Monday Night Raw June 9th

DM_7

CSF wrote: »

I've just picked up a huge hole and you're randomly calling it nonsense. Of course his actions over the last 2 years are central to the character he is. It is farcical to suggest they were all just a lie.

It wasn't random to describe it as nonsense.

You are saying his actions are contradictory to his reasons for turning on Rollins and Ambrose without any credible examples of contradiction.

The explanation offered on RAW was along the lines of: He was the one that made the group and held the group together, he always viewed it as business relationship (i.e not personal), it went as far as it could so he decided he would end it, its now all about Seth Rollins.

None of those things contradict the actions from the previous 18 months.

CSF

DM-ICE wrote: »

It wasn't random to describe it as nonsense.

You are saying his actions are contradictory to his reasons for turning on Rollins and Ambrose without any credible examples of contradiction.

The explanation offered on RAW was along the lines of: He was the one that made the group and held the group together, he always viewed it as business relationship (i.e not personal), it went as far as it could so he decided he would end it, its now all about Seth Rollins.

None of those things contradict the actions from the previous 18 months.

Rubbish. All his actions were for the Shield. The amount of times he took serious risks to his own well being to protect Reigns and Ambrose.

If there was one of the 3 that bought the most into the Shield, and was the least self-interested it was Rollins.

Which makes it particularly enticing for Rollins to be the one to turn (I think most of us expected Ambrose), but with shock swerves like that you need a really good reason for doing it. Ambrose would have been easy to do that for with the Reigns jealousy, a lot more difficult with Rollins because he was Mr Shield but it seems like they haven't even tried, instead deciding to tell us that he was never any of those things all along.

DM_7

CSF wrote: »

Rubbish. All his actions were for the Shield. The amount of times he took serious risks to his own well being to protect Reigns and Ambrose.

If there was one of the 3 that bought the most into the Shield, and was the least self-interested it was Rollins.

Which makes it particularly enticing for Rollins to be the one to turn (I think most of us expected Ambrose), but with shock swerves like that you need a really good reason for doing it. Ambrose would have been easy to do that for with the Reigns jealousy, a lot more difficult with Rollins because he was Mr Shield but it seems like they haven't even tried, instead deciding to tell us that he was never any of those things all along.

Nonsense.

He already explained he was Mr Shield when he wanted the Shield to be together, something he doesn't want or need anymore.

If we are interpreting his actions during a match I would say (based on his words) he didn't take serious risks to protect anyone else, he did it to win which was in his best interests.

CSF

DM-ICE wrote: »

Nonsense.

He already explained he was Mr Shield when he wanted the Shield to be together, something he doesn't want or need anymore.

If we are interpreting his actions during a match I would say (based on his words) he didn't take serious risks to protect anyone else, he did it to win which was in his best interests.

He took serious risks to protect the other guys plenty of times in matches he wasn't competing in.

DM_7

CSF wrote: »

He took serious risks to protect the other guys plenty of times in matches he wasn't competing in.

So the group would win.

The Shield winning was good for Rollins.

CSF

DM-ICE wrote: »

So the group would win.

The Shield winning was good for Rollins.

He also did it plenty of times when it wasn't the result of a match at stake.

It's hard to paint it that he wasn't putting his body on the line for his teammates.

DM_7

CSF wrote: »

He also did it plenty of times when it wasn't the result of a match at stake.

It's hard to paint it that he wasn't putting his body on the line for his teammates.

Win a match, win a fight, win a feud whatever way you want to put it.

He was putting himself in harms way to protect his team because it was good for the Shield when the Shield was good for Rollins. I am repeating myself now.

So no point continuing unless I won't just be pointing back to something already said.

CSF

DM-ICE wrote: »

Win a match, win a fight, win a feud whatever way you want to put it.

He was putting himself in harms way to protect his team because it was good for the Shield when the Shield was good for Rollins. I am repeating myself now.

So no point continuing unless I won't just be pointing back to something already said.

It's not becoming any less farcical to me the more times you say it so yeah let's leave it.

DM_7

CSF wrote: »

It's not becoming any less farcical to me the more times you say it so yeah let's leave it.

If you used the words to me rather than saying other were incapable of reason a while ago I wouldn't have bothered dragging it out :pac:

CSF

DM-ICE wrote: »

If you used the words to me rather than saying other were incapable of reason a while ago I wouldn't have bothered dragging it out :pac:

What?

