Matt D

re: the title thing. I think part of the point is that the new champ isn't supposed to be legit.

My Montreal manifesto may have been taking things a tad bit too far, I will admit. I sort of ran with that.

I think you can't disregard just how disastrously booked the Bret/Vince match WAS. I think the Bret/Shawn in ring moment was pretty effective and got a good response.

Two points. 1. I'm not entirely sure I care about what the WWE fans think? I don't know. I mean would I LIKE something that I think is well done and compelling to draw? Sure. Then I'll get more of it, right. But if we get a few months of compelling, well done television and some great pro wrestling, then I'm probably going to be happy whether the angle lives or whether it dies in the grand scheme of things. I don't have WWE stock after all. There are a thousand things I thought were great that didn't catch on. I get that we're looking at this from a distanced "let's look at the industry" way too, because that's part of what we do around here, but I'm not sure a lot of people right now, are ready to do that yet, because we're all too into the angle, and I hope you don't think me maudlin for me to say that there's something special about that. 2. Does Montreal really not matter anymore? We've seen a lot of Bret just a year ago with Bret vs Vince one of the big angles at Mania (even if it fell flat). Shawn just went into the HOF and was on Raw a few weeks ago. I think it stopped mattering at one point after Russo did his stuff in WCW and Owen died and what not, but I think it's grown into something that's more than just history and now bordering on mythos. I don't talk to a lot of kids that watch, but I know when I was a kid, having gotten into wrestling between Wrestlemania VI and VII, Hogan/Andre was still a huge deal and so was Steamboat/Savage. I was a kid with limited access to the videos of this stuff but it was still a big deal. On the other hand Bruno/Larry wasn't. I didn't learn about that until later. I don't know. I guess we'll see on some of this stuff, right? For now, I'm sorry you're not as into this as the rest of us, because I do think we're having a pretty fun 24 hours here. You make a compelling and well-argued Cassandra though. Don't get me wrong.

I'm the first guy that's going to agree with you that WWE has a TERRIBLE history of following through with angles, especially angles where there's not a huge level of creative influence from the people involved (like the things Jericho and Michaels were doing over the last four or five years). The first. I mentioned it in my last post. That said, I think everyone was almost as excited about the start of the Nexus angle last year, all the way up until Summerslam (and then maybe once again when Barrett won the match forcing Cena into Nexus), and that didn't have one superworker Internet Darling in the bunch (y'know after Bryan got "fired" a week in). The excitement level was still there. People WANT things to be good. They want the WWE to give them a product they enjoy. I know I want that. I don't want to find something to complain about every week. I want good wrestling. I don't think it's "about Punk" like you're saying. Not so cut and dry. I remember us going through all of this last year (yes, even after Danielson disappeared from the mix). As for follow-through? Well, first off, one of the main guys in this angle IS one of those creative, outspoken guys like Jericho who, while maybe not about to get his own way on this, will have much more say and much more leverage than Wade Barrett and Michael Tarver. And more important than that, I don't think any of us really felt like Punk was going to go over and keep the belt at the end of the night. Maybe you did, and if you did you're either more hopeful or more jaded than I am, because you'd have to be one or the other to feel that way. This angle has already gone past the point where we thought WWE would screw it up. Hunter returning in 2002 was Punk doing his first speech. Then he did his second speech with Vince and by that point we were already at Danielson being fired and Mark Henry outpacing some of the nexus guys in the chase, I think. And then came Sunday night, and not just everything done picture perfect, but it done in the midst of one of the best all around PPVs they've ever put on, ever. We're past the point WWE usually blows an angle so hot that they have no idea what to do with it and we're still going. So people are excited, Punk or no. That it's Punk just makes it all sweeter and all the more surreal. I think, however, you're off base on the people around here (and on DVDVR) thinking that there are any shoot elements of this. By the time we saw the results from the taped Raw, I think that mentality was completely out the door.

Since you brought up Montreal, I babbled about this on the DVDVR Board, but it's worth saying here too, I think. This is ALL about Montreal, but not in a spoof sort of way. It's more of a "What If," or something that would only resonate so sharply with us because we and the modern WWE (and the character of Mr. McMahon) were all so shaped by Montreal. It's an actualization of Montreal, but all playing out within a fictional backdrop. We're now in a world where we can potentially see what would happen if Bret left with the belt. The specter of Montreal shaped Vince's decisions leading up to last night. The legacy of it allowed Cena to act in the most amazing babyface manner I have ever seen last night where he basically lost the match just so he wouldn't win it on a Chicago Screwjob. Past winning the NWA title for your dead brother's memory that's about the most babyface notion I've ever come across in my life. They can't deal with this cheaply or quickly, because if they do they lesson the value of one of their most iconic and shaping moments. Look at how they speak of the Attitude Era with reverence. If they shortchange this, they make it seem that Montreal didn't matter at all and Vince actually wasn't all that justified in what he did. That there's so much storyline horror right now is because we've been conditioned (partly through the actual "truth" of what happened, but only partly), to realize the weight of all of this. They've got the DVD upcoming later this year and damn it if the timing doesn't seem a little too good to be true right now. People were throwing around Montreal here and there over the last few weeks, but it amazes me a little that I don't think I realized (or many others did either) how much this was an actualization of Montreal. And that says a lot about the build and about Punk's ability to create a story that was so focused on him and his concerns. We were all staring at the trees so closely because they were so compelling. Some of it was simply that none of us thought he'd actually win. The threat of Montreal is a whole lot different than the actualization of it. Montreal was the Old Testament, ending with the promise of what could have happened, with what might one day happen. This is the storyline version of the New Testament, the situation actually playing out.

