DMJ

I'm not even that big of a Shawn Michaels fan, but three that came to mind... Would've loved an HBK/Punk feud during his Straight Edge Soceity run. There was a ton of history for Punk to base his promos on and I have no reason to believe Shawn would've shut it down. I also think, money-wise, it may not have been a "big money" match, but like the Jericho/HBK series, I think it would've done well critically and helped anchor some otherwise blah PPVs. HBK vs. Eddie Guerrero is another one that, in-ring wise, I would've liked to see. I heard a rumor once (post-Eddie's death) that it was a possibility for WM22, which made it an even bigger "I wish they would've done it!" thing for me. Last and most crazy/personal, in 96', when Warrior came back to WWE, I was 12 and thought we were going to get Warrior vs. Michaels for the title at Survivor Series or the 97' Rumble. Now, this is hardly an example of money being left on the table (I'm not sure anyone else was as invested in this potential match-up as my pre-teen self), but it is a little bit fun to think about 96' WWE with the thought of "What if...The Ultimate Warrior came back, got red hot again, and stayed with the company for 12 months instead of 2?"

I'm 50/50 on it. For sure, Undertaker's Streak mattered a ton and the question of who/when it would be broken was always a huge, if not *the* biggest factor, but I do think there is a bit of revisionist thinking going on that the Streak was the only thing that mattered. Let's remember, nobody (or very, very few people) believed Edge, Michaels, Triple H, or CM Punk were going to end the streak and, while I wouldn't call them all masterpeices, I personally liked a number of them and definitely would've called a few of them Match of the Nights, even when you consider that their finish was very predictable. So, with that in mind, Cena/Taker still works for me because, at the end of the day, we're talking about whether or not they can deliver a quality, WWE-style spectacle main event match, if Taker has one more left in him and if this will be a character-changing match for Cena in the longterm. If none of those things interest you because "you do your signatures/I do my signatures" matches bore you and WWE's overdramatic "epics" make your stomach turn, I get it. I get it 1000%, especially around these parts where people have so much knowledge of and access to the best stuff ever that they don't need to settle for what the WWE offers. EDIT - If someone wants to move all these comments elsewhere, it might not be a bad idea. Looking at the heading of this thread and I'm not sure we could go off on a bigger tangent if we tried.

Just saw this match for the first time yesterday and loved it. As someone who really only watches the Network, I know my list of Matches of the Year is incredibly skewed and uninformed, but I have this as my Number 7. Not as emotionally powerful as Bayley/Banks (my actual MOTY), but definitely a remarkable match that, as the OP states, cemented Sasha Banks as not just a breakout star, but THE breakout star of 2015 for me. Loved the number of arm submissions she locked in, loved the character work (her ability to go from irritated early in the match to irate with the referee to arrogant jerk and have all these emotions come out naturally is uncanny), and loved that Becky's retalliatory (sp?) offense was logical and also, as the commentators pointed out, stuck with her original plan to attack Banks' arm/shoulder (for example, Lynch doesn't just hit her with some nifty neck-centric suplexes, she makes sure that they target Banks' shoulder by tying her arm up behind her back). The little details made this an easy choice for my top 10.

It was a huge hit with the mainstream. Definitely helped further Rock's career. Less notable, though, was the impact it had on Big Show's carer. IIRC, Big Show's comedic chops inspired the WWE to turn give him the ol' "gimmick stealer" gimmick, where Show began to come out as other characters (including Hogan). Just like for Charlie Haas and Damien Sandow later on, it was a dead end creatively and only further tarnished Show's reputation post-WrestleMania (I believe he started the new comedy gimmick a few weeks after). While Show's credibility took a hit, his work on SNL did inspire the WWE and multiple TV shows (mostly on the USA Network) over the years to give him a shot in comedic roles. I'm not sure that would've happened without his scene-stealing work on SNL - I mean, it certainly didn't happen for many other WWE stars.

