DMJ

I think your point is really valid, though I also think that many fans complaining about this show won't be watching. I'd love to see the numbers, but my thought is that the GRR show, the Australian show, and this show do worse than the typical PPV. These shows have been endless slogs featuring mostly recycled matches and while live crowds love seeing guys like HHH, Shawn Michaels, and Taker, I'm not convinced that they "move the needle" on The Network in 2018. I mean, when all was said and done, wasn't it somewhat confirmed that Brock Lesnar wasn't the long-term game-changer they thought he'd be? And Triple H is? I don't buy it. The sad part is that it doesn't matter if 0 Network subscribers watch this show. This show has already netted the WWE enough money that even if only 10% of subscribers view it in whole or even in part, its irrelevant.

Sadly/unfortunately, this is actually how they should've been doing it all along. Like how Beyonce and Mariah Carey performed for the Qaddafis. If you're going to perform for ruthless dictators around the globe for huge, huge paychecks, try your best to do it in relative secrecy. The WWE have unwisely treated these shows as WrestleMania-level spectacles and promoted the hell out of their deal with the Saudis when, if they' had not gone out of their way to make these shows a big deal and treated them like an MSG house show, for example, they wouldn't be in the position they're in now.

That would be very cool, but I, unfortunately, understand the bad position the company put the roster in and don't necessarily hold them super accountable. Refusing to do the show will piss of the boss(es), maybe cost them their livelihood, and while there used to be at least a modicum of hope that one could overcome the bosses' personal dislike by getting over with the live crowds in a grassroots fashion, those days are gone. On the list of people/groups one needs to be over with to keep their job, the general American audience isn't even in the top 5. That point's been made in multiple other threads here. That's why my anger is being directed towards Shawn Michaels and I would really like to see that anger gather steam among other fans too. Like the McMahons, at least with Kane we've known this dude was a "me first" Libertarian who doesn't necessarily see the problems (human rights violations) in certain Middle East countries as something the US should be entangled in. "If corporations, like the WWE, do business there, its their right and choice," he'd likely say. So, with Kane, we can call him a lot of things but not necessarily a hypocrite. Michaels, on the other hand, wrote a whole book about his faith and values, but is showing his true colors here. Fuck that dude.

As a kid, I hated Shawn Michaels so I was vehemently pro-Bret after Montreal. Even as late as 2010, I enjoyed (often drunkenly) trying to chant "You Screwed Bret" chants when I was at shows in Cleveland as most other fans - young and old - looked at me like I was an idiot (which I was). Though, by that point, most of the hate had really subsided and I just found it funny because Michaels had really become this lovable "young grandpa" figure in WWE canon. So, I know its schadenfreuden-esque, but part of me hopes that Shawn Michaels is the one that gets the most shit for being in Saudi Arabia. We've known the McMahons (and Triple H) have no scruples and only care about the bottom line and the brand. Michaels, though? He's ending his retirement for this. He signed a new contract for this. He made a choice that he would sooner wrestle in Saudi Arabia for, say, a million dollars than wrestle at a WrestleMania for a hundred thousand. So, yeah, I'm fully behind him getting met with "You Sold Out" or, if someone more clever than me can come up with something involving the words "blood money" or "Kashoggi," that'd be great too. What will be interesting is that as I wrote above, the McMahons care about two things - the bottom line and the brand (remember Steph saying "Philanthropy is the future of PR") - but here they have a Sophie's Choice decision to make. That Saudi money is BIG and the contract goes for 10 years, but their brand could take a major hit here and potentially in the future. And we haven't brought up the McMahons' longtime friend in chief.....

