Loss

Maybe I should have been more clear on which version of the 80s I said I wish wrestling was earlier today.

If he's turning, the way last night's match with Cena was worked makes a lot more sense.

This reminded me how bonkers that Goldberg-Sting match is. Not an all-time great match or anything like that, but they don't make crowds like that anymore.

I highly doubt that happened. It's not like WrestleZone is really all that credible and immediately having Charlotte come in and win the belt from Nikki Bella was probably never in the plans since they've seemed determined to have her break AJ's streak for some time now. The saying "don't believe everything you read on the internet" is a saying for a reason. Dave was asked about this on Twitter. He said he can't say for sure that it's not true, but he can say it's vastly different from how it was explained to him.

With the disputed finish to Undertaker-Lesnar, my immediate thought -- and maybe I'm wrong -- is that Reigns will beat Rollins for the title at Wrestlemania 32.

I agree that there is more than one way to skin the cat. It's just hard to think of very many hugely successful programs in American history where the line was blurred.

- Rollins did the hiptoss/dropkick/mock opponent sequence that has always been a babyface sequence - He won a toe-to-toe slugfest, which babyfaces usually do - He caught Cena in the ropes and showed him up, which babyfaces usually do - He reversed the figure four, which is a babyface spot

I'm going to break down what specifically I am talking about in Cena-Rollins in a few.

Are you purposely picking examples outside the U.S.?

Hell, not just in the 1980s, but the fundamentals that were the same for decades. For all the talk about changing with the times, when Vince wants to hit a home run, he does very pro wrestling angles. See Brock-Undertaker for the most recent example.

It's not about the fan reaction. It's playing to it. And wrestling should be like it was in the 1980s, and I have no problem saying that.

The finish to Cena-Rollins didn't bug me at all because it was very clear why they did it. The finish to Undertaker-Brock in and of itself isn't even that bad to me for prolonging a feud, it's more that it clearly sets up a rubber match I'm not really interested in.

They were the top babyfaces in that market and had been all along, though. Seth is supposedly the top heel in the WWE Universe, not just in smaller markets. Had that been the story for the last six months, then that would be completely different.

I just finished that match. No idea what to do with that. I need to think on it more. If the top heel can work as a babyface in one of the biggest shows of the year and it doesn't really matter long-term, then wrestling is irreparably broken.

Cena-Rollins is a perplexing match so far. I've obviously seen Cena get booed by a hardcore crowd countless times, but he still usually *works* the match as a babyface. They are working this with Rollins as the total babyface.

Sometimes, that needs to be quantified. Are you saying it's good or great? And is it great or an all-time classic?

The Vince you know and love has been out to lunch for a long time. He does a lot of things on a weekly basis that he never would have done years ago.

I actually think there's something to it. Vince has no plans to build around Bryan and will never build around Bryan no matter how over he is. In the case of his pet project Roman Reigns, Bryan's presence was more of a hindrance than a help, and that's even with Bryan putting him over convincingly in an excellent pay-per-view main event. I don't think that's the sole reason he's being kept on the shelf, but I also think it's naive to say that isn't a factor at all. It's one of many factors, I think -- maybe not the primary factor driving decisions about his future. But I think it's there somewhere.

I want to compare matches that happened in completely different times with completely different wrestlers working a completely different style. To me, that's the fun in star ratings -- comparing Funk-Onita to the Summerslam main event or whatever.

"Lighten the fuck up" is a self-contained contradiction. Just saying.

Cena/K-Fed was more Memphis-style, but was pretty great too.

I don't think anyone in that match (although Cody is supposedly a history buff, so maybe him) would be astute enough to watch MX/Cornette vs OMX/Dangerously from Chi-Town Rumble to look for ideas for incorporating non-wrestlers in a tag team match. Cornette played FIP there and made the hot tag and it worked, but I guess you can do that with a non-wrestler when their knowledge of wrestling psychology exceeds that of even most wrestlers.

I've thought for years that a lot of the best women in Japan should seek work in the U.S. and try to get the style over here. It's down over there and has been for nearly two decades, in part because the basis of comparison is the Crush Girls era and the interpromotional era. Here, they aren't saddled by a previous era hitting a ridiculously high level and everything after that seeming like a disappointment, even when those involved are doing good work. I don't know if WWE is the right company to get something like that over, but on paper it's an intriguing signing. However, it's important to remember that outside-the-box signings mean nothing if the goal is to take those talents and put them inside said box.

I haven't watched the show or the match yet, so I don't want to comment on that, but I would be interested in a discussion at some point about people who like modern women in WWE who can't get into 90s Joshi. It's not something I'm criticizing since I don't really understand it well enough to do so, but it is something I'd like to see explored and explained more.