Matt D

A three hour raw would be a problem whether or not they had Thursday. I think a two hour Raw and a two hour Smackdown would be better than a three-hour Raw and no Smackdown.

Even then, Big E is right there!

I want to see a La Parka top 20.

100% made up bullshit. Brock would do it yes. Austin would do it, maybe? He probably won't, he has never said he has a desire to have another match. Until he completely changes his mind, it's not happening. Why throw out a bullshit number like 35 per cent? Either they can convince Austin to have one more match or they can't. That is what matters. The point, I think wasn't that Austin had a 35% chance of doing it, but that he had a 65% chance of NOT doing it. Ross was trying to stress, once again, that it probably wouldn't happen.

I imagine it's just gonna be Brock crushing somebody. It'd be cool to see Cesaro in there with him, but Kofi is probably the better choice. I'd even prefer Bo Dallas. I think they could make sort of a mini Jericho vs Goldberg thing out of that which might actually get Bo over.

Pretty simple question here. I know some people said that the win Owens got was the one that Rusev really needed. The win by Owens meant somewhat more since Cena had just blown through Rusev, who they had spent the better part of the year beating. I'm not necessarily asking who's better in the ring, or even as a total package, but instead which of the two they should have strapped the rocket to? More so then, who had/has more upside to be put strong over Cena and to be built strong moving forward? Or at least situational upside.

If Tyson is really out, I hope they come to their senses and run Brock vs Cesaro instead.

Ron Starr calls Facebook "the Facepage" and gets points for that.

Hunter's two years older than Dusty was in 88. That's an interesting thought.

Nothing says "ECW" like reverence to Magnum TA.

Hunter's gone on record publicly that the one thing he'd wanted to change the most about the WWE right now is the three hour Raws.

Reading puppy entrails?

Watch the TXT match.

To be fair, that Negro Casas IS really something.

"Bigger stars than Ric Flair."

Well, I think that people will shit on no selling spot-fests or death matches for the no selling and for things not having much meaning, but will ignore the same complaints for no-selling bloody brawls with tons of stiffness because they like the violence. Wahoo vs Bock is a match I thought was hugely overrated because it was so violent. I'm seeing that in some of Hansen's work too. It's not that they like violence and stiffness and blood more than flippy-doo spots. It's that they used a specific argument against flippy-doo spot matches and then that argument doesn't apply when there's a lot of stiff punches and blood.

I like the fact that Bret beat people with wrestling. I'm generally okay with that. That said, I'm not one to bring up the ace argument often except for in talking how great Christian was in 2009.

I can't always do that. I hate going back to Owens vs Cena, but I was thinking, while watching it, how interesting the decision not to have a real Cena shine was, and what that would mean for the rest of the match from a layout perspective, the pros and the cons, what it would mean if Cena won or if Owens won, how they were layering in the hope spots and what they meant because there wasn't really a shine or even a more even opening, etc. *When I was in Philly watching the Royal Rumble 3 way live, I was more like "OH SHIT, BROCK LESNAR!" and at one point during a kick out at Summerslam Brock vs Punk, I may have confused my then one year old by shouting slightly at a kick out, so it's not every match and certainly not during finishing stretches, but a lot of times, I'm thinking as I go, especially when it comes to transitions and hope spots and cutoffs.

While it's fun to quantify and make lists and what not, and to compare that way, the name of the game for me at least is understanding.

That was fun. I'm tired and old now and can't argue like that. If you're going to look at that match, you have to look at the cage match from a week or two later after they hammered out all of shawn's BS.

Bagwell is a guy that was (at least as the conventional wisdom of the time went; I haven't watched back) developing into a pretty good mid-carder and mid-card tag team heel due, in part, to his NJPW trips before his injury. I just don't think mentally he had what it took to be much higher though. I do think if they ran him as a babyface immediately after he came back instead of teasing that and turning him back heel he could have been an upper mid-carder for at least a short time.

Re: La Parka 1. Watch the match. 2. You asked who out of who was on the roster. I think he's as good a choice as any. 3. He was over with the live crowds. He was unique when it came to the luchadors. He wasn't a light heavyweight. He was bigger. The point of seeing that match is to watch how he brawls in a highly emotional match. He had a unique marketable look. He had a ton of charisma. More than any other luchador save for Rey, he could tap into both the hispanic and non-hispanic audiences. 4. All that said, I still think he'd be a better fit as an Austin or Undertaker opponent in 98.

Am i the only one who sees this thread title and keeps somehow expecting Vaudevillian John Cena.

Parv, Watch this, as it's a match you really need to see anyway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v57-ppkdTN4 Extrapolate backwards. He's actually the world's best 1997 Undertaker opponent, to be honest. (I'll admit it's a little disingenuous since I'm not sure 1997-9 La Parka could have had that match)

If superman had a defective finisher that people have to kick out of at least twice before being put away. I couldn't believe people were actually complaining that Rusev only took one AA. Imagine that! Only ONE finisher! That was the environment that Cena came into. It's what was expected of him. It's what the fans were conditioned to expect. I think a valid question to ask is the following: Should he be smart and canny enough a worker to go to great lengths to use his influence to change the in ring style of the WWE to better protect finishers. Should he have five years ago? Eight years ago? People were complaining about Rusev taking only one AA because the last thirty people before him took two or three. Should Cena get credit for having successful matches in an environment where excess is the norm or should he be punished for not trying to change and destroy that environment?