soup23 Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 http://placetobenation.com/ptbn-reaction-show-wwe-fastlane/ The WWE is on the road to Wrestlemania and we take a pit stop in Memphis for WWE Fast Lane. Will is joined by Kris Zellner, Johnny Sorrow & Pete (Titans of Wrestling) and Dylan Hales (Wrestling Culture). Johnny and Will go Ivan and Nikita on the rest of the panel. Reigns and Bryan tear the house down but how does the booking affect our enjoyment? Did any of the undercard matches deliver? Is anyone looking forward to Wrestlemania after this show? So few answers… so many more questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 I'm not sure if doing these shows is good for Johnny's mental health. His pained cries of "urgghgh" "oh vey!" etc. at each and every criticism are getting ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 I'm not sure if doing these shows is good for Johnny's mental health. His pained cries of "urgghgh" "oh vey!" etc. at each and every criticism are getting ridiculous. It's highly entertaining though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoe Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 It's the weirdest thing . Johnny on Titans seems to make sense a lot of the time. On the reaction show's I don't agree with him often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superstar Sleeze Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 WONTON VIOLENCE~! had me cracking it up. I liked the tag match, but agree with Dylan that they needed to add a little meat on the FIP to propel this to the next level. Naomi and Nattie both looked Dynamite! Wow! Thanks for the heads up on the Nikki/Paige Main Event match. I was really looking forward to the Paige/Nikki match (huge fan of both) and I liked it as a bomb throwing sprint, but yes that blown spot was egregious and the finish sucked. I will check out the Main Event match. If he was going to be a maniac, then stomping in the corner triggering the DQ was lame as all hell. Where is the WONTON VIOLENCE???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 It's the weirdest thing . Johnny on Titans seems to make sense a lot of the time. On the reaction show's I don't agree with him often. It's easier to justify being blindly positive about things and invoking "wrestling logic" when said logic was actually used more successfully? That'd be my guess. You can't invoke wrestling logic for the sake of it when it's being wielded poorly by a bunch of writers who don't understand why and how it works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 It's the weirdest thing . Johnny on Titans seems to make sense a lot of the time. On the reaction show's I don't agree with him often. I'm not sure if doing these shows is good for Johnny's mental health. His pained cries of "urgghgh" "oh vey!" etc. at each and every criticism are getting ridiculous. The issue here is we are shitting on his funhouse. For whatever reason, Johnny enjoys the product as presented. I actually gave the wrestling on the show a thumbs up but anyone who thinks that they are booking shows to maximize profit OR to truly entertain the fans is fucking ignorant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 I actually think Johnny is a lot more willing to criticise things on Titans. He definitely isn't a big matwork guy, and hates guys like Dick Worhle and Killer Kowolski. Sometimes me and Pete will be high on something he didn't like so much. I can't recall a single time that's happened on these reaction shows. AND, when he does try to defend Vince Sr from my attacks on his lazy booking, or whatever, he can always point to the fact that there were 20,000+ people at MSG to justify whatever it is. I will say though, from what we've seen Vince Sr was legit great at booking storylines. He just didn't run that many of them. But that's by the by. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superstar Sleeze Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 I agree with you, Will & Johnny on Rusev & Cena. The Rusev finish was great because Cena was making a comeback and we have all seen the story before. Cena gains momentum and Rusev hits his best shot and Cena just won't give up! John Cena is the babyface he should be the one to power up and look like he is going to win. Cena powers up and just when everything seems to slipping out of Rusev's grasp BANG! Ball shot! That is great desperation heel work. It is not a a a bad finish, it is a fantastic finish! Why should Rusev go over clean? He is the bad guy that has shown to be vulnerable time and time again and he pulls it out by any means necessary. The Bray Wyatt and Ryback feuds with Cena were fucked because Cena crushed them. Rusev looked like a massive mountain for Cena to climb unlike the other two who liked a numbnuts. Just as Cena looked like he would, it was snatched from him. They both looked awesome with Cena fighting from underneath like a boss and Rusev kicking ass on top. Easy WWE MOTYC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superstar Sleeze Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 In defense of Johnny, I actually do agree with him to extent and I think he