S.L.L.

Does anyone know how the lucha guys are drawing this year? With no other real candidates elsewhere, it feels like either Punk - who I could never justify pushing for in any other year based on his candidacy - or someone south of the border. And when's the cut-off date for the awards, anyhow? Does Survivor Series even factor into it?

Not so much that being a great worker is the number one criteria. The way he phrased it is more that having the respect of your peers as a good worker is the number one criteria Heh, so am I the only one that read it as Dave simply saying you have to meet one of those criteria with NO emphasis on any of them being more important then the other? Yeah, I don't think he was actually ranking the criteria, just saying "these are the three things that we are judging candidates on, not being pushed a lot by the promotion". So what Dave is actually saying now is that Big Daddy wasn't a draw.

More a thought that expanded over several posts through the years.

Funk, Murdoch, and Dundee are all guys who deserve mentioning at the very least. The 80's were pretty awesome, weren't they?

First time I remember people really losing their shit over him was the 2 Tuff Tony match from the 2001 KOTDM. I'd say by '02 at the latest, he's really good.

This is the angle they should have run after Punk left with the belt. Running it now...well, it's still a cool idea in theory but.... 1. It needed more time to build up. 2. It's too soon after they inevitably blew their last cool idea for an angle. You need time for us to forget that they always blow these things. 3. It's an angle where - as it stands - the central figure is Triple H. It's really, really hard to get me psyched up about that. Especially when you remember #2. On the other hand, the Muppets are the kings of working in dangerous environments. If the payoff to all of this is that Trips has to step down and Kermit takes over as CEO because he has a better track record of keeping a show running where the performers are all completely out of control, I could support that.

*Looks back at previous posts* OK, that checks out with me. I misread what you were saying. Sorry. That's all well and dandy, but pretty ironic too, because at this point, the argument that Lawler has become a "concensus" great worker is thrown around quite a bit to squash any criticism. Not saying you're using it here, but I've seen it countless times. I can count the number of times I've seen it on one hand, and it was all against the same person for the same reason. WildPegasus had this crazy idea in his head that Jerry Lawler was universally loathed by anyone outside of Tennessee, Kentucky, and certain corners of the internet. The obvious counter-point was to illustrate that Lawler has actually been historically well-received by casuals and hardcores alike for pretty much his entire career. And as that's the only argument one could actually use the "lots of people like Lawler" thing against, that's the only time it's been used. In any other situation, it's a stupid argument that proves nothing. Not that's some good irony there.

SLL: In response to El-P's: Here's El-P's post in full: If it's just about visual cues, why place it right after a sentence about no-selling comebacks? Why connect these two sentences if they're completely unrelated? It's because they're not. The every time part is untrue yes, but to say that Lawler never no-sold is a logical inconsistency in itself. Two things I should say here: 1. When Lawler made his comebacks, even as he was eating up his opponent's offense, I never believed he wasn't hurting. He seemed like a guy who was fighting through the pain, rather than a guy ignoring pain, and thus, I can't qualify what he does as "no-selling" 2. While this is how I feel, I realize that not everyone feels the same way about Lawler that I do, and that some people will see his comeback spots in a different light than I do. They might see it as no-selling, and they'd be in their right to call it as such. So while I stand by my claim that Lawler didn't no-sell from my perspective, I should not have been so dismissive of those who did. To them, I take this time to say, "my bad". It comes across that way, honestly. Just look at those who have responded against El-P. Pretty much the usual suspects from the Lawler camp. They're also the usual suspects from the "Jerome is kind of an unlikeable, arrogant dolt" camp. And yeah, there's a strong crossover between those two camps, but again, not about sacred cows. It's about a questionable message from a very questionable messenger. Hell, if anything, it might be about his own sacred cows. Search for "trend" on this board, and you're gonna find a lot of posts from a guy who apparently cannot conceive of anyone disagreeing with his opinions on anything wrestling-related without being controlled by the Zerg Overmind (you'll also find a lot of posts by a guy who doesn't know what the word "trend" means, but that's besides the point). I mean, I'm sure he's not up in arms about it, but he probably takes greater offense to people saying they like Lawler than I do for him saying he doesn't. Wrong where though?About Lawler never no-selling during comebacks? Wrong about this on the grounds that he was pointing to existence of other people who agreed with him has some kind of proof in and of itself, when I could have just have easily done the same with more people, if that approach actually had merit to it (and if we weren't on different pages on what we were talking about WRT no-selling...again, my bad). Sucking it up is okay for Lawler, but what about the wrestlers a large percentage of his dislike, like a Davey Richards for example. A Pro DR fan could cite that as an excuse for his lack of selling - "He's sucking it up!" Doesn't work. Yeah, because Davey sucks at it, and Lawler is awesome at it. Two guys doing something similar and acknowledging that one does it well and the other doesn't isn't bias. It's not only relevant, but relevant to the point that it's kinda the crux of the entire issue - whether Lawler a short-term no-seller or a long-term no-seller (again, dependent how one perceives no-selling) is a huge difference, and something that gets brought up a lot when people discuss his merits.

