Scarlet-Left

How is Ivan Koloff's relationship with the WWE?

Considering that the narrative of the match, according to the commentators, was that Ziggler just got humiliated in front of his friends and family, is there someone in the back who's got it out for him?

The network was on the fritz for me, it kept jumping backwards and then forwards by fifteen seconds at random intervals. I didn't get to see much of the pre-show match, but it certainly felt like it deserved to be on the main show. I've just finished watching it now. ... The women's tag match was enjoyable and, in terms of being easy to watch, maybe the best thing on the show (it didn't go too long, everyone looked credible and there was more than enough heat). Have booking duties passed to someone else, because this is miles ahead of those cluster-fuck three-way six man tags from last year? ... I hate Ziggler's look. Even the denim was better than this. As a Curt Hennig fan, it's painful to see him in this position. He's someone who could, easily, be booked to look strong and get heat (he's got the body, the smart fan appeal, the solid basics, it's all there). God! Also, why did the champion come out first? This is the second time in a row they've done this to KO! ... The six man was good, in and of itself. But it feels so pointless! Basically, they're telling us that Wyatt picked a find with a random bunch of guys (two of which should probably have retired by now) and lost, even with a man advantage. To borrow a phrase from Jim Cornette, where are we?! ... The divas' (Christ!) match was good enough, for what it was. Charlotte deserved to retain, and I was a little worried they'd give Bella a quick reign. Some weak offence from Bella, but not too much; we aren't talking about the second coming of Survivor Jenna. ... AJ Styles is still the best in the world. Chris Jericho, however, is not. If this'd have been AJ versus 1995/6 WAR Jericho, I'd have blown my load. I hate, hate, hate the commentary for Styles' matches. They're likening him to, essentially, a rookie who just had a big break in Japan, as opposed to an established name who went there when he was already a big deal. They don't even have to mention TNA by name; they could say he worked for Jerry Jarrett or "the competition" or something. I hope this feud ends soon, and they put AJ in with someone who can keep up. I'm being one hundred percent serious when I say I'd prefer him to work with Stardust. But there's loads of guys who could give him great matches; Owens, Neville, Breeze, Ziggler (if they pull him out of the hole he's been buried in), ADR, Balor (once he's up), Kofi, Sandow and Darren Young. Also, I stand by the fact that Styles versus Undertaker is money. ... R-Truth versus Curtis Axel sucked. It felt like the opener of an episode of Superstars. Why did they get a match on the main show? It shouldn't have even been on the pre-show. I'd have put Tyler Breeze versus Stardust on the pre-show (why weren't either of them on the card?) and given this spot to Del Rio. It, honestly, felt like one of the previous matches must've just blown their finish, and the road agents threw this out there to kill time. ... The main event, in terms of in-ring action, was good. In terms of booking, it was a mess. Who're we supposed to root for? Brock Lesnar was the underdog, overcoming the odds, and Dean Ambrose was the home-state hero. Did they expect people to cheer for Roman Reigns? I've said it before, and I'll say it again, how does Hunter versus Reigns sell even a single ticket that Hunter versus Ambrose couldn't? Why won't they pull the trigger on Dean? What have they got to lose? After watching this show, which is, essentially, a go-home show for Wrestlemania (especially for fans, like me, who can't/don't keep up with Raw and Smackdown properly), I'm less interested in the prospective card than I was going in. That's bad.

Good psychology. Too bad the network's on the blink.

"There's no such thing as a lucky punch." Am I reading too much into it or was that jab from Mauro?

What role does Booker T serve now that Jerry Lawler is on the pre-show panel?

I actually liked the 'King of the Mountain' matches (those that I remember, anyway) and I love 'War Games', even though I appreciate how contrived it seems. Gimmick matches that turn me off, but are redeemable; 'escape the cage', 'barbed wire', 'bra and panties', 'ambulance' and 'chairs' matches. Gimmick matches that I cringed at or just can't stand; 'reverse battle royal', 'beat the clock', 'fulfil your fantasy' and 'shoot fight' matches. As an aside (though it might not qualify as a gimmick match, perse); I despise any tag matches with three or more teams not performed under 'Texas tornado' rules. The WWE is especially guilty of this, and I hate it; where certain teams can spend almost the entirety of the match on the apron through no fault of their own.

