TLC 2012

[Loss]

Why are you always so angry at everyone? Chill out.

[Russellmania]

I'm just so passionate about inter-borough politics

[Bigelow34]

I think Ryback wiping out Show at Mania to win the WHC is the way they are going. Dolph will cash in at some point after that and screw over Ryback.

 

Brock/Taker takes care of the Who Taker Should Face problem but with Trips in the way, it won't happen...maybe they should do a three way to get them all in there.

 

Who does that leave to face Punk?

[Ricky Jackson]

Cena-Rock seems set in stone. Brock-HHH seems set in stone. Ryback-Show makes sense.

 

Taker-Punk is weird to me. Does Punk go into Mania as champ? If so, and assuming there is no chance of the Streak ending, does Taker coming out of Mania as WWE champ make sense? But if Punk loses the strap to Rock at the Rumble, doesn't that water down a potential match with Taker at Mania? Maybe you could have Taker win the strap from Punk at Mania, get jumped and beaten down by the Shield on Raw the next day, and have Ziggler run in and cash in the briefcase?

[anarchistxx]

Saw the two matches everyone is pimping.

 

The six man was indeed fantastic - loved the way they shot it with all the close ups and cuts, really made it feel manic and insane. Pretty much the perfect use of Ryback, his offence looked so rough and violent, you can see why he got so over with the casuals. Only thing I didn't like was the big Tyler Black table bump near the end, which felt really setup to me. Why would the other two guys leave him instead of holding Ryback down for a few more seconds so he could take him out? Kane being out for about ten minutes from the barrier spot was a little unbelievable too. Still, that's just nitpicking as it was a fantastic match that got everyone over.

 

The main event was kind of going-through-the-motions, but it still wasn't too bad and Ziggler seemed over. Not sure why they didn't just call it a TLC like the other match since there was plenty of use of tables and chairs. The hurricarana spot was amusing, and the crowd seemed to buy the turn even though it was easy to call from a minute or so before.

 

Saw a little bit of Sheamus/Show, the finish was awful. Having a big chair looks cool and everything but he didn't exactly lay into him with it.

[Russellmania]

Taker/Punk would probably have a pretty terrific dynamic to it as you have the guy who commands respect vs. the guy who demands respect. It wouldn't be any more pointless than Edge vs. Taker at WM24. I remember thinking that Edge came out of that looking like a million bucks even though he lost. With that said, I don't know that Punk can really afford to lose to the Rock and The Undertaker within the span of a few weeks. I have a feeling Punk only loses to the Rock due to some interference.

 

Anyway, this show was awesome, but it seems like WWE has a tendency to have the worst shows on paper end up being the best ones in practice. I think when a card is kind of thin, guys tend to step up their game to compensate.

[MikeCampbell]

Saw a little bit of Sheamus/Show, the finish was awful. Having a big chair looks cool and everything but he didn't exactly lay into him with it.

He didn't need to "lay into him" with it. The sheer size and weight of the chair was more than enough to put Sheamus down, without Show having to look like he was trying to test his strength at the county fair.

[Matt D]

loved the way they shot it with all the close ups and cuts, really made it feel manic and insane.

This isn't getting enough attention. Actually, I thought it was just me so I didn't say anything but there was something really chaotic about the camera work that added a ton to the match.

[NintendoLogic]

I decided to check out the six-man TLC after what seemed to be universal praise. I thought it was a good enough car-crash match but not a MOTYC. I kept hearing about how wild and chaotic it was, but all the contrived Rube Goldberg-esque stunt spots seriously took away from that. And as with all WWE multi-man matches, there was the issue of guys disappearing for extended stretches and then reappearing when it was convenient. I did like Daniel Bryan busting out the No Lock on all three Shield guys in succession.

[Kostka]

How would you guys feel about Punk being plugged into the Rock/Cena match as a triple threat? Or is Cena getting his win back in one on one fashion more important/necessary?

[Matt D]

Cena/Punk/Rock is probably the best reasonable choice.

