OAO Raw Analysis Thread

[Guest Anglesault]

- The Shelton/Flair bits were nice. They have a PLAN for this guy

What is it?

 

I never exactly got the impression that they had a plan.

 

I do, however think they want to do something big with him and are kind of playing it by ear.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

- The Shelton/Flair bits were nice. They have a PLAN for this guy

What is it?

 

I never exactly got the impression that they had a plan.

 

I do, however think they want to do something big with him and are kind of playing it by ear.

It seems they want him to be an impact player on RAW sooner rather than later. That was what I alluded to. It's possible they want him to be a long term foil for Evolution.

[chaosrage 0]

Nah, I just figured that since there's rarely anything meaningful found in those threads (even most of the people who post in them will admit it), there's really no purpose for them to be retained since they do take up a lot of bandwidth.

Okay. So it's just whatever Bruiser Chung doesn't think is meaningful should be deleted.... Well thanks for clearing that up.

 

If you ask me, it's one of the few threads on the entire site worth reading. I'd rather read what people thought of Raw instead of who was mad at who the next night or what rating it got or the other shit.

 

Some people must like it because it gets 10,000 views a week.

[Guest JMA]

I'm hoping Shelton is the one who takes the IC title from Randy Orton.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

Nah, I just figured that since there's rarely anything meaningful found in those threads (even most of the people who post in them will admit it), there's really no purpose for them to be retained since they do take up a lot of bandwidth.

Okay. So it's just whatever Bruiser Chung doesn't think is meaningful should be deleted.... Well thanks for clearing that up.

 

Well, I'm not the only one who thinks it should be deleted, but whatever, I wouldn't want to disrupt your stay on Cloud Nine, where only THA EVIL Bruiser Chong disputes some of the things that go on here.

 

If you ask me, it's one of the few threads on the entire site worth reading.  I'd rather read what people thought of Raw instead of who was mad at who the next night or what rating it got or the other shit.

 

See that's the thing. At times it could be worth reading, but guess what? Up until the show is actually over, there's little to none posts that do anything other than depict what's happening at that very moment on the show. And those that skew from that formula, are quickly buried by the aforementioned posts.

 

That's the whole point of the analysis thread: to discuss the show after it's over, which is essentially when the most discussion takes place now. The only difference is the mods have decided to separate the throwaway PBP from the actual discussion.

 

Some people must like it because it gets 10,000 views a week.

 

No one challenged how popular it is. It's clear that many like it, but there are plenty that don't. And honestly, you can't always go by hits when judging a thread's popularity, otherwise there were entirely way too many people who liked the cockshots thread.

[Scroby 0]

Alright I'm sure I'm asking to be flamed when I ask this, but was it me or did the crowd sorta die off for a bit after Orton got tagged in? One minute the crowd was hot, I flip the channel for a second, flip back Orton's in and the crowd becomes somewhat silent. Maybe I missed something in that 20 seconds or maybe its just me.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

Some people must like it because it gets 10,000 views a week.

Or, maybe because it's the *only* Raw thread? A bunch of views are probably people refreshing the thread every few minutes.

[Tawren 0]

Who needs objectivity?

Who needs bitchy smarks who base their internet existance around finding things to bitch about?

 

Oh no! Too many chops! Minus 10 stars!

 

Oh no! Story doesn't reach Shakespearean levels! Minus 400 stars!

Weren't you the guy who called HBK/Undertaker HIAC bad because HBK "oversold the punches"? Yeah.

 

Blah blah blah blah

 

We have been crushed in a sea of your incredible logic.

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

Well this thread is already classic. Ray becomes the warm-hearted reviewer and Tawren...well....still bitches. But it's entertaining. (Grabs a bowl of lightly salt pretzels)

[chaosrage 0]

See that's the thing.  At times it could be worth reading, but guess what?  Up until the show is actually over, there's little to none posts that do anything other than depict what's happening at that very moment on the show.  And those that skew from that formula, are quickly buried by the aforementioned posts.