Wait, I wasn't going to say anything, but now that someone's seconded it and all... How is that well said? This is a hugely effective angle, but it's still wrestling. No one in the world thinks that Punk is really gone with the belt. Everyone's just thinking.. "Are they really going to do this amazing wrestling angle?" because it's SO outlandish for WWE. It's so different from what we've been conditioned to expect from them. It's the diametric opposite of what we've been given for YEARS. Most of the time, hopes don't even get raised, and when they are, they are QUICKLY dashed. Everything's become so formulaic and repetitive with them neither calling upon new, original ideas OR the traditional stuff that worked effectively over the years in other territories. WWE's doing this effectively now, though, and they're creating buzz and excitement and emotion and entertainment, and that they're smart enough to get awesome camera shots to help put forward the storyline doesn't make it seem any less real than it would otherwise to me. I think it helps the execution, not hurts it. I hadn't given it a second though until John brought it up and I'm still not giving it one now. The roar of the crowd made it feel chaotic. WWE getting a great camera shot isn't going to affect that much. This is working because it's it's not a "Shoot Angle" like Hogan not wanting to lay down and DO THE JOB for Jarrett. It's an angle that plays on real feelings while staying completely within the rules of the fictional world of the WWE. I don't think anyone around here is trying to present it as anything else. I don't think Meltzer is. I can't speak for the PWI guys because I don't go there, but around here and DVDVR we're discussing is like it's a really unique angle where WWE is doing things that we have been trained to expect them not to do, and I'd only hope that WWE would plan to get awesome camera shots to help support the angle. Or maybe I'm just completely misunderstanding what's being said here and this is all a knock on some part of the wrestling media that I'm luckily blind to, in which case, I'm sorry for going on.

This is my WCW Match of the Year for what it's worth. I'm not sure if people just haven't gotten to it yet or what, but I really love this match.

Two Duggan 84 observation: Watts was very capable in making Duggan look like a force of nature. I saw a 2 (jobbers) on 1 handicap match with him last night and it was slightly more interesting than the usual MONSTER vs enhancement talent handicap match. Just the way he was manhandling the guys with a bit more effort then you usually see in this made it all somehow more meaningful. Also, he was definitely more willing to a string of fast spots, well and successfully at this point, but only when the situation warranted.

I know it's a longshot but does any footage exist of the Johnny Valentine/Buddy Rogers team? Because that sounds amazing. Anyone know if it was a longtime thing or not. Wikipedia tells me they feuded with the Kangaroos a bit and had the WWWF US Tag belts for about a week in 1960.

I know I've seen them use it at least once or twice in the WWF but it sure as hell wasn't often and I absolutely can't give you dates.

Piper at Summerslam 90 is really interesting too, especially during the Warrior/Rude match when he just doesn't get whatever the hell Warrior's doing.

This isn't surprising. Sarge is in the argument for best bumpers of all time. Yeah but he was 43 at the time. As for Warrior, I think he was EXCELLENT at following direction. When he had someone good laying out his matches, his matches are good. It's pretty much that simple. You got as much out of him as you put in.

Gorilla/Bill Watts/Scott Levy would be the best team ever.

Almost all of the boot camp matches around WM VII are good too. The thing about Hogan matches in 90 and 91 is that they all had very very clear narratives. From the Genius SNME to the Undertaker matches at Survivor Series and SNMe. The story for the Slaughter match was that Slaughter was going to cheat and fight dirty and break the rules because he was the champ and he didn't care if he got DQed. So he was going to declare war, basically.

Re: Slaughter in 90-91. He worked his ASS off, no matter what you say about him. He was bumping like a madman in almost every outing. Like Hennig level bumping. And I think he was fairly over as a heel in the late summer of 90 vs Volkoff, who was astoundingly over as a face.

Am I allowed to prefer the cage match considering it's not Douglas in there? I have no idea why people don't like it. It's really well structured and pretty heated.

Heel Jarrett is actually a massive breath of fresh air after how stale face Jarrett had gotten.

I wish I had photoshop skills.

I feel like logic goes out the door when it comes to WWE summer booking.

What's the weirdest WCW Liger match on paper ever? Because I watched Liger vs Sweet Brown Sugar today and that has to take the cake no? Especially since Dusty was announcing with Chris Cruise, but it was Dusty pretending to be Santa, in a Santa Suit. I really do love WCW Prime.

There's so much else going on in that picture.

I freaking love Barry vs Tito from PTW in 89.

I just want to cannibalize some catchy terms here and you people are making it difficult with your logic.

What % of the fans are marks? Most everyone knows it's fake. John I think in 1999 or 2011 the term should generally means someone who doesn't follow the backstage elements of the business.