[Mini Bennett]

How would you guys feel about Punk being plugged into the Rock/Cena match as a triple threat? Or is Cena getting his win back in one on one fashion more important/necessary?

I get the feeling we'll end up with a triple threat situation, Kostka. Punk has said over the year that he doesn't have any interest in working with Taker at Mania.

 

Here's my fantasy booked top of the WrestleMania card:

 

- John Cena vs. Undertaker

 

WWE Championship match

- CM Punk © vs. The Rock

 

- Brock Lesnar vs. Randy Orton

 

World Heavyweight Championship match

- Dolph Ziggler © vs. Ryback

 

 

People are going to watch the show regardless of whether Triple H is on the show or not, so I don't see the point in throwing him on the card when he's not even a full time performer any more. This show, IMO, should be all about getting as much as you possibly can out of Rock and Lesnar. With the amount of exposure they're getting out of these guys it seems insane to me that you wouldn't use them to further legitimize your top guys. Not only by having Punk and Orton go over, but by having Cena and Taker, two "WWE guys" be the last match on the show. I don't think making Rock and Brock feel like they were a bigger deal than the WWE itself really helped much, so putting them in semi main-events certainly wouldn't hurt in that regard, and neither would the momentum Orton would get for his supposed upcoming heel turn. After that, I'd build him and Ryback over the summer, but that's neither here nor there.

 

Ryback and Ziggler are just thrown in there together because they're basically made for each other stylistically.

[NintendoLogic]

Triple threat matches suck and should be avoided under all circumstances.

[Mini Bennett]

I'd almost completely agree, NintendoLogic. I wouldn't leave it off the table, though.

[Loss]

How about Punk/Bryan again with the roles reversed and Bryan going over? Brock/Ryback, Undertaker/Ambrose (with The Shield at ringside to run interference), Rock/Cena and if HHH working the show is inevitable, he could work Ziggler. Your odd people out at that point are Orton, Del Rio, Sheamus, Show and Kane.

[Loss]

I think taking a hit on the WM buyrate - as that lineup is missing some of the dream match potential betwen big names of the glory days - to lay groundwork for making some of the guys who are over bigger stars is worth it.

[Russellmania]

I feel like Punk/Bryan is something they really want to do right at some point so I don't see them getting a WM match now without a title involved. I can see them having an Iron Man match at WM30 for one of the title, though.

 

Also, waaaay too soon for Ambrose to be involved in something as big as challenging The Streak. I also wouldn't put Ryback anywhere near Brock b/c I think he'd look like shit compared to Brock and that's not what they want right now. So I guess what I'm saying is that I don't like any of those ideas, lol.

 

I also hate the idea of a Rock/Cena/Punk triple threat. Triple threat matches can be fun, but I hate them for big shows like this. It just feels like a cop-out and takes some of the shine off of seeing certain guys face each other. Plus it would totally feel like when Jericho was thrown in with Austin and Rock and was clearly a step below those guys.

 

I'm a big Cena fan so i'm all for seeing Cena/Rock II, but I think it needs to have a purpose other than just giving Cena back his win.

 

Anyway, isn't there a WM prediction thread for this sort of thing already? I don't wanna derail this one.

[Dylan Waco]

I hate Triple Threat matches enough where I would seriously consider selling my tickets to Mania if that was the announced main event.

[WingedEagle]

I hate Triple Threat matches enough where I would seriously consider selling my tickets to Mania if that was the announced main event.

Cosign. Not only would I hate it, I don't think there's any way they'd piss away 6 figures worth of PPV buys, which I legitimately believe watering down the main event would do. You maximize money with Cena/Rock 2 and would take a hit with Punk/Rock. A triple threat is an absolute waste, and say what you will about their booking, but they and Rock are not blind enough to make that kind of mistake.

 

As for the show, they did a really great job putting the shield over without making Ryback/Kane/Bryan look weak at all. As noted earlier some of the camera angles and cuts they used made it feel a lot more chaotic and violent than is typical. I thought the shield was effective in not only selling where appropriate without looking out of their league, but constantly working as a unit that was greater than the sum of its parts.

