DMJ

The first Gargano/Cole match was a 2-out-of-3 falls match that went 38 minutes and featured lots of finishers (including Fish & O'Reilly's) and lots of finisher kickouts. They basically did it all in this match. It was dizzying and jam-packed with crazy offense, much of which was arguably undersold. The second Gargano/Cole match was a 30-minute Ironman match that started with both guys suffering arm damage - and then proceeded to feature just about every move under the sun: Ushigoroshis, backstabbers, bicycle kicks, discuss clotheslines, topes, spears and, oh yes, there were still plenty of superkicks. Again, much of this was arguably undersold to get to the next breathtaking sequence. The finishing stretch was terrific - but, again, it was dizzying and jam-packed with crazy offense. This weekend, they wrestled in (essentially) a Three Stages of Hell match for 46 minutes. If you're counting at home, that's 114 minutes of action between two guys over the course of the past 3 Takeovers and all the matches, except for the last two falls (because one was no DQ and involved brawling in the crowd and the other was in the cage) looked and felt very much the same. Were the moves well-executed? Sure. Were there some slick counters and nasty-looking bumps? No doubt. But if you saw the first match, you saw the second, and you saw most of the third. You can only go through the alphabet of crazy moves so many times before it stops being impressive. In other words: Cole/Gargano 1 was indulgent. Cole/Gargano 2 was excessive. Cole/Gargano 3 was whatever the most extreme synonym of those words is.

I'd have to look back, but I thought this was one of the best WWE PPVs of the year. - DId this thing only go 3.5 hours? I don't watch the pre-shows and don't consider them part of the real show. 3.5 hours felt like the right amount of time. One more match added onto the main show would've hurt the overall presentation. I was expecting a Reigns/Bryan segment, but the show didn't suffer without it. In fact, one could argue that it benefitted from the slimmer runtime (especially compared to the slog that WrestleMania has become). - There were at least two matches I would consider for my annual Top 10 list of WWE Matches of the Year. I thought AJ/Ricochet was their best offering yet and could easily sneak on my list around 8-9. It was everything that Cole/Gargano wasn't - it didn't overstay its welcome, Ricochet's selling was awesome, AJ Styles wrestled as a heel instead of trying to wow the audience. Speaking of Ricochet's selling, I'd argue that him incorporating the damage to his knee into his offense made perfect sense and was terrific - I mean, what else is he gonna do? He's not a submission specialist. He's not going to mat wrestle. Instead, he does insane shit like one-legged springboards because he's that agile. I want to cheer for this guy! Even with a bum knee, he's still flying, and I never felt like he was taking me out of the match. Once he rallied, he got the same recovery powers afforded to every babyface since the dawn of time and that's okay too. Its guys like Gargano, Cole, and Rollins that bother me because their ignoring of damage is so obvious and blatant. If you can't see the difference in what Ricochet did in this match and what the aforementioned often do, then I don't know what to tell you. Trish/Charlotte was probably the best or 2nd best Trish match ever (I remember fawning over the WM23 match against Mickie James) and much of that has to do with Charlotte and the crowd. Since Becky's reign has been a bust, I think its fair to say that this was the best women's match we've seen since Mania (at least in terms of Network specials/PPVs, which is all I really watch). - The crowd was dead at times and I disliked the finish, but Kofi/Orton, before the final minute, had me hooked. So, so, so much better than Kofi/Ziggler or Kofi/Owens. - Whoever said Owens/Shane was the best possible version of that match nailed it. I was not excited about that match at all, but they kept me entertained. - Goldberg/Ziggler was also funner than expected. Ditto for Wyatt/Balor. To be honest, I didn't even like Wyatt's new entrance all that match - what did it for me was the exit. That was cool and different. - The main event was the best Rollins match I've seen in months, maybe longer. I loved the opening stretch with Rollins back-flipping his way out of the german suplexes and then Lesnar wisely just switching to non-release versions. As a Lesnar fan and a pretty vocal Rollins non-fan, I was hoping for a different finish, but oh well, the WWE made the "right decision" in the sense that someone needed to topple Lesnar and, because they didn't pull the trigger with Roman or Braun, they were basically out of options in 2019. Also, like at WrestleMania 31, it did seem like the crowd - which was 50/50 at the start - warmed up considerably to Rollins as the match went on (the same way that, at 31, even Reigns detractors probably would've been okay with him getting the W because it felt earned).