Which goes back to what Dylan said: Which I completely agree with (and by extension, I agree with you on). The argument is whether or not even that is acceptable. It also has to be noted that the term "Hulk-Up" has, to the best of my knowledge, always referred to something very specific: a sudden, complete recharge of energy and elimination of all previous damage taken, combined with the inability to take more damage unless something very, very serious happens, en route to (usually) victory. In other words, it's what Hogan did so frequently. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be calling it the Hulk-Up. Jerry Lawler matches frequently have a spot near the end where he gets a short-term adrenaline rush, that lets him eat up his opponent's offense to the best of his ability and make a last ditch effort at victory. This is not, under any circumstances, Hulking-Up. Jerome's argument has become a wibbly-wobbly mishmash of nonsense where the main point seems to be "my assessment of Jerry Lawler's selling is the correct one" more than it is any claim of what that assessment is. He's gone back and forth between "Lawler does the full Hogan/Warrior no-sell" and "Lawler's comeback includes no-selling" at least three times in the last 24 hours...or at least I think he has, since he's used very deceptive language, seemingly to couch his words in case he gets called on a particularly silly claim. Consider that he started by comparing Lawler's selling to Warrior's. That suggests something extremely specific for most of us (a total Hulk-Up), and I'm disinclined to think Jerome is too clueless not to know that. But when called on it.... When somebody compares someone else's selling to that of The Ultimate Warrior, do you think of the fact that Warrior's comeback had a visual cue? Do you think of the fact that, in a handful of matches, Warrior's Hulk-Up didn't finish the job, and he sold as much afterwords? Or do you think of the fact that Warrior would start dancing like Jennifer Beals to "Maniac", completely forget he was hurt, ignore any further attempts at offense on his person, and promptly squash his opponent? Let me answer that for you - you'd think of the last one, and while I mocked his intelligence in my last post, I have to think Jerome knows this. I doubt it started this way, he probably actually believed what he was saying, but when backed into a corner, he used his arguments as weasel words, allowing him to claim he was right all along by recontextualising his argument to mean something different while staying true to the letter of it. I still can't call him a liar, but his capacity for dishonesty is greater than I've given him credit for. Unless he's just dumb. I mean, for God's sakes..."And I'm not the only one saying that Lawler was hulking up, but you're no-selling that one."...if I ever make a argument like "more than one person agrees with me on something, clearly that validates my claim", I hope you'd all do me the favor of ruthlessly mocking me until I learn my lesson. Tough love and all that.