has a point, but he get so overwhelmed that is hard to defend and think of the spot with so many voices coming down on him. There are tons and tons of counterexamples that show passing the torch to be a totally overrated means of generating new stars. When did Bret Hart job for Stone Cold? That Bret Hart guy was sure better off once Hogan did the job for him? Who made The Rock? I must have missed that awesome Ultimate Warrior three year run. The key to making new stars is presentation and hot angles. Stone Cold did not need to beat Bret Hart because he was presented as a huge deal and was constantly involved in hot angles throughout 1997 against the Hart Foundation, The Rock and Vince McMahon. The Rock did not need some old legend to make him. He got over with his personality, being positioned as the Corporate Champion and being presented in hot angles. Losing to Cena at a Wrestlemania and then being shunted into a makeshift tag team with a goofy, but lovable character would be the death knell for almost anybody today. The Rock lost to Austin at Wrestlemania XV and wrestled the end of 1999 in the Rock n Sock Connection. The Rock not only survived he thrived. It is because The Rock was consistently presented as a big deal and a star. It is all about context. With correct booking, people's heat can be maintained even in a loss. It is about cycling people up and down, hot angles and not falling into the same groove. It took situations now that look like inevitable failures to being ways to cycle people up and down the card without anyone's heat evaporating. So no the key is not to have some legend job to you. The key is to present interesting characters in compelling situations with hot angles. It is all about heat and the key is to decouple heat from wins & losses. Wins and losses should matter because it dictates where you go next. But no single loss should ever be insurmountable. You are booking like dogshit if that is the case and WWE has been booking like dogshit for the better part of a decade. That is one specific example where I was rooting for Johnny and this has happened in the past where I was like Johnny you are almost there, brutha just take the next step, but it is overwhelming. It is easy for me to type out a response. I too would get fucked up with 2-3 people yelling in my ear on the spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 A new Brainbuster game should be "Create a scenario utilizing wrestlers x, y, and z that even Johnny Logic can't defend." x: Great Kabuki y: Joey Abs z: Kelly Kelly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timbo Slice Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Kabuki spits the mist in Kelly's eyes, only to have Abs come out and lick it off her face. Go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrisZ Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Think about though who on this roster could've benefited from taking Undertaker's streak, or retiring Shawn Michaels, or beating Rock clean in a Mania match. The three men who did that are Brock, Taker, & Cena who definitely didn't need such wins. Imagine if Sheamus had broke the streak.....or Punk retiring Shawn.......or a guy like Barrett beating Rock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goodear Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 I think at some point people starting confusing John Cena with Triple H in the thought that he should lose every match to anyone who is remotely over. John needs to be protected so when he does do a job, it actually means something. And lets be honest, John jobs a bunch in meaningful matches and is trying like hell to get more guys on his level but has had to hold onto his company ace standing because of things outside of his control like guys quitting, getting injured or working an extremely limited schedule. So no, Cena should not be jobbing clean to guy who is not posed to be the next company standard. If passing the fuck out in his finisher won't get him more over, then doing the same thing without a nut shot won't work either. The whole Seth Rollins thing is almost funny in that while asking to be treated like adults and our intelligence to be respected, we need to see him get a big pile of money or we don't understand his motivations. The manipulative, smart guy in the Shield 'sells out' to the bosses of the company to get ahead and leave his boys behind. Who, by the way, were lauded as being more likely to breaking out at the time. I don't need to see a bank transfer to get it. And also funny is how everyone should make new stars but Daniel Bryan shouldn't put over Roman and put him into position to get more over and 'make' him. Best point of the show was when the agents came under fire more than the booking. This was a failure in layout again after the crap with the Royal Rumble. For example, the Dean Ambrose gets himself disqualified because he is insane and unfocused could work. Imagine if you will, Barrett grabs the title belt but Ambrose gets control of it and beans Bad News for the DQ in a fit of rage. Follow up with him being made even more angry at himself for the mistake and correcting next time. That's a much better way of telling