Am I missing something? I don't understand why they aren't pulling the trigger on Dean Ambrose. They clearly trust him enough to have him, both, main event other pay-per-views and come runner-up in the Rumble. They've got a story there and a big name opponent who can draw the fans (as if, any one performer actually draws, nowadays, as opposed to the WWE/Mania brand itself). As for Undertaker, what about AJ? That's a certifiable dream match. It's certainly better than a throwaway match with Strowman or, God forbid, a rematch with Wyatt. I don't mind Brock facing Bray, but I don't like the idea of Wyatt jobbing to part-timers at Mania twice in a row. You could slot Reigns in with Kevin Owens. Also, here are a bunch of talented guys they could've done something with but didn't; Darren Young, Tyler Breeze, Dolph Ziggler (maybe), Luke Harper (it's not like being in a stable precludes a guy from singles success), Stardust... In fact, what happened to the Rhodes brothers' feud? Goldust is back now, right? Edit: I should mention, I only watch the Sky One (one hour) version of Raw the Sunday after it's aired, so I may have missed some ramping.

Question for Jerry: Were Funk and Backlund ever getting negative reactions like Reigns was at last year's Rumble? It's all well and good two say that those to were booked like winners, whereas Reigns has been booked like a loser, but I can't help but wonder how much benefit of the doubt crowds gave the former two. As in, if Backlund was booed out of the building for the first few weeks of his run, do you really think Vince would've stuck with him? I genuinely don't know because I'm unfamiliar with their respective runs until Race as transitional champ (from Dory to Brisco) and I've seen a cage match between Backlund and Patterson (but not much else from him, until 1994).

I wouldn't say that the "pipe-bomb" is the definite end of the previous eras because you still have left-overs from the Brand Extension heading into 2014; the dissolution of the two brands has to count for something in terms of historiography.

Sort of, I need to revise my list... hold on.

Loosely I think of things like this, with the Eras have one or two years of overlap: The Rock & Wrestling Connection (or the Hulkamania Era): January of 1984 to June of 1993 The New Generation Era: October of 1992 to November of 1997 The Attitude Era: June of 1996 to April of 2002 The Ruthless Aggression Era: July of 2001 to June of 2008 The PG Era: June of 2007 to December of 2013 The Reality Era: June of 2011 to Present Day Those are the hard stops, for me. It might seem weird, but it works in my mind to have the Eras overlap a little. Also, I don't really think of the industry prior to the WWF's national expansion as having distinct eras because, to me, they reflect a change in creative direction. The old days of the territories aren't really conducive to that sort of analysis. Edit: Changed the start of the Reality Era from November of 2011 to June.

Darren Young?

That Roman Reigns' t-shirt sells better than any other active full-time member of the main roster.

Question: Could they pull off a turn with Reigns that keeps him babyface with the casual fans, but a heel for the smart fans? Like Bret Hart with domestic versus international audiences? Could it work? I don't know how you'd do it, but they've got to address it at some point. The Rumble crowd, loudly and clearly, pronounced their allegiance to the Authority (they popped for Vince, and they cheered Hunter even after he took out Ambrose and Ziggler).

They may have, also, seen his work in "Florida". I'm doubtful, though.

Okay, I feel like I have to respond to this. I've been mulling it over, and I've come to the conclusion that Ambrose winning would've been really cool. It's been drummed into my ears so many times by Michael Cole: "On any given night, anything can happen in the WWE." The whole gimmick of the Rumble is that it's the biggest opportunity of the year to catapult yourself to stardom. Why not prove that? You could still keep the heat on Reigns/Hunter by having them brawl to the back (leaving Ambrose to pose and point to the sign, and whatever) and you've still got Fastlane to get the belt off of him if he can't handle the top spot (or he won't be as big of a draw as you need); have Trips go ape on him take the title and "injure" him and have Roman Reigns avenge his brother (if we really must see Triple H versus Roman Reigns). Let's face it, they've lost so much star-power for Mania that I doubt there's much of a downside. What, would Ambrose/Hunter be so much less of a draw than Reigns/Hunter that Brock's match couldn't make up for it, or that you couldn't paper over it? They're getting a hundred thousands fans in their by hook or by crook. Maybe I'm just losing my mind, though.