Yeah, I don’t think Gargano has been “turned on” - but I think he’s had bad luck. Obviously the Ciampa injuries meant that, because he was tethered to the guy, his own arc was going to effected. Then he has a great match against Andrade but because they still need him to tread water and get to a predetermined “moment” (Ciampa vs. Gargano for the title), they were forced to do convoluted shit - like turning him heel. Simultaneously, he got positioned to *always* put on 20+ minute matches on every Takeover, with his main event ones going even longer. Even for a guy as talented as him, that’s a recipe for overexposure. Diversity in match types would’ve went a long way in keeping him fresher. At least for me, the 100% certainty that his match tonight goes an hour is not intriguing, it’s a challenge to the viewer.

I know this is way off track now, but I'd be curious if someone were to do a real, thorough, legit survey if The Miz was more well known than Roman Reigns. Or if they'd be equal. I lean towards thinking The Miz is more famous/well known. The survey could be something where you show someone a picture of each and ask them to name them. Part of me thinks that anyone who could name Roman Reigns would be very, very likely (maybe even 99%) be able to name The Miz. It makes sense too because Roman Reigns is most famous for being a WWE Superstar. If you know Roman Reigns as a WWE Superstar, you probably know a whole bunch of WWE Superstars and The Miz has been around for a long time in many high-profile positions. But is the inverse true? You might laugh at The Marine or 12 Rounds or even wonder how people who don't watch WWE could possibly watch Miz and Mrs., but there are certainly people who, even if they don't watch these things, are at least exposed to them peripherally. And that would mean, even if they only know his name and his (often mugging) face, The Miz is more famous than Roman Reigns. To make another comparison, around 2007-08, I technically became aware of who Madea was without trying. It was just a character I'd see randomly on the cover of a DVD at the checkout counter or on a Redbox screen or in a commercial. At this point, Perry was not remotely in the mainstream and I'm not even sure the Madea films were theatrically released until a bit later (maybe 2009?. I wasn't a fan, I wasn't someone who regularly consumed "urban" media, I didn't have any interest in Tyler Perry or Madea, but over time, I (and millions of other uninterested people in America) became aware of it just because it had been on the periphery of the mainstream for so long. The Miz, from The Real World to Real World/Road Rules Challenge to Tough Enough to WWE TV to schlocky straight-to-DVD movies and back to another reality show has been on the periphery of the mainstream for what? 20 years now? So, yeah, I'm wagering that The Miz is more famous than Reigns too.

I disagree. If anything, them keeping Roman on TV every week, headlining PPVs, and doing WWE-centric media appearances makes it clear to me that they don't even want him to "surpass Cena" and become a more mainstream star. When a WWE guy becomes a mainstream star, in Vince's eyes, it means that they are going to leave the company or demand a limited schedule. If you check out the wikipedia page about WWE Studios, you might be as surprised as I was to learn that they're still putting out non-Marine movies, that one of them featured Seth Rollins, and that Roman Reigns did not appear in any of the live-action ones (I'm guessing he did do voiceover for the Jetsons/Scooby Doo/Flinstone crossover movies). The company clearly sees him as more valuable in-ring, touring, than on a movie set. I also don't think that the people at the top are so naive as to think anyone, especially Roman Reigns, in 2019, is going to touch Cena's level of popularity when you think about historical context. Cena debuted at a time when RAW and SD were consistently drawing ratings that the WWE would dream of getting today, with ratings still in the 3s and 4s through the first decade of the 2000s. As the company expanded into more global markets, Cena was the company face (and a much more kid-friendly one than Reigns ever was or will be).