Here's what I wrote about Alicia Fox in 2016... "Alicia Fox's Scissors Kick continues to be one of my favorite moves in the WWE as, no matter how many times she delivers the thing, it almost always looks like her opponent is not expecting it and she's delivering it with utter recklessness - it is just beautiful in its sloppiness like a JBL clothesline." And in 2014... "I’ve been a big fan of Fox since her character took off a few weeks ago and I've always enjoyed her matches – not because she is a great worker, but largely because, especially in her first years, she was so sloppy it looked like she was legit hurting her opponents. This adds a level of danger to her matches that is rare in the divas division, kinda like when Vader would be potatoing dudes in early 90’s WCW. Fox has tightened up her in-ring skills since then, but she also just looks much more comfortable too, her natural charisma no longer hidden behind insecurity and botched scissor kicks." I think I was a bit harsh when I kept using the word "sloppiness," which I regret, but also, I'm not sure what other word one could use to describe why she is fun to watch. I mean, how else would one describe the Steiners or Nasties in the early 90s? Or the aforementioned JBL Clothesline? And unlike those dudes, who seemed to almost be malicious with their treatment of opponents (especially jobbers in the case of Steiners and ECW alumni in JBL's case), I don't think Fox's physicality comes from a bad place as much as someone (rightfully) instilled in her that "laying your shit in" isn't a bad thing. I could be way off too, but even for how vicious some of Fox's scissor kicks looked in the past, I'm not sure she's ever knocked anyone unconscious like Brie did a few weeks ago. So, yeah, Alicia Fox is a pretty underrated performer and I'm glad someone in the office recognized that before many of us came around to seeing it.

So, I don't follow UFC, but based on the little bit of news coming out of Saturday night, sounds like some real shit went down. Can someone clue me in what *really* happened? Like, why would the guy who won the fight then attack his opponent's coach? And then for his goons to come into the octagon and sucker punch McGregor too? Any chance this whole thing was a work? I'm just super curious because this seems like a pro-wrestling angle where the evil heel Russian defeated the babyface (only McGregor is not really what I'd call a babyface before this), but in order to build up to a rematch and make McGregor a sympathetic figure with a reason to get a rematch, they had to have the Russians and his crew attack a defenseless coach (a Jose Lothario in 96' figure?) and then have his henchmen prevent McGregor from making the save with a sneak attack. Is UFC about to have its for "unsanctioned" match or what?

I'm curious how all this will play out as RAW and SD ratings continue to decline and look like they'll be heading in the sub-2 million range by the end of 2018. Obviously, January-to-April is WrestleMania season and ratings tend to pick up then. What's interesting to me (and why I'm bumping this thread) are the following thoughts/questions: - The highly-advertised and politically controversial Last Man Standing returned to FOX last week and did a monster rating, the highest a FOX comedy has had in years with some 8 million viewers tuning in. When the show was originally cancelled from ABC, Tim Allen openly criticized ABC for sabotaging the show by moving its airtime and argued that Friday night is a "death slot," believing his show deserved a better night. I'm not sure how all this will play out in 2019. SmackDown seems locked-in for Friday nights based on the press releases and Last Man Standing (if the ratings hold) should be shuffled around to anchor another night...but its a little bit of a gamble. If Last Man Standing ends up average 5-6 million viewers on Fridays this year, but falls to the 3-4 range on a Wednesday, that's a problem (and one Tim Allen may be particularly vocal about). SmackDown is lucky to get 2.25 million viewers every week. On a cutthroat network like Fox, how will this all shake-out? - And, also, how long will a sub-2.5 million viewership SD last on Fox? Right now, it seems that Fox is going to put all their promotional force behind the show and that is LOTS of promotion...but what if that doesn't give it the nudge to that 3-4 million range that Fox is likely expecting/hoping? Would that mean a move to FS1? If it does transition on Fox Sports, it will undoubtedly be the highest rated regular program on that network, but like their years on SyFy and UPN/CW, it doesn't exactly come with the prestige of being on FOX.

Oh, I'd wholeheartedly agree that the crowd's booing was all about Elias' Sonics comment and nothing else. I just also, personally, liked Owens' lines/delivery about them being "great guys" (though I think that nonchalant dickish comments like that are better served by pre-taped, edited videos rather than in front of the live crowd).