Yeah, I guess if you just want to read "It was a good raw" or "It was awful". I want to read smarks marking the fuck out if it's something good or ripping it to pieces for 5 pages if it's bad.

 

"I really wanted HHH to lose bad" doesn't really have the same effect as "TAP YOU MOTHERFUCKER TAP!"

 

That's the whole point of the analysis thread: to discuss the show after it's over, which is essentially when the most discussion takes place now. The only difference is the mods have decided to separate the throwaway PBP from the actual discussion.

 

Because people who just want to discuss the show after it's over can't figure out how to go to the last page and read the posts after Raw ends...

 

No one challenged how popular it is. It's clear that many like it, but there are plenty that don't.

 

Uh.. then how's about they don't click on the thread?

 

And honestly, you can't always go by hits when judging a thread's popularity, otherwise there were entirely way too many people who liked the cockshots thread.

 

What a shock.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

Because people who just want to discuss the show after it's over can't figure out how to go to the last page and read the posts after Raw ends...

 

Why should anyone have to wade through 100 pages of things like "OMG JERICHO" just so they can find the part of the thread that actually begins to discuss the show? I understand that some people enjoy the show more when they're at their computer furiously clicking "refresh" to see their fellow smarks repeat essentially the same thing on one portion of the show, but hey, isn't that what chat rooms are for?

[Tawren 0]

Well this thread is already classic. Ray becomes the warm-hearted reviewer and Tawren...well....still bitches. But it's entertaining. (Grabs a bowl of lightly salt pretzels)

Quote me my post where I bitched. There's a difference between explaining my dislike and bitching.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Yeah it does.

 

Enjoyment can be independent of the actual product, so how can that = quality?

 

No, I don't need guys who are just looking for something to complain about.

 

No, you're better with your head in the sand.

 

Yeah, I will. Thank you. It's better than counting chops...

 

No it's not. It's not "better" than something substantive. "Counting Chops" provides proof of repetition. Repetition -when not part of the story- shows lack of imagination by the wrestlers, an inability to convey a message in a different way, and is simply not realistic in any way, shape or form. Nothing says "We're working together" than sticking your chest out for another guy to hit half a dozen times in a row and not doing a thing about it. So how can you say that "That was fun" is better than what I just wrote? Well, an idiot can and will look like an idiot for doing so. I'm not saying that's you, but one could make the connection. I'd rather be someone "looking to complain" that someone who isn't looking to or at anything at all.

 

I'll say whatever I want to say. Fun = superb, says Ray. This match, was fun. I'm not going to rate it lower because someone else found a "flaw" in it.

 

You say what you want to say. What you say is full of shit, but that comes with the territory of abandoning the thought process. Calling a match that had botched spots, repetitive action, and very little substance "superb" because it gave you the warm fuzzies is something I'd expect out of someone living in a cave. It wasn't a "bad" match, as it has certain elements that gave it quality, but I'd say it was closer to "bad" than it was to "superb".

 

Oh no! It's Ravishing Rick Coey!

 

Is that an insult? Chris Coey is someone whose opinion on wrestling I respect, though do not always agree with. He writes about wrestling in a manner that makes me feel that being a wrestling fan is "worth it". By that I mean, he writes about it intelligently; he writes with a critical eye. He doesn't just say "I enjoyed this", he tries to find out what made him enjoy it. This is a better way of viewing wrestling if you are a hardcore watcher because if you know what you specifically like in a match or a wrestler, then you can look up, buy, and watch things that are similar - you'd have a better chance at finding more stuff to enjoy. If you work from a purely emotional standpoint, fulfillment will be limited; both in terms of quantity and quality. But apparently, this is a "bad" thing, and being compared to someone with such an approach is an insult.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

You cannot seperate the crowd from a match. It is part of the experience of watching pro wrestling. The crowd is PART of the match, it effects the workers. What happens to you is not. Period.

 

The crowd can be affected by a match, this is true, and they do play a role. But it's limited. In the end, you don't rate the crowd, you rate the match. The match is the only thing the wrestlers really can control.

