DMJ

I'm admittedly limited in my recent viewing/memory of Finlay, but I did watch the awesomely brutal Regal match from UnCensored 96' a few months back and noted in my review (Kwang The Blog) that I feel like Finlay came in with such a straight shooter gimmick that fans didn't really know how to respond to him. Regal is a great example too because he was the exact opposite - the guy got great heel heat no matter who he fought, whether it was Sting or Johnny B. Badd or Marcus Bagwell (I'm sure someone can point on some even lesser babyfaces that Regal had relatively hot matches with). Also, Finlay doesn't play to the crowd in that match at all, really just focusing on brutalizing his victim in a way that I don't remember many other good guys doing then or really ever. The same can be said for Chris Benoit pre-Horsemen because, despite some strong showings, the crowds are pretty dead for his matches. Compare that to Eddie Guerrero, a natural underdog babyface in 96': In his match with Konnan (also a good guy at the time) from that same period, Guerrero gets really strong pops even up against another clean-cut do-gooder. Konnan wins with a questionable/borderline cheap maneuever and the crowd is audibly disappointed because, while Konnan isn't booed at any point, as the match goes on, the crowd veers from 50/50 to noticeably 75/25 in Eddie's favor. I know that's a long (and completely tunnel-visioned, "missing the forest for the trees") answer, but it stood out to me that Finlay was just too gruff and vicious in his style to get real crowd support in a way that "natural" babyfaces like Bagwell seemed to do just by standing up to Lord Steven and his Blue Blood brethren.

During the last conference call, Vince and Barrios (maybe?) reported that the Beast in the East Special was a huge success. To me, that show featured a bunch of things that we don't typically get, which may be one reason why it was not only a success in terms of viewership but critically.

I think I'd put Snuka on my list too. As others have said, it's hard to explain but there's something about Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka that crossed over with non-fans in a way that puts him right there with "Hacksaw" Jim Duggan in terms of guys that even non-fans could pick out of a lineup (side question - does anyone else know people that pronounce Duggan as "Doo-gan"? Was that a thing?). Like the Road Warriors, I think part of it has to do with Snuka being sort of a "typical" 80s wrestler in the eyes of a public who saw his physique, his crazy hairdo, and his leopard-skin tights (my non-fan friend once referred to them as "jungle panties" when we were in middle school) and thought thats what a pro-wrestler is (a musclebound wildman). So, I'd go DiBiase (first name I thought of), Jake Roberts, Snuka, Hacksaw, and Hogan...but there's a pretty wide gap between some of these guys in terms of who I think the biggest "names" are. Curious - anyone see a case for Honky Tonk Man?

In no specific order, but numbered for sake of keeping count - 1. No real heels who cheat or take shortcuts or do anything sneaky 2. No squash matches to make us anticipate Big Wrestler A vs. Big Wrestler B 3. No "dream matches" left because everyone's fought everyone a dozen times on TV already 4. No differentiation between the way shows are produced 5. The announcers 6. The 20-minute opening segment promos 7. 3-hour RAWs 8. No reason to watch any other TV programming 9. No "ladder" for workers to climb (i.e, trading meaningless wins and losses) 10. The ridiculous amount of recycled gimmicks 11. Most matches being "you do your shit/I do my shit" instead of telling logical stories with momentum shifts 12. 99% of entrance themes 13. Overexposure and annual heel/face turns for everyone but John Cena 14. The current Authority storyline offering nothing new to the formula 15. "Smart" fans "hijacking" shows with "smart chants" instead of just booing/cheering That's all I got for now, but I'm sure I could think of more with more time.

To me, this is kind of similar to the Austin/HBK poll in that I think one can objectively look at their careers and say John Cena has had more 4-star or higher matches than The Rock and that Cena can do things in the ring that The Rock never could, but if you just put it up to which guy I'd rather see in a ring, wrestling or cutting a promo, 9-times-out-of-10, in 2015, I'm going with the Rock. Part of that could be that, as a current WWE fan, I've spent the past decade watching Cena and, while I've enjoyed plenty of his matches and promos, there are stretches of his career that I think went way below even the worst runs of The Rock's career (for example, worst feud - Cena/Laurenaitis or Maivia/Sultan?). Also, even with the overexposure of Cena in 2015, I think I would've answered this poll the same way in 2005 and 2007 and 2009 and so on.