Two days ago I would be the last guy to say that Sheamus matters, but after TLC and RAW, I kind of hope he still does in April. When the WWE was pushing Cena post-WM21, they had him beat Jericho and Angle, but neither really did the trick as the Cena hate began to mount up. In my mind, it was the feud with Edge (a guy the fans really hated and who served as Cena's best foil in 06'-07') that helped solidify him as not only "The Choice" but also a consistent main event caliber performer that fans had to begrudgingly expect. Sheamus, to me, stepped up as the Edge to Reign's Cena. I'm not saying we need them to rematch every week for the next 15 weeks, but just like Edge came out fairly hot after WM21 by feuding (and beating) Foley in a hardcore match (and going through a flaming table IIRC) at Mania and then again at ONO 2, I would really like to see Sheamus get tied up into a feud with a fresh, over babyface that he eventually beats before going after the belt again. Who is that fresh, over babyface? That's an unfortunate question because the only ones I know of are mostly guys that Sheamus has already feuded extensively with (Ziggler comes to mind) and wouldn't be fresh. Maybe Sheamus gets the position of facing some celebrity? Maybe he retires Big Show (hardly fresh but what else could would you do)?, Maybe you bring Mark Henry back and try to heat him up as a good guy between now and then via a bunch of Rumble eliminations? There's always Kane? The outlook doesn't look good and I don't see Sheamus/Brock. (I'm expecting Brock/Reigns 2 for the record)

While its definitely possible, at this point, I think Roman Reigns knows the answer to that dilemma, though: hit hard, lean in, and sacrifice. I haven't watched RAW just because I'm always a day behind on these things, but I did finish TLC last night. Going into the main event, I wasn't sure what to expect. I'm not a huge Reigns fan and I'm not huge into Sheamus. That match worked on me the same way it worked on the Boston crowd, though. At first, I must admit to feeling some glee hearing the crowd chant "We Want Cena," thumbing their nose at two guys that the WWE has, justified or not, "force fed" to us (Reigns being pushed as The Next Cena and Sheamus in the unenviable position of living in ho-hum midcard purgatory for the past few years and then getting thrusted into the main event absolutely cold). But then they started hitting eachother with chairs...hard. They started clubbing eachother with forearms and punches...hard. I've said for months that one of Reigns' overlooked talents is his selling, which was on full display here, giving the match a more meaningful and suspenseful pace than any other all night. Before I knew it, I kinda cared. Then the big spots came out (White Noise through the table, the Samoan Drop through the ladder), and they were devastating and treated as such by the competitors. Plus, instead of scrambling up the ladder at every opportunity, these two guys beat the crap out of eachother, seemingly wrestling more for the respect of the audience than for the title itself. It was impossible not to respect. Even before the post-match, Reigns was getting cheered, and the chants for everyone from Seth Rollins to Daniel Bryan to CM Punk were quieted. I don't think we've heard the last of those reactions, but Reigns has proven his ability to answer them by doing the simple things right - hit hard, lean in, and sacrifice. Ditto for Sheamus.

I'd agree that nobody cared, but it was pretty firmly established that they were best friends. In the months prior, Beefcake and Jimmy Hart were at Hogan's side for pretty much ever appearance he did in WCW (including the Mystery Man gimmick/Tonya Harding angle that led to Beefcake's heel turn). There's also the fact that they teamed up in SummerSlam 89's main event. So, yeah, I'm totally with you that this feud didn't raise anyone's interest, but on paper, you have the most popular, money-making star in the world getting turned on by a guy who had spent the better part of the previous decade serving as his right-hand man and most trusted sidekick. As far as I know, Beefcake hadn't been a heel for even longer. On paper, it should've done gangbusters...but, by that point, as you pointed out, Beefcake had zero credibility, Hogan's act was stale, and fans had already seen this sort of angle with not only Andre and Savage but also Tugboat and, to a much lesser degree, Sid (who came in as a bit of a tweener but seemed to be a Hogan ally prior to the 92' Rumble).