Moneymaker

Ah jaysus, this back and forth nitpicking is getting silly now.

Wrestling is not exactly cerebral at the best of times.

Spending your time picking holes in the smallest things just serves to annoy yourself and everyone else.

JP Liz V1

Reigns did well in his promo (I know all the talk is about Ambrose's one which was very good too), Reigns pretty much set up his SS match with HHH which I hope he goes over

DM_7

CSF wrote: »

What?

Here , in case I wasn't clear, if that post was simply the farcical in your opinion part I would have ignored it but the reason part made me want to get some sort of explanation.

Moneymaker wrote: »

Ah jaysus, this back and forth nitpicking is getting silly now.

Not that I want to nitpick but it got silly ages ago

JP Liz V1

So did Daniel Bryan show up and give HHH and Steph the title belts back before Raw

CSF

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Reigns did well in his promo (I know all the talk is about Ambrose's one which was very good too), Reigns pretty much set up his SS match with HHH which I hope he goes over

He did very well which was surprising to me. Pretty sure he will, HHH has no need to be in action in WWE anymore other than to put over stars of the future. Having said that, he will need to feud and win eventually or else the HHH rub will mean as much to everyone as it does to the Internet forum fan, but that won't be against Reigns.

Moneymaker

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Reigns did well in his promo (I know all the talk is about Ambrose's one which was very good too), Reigns pretty much set up his SS match with HHH which I hope he goes over

All 3 were good and all 3 came across as top guys.

Ambrose was the Champions League to the other two's League One though.

gnfnrhead

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

First, after the useless booking of Daniel Bryan over the last year, after countless stop/start pushes, I've become very jaded and very cynical when it comes to what level of writing I expect from WWE. Typically, if it's a step above a monkey throwing feces at a piece of paper, I tend to give the script a pass. Should I? Probably not. I've argued on here before that we should demand more, but it reaches a stage where I simply can't be bothered waiting for the booking team to get beyond a 6th class level of English. I'll tend, for instance, to base my opinions more on how well the wrestler attempts to sell the story, rather than what the story is. And I think the trio did a really good job this week in the roles laid out for them.

Why exactly should they be given a free pass? If people accept shit, guess what, you're not getting anything better. Call them on it instead of just accepting it. People not accepting this sort of shit is what led to the biggest boom in wrestling. If it wasnt good enough, people looked elsewhere and forced them to improve to win them back. Today if it isnt good enough the mindset seems to be "oh well, wait and see where it goes". Even when there is zero reason to trust it will go somewhere good.

Ridley

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

So did Daniel Bryan show up and give HHH and Steph the title belts back before Raw

Man, They really should have shown a badly photoshopped image of a laughing Stephanie fleeing a log cabin with the belts over her shoulders.

LmnadZ

Is it true to say that shield would have broken up way earlier if it wasn't for Rollins gluing them remember the time around TLC last year and also the time just before they were going to fight the Wyatts at EC this year at least in kayfabe wise?

orestes

Isn't one guy turning on his tag team partner and saying he used him until he didn't need him anymore a pretty basic wrestling story? Seems pretty straightforward to me - Seth creates Shield, Shield is awesome and helps Seth launch his WWE career in awesome fashion, Shield reaches it's natural peak, Seth disbands Shield in fashion best suited to further his own career - turns out Seth was using 'em all along. It's pretty straightforward stuff, there are no contradictions in the story-line, and we're all gonna tune in to watch it cos it's gonna be awesome, so what's the problem?

Or are some people just all butthurt for no other reason than cos it's the Shield breaking up?

beakerjoe

Ah for everything that is good with WWE at the moment, bad things still spoil it for me and make me wonder why I watch.


Things I like in WWE at the min

1. Bringing up new talent over the last year (Paige, Bo, Adam Rose, The Wyatts, Rusev, Big E) : Great to see talents come up and get an initial break through chance, though some are brought up for the without any real direction at times.
2. Seeing some feuds and characters develop well (Rhodes Family v The Authority, Shield v The Wyatts, Shield v Evolution, Bryan v the Authority). : Some memorable feuds off teh top of my head which made me enjoy watching, though id say id liek to see more
3. Slow progress with the divas division : We all know a good amount of the divas can wrestle (AJ, Paige, Nattie, Alicia Fox, Layla, Emma) yet over the years good divas matches have been few and far between. Since the end of AJ's run and now with Paige getting time to work a decent match, things are still bad, but they are better than they were a year ago.
4. The pushes of talent over the last year : Its been great too see guys like The Shield, The Wyatts, Cesaro, Bryan and Barrett get pushed over the last 6 months. More of the same please.