Is Lex Luger (1993/1994) a closer comparison?

I enjoyed the match. I had chills up my spine seeing AJ Styles in a WWE ring for the first time since he's been a major star, especially seeing him in his usual ring gear (not having been repackaged as Ringmaster 2.0). I didn't like the crowd. At certain points, they just came across as spiteful. I also viscerally hated the cheers for Triple H (they even continued to cheer after he took out Ziggler and Ambrose). ... With the crowd as hostile to Roman as they were, was there a way to book a victory for him? I don't think so. Also, I'm not willing to buy any excuses for the crowd's behaviour. If they're smart, then clearly they understand that Triple H winning means the same thing as Reigns winning.

Scott Hall and Jimmy Valiant have just traded places. I've reverted to a catch-all anti-Kliq policy.

My final, and only, guess is Reigns.

I'm looking forward to the Rumble, as always. I hope they do something cool and unexpected but I won't be holding my breath. I expect a few nice surprise returns (and nostalgia pops), some interesting meet-ups/exchanges and a predictable but enjoyable finish (Reigns overcoming a screw-job).

I watched this match yesterday, and I love it. It actually felt like a squash match in the early goings, so effective was Kana's heel work and her opponent's selling, but it became competitive after a while. There's actually a lot in there that reflects what I love about her. There's a good tag match, with her working against this same girl. It's a lot of fun, and there's a good face-in-peril segment from Shirai that is interrupted when Kana clocks Hamada around the head with a stiff kick. Good sport!

Question: Can a worker be turned heel on the basis of an action he'd already performed on a separate occasion as a babyface? So, Anakin Skywalker turned on Mace Windu to become a heel shortly before his gimmick changed and he became Darth Vader. How effective was the turn, and how effective was his previous work as a babyface? My answer to both questions is "not very effective at all". Obviously, the actual turn was never going to be particularly shocking, since the adult fans all knew that Anakin was Darth Vader and the kids that didn't know had the fact bashed over their heads with all the marketing and merchandising material for 'Revenge of the Sith'. However, it could've still had an effect. The best way, in my mind, to accomplish this would be to make Anakin a much more sympathetic babyface so the turn comes off as tragic or, in some other way, emotionally impacting. Instead, the booker (George Lucas) jumped the gun and went into overkill on foreshadowing the turn, leaving Anakin as, either, a de facto heel or a whiny and melodramatic babyface (think Hogan's performance at the '92 Rumble). In turn, his valet (Amidala) comes across as lacking any personality depth (we'll get to that) and his big opponent (for the marquee match), Obi-Wan, has no reason to be cutting the kinds of promos he ends up cutting. "You were the chosen one!" He acts surprised but he shouldn't be, since Anakin's been hinting at his turn for the entire time. In fact, it retroactively harms the promos he cut in 'A New Hope', when he refers to Anakin as "a good friend". Nothing about their feud seems to justify that comment, instead of good friends becoming bitter enemies it's a beleaguered mentor finally losing total control of a wayward student. As for Amidala, it's hard to get any feeling for her character at all. She seems shocked and appalled when the, now heel, Anakin is revealed to have killed children. That's a heelish tactic (I'm not disputing that), but her reaction makes very little sense. "I killed them all, and not just the men, but the women and the children too!" The above line is from a promo that Anakin cut in the previous film. Oh, yes, ladies and gentlemen, he'd already done the exact same thing before, but as a babyface. What was Amidala's reaction then? "To be angry is to be human." So, in conclusion, his turn really didn't mean all that much because his behaviour didn't really change. The only change is with the gimmick, since Vader's heel performance in the first three films was less whiny and psychotic and more menacing and brutish.