So, the 12/17 show in LA is set to have Lesnar/Del Rio, Reigns/Sheamus, and Owens/Ambrose. I don't see why or how the Network shouldn't be airing this. If I'm not mistaken, they touted October's Live At MSG and the summer's Beast In The East shows as getting loads of views on the Network (and Lesnar/Show and Lesnar/Kofi kind of pale in comparison to Lesnar/Del Rio). My only other thought is that the Sheamus/Reigns match should be dark - there's no sense in them having a Network special match so quickly after TLC, especially if it seems they'll be wrestling again at the Rumble (kinda like Cena/Rollins in a cage was kinda unnecessary on the Live at MSG show - or at least would've been if Show/Lesnar had gone more than 5 minutes).

I wouldn't put Trish in my Top 100, but she'd certainly rank higher than any of those three by at least a 100 spots. Not a single one has a match as good as Trish/Mickie from WM22. Or as good as Trish/Jazz/Victoria from WrestleMania 19. Or probably even as good as Trish/Stephanie from 2001(?). Again, Trish is not a Top 100 worker to me, but to call her "average" is ridiculous when one has to search pretty deep into the well to find a women's match in the WWE between 1999 and 2014 that was really good and didn't involve Trish Stratus. The pool might've been shallow, the opportunities might've not been there for a Molly Holly or a Gail Kim to show all they could do, but that doesn't change the fact that Stratus anchored the division for the better part of a decade and that only in the past two years have we seen anyone even challenge that level of consistent overness and quality. Averaging 1.5-star matches when your peers are averaging .25-star matches is the definition of being above-average.

It may not have been a pure cliffhanger, but one of the best things the WWE did this year was the John Cena US Invitiational. Each week he faced a new challenger and it wasn't even like it was some returning mega-star every week - the concept worked because it provided vareity, not necessarily big names and crazy swerves. So maybe cliffhanger isn't the best word for it as much as "hook." What is the hook for the next show? Was there one for this week's show?

I like this quote because Seinfeld and Friends were once known as the anchors of what NBC called "Must See TV." RAW hasn't been "must see" in at least a decade. Countless pundits have said it but I'll readily parrot it: RAW (and SD) don't even bother with cliffhangers or promoting what makes the next week's show worth watching. Watching all the vault stuff uploaded onto the Network and even Stampede, with its low/no-budget production, had the common sense to at least tell the viewer a match or two they'd be getting on the next episode. I'm not saying we need New Day to kidnap Dolph Ziggler, hang him in a lockerroom, and attempt to castrate him with a sharpened unicorn's horn only for the lights to go out right at the moment of impact, but y'know, in case people forgot, there once was a time when the WWE seemed to understand the basic idea of ending a show on a cliffhanger, even a silly one. When's the last time we had a genuine cliffhanger to end the show? When the stage fell on Vince? What was that? 6 years ago?

Read the results because I was curious what "big angle" the WWE would try to push. I guess it was the formation of the The League of Nations (Sheamus, Barrett, Rusev, Del Rio)? Personally, I don't like the idea much. I get that its a way to put the heels together as some sort of dominate force, but Sheamus was already World Champion, Del Rio was already US Champion, and Rusev coming back with Lana seemed like it could've had legs on its own if they just let him come in and start destroying some guys (would love to see a Rusev/Neville match to that end because I think it'd be a really fun 8 minutes). Barrett gains what here? Credibility by association? I don't get the motivation for why these four would be teaming up when Del Rio has always been booked as a self-centered heel and Rusev should be booked as a guy whose only desire is to be a World Champion (not playing number 2 or 3). What is the basis for cooperation? What is the shared goal? ECW Alums vs. Wyatts. People wondered how long the Dudleys' reunion tour would last. The fact that they're dipping into this long-depleted well makes me think not much longer. Charlotte turning heel so suddenly seems like over-correction to me, but I'm not someone who was clamoring for her to be a heel and criticizing the WWE for doing otherwise. To me, this sort of turn could've waited a considerable amount of time. For example, I would've loved to see Alicia Fox pull a "Triple H after WM14"-like promo where she tells Nikki and Brie that they dropped the ball and now it is up to her to regain the Divas Championship for "Team Bella," only now, it is "Team Fox." Brie and Nikki wouldn't support her and could be storyline written off for a few months (which seems like whats happening to Nikki anyway) to return as faces or heels in time for Mania. Charlotte/Alicia may not have given us excellent matches, but Fox is an underrated performer and one who *always* gets some degree of heel heat. It wouldn't have hurt Charlotte, presented as a face, to be in the ring with someone that doesn't get more cheers than her.