How about when Curtis Hughes came to the WWE in late 90s and was Chris Jericho's bodyguard/tag partner? The craziest part was that he'd lost a ton of weight to the point of being almost unrecognizable, which kind of hurt his aura, but probably added years and other benefits to his life.

To defend the "Bryan Should Main Event Every WrestleMania!" fans, it was abundantly clear in 2014 and at the start of 2015 that Daniel Bryan was the most universally beloved babyface on the roster. Historically, the top babyface should be wrestling in the main event or at least the second-most promoted match on the card. The rumor going into WM30 was that he'd be feuding with Sheamus, who has never and probably will never be as over as Bryan was at the time. Going into WM31, Bryan had no storyline at all - he wrestled in a 6-man ladder match for a meaningless title. I'm not saying there's been a conspiracy to hold Bryan back, but I do think there have been some unfortunate, unforeseen circumstances that will make his aborted title reign and limited "comeback" a great "What if..." talking point for years to come. In the end, WrestleMania 31's main event exceeded expectations and Brock Lesnar surpassed Bryan as the most "must see performer" somewhere between ending the Streak and destroying Cena at SummerSlam last year, but to say that Bryan, if he were to return, should be used in NXT while RAW desperately needs stars is like saying Ric Flar should've been used as a trainer at the Power Plant instead of coming back to WCW in 98'.

I just watched his match against Ultimo Dragon at Hog Wild 96' and really, really liked it. Not as good as the Psychosis match from the previous month's Bash At The Beach, but in terms of show openers, I thought it was great. The unique setting (the ring is elevated off the ground and the padding around the makeshift stage/ring looks especially thin and unforgiving) adds to it and shows how fearless Mysterio was at the time. Again, not an all-time classic (there are some noticeable hiccups), but when things click, its a fun one.

Just throwing it out there because the idea sounds crazy in my head, but is there any chance that Taker is returning as a heel at Battleground? If he costs Lesnar the title, I think the audience is going to boo him. Sure, when the lights go out, the pop will be huge, but when Lesnar gets screwed a second time, I think there is going to be opposition from the audience. Granted, JR could get the angle over much better than Cole and Company will, but essentially, Lesnar beat Taker fair and square and now Undertaker is holding a grudge. The whole "He has a right to be angry, but NOT THIS WAY, Undertaker, bah gawd, NOT THIS WAY!" This enables Sting to return as the Vigilante, out to beat the Undertaker at WrestleMania 32 because the Undertaker has forgotten that he once fought for justice or whatever. There are all sorts of holes in this scenario, but if Taker does screw Lesnar, I don't think it is going to affect Lesnar. Hell, it probably won't even affect Taker all that much if the commentators ignore how heelish that would be (which is totally possible).

Just watched Pat Tanaka as "El Gato" in WCW at Great American Bash 96'. Pretty decent match considering the crowd is dead (at one point Konnan hits him with a powerbomb to the arena floor) and almost makes me wonder if the crowd would've been more enthused if they had just brought him out as Tanaka.

Look no further than No Way Out 2002 for how WWE would have botched the nWo. I just recently watched that show and it really counters any claim that WCW "got lucky" with the nWo storyline in 97-98. WCW was able to keep that angle red hot for a long stretch, while, in one night, WWE basically debuted it and destroyed it in a span of 3 hours. Here's some specifics - - Show starts with nWo coming out and cutting a promo that is remarkably similar to a John Cena speech of today. The crowd boos them at first, but then, they just ask the WWE Universe for a chance and say that they have come not to destroy the WWE, but to be a part of its awesomeness. This pandering is supposed to sarcastic, I think, but it comes off as genuine. - They outnumber Austin backstage. Offer him beer. He turns them down. They walk away (while the Charlie Brown Christmas theme plays ala George Michael on "Arrested Development"*). - They outnumber The Rock backstage and ask him for an autograph. The Rock agrees. Hogan mutters something under his breath and the Rock owns all three in a promo. Again, instead of jumping him, the nWo walks off without incident. - At the end of the show, the nWo helps Chris Jericho retain his title (eventhough Jericho has no link to the group). After spray-painting Austin, they run away, fearing that Austin will get up and whoop all three of them. Basically, everything that made the nWo cool (their defiant, cocky promos, their We're Above Everyone attitude, and their gang beatdowns on hapless babyfaces) are gone and, in their place, we have a triad of jobbers who come off as less intimidating than Too Cool (hell, they're less intimidating than X-Factor). * Okay, maybe the song doesn't play, but it easily could've.