I totally agree that Rollins as "default top babyface" after Reigns had to take medical leave was an unfortunate thing - but, again, the other main issue is that, going as far back as 2015, it was clear The Shield were going to be the top 3 pushed guys and a number of really hot acts - from Braun to Finn Balor to even The Miz's great heel work in 2017 (?) - were kind of unappreciated. I'd also posit that Samoa Joe showed some life in that time, though, again, his booking has been all over the place (the feud with Lesnar, for example, was very well-received). There was also Rusev Day. There was also John Cena essentially stuck in WWE Purgatory for the past two Manias and, in 2018 at least, he was actually around and on TV for all of the Mania build. This one is a stretch but I'd also throw out Big E's name. I think if you had orchested a situation where you had Brock Lesnar staring face-to-face with Big E, although the height difference would be noticeable, a live crowd would lose their shit at those two dudes - and, though its diminished now - New Day was still plenty over in 2017/2018. Now, I don't think Samoa Joe or Rusev or Braun or heel Miz could be more successful than Rollins in the role that Rollins is playing as the fighting babyface World Champion who is main eventing the show every week for months at a time. Maybe Finn or E could pull it off. But any of the other guys listed could've worked in a slightly different - daresay more traditional - World Champion role for a couple of months. I'm not a huge fan of Kofi Kingston's post-Mania run, but at the very least, him being World Champion still feels fresh and different. That's something you can't say for Rollins (or Reigns) in 2019. At least Lesnar, who I really hope wins on Sunday, still has somewhat of an aura and mystique in my eyes.

On the topic of SummerSlam, it seems there is total disarray and disorganization backstage. Vince booking everything on a complete whim with no foresight. From what I understand, SummerSlam was a near sell out months ago due to "the brand" while the B-level Network struggles to sell tickets. (I looked it up and it was reported in the Observer that it sold out all the way back in March) With the show already sold out, what was the point of throwing a rushed Goldberg squash onto this card? Why not save that appearance for a show 2 months from now and actually build him up to take on a real, top level guy? Or have him wrestle on a show that doesn't feature Brock? And its not just the Goldberg match. The Trish/Charlotte match could've been something - except Charlotte has basically been a non-factor since WrestleMania so that match is cold too. When did Trish/Charlotte get pencilled in? If it was planned back in May or June, why not build up to it starting then? What else was Charlotte even doing? I think the match would've been absolute shit, but one could argue that the top heel in the women's division, in August 2019, is Lacey Evans and that is who Trish should be coming back to face. I'm really hoping that they save the reveal of Roman's attacker till SummerSlam itself as, even with how hokey this storyline has been, I still think this feud has legs (if it is Bryan, in fact, who is revealed as the attacker). But rushing the reveal tonight and then throwing Bryan/Roman onto a card that is already so loaded would be such a waste.

Hate to be that guy, but I think last week's weekly WWE thread "devolved" into this exact same conversation. There were some great, eloquently-worded takes on it in last week's thread (and I'm not just tooting my own horn), but I could see every weekly thread turning into this for the foreseeable future. Its just too fun to dunk on the guy. Maybe we should just make some sort of catch-all thread with a name like "The Seth Rollins UnAppreciation Thread"?

Nailed it. But do you think the reason they didn't/don't go for that sort of approach is because, in Vince or Kevin Dunn's eyes, this would put the focus too much on the interviewer and not on Roman? In the shot you describe, the majority of the screen time is on the interviewer. The way they shot it, the camera is following Reigns for a quarter mile before anything actually happens. Your way of shooting it is infinitely better in every way, but I can see Kevin Dunn thinking the star of the scene is Roman Reigns so the camera should be on him from the beginning. I'm not opposed to the angle, but as I wrote above, to me, the pay-off will decide whether it was good or not. If it turns out to be Samoa Joe, it'd be idiotic to me. If it turns out to be Buddy Murphy, I'd probably like it - but I'd still be skeptical about where it goes next. I'd be okay with it being someone like Balor, a babyface that needs freshening up, though I'm not sure it' d be a good idea long-term. If it turns out to be Rikishi (who is doing it for The Rock), I'd be surprised, but okay with it. If it turns out to be Jason Statham in his Owen Shaw character from the Fast and Furious franchise and it is all a tie-in to Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw, I'm rethinking every negative thing I've said about the WWE this year. So, yeah, the pay-off is the most important to me.