I'm probably a bigger Taken fan than most on here, but people are kidding themselves if they think his gimmick wasn't the biggest factor in his success and longevity. One could probably name a dozen guys who came in with similar "No Nonsense Bad Ass" gimmicks and didn't last 25 weeks, let alone 25 years. Speaking of which, anyone else remember when they brought back Chuck Palumbo in the very gimmick described in the OP?

I'm just curious what other people say about matches, especially obscure ones that I've never heard anyone mention. Actually, my first stop after watching a match, if I want to read people's take on it, is this website. Going to profightdb (where they have the Meltzer ratings for most of the major shows) and searching for a match is really easy, so, its not like I dug through crates of Observer issues from 13 years ago to find the info. The disparity between how much I enjoyed the match in 2015 and how little a respected wrestling critic liked it in 2002 was interesting to me. If he had given it even 2 stars, I wouldn't have even noted it, but to basically call it a shitty, considerably below average match, when I feel like its somewhat of a hidden gem, was why I felt compelled to mention it.

Watching King of the Ring 2002 today, I just finished Lesnar vs. Test. I have to say, I really enjoyed the hell out of it. Super stiff at times with plenty of proof that, months into his career, he not had "It," but had enough "It" to make his opponent look like an absolute monster just by taking it to him. I'm not an encyclopedia of Test knowledge, but I can't name a better Andrew Martin match I've seen, let alone one I'd jump onto a Forums to post a rave review of. There's a bunch of cool moments, including Brock grabbing Test by the hair and clocking the spit out of him with a clothesline, Brock showing remarkable agility that, as far as I know, he hadn't really shown he could do yet by slipping out of some of Test's big moves, and Brock showing just the right amount of emotion to tell a very clear story of a monster getting "tested" against someone his own size for the first time. Even the hiccups worked for me because, with how hard these guys hit eachother, instead of it coming across as "Oh, they forgot the next spot," it read to me as "Oh, they're both trying to shake the cobwebs because neither guy has ever been hit that hard before." The only flaw is the finish which features a wholly unnecessary and oversold bit of BS. Even pre-UFC, there should've been no shame in losing to Lesnar clean, but hey, I'll admit, there is some hindsight at work that makes me think that (I'll admit, I wasn't watching WWE at the time, hence the reason I'm revisiting this stuff, so maybe they really did have a valid reason to try to protect Test). Dave Meltzer gave the thing a half-star. I know I'm hardly as critical or remotely as knowledgeable, but, man, he's off by, at the very least, 2.5 stars. If Lesnar had that same match tomorrow against Titus O'Neill, people would be calling it a low-end MOTY candidate and clamoring for a rematch for the belt.

