I watched the last 20-30 minutes of the show. 
2 Likes
Yeah stayed up and watched it!
Was good. It definitely peaked at the Ospreay/Takeshita/Ricochet match but was a good show!
Kinda surprised they ran the plastic bag thing back again, but also not surprised at all, cause itās Danielson haha
1 Like
I saw bits of the triple threat match. No comment.
1 Like
Tuned it because it could have been Danielsonās last match and I was interested to see if Shane would show upā¦
Shane didnāt show up which makes me wonder if he does end up showing up at all now. Main event was good but the ending was rough and it was probably botched. Post-match angle was very awkward. Happy for Darby getting to be the guy to chase Mox for the title.
Didnāt seem botched to me, just a bit of a wet fart of an ending more than anything. The post match angle went on for far too long though, which made it seem like something else was about to happen but it never did lol
1 Like
Take it The Rock/Mankind feud wasnāt one of your favourites 
2 Likes
Well Foley is a 3 time champion with a combined reign of 47 days between the 3 reigns. And most of that is his first one. You canāt tell me that doesnāt cheapen it a bit.
I think the calibre of the champions makes a difference though.
Austin, Rock, Mankind, Triple H, Kane were all worthy champions.
In real combat sports the title belts switch hands all the time and long reigns are rare so I donāt think it cheapens the belt a bit when the calibre of guy winning it makes sense.
To some degree but to my mind neither Kane nor Foley belong on that list. 3 reigns totalling around 7 weeks is bad booking no matter the era youāre in.
Catching up late to this after watching the doc but it seems like wrestling is pretty good again?
Will never have time to watch 3 hrs of raw every week but casting up through YouTube.
Kudos to HHH bringing it back when we have never had more knowledge as to what goes on
3 hour TV shows are too long to watch, even if you cut the ads out.
WWE produce a nice 10-15 minute highlight package on YouTube which is usually enough to keep you up to speed.
Big events feel big again. I really like that rather than having B level PPVs they now take those shows internationally where audiences that donāt normally get an event on that level receive them very well.
1 Like
26 Days and 20 Days then 1 Day
I hear ya but I think the feud was just fine and created great moments. The dropping to HHH after 1 day was bollocks though, got Randy Savageād on that deal.
Discovery has a 1 hour highlight show of the latest week if youāve got time for that. Found out myself the other day after finishing the doc as well, was a good promo from WWE as itāll have definitely got some back into it.
@Leper get your point about the shorter title reigns but it was partially that era. I mean kids now will probably claim Roman is better than The Rock because his longest heavyweight title reign was about 4 months, yet he was the face of the best era in history alongside Austin (also <6 months longest reign).
I like longer reigns, not really over 1 year, but itās not terrible to have some short ones and keep it feeling like the title can change hands at any time.
How we defining long title reigns? Some reigns were long but not really over a year and were awful. JBLās and Evolution HHHās for instance.
Alberto Del Rio was World Heavyweight Champion for like 5 months or something and fuck me that mustāve been 5 months too long.
1 Like
HHH title reign in 2003/04 is one of the worst reigns of all time. Shit matches, burying all the WCW guys, shit feuds, boring promos.
It was hell.
4 Likes
Absolute pain mate. Start of every RAW a boring long arse promo.
Donāt know how he regressed like that, Stone Cold and The Rock really made him step his game up.
1 Like
Problem is there, nothing to do with the length of it.
On this iād say anywhere from 3/4 months - 9 months is the sweet spot for me. With the occassional short reign (1 day - few weeks) mixed in for keeping things fresh. Just hard to manage those shorter ones with the way storylines build up over months, often itāll just be a rematch or money in the bank situation.
I donāt mind short reigns. You have to have to have them at some point to freshen things up and sometimes can use it.
Mind you, there are plenty of poorly executed ones that essentially cheapened the title in the process.
An example of a good one for me was when Randy won it from Drew a few years ago. I think both gyuy came out of it looking good and the title wasnāt diminished because of it.
An example of a bad one was much later Miz beating Drew for it and then losing it to Lashley like a week later.
Miz looked like a chump, Drew looked like a chump, and the title felt like a hot potato.
1 Like
There have been plenty of bad long reigns. A reign doesnāt have to reach a given length, but if title runs are routinely not exceeding a couple of months, especially in the world title scene then you are diminishing the title and doing talent no favours either.
Backlash 2000 was one of the all time great babyface title wins but Rock was winning it for a second time in almost as many months as I recollect at King of the Ring that same year. What was the point of throwing away that moment?
1 Like
āSpinebuster!ā
āOh my god! JR, thereās no Shane, thereās no Vince and here comesā¦the peopleās elbow!ā
2 Likes