Best Opinion

Hey Scott,
                    Longtime yada yada, yada.  Simple question for you and the blog. Of the rash of signees: Steen, KENTA, Devitt, and Willie Mack….which one(s) do you think have the best shot of reaching Punk/Bryan level (indy darling makes good) or Hero/Cabana (can't do nothing wit ya) and back to the indies??
 

Steen:  Totally depends on how they use him and if he buys into the system.  I don't know how much of a place there is for a brawler on the main roster, but variety is good and he's certainly a different worker.  He'll need a lot of time in the NXT system, though.

Hideo Itami:  They really want him to go far, for international money reasons and because this is really HHH's baby, so he'll do a bit of time in NXT and then probably get a shot on RAW.  He can absolutely do it all in the ring and if he can get his promos to an acceptable level, they'll have something there.

Prince Devitt:  He's the dark horse choice here, and as a super-asshole heel he could be really, really big.  He's another one where he's not giving up big NJPW money to rot in NXT, so expect to see him sooner rather than later.  

Willie Mack:  Never heard of him until he got signed and indy geeks started creaming over him, so I have no idea.  Couldn't even pick him out of a police lineup.  

Were I to guess I would say Devitt will be the next CM Punk level guy, but then I thought Adam Rose would work well on RAW too and they managed to fuck that up, so take any predictions with several shakers of salt.  

                     

Your Warrior Opinion

Scott,

I was very surprised by how much Warrior meant to your wrestling fandom, because I thought I remembered otherwise.  I searched your old reviews of his matches and, sure enough, you have a lot of back-handed things to say about him.  (For example: "…and Hogan plays Ricky Morton.  Which is fair, because Warrior probably thinks he's Robert Gibson on Tuesdays.")  Now, certainly you weren't the only one who has been sharing fond memories now while not being kind to him then, but were there specific events that caused your opinion to evolve over time?  I'd like to get inside your head on this one.

Andy PG


It's not like any kind of unique experience here.  I was a big fan of his as an alternative to Hogan in the 80s, and then when I got onto the internet I discovered what a terrible person he could be.  By the time of the "queering" controversy he was basically an entirely different person.  It falls under the same kind of thing with Shawn Michaels, where you kind of have to separate the performer from the character.  Ultimate Warrior was an integral part of my wrestling fandom growing up, Jim Hellwig was kind of a dick.  

Opinion change on past rants

I just finished watching Vengeance 2002 and as becoming a habit with me while watching shows on The Network I checked out your rant on the show afterwards. From that review:

"Brock Lesnar is just not the guy to be putting the main event of the second-biggest show of the year, and he’s getting more exposed as not that guy with every match."

Would you like to take that back? Also what other opinions or predictions have you made in your reviews that you disagree with today?

A lot of them, I would suppose.  I say a lot of stupid shit during the course of a review because it's written on the fly.  
As for Brock, you also have to remember that he didn't become the megastar he is today until the UFC, and it really took until WM19 to fully legitimize him as a main event drawing card.  So I think I was right in that instance.   Clearly they should have pushed HHH even harder.  

Opinion

Why is it that people are so adamant WWE will never turn John Cena heel?  People said the same about Hulk Hogan at one point which is what made his turn shocking in 1996.  Now that they have two guys that are getting close to his level in popularity (CM Punk & Daniel Bryan) isn’t it time?  I’m predicting he loses to Daniel Bryan early next year in his return match and than becomes a tweener heading into his feud with Undertaker ultimately turning heel after or at WM30.  Cena becomes heel by ending the streak?  Punk & Bryan can sell the same merchandise as Cena.

Hogan wasn’t drawing money as a babyface in 1996, and in fact without that turn the company was probably going to go into a downward spiral with Hogan on top, and everyone knew it.  John Cena (even though he gets booed by smart-ass fans) draws thousands of people to house shows every night, makes ratings go up, and sells merchandise numbers that would make 1996 Hogan cry like a little baby.  JOHN CENA IS NOT TURNING HEEL.  Nor should he.  Companies that base major business decisions on whiny internet nerds like us, such as TNA leaving the Impact Zone, deserve what they get.  

Opinion on PPV

Scott:
 
Do you think WWE after doing PPVs for almost 3 decades has finally found the perfect PPV formula?  The past two PPVs [Payback & MITB] had three things in common: Both were 7 match PPVs, both devoted no time to prematch video packages, and the pre-show match was given 10+ minutes and were actually matches that were good enough to be on PPV.  IMO, this is the perfect formula for PPVs.  Last night, Shield-Usos, Henry-Cena, Dolph-Del Rio, and the World title match each got about 15 minutes and the WWE title MITB match got 27 minutes.  The other 3 matches got about 10 minutes each.  How many matches should a 3 hour PPV have in your opinion?

It's a good formula, although you can never eliminate the human element so even the best laid out show can go south for a variety of reasons.  But MITB showed that if you give good workers some time to work, you get good matches.   Mind-boggling, I know.  7 or 8 matches is about the limit for a 3 hour show, although if you cut all the inane self-aggrandizing video packages for games, magazines, movies and developmental centers, you can add another decent-length match.