[Jingus]

I've never quite understood the hate for triple-threat matches. They're like any other gimmick match: the can be done well, or poorly. Sure, the standard "one guy gets knocked out for a while so the other two can brawl" spot is a bit tiresome, but there's countless examples of that being executed very nicely and anyway gimmick matches often tend to have similar spots over and over. It's not like this is a scaffold match or reverse battle royal or something else which is almost literally guaranteed to suck.

 

 

Also: there are still people who insist that Zack Ryder is just another jabroni who means nothing? (Outside of the WWE office, anyway?) Ryder has arguably done more with much less than anyone else on the roster, considering how often it is that he goes for weeks or months without showing up on anything but the C shows. The fact that he built up a cult online following with nothing more than a Youtube channel is quite respectable, as is the fact that he's managed to hold onto at least some of that popularity despite usually being booked as if the creative team actively despised him.

 

 

I honestly don't even remember the last time I watched a new match in full, but all the hosannas for the TLC match got me curious and I tracked it down. You're all right, it's a damn fine epic struggle. It's the sort of thing the WWE is really good at, when they want to be: take a large group of disparate guys with more differences than similarities, throw them all together into a massive plunderfest with some genuine psychology, and do a bunch of spots which (mostly) look more dangerous than they really are. And their top-notch production team means that we don't get the cameras missing a bunch of spots, as tends to happen when old ECW and many other companies tried to film a match where you've got different guys fighting in different places in a massive donnybrook.

 

I especially liked the finish. It just made so much sense. Out-of-control Ryback stayed down for like ten minutes after the Spanish Announce Table spot; but eventually he woke back up and now is whipping the Shield's ass up and down the ramp, until all three of them swarm him and get him onto the table. They're focusing on him and anyway the aisle is full of objects blocking their view, so they don't notice that Daniel Bryan is getting back up in the ring. At least, until Rollins climbs the ladder and notices him. (I love moments like that, which depend so heavily on the physical setup and relative positions and geography of the people involved.) Rollins is like "oh shit guys, go get Bryan, I can handle this" so they do. But oh shit, Ryback wakes up again and fucking kills him. BUT meanwhile the other two pin Bryan. Puts over the new guys, while still making the old guys look strong. Love it all.

 

Was thinking about Taker opponents some more and really, the options are so thin, you may HAVE to go with current roster guys who are hot. They already did Michaels and HHH twice...where do you go from here? Dust off Mick Foley? I still want to see Cena vs Taker, but Cena is locked into the Rock match. Punk is the hottest potential prospect and Taker NEEDS really hot opponents for his once-a-year spectacle to work at all at this point. I would say Taker vs Rybacl, but again, I don't see how that would benefit Ryback. He really needs strong wins. What makes Ryback special if he's just another guy to lose to the Undertaker at WM? I dunno. Could just be me.

The thing is, the storyline gimmick of the Streak really does narrow down his possible opponents. It has to be someone important; it would be a waste to put, say, Santino in this spot. It has to be someone who can theoretically beat Taker, in order for those nearfalls to work in a "oh my GOD, the Streak is about to DIE" sort of way. But it also has to be someone who won't be tarnished by losing such an important match in such a high-profile environment. Ergo, it's pretty damn tricky to book some young up-and-comer in this spot; when they inevitably lose, it can have the effect of making it look like they're just some green nobody who isn't ready to fight in this weight class. Yet there aren't many real legends left, which leads to stuff like Taker essentially feuding with DX for the past four years in a row. Cena, Punk, and Sheamus are pretty much the only tippy-top guys who are available to wrestle and haven't already had a big match with the dead man.

 

Bill Watts and Verne always came back in Walking Tall tags in the 80s! Maybe Taker could...

