2017 Pro Wrestling Thread

Even the Undertaker doesn't want to be part of a world where Roman Reigns gets a Hogan-level push.

 

Predictable ending that would have been much better if it happened three years ago.

Kinda sad that this it it for Taker, as I was watching him when I was in high school, and now I'm in my 40s.

They really should make this a Reigns heel turn. He was acting heelish until he started getting nervous about the kickouts. If they wanted him to be more of a face, they should have had him help Taker up after the pin, or do something more respectful.

Shane/Styles was the best part of the show, followed by the Hardys returning. They really need to get a little more creative than just having everyone kick out of everyone's finisher. It's getting tiresome.

 

Is she the Ultimate Thrill Ride ™ ?

 

Randy Savage thought so.

 

Monday morning thoughts:

1. There is how VKM and our version of Disney's imagineers think so much more next level than us. Got the streak done for Brock's massive run, so last night would be about #ThankYouTaker and not #24-0.

1A. Bret Hart, take note: that's how you do business on the way out - staring at the lights in the middle of the ring.

2. If said magic makers were smart, and it looked like they were moving in that direction, they would encase Taker's gear and the piece of canvas it was laid to rest on untouched under glass.

3. None of the booking I saw was especially odd. Anyone bitching about a Hardys run should note that they were the ROH tag champs the day before - so it isn't like they're just a novelty act.

4. Cena was super corny, but at least the dude went to Tiffany and not Jared.

rb

 

Bit of a difference between Bret's WWE exit, and Taker's final match. While Bret's refusal to lose in Canada was a bit silly, albeit economically understandable, his main issue was having to lose to HBK, who disrespected him by saying he wouldn't have been willing to return the favor. Bret had said he was willing to drop the belt to other guys, like Austin or Foley, and even the Brooklyn Brawler.

 

When the boss says to do the J.O.B., you do the J.O.B.

rb

 

Well, yes and no. Under normal circumstances, sure. The lead up to the Screwjob was not normal circumstances. Probably the most important issue with wrestlers is trust. They have to trust that their opponent will protect them in the ring, and won't take liberties with them. Hart did not trust HBK, and had refused to work with him. Vince knew Bret did not want to lose, but finally convinced him to work with Michaels for the good of the company with the agreement that Bret wouldn't lose.

Vince could have avoided the problem by just having Hart work with someone else and drop the title.

 

Bret had creative control in his contract. Vince gave it to him as a poison pill/exit clause when he negotiated the Babe Ruth/20 year deal two years prior that suddenly Vince had to get out of. Boss reaps what he sows on that one.

IIRC it was creative control for the final 30 days. Vince could've bossed him to drop the belt anytime before the final 30, or not put it on him at Summerslam in the first place.

Once he decided to do that, and terminate the deal, contractually, Bret was in the right. Legally, Bret couldn't have brought the belt to Nitro. Contractually, Bret had another month and another PPV to drop the title.

The rest is Vince spin and the "winner" writing history.

 

Using Undertaker as an example of what Bret Hart should have done 20 years ago is kind of funny, because I believe if you asked Taker's opinion of that whole situation in 1997, he would have staunchly defended Hart.

 

I both loathe and love the Raw after Mania crowd.

But that stuff with Reigns was awesome.