Hunter's Torn Quad

WWE tried to debunk the study by taking the position that because Benoit didn't act like an 85-year-old with dementia, their findings were suspect. The study never said Benoit was acting like the aforementioned dementia patient, just that his brain had comparable damage. Still, it made for an easy out for apologists. Also, being aware of your actions and having the mental capacity to make a sound judgment of those actions are two totally different things.

The Fingerpoke didn't bury a title, but it did bury WCW, at least in Georgia. It also personified the fact that WCW was Hogan and Nash's personal playground and the decisions made were all about ego rather than business.

That victory was presented as a fluke. And directly after the match HHH was even LAUGHING about it to show it didn't matter to him, which made Jeff look even more weak. Add to that HHH not even talking about it the next night on Raw. I don't think Jeff even mentioned it, either. I know Jeff was being pushed towards Orton, but if it was that big of a deal, why wasn't Hunter talking about or at least acting like he was upset over losing to Hardy? If HHH didn't think losing to Jeff was a big deal, why should we? I think you're looking into it too much. HHH wasn't upset because he was proud of Jeff in kayfabe. If the idea was get that aspect of the storyline over, HHH, or Hardy, would have said something to get it over. The fact Hunter completely ignored his loss to Hardy the very next night tells you a lot. Assuming you're willing to hear the message.

From Impactwrestling

That victory was presented as a fluke. And directly after the match HHH was even LAUGHING about it to show it didn't matter to him, which made Jeff look even more weak. Add to that HHH not even talking about it the next night on Raw. I don't think Jeff even mentioned it, either. I know Jeff was being pushed towards Orton, but if it was that big of a deal, why wasn't Hunter talking about or at least acting like he was upset over losing to Hardy? If HHH didn't think losing to Jeff was a big deal, why should we?

Try 100% fake. But it would make a great match, and the interviews would be something else.

An amusing TNA story from the latest Observer: It also said TNA were happy with Tiger Mask IV, but unimpressed with Shinsuke Nakamura, and it was wondered why New Japan were pushing him as IWGP Champion over Tanahashi.

Why? I find it anti-climactic to build up a monster heel champion for six months, only to job him several minutes into an hour long main event. Why is it anti-climactic? I like it for a number of reasons. First, the crowd are going to pop huge at the dominant champion being the first one out, and in such a decisive manner. Second, when they calm down, they realize that they're going to see history with a new champion crowned, and can become excited and really into the match because they don't know exactly who the new champion is going to be. Then, depending on what happens to the guy who eliminated the champion, you can go any number of ways with the title picture. If the guy who eliminated the champion is eliminated by the eventual winner, you can set up the first title program by having him challenge the winner on the basis that he was the one who actually beat the former champion. Not only that, the old champion can demand a rematch on the basis that the new champion didn't beat him. If the guy who eliminated the champion wins, then you've established a new champion by: 1) Having him beat the former champion, and 2) Having him beat someone who, presumably, is a top contender, to win the title.

Great quote from the interview:

Why?

If a precedent has been set for the type of payoff you get for a Wrestlemania main event match, then it's understandable a wrestler in such a match would expect that level of payoff and be upset if he didn't get it. However, WWE aren't really obligated to give a payoff in that ballpark, just one that's far higher than the payoffs anyone else in the show outside of the top matches. Not only that, but with Lashley only being on the full-time roster for less than two years at the time of the match, WWE would likely take the view that he doesn't have the seniority to get the kind of payoff a wrestler usually gets for a Wrestlemania main event, especially when Lashley himself had no real part in actually drawing the buys the match generated.

In theory, all parties involved should get equal credit for the match, and in that respect, Lashley is right to want more than $250,000. Not a whole lot more, but still more. However, the reality is that it was the McMahon/Trump hair versus hair storyline that drew the interest, and the money. They could have put any number of wrestlers in the roles Lashley and Umaga got, and the result would have been the same.

The match that goes on last might be the official main event, but it's not always the match that's the main event draw. Jericho vs. Hunter was the official main event for Wrestlemania X8, but we all know the match that drew the money for that one was Rock vs. Hogan. I know all that, but even with the heavy media blitz for the McMahon/Trump feud and the subsequent Mania match that followed, I always got the sense the two world title matches were the true main events and that the Lashley/Umaga match was the "sideshow". To wrestling fans, the two title matches might have been the 'true' main events, but it was the Hair match that was the difference between 700,000 buys and 1,000,000 buys. That match was undoubtedly the real main event.

The Lashley situation is detailed in the Observer, and while there is agreement that $250,000 is a light for payoff for being in the main event of the biggest money drawing show in history, and that he was right to be unhappy about that part, the belief is just as strong that he should have been grateful. The match that goes on last might be the official main event, but it's not always the match that's the main event draw. Jericho vs. Hunter was the official main event for Wrestlemania X8, but we all know the match that drew the money for that one was Rock vs. Hogan.

I believe it's pronounced thermometer No, he had it right the first time. It was a Seinfeld reference? I hated that show. Getting back to the debate about declining PPV business. Sure, WWE are still making a ton of money elsewhere, so in that respect they've nothing to worry about. But it's a hell of a lot easier to stop a creative decline when it's just starting then when it's snowballing. Just because WWE are making tons of money elsewhere is no reason to let creative slide.

Even if Brock did face Cro Cop and lose, if he could get some impressive looking wins after that, he'd have redeemed himself. Not that losing to big names should be that big of a deal; big names are supposed to be able to beat people of lesser skill or experience. Also, losing to big people or having no likely chance to beat big people, doesn't mean your career is over; Tito lost to Chuck decisively the first time and didn't seem likely to beat him the second time, but he was still monster over and able to draw some huge numbers. And it's when you're not able to do that is when your career is over.