Ok, dad.... That was specifically in response to.... So your last post back (aside from the Tito stuff, which I'm sure wasn't what you meant) was you specifically agreeing that Lawler no-sold. You also made several posts since this one that continued to push the "Lawler was a no-seller" line. Yeah, and if I had caught that earlier, I would've given you a pat on the back and agreed to disagree. Then one guy strongly agreed with your original position, and that was enough for you to immediately revert to it. I know English isn't your first language, but you generally seem to be pretty good at it. You're too good to do the Hercule Poirot/Charlie Chan "funny foreigner uses his funny foreignness to trick his enemies into underestimating him" bit. And if that's not what you're going for, you may want to get a refund from whoever taught you English reading comprehension, because you suck ass at it. For the sake of it? Bitch, please. I've always followed the Bugs Bunny rule. If everyone's getting along, cool. If you start being a dick in my general vicinity, this means war. As Bo Diddley put it, "before you accuse me, take a look at yourself". I get zero satisfaction from bullying the innocent. But paying douchebaggery unto doucebaggery? Well, I'm not going to pretend it's a positive trait, but I don't feel too bad about it, either. Of course not. It's the internet. NO ONE admits to being wrong. Hell, I'd like to think I'm a fairly honest dude, and even I rarely admit to being wrong unless it's about something serious. What I do do most of the time is quietly disappear and let the guy who was right get the last word, since, well, he's right, and he deserves that. What I don't do is the "Jumbo was Lazy/Murdoch was Lazy/Lawler No-Sold All the Time" thing of continuing to press my argument, or twist and change it around in a desperate attempt to be "right" in spite of all the mounting evidence to the contrary. That's a much bigger dick move than anything I'm pulling here. Yeah, because it's still wrong. Two people saying something wrong doesn't make it true, it makes two people wrong. I mean, there are way more than two people who think we never landed on the moon. Way more than two people who think 9/11 was an inside job. Way more than two people who think the Holocaust never happened, or that psychic powers are real, or that they've been abducted by aliens, or that Bigfoot exists...why shouldn't I no-sell it? The only thing it proves is that you're dumb enough to believe that it proves anything. And if there's any merit to it at all, guess what? There's more than one person arguing that Lawler doesn't no-sell! And there seems to be more of them! So even if that did mean something, it would probably mean you were wrong. Here's your dunce cap. Go sit in the corner. But his visual indicator doesn't indicate no-selling. It just indicates him sucking it up and trying for a comeback. It's wrestling. It happens. All the damn time. The fact that you only see it as a problem when Jerry does it means you're... A. Ignorant (willful or not) B. Stupid C. Lying I'm still willing to believe A, but I'm starting to lean B. Again, really don't want to assume C, but the option is on the table.

First Savage match in MSG is great. Oh yeah, I forgot about that one. That was actually pretty neat.

Except for the times that he doesn't, which is all the time. This isn't about sacred cows. This is about you being wrong. Explain why you're right, or stop trying to front like you are.

It's not about attacking a sacred cow. It's about saying something that's actively, undeniably untrue, and that you should know if you've ever watched a Jerry Lawler match before. Have you watched a Jerry Lawler match before? Because if all you're getting is second-hand info about how the guy worked, or only ever watched his 90's WWF stuff, I could see how one might get the wrong idea. But if you've actually seen a Lawler match, and you see no difference between his comebacks and Warrior's comebacks, you're either... A. Paying very, very little attention to the match B. Have a very, very low tolerance for babyface comebacks in general C. Have very unorthodox taste in bayface comebacks D. Dislike Lawler in a more general sense, and thus tend to complain about him more, even if those complaints aren't consistent with your other beliefs about wrestling, or... E. Lying I'm pretty sure you've mentioned watching a Lawler match at least once in your life, and I'd like to assume it's not A. Mentioning that you like the babyface comebacks of Morton, Steamboat, and other guys you listed suggests it's probably not C. I really, really want to give you the benefit of the doubt that it's not E. In hindsight, D is less far-fetched than B, and that's really the guess I should've gone with. Still, Jumbo Tsuruta is a sacred cow, and when Phil calls him "the Japanese Terry Taylor" people don't get that worked up about it. Hell, when people point out that sacred cow Jerry has a thing for the teenage poontang, everyone outright agrees. This isn't about sacred cows. This is about you being wrong. Explain why you're right, or stop trying to front like you are. Also.... Explain how gremlins altered your post after the fact, or stop trying to front like they did.

If Lawler's comebacks = Warrior's comebacks, all babyface comebacks = Warrior's comebacks.