Late to the party, but I just watched Cesaro/Cena from this week's show (never got around to watching last week's). The truth is, it really does take me 2-3 days to get through RAW - an hour here, an hour there, a day between. Anyway - is anyone else of the mind that Cesaro/Cena, without the commercial breaks, may have been better than either of the Owens/Cena matches? I was a big Cesaro fan going in (but one whose fandom has cooled since it seemed there was little chance he'd ever get "The Push"), but somewhere around the 23-minute mark, I just realized if there is anyone capable of having a really great 60-Minute Ironman Match with Cena, it is Cesaro. I really enjoyed both Owens/Cena matches, but could pick out flaws here and there (the anticlimactic "outta nowhere" ending to the first, the early finisher spamming of the second), but this week's Cesaro/Cena just worked for me more. Lots and lots of impressive moves and I felt like, for whatever reason (maybe something as simple as comparable body types?), both guys submission moves looked pretty snug and realistic (something I never thought I'd say about the STFU). Even Cena complaining to the ref about the last nearfall made sense - Cesaro's shoulders were down, but Cena had an unclear, insufficient pin (JBL explained "Cena was caught in Cesaro's legs") so the ref's count was late in Cena's opinion, but justifiable to me, the viewer. Cena looked legitimately spent at the end, so I didn't see the purpose of the post-match AA to Owens, but it's not like that hurt the 30 minutes that preceded it. I'd give it 4 stars and, on a PPV with no commercial breaks (the fact they cut to a break in the first 2 minutes means we really have no clue what the first quarter of the match was), I could see that being a 4-and-a-half match. One could say "It needed 5 more minutes," but those 5 minutes were there for the live crowd and we just weren't privy to them.

I agree that this is not too surprising of a leak, but I do find it that funny that... a) It seemed a sizeable amount of these rules were broken blatantly during Michael Cole's heel run, especially when it came to running down Daniel Bryan every week Announcers can't say "Our industry" or "This industry," but there was about a decade where I could've sworn Triple H uttered that phrase in every one of his show-starting monologues on every episode of RAW he was on (which was all of them).

On the topic of the New Day's overness... I went to MITB a month or so back and, from the start of the show to even after, the "New Day Sucks" chant was BY FAR the biggest ongoing chant. The previous night, they ran an NXT show, so there were plenty of NXT chants ("Fight Owens Fight," for example) but the New Day stuff reminded me of going to random shows a few years ago and hearing "We The People" randomly shouted every 20 minutes or so. The New Day chant broke out pretty much anytime the cameras were off (pre-show, post-show, parking lot, on the line for merch - it was insane). I'm not going to say it was as omnipresent as Fandangoing, but I'd also say, the New Day gimmick and wrestlers involved can actually be a hot act for months to come, where as Fandango was a one-dimensional gimmick that only reminded me of how underrated Glenn Gilberti kinda was.