TNA survives because Panda, and Spike to a lesser extent, are willing to bankroll them. All it takes is the wrong Panda executive to realize they're funding a money pit, and TNA are done for. Not only that, but the TNA television deal with Spike runs out at around the same time that WWE's deal with USA runs out. If Vince wants to get back on Spike and Spike are receptive, if only to regain the one-two punch of having UFC and WWE again, that leaves TNA out in the cold. And, as ever, I always get a laugh from the people who bring up the "Why do you care if WWE makes money?" type of argument.

No fight as great as either of the two top fights from December, but there was also nothing bad on the show, either. I was disappointed Lesnar lost quickly, but at the same time he looked ferocious out there, and once he learns to defend against submissions, Lesnar is going to be very hard to bear. Speaking of submissions, it was great to see Sylvia tap out, especially to a guillotine choke. Sylvia had Nogueira rocked, and it looked bad for a while, but never count out Nogueira. The prelims were good too, with Tim Boetsch really making an impression with his crazy throwdown of David Heath, and Chris Lytle living up to his nickname. All in all, UFC 81 was another great show from the UFC, and very well worth it.

It's a shame Brock lost quickly because a lot of people on certain other boards are going to use it as an excuse to rip into him and bury him, all the while ignoring the fact that Lesnar was doing very well for himself before the knee bar and showed tremendous potential. I think Brock is going to learn a great deal from this, and I think this is going to work in his favor by forcing him to train even harder. Brock might have lost the fight, but I truly think he's going to win the war.

No, I don't think it would. As I recall, Hogan and Flair walked around each other for a few minutes and that was about that. Painful. Hogan was booked terribly for his reign, and they wonder why it flopped so badly. Hogan's reign being terrible was down to the fact that it was purely a nostalgia deal that had no legs once he actually won the belt. Even the best booking in the world can't overcome the fact that nostalgia in wrestling has a very short shelf life when it comes to being able to draw with it.

The injury was worse than they first thought, as it was a complete muscle tear off the bone. The injury was as bad as it was made out. How Cena managed to make it back in just four months is something else. It's worth pointing out that he might not have made a full recovery, and is just recovered enough to where he can get by without having to put in a 100% effort. Even that, though, is something of a major achievement on Cena's part.

For one thing, it'll make it a lot easier for him to argue to get what he wants. He can get virtually anything he wants anyway, but why not make it easier. Not only that, if Hunter's behavior has shown us anything, it's that he's terribly insecure, and he might think that by doing the job again, he not only gets the aforementioned capital, but he might get the rest of the locker room liking him more. He's already got a ton of respect, but he's not exactly popular, for many reasons, and it could be his way of trying to do something about it.

As I've said elsewhere, I can see Triple H jobbing to Cena at Wrestlemania, if only for the political capital. His position is secure and he can do anything he wants anyway, but it'll be so much easier if he can point to the fact that he did another job in a Wrestlemania main event/co-main event. It's the main event version of Kevin Nash doing that banana skin job to Rey Mysterio; Hunter can point to his job at Wrestlemania, and argue that because he did the job for his fourth straight Wrestlemania, he should get whatever he's politicking for at the time. Sure, we're talking about another Wrestlemania main event loss for Hunter, but in his position, Hunter has many more Wrestlemania main events to look forward to, so why not trade in a few losses to look like a good soldier.

Two words sum it up, and they come from Edge during a great promo on Raw: Character Development. X-Pac was the same character and personality in 1999 that he was in 1996, and I think the people were tired of it, and by 2001 they absolutely hated it to the point he was the lone WWF guy to get booed when facing a WCW wrestling during the ill-fated Invasion. While some people can get away with staying the same for so long, those people are usually so incredibly popular that they could get a reaction just reading from the phone book. X-Pac was not such a person. He didn't do anything to change, update or freshen himself up in anyway, and it showed in the reaction he got. As for X-Factor, it wasn't a bad idea in theory, but they did it with the wrong people and had the wrong idea. Instead of being an opening match to mid-level act, they should have been pushed as a strong mid-level act on the way to the upper level of the card. The problem is you simply couldn't do that with any of the three involved, despite what they all brought to the table.

Bobby Lashley: If the racial atmosphere in the WWE locker room, whether rooted in genuine racism or not, is as described, I wouldn't stick around it if I felt as strongly as Lashley apparently does. In that respect, I applaud the guy for standing up for principles when most other people would have put up with it for a strong six-figure income. Naturally, though, people couldn't wait to knock the guy for taking such a stand, because how dare Lashley quit a job he's unhappy at. Wrestlemania plans There's no real use talking about what may or may not happen at WM yet, because plans are likely changing all the time and even on the day of the event plans could go back and forth. I'm guessing the WWE Title match ends up with Cena-Orton-HHH in a three-way, with Cena retaining (and I wouldn't be surprised if Hunter does the job here, because it racks up those brownie points) and the three-way feud continuing for the next couple of months. The Firing of Dave Lagana I can understand why WWE is so protective of keeping their plans quiet, but at the same time, they have bigger things to worry about. After all, it's a very small percentage of their fanbase who are going to find out those plans, and the vast majority of those are still going to watch anyway. The reasoning behind Punk's booking lately It looks more like punishment than an outright burial. But I can see why some want to call it a burial, because it let's them get in their knocks at certain people.