 

You use the word "experience", expand on that. Do you limit the "experience" to *just* the wrestlers and the crowd in the arena? Do you add in the announcers, who play a role in conveying the story and emotion of the match? Does the "experience" include what you watch it on? I bet a Big Movie Screen would provide a different "experience" than a handheld screen. And how do you define "the crowd"? I say you count as "the crowd".

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

Well this thread is already classic. Ray becomes the warm-hearted reviewer and Tawren...well....still bitches. But it's entertaining. (Grabs a bowl of lightly salt pretzels)

Quote me my post where I bitched. There's a difference between explaining my dislike and bitching.

Let me re-phrase that: Once again becomes the only poster to grossly under-rate the match when everyone else says entertaining/good/ and the over-rated superb comments.

[Guest Goodear]

I don't understand the complaints here, since its not like the RAW thread doesn't exist. Its still there for the PBP if you want it to be, we just have a newer thread that takes place afterward to discuss things a little more in depth afterwords. What pray tell is the actual complaint here?

[Guest Goodear]

Enjoyment can be independent of the actual product, so how can that = quality?

 

Because being in an entertainment medium, the enjoyment can be the principle goal of the performers. Sometimes wrestlers do indeed put more thought into providing a stylistic sport built around technical work (Dean Malenko for one seemed to 'wrestle for himself' a great deal) while other focus entirely on the entertainment such as Hogan. Its like looking at movies like Raiders of The Lost Ark and Citizen Kane, they both do an excellent job of doing what they set out to do but they aren't the same. The eight man on Monday followed the Raiders formula of trying to be fun in a mindless way.

 

Yeah, I will. Thank you. It's better than counting chops...

 

Counting chops is reasonable considering its all Ric Flair does anymore. But that notwithstanding, its not really the amount of chops thrown but the number of chops that didn't seem to mean anything. Looking back at the Flair-Steamboat series, you'll see chops flying every which way but the selling and pacing of the matches makes them seem about 10 times as important as the ones you saw on Monday, which should be the actual complaint.

 

You say what you want to say. What you say is full of shit, but that comes with the territory of abandoning the thought process.

 

Thinking about most things heavily causes a drastic decrease in the enjoyment factor of any wrestling match. Think about things too much and you start to wonder why Kawada's opponents didn't just keep him on the mat all fight long in order to avoid getting kicked a million times a match. Why didn't they do that? Because it would be boring. Realism in wreslting = yawns and less money as proven by the disasterous Inoki 'worked shoot' era in Japan.

 

It wasn't a "bad" match, as it has certain elements that gave it quality, but I'd say it was closer to "bad" than it was to "superb".

 

It was average Ric Flair boredom. Chop chop chop, headlock, throw into ropes, shoulderblock, backdrop... yawn yawn yawn. I don't think I've ever wanted Batista and Randy Orton to get into a match more.

 

Oh no! It's Ravishing Rick Coey!

 

Is that an insult?

 

Yes because Coey is a tremendous wonk whose jerkery always overshadowed how much wrestling knowledge he had.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Because being in an entertainment medium, the enjoyment can be the principle goal of the performers.

 

The entertainment value of the fans, while it can be manipulated, is not in the control of the wrestlers. What can entertain one set of fans may bore another. It is easier -and more effective- to concentrate on making the product 'good', than to make it 'entertaining', since while you cannot control the audience, you can control what the audience watches. So even if someone doesn't "dig" the match, they can't really speak out against it because it provided certain elements which made it "good".

 

Sometimes wrestlers do indeed put more thought into providing a stylistic sport built around technical work (Dean Malenko for one seemed to 'wrestle for himself' a great deal) while other focus entirely on the entertainment such as Hogan.

 

I don't see Hogan often called "superb" though.

 

Its like looking at movies like Raiders of The Lost Ark and Citizen Kane, they both do an excellent job of doing what they set out to do but they aren't the same. The eight man on Monday followed the Raiders formula of trying to be fun in a mindless way.

 

"Fun" however, is different from "superb". I have no objections with calling anything "fun", as it relates to personal feelings. I _do_ have a problem with people relating "fun" and "superb", as "superb" relates to quality. Also, I don't hear many people calling "Raiders.." -better- than "Kane..."