- I'm hoping its not Joe, but only because, to me, if you're going to do a "mystery attacker" angle, the attacker should have a reason they want to be anonymous. If Joe wanted to attack Reigns, he would just do it - the same way he's attacked Mysterio or Kofi or whoever else. It would make more sense for the mystery attacker to want Reigns out of the picture, but not want to give up their identity because it would be bad for them. For example, The Usos might be jealous of Reigns so they'd want to attack him - but they wouldn't want anyone to know because they want to stay popular and be heroes and sell tee-shirts, yadda, yadda. Basically, the mystery attacker has to be a babyface because, if it were a heel, why would they go the extra step to protect their identity? - I was really, really hoping when Bryan first brought up his big announcement at Extreme Rules that they were building towards Bryan/Taker. I'm far from a Taker fan in 2019, but I figured, if you're going to have Taker wrestle at SummerSlam (which was rumored), Bryan is easily the best candidate. It does not seem like that's where this is going, but who knows?

I would agree - but I'm not sure that everyone would agree. I went to my own database to double-check and this rang true by my own ratings. Going back to 2014 or so, Reigns had matches against Bryan, Sheamus, AJ Styles, Lesnar (WM31), and Strowman that I really liked and put in the category of Potential MOTY/Worth Watching. On top of that, he had some multi-mans that I put into that same category (4-stars on my scale, which only goes to 5 and I only do half-stars, no quarters - for reference, a 4.5 or 5-star match would be Gargano/Almas, Bret Hart/Austin at WM13, Flair/Steamboat, all time classics, etc.). Looking at my database, Rollins' only 4-star singles matches are against Roman Reigns, occurred in 2014/15 against Ambrose - when that feud was red hot and seemed very fresh- or were multi-mans (which often included Reigns). So, yeah, the "super worker" tag just doesn't really hold up to scrutiny if you look at the resume.* * Sidenote - Whereas, no matter how much people hate it, Cena or a Charlotte Flair have considerable claims to being WWE GOATs in their respective divisions.

Just to pile on, I think there's also been backlash against Seth in the IWC, notably in places like r/SquaredCircle, because, for a time, there was a feeling that he was having great matches and had proven to be a top 5 in-ring talent. Over time, though, it became clear that this too was an illusion and that he really doesn't have this great resume. In fact, in 2018-19, he had a bunch of straight-up clunkers (most infamously the Ironman Match with Ziggler and the feud with Ambrose). In tags with Ambrose and during his IC title reign, Rollins would routinely get 4+-star reviews by Meltzer, but very few of those matches were truly memorable. Before then, you have some good matches with Cena - but far from Cena's best - and some good stipulation matches with Ambrose featuring the same spots we'd seen a dozen times before. Then you've got the Sheild matches, which were always fun, but its not like any one worker can "claim" those. As a singles star, his resume is actually pretty thin - especially compared to other top guys. His list of great, memorable singles matches definitely pales in comparison to Cena, Lesnar, Bryan, and AJ. I don't know if its even all that better than Reigns'. So, if you add that to him being an ass on Twitter, that time he dated a Nazi, and the fact that his in-ring work can be picked apart with ease, you have all the makings for a backlash against the guy.

Here's what I think might've happened: When you go back into the app (I've got mine on my Roku), it will look like you are "in," but when you actually go to select a show, it will ask you to sign in. After signing in, your Watchlist and Continue Watching lists should appear on the Home screen. I had heard that every current subscriber had to re-sign in, so I was surprised when I went into the app and I didn't need to. Then, when I tried to watch something, I realized I was locked out. I'm guessing this is because, from what I heard, there is now going to be a free tier so, for those users, they won't even need to sign it at all. EDIT - I've never used the Watchlist as I couldn't seem to get it to work right, but I was glad my Continue Watching was still there.