It makes perfect sense in theory - heel teams working Southern tag style tend to make frequent tags anyway, and the guy playing Ricky Morton needs the tag because he's been getting his ass kicked and his partner is fresh. One guy is sticking to the game plan his team has been running the whole match - and is a especially vital now that he's in a slightly vulnerable position - and the other guy just plain needs to get out. Seems logical to me.

See Benjamin, Shelton...Kingston, Kofi...Gate's entire roster other than Akira Tozawa, Dragon....yeah, I can't argue with that. I can't say I've gone out of my way to watch a lot of late-period Andre recently, but a lot of what I have watched has been enjoyable. And not that you're saying otherwise, but it should be noted that working hard AND working smart at the same time (Mysterio, Rey...lance, Free...s, Viru) is totally awesome. As far as guys I've flip-flopped on go, working on the Texas set really forced me to rethink some guys who's bad late-careers really hurt their rep. Hayes is the obvious one, but fellow WCW Freebird Jimmy Garvin really opened my eyes as well. I also started to gain an appreciation for The Great Kabuki, too. On the flip side, I used to think David was the best Von Erich. Boy, did I change my mind on that. Johnny Saint is kind of a weird guy, in that I started out really liking him, then I kinda started to feel like - in the words of Dean Rasmussen - he was the RVD of the 70's, but now I really like him again. Go figure. I used to think Adrian Street was off the chain great. There's still a lot of stuff I really like about him, but the more I watch, the more I realize he didn't bring as much to the table as I once thought. I don't dispute that Antonio Inoki was...problematic, but there's a lot more stuff I like from him than I used to give him credit for. I used to think The Rockers - while not actually bad - were the most overrated team in W/WWF/E history. Now I kinda wish they had never broken up, especially after seeing more of their pre-WWF run. Believe it or not, I used to really like those Tiger Mask/Dynamite Kid matches. In hindsight, I have no clue how that happened. I liked George Takano's run as Cobra a bunch, too, for that matter. I still love George Takano, but Cobra? *shudders* I used to think that Brad Armstrong deserved a better career than he got. Nowadays, I think the career he got was just right. Why did I ever like Jerry Lynn again? Oh yeah, because of Sean Waltman. Duh. Keiji Mutoh used to be my personal favorite Japanese wrestler ever. Nowadays, not so much. After growing up with The Beverly Brothers, I can't say I ever thought much of them, but revisiting Mike Enos' career a bit, he was pretty awesome. Haven't revisited Wayne Bloom's career yet, so the jury's still out on him. After seeing how bad their singles runs were, I had forgotten how much I liked The Smoking Gunns as a team. Given my current tastes in wrestling, I have no idea how I overlooked the Samoan Swat Team/Headshrinkers the way I once did. I'm still waiting for that great Bad News Allen match that never comes. It's to the point that I kinda feel like he's the rich man's Wade Barrett - great on the mic, but boy, can he ever not translate the energy and charisma he gets there to his matches. I used to think Taue was way further behind his fellow Pillars than he actually was. Raven is a guy whose career I still have very mixed feelings about. I can say, however, that Johnny Polo does not hold up for me at all. Mr. Kennedy/Anderson, Frankie Kazarian, and Rhino - probably along with others not coming to mind - were weird cases of guys who I started out hating, grew to like, and then ended up hating again. I'm still not entirely sure if The Nasty Boys were ever "good" in a meaningful sense, but they were a hell of a lot more entertaining in the ring then I gave them credit for. As much of a clown as he was, I've really grown to love Percy Pringle/Paul Bearer. Probably for the exact same reasons I used to look down on him, too. It probably helps that The Undertaker was my second favorite wrestler, so he has always gotten nostalgia points from me. Contrast with Gorilla Monsoon My first favorite wrestler was The Ultimate Warrior. That is all. A lot of guys mentioned here already I've changed my mind on, with Choshu, Andre in general, Brody, Demolition, Hogan, Dusty, Baba, post-'94 Kobashi (I might bump that up to '96 or '97, but still...), Toyota, Takada (though not to the extent of some other guys who turned on him), and Kerry being the most prominent examples. I'm sure there's plenty of others. There's also been a weird phenomenon since I've become an internet wrestling hot shot where guys like Phil or Tom or whoever will rag on a guy, and I'll think they're pushing it at first, but over time, that wrestler will sort of grow into his reputation, and I'll turn against him then. I don't always know how much is actually them getting worse and how much is me starting to see the flaws they talk about more prominently. Probably a mixture of both. But it happens. Off the top of my head, post-comeback Shawn Michaels, post-'02 Kurt Angle, Davey Richards, Naomichi Marufuji, Roderick Strong, Kofi Kingston, post-MNM/pre-Sheamus ladder match John Morrison, and Mistico were major victims of this. And lastly, Here's the match in question: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9nbql_an...dy-savage_sport And the review I did for it on my All-Request feature at Segunda Caida: "I have a lot of Savage matches left over from when the All-Savage Friday Night requests. I can't complain too much about the lack of variety, though, Savage fucking ruled. Andre also fucking ruled, and while this is older, broken down Andre, he was a guy who would often find ways to take what little he had left and make the most of it. He wasn't getting anything the level of his Hansen or Killer Khan matches anymore, but Andre can put a smile on my face more often than not. This is one of the better examples of that, and when you're in the ring with Savage, that's to be expected. Andre in this match is all about trying to keep Savage trapped, trying to negate the speed advantage, choking him out with his hands and the strap of his tunic. His way is not very sportsmanlike. Savage rallies, and bless Andre's heart, he can still fall backwards and get his arms trapped in the ropes. Savage goes to work, but just as soon as the giant gets free, he backs Savage into a corner and starts wailing away. He may not be as offensively dynamic as he used to, and he may be struggling a bit to stay upright, but if nothing else, Andre is still a huge motherfucker, and he still looks like a legit threat when he's pounding on some dude in the corner. When Savage finally fells him, it feels like a real accomplishment, but even after the elbowdrop, Andre still powers out at two. They brawl outside, where Savage continues to press the advantage, but when he gets back in, Elizabeth gets on the apron, and Andre grabs her ankle, causing her to collapse in pain. Savage goes back out to deal with it, causing a double count-out, which is weird since Savage had pretty clearly broken the count moments earlier. Whatever. I still had a lot of fun with this, dopey finish aside. The post-match makes up for it a little, as Savage carries a seemingly injured Liz in his arms backstage while Andre parades around the ring triumphantly with the WWF Title."