 

Thinking about most things heavily causes a drastic decrease in the enjoyment factor of any wrestling match. Think about things too much and you start to wonder why Kawada's opponents didn't just keep him on the mat all fight long in order to avoid getting kicked a million times a match. Why didn't they do that? Because it would be boring. Realism in wreslting = yawns and less money as proven by the disasterous Inoki 'worked shoot' era in Japan.

 

There is the possibility of "overthinking"; contrary to popular belief, I don't "look" for anything - it just is there and I see it. At least, with everyday matches. Matches that I've seen a couple of times I often "look" for stuff. There is a certain line you cross when analytical thought becomes nitpicking, where "that doesn't make sense" leads to "nothing make sense". You have to suspend part of your disbelief, part of your sense of reality, when watching a story -any story- unfold. However, leaving your brain at the door is just as damaging; you sell yourself out when you do that. "Thinking" in general, however, doesn't decrease the enjoyment factor unless the match can't support it. "Thinking" can open up something new to enjoy, it can increase your appreciation for the match, it offers a whole new level to look at. Hart vs. Piper WM 8, for example, when looked at on the surface isn't that great, however, if you look deeper and make all these connections, it isn't just "these two guys are friends", it becomes more than that. Hart vs. Austin WM 13 is another example, if you look at it like "Bret Hart hates Austin" it will appear as a regular brawl; if you look at it like "Bret Hart becomes Austin" the whole playing field changes. "Thinking" can be more rewarding than "feeling".

 

Yes because Coey is a tremendous wonk whose jerkery always overshadowed how much wrestling knowledge he had.

 

"Wonk"?

 

I was thinking more in regards to his match reviews on his website, than his messageboard posting.

[chaosrage 0]

Because people who just want to discuss the show after it's over can't figure out how to go to the last page and read the posts after Raw ends...

 

Why should anyone have to wade through 100 pages of things like "OMG JERICHO" just so they can find the part of the thread that actually begins to discuss the show? I understand that some people enjoy the show more when they're at their computer furiously clicking "refresh" to see their fellow smarks repeat essentially the same thing on one portion of the show, but hey, isn't that what chat rooms are for?

Wade through? All they have to do is click on the lage page and reply. What's the problem?

[chaosrage 0]

The entertainment value of the fans, while it can be manipulated, is not in the control of the wrestlers.  What can entertain one set of fans may bore another.  It is easier -and more effective- to concentrate on making the product 'good', than to make it 'entertaining', since while you cannot control the audience, you can control what the audience watches.  So even if someone doesn't "dig" the match, they can't really speak out against it because it provided certain elements which made it "good".

 

So good to you doesn't have to be entertaining?

 

I don't see Hogan often called "superb" though.

 

Then you haven't talked to people that like his type of matches. To those people, he is. There's lots of people that would call Hogan/Warrior, Hogan/Andre, and Hogan/Rock superb.

 

"Fun" however, is different from "superb". I have no objectionswith calling anything "fun", as it relates to personal feelings. I _do_have a problem with people relating "fun" and "superb", as "superb"relates to quality. Also, I don't hear many people calling "Raiders.."-better- than "Kane..."

 

Raiders is a better adventure than Kane. Kane is a better drama than Raiders. They're different types of movies. No one watches Raiders of the Lost Ark wishing the movie was of the same quality as Citizen Kane. Because they don't relate to other. They watch it because they want to see an adventure and that's all that matters. If you think Kane is better, it's because you like dramas better than adventures.

 

Is Benoit/Malenko better than OTE Foley/Austin or TLC? If you like scientific wrestling better than brawlling or spotfests, then yeah. But you can't say Benoit/Malenko is a better quality match than the others. You wouldn't go "Yeah, TLC was alright, but I've seen better technical wrestling". What the fuck is that? About all you could say was that it was a better scientific match than TLC was a spotfest.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

So good to you doesn't have to be entertaining?

 

Other way around, "Good" doesn't have to be entertaining to me. Objectivity is a wonderful thing.