I don't watch the show, so I didn't see it live - here's the link for anyone else who missed it: I thought people were exaggerating when they talked about this segment getting "nuclear heat," but, really, I'm not sure the WWE has intentionally (or even unintentionally) got a negative response that went this long and got this loud in years. I also gotta say, as tired as I am of Kevin Owens in the ring, I still think he can be money on the mic. (Bonus point for Renee Young's Detlef Shrempf reference!)

Watch this become the storyline for an episode of Total Bellas/Total Divas next season.

I'm interested in Nitro and will probably buy it (or try to get it through the library), but am curious how it compares to Death of WCW. My fear is that I'm going to read 500+ pages of information that I've already read and reread and reread through Death of WCW. Does it offer new insights? New sources of info? A different take on what went wrong and right?

Just finished viewing... - Thought Hardy/Orton was a fun opener. I'm usually very bored by these two, so with the stipulation, lots of chair shots, that crazy screwdriver thing, it made for a match that wasn't a classic or anything, but at least entertaining. Its the kind of match I think a casual fan would enjoy and not be bored by and I kinda dig that more than the spot-heavy, super athletic matches we get on RAW from guys like Rollins and Balor every week. - Thought Joe/AJ was strong and hard-hitting. Someone mentioned that AJ is "past his prime" somewhere in this thread and I just don't see it. To me, his execution is still remarkable, his bumping is great, his offense looks punishing. I'm not knowledgeable about wrestling outside of WWE so I know he's probably not a Top 10 worker in the world, but if the WWE is "fast food" wrestling, AJ Styles is the fucking In-n-Out Double-Double (or whatever you think the best fast food burger is). I also don't mind that Joe's "lost a step." In the WWE, it actually means his matches aren't just thrown together go-go-go and guess what else? He still hits hard as fuck, looks menacing, and even when he's cutting corny promos, has a great sneer (I'm also not as down on the children's story stuff, though its obviously not all-time great work from the writing team). The problem with this match was the last 3 seconds. Just a bizarre way to go for a feud like this and I don't think the babyface should be tapping out and retaining the title on a "the ref didn't see it" technicality. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Joe and AJ laid their shit in extra tough and worked extra hard (at least to my eyes) because they knew the finish wasn't strong. - What else can be said about Lynch/Charlotte? Yet another case of WWE having an act that is immensely popular, on the verge of selling a ton of merch (the right design and I'm buying), and super dependable in the ring and yet they just don't want to steer into it. Even shutting down Charlotte for a post-match handshake made me (and the live crowd) like her more. It was the "Austin" thing to do. Maybe that's the long game they're playing? But, again, if so, you don't have to be so subtle anymore. Tell Lynch to keep being this same badass character, tell Flair to keep being her same character, and tell the announcers to acknowledge the audience shifting to Lynch's side. That's kinda all they did with Austin IIRC. Its not a matter of changing the characters or their motivations - its a matter of presentation to me. The crowd's already decided "their guy." - Liked most of the main event, didn't like the run-ins, wasn't amused by the table spot, and scratched my head at Lesnar's return. A month ago, the audience was upset because Lesnar wasn't on TV enough, wasn't defending his title, etc., etc., but a month later, he comes back to a huge ovation and "Suplex City" chant because *big surprise* he's still a mega-star and neither Reigns or Braun are. Vince did a masterful job getting the crowd to cheer Reigns' victory at SummerSlam (by tricking the live audience into thinking he was going to get cashed-in on by Braun) but this felt like the opposite. Was it a big surprise? Absolutely....but it also sorta re-inserted Lesnar into the fray as the badass babyface. I don't know about anyone else, but after the asskicking he gave on Sunday, I kinda want to see him win the belt back. I mean, why not, right? Reigns and Braun were main eventing PPVs when Lesnar was champion and not around, so what would be different? As we've debated elsewhere, if nothing matters anymore, why not put the title on Lesnar for another year? By the sound of the crowd, they were happy to see him. I thought it was cool. Can I give this sort of booking a new name? Michael Bay Wrestling. Michael Bay Wrestling is big explosions (shocking events), huge numbers of casualties, nonsensical superheroic feats, and, above all else, no actual human emotion, gravity, and 5 minutes after viewing, you won't remember a single scene let alone the whole plot. Sunday's main event was Michael Bay Wrestling. Strowman and Reigns had a HIAC match. I think (?) it was okay for the first 10 minutes. Then two guys that weren't in the match took a huge bump. Then (shocker) another huge star came back and destroyed everyone. And, 5 minutes later, I realized, this whole thing was designed to just sell me popcorn.