* First, this special really showed just how much WWE can benefit from producing something different than the usual. Different crowd. Different entranceway. Different announcers. Even different camera angles. It was just such a breath of fresh air that I would easily say it added at least a half-point to every match. * I really liked the opener. Probably my favorite Jericho match in years. Again, I'm not sure if that has to do mostly with the presentation, the crowd's involvement, or even the novelty of seeing Jericho after a long absence, but I also thought the pacing of the match and all the counters were great. Jericho seemed to be having fun and, maybe more than any match since the Cena "debut," Neville struck out to me as a guy that could actually last - maybe even in a role not dissimilar to when Jericho, Edge, and Christian were all long-running IC/European championship-level guys. * I'm a Nikki Bella fan but I must admit, she's been losing me these past few outings. This match was kinda like her title reign to me. It started out pretty sloppy, then eased into some respectable work and great effort, and then hit the wall with a real anti-climactic thud. (While she's still champion, I don't see anyone on the current main roster taking the title from her in an interesting way.) * The Lesnar squash was fun, reminiscent of watching Sid take out dudes back in the day. The post-match was the "bonus" for me because, before Big E and Woods came out, I must admit to being a bit disappointed that we didn't see them. * Balor/Owens was great fun and part of that fun was the "Japan-ness" to it. I'll be the first to admit I'm seriously ignorant and unknowledgable of Japanese wrestling beyond what I've read in books or seen bits and peices of - but the streamers and flowers, while probably not special to many on this board, come off as really cool and unique to a US-centric viewer like myself (and probably a majority of WWE fans). Then, you had the match, which continues Owens' streak of quality outings. I wasn't personally invested enough to call this a MOTYC but I'd assume the NXT die-hards and Balor fans enjoyed it more than I did - meaning, to me, it was a B+/A-, but I wouldn't doubt that those more invested in the storyline and Balor's progress wouldn't put it above that. * The "main event" was misplaced and featured two characters (Barrett/Kane) that are so cold, it is impossible to care. I would've loved Cena/Ziggler vs. New Day or Cena/Ziggler vs. Rollins & J&J Security or even Cena/Ziggler vs. Harper and Bray or, really, just about any two other than Kane and Barrett. Overall, a really good 2-hour show and one I'd easily recommend (save the main event) due to the watchability of most of it.

In a quote that is too ridiculously hyperbolic to make up, Ted Cruz called the past 24 hours "some of the darkest hours in American history." This reminded me of Tony Schiavone calling every Nitro main event, no matter how terrible or inconsequential, "the biggest event in the history of our sport."

Just saw this for the first time as I'm watching Slamboree 96'. The poster above gave it 1.5 stars and I can totally see that when looking at this match out of context, but as someone watching the show from beginning-to-end, I'd notch it up to an 3-stars compared to the other Battlebowl matches (which are all really short and save for a move here or a move there or a short segment [for example, the Steiners facing eachother], mostly atrocious). This match, though, is interesting and engaging from even before the bell rings as Flair refuses to come out until Savage has already made his entrance (and been jumped by Double A). From there, the match just never slows down, contradicts itself, or betrays the blood feud that Savage and Flair were having at the time. So many little things executed properly and so few things to criticize aside from the match being very short (which makes total sense). When I rate matches, I tend to think anything 3.5-or-higher is something worth revisiting and while I won't put this match up at that level, it is, by a wide margin, the best thing on the show up to that point.

Billy Gunn in 1999. I'm not going to argue that winning the Intercontinental Championship or the King of the Ring at that time was still really meaningful, but Gunn's string of victories as a singles star that year just came across as such as an obvious attempt to get him over outside of DX and the New Age Outlaw team that I don't think ANYBODY, even the biggest DX supporters, were really rallying for. I won't go as far as to say he didn't deserve it - the guy put in his time and certainly deserved a chance based on the success of the Outlaws, his look, and his in-ring skill, which I don't remember loving but certainly wasn't offensive. Still, the push annoyed me because it was so forced and inorganic. Any time Prince Albert or Test was pushed too.

