DMJ

There's some hubbub online since the rumor that the Bellas are going to be inducted this year started spreading. I'm on-the-fence/indifferent about it. The fans that are bringing up things like "How can the Bellas be in when The Undertaker isn't?" weird me out because, well, that's just such a silly argument/criticism to make for what the WWE Hall of Fame really is. A criticism that I do understand and feel more akin to making is (a) the fact that the WWE inducting only one female talent/act a year is obvious tokenism and (b) if that token is going to the Bella Twins in 2020, why them and not someone like Molly Holly or Stacey Keibler? It just kinda seems like they *jumped* from Trish, Lita, and Ivory right to the 2010s and skipped some of the equally worthy talents. (Not to mention Chyna [inducted individually] and Sable* and Terri Runnels and even Debra McMichael who may/may never get in from the Attitude Era) * There's always been speculation that Sable would get in the same year as Lesnar, but I'm not sure that's a guarantee.

Hey, don't bash it too much - they might replace Roode with Ziggler and then we'll really be fucked.

On the subject of the Baszler/Lynch angle, I don't think it would've been better if they had done this stunt "hard way" because gross, BUT I thought it was very stupid to not only have the fake blood look like strawberry Kool Aid but also have Shayna obviously wearing lighter makeup to make it stand out more. She looked bizarrely pale compared to any other time in any other setting ever. I got heavy vampire vibes from the whole thing and that is just an unnecessary parallel that the WWE steered right into. I'm getting the feeling that they really believed Rousey was going to be back for Mania and then figured out she wasn't in the past 2-3 weeks. I'm a Shayna Baszler fan so I'm not opposed to her getting a spotlight match at WrestleMania, but I do think there were better ways to get from Point A to Point B if this had been the plan all along - including having had Baszler win the title at some point in November/December/January so that Becky Lynch would've been chasing the title going into Mania (the same way Austin went into WrestleMania XV as the challenger or the way that Hogan went into WrestleManias V and VII as the challenger or o put it more bluntly and in more cinematic terms, the Rocky III storyline). Baszler losing at Mania is, to me, Becky "slaying a monster" that is not yet a monster. I mean, yes, to the NXT audience, Baszler is coming off a great run - but to the RAW/SD-centric viewer, she's not a "name" yet. And based on what I saw on Monday, some might assume she's doing some MMA-meets-Anne Rice gimmick.

It kinda surprises me that Thatcher wasn't signed earlier. It feels like, just in terms of sheer size, he would've been on their radar for awhile. (Yes, in today's WWE, being 6'3'' means you're essentially a "big man," which is why Orton, whenever he's in a Rumble or some other position where he stands around a bunch of the newer guys like Andrade, comes off looking like an absolute giant).