Things that annoy me currently

1. Too many ad breaks. It makes viewing hard to watch live and really grinds my gears.
2. Too many meaningless matches ( Sometimes any combination of the following Del Rio/Kofi/Ziggler/The Miz/R Truth/Rey Rey/Sin Cara/Ryback/Curtis Axel/The Usos/Big Show .) : Id say Raw would even out to an average of 3 meaningless matches per show and Smackdown is even worse. No heat in most of these matches and usually never have an baring on anything major storyline wise
3. Too many short matches : Matches that are so quick it makes talent look weak. Pointless
4. Stale characters (Kane, Cena, Kofi, Del Rio, RVD, Big Show as well as Sheamus and Bray Wyatt to a certain extent) It pains me to see most of these characters in top feuds over the last year and still not progress much character wise. I like most of their characters but they are all stale. Sheamus and Bray are in there because even though I like watching them, Im bored of their characters now. Every Bray Wyatt feud has been the same with lil or no variation or character development and Sheamo needs a new direction fast.
5. The lack of follow through in some feuds and characters (Cody Rhodes and Goldust after they lost the Straps, Big E after he won the IC Title, Ziggler after he won the WC.) All could of moved up after each of the above and been bigger stars if their feuds and characters were handled better, yet they are all in mid card obscurity
6. The consistant not knowing what to do with more than have the roster on a week to week basis. (The Miz, Kofi, Ryder, Big Show, Ziggler, Sandow, .....the list can go on TBH : So much wasted/under/ miss-used talent. If At this stage I think some should be let go or repackaged as teh damage done to their personas and characters are almost beyond saving.

Lord TSC

gnfnrhead wrote: »

Why exactly should they be given a free pass? If people accept shit, guess what, you're not getting anything better. Call them on it instead of just accepting it. People not accepting this sort of shit is what led to the biggest boom in wrestling. If it wasnt good enough, people looked elsewhere and forced them to improve to win them back. Today if it isnt good enough the mindset seems to be "oh well, wait and see where it goes". Even when there is zero reason to trust it will go somewhere good.

I don't trust it will ever go anywhere. I go in with zero expectations.

I used to agree with your stance, but after spending years beating that drum, and with no viable alternative to go to, it gets to the stage where I find I enjoy wrestling more if I just accept it as a dumb soap opera. As I said before, I'll look to the wrestlers themselves to deliver the quality and plenty of people still can.

But otherwise, the options right now are put up with it, or simply stop watching the product altogether....

gnfnrhead

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I don't trust it will ever go anywhere. I go in with zero expectations.

I used to agree with your stance, but after spending years beating that drum, and with no viable alternative to go to, it gets to the stage where I find I enjoy wrestling more if I just accept it as a dumb soap opera. As I said before, I'll look to the wrestlers themselves to deliver the quality and plenty of people still can.

But otherwise, the options right now are put up with it, or simply stop watching the product altogether....

Stop watching. There is absolutly no shortage of wrestling out there so why accept such a poor product?

If everybody who had problems with large portions of the show were to stop watching, WWE would be very quick to find a solution. It's exactly what happened in the late 90's. WWF sucked so people stopped watching it. WWF were forced to come up with good stuff and ended up becoming more popular than ever.

Unfortunately, most people are institutionalised by now and won't stop watching [MOD EDIT: Bad language]

Lord TSC

gnfnrhead wrote: »

Stop watching. There is absolutly no shortage of wrestling out there so why accept such a poor product?

If everybody who had problems with large portions of the show were to stop watching, WWE would be very quick to find a solution. It's exactly what happened in the late 90's. WWF sucked so people stopped watching it. WWF were forced to come up with good stuff and ended up becoming more popular than ever.

Simply put, the pros generally outweigh the negatives for me.

I don't plan on stopping watching wrestling. But TNA has a brick wall up now in terms of having all the same problems as WWE but worse. Indy shows tend to have low production values which bothers me (yes, superficial) and I prefer the half-arsed attempts at angles that WWE do than the "high workrate" of other companies.

