had to end the way it did; if Nattie won then she'd only be holding the belt for a month at the maximum (since, I think, it's clear Charlotte will be dropping it to Sasha in August), but if Charlotte retained her usual way (Flair's interference), it would make Bret seem ineffectual/irrelevant, and a clean loss for Nattie would've likewise. I really liked the Owens/Zayn angle (which, effectively, ran through two matches) and the mid-card feels very hot (it's a pity the other mid-card title keeps getting shit on). Jericho & Ambrose had a match. The main event, I thought, was really good, though it would've worked better without the second restart (the first one didn't hurt the match, I felt), I liked the interaction between the Usos and the Bullet Club. In fact, both dives onto the four were well done, it might have just been the camera angle, but they didn't feel as contrived or sloppy as those spots usually do. Again, I hated the crowd, whose petty hatred of Roman hurt the match; they weren't reacting properly, even to AJ, because they were so pre-occupied with hating on Roman. Roman Reigns has more than justified his push; he's smooth in the ring, knows his limitations (a whole lot better than Ambrose), he's got a great look and the physical charisma to match it, and his character work has been amazing (the lines he's given are usually terrible but he can't control that, what he can control, like body language and facial expression, he controls very well).

1. Ric Flair 2. Jumbo Tsuruta 3. Jerry Lawler 4. Stan Hansen 5. Bret Hart 6. Mitsuharu Misawa 7. Bryan Danielson 8. Nick Bockwinkel 9. Ricky Steamboat 10. Genichiro Tenrya

I have sixteen guys left. Has anyone else fared as poorly?