Great example with Luger. One that I thought of was Bret Hart. Depending on where you go, who you ask, and when you asked it, you'll get all sorts of response about the Hitman. In the 90s, Hart was promoted by the WWE as an incredibly talented technician, masterful storyteller, tough-as-nails underdog that used his unparalleled skills to best all sorts of Goliaths. He was the embodiment of The New Generation. Then, Montreal happens and, over the course of the next decade, Hart is painted in "Bret Screwed Bret" terms - a self-centered "traditionalist" who turned his back on tradition by refusing to do a job, overrated in his in-ring performances, "boring" and vanilla in his promos, retroactively made to seem like conservative/old guard when he actually played a huge role in the "main event style" that dominated the WWE landscape for the next decade both in terms of work rate and theatrics (is there any more proof necessary than Survivor Series 97' with its extended crowd-brawling, finisher theft, and Authority run-in?). …And a significant portion of the audience, especially Attitude Era-and-After fans, bought it. For these fans, Hart is overrated and dull. These fans love to say that Benoit or Angle was a better technician. That Shawn Michaels was better at pulling in fans' emotions. That Hart lacked the charisma of Austin and The Rock and Cena and, thus, had no charisma at all. That Hart's criticisms of Flair, HBK, HHH, and others are proof that he's bitter and jealous. Sometimes they go as far as to say that Owen Hart was actually the better overall worker of the two in an effort to explain away the relatively high number of 4+ star matches Bret had in his career, as if Bret only deserves half-credit for his matches against his brothers, Curt Hennig, and Stone Cold. I've read straight-faced arguments from the mid-to-late 00s that rank Randy Orton and Chris Jericho as better workers than Bret Hart and can only think, "This is the power of the WWE's spin on shaping the legacies of pro-wrestlers." This is also why there are many rabid Bret fans that might place him too highly - because they need to trumpet his greatness in order to counteract the WWE's lengthy smear campaign against him.

Voted Sasha/Bayley. I'm not even a regular NXT viewer, but that match legit had me tearing up. A large part of that was the production around it, the video packages, the build, etc. that didn't happen between bells, but I don't think its wrong to include that stuff when thinking of a true MOTY list. I will say that before I put a final list together, I'll likely rewatch Lesnar/Reigns. The one and only time I watched it from beginning to end was the night of...and by that point, I was pretty inebriated. I remember enjoying it, but I don't remember enjoying it as the best match I'd ever seen or seen all year or anything. Anyone else rate the Cena/Lesnar/Rollins triple-threat from Royal Rumble 2015 highly? Looking at my database, I had that at 4.5. I know Austin and others raved about it on their podcasts too (Austin may have called it the best triple threat ever).

I'll try to explain the Ziggler hate a bit, but I'll preface this by saying - I think this forum is much harsher on him than most others. In many other corners of the IWC and among many knowledgable fans, Ziggler is still well-liked. But the "backlash" against Ziggler is essentially based on the fact that he oversells, his ring attire is ugly, his offense is somewhat lackluster, and that, character-wise, he can be grating because he openly talks about how he is more interested in "stealing the show" than winning matches. Unlike Cena, who at least pretends that winning and losing matter because he wants to be a role model and live with a Never Give Up spirit, Ziggler is almost the quintessential 50/50 booking posterboy - and he almost seems proud of it as long as he got in a few big, concussion-causing bumps. He is a "work harder, not smarter" worker and, in this forum, where guys are credited for doing so much more with so much less, the Ziggler hate is completely reasonable. Of course, there are still plenty of places around the internet where wrestling a "safe style" is seen as a bad thing and, among those fans, Ziggler's recklessness, overacting, and desire to "steal the show" have made him incredibly over. Personally, I think he can be very good in certain matches and roles, but won't deny that I've grown to be much less of a booster since 2008-09 or so, when I thought his performances were much better because, at that time, his act and efforts stood out more. The roster is that much better today than it was then, so, I don't think he shines as brightly. (Oddly, the opposite is true for Kofi Kingston to me)

These don't fit in with the actual name of this thread because the two guys I'm about to mention were both really good/great workers, but I really dug the Mr. Perfect and Bret Hart Hasbros. Sure, Bret's slanted head and painted-on sunglasses didn't make much sense, but in my personal WWE Universe, what mattered more than anything was whether or not you could actually do more than one or two moves with the figure. The fact that Hart's arms weren't locked into a goofy position (I'm looking at you, thumbs-up Duggan and bear-hugging/posedown mode Hogan!) made him the most versatile toy in my collection. Full disclosure, the wrestling fed I really focused on was the one I created on my own using GI Joes. I created my own names for all the characters, made championship belts out of paper, tape, and pennies (not dissimilar to the current WWE Tag Team Titles come to think of it), and even booked house show loops. I kept track of title histories in a notebook where I also wrote down each month's "PPV" card. Fuller disclosure, I did this to an age where I knew to be kind of embarassed about it and used to lock the door when I busted out the toys.