Depends on if you think the best player of his generation returning home to try to end one of the longest droughts in sports history for a fan base that has suffered through a ridiculous number of cursed moments is an example of "evil." Since when are underdogs evil too? Golden State was heavily favored going into the Finals. At no point, even when the Cavs were up 2-1, did Golden State become the underdog. Steve Kerr said it best in Game 4 when he reminded his team that the Cavs were just 7 players and that they would tire if Golden State outlasted them. That is pretty much what happened (mixed with JR Smith and Shumpert shooting terribly and Igoudala having the best series of games of his career). Golden State was relatively healthy throughout their entire run. The Cavs lost two All-Stars. I'm not sure how many Good vs. Evil fairytales you're familiar with but, typically, the hero is the one faced with insurmountable challenges on their quest for glory. This time around the challenges were so insurmountable that they weren't…uh…surmounted. With the odds stacked heavily against them, though, the Cavs fought valiantly and bravely, gave everything they could (Dellevedova needed to be hospitalized for dehydration/exhaustion after Game 3 for chrissakes), but couldn't reach the mountaintop. Their effort was inspiring, especially in the closing minutes as, despite having lost the game with minutes left, with the crowd chanting "Let's Go Cavs!" and "MVP," the team (particularly JR Smith) refused to go down without sinking one more shot. These guys are pros and they've played a lot of basketball and they knew it was hopeless, but they went down fighting till the last 10 seconds. Golden State is a fantastic team and I don't think they played dirty or cheated or anything of the sort. They won fair and square. But it wasn't a Cinderella story and it wasn't "Good triumphing over Evil." It was the expected outcome of a competition between a very healthy, very good, very motivated team and a bruised-and-battered, less skilled, but also highly motivated team.

MITB is a top 4 PPV of the year simply because the Money In The Bank, for better or worse, is such a key element in the WWE landscape. Before this year, the Survivor Series hasn't had any "stakes" attached to it for what? A decade? I won't check the numbers, but I'd be curious to see whether or not MITB outsold Survivor Series over the past few years too. Only SummerSlam has been presented as important and if pushed to list the reasons for it, "historical legacy" would rank near the bottom. I'm willing to call MITB a "B-show" if we can all agree that there are only two A shows (Rumble and Mania) left and that shows like Battleground and Fast Lane are C shows. If that's our guide, I'd rank MITB just under SummerSlam and I'm not sure I wouldn't put Extreme Rules or TLC above Survivor Series at this point.

I attended the show, so I thought I'd share some live notes/thoughts... * I believe it was a legit sell-out. Crowd was hot at start of the show - some "Thank You Dusty" and "Dusty" chants even before the show began that got even louder once the whole roster came out for the 10-bell salute. * Reigns got a big reaction and was supported for his offense...but there were some questionable calls. Before Wyatt came out, I believe Reigns had tossed Ziggler or Neville off the ladder, which got booed. When you're plotting out a match, I'm not sure why you'd have Reigns' "last obstacle" be one of those two and it was that poor choice, way more than any real anti-Reigns vibe, that made the crowd erupt in "Yes!" chants when Wyatt screwed him. Similarly, once Reigns was knocked out of contention, the crowd was pretty unsure who to root for - partially because the best face choice seemed to be Neville as Orton and Ziggler seemed to spend 90% of the match on the floor taking naps. Again, more than anything, this seemed to leave the fans disappointed that Wyatt didn't retrieve the briefcase himself. Overall, the match got good responses for its bright moments (the RKO on Neville, for example), but like many, I think the general feeling was that Sheamus winning was the wrong choice. I like that Reigns still has mountains to climb, but if it wasn't going to be him, I'd have went with Orton, who not only has plenty of history with Rollins but, more importantly, is a big enough name to be an interesting challenger to Brock Lesnar. * Paige/Nikki started slow and the crowd was pretty disinterested, but as the match wore on, I think it won over people. Finally it seemed like Nikki was able to play the clear heel, though, who knows? With Total Divas returning soon, they'll probably try to make them faces again. * Lots of "New Day Rocks/Sucks" chants throughout the evening - before the show, during the show, after the show. People just love that damn chant/clap. * Cena/Owens was the peak of the show. Three separate "This is Awesome" chants. I'm not sure how it came across on screen but, while there was the traditional "Let's Go Cena/Cena Sucks" chants, there was also a sizeable portion of the audience that responded to "Let's Go Cena!" with "Fight Owens Fight!". To me, that is a really, really telling sign of just how over Owens is already - the fact is, fans weren't just booing Cena as they usually do, they were actively rooting for his opponent and there were loads and loads of KO shirts and sizes in the crowd. With all that these two brought to the match, the crowd was just completely sucked dry. I'm not sure how it felt at the last PPV, but at this one, there was a real sense that the best part of the night was over once the match and post-match angle ended. * Ambrose and Rollins worked really hard to revive a dead crowd. At one point, somewhere near our section, someone made an audible "Woo Woo Woo!" shout and I just turned to my friend and said, "It is not a good sign when you're hearing Zack Ryder noises during your main event ladder match." As the match went on, I think Rollins and Ambrose did succeed in bringing the audience back in to a respectable degree and, personally, I thought this was Ambrose's best showing in months (selling the knee all the way to end, not overusing the slingshot moves), but Cena/Owens was just too good of a match to be outshined.