Is there an Orton thread in The Microscope? I'd love to add my paragraphs and paragraphs of Orton thoughts, but I'm hesistant to do it here... Quick question for debate: Does Brock Lesnar need to win at WrestleMania? I pose the question because I'm kind of split on Drew McIntyre getting the Rumble win and the shot at Lesnar and potential show-ending match. On one hand, I like that we have someone fresh in the main event. I'm a bigger Roman fan, but I didn't want to see Reigns/Lesnar again. I'm not a boxing or MMA guy so Tito Ortiz or the big boxer guy eliminating Lesnar and then challenging him at Mania was not appealing to me. I don't want to see Edge permanently paralyzed and I wasn't counting on The Rock or Cena or CM Punk or Batista to magically appear and challenge Lesnar either. But...I'm not invested in Drew McIntyre at all and I don't think I'm going to be in 10 weeks. On RAW, the crowd chanted "You Deserve It" but does he? I feel like its a Pavlovian response to anyone new getting put into that position. The same chant would've happened had it been Sheamus or Cesaro or even Keith Lee, who most fans didn't know existed 3 months ago. And you can point to this great match and that great match in McIntyre's past, but its a matter of "What have you done for me lately?" with him too. What has he done lately that's been good? Has there been a groundswell of support for him that I've missed? Was he getting big babyface reactions at live shows and TV? I don't watch the weekly TV often, but I watch the PPVs and I didn't see him breaking out. I mean, before eliminating Lesnar and the Rumble win, we were all in agreement that McIntyre was dead in the water, right? That teaming with Ziggler and Shane had not been good? You look back at Ryback at his peak and I see a guy who was at least 10 degrees hotter than McIntyre has ever been. Could Drew McIntyre have been "the guy"? Sure. But you needed to plant the seeds way, way earlier for me. I should've known that this guy was a big player months ago. To me, he was RAW's version of Baron Corbin in many ways. Yes, he's a better in-ring performer with a better look, but were his reactions bigger? Plus, you could argue that the same would be true of anyone. What if they had run videos hyping Sheamus' return for the past 2-3 months? He could've re-debuted at the Rumble and Brogue Kicked Lesnar out and it woud've been an identical reaction if not bigger! Or what if they had actually had Kofi focused on getting a rematch and revenge since October instead of just going right back to New Day hijinks? To me, McIntyre winning is fine, but its not good writing. I didn't see the momentum going into the show that the Rumble winner should have. Which is why I kinda think Lesnar needs to win at WrestleMania. The Beast remains more credible, more entertaining, and a bigger star than anyone else on the roster and Drew McIntyre really isn't even in the conversation unless you're talking to pure fantasy booking, in which case his name could just as easily be replaced by Keith Lee or any other personal favorite.

Drew McIntyre winning would be...something. I'm not a fan of the guy, but I've been talking about how stale the WWE main event scene has been and McIntyre getting the "outta nowhere" push would be undeniably new and unexpected. I'd be curious to see if they could get him over as a challenger for Lesnar considering McIntyre has always struck me as a natural heel and, in that position, you'd typically have a popular babyface. Of course, they could permanently castrate him and have him win the Rumble only to challenge for the NXT Championship - which I've seen suggested as a way to get the NXT Brand over, but anyone who would do that would be such a massive nerd and would definitely make them look like a total coward for not going after Lesnar. At least if Reigns wins, one might argue that him challenging Bray makes sense because he did technically "slay the beast" at SummerSlam a few years back and Reigns is on SmackDown.

Re: Velveteen getting ruined by Vince My point was the opposite - I think Velveteen Dream should absolutely leave NXT. There's nothing for him to do there. He should've won the NXT Championship at least 12-15 months ago, had a brief run with the belt, and then called up to the main roster. And the argument that Dream was "too green" to be an NXT main eventer in 2018 is ridiculous. He was very over and he was great against good opponents (which NXT has a plethora of). At no point has Adam Cole been more over than him despite having more "in-ring skill." Plus, it goes without saying that, If "in-ring skill" meant 20 years ago what it means today, The Rock would've never gotten the big push he did at Survivor Series 98'. That spot as Corporate Champion would've gone to a "good hand" like Al Snow. I know I'm preaching to the choir but putting on 45-minute mega-epic spotfests does not make you a good wrestler or a star. Will Vince ruin Velveteen Dream? Yeah, most likely. But keeping him in NXT is equally boring. Would the WWE main event picture not look better with Velveteen Dream being built-up as a potential babyface challenger for Brock? For Wyatt? Even for Nakamura? We know the guy is excellent as the foil to other larger-than-life characters (see his feud with Aleister Black). We know his character pops off the screen and that he has natural charisma. We know his gimmick is fresh and different. We know that he can hold his own and put together a good match against arguably more "skilled" opponents. But, with his recent injury, it is likely that we've seen the peak of Velveteen Dream already. If he's known for being injury-prone, he won't get "the rocket." Plus, even if he did get "the rocket," would it be a stronger push than what Aleister Black or Ricochet or Andrade got? I mean, they're all just kinda treading water with momentary snippets of being somewhat relevant.