 

Then you haven't talked to people that like his type of matches. To those people, he is. There's lots of people that would call Hogan/Warrior, Hogan/Andre, and Hogan/Rock superb.

 

Well, when you find these people we'll talk. I love Hogan matches, I'm a big Hogan mark, I think he is underrated by a lot of people; I wouldn't call any of his matches "superb".

 

Raiders is a better adventure than Kane. Kane is a better drama than Raiders. They're different types of movies. No one watches Raiders of the Lost Ark wishing the movie was of the same quality as Citizen Kane. Because they don't relate to other. They watch it because they want to see an adventure and that's all that matters. If you think Kane is better, it's because you like dramas better than adventures.

 

They're both movies, movies have common elements. If "Raiders" has a plot hole, it can't get away with it because it's an adventure movie. It can't get away with poorly developed characters, or a bad script, or a contrived ending. Movies are relatable because they all contain characters, performances, plot, dialogue, etc. which can be related. Wrestling matches are relatable because they too have characters, performances, plot/story, technique, build, pace, etc. these are characteristics that are found in all matches, which means you can compare them.

 

Is Benoit/Malenko better than OTE Foley/Austin or TLC? If you like scientific wrestling better than brawlling or spotfests, then yeah. But you can't say Benoit/Malenko is a better quality match than the others.

 

Sure you can. Wrestling has two parts - story and technique. This is a common thread for all 3 matches. Even brawls can have good technique, as can spotfests. It may not be as complex, but if the moves are executed well, then it cannot be faulted as a technical masterpiece between Austin and Foley would have been contrary to the story told. Which ever match tells the story best along with having proper technique is the better match, OR, if a match has the best technique along with a proper story, it can be the better match. Cases can be made for both Story and Technique in which is better, or maybe even a blend, as long as it _is_ there. The 8 man neither had the story or the technique, all it had was formula and atmosphere.

 

You wouldn't go "Yeah, TLC was alright, but I've seen better technical wrestling". What the fuck is that? About all you could say was that it was a better scientific match than TLC was a spotfest.

 

Wrestling is a collection of moves or "spots". What gives these moves meaning is how they are incorporated into the match; the "story" or "psychology", if you will. Moves can be built up to, they can be referred to repeatedly in a match, they can be used to convey the emotions or objectives of the wrestlers. The TLC, despite using "bigger" moves, did not incorporate them as smartly or "better" than Malenko and Benoit. The story of TLC was non-existent, it was just a collection of random spots. Benoit and Malenko strung together moves in a logical fashion and more efficiently used the ring to their advantage.

 

Now, getting to your point, "This is a better _____ match" is different from "This is a better match". You change the focus off of "story and technique" and onto the style. Within that focus you can use "story and technique" in regards to the "style". When you change the perspective, you change the objective. However, you can _still_ look at both matches and compare them to each other, and you can compare them to their respective objectives and whether or not they fulfilled them.

[AndrewTS 0]

If the crowd was in, say, Pittsberg, where the crowd wouldn't be as "hot", the match would have suffered.

What's wrong with PITTSBURGH? The last two shows we got were the pre-Mania XIX SD and a non-eventful Raw. I thought the crowd was excellent for SD and rather good for the Raw.

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

Hogan is far from a great wrestler, but he knows how to work a crowd into getting into his matches that make them more entertaining.

 

Hot crowd for a OK match = entertaining.

Hot crowd for a good match = great.

Hot crowd for a great match = awesome

dead crowd for a bad match = god awful.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

What's wrong with PITTSBURGH? The last two shows we got were the pre-Mania XIX SD and a non-eventful Raw. I thought the crowd was excellent for SD and rather good for the Raw

 

Their reaction to Angles win at Unforgiven was disappointing to me. There have been better hometown responses. Plus, I hate "Pittsburgh" with a fiery passion, hence, my intentional misspelling of their name as to further insult their crappy city of crap.