Had the company had any foresight, keeping Owens off of TV after that and then having him return tonight to screw Strowman (but accidentally screw Reigns?) would've made some sense, been a decent surprise, and given them a reason to do an Owens/Strowman/Reigns triple threat match for whatever next month's show is.

Yeah, it would've been interesting. Bryan was so over in 2013/2014 that even if he had lost to Lesnar, then lost to Lesnar again a month later, I still think it would've been kinda tricky getting to Cena/Lesnar and eventually Reigns/Lesnar because many fans would've really wanted that redemption arc (Bryan eventually avenging the losses) over rooting on someone else to do it. Compare that to, say, if Rey Mysterio or Punk had been in the position or what happened to Cena - fans would've or did readily accept them losing to Lesnar without too much grumbling. But Bryan? At his peak, he really was super over in a way that fans were really emotionally invested in him as "their guy" and were accepting no substitute. At least in 2013/14. He's cooled off since then, no doubt, but at that time, he was red hot.

I read two comments in a row in the Roman Reigns thread that "the fans will turn anyone who is at the top" and saw Bryan's name mentioned - that he eventually would've been turned on by the crowd. I disagree. The original plan seemed to be to have Bryan drop the title to Lesnar at SummerSlam (as Cena did). I'm even willing to believe that they would have had Lesnar do the same Suplex City beatdown and use it as an excuse to have Bryan not get a title rematch (because of "injury") and maybe have Cena come in as the knight in shining armor as Lesnar's next big challenger. But in that scenario, I don't think Bryan would've been booed against Lesnar (who had just ended the Streak) at Summerslam and I don't think Bryan getting his ass kicked in a complete mauling (the way Cena did) was going to hurt him after SummerSlam - if anything, he probably would've garnered even more sympathy from all the fans - the "smarts" that would've seen Lesnar squashing him as them continuing to hold Bryan down and the "marks" who would continue to view him as an underdog who got taken out by a bully (classic David v. Goliath). Similarly, and I know times are different (but how different?), I think Steve Austin is worth mentioning. His run at the top wasn't super long, but I'm not sure the fans would've turned on him. I actually googled "Steve Austin Booed" and this topic has been covered elsewhere, but basically, from what I gathered, while there are 3-5 instances of Austin getting a negative or 50/50 response, they are clearly outweighed by the hundreds of times he got the biggest pop of the night. Someone mentioned that in parts of 99' and during the build-up to WrestleMania XVII, Austin's reactions were lesser than they'd been in the past - and while I do think that's true, I think "turning on him" is a bit overdramatic.

Not to sidetrack this more, but I do think if we're talking about the importance of Benoit, the biggest "selling point" (for lack of a better term) for him being a historically important figure is the double murder-suicide, not anything he did inside the ring. Had he just retired or become a trainer at NXT, I don't think he'd be an important figure in wrestling history despite his technical prowess and winning all sorts of Observer Awards. This is why, as much as I love Eddie Guerrero, I'm not sure he's more historically important than Rey Mysterio. I don't know enough about lucha libre history so I can't speak on that, but I do know, if you're just looking at stardom in the US, Mysterio was more influential in-ring, the more popular TV character, and had a longer run at the top. His name is not only synonymous with the WCW Cruiserweight Division but when people talk about WWE wanting a major Hispanic star on the roster, it is only referred to as WWE searching for "the next Mysterio" - a guy who can make them boatloads of money because Rey was so popular for so long that he's almost more comparable to The Undertaker than just your 2-3 year "top guy" (like Batista).