I'm not sure if the chain-of-command is just so long that Vince doesn't actually know who is "hot" and when or if he just plain doesn't care. I know, I know - its all about the 'brand" and its intentional that nobody "breaks out... But even if you set the ceiling at a Kane-in-98' level or Mankind-level or Triple H-level or Randy Orton-level (y'know, guys that were over, sold merch, etc. but were never going to abandon wrestling or become mega-stars outside of the company), they don't even let guys reach that level. My eyes roll every time someone says Drew McIntyre could be a bigger star or that Matt Riddle has a huge future or that Gargano or Ciampa or Aleister Black can be difference makers. Its far more accurate to say that they've likely peaked and would need a JBL-like repackaging and an insane grassroots support (ala Daniel Bryan) to become permanent main event guys. I mean, for how many years was Ziggler a "future main eventer"? For how many years was Kofi a "future main eventer"? Look at Braun Strowman. Look at Sasha Banks. Look at Balor. The number of "can't miss" prospects they've missed with over the past 5-6 years is insane. And much of that is because they let guys die on the vine. Matt Riddle and Pete Dunne winning a tag team tournament is "big news"? Its a lateral move at best, a meaningless trophy they can place on the mantle right next to their hamster wheels. Pete Dunne turned heads close to 3 years ago and he's less interesting and less intriguing now. Do more people know his name? Probably...but less people are excited about it. Ditto for Matt Riddle, who came in as a big name and is now...just a name. Keith Lee just had a breakout moment at Survivor Series, got tweeted about by THE ROCK, practically became a star overnight, and is now...the NXT North American Champion. Big fucking whoop. The guy got a mega-response at one of the biggest shows of the year and they give him the *secondary* title on their least-watched, least established brand. No wonder the company has no momentum going into the friggin' Royal Rumble and all the talk this week was about a taped show on a booze cruise.

^ I'm guessing you're hinting to Ronda's return? Aside from Baszler, I don't see anyone else possibly winning the thing. Becky/Ronda, hopefully in a singles match, could be a fun feud. I do wonder what that would mean on the SD side of things. I'm guessing Charlotte will challenge Bayley because, well, that seems to be the only other woman they really care about around Mania season. They'll probably add Sasha in too somehow. As much as I generally dislike big multi-man clusterfucks at WrestleMania, part of me wishes they'd do just that with the SmackDown Championship - Carmella, Lacey Evans, Ember Moon, Nikki Cross, and Alexa may not all be world-beaters, but the whole company, every roster, all seem so stale. Even NXT. Maybe throwing some of these characters together can lead to some new angles. Cross, in particular, has proven with Regal and Alexa that her character can get over as a foil to more "serious" characters. Maybe they should give her a shot?

But, to us, who were "in the know," that part of Austin's career/gimmick was much clearer than to the millions (...and millions!) of Austin/Rock/WWE fans who hadn't watched much wrestling before 98'-99'. I was in high school back then. My friends and I were wrestling fans since the early 90s and had watched countless tapes and read all the magazines and were obsessed with WCW, WWE, and whatever ECW we could get at 2 AM on local TV. But the jocks and newer fans who got into it in 99'? They had no idea that Austin's gimmick was based on being held back by Eric Bischoff. It was inessential to understanding his character. Case in point - I remember around the time of the Higher Power angle, we were talking about who the Higher Power of the Ministry could be in lunch and I said to some buddies, who were newer fans, that I thought it might be Ted DiBiase because he had been the guy who first brought in the Undertaker. They had never heard of him, but proceeded to say, "You're probably right, I bet you it is Ted The Bossy." So, yes, while Austin's back story definitely was a part of his character, it really was very minuscule compared to what the company did for Mick Foley (the sit-down interviews with JR, the callbacks to the Jimmy Snuka splash, the consistent reference to him as "Mrs. Foley's Little Boy") to make him seem like an average joe that was not particularly physically gifted, but was a man of the people and refused to quit. And, in that sense, I do see that parallel to CM Punk and Daniel Bryan, guys who, from their first introduction, were really presented as "non-WWE" and "alternative" who were now going to "sink or swim" in the "major leagues" after toiling away in the minors.