I know its Pro Wrestling Only around here, but as someone who made a mistake in my life involving driving while I was intoxicated, I always just want to note that getting a DUI is a terrible, terrible thing and the Usos (and myself) and everyone else who has ever had a DUI without hurting/killing somebody (or ourselves) are very, very lucky that our actions did not result in the worst possible consequences. But I'm also glad that my actions did not immediately cause me to lose my job or, if I had children, the ability to remain a parent. The mistake I made was and will be the only time I ever make that mistake. In the 4 years since I got a DUI, I haven't drank a single beer and gotten behind the wheel. No more "just one after work" Happy Hour engagements. Using Uber/Lyft every single time you drink away from home is way cheaper than a DUI, I can assure everyone. It was an absolutely life-changing, incredibly embarrassing experience for me that I think about every day. Many people I talked to at the required meetings and community service sessions were on their 2nd or 3rd or 4th DUI. It was mind-boggling. My DUI experience had been so shameful that I couldn't imagine how anyone could risk having it happen again. I learned not to judge those people too harshly though, because, in some cases, they were in really, really dark places in their addiction and were still there as we picked up trash on the side of the road. So, while I don't think individuals should lose their job for DUI arrests (especially first offenses), I do think the WWE should be asking the Usos an important question about why this seems to be happening to them again and again (1 DUI for each brother + Jimmy's arrest in February for a drunken incident in Detroit) and why literally escaping death, a manslaughter, or murder charge hasn't been enough for them to rethink their alcohol use. I'm no teetotaler and even after my DUI I knew that promising my family complete abstinence was unrealistic, but I damn sure knew that there were things I could actively do to make sure I never put anyone else in harm when I decided to use alcohol. Sorry - if a mod wants to delete this, I totally understand if its not on-topic enough. Just felt like sharing as someone who got a DUI.

I've read that the plan is to put NXT on FS1 on Wednesdays. The move clearly being made to pull viewers from AEW. The interesting part of that, to me, is that even with TNT being the bigger channel and NXT being the "developmental league," Vince won't be happy with just pulling viewers from AEW - he is so competitive that he'll want NXT to beat AEW in the ratings eventually. And that means only one thing... Shane vs. Roman for the NXT Championship on the first ever NXT Reunion show. I for one can't wait for NXT Legends like Baron Corbin, Mojo Rawley, and the Ascension to show these young nobodies who the real stars are!

I'll probably be in the minority, but Trish/Charlotte is one of the few matches I'm looking forward to. At least its something we haven't seen before. I'm also somewhat eager to see Orton do the job for Kofi. Bayley/Ember will probably get under 10 minutes, but that may not be a bad thing. Again, I'm probably in the minority but I'm still a Bayley fan. And, maybe I'm just being super optimistic, but I think Lesnar is leaving with the title and because he generally doesn't win in screwy fashion, him beating Seth clean is going to be really, really pleasing in a schadenfreude sense. Like, I just love Rollins claiming to be the Best Wrestler Alive, arguing that the fans are disrespectful when they criticize the WWE's writing/booking, and talking about how Ambrose "took food of my table" only for him to lose here and know that, like Reigns and Ambrose had to (sadly) find out, this is Brock's company until he decides he doesn't want it anymore and Vince is perfectly happy with that. I'm also just a Lesnar fan.

Flipping through the channels and RAW is on USA right now. How long has USA been replaying RAW on Tuesdays from 5-8?

Agreed. His commentary during the HHH/Batista match at Mania was noticeably bad. I actually liked that match way more than most people here too, so its not like I think Michaels would've been better if he was calling a better match.

