Loss

They could have even done something, as hokey as it would have been, where every time a heel does something bad, they find a Sting symbol that says "I'm watching you" or something like that. Lights go out and when they come back on, the heel is laid out. That keeps people thinking about Sting and builds to HHH wanting him to show his face.

From a storytelling point of view, I do wish they had gone out of their way to make the post-Survivor Series RAWs as loaded and exciting as possible. Fresh matchups everywhere and lots of babyface triumphs. It would give The Authority's return more bite.

I will point out that for what it's worth, when Vince McMahon was supposed to be removed from television as the result of Austin vs Undertaker having the exact same stipulation at Fully Loaded 1999, he was back in approximately the same amount of time. And it's not like they needed to hotshot at that point to pop a rating. It's symptomatic of Vince having a short memory and level of patience when it comes to his own storylines, but it's nothing new at all.

The Authority is as much a fixture as the ring.

We did this last year and it produced a good thread, so I thought it would be a good idea to do it again. What are yours?

Mr. McMahon was never really blown off as an on-screen character either. He just stopped showing up on TV. I think we all knew that stip wasn't going to stick since they feel that HHH has to work Wrestlemania.

We're probably ten years away from HHH doing genetic jackhammer-type stuff with Stephanie at most.

I don't think they ever will leave again.

As do I. The cool thing about Brock-Bryan as opposed to Brock-Reigns is that knowledge of Brock leaving will only add to the environment of a Brock-Bryan match. The story of a monster bully openly admitting that he's on the way out, but that as he leaves, he's going to destroy everyone's favorite underdog and end his comeback on a sour note just because he can writes itself.

I think it was a terrible move. People are beyond sick of this and it renders the past month pointless. The heels finally got their comeuppance, to what, come back a month later? So we can return The Authority v. D-Bry again? Why didn't Cena just wait until Rollins ran back to attack him like he did anyway Daniel Bryan vs The Authority v2.0 is a vastly better direction than whatever it is they have been doing for the last several months. It's flawed, but it's an improvement.

They could by having The Authority make life hell for him for a couple of months with him overcoming whatever they throw at him. HHH getting in his face and Dolph saying last time you crossed me, you and your wife disappeared completely for a few months, so I'd tread carefully. Hahahaha, I know, I know. Just saying they could.

I actually think bringing HHH and Stephanie back was the right move. I'm tired of the authority figure formula, but they don't have a better heel than Stephanie McMahon. Their return, along with Daniel Bryan's return, should give them a spark.

Yeah, the perfect scenario would be the bunny as #30 starting to do very familiar-looking moves while Stephanie figures it out and comes out on the house mic screaming at everyone still in the match to "Get the bunny!" in her best heel voice. But with The Authority storyline being blown off and Bryan being a little too visible on TV while injured, it wouldn't have the same effect anyway.

I do think your ex-wife spending all of your alimony to party with the person you hate more than any other in the world is a strong hook that's relatable, so no wonder it worked. I'm surprised that has never been copied.

Crash Holly was also a tremendous gimmick and he was very well-booked most of the time. I'd have no problem with them emulating that, but can you imagine a midcarder getting 18 months or so of pretty strong booking now?

Apparently, the main reason they want Undertaker on the show is that he has another year on his contract of guaranteed money and they are going to have to pay him whether he works or not, so they are trying to get some return on it.

I thought I read that fans turned on Roman on the last RAW and people were chanting for Daniel Bryan during the match.

I'd also probably go much higher for high flying with Bobby Eaton. Being the best high flyer of the decade in your country should probably count for quite a bit. I saw that he was a 20 in stamina, but I think he was far more a great aerial wrestler than he was a great marathon wrestler.

How would fire and intensity differ in your eyes? I just want to understand the difference.

I don't think this discussion has "blown up". The thing that bothers me about this thread is the idea that people who disagree with Dave considering this are somehow emotionally wrecked about it, or that we've allowed it to consume us during the holiday season. It's possible to strongly criticize someone for something and not be obsessed with it. That type of othering isn't something I care for very much. Are the people defending Dave "worked up" over the criticism? Of course not. So why frame those who see it the opposite way like that?

Sting beat Johnny B. Badd on the September Clash and also jumpstarted his feud with Cactus Jack.

Does Kane count?

Even if all he can do is highspots, that seems to be the only thing WWE crowds consistently pop for anymore, so his chances of getting over are good if that's a big strength.

Edge-Hardy at Summerslam '05 rivals the Owen-Shamrock dungeon match and the first Lawler-Snowman match as one of the all-time great super short matches.

Do you agree that a wrestler's whole can be greater than the sum of the parts? Also, there are some wrestlers where you can list everything they do and they look better than they are because they are missing something intangible.