I'd presume that if he is coming back to face Taker, the match with AJ won't be long after. I just don't see how Michaels would want to come back and have a match that didn't actually push him in any way. It'd be like Kobe Bryant coming back for a 1-on-1 game against Steve Nash or Allen Iverson while LeBron is standing on the sidelines. That's the match that would get buzz and even the WWE knows it - they based a whole Table for 3 episode on the "What If...?" potential. Then again, this is the company that dragged their feet with putting Lesnar in the ring with anyone that wasn't Cena, HHH, or Taker for the first 2 or so years after his return.

I liked this game. I think the word "historically" is really key here because it goes beyond great matches, title success, even popularity and being "the top guy." History is also about symbolism - which is why someone like Patrick Henry is a more well-known Founding Father than, say, Benjamin Rush or John Jay. Or why JFK is historically more important than James Monroe despite only being in office for less than half of how long Monroe was President. Or, if you're a basketball fan, why John Starks was immortalized in a Beastie Boys song and was a household name if you were a basketball fan in the mid-90s, while Terry Porter is completely forgotten. So, Cena is more important than Hansen because Cena symbolized the number one company in the US (if not world) for about a decade. Goldberg, to me, is historically more important than Angle because Goldberg represents WCW's last major star and, with the mishandling of his character, the company's symbolic downfall. AJ Styles is more historically important than Orton because, 20 years from now, nothing Orton accomplished will matter beyond the WWE record books. What has he done? AJ Styles, on the other hand, symbolizes the "non-WWE mega-star," a guy that could've retired without ever stepping foot in a WWE ring but still been regarded as somewhat of a legend for having high-end matches in a number of non-WWE rings. After the success of All In and the rise of indie wrestling culture over the past 5 years, AJ Styles might go down as the "Iggy Pop and the Stooges" to The Bullet Club's "Ramones" - the guy who, whether he knew it or not, was paving a road that had never really been traveled before.... Except, arguably, by Daniel Bryan (which is why I voted him above Hardy). I do think the Bryan/Hardy thing is a close call, but I lean a bit more towards Bryan just because, he really did build a huge legacy as a technician during the early-to-mid-00s when indie wrestling was still mired in that post-ECW/Ruthless Aggression Era glut of being all about blood n' guts hardcore wrestling (at least the shows I went to prior to 2005 or so). Bryan symbolized something different. Jeff Hardy, on the other hand, definitely inspired lots of future performers and the TLC matches were seminal - but I'm not sure he deserves all that credit for "stunt wrestling" on his own. Sabu was mythic too and Jeff's most historic/symbolic moments were all shared with others (his brother, Edge and Christian, etc.). It just seems like pointing to just Jeff because of his popularity is giving him credit as an innovator that I'm not sure he deserves. Lastly, I went with Batista over Edge. I don't think either are really historically important. Batista got my vote based on the mainstream movie success, though I'm kinda willing to see the argument for Edge here - and it has nothing to do with Edge's in-ring skills. Edge might be more historically important simply because, in 2005, he might've been the first guy to ever truly be "made" and turned into a main event star just based on internet fans turning against him and forcing the company to make him a heel and use his real-life drama as an on-screen storyline.