Just finished the show this morning so I thought I'd add some notes/thoughts... - What happened to Philly? I really expected a more lively crowd, the kind of audience that takes a "so-so" show and pushes it into being something special. Instead, it felt like the audience just didn't care about anything, totally indifferent to the positives and the negatives. I was expecting them to really shit on the main event and the crowd certainly wasn't into it...but they weren't into much of anything. Even Lesnar's cash-in, after the initial pop, got a somewhat muted response (despite loud "We Want Lesnar" chants during the two main events). - Black/Cesaro was a great match - - with no story behind it aside from Cesaro being on a 3-week hot streak and Black wanting someone to "knock on his door." Could you imagine if Cesaro had been on a roll for 2-3 months? If Black had been dispatching fools left and right? If this was actually a "collision course" type match between two guys that had been built up to the point where people actually wondered who would win/lose? I really love Cesaro and like Black and liked this match...but this was a "Good Match For Good Match's Sake" match and that is never going to be my favorite version of pro-wrestling. - The Usos unexplained, lazy face turn hasn't yielded anything fresh out of them and The Revival, as good as they are/might be, are currently enjoying one of the all-time worst tag title reigns in company history. Like, if you listed all the WWE Tag Team Champions over the years, where would they rank? Surely they'd be above teams like Cade & Murdoch and The Bashams...but if you ignore the excellence of their NXT run, have they even surpassed a team like Kendrick & London? Or, in terms of overness, La Resistance? A Cold Babyface Team vs. Neutered Heel Team can kill themselves delivering a great match, but the result is still going to be a nothing match. - I'd care about Joe and "bite" more on his matches if he actually had a history of ever winning the big one. But he doesn't. So I don't. Imagine if they'd actually let him beat AJ for the title a few years back or, even crazier thought, put Lesnar to sleep. He has no credibility. - Last month, Ziggler was challenging for the WWE Championship. This month he gets squashed in under 30 seconds. I'm not saying Ziggler deserves better - but is it too much to ask for some consistency? The quality control aspect of Vince's booking has absolutely never been worse. I know its a different era, but could you imagine Triple H or Kurt Angle failing to beat The Rock or Austin for the WWE Championship on a PPV in 99' and then, a month later, doing a 5-second job to Val Venis? Owens is a world-beater now? How? When did that happen? Dude just lost to Kofi clean a few months ago. Ziggler jobbing to Braun makes sense. Ziggler jobbing to Brock after 1 F5 would make sense. Even Reigns catching him with a spear and a quick pin would make sense. But Owens is gonna start squashing people now? With a tired old neckbreaker? FFS. On the positive side, I actually dug the SmackDown Tag Match, the SmackDown Women's Title Match, AJ/Ricochet, and Braun/Lashley a good deal, so its not like I just watched the show to "hate watch" it. There are things I did enjoy.

I read the rumors about Taker/Drew. Good god, why? I mean, if Drew had defeated Rollins consistently in the fall, then Reigns consistently after that, I could see it. But Drew McIntyre is a Dino Bravo-level heel. Even Taker/Reigns II feels senseless considering Reigns defeated him at Mania a couple years back. I'd still prefer that over Taker/Drew, but not by much. I'm not sure there is a Taker match I'd be super interested in seeing - but if I had my pick, it'd definitely be Daniel Bryan. Bryan has proven he can carry just about anyone to a good match (Big Cass) and I'd love to hear him go off on The Deadman just being a "marketing tool" to sell dolls and t-shirts, etc.

I was actually just thinking about this in the bathroom (full disclosure: I keep my copy of Death of WCW in there and was reading the section about how promoters don't know when to put their new big star over their old one.) My thought was: WWE has had multiple opportunities to do a big "passing the torch"/"dream" matches to make the next big superstar (or in the case of Sting/Taker, just do it to do it). They did it at WrestleMania VI (and, arguably, WrestleMania III, though, I think that one is somewhat debatable as Hogan was already "The Man" in alot of ways). But really, for the most part, when those opportunities have come up in recent times and even in the 90s, Vince has been very, very gun shy. They couldn't figure out how to do Brock/Austin (when the easy answer was that Austin was willing to do it if it was promoted as a big match). They never capitalized on a Flair/Hogan dream match despite WCW doing their biggest PPV buyrates to that time when they had a chance in 94'. Speaking of 94', they didn't have Hart beat Flair or Hogan on TV or PPV (in fact, while Flair putting over Hennig on RAW was great, in hindsight, I think one could argue that Bret should've got that rub). Bringing that up to the current day, I think Reigns not holding a clean victory over Brock Lesnar is INSANITY. In fact, that WrestleMania 34 loss, to me, is almost Starrcade 97' level of booking ineptitude. They also never really did a full Cena/Reigns program and now all we can hope for is an "After The Fact" rivalry much like what Cena and The Rock did. The Rock didn't pass the torch - Cena was already at the top and The Rock hadn't been a WWE performer in half a decade. Imagine Cena coming back in 2020 to put over Rollins or Reigns - I mean, it's not really "passing the torch" when you willfully put it down and retired 2 years earlier. Really, only Austin beating Michaels, Brock going over The Rock at SummerSlam, and Michaels beating Bret at WrestleMania 12 strike me as true "passing the torch" moments where the victory felt like it happened when the loser was still at their peak and the victor was a rising star who then became the focal point. I guess Batista beating HHH and Cena beating JBL in 05' (and then Cena beating HHH in 06') kinda counts, but do seem lesser in hindsight. Also in that "lesser" camp would Benoit, Guerrero, CM Punk, Daniel Bryan, etc....all had huge victories and were very popular, but the WWE never really seemed to go "all the way" with promoting them as the new face of the company. Which, to bring me back to my first point, is why WWE Reimagined is kind of a silly concept. Its not that the WWE couldn't have run some of these dream matches (Taker/Sting, Flair/Hogan, Hart/Hogan, Cena/Taker, a true Cena/Reigns program), its that they didn't. And when they did, like the multiple Reigns/Lesnar matches and the first Rock/Cena Mania match, they somehow opted to go with The Last Big Thing beating The New Big Thing.