I didn't think the joke was all that bad. Every time I've heard that joke in the past, in various forms, the intention has not been all that vicious, its been that the woman is such a "wild child" that even she forgot if she had a kid or not. It can certainly be interpreted as slut-shaming, but I really think Triple H was referencing Paige's all-around image as "wild" rather than her promiscuity or history of drug abuse specifically. I genuinely dislike Triple H for many reasons, but even I don't think it was a super malicious comment. But directing that joke towards Paige, who has clearly been trying to leave that "wild child" reputation behind, when you're a corporate figure but even if you're just a colleague, is a stupid move. Paige has been pretty open on Twitter about the guilt and embarrassment she's felt over the years, not just with the sex tape but with all the other drama before her return. It was just an unnecessary snipe that I'm guessing Triple H would and could make in-person and get an uneasy laugh from Paige...but to a reporter? Just woefully inappropriate.

- I'm expecting Edge to be announced for an ultra-safe match at the next Saudi show. I don't think he's coming back for a long run considering the risk, but if you believe the rumors, guys like HBK and Taker were getting anywhere from $500k to $2m for their Saudi appearances. For $300k-$500k, for one night of work in a well-rehearsed match against a safe, trust-worthy opponent, and basically no big bumps, I think its too good for Edge to pass up. WrestleMania pay-offs are nowhere near that - which is why Shawn hasn't come back. - Austin and The Rock still seem like longshots to be in full programs and unless they are permanently done with Roman Reigns being a top babyface, putting Reigns against them would be the dumbest move possible. I tend to think Reigns will be facing Wyatt, but if they do go with a special tag match for him, I'd expect he'll be paired with the bigger, more popular stars rather than against them. Maybe Rock & Reigns vs. Corbin & Co.? I mean, that feud has another 3 months in it, right?

I will say this in defense of this stable: I already like it more than the Undisputed Era. Faint praise, I know, but what has always bothered me about the UE is that they are almost all interchangeable in size and relative style. There's no brawler. There's no "young lion" (like Orton was to Triple H in Evolution) or grizzled mentor (like Flair was to Triple H in Evolution). Adam Cole is the leader, but unlike Rollins in this new stable, its not because he has more experience or is more accomplished than the others. Its hard to imagine Arn or Tully leading the Horsemen while Flair spent the 80s in tags, but its not all that difficult to envision Roderick Strong or Kyle O'Reill in Adam Cole's spot and Cole in theirs (Bobby Fish's mustache makes it impossible for me to take him seriously in singles, but the point still stands). So, I like that Akem and Rezar are the tag team muscle. I like that Buddy Murphy is that "next breakout star"/"young lion" and that Rollins is the establised leader because, for better or worse (okay, just worse), he is a top guy in the WWE and that means partnering up with him is a kayfabe wise move for the other 3.

I agree that Punk was never a great athlete or very fluid in the ring. He wasn't even graceful like, say, Shawn Michaels or John Morrison or even Jeff Hardy, who could do acrobatic things like springboards. And what's funny, as someone else said, is that the same can be said of The Miz. Now, I do think Punk's striking and submissions put The Miz's offense to shame and Punk is the better in-ring worker and all-around performer - - - but when The Miz is booked right, which is almost always as a chickenshit heel, his lack of great offense doesn't matter because he gets great heat with the Yes Kicks and the clothesline-in-the-corner and playing to the crowd. And, for the past decade, The Miz has proven to be in the 10th percentile as a promo. So, in the end, I think Punk is just not giving respect where its due and, honestly, should feel a little embarrassed. CM Punk toiled and toiled and worked and worked and studied but, in the end, he's not all that much better than The Miz. Meanwhile, on the flip side, The Miz (like Mark Henry) has proven that being a "WWE System Guy" is not the worst thing in the world and isn't something that should be completely dismissed or disrespected.

Yeah, I'm speaking from a position of not watching NXT weekly and only seeing their RAW stuff, which comes off as vapid to me. Or worse - the kind of stuff that Michael Hayes or Vince think will get black wrestlers over (think Cryme Tyme). I compare this to The New Day and Usos who were probably pitched lots of stuff that made them roll their eyes but somehow managed to get their actual personalities, interests, and *intelligence* into their characters. On another topic - and I apologize in advance for this lengthy rant, hence the spoiler tag. If you don't want to read, don't feel like you need to. Its about the Miz/CM Punk stuff: In summation, CM Punk's tweet came off like an R-rated version of a Disney movie where the new kid in school gets bullied until the final scene - when all of the bully's friends realize that the new kid is actually cool and the bully was just an insecure dickhead.