the same story. Much more compelling than not breaking off at five. Granted Jim Ross and Parv might want have wanted disqualifications for throwing punches, but that's crazy talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goodear Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Think about though who on this roster could've benefited from taking Undertaker's streak, or retiring Shawn Michaels, or beating Rock clean in a Mania match. The three men who did that are Brock, Taker, & Cena who definitely didn't need such wins. Imagine if Sheamus had broke the streak.....or Punk retiring Shawn.......or a guy like Barrett beating Rock Sheamus' doesn't have Brock's schedule which means he would have to move on to the next thing much more quickly. Lesnar working four times a year lets everything sink in much, much more. Brock was probably the best option due to that reason. Punk got over without it based on promos and John Cena. I don't think retiring Shawn has ever been something anyone promoted. I get that booking to the future is a good idea generally, but you also have to book for 'right this moment' too. Barrett is not and has never been ready for that kind of spot on the card. The crowd would reject that placement and wouldn't buy him as Rock's equal. Big moments are great. But the bigger problem is the week-to-week guys are overexposed and nothing is allowed to breathe even a little. Harper can't get momentum at the same time Russev is because they pull from the same pile of job guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 In defense of Johnny, I actually do agree with him to extent and I think he has a point, but he get so overwhelmed that is hard to defend and think of the spot with so many voices coming down on him. Boo fucking hoo. He can groan and mumble under his breath but when it is his turn to defend the actions of the WWE, he can't put it all together because the voices are raining down on him? Come on man!!!! The whole Seth Rollins thing is almost funny in that while asking to be treated like adults and our intelligence to be respected, we need to see him get a big pile of money or we don't understand his motivations. The manipulative, smart guy in the Shield 'sells out' to the bosses of the company to get ahead and leave his boys behind. Who, by the way, were lauded as being more likely to breaking out at the time. I don't need to see a bank transfer to get it. I want Dylan to respond to this. And also funny is how everyone should make new stars but Daniel Bryan shouldn't put over Roman and put him into position to get more over and 'make' him. If you think Daniel Bryan has peaked, and there is no longer any money to be made, then yes, let him job until he goes back to raising sorghum or whatever it is. The problem is that most Bryan backers think that their is still money and lots of it to be made with the guy. Bryan and Reigns shouldn't have met yet but this is the position you are stuck in when you decide a guy is ready and not following the fans. I never got the Sid love but he was fucking over. Was the WWF stupid to push Sid as a main eventer? No, they should go with the hot hand. Daniel Bryan is the hot hand. It just so happens he is also the best worker they have. Big moments are great. But the bigger problem is the week-to-week guys are overexposed and nothing is allowed to breathe even a little. Harper can't get momentum at the same time Russev is because they pull from the same pile of job guys. I agree with the sentiment but with a slight difference... Rusev isn't jobbing, Harper is one of the job guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goodear Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 I'm not really making the argument that Daniel should be jobbed left and right but pointing out an error in the line of thinking that the older guys should always be putting over new, fresher talent. I personally believe Wrestlemania especially should be about the present of the company rather than the past (which is what The Undertaker, Triple H and Sting are at this point) or the future (which would be trying to make someone new every year). Wrestlemania should be hottest guys in the company at that particular moment coming to blows in my opinion which would be Daniel and Brock. RE: Harper and Rusev. I recognize that Harper isn't getting the much deserved push and is jobbing way more than he should. By the same token, you can't really push everyone at the same time and Harper and Russev would be in the same sort of category of physical heels that beat down fools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoe Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 I got a tweet today on @titansowrestin telling Johnny he can't believe he does the Reaction Show with 4 guys who don't know how wrestling works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoe Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 Also Sleaze your argument is misleading. Did Bret job for SCSA ? No, he was fired before he had the chance. Another established star did in Shawn Michaels. The Hogan job to Bret was 4 years too late. Flair though did the honors for him in 92 and he was eventually