They're presented very differently, though. Watts and Gagne were playing barely-gimmicked versions of themselves; their personas were of three-dimensional human beings, who talked much more normally and off-the-cuff than your standard growling promo style. This ties into the second difference, which is: they were officially retired. They were done, and that was a matter of public record. Whenever they came back, it was essentially an all-star exhibition game; they weren't going back to being full-time professional wrestlers, they were breaking their own rules Just This Once (every time) to handle a personal grudge. Meanwhile, Undertaker is some kind of immortal undead wizard who simply disappears for months at a time without any sort of on-screen official explanation of where he's gone. He's still seen as being an integral part of the roster... he just doesn't show up that often.

 

Also, if you wanna talk about watering matches down, the Streak is one where I do think that it really needs to be a singles match every time. The question should always be "can this guy beat Undertaker to end the streak?", and never ever "will the Undertaker be cheaply screwed over to end the streak?". And putting more than one opponent into that match, where Taker could lose without being beaten (and let's face it, the streak at this point is basically the most important title in all of wrestling) feels like cheating.

 

 

One last thing: what's with all the noobs around here recently? We seem to have gotten a small flood of new members. This has always been a pretty insular little board, with mostly just the same guys hanging around year after year. Not complaining, nothing wrong with an injection of fresh blood, just kinda weird that there seem to be so many at once.

[Johnny Sorrow]

Also: there are still people who insist that Zack Ryder is just another jabroni who means nothing? (Outside of the WWE office, anyway?) Ryder has arguably done more with much less than anyone else on the roster, considering how often it is that he goes for weeks or months without showing up on anything but the C shows. The fact that he built up a cult online following with nothing more than a Youtube channel is quite respectable, as is the fact that he's managed to hold onto at least some of that popularity despite usually being booked as if the creative team actively despised him.

Oh I give the guy all the credit in the world for getting himself over. I just personally think he kinda stinks.

[NintendoLogic]

I've never quite understood the hate for triple-threat matches. They're like any other gimmick match: the can be done well, or poorly. Sure, the standard "one guy gets knocked out for a while so the other two can brawl" spot is a bit tiresome, but there's countless examples of that being executed very nicely and anyway gimmick matches often tend to have similar spots over and over. It's not like this is a scaffold match or reverse battle royal or something else which is almost literally guaranteed to suck.

Gimmick matches in general tend to suck because they limit what the wrestlers can do and force them into various stock spots. With triple threat matches in particular, there's only two storylines you can really do. 90% of the time, it's "one guy gets taken out, the other two fight, the third guy comes back right when one of them gains the advantage, repeat until it's time to take it home." The other one is one guy getting double-teamed the whole match.

[Matt D]

And the one guy gets taken out model is perfectly fine so long as they have lots of clever ways to make that work. It's all about the execution.

 

More than that I don't think the audience is as down on it as people here are. I imagine the core audience would be more excited by Punk vs Rock vs Cena than just Rock vs Cena.

 

Granted Mania isn't about the core audience.

[Childs]

I've never quite understood the hate for triple-threat matches. They're like any other gimmick match: the can be done well, or poorly. Sure, the standard "one guy gets knocked out for a while so the other two can brawl" spot is a bit tiresome, but there's countless examples of that being executed very nicely and anyway gimmick matches often tend to have similar spots over and over. It's not like this is a scaffold match or reverse battle royal or something else which is almost literally guaranteed to suck.

Gimmick matches in general tend to suck because they limit what the wrestlers can do and force them into various stock spots. With triple threat matches in particular, there's only two storylines you can really do. 90% of the time, it's "one guy gets taken out, the other two fight, the third guy comes back right when one of them gains the advantage, repeat until it's time to take it home." The other one is one guy getting double-teamed the whole match.

 

There's also the more indy approach of trying to come up with "creative" three-man spots, which look contrived and awful 95 percent of the time.

[NintendoLogic]

I'm not surprised that my take on the TLC six-man is a minority one. But I am somewhat surprised that I've come across literally no substantial criticism of the match. To me, this is as good evidence as any of the baleful legacy of ECW. Everyone seems to have forgotten what a wild brawl should look like.