^ Absolutely. I also interpreted Big E (and Xavier and Kofi's) comments about not wanting to be split up a little differently. I think what they mean is that, in wrestling, you have guys turning on each other all the time - its pretty much the end of every tag team or stable - but they want to be one of the exceptions. I don't think any of them are particularly against stronger singles pushes, just, if the way to get there for Big E is for him to turn on Kofi and become a generic heel and do a jealousy angle, he'd rather continue to play a role he enjoys and that has yielded him the biggest success of his career. On a separate note, anybody else read about Fox wanting Trump to be on SD? I'm not sure if it was just clickbait or its coming from a reliable source or whatever. I'm also not super up-to-date on who is in charge of Fox Broadcasting vs. Fox News Corp. vs. Fox Sports in regards to the political motive. I always assumed Vince wanted Trump to appear again while he was President or running for office (I was genuinely surprised he wasn't at any of the past 3 Manias), but that someone, somehow, convinced him that having The Donald around would be more trouble than it was worth. I'm also not certain Trump would even do such an appearance - though, I guess they could entice him with the promise of Big Macs and some sort of golden shower show? The McMahon/Trump friendship is too well known for this to be controversial or to inspire fans to boycott or anything like that, but I still think the optics would be negative for both sides. Trump appearing on a "rasslin' show" is just more fodder that points to him being "low class" and the WWE, as a company, going "all in" and basically endorsing Trump is going to put their talent in a really awkward social media/Twitter position of having to defend "grab em' by the pussy" (I wonder what The Man thinks of that), border detention centers, refusing to pay respect to John McCain, calling Mexico a "shithole country", friendship with Putin, continued attacks on Obama and his citizenship, etc. Aside from Vince, I'm guessing Lars Sullivan is one of the few guys backstage who would want to have his picture taken next to Trump right now. (Not to say there aren't other Trumpsters backstage, just that being affiliated with the guy is undeniably a divisive move when you're a celebrity/athlete - easier to just say out of it, which is what the WWE should do.)