You know, if a guy hasn't been in the ring for eight years, and you're planning on having him main event the biggest show of the year, is it really that bad of an idea for him to have a tune-up match first?

It's been a while now, but a few years back, in the midst of US indy wrestling actually being good, I went back and watched one of the Daniels/Modest APW matches and thought it actually held up. As I'm recalling, Daniels wasn't as cold and mechanical as he would become. There was a lot more charm to both guys. But it's been a while since then, and I may be remembering wrong. Still, thought it held up.

I don't even know that I understand the concept anymore. "Self-conscious epic" is a term I might have used for HHH matches, or Davey Richards matches, or post-collapse main events from the big puro feds. The praised post-'04 WWE matches are not the same things, but are getting labelled with the same term. So, no, apparently I don't understand the concept. The closest I can come is looking at "self-conscious epic" as a reference to Patterson-style booked matches, but this is supposedly something that was more frequent in WWE since '04, and Patterson-booked matches have been in the company as long as Patterson has.

You do sound like a bitter old man. I would honestly prefer to hear about what you do like because most of your recent posts are all about your hatred for WWE. Create a thread of awesome matches El-P would like us to watch. If not that, I'd at least settle for some actual specific criticism. I'm seeing a lot of complaints about the WWE house style, but they're all really vague. Lots of complaints about "simplification", for example, but nobody wants to tell me what's been simplified. And it's not even like I don't see problems with the style, it's just that - with a handful of exceptions - I don't really see how current WWE is unique in those problems, and, more specifically, how current WWE is unique or worse compared to past W/WWF/E. You want to tell me that WWE's in-ring style is simplified, well, I can certainly see that. You want to tell me that's something that wasn't the case in the company before 2005...I start to wonder if you've ever even seen wrestling before.