Completely concur with the general sentiments here. On paper, this felt like a "can't miss" to me. The talent is there to make this a great show. Nikki/Rousey makes some sense. With their E Network shows, the Bellas are a top priority act so they were going to be featured and having Rousey demolish her also cements her status without "wasting" more viable opponents...but it still sounds kinda like a rib to me. Trish vs. Alexa seems pulled out of thin air and feels nothing like a "passing of the torch" (if that's the intention) because Alexa is a heel and Trish is so beloved. Hogan/Rock this isn't. Sasha couldn't have got this spot? Bayley? Even Charlotte in a one-off makes more sense if you're talking about "No. 1 Diva vs. No. 1 Modern Era" (though, again, this would also likely require WWE to actually listen to their audience and turn Charlotte heel because there's no way she'd be cheered over Stratus). But Bliss? The easy, clear booking here would've been to build towards a Bliss/Nia/Rousey threeway match. Lita vs. Mickie James is a match I don't even know what to think of. Lita was never the greatest worker so putting her in a singles match seems iffy. I'm a Mickie James fan even today, but she's undeniably been presented as a wrestler from the previous era. Reminds me of those matches you'd see at an old WCW Slamboree: Wrestle Reunion show. Again, there are fairly easy solutions here - you could build James to challenge Rousey or maybe play on "Weirdo Mickie" vs. "Weirdo Ember Moon" and you could have Lita tag with Bayley & Sasha vs. the Riot Squad. Becky/Charlotte seems like a lock, so there's that. The Mae Young Finals could be good. I'm crossing my fingers that Baszler (or, if not, Nikki Cross) has her main roster debut here. I think just about anyone could've fantasy-booked this to be a potential WWE Show of the Year with a fair amount of variety in match types and and, instead, we have a show that doesn't look like its going to appeal to anyone, even those of us who are really high on the company's women's division. Also, it seems like it'll be overloaded with 1-on-1 matches that counterproductively limits the amount of talent that gets time in the spotlight. I just don't get it.

Yeah, considering The Miz had his fair share of supporters at SummerSlam and even Ziggler was cheered by like 10% of the crowd during his matches with Rollins, Braun will still be cheered over Reigns when they go 1-on-1. (Though I do think Reigns did a good job in his promo to start the show, Cena could be really hot on the mic and still get booed later on in the same show, so I'm not sure Reigns is going to talk his way into being universally cheered). Also, I know nobody is really saying it here but elsewhere on the internet, some fans are actually upset that they "turned Braun heel." Um...What? I thought we all agreed that Braun lost much of his aura the minute he tagged with 7 year olds and played the cello? If getting Bad Ass Braun back means he turned heel, may he never turn babyface again.

I love Austin and Wade's PPV review shows. I'm of the belief that Austin's show is consistently head-and-shoulders above Jericho's, Edge & Christian's, JR's, or any of the Conrad podcasts. That doesn't mean he doesn't have episodes I skip, but that's true of any podcast - wrestling or not. Its also a bit reassuring to hear Austin's take and feel like, "Yes, my thoughts exactly!" Like a year or so back, when he picked up apart Seth Rollins having no gimmick, or on the Takeover/SummerSlam review, how much he praised the Moustache Mountain/Undisputed Era match and Becky Lynch. I did think he and Wade were a bit off in their assessments of the AJ/Joe and Bryan/Miz match. In the case of AJ/Joe, they both harped on the idea that the match started too much like a wrestling match considering what Joe had done. I actually thought the psychology was perfect. AJ knew Joe was baiting him, so instead of wrestling "Joe's match," AJ tried to stay cool and wrestle him with checked emotions. As the match wore on, the intensity grew until AJ snapped. I don't think AJ needed to jump him before the bell the way they implied. Similarly, they were a bit cool on Bryan/Miz and while they did note that the crowd wasn't super into it, I didn't think the crowd was as dead as some have made them out to be. Also, while Miz did have some people cheering him at the start, Bryan had won over that crowd by the end to my ears. This wasn't Sid/Michaels at Survivor Series 96'. Lastly, I just felt like they also undersold just how good this match was - fan reactions or not - because it was an excellent old school match with lots of great little moments and quirks. For someone who, on the same show, made mention of Lawler/Dundee multiple times, I was a bit surprised to not hear him make that reference in regards to the way Bryan, from the very start, was making it clear that Objective #1 was to punch Miz in the face, raising his fist in the air and really making it clear that he didn't just want to beat Miz, he wanted to hurt him. Also, that back suplex off the top? That was a move we've seen before, but I don't think ever executed as well with such impact. And the finish? I just can't praise that match enough so while I wasn't surprised that Meltzer didn't go ga-ga over it, I was a bit surprised that neither Wade or Austin thought it was the show-stealer (if not the best match of the weekend).