Talk about digging yourself into a hole and then trying to get out of it by shoveling further down. I know the Reid Flair thing was a big deal in the IWC, especially among older fans who saw/heard about it, but I can tell you - based on the middle school I work at - most kids really didn't even catch it or care and I'm thinking most "casuals" weren't made aware of it unless they frequent boards like this or news sites. Personally, I didn't like the segment - but that's mostly because I feel like it was too obvious a "hail mary" play/uber cheap way to try to get heat for a match that will STILL likely be soundtracked by crickets. I'm also not a huge Paige fan. So, WWE apologizes for something that I'd wager 70% or higher of their audience didn't take any offense to or care about - thus, drawing unnecessary attention to their own lame attempt at getting publicity by bringing up a real life tragedy at a time when, as Flair pointed out on his podcast this week, the whole world is mourning even more recent tragedies.

The fact that Ron Funches is on there actually makes we want to watch it now! Dude's pretty funny.

Sure, there's a babyface character in there...but I think (hope) WWE is wise enough to see there's little reason to turn him anytime soon. Taker was a face less than 2 years after his debut and made a ton of money for Vince in that role and he was literally death incarnate. Bray will be a face one day and probably a fairly popular one considering his entrance, if you've been in attendance for it, is one of the best/funnest parts of a live event and that he routinely gets cheered in his matches. Did anyone catch a supposed picture someone snapped from the SD taping tonight? The pic I saw on Facebook, which may or may not have been real, showed a truly awful attendance - like almost TNA level. Curious if anyone else saw it.

I don't see how Hennig was underutilized. If anything, his career was salvaged a bit by going to WCW after he was essentially retired in WWE. I do remember that they were teasing a feud (and potential in-ring return) with Hunter Hearst Helmsley before he left, but I'm not sure that would've set the world ablaze considering that, while one could argue that young HHH is more tolerable than HHH post-00', in late 96'-early 97', he was still trapped in a one-dimensional snob gimmick that didn't really get interesting till Chyna showed up. I think Bret Hart and Tugboat might be neck-and-neck here, the first and only time I'd have them as equals in any department. I know Tanaka was around for a bit in the mid-90s and looked on Wikipedia and learned that Paul Diamond was on the WCW roster for a cup of coffee around the same time. Considering how repetitive and stale the WCW tag scene was in 95'/96' (I mean, how many Harlem Heat/Nasties or Harlem Heat/Stud Stable matches does one need to see in life?), it would've been sort of cool to see Tanaka and Diamond re-team. Matches against Stars & Stripes or Luger & Sting or Faces of Fear or, later, the Outsiders, would've been neat.

So is Cesaro/Reigns tonight then? If so, I am really, really hoping for a Cesaro upset. More than that, I'm wondering why they didn't finagle the tourney so that Cesaro/Reigns would happen at Survivor Series? To me, that's a match that one could reasonably expect to fill a solid 15 minutes on the card and actually get Reigns over a bit. Like against Bryan at FastLane, I think fans would begrudgingly cheer the guy if they saw him put on a great match and win. Cesaro has the skills to get him there.

Ronda Rousey was/is a heel the same way one could say LeBron James was a heel for the Heat, Michael Jordan was a heel, and Mike Tyson was a heel. Rousey was a babyface when she first started grabbing headlines because everyone loves an asskicker. At a certain point, though, she became unbeatable and I think the moment during the fight when it became clear that Holm actually had a chance to beat her, there was almost a collective shift to rooting for the underdog. Look at Michael Jordan. He was everybody's hero for those first few playoff runs, especially before the first championship win. Then, once the Bulls were ridiculously dominant, it became about watching to see if anyone could manage to win 4-out-of-7 against the GOAT. Hell, Jordan was such a heel, his hellishness turned the notoriously polarizing Charles Barkley into an unlikely babyface in 1993.