Both are money to me. I also think Rusev's recent injury has hurt him way worse than the loss to Cena. He was penciled in to win the IC right? I think you can heat Rusev back up pretty easily: Have him beat Cena on a RAW. Clean or not, that would make him a viable number one contender to me instantly. Rusev/Reigns has potential. I'm going to MITB tomorrow and I'm hoping Owens wins tomorrow just because I really don't want to see a replica of the Rusev/Cena feud. I enjoyed it, but why not switch it up a bit? Have Owens beat him twice just for the sake of elongating their rivalry. If Cena wins, you're left with not just Owens in a somewhat directionless spot, but who's next for Cena exactly?

Legend. Visionary. Must-see performer. I'm glad someone posted the bit from 94' where he asks Dustin to make him his partner. What a great promo and overall feud (Dustin vs. Stud Stable). I wrote this in a Facebook group, but I'd like to repeat it here - Dusty had many, many great feuds, great promos, great rivalries and moments, but there was something so magical and emotionally powerful whenever he was in the ring with his sons. Whether it was the build to the 91' Rumble or even the more recent Rhodes Family vs. Authority angle, these storylines and Dusty's passionate promos during them were just on a whole other level than what pro-wrestling typically achieves.

Haven't seen the RR98' match in a long while, but I remember liking it when I was a kid. I still think HIAC 1 is great and, at the time, being 13 and not having seen all the stuff I've seen since, I was convinced that it was the greatest cage match that ever happened. (I think Foley even called it that in his first book, so, it's not like it was a bizarre opinion then or now). To answer the poster above's question about why Austin won this by such a landslide, I voted Austin based on my gut and I think many others did too. I know that part of my gut reaction was based on things that almost have nothing to do with Austin and Michaels' actual resumes - for example, when it comes to watching previously unseen matches from these guys, I'd watch 10 Austin matches I'd never seen before from ANY point his career before I'd be curious in seeing a single one from Shawn's career. Again, this is a gut instinct based on what I can recall from memory, but I feel like a lot of Michaels' singles matches only get good in the final 3-4 minutes, while Austin's matches, in WCW or WWE, typically start great with some real urgency, either lag a little in the middle or get a bit tedious, but then get really hot again for their finishes (whether that finish is a sprint with a ticking clock as was often the case in WCW or an overuse of run-ins like his WWE main event run).

Just watched this for the first time and, as El-P says, it is too long. There are a couple moments that I did like, though - Sting flying into a spinning powerslam from Animal, Booker T leveling Hawk with a particularly stiff Scissors Kick, the aforementioned Luger cameo, and the second round of chairshots that happens towards the end of the match - but there are also some pretty boring stretches and highly questionable production/execution decisions that really make this one hard to enjoy (Sting's lengthy search for a weapon only to return with two 99 cent brooms, Booker T "quitting" the match rather randomly when his team is not in trouble and after he has withstood at least 15 minutes of Road Warrior beatdown, the tedium of watching Hawk no-sell piledrivers and Sting miss Stinger Splashes multiple times in the same match, the commentary team sounding audibly exhausted). Compared to Finlay/Regal from the same night, it isn't violent enough and, without the drama of traditional tag rules, it has no form or suspense because there is no escalation or urgency at any point. If Sting wasn't still darn over, this match would probably be an even bigger turd - but the audience pops for the big hits, so, it's not like its a total dud (the same defense can be applied for Booty Man vs. DDP from earlier in the night, which, while certainly not worth viewing, will make you question how a just God could create a world where there are so many Ed Leslie fans this late in his career).