I know it defies all logic, but I'm totally okay with Ronda "calling her shots" (spots). Its almost like how in Street Fighter, certain characters would just out-and-out tell you they're about to hit you with a Sonic Boom or a "Haduken." She's so badass, she's going to narrate the ass-kicking she's delivering. It didn't stick out to me partially because it was so blatant.

Full review up soon... - Anyone else kinda like this Ciampa/Gargano match more than the one in Chicago? I don't know what it was, but I felt like this one just felt more streamlined and though it may have felt lesser in terms of emotion, I liked that it didn't overrely on Gargano's dazed/"concussion eyes" or the WM30-esque trope of having EMTs essentially stop a match only for it to continue. Also, I liked the finish here more than the Chicago one, which I felt like didn't make a ton of sense (both guys were dead but Ciampa managed to hit a DDT "outta nowhere" IIRC). While it was a downer ending, I like that gravity won the match for Ciampa and gravity (or at least the laws of motion) cost Gargano the match. He was so dead-set on beating Ciampa with the running knee, for symbolic purposes, that he didn't figure his momentum might cause him to fall from the stage. Worked for me. - Someone else wrote that they felt like Sane's character was still unclear, lacking "it." I thought tonight was the "it" night where we did get to see who she is. She's not mysterious like Ember Moon or a tough, unbeatable warrior like Asuka. She's not a shootfighter like Shayna. She's more akin to Bayley. The pirate stuff is weird, no doubt, but maybe its one of those things that makes sense to a portion of the audience that does get it? Like Sailor Moon or DragonBall Z or Pokemon fans? At the end of the day, I'm on-board because she's easy to underestimate but can dish out an ass-kicking. - I love Sane, Ricochet, and UE as the champions (along with Ciampa). People are saying the bloom is off the rose of NXT but I'd argue that, right now, the brand is in the best position to be great in the future as it has been in years. Ciampa gets great heat. O'Reilly and Strong are a great team and I think the matches with War Raiders will be really great (I'm a bit of a Raymond Rowe homer cuz he's a Cleveland dude). I like that, instead of just doing the same thing they did with Asuka and having Baszler decimate the entire division (essentially killing it in the process), they gave Sane the win and, with the MYC in September and culminating at the Evolution show, the division feels more open (also, if I had the book, I'd have Baszler make her main roster debut at Evolution as there's really no need for her on RAW or SD yet). Finally, with Ricochet, you have a guy that is just flat-out entertaining and fun to watch. The NA Title should be getting defended regularly and the champion should be winning those matches cleanly to cement the title's credibility. Ricochet fits into that plan perfectly and, to me, seems like a guy you can build NXT's touring/house shows around for the next 6-9 months in a way you can't with Cole or Black or really anyone (other than Gargano). Anyone else think the future of NXT is looking stronger now than it did a year ago?

Came here to post the same news story! I try to stick to the "judge not..." philosophy, but I'd be lying to say I wasn't curious about their friendship and when/how things got messed up. I predict that there will be fans who take sides, but I"m not sure there's a right side based on the very little we know and the "he said/he said" nature of the suit.

If I'm not mistaken, The Rock and Mark Henry were roommates in Florida? Maybe just travel buddies. I think the thing I always forget about The Rock is, unlike Triple H or Austin or whoever, he was involved in wrestling practically since birth and then also played college football at a high level so, running in those worlds, you've got a guy who became a standout mega-star but had spent the first two-and-a-half decades of his life probably having the "team mentality" and "this is a brotherhood" attitude instilled in him. Its kind of interesting - like The Rock might not jump out as one of the guys who was "one of the boys" because of his gimmick and eventual mega-stardom, but by most accounts, it seems he absolutely was. Moreso than other guys who achieved so much so quickly.