viewed as a main eventer. The whole thing with the Rock is completely different animal. Yes the Rock was positioned well.Austin was out with an injury, Though he did feud with Mick Foley who was established by being positioned as a big star since 96 with big matches,wins or feuds with the likes of HBK,Undertaker, and Austin. Sleaze their are always exceptions to the rules, though the majority of the time their is a passing of the torch from strong mid carder to main eventer. If this was an actual debate we would data dump with examples of established talent jobbing to younger talent throughout the years, and Johnny would have a handful of exceptions to the rule. Yes Sleaze you need your new talent to have good characters, and be presented well. The final element is to have a passing of the torch moment. It helps in establishing them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigelow34 Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 I got a tweet today on @titansowrestin telling Johnny he can't believe he does the Reaction Show with 4 guys who don't know how wrestling works. Funny enough his twitter handle was @JSorWWE420 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goodear Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 Also Sleaze your argument is misleading. Did Bret job for SCSA ? No, he was fired before he had the chance. Another established star did in Shawn Michaels. The Hogan job to Bret was 4 years too late. Flair though did the honors for him in 92 and he was eventually viewed as a main eventer. The whole thing with the Rock is completely different animal. Yes the Rock was positioned well.Austin was out with an injury, Though he did feud with Mick Foley who was established by being positioned as a big star since 96 with big matches,wins or feuds with the likes of HBK,Undertaker, and Austin. Sleaze their are always exceptions to the rules, though the majority of the time their is a passing of the torch from strong mid carder to main eventer. If this was an actual debate we would data dump with examples of established talent jobbing to younger talent throughout the years, and Johnny would have a handful of exceptions to the rule. Yes Sleaze you need your new talent to have good characters, and be presented well. The final element is to have a passing of the torch moment. It helps in establishing them. I would say the passing of the torch thing is actually the exception when you look at it with guys getting 'made' into superstardom with an assortment of intangibles leading to a moment that completely defines the character and gets it over. Most guys don't just survive off of wins and if they do, their superstardom only lasts as long as they are winning and have less staying power (see Goldberg, Vader). Lets look at a few examples... Austin - Shawn jobbing to Austin was more of a coronation than a final push to put him over. Of the people that helped Austin be as over as he got, I don't know that Shawn makes the top five . No one looks at that Wrestlemania as the day Austin was "made" since he was already the biggest star in the companty at the time. Foley - Mick didn't get over with wins either rather getting thrown off stuff, pulling a sock out of his tights and having a great promo. I guess you could say Undertaker put him over intially but Foley himself would say his heat was on the wane before Hell in a Cell and only really took off thanks to the interactions with Vince. Shawn - Got over doing high profile jobs to guys at Wrestlmania and... and this makes me gag... stealing the show. Probably biggest break out moment was jobbing to Razor Ramon in the ladder match. Bret - Probably got over to the highest level through television exposure more than one big match considering he made that leap off tape by beating Flair. He was also pushed in an absense of other options since the cubbard was bare at the time. Undertaker - Got over due to mystique than anyone else ever. I don't know the Hogan job really put him on the map since it got wiped out so quickly at Tuesday in Texas and it had interfearance. I would also say the Streak wasn't really a thing until he was already a made man unless you want to say Jimmy Snuka and King Kong Bundy got him over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 I'll write more tonight when I'm free but this is a bit of a false debate, because losing to a part time attraction, who is never around is different than losing a feud to a star that is integral to the established product. And the issue is not entirely "new" guys beating "old" guys, but also the broader issue of whether wins and losses matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoe Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 I got a tweet today on @titansowrestin telling Johnny he can't believe he does the Reaction Show with 4 guys who don't know how wrestling works. Funny enough his twitter handle was @JSorWWE420 LMAO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoe Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 Also Sleaze your argument is misleading. Did Bret job for SCSA ? No, he was fired before he had the chance. Another established star did in Shawn Michaels. The