Yeah, and to be extra clear, I'm not saying its not a good line. Its a terrific line and I love the way Heyman delivers it. I believe it every time. Its really no different than the countless times any other heel used the word "guarantee" or "promise" or just came out and said, "...and I'm walking out of <insert city> the World Champion." When a heel makes a promise, its not necessarily about whether they deliver on it - its about whether you believe they can deliver on it. Ric Flair made you believe he was able to outsmart, outwrestle, and outthink any challenger that came his way - - but the stats don't lie. Dude lost. Alot. In big matches. It didn't change me from thinking he might just eke out of WrestleMania 8 with the title. I was an 8-year old idiot kid, but Ric Flair was also that damn good at making me believe that when he said he was going to beat someone, he was. It may be a bit on the nose, but I like how Heyman has simply updated the verbiage by using the word "spoiler," which is just a 2020 version of saying "I guarantee ______ will happen." Its a minute twist on classic heel shtick and because it has come true a couple times, it still works - even if I do think he used the line to build up matches that Brock lost (not only against Rollins, but possibly/probably against Reigns before SummerSlam 2018).

Is Heyman's streak actually intact? I could've swore he used the spoiler line the two times Seth Rollins beat Lesnar. Ugh...I threw up a little in my mouth as I was writing the words "two times Seth Rollins beat Lesnar."

I know people are gonna shake their head and think I'm crazy but... For a couple years there, Matt Hardy was a guy I often found to be quite good at making rather cold matches/feuds huge with live crowds. I used to describe it this way: Matt Hardy may not have the best match on any night, but he never had the worst match on any show (I think that stopped at some point, but for awhile there, it was shockingly true - which might also have something to do with the WWE product from 02'-09'). And, in that time, he wrestled just about everybody - including lengthy rivalries with Kane, Snitsky, and others. Now, I'm not saying he's up there with Flair or Daniel Bryan, but considering Matt Hardy was often considered the less charismatic/dynamic Hardy and maintained the same ridiculous Hot Topic look WWWELL past its expiration date, he deserves some credit for keeping fans engaged when a lesser worker could've ended up like Scotty 2 Hotty or The Dudleys or all the other guys who got good responses in 2002 but were clearly getting lukewarm-at-best responses by 05'.

I want to like the Street Profits, but they strike me as "overproduced" and desperate to get their slogans and catchphrases over and it comes off as unnatural. I also think the idea that they are "naturally charismatic" is vaguely bias/prejudice/racist - the idea that because they are young and black and handsome that is somehow the equivalent of having personalities. So the producers have told them to smile alot and speak loudly and be cartoonish but, ultimately, none of it has any substance.