And basically, I also accept that if I and the majority of the IWC stopped watching....not much would change in WWE. I don't make them money right now, the kid who buys all the merch and drags his family along, buys the games, etc etc....he decides what happens in WWE. If I stop watching, all I do is punish myself.

People stopped watching in the 90s cause there was a very good alternative for them to latch on to. There's not now. There's a difference between people choose one over another, and people choosing nothing over one.

Also, does the Daniel Bryan push over the last year not show that it's not about giving up and stopping watching, but actually about voicing your grievances that work? The best shows now are the ones WWE know the crowd are going to be rowdy, so they book around it and try to shut people up. Nowadays, there's more evidence to show voicing concerns achieves more than just walking away, especially when you don't really have much to walk away too...

beakerjoe

gnfnrhead wrote: »

Stop watching. There is absolutly no shortage of wrestling out there so why accept such a poor product?

If everybody who had problems with large portions of the show were to stop watching, WWE would be very quick to find a solution. It's exactly what happened in the late 90's. WWF sucked so people stopped watching it. WWF were forced to come up with good stuff and ended up becoming more popular than ever.

Unfortunately, most people are institutionalised by now and won't stop watching.

MOD EDIT: Edited out quoted bad language

This. Its ingrained in me to watch, I will always have the urge to know whats going on and follow it no matter how poor the product is (from ad breaks, to storylines, to the commentators, to the WWEs needless waste of TV time). I usually like something on the show somehwere though, Id say theres almost always something over the 3 hours that will make me think "nice, thats worth watching" but its rare that I get a Raw thats been even close to an end to end enjoyable show. Theres been more bad Raws than good and I cant stop watching. Im screwed

A Primal Nut

CSF wrote: »

He did very well which was surprising to me. Pretty sure he will, HHH has no need to be in action in WWE anymore other than to put over stars of the future. Having said that, he will need to feud and win eventually or else the HHH rub will mean as much to everyone as it does to the Internet forum fan, but that won't be against Reigns.

Yeah I'd like to have seen Triple H in a few single's matches and get a few wins to set him up for the match with Reigns. He's on a losing streak at the minute and I'd rather believe that Triple H is in full-on "Am I f***ing going over" mode rather than "best for business" mode going into Summerslam. I'd even have him beat Ambrose at MITB; I know nobody will agree with me but anyhow Ambrose is still young and can come back strong because he has the crowd behind him. In fact I think Ambrose would become even more popular if the fans started to believe that Triple H buried him. That's usually how it works these days. Meanwhile Triple H would have more heat than ever going into Summerslam; leading to a Reigns win which the fans would actually care about. Right now I think Reigns beating Triple H won't mean anything unfortunately.

Has to be someone big anyway. Although he could also have a couple of squash matches against Zakk Ryder on RAW.

CSF

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Yeah I'd like to have seen Triple H in a few single's matches and get a few wins to set him up for the match with Reigns. He's on a losing streak at the minute and I'd rather believe that Triple H is in full-on "Am I f***ing going over" mode rather than "best for business" mode going into Summerslam. I'd even have him beat Ambrose at MITB; I know nobody will agree with me but anyhow Ambrose is still young and can come back strong because he has the crowd behind him. In fact I think Ambrose would become even more popular if the fans started to believe that Triple H buried him. That's usually how it works these days. Meanwhile Triple H would have more heat than ever going into Summerslam; leading to a Reigns win which the fans would actually care about. Right now I think Reigns beating Triple H won't mean anything unfortunately.

Has to be someone big anyway. Although he could also have a couple of squash matches against Zakk Ryder on RAW.

Pretty much agree with that post, the only thing I'd question is that it would do Ambrose any favours, the same people who would like Ambrose more for having been buried by HHH are the same group of people that Ambrose will never have problems being loved by.

beakerjoe

I think I need a strong enough alternative to stop watching WWE, ala WCW during the mid 90's. In 95 people stopped watching and switched over to Nitro thus still getting there weekly high production wrestling fix. These days there is no competition like WCW therefore when things are bad, Ive nothing to switch to and keep watching.