[ChrisMWaters 0]

What's wrong with PITTSBURGH? The last two shows we got were the pre-Mania XIX SD and a non-eventful Raw. I thought the crowd was excellent for SD and rather good for the Raw

 

Their reaction to Angles win at Unforgiven was disappointing to me. There have been better hometown responses. Plus, I hate "Pittsburgh" with a fiery passion, hence, my intentional misspelling of their name as to further insult their crappy city of crap.

Don't mind Andy, Rudo. It's just he lives in a town near Pittsburgh...some small town...either Mars or Smock, IIRC.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

THERE'S A PLACE CALLED "SMOCK"?!?!

 

Oh... and... uh...

 

Flair vs. Benjamin sucks. Hard. Ass.

 

There is no need for it as Flair's status in the WWE is "Crazy Old Guy who says Whooo" and not as a competitive wrestler where fans will be in awe of anyone who beats him.

 

Flair will lead, which means he'll give Benjamin a lot of offense which he won't take very well and the heat sections will probably bore the audience to tears. The best bet here is a squash. Benjamin in, Benjamin out. Time Elapsed: 60 seconds.

[ChrisMWaters 0]

THERE'S A PLACE CALLED "SMOCK"?!?!

Yes, there is.

[chaosrage 0]

Other way around, "Good" doesn't have to be entertaining to me.  Objectivity is a wonderful thing.

What if it doesn't entertain anyone? Is it still good?

 

Well, when you find these people we'll talk. I love Hogan matches, I'm a big Hogan mark, I think he is underrated by a lot of people; I wouldn't call any of his matches "superb".

 

Well you always see those matches thrown around on "best of" tapes and lists. Look at all the people here that were complaining about Hogan/Andre not being on WWE's top 10 greatest show.

 

They're both movies, movies have common elements. If "Raiders" has a plot hole, it can't get away with it because it's an adventure movie. It can't get away with poorly developed characters, ora bad script, or a contrived ending.

 

They have common elements, but developed characters aren't as important in adventures as they are in dramas. Different types of movies set out to do different things. I mean, who cares if there's a plot hole in Dumb and Dumber? The only purpose of the movie is to make you laugh. Who cares about the selling in a TLC match? The only purpose in making a TLC match is to wow you with spots. If you don't like it, fine, but that doesn't make them "worse".

 

Movies are relatable because they all contain characters, performances, plot, dialogue, etc. which can be related. Wrestling matches are relatable because they too have characters, performances, plot/story, technique, build, pace, etc.these are characteristics that are found in all matches, which means you can compare them.

 

Not really, because even though they share the same characteristics they're still different. You can have a rotten apple and a perfectly fine orange and you say that the orange is better quality. That's okay. But if you have a perfectly fine apple AND a perfectly fine orange you cant say that either is better quality than the other because they cant be compared. All you can say is that the person who likes oranges will like the orange better, and that the person who likes apples will like the apple better.

 

Sure you can.Wrestling has two parts - story and technique. This is a common thread for all 3 matches. Even brawls can have good technique, as can spotfests. It may not be as complex, but if the moves are executed well, then it cannot be faulted as a technical masterpiece between Austin and Foley would have been contrary to the story told. Which ever match tells the story best along with having proper technique is the better match, OR, if a match has the best technique along with a proper story, it can be the better match. Cases can be made for both Story and Technique in which is better, or maybe even a blend, as long as it _is_there. The 8 man neither had the story or the technique, all it had was formula and atmosphere.

 

It had technique. It's just that the technique of the match was to get the fans entertained as much as possible instead of telling a great story. The technique of Indiana Jones is to show you an adventure not to show you a bunch of characters getting developed and having some kind of self insight.

 

Wrestling is a collection of moves or "spots". What gives these moves meaning is how they are incorporated into the match; the "story" or "psychology", if you will. Moves can be built up to, they can be referred to repeatedly in a match, they can beused to convey the emotions or objectives of the wrestlers. The TLC, despite using "bigger" moves, did not incorporate them as smartly or "better" than Malenko and Benoit. The story of TLC was non-existent, itwas just a collection of random spots. Benoit and Malenko strung together moves in a logical fashion and more efficiently used the ring to their advantage.