I just watched In Your House: Season's Beatings from December 95' (just in a Christmas mood, I guess, plus I'd never seen it) for my blog* and I was amazed at how watchable the show was. Now, aside from the main (Bret vs. Bulldog), there's not really a "good match" anywhere on the show. BUT what the show does do very effectively is present 6 matches that serve a purpose and the booking is solid throughout. The opening match sees Razor Ramon tag with Marty Jannetty to continue his feud with the Million Dollar Corporation (specifically The 1-2-3 Kid). In a real smart move, though, some of the attention is placed on Goldust, who is sitting in the audience and gets a mid-match interview with Todd Pettengill - who he then hands a love letter to to deliver to Razor later. Meanwhile, in the match, the babyfaces win - but neither Sid or The Kid eat a Razor's Edge, so, even the heels come out without full comeuppance (which furthers the feud without finishing it the way the Crybaby Match would in February). From there, you get a very mixed-up and poorly executed angle/match involving Jeff Jarrett, Ahmed Johnson, Lawler, Dean Douglas, and Buddy Landell - it is a total clusterfuck but its designed to accomplish two things: make Ahmed Johnson seem like a monster and re-introduce Jarrett (who also enters the Rumble and attacks Johnson). Again, its not a great segment, but its purposeful and feels important to the characters involved. The Hog Pen match is similarly clever in that it also delivers the two things it needed to - Helmsley remains undefeated, but we still get to see the snob covered in slop and pig shit. Deisel's slow-burn heel turn is also continued in both his match against Owen Hart and his post-main event showdown with Undertaker. Speaking of Undertaker, his match against Mabel is everything you'd think - its not good - but it also doesn't overstay its welcome and gives the Deadman a decisive win in a Casket Match in under 8 minutes to keep him hot for his Royal Rumble title shot a month later. To me, I'd rather watch the worst 7-minute match ever than a mediocre 14-minute match because at least the former doesn't overstay its welcome. Again, even if the audience doesn't care, the characters look at their matches as important. In a sense, the show has no filler because every match is either designed to push a storyline or adorned with enough gimmicky ornaments to make them watchable (you're kidding yourself if you'd rather watch Shanghai Pierce and Terra Ryzing actually wrestle a standard match than the Hillbilly Jim-refereed gaga with live pigs we get instead). The main event has been discussed elsewhere on this forum so I won't overdo it, but after a slow start, it ends up being an excellent Bret Hart title defense. And the whole thing wraps up in something like 117 minutes as each match flows into the next without too many needless commercial breaks and backstage BS. Its not a great show - hell, there's a segment with Savio Vega that features some terrible, terrible outright racist jokes from Lawler - but it shows more creative thought and planning and consideration for details than anything the WWE presented (and that includes the NXT shows) in 2019. Today, you can look at a card and point to all sorts of "filler matches" even on the Network Specials/PPVs, but, even with a talent level considerably lower than what they have now, a show like this has no discernible filler because, for better or worse, every match served a purpose. I mean, I liked Aleister Black/Buddy Murphy as much as the next guy, but what the fuck did that match really mean? Today, the idea of presenting "good matches for good matches' sake" has become as stale as what Season's Beatings must have felt like in 1995. Everything old can be new again. Maybe having wrestling matches end with heels falling in pig shit is what we need more of. * CHEAP PLUG - If you go over to Kwang The Blog, you'll find my Top 10 WWE Network Matches of the Year. Great bathroom reading!

Will be posting my annual Top 10 WWE Network Matches of the year over the next couple days, but just wanted to ask, for WWE at least, was there any better performer than Daniel Bryan? I have him in 3 of my Top 5 matches of the year. I could see an argument for Charlotte Flair (she has 3 matches in my top 10), but Bryan beats her with all of his promo work. Granted, I'm not a weekly viewer and I semi-soured on the NXT main event formula this year. For example, I have Biance Belair/Shayna Baszler on my list and Cole/Gargano are a maybe for Honorable Mention.

Big, sweaty guys are gross...when they are sweaty. You can be big, no shame. You can get sweaty - we all do. But take a shower. Don't walk around with a stinky ass ham for an hour either. Granted, Mandy Rose is the one that went in for the hug, so should take some blame for having her velvet (?) dress ruined (and her not expecting that to happen is probably the bigger issue because it makes her look like an idiot who has never encountered or know the basics about perspiration), but I wouldn't chalk up this angle as an example of having contempt for the audience. If the audience is filled with big, sweaty guys who think coming to a wrestling show, or going anywhere where they'll be in close proximity to others, is a great idea after engaging in rigorous physical activity (like exercising), they deserve to be mocked. After I go to the gym, I sweat so much it looks like I just got out of a pool. I go home or use the gym's showers before I go to work or out for dinner. If I do stop somewhere, like a grocery store to pick something up, I'm mindful to give people space and I'll even apologize for my B.O if an unforeseen circumstance comes up. Now, there are countless other examples of the WWE mocking their own fans, so the point still stands. As for the Beauty & the Beast thing they seem to be building towards, I don't mind it either. It usually goes one of two ways - Mandy Rose ends up liking Otis and turns babyface or Mandy Rose ends up breaking his heart. Either could work. Its a tale as old as time (pun intended). Of course, the WWE is so ham-fisted (also pun intended) that they'll probably make it really lame by inserting unnecessary sexual innuendos and having Corey Graves go overboard on commentary (to no comeuppance) that will further detract from what could be a perfectly fine little side story.