Lithium93_

WWE went *imitates cuckoo* when they purchased WCW in March 2001, they are just half arsing it knowing they don't have any major competiton to deal with.

beakerjoe

People seem happy with decent programming most weeks. When Raw was at Chigago a few months back and had a good show, people raved about it. It was a good enjoyable show but not a great show and I havent seen a great show in years. Peoples expectations are so low that they are delighted with good shows rather than great shows and believe mediocrity is acceptable. The product is definatly heading in a better direction over the past year but its still a long way off being brilliant. Its been a while since I saw a brilliant 2 hour show let alone 3 hour one.

I liken it to my football team. We have John and Ed playing for the team and John is a great player and Ed is dire. When John has a bad game, he is still as good as Ed is usually. When John has a good game hes excellent while when Ed has one he is no where near as good as John.

No put that to you like this, John is WWE during the 97-2001 era and Ed is WWE currently. When WWE has a great show now, its nothing like the great show they used to have back in the past.

When WWE have a great show these days, its no where near the levels of a great show during 97-2001 era, its just a great show compared to bad shows they usually have these days. The fans accept decent as great where as Im overall still un happy with most of WWEs programming.

That being said there are positives and good/great things from time to time and the company is better off than they were a year ago, I just feel that alot more work is needed.

D.Q

jaysus how bad was the language hahaha

mrkiscool2

beakerjoe wrote: »

People seem happy with decent programming most weeks. When Raw was at Chigago a few months back and had a good show, people raved about it. It was a good enjoyable show but not a great show and I havent seen a great show in years. Peoples expectations are so low that they are delighted with good shows rather than great shows and believe mediocrity is acceptable. The product is definatly heading in a better direction over the past year but its still a long way off being brilliant. Its been a while since I saw a brilliant 2 hour show let alone 3 hour one.

I liken it to my football team. We have John and Ed playing for the team and John is a great player and Ed is dire. When John has a bad game, he is still as good as Ed is usually. When John has a good game hes excellent while when Ed has one he is no where near as good as John.

No put that to you like this, John is WWE during the 97-2001 era and Ed is WWE currently. When WWE has a great show now, its nothing like the great show they used to have back in the past.

When WWE have a great show these days, its no where near the levels of a great show during 97-2001 era, its just a great show compared to bad shows they usually have these days. The fans accept decent as great where as Im overall still un happy with most of WWEs programming.

That being said there are positives and good/great things from time to time and the company is better off than they were a year ago, I just feel that alot more work is needed.

People really look back at the attitude era with rose-tinted glasses. Like some of the feuds in the attitude era were amazing, there is no doubt about that. And there were some really class matches. But there was also a lot of crap, a lot of terrible gimmicks and a lot of forgettable matches. The in-ring wrestling is WAY better today than it was 97-01 so Ed beats John there by a considerable margin.

I think that if we compare today's product to even 18 months ago it is a lot better than it was. We've had some great matches, some great feuds and soe great new wrestlers come up through the ranks. We recently had one of the greatest WMs of all time and a great WM moment in Bryan winning the title. I don't agree that when the product does well today it is nowhere near as good as it was in the attitude era. I think it can definitely improve a lot and the 3 hour Raws are killer but it makes money so that won't change but you can see the effect Stephanie and HHH getting more power is having on the company and it's for the better. I am a lot more optimistic about WWE than I was 2 years ago

Moneymaker

Didn't we have this exact talk on the podcast? :pac:

jaykhunter

I'm glad people are optimistic about WWE today despite injuries and the like. Singing a different tune September-December last year but the main thing is if it's good enough to not make you tune out. So it's been "good enough" for the absolute majority.

Being on the internet and hearing people point to the dross of the undercard of the Attitude Era to say "hey it wasn't as good as you remember" but all of that silliness doesn't matter a damn when you've a jacked fresh main event. I don't think we'll ever see so many top draws around at the same time again (please prove me wrong WWE!).

Even numbers-wise, today's WWE TV deal is ~15 times more lucrative than the Attitude Era's, and with worldwide PPV distribution, they're still ~35 million off peak profits, i.e. they convinced a lot more people that WWF was worth watching and paying for.

Deadlie

Competition is the only thing that forces anyone to up their game - if you're the only show in town, why would you rock the boat when you're raking in millions? It's not about entertaining to make money when you're at the top - it's about making money and not losing it by doing something stupid.

That said, I like the current product - I'd say there's about 30 minutes of the current shows that I'd skip regularly, but the main event and some of the other upper card stuff is great.