Matt D

It's less about rewarding him than it is about not punishing him.

All NECW is off the internet? Was Maverick Wild a good sleazy heel or am I misremembering that from 16 years ago.

It's a reaction show. Falling asleep is a perfectly normal reaction to what WWE tries to pass off as wrestling these days. What will be funny is when the camera finds Will sleeping at Wrestlemania.

Astoundingly stacked big card by CMLL standards. Hair vs Hair: Volador, Jr. vs Nego Casas Hair vs Hair: Rush vs Maximo Sexy Mexico vs Japan: Mistico/Valiente/Mascara Dorada/Dragon Lee vs Okumura/Fuijin/Raijin/Kamaitachi When was the last time CMLL even ran an atomicos match? They didn't do one at any point that they had a 4 man Ingobernables line-up or at any point during Thunder vs UG when it might have made sense.

I'd be hesitant on that explanation. I really enjoy the two matches with Hogan in 91. I've written about them here before (though years ago, so always, there's a caveat there). But they weren't supposed to be great matches. That wasn't his role on the card. So it's more of a case that we weren't put in a position to know how good he was because it wasn't his job to have the sort of matches that would have shown us until years later.

Did Puppet H show up yet? That's the only thing from the trailer that I'm looking forward to. I miss Puppet H, but I miss the JBL/Cole show too, far more than I thought I would. Hornswoggle Lannister was great.

I don't think we should discount the possibility of Andy Kaufman at this stage.

"Turning" He's Jimmy Valiant in the York Foundation.

I've thought about this a little, but just haven't had time to post. The main thing I'm trying to do with a review is to answer the question of "What can we learn from this match?" What can we learn about the wrestlers, about the style, about the point in time? "This is a good match" is something that can be learned, but it's by far not the only thing that can be. Eight times out of ten, it's probably not about what can be learned so much as what can be reaffirmed, and I think that's okay too. I can't slip in all of the pop references that someone like Eric does. I can't craft mine to tell broad sweeping tangentially related entertaining stories like DEAN or Raven Mack. I don't utilize star ratings. But I try to distill something from the match that I think people should know about it.

Everytime someone loses, someone gains as well. That's the nature of the game.

I think they can make almost anything seem important with enough build, at least in the short term. We saw that with Reigns' title win.

Flair in 02 has the Arn moment. Arn should get a point for that.

We don't make ridiculous bets enough around here.

I think Dylan would stress more than "projects" but also making sure that HHH is the focal point, either through his human avatar on Earth in Rollins, or just himself, looking to things like his multiple highlighted segments at Mania last year and how he's presented as babyface now in some key ways.

You have to defeat Undertaker in a Chicken on a Pole match first.

The video was already sped up, but screw it. I'm posting anyway.

So, is he just back as a performer? Is this a Bischoff deal, or is he he going to have a business role? That's the only real question out of this that matters, right?

First and foremost: while I appreciate the thoughts being attributed to me, and I was trying to make a reasonable point at the least (if a sophist's one), nothing I say during DVDVR March Madness should taken as an actual belief, especially if I do a pick 'em ballot over there. Then I might be trying to finagle things so that I win. I never win. I usually do great and lead after two rounds and then crash and burn like someone with anger management issues playing Risk. It's like a madman's debate club over there in March. That said, here's what I will go on the record with here about Brock. While his matches are very special in the moment, I think he's harmful to everyone and everything around him over any other term (Short, medium, long). This is mainly for two reasons. Reason #1: He gets to use offense like no one else in the company, thus escalating the stakes, while at the same time, not having that offense actually do more damage. It's not about logic for the sake of logic. It's about internal consistency from match to match and show to show, especially for a part-timer. His German Suplex is presented as both more and less devastating than almost everything in the company does. It's horrific, but guys can still get up after twenty of them, or whatever. That's part of Brock's deal, a lot of immediate-term good but potential long term damage. I also think that his act does have diminishing returns. It wouldn't work if we saw him every week. That's ok, even if it gives him an edge over the rest of the roster. Attractions are attractions. I do think the cracks are starting to show as it becomes more and more self-referential with the suplex city thing though. Reason #2: He in general is presented as superior to the roster, a bigger deal, more invulnerable, more important, an attraction. The problem is, he's also presented as more legitimate. I liken him to early 90s Undertaker. Taker could take more damage, do more damage. His choke was as deadly as anything in the company in fall 91, but at the same time he was presented as less than real. He was fantasy. He was less legitimate than the rest of the roster. A guy like Bret Hart or Ric Flair could look differently competent in comparison, because they were skilled men and not a monster. Brock on the other hand, due to his wrestling and especially MMA background, is presented as MORE real, not less. Therefore, he makes the rest of the roster look less legitimate. Brock feels special every time he's out there, but in part, that's because he's provided the tools and the presentation to make everyone else look less special. If he was better, could he find a way to elevate everyone around him with his specialness? Maybe. Right now he's the world's most potent weapon poorly utilized. I think the most remarkable thing was how over Reigns was at the end of Mania last year, because that was the weapon aimed and used for a purpose. All of that capital Brock had built up in the previous year was being used to make Reigns, and then they didn't go with it. Now then, only part of that actually works against him for the sake of this process. He's not on my ballot, not even in consideration, really. He's a great spectacle. He's got a lot of tools. I think he might have been on my list if he never left. I've been lucky enough to see that spectacle live at least twice, once vs Taker at MSG for a cage match, once in Philly for the Rollins/Cena triple threat. I wouldn't fault someone for having him.

I think the big question is whether or not Shane can get down to 205.

They're running out of attitude era stars to bring back?

Hey, maybe he'll bring back WCW.

Shane > Rousey (Don't quote me on that six months from now) (EDIT: Two months)

I hope this isn't Rousey. There's a not a lot that could make me even less interested in Mania than them throwing the Sasha/Charlotte match under the bus by presenting her as many thousand times more legitimate then their own wrestlers.

Match quality is the single least important metric for the WWE HOF.

It's outright embarrassing to push a babyface pimp character into the hall of fame in 2016. There is zero upside. Vince has no perspective. I have to think that they're hoping this gets mainstream publicity, even if it's the sort they really don't want. In the last month they've released statements that they aren't racist and that they aren't sexist. In the last month.