I am really curious what others thought of this match, so thought I'd share my thoughts. Maybe someone can do one of those nifty play-by-play posts. Here's what I wrote in my blog: Main event time - The Kabuki Warriors defending the Diva Tag Team Championships against Becky Lynch and Charlotte Flair in a TLC Match. This one reminded me of the Cactus Jack & Kevin Sullivan/Maxx Payne/Nasty Boys wars of 94', matches that are almost painful to watch because of the level of violence and, even more than that, the shocking number of moments when it seems like the competitors are taking no precaution at all for their opponents' well-being and may actually be "shooting." At various times in this match, its obvious that the adrenaline pumping through all four women is high and they want to pop this crowd with the craziest, nastiest TLC match possible. It was an incredibly valiant effort, but, even before Kairi Sane suffered a concussion (which could've happened at any of ten different moments, but I tend to believe occurred when she seemed to have gotten tripped up by the apron attempting to splash both Lynch and Flair through a table), it seemed like the match was just a non-stop stream of risky moves performed with just a touch too much zeal. In my reviews, I tend to criticize the lack of urgency displayed in many modern matches. This match had urgency, but it was arguably misguided. Even the commentators noted how few attempts there were to actually win the match - everyone was too busy just leveling each other with any weapon they could find. And while Charlotte Flair certainly deserves a ton of criticism for manhandling (and viciously slapping) a clearly out-of-it Kairi Sane towards the end of the match, its important to note that almost immediately after she powerbombed the concussed Sane through a table, Asuka german-suplexed her on the arena floor. Sure, the floor has padding, but that's still a nasty, nasty bump (not to mention getting powerbombed through a table from the ring apron later on). Later, Becky Lynch would get in on the action by hitting a pair of Becksploders on Asuka into a stack of ladders, a move that didn't look all that good, but because Lynch didn't get much elevation and was probably somewhat exhausted after 20 minutes of brutality, could've easily resulted in Asuka getting sliced by the edge of a ladder or worse. By the time the end came, the audience was clearly unsure how to react. Its notable too that, despite the violence, there was no "This is Awesome" chant at any point - which may have been because so much of the match took place on the floor in front of the announce tables and not in the ring, where the live crowd could actually appreciate what the competitors were doing. When considering what to rate a match like this, though, I must admit that there is a part of me that does enjoy the queasy feeling that a match like this will give you. Is there something sickening about those squash matches the Steiners used to have where they took insane liberties and nearly paralyzed guys? Oh yeah...and they're also kinda great. What about the aforementioned Cactus Jack/Nasty Boys matches from 94'? There are moments in those matches where guys are being struck in the back of the head with chairs and shovels without any warning at all. What about the stiffness of Vader and Stan Hansen and the infamous Foley/Rock I Quit Match with the two dozen unprotected chair shots? If one is going to criticize the women for working "unsafely," it's equally wrong to speak highly or fondly of the men who did the same (or worse) in the 80s and 90s. Granted, if you've never popped for this kind of stuff and have always hated it, sure, snub your nose at the rest of us...but I'm willing to admit that matches like this, especially when you're not inundated with them (which we're not), can be thrilling and engaging in a way that highly-choreographed, overly rehearsed spotfests just aren't. This match did not seem rehearsed. It did not seem choreographed. It was wild and dangerous and we saw the real results of real danger. This match was Flair, Lynch, and the Kabuki Warriors showing how unhinged and violent they could get - and I, for one, was impressed and sickened and shocked and bought in to the tension and suspense. For better or worse, one of the few "must see" matches that the WWE produced this year - which is what I think is the best definition of a 4-star-or-higher match. (4/5)