Hogan job to Bret was 4 years too late. Flair though did the honors for him in 92 and he was eventually viewed as a main eventer. The whole thing with the Rock is completely different animal. Yes the Rock was positioned well.Austin was out with an injury, Though he did feud with Mick Foley who was established by being positioned as a big star since 96 with big matches,wins or feuds with the likes of HBK,Undertaker, and Austin. Sleaze their are always exceptions to the rules, though the majority of the time their is a passing of the torch from strong mid carder to main eventer. If this was an actual debate we would data dump with examples of established talent jobbing to younger talent throughout the years, and Johnny would have a handful of exceptions to the rule. Yes Sleaze you need your new talent to have good characters, and be presented well. The final element is to have a passing of the torch moment. It helps in establishing them. I would say the passing of the torch thing is actually the exception when you look at it with guys getting 'made' into superstardom with an assortment of intangibles leading to a moment that completely defines the character and gets it over. Most guys don't just survive off of wins and if they do, their superstardom only lasts as long as they are winning and have less staying power (see Goldberg, Vader). Lets look at a few examples... Austin - Shawn jobbing to Austin was more of a coronation than a final push to put him over. Of the people that helped Austin be as over as he got, I don't know that Shawn makes the top five . No one looks at that Wrestlemania as the day Austin was "made" since he was already the biggest star in the companty at the time. Foley - Mick didn't get over with wins either rather getting thrown off stuff, pulling a sock out of his tights and having a great promo. I guess you could say Undertaker put him over intially but Foley himself would say his heat was on the wane before Hell in a Cell and only really took off thanks to the interactions with Vince. Shawn - Got over doing high profile jobs to guys at Wrestlmania and... and this makes me gag... stealing the show. Probably biggest break out moment was jobbing to Razor Ramon in the ladder match. Bret - Probably got over to the highest level through television exposure more than one big match considering he made that leap off tape by beating Flair. He was also pushed in an absense of other options since the cubbard was bare at the time. Undertaker - Got over due to mystique than anyone else ever. I don't know the Hogan job really put him on the map since it got wiped out so quickly at Tuesday in Texas and it had interfearance. I would also say the Streak wasn't really a thing until he was already a made man unless you want to say Jimmy Snuka and King Kong Bundy got him over. Yes I do agree that their are other tangibles that gets talent over. Those are things that originally gets them over. Their are moments of a victory that skyrockets a piece of talent. An example of this is Steamboat beating Flair for the TV title in 77. Of course this was followed up on. 1. I agree Shawn jobbing to Austin was a coronation. Though it's the message it's now the Austin Era.It was the final hurdle winning the title over one of the 2 biggest World Champions of the early 90's in the WWF. Essentially it was the final stamp. 2. I agree with what you said about Foley. Though you can't minimize how important those early Undertaker jobs did for Foley. Later Foley was key in getting Kane over by putting him over, got people to finally take to HHH as a top guy, and gave Randy Orton a big boost up the ladder. 3. Again I agree with a lot of what you say about HBK. Though people began to view him as THE top guy was when Bret put him over at Mania 12. 4. I agree about Bret. He got himself over. Though jobs by Hennig, Flair, and really the most important one by Piper was huge, Piper never did jobs and by putting Bret over at Wrestlemania 8 was huge and springboarded him to the next level. 5.I will say mystique was big with Undertaker as was his total destruction of his Survivor Series opponents. Beating Hogan gave him huge cred in the fans eyes, I think both things go hand in hand. Yes you need those intangibles to get over. A big win in the fans eyes goes a long way in viewing a talent as a top guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 I'll write more tonight when I'm free but this is a bit of a false debate, because losing to a part time attraction, who is never around is different than losing a feud to a star that is integral to the established product. And the issue is not entirely "new" guys beating "old" guys, but also the broader issue of whether wins and losses matter. There's also the issue of booking overrated old guy vs. overrated old guy as the number two match on the card, whilst "new" guys who headlined multiple specials over the last year are directionless (Bryan, Ambrose and to a lesser extent Ziggler). Though, in the case of Bryan, the fact that he's below Orton and Triple H on this year's card suggests his big wins didn't really matter in the long term big picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.