I'm gonna keep this part shortish for once so I can answer the three major questions and still have time to do anything else with my day. Not really, no, in that it was very much a vice on my part, but I can't really look at it and say he didn't have it coming first time every time. None whatsoever. Purely self-interest. Well, some other guys seemed to find it amusing, too. But really, that's it. I didn't have to do it, and I probably shouldn't have, really....it's a vice. But my worst crime is, like, the 790th worst crime of his, if that, so I can't really feel that badly about paying evil unto evil here. YMMV WRT "friendly", but there were definitely neutral interactions. Also - and I'm not saying this to be congratulated or anything, it's just the one legitimate defense of my actions on a level above "making fun of WildPegasus is fun" - I take a small degree of pride in the fact that when dealing with internet stupids or suspected internet stupids, I almost always first approach them with some level of diplomacy. Admittedly, it probably comes off as passive aggression a lot of the time, but it is sincere. Everyone deserves at least one chance to explain themselves, and I'll give more than that if I'm still on the fence on whether or not a guy is an asshole or just misunderstood. And even if I do conclude you're an asshole, I'm pretty generous with second chances if you can convince me that I was wrong, or if you show that you've seen the error of your ways. I gave WP/RE all of those chances and more to show everyone that the negative opinions of him - including my own - were wrong. Every chance to prove he was misunderstood. Every word of honest advice to get him to see why he was in the state he was in, and how he could get out of it. But in the words of Abba Eban, WildPegasus "never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity". In fact, nearly every time I offered him a chance to show he was better than we had thought, he actually ended up proving to be worse. Honestly, as bad as the cyber-bullying against him may have been, I kinda feel like my cyber-guidance counseling may have hurt him even more. I sincerely tried, on a number of occasions, to dig through the online muck to find the real person underneath to understand and empathize with, at least to a small degree. But the more I dug, the more that real person started to look like John Wayne Gacy. Even in the Rand thread, literally the end of our long, bitter rivalry, where he was at the absolute peak of his insanity and my insults were at their harshest, I still offered up this, at the end of what could be the very last post I ever directed at him: And yeah, that's not the friendliest peace offering you'll ever see, and it was sandwiched between me calling him "a lying, hypocritical, narcissistic, delusional, psychotic, embarrassing, ephebophiliac, closet cased goon" and joking about him fucking sheep, but I was sincere about that, even in that late stage of the game. And again, none of that justifies my behavior, but I feel worse about the fact that I wasted all that time and energy that I could used on something more productive than that I hurt the feelings of a really, truly, horrible person. That's not cyber-bullying. That's just plain fun!

Entertaining, sure. His freak show appeal is the only thing that kept him from being banned outright. But "really nice dude"? Victim of cyber-bullying, my ass. He was as big of a cyber-bully as anyone, he just wasn't very good at it. This guy basically saw anyone who didn't agree with him on anything as not just wrong, but an inferior lifeform. I mean, maybe he was "nice" in that he was a Cyberman who wanted to assimilate you because of your inferiority rather than a Dalek who wanted to exterminate you because of it. Still, most non-insane people wouldn't see that as very nice at all, and I think we were entirely justified in trying deflate that massive ego. I mean seriously, who could really sympathize with this jerk? Who could look at someone who treated people as sub-human just because they were different from him, and proclaimed his superiority over....oh, wait, nevermind.

Disagreeing with the quarter-disagreement: it's not so much that it's the path of least resistance or the obvious reaction, it's that it's Vince's standard back-up plan when things go wrong for him. Sweep it under the rug, tell everyone it's business as usual, and pray nobody notices something went wrong. It's not that it's easy or obvious, it's that that's how the Mr. McMahon character always first responds in these situations. Then, everyone else does notice and point out and exploit the fact that something went wrong, and Vince is forced to take desperate measures. But for the first time in the character's history, his standard back-up plan actually worked (more or less), which fucks things over pretty severely.