I'm no fan of American imperialism, but like many entertainers who are/were against endless war, I tend to veer on the side that believes shows like Tribute to the Troops and USO tours can and should exist not so much to show the support for the war, but to show support for the people who are away from their families, serving our country. I know its corny, but its the old "Support the Soldier, Not the War" thing and, as I do have extended family in the military, I feel pretty comfortable saying that the troops on the ground are not living high on the hog and their families do make sacrifices and they don't all share the same "Nuke Em' All" worldview (though, obviously, like in any profession or working for any company, there's an undeniable pressure for some level of indoctrination of that company's tenets - for example, I'm a public school teacher and, over time, I've become pretty staunchly pro-union and pro-public education, two things that I definitely wouldn't have considered being important to me before entering the profession). That being said, I do hope that the WWE are able to bring the same level of performers and production to the troops this year when it is untelevised. That, to me, would be more telling and worthy of criticism if they don't. Supporting the troops by bringing them a fun holiday show shouldn't be a PR move.

Just saw this for the first time. Not really sure why - just kinda jumped out at me as something I'd never seen it when I saw it mentioned in an article, I guess. I watched the whole Bragging Rights 2009 show and was pleasantly surprised at how not bad it was. THE PROS - * He's not the first to do it in an Iron Man match, but Orton tapping immediately to the STF in the first 5 minutes. It sells the move as devastating effectively and "sets the table" for how this match is different than your typical match. * Cena getting color. * Orton sending Cena through a light wall and then trying to blow him up with friggin' pyro. Is it ridiculous? Cartoonish? Laughably outrageous? Yes, yes, and yes. But this is a Cena/Orton Falls Count Anywhere Iron Man Match, so, I'm not sure realism was ever going to be in the cards. * Orton hitting a hangman DDT onto the arena floor. * Orton trying to stall around minute 40 by making an exhausted Cena "chase" him to and from the ring. * Cena winning the crowd over with his comeback, which featured Cena sending Orton through the timekeeper area and hitting him with an Attitude Adjustment through a table. * The quality of production and camera work. The aforementioned light wall, pyro area, announcer table, and timekeeper wall can all be described as "set pieces" or props and sometimes these things just don't break the right way, or the camera misses the best angle, or the big spot is ruined by not being mic'd correctly or just not looking as devastating as it should. Here, every big spot was captured correctly, looked like the right level of violent, and made those big crash, boom, bang noises that you need to elicit a real "Ooooh" from the audience. THE CONS - * I'm not a fan of Iron Man Matches and 60 minutes is a long time to invest in any match, much less a John Cena/Randy Orton match - two guys who, if you've been watching wrestling for the past decade, you've probably seen wrestle at least a thousand times each. The match never gets slow or boring - but its really hard to call a 60-minute match "must see" unless it is basically flawless and features performers who are so captivating in a match filled with so much emotion that you're on the edge of your seat from beginning to end. That's a very high bar. The very nature of the stipulation makes this a tough sell as an "all-time classic" because, while there are lots and lots of great moments, its still quite a commitment to sit and watch an hour long match that... * Plays a lot like a superhero movie and features both guys doing, for better or worse, Themselves with a capital T. SuperCena is in full effect - selling and selling and selling for 20 minutes only to tie the score with an inside cradle and, later, no-sell the exhaustion of wrestling for 40 minutes by performing two Herculean shows of endurance and strength (carrying Orton on his shoulders up two stairs and then, after that, from the arena floor all the way into the ring and onto a table). Orton keeps the restholds to a minimum, but still plays the hits from beginning to end - lots of seething, lots of banging his arms and fists into the mat, RKOs out of nowhere, lots of frustration and crazy eyes. If you find either of these characters irritating, this match will bug the hell out of you because it is basically The Most Cena-ish Cena vs. The Most Orton-ish Orton and it goes on for a full hour. On my scale, a 4-star match is something I would recommend or consider "must watch." This is close...but not up to that level because, ultimately, its not a "must see" match and I don't think it is good enough to warrant devoting a full 60-minutes to watching unless you are huge fan of either guy.