 

Okay, when you say better, do you mean how well the match was made, or how well it actually is? If it's the second then you should call TLC a better match than Benoit/Malenko if you enjoyed it more. Regardless of how smartly they worked. TLC isn't the type of match where you string together moves in a logical fashion. A spotfest should have huge jaw dropping spots. That's what it's all about. Someone who loves those types of matches probably isn't going to care about things like psychology or working a body part. They just want exciting moves. Jeff and Matt didn't say in planning the match "How can we make our moves make more sense than the Benoit/Malenko match?" They said "What crazy shit can we do to top what we did last time?"

 

Now, getting to your point, "This is a better _____ match" is different from "This is a better match". You change the focus off of "story and technique" and onto the style.  Within that focus you can use "story and technique" in regards to the"style". When you change the perspective, you change the objective. However, you can _still_ look at both matches and compare them to each other, and you can compare them to their respective objectives and whether or not they fulfilled them.

 

And the 6 man really had one objective, to get people into the match. Sounds like it fulfilled that to me.

[AndrewTS 0]

THERE'S A PLACE CALLED "SMOCK"?!?!

Yes, there is.

Yes. I don't actually live there, but that's the mailing address. I'm much close to a place called Uniontown. They like their unions, but it was named before there were such things.

 

...George C. Marshall was from here!

 

PA also has towns such as: Arnold, Keisterville, Mars, California, Freedom, Industry, Glasgow, Ohioville, Hopwood, Little Hope, McVeytown, several towns called "_____ Furnace" and of course East and West Springfield. Every state's gotta have their Springfield(s).

 

Their reaction to Angles win at Unforgiven was disappointing to me. There have been better hometown responses. Plus, I hate "Pittsburgh" with a fiery passion, hence, my intentional misspelling of their name as to further insult their crappy city of crap.

 

I didn't see much wrong with the reaction. That whole turn was kind of unavoidably rushed due to the circumstances. Besides, they had sat through Brothers of Destruction vs. Kronik by that point already. Cut them some damn slack.

 

Flair vs. Benjamin sucks. Hard. Ass.

 

There is no need for it as Flair's status in the WWE is "Crazy Old Guy who says Whooo" and not as a competitive wrestler where fans will be in awe of anyone who beats him.

 

Agreed on that much. So if he beats Ric Flair...big, fat, hairy deal. While Flair's not a jobber and still carries credibility with him, whenever some one beats him it never means much and is never treated as such. Oh, Jericho acted like it was a big deal when he won, but that's about it.

 

It looks like they want to do something with Benjamin, but haven't figured out exactly what, yet.

[Guest MikeSC]

Lita continues to be brutal in the ring (and not in the good way). At least her craptacular performance tonight will squash any chances of her taking the Women's title off Victoria.

I legitimately fear that the WWE will put her over. Lita has regressed more than any worker I can remember.

I'm very worrired about the tag division right now. There are no strong face teams for Flair and Batista to face (assuming Benoit and Michaels don't continue to team).

And they have teams that could be HELPED by the gold. Why not let Hurricane & Rosie upset them? Heck, why not let Storm & Venis? They could've had Shelton cost Flair & Batista the belts to both allow the belts to be defended at the PPV and continue the Shelton v Flair program.

I'm liking Johnny Nitro's cocky personality. I really dig the Monday Nitro theme. His in-ring skills have not yet been seen since he became Bischoff's apprentice. He's obviously still a rookie, so it's smart to let him build a character before he gets in the ring (they should've done this with Sylvain Grenier). If he sucks, he won't be AS exposed.  Although, I have heard good things about him in OVW from the 'net (I take this with a grain of salt).

I imagine his work will be, initially, quite underwhelming --- but his gimmick works for me.

Grandmaster Sexsay returned. Eh, I never really disliked the guy. It's good that he jobbed on his first night back. Giving him a win would've set a bad example. RAW does need more midcarders.

I don't see why they brought him back. His schtick is BEYOND played out and, unlike his former tag partner, he doesn't have any good matches to claim as his own (Scotty v Malenko were some good matches).

-=Mike