- Actually watched more of Raw than usual based on the hype about Heyman coming in as the "Executive Producer" or whatever his title is now. I still think the show has fundamental flaws that nobody can fix. Namely, the 3 hour running time. As good as this show was - and there were some parts that were entertaining and felt fresh - I still found myself fast-forwarding through most of it. Granted, had that been an option in the late 90s, I'm guessing I would've fast-forwarded through much of those shows too. I mean, The Godfather and Steve Blackman seem like a great guys and all, but if I could've got my fix of Steve Austin and The Rock without sitting through their matches, I would've been just as happy. - What was with the "Hot Asian Wife" thing? Super creepy and I'm glad (hoping) it will be dropped. Its 2019 - a wrestler feuding with another wrestler for the right to rape their wife is gross. - On the flip side, I liked the Maria angle (or at least the start of it). Its trashy, for sure, but the stark difference is that in the "Hot Asian Wife" angle, the nameless wife has no agency. They are a prize to be gambled and won. The Maria angle has given a talented, wasted non-wrestler a new role to play, albeit a very crass one, and a way to get heat. I'm hoping they don't go too too far into the cuckold thing - in fact, having put the pedal on the gas this week I'm hoping they cruise for awhile and just make this about Mike wanting to "prove he's a man" by winning wrestling matches while Maria berates him - but I could just as easily see this devolving into something really putrid and gross (for example, "Twist: Mike likes being cuckolded" or "Twist: The father is a black wrestler because, well, you know what they say, pal!") - Liked the opening angle. Didn't like the Michael Cole "serious" voice and other wrestlers sending their thoughts and prayers to "Bobby and Braun." It was a wrestling angle on a wrestling show. The actual spot and the production around it was excellent (loved the high camera angle looking down), but once they came from the break, it should've been time for another match. Keep the show moving. I know, I know, they have 3 hours to fill so they need to fill it with replays and the commentators expressing their sadness, blah blah...but the show does seem to lack "urgency" and even after a well-produced, great moment, a good quality TV show should be ready to keep you glued to your seat for the next thing. The next thing was a New Day/Viking Raiders match. Not exactly the hottest two acts I can think of right now (and I say this as a fan of both). - Ricochet/Styles is already a more interesting feud to me than Rollins/Corbin ever was. Speaking of Rollins, yeah, the stuff with Becky was cringe-inducing. Hopefully Heyman is going to wrap up this entire storyline at Extreme Rules and move them away from each other. Becky Lynch is supposed to be this cool character but I'm far more interested in the Bliss/Nikki Cross storyline right now. I think Becky could still carry a good feud, it is such a shame that she has been sandbagged with Lacey Evans and we haven't seen her mix it up with any of the more interesting women on the roster. There really is potential for good, character-based feuds there that they don't even seem to want to try at all. I really, really pray this isn't building to a Andrade & Charlotte feud (again, I say this as a fan of both, just not interested in seeing Rollins & Becky's real-life romance become the basis of storylines).

I haven't been keeping on everything AEW but is the expectation that they will be doing non-televised house shows? Because that's part of the reason NXT tickets might have went from strongly in-demand to lesser. At first, there was that novelty of seeing the NXT roster in your own hometown - but like comparing house shows to TV tapings, once it becomes clear that what you're seeing is now just a touring show, it does make it less "must see." Even SummerSlam is supposedly doing just fine selling tickets right now while Extreme Rules isn't. The audience isn't stupid. SummerSlam is a "big show" and everything else, including TV tapings nowadays, are seen as skippable. Also, NXT does, over time, lose its biggest stars. When the first NXT show came to Cleveland (2015, I believe, but it could've been earlier), the card featured Hideo Itami, a Banks/Flair/Bayley/Bliss fourway, Cesaro vs. Balor, and Kevin Owens vs. Neville. Cleveland has a strong indie wrestling base (AIW does great attendance for its big shows for awhile), but I'm not sure today's NXT roster would do as well. I could be way wrong, but I've never viewed Adam Cole or Matt Riddle as being "indie draws" the way Balor and Owens were. I know the last time NXT was here, Ricochet and Gargano (Cleveland's own) were heavily featured in the print ads, but even Ricochet seems like a step down from years past when you might see someone like Nakamura.

He's obviously correct, but... Heyman is kind of known for using "fresh" talent and reinvigorating old ones. Even during that initial ECW revival, it wasn't like he was pushing The Sandman as the champion. He revitalized Big Show, was attempting to revitalize Test and Hardcore Holly, and was clearly building up CM Punk and at least attempting to get Kevin Thorne and Mike Knox over. Plus, on RAW currently, most of the main eventers are under the age of 35. Rollins, Reigns, Corbin, McIntyre...they're not exactly "the old guard." As for Bischoff, Tyler Breeze's point rings truer. Bischoff is kind of infamous for not knowing when or how to elevate the young talent he had. Plus, the TNA stint was kind of also infamous for regurgitating old storylines (see "The Band"). But, at the same time, Bischoff's handling of the cruiserweight division and foreign talent in 95'-96' was way better than ANYTHING the WWE has ever done in that department. I mean, has the WWE successfully built a cruiserweight from the ground-up that got over as much as even Billy Kidman did? They've spent the last 20 years trying to find The Next Rey Mysterio and they haven't even figured out how to get a masked wrestler as over as La Parka was in 97'.