Oh fuck, the "I'm offended by this movie/ No one knows who Judd Aptow is" thread was a hoot and a holler. I wish I could find the original thread at DVDVR where he first started going on about how evil and awful Memphis Wrestling is. I know it was based around "realistic punches.", but it was at least 4 years ago. One of his biggest complaints about Knocked Up: Several years later, guess who he outs himself as a huge fan of? I mean, I'd like to chalk this up as personal growth, but given his track record...yeah, integrity vs. hypocrisy. As to the original Lawler thread, it starts with this.... And quickly spirals out of control from there. I'm not going to quote the whole thing, but one bit in particular I want to bring up is his exchange with Jamieslan. Earlier in this thread, smkelly mentioned that for as awful as WP's wrestling opinions were, he basically was a really nice guy. And well, he definitely had his moments where he carried himself as a well-meaning, decent dude, and I can see where one gets that impression of him, but.... He offered a different opinion.... Like calling those who like Lawler bandwagon cheerleaders that want to have sex with him? I don't think the problem is with his different opinion, just his childish " people like something I don't so obviously they must be following a trend, etc..." attitude. ....he really wasn't a nice guy. At all. And the fact that he had no comeback to the above question really speaks volumes. As I alluded to in the Rand thread (and said outright in the Tough Enough thread a lot of that stuff carried over from), Pegasus seemed to like the idea of being a traditionally good person, and liked projecting that image of himself, but that's all it was: an image. He's a nice guy to the same extent that the Fabulous Rougeau Brothers loved America. He'd give you the shirt off his back, but only if it was a shirt he didn't really like, and if you gave him your awesome pair of pants in exchange. And if you pointed out the problems with that, he wouldn't just not give you the shirt. He'd lecture you for hours on end on why his offer was actually a generous one, how you don't understand generosity the way he does (likely supported by an imaginary survey), how your refusal to give up your pants even without a shirt in exchange is an act of selfishness, and how his "generosity" makes him a better person than you. And then, of course, he would rape you, but I think that goes without saying.

I half-agree and half-disagree with this. Half-disagree in that I don't think rolling out the tourney so quick was the real problem. It's standard operating procedure when a belt is vacated (and from the company's POV, leaving with the belt would have to be considered a vacation...remember when Brock decided he would only defend the belt on Smackdown? At least this time, they actually had guys fight for it instead of Bischoff handing Trips a belt). It's also standard operating procedure for Vince et al to try and downplay the significance of whoever just left (I refer you to Austin's firing in '02, where the company's public stance was that it was the WWE braintrust that made them as successful as they were in the Attitude Era, and that Austin himself wasn't that big of a deal by comparison...or, more recently, the whole "it's not the wrestlers that draw, it's the brand that draws" talking point). And on top of that, you have to consider that at it's most basic level, from the very beginning, the primary motivation of the Mr. McMahon character is a desire to maintain the status quo. At it's heart, the Mr. McMahon gimmick is that of a guy who presides over a well-oiled machine that's made him a ton of money, stroked his ego, gotten him laid, and all he really wants in the world is for that machine to keep running the same as it always has. And if ever it doesn't, his natural reaction is to write it off as a minor hiccup and carry on with business as usual, hoping that it will just start running again as normal without having to make any serious changes to it. Half-agree in that what ultimately makes this character work is that when something goes wrong, and Mr. McMahon tries to convince everything that it's no big deal and that they should just carry on like nothing's happened, nobody believes him. Nobody just rolls with the major catastrophe the way Vince wants them to, the machine breaks down even more, and Vince's sanity slips further and further away as he desperately tries to restore order by any means necessary. Except when Punk left, where none of that happened. Vince downplaying the severity of what happened and immediately trying to crown a new champion? I wouldn't have expected any less from him, and I'm not quite sure why anyone else did. Everyone else in the company other than Triple H rolling with it just as easily as Vince does? Yeah, that's dumb.