Raw Super Thread 2010 Spoilers

[Big Pete]

Five matches. One is eye candy and two under one minute. Another makes Legacy look weak heading into a feud with Orton. Definitely ignoring the second 'W' in WWE.

Hello, welcome Misanthrope. This is Monday Night Raw, the show used to build up to bigger and better shows including the biggest event in wrestling, Wrestlemania.

 

[Misanthrope]

Jesus, Pete. It wasn't so long ago that you built to a PPV *and* had some matches on the card. Which of Cheech & Chong's painful segments was building towards Wrestlemania? The part with the Lucky Charms or the chicken with Santino Marella's voice?

 

[Manurewa_Marlins]

Pete, just because TNA make a terrible job of building up to its PPVs, it does not excuse WWE from putting this crap out just a month before Wrestlemania.

But you're right, this is Monday Night Raw, a show I havent enjoyed since probably mid 2001.

I liked the Tyson guest spot a few months mack, but lets be honest, Tyson has been in the fight promotion game for twenty plus years. The guys is not going to struggle, especially if his segments are prerecorded. He also has experience in wrestling, as well as acting. The guy is naturally charasmatic.

 

[jc155776]

I can't wait for Stone Colds hosting night, thats gonna amp it up something massive.

Smackdown is going strong lately.

Did this Raw have the HBK vs Taker Promo? It has a kickass Placebo song playing in it.

 

[Big Pete]

Guests hosts are a waste of time.

But in the end, two people qualified for Money In The Bank at Mania, Cena + Batista furthered, Sheamus/HHH started, Orton/Legacy furthered and HBK/Taker furthered.

I really don't know how much more you can ask for? I mean, Raw has never been about the wrestling.

 

[Misanthrope]

No guest host bullsh*t or diva crap = extra time to make MITB qualifiers something more than a joke. As they were they may as well have just said 'MVP and Swagger are in'. Hell, they could have had Elmo make the announcement to ensure their target demographic are happy.

I watch wrestling because I like wrestling. Despite what your short term memory of RAW may be, there's a yawning chasm of difference between a show building towards a PPV being a little light on and a show like this week's where we were basically subjected to an extended hype video for a PPV.

 

[Misanthrope]

And before you bring TNA into it, last week's Impact was also sh*t.

 

[Big Pete]

No guest host bullsh*t or diva crap = extra time to make MITB qualifiers something more than a joke.

True. E are just hitting every potential audience.

The Money in the Bank concept hasn't been booked well since the original. Their should be more of a build up between the eight competitors.

As they were they may as well have just said 'MVP and Swagger are in'.

Such is the nature of most qualifying matches.

I watch wrestling because I like wrestling.

Vince sells sports entertainment. If you don't like the E that's fine.

Despite what your short term memory of RAW may be

???

there's a yawning chasm of difference between a show building towards a PPV being a little light on and a show like this week's where we were basically subjected to an extended hype video for a PPV.

What's the major difference? I think you're overexagerating.

 

[Misanthrope]

And I think you're incapable of acknowledging legitimate criticism of a show and a company that is the drizzling sh*ts compared to what it has been and what it should be. And no, TNA isn't better. That's not what I am saying. But given you are still in the WWE's target demographic, I wouldn't expect you to have an understanding of how far the company has fallen since they got the F out.

 

[Big Pete]

And I think you're a mark incapable of acknowledging legitimate criticism of a show and a company that is the drizzling sh*ts compared to what it has been and what it should be. And no, TNA isn't better. That's not what I am saying. But given you are still in the WWE's target demographic, I wouldn't expect you to have an understanding of how far the company has fallen since they got the F out.

That's nice. You're wrong but it was nice.

Now how about you answer my question?

 

[Misanthrope]

How about you take off your Word Life t-shirt, Rey Mysterio mask, and official spinner WWE Championship belt and watch some WWE programming from before 2000? You know, actually learn something about the industry?

Hell, really branch out and watch some original ECW (it actually existed before the WWE made a show of the same name) or some Japanese or Mexican wrestling. Because as long as your knowledge of the industry comes purely from WWE.com and the six hours of 'stellar' programming the 'E puts out with mind numbing regularity, you'll be nothing more than a mark. And it's fine if that's what you want to be - just stop pretending you know anything about wrestling.

And before you ask 'Why do you watch if it's crap?' - it's because I'm a fan of pro wrestling and that means taking in the crap because occasionally there's some good stuff there. It's the same reason I watch the A'-League.

What was your question? I assume it was 'What were you expecting?'. My answer: Exactly what I got. I'm just an optimist, and keep hoping sometime soon one of the two mainstream options will surprise me and do something interesting.

 

[Big Pete]

How about you take off your Word Life t-shirt, Rey Mysterio mask, and official spinner WWE Championship belt and watch some WWE programming from before 2000? You know, actually learn something about the industry? Hell, really branch out and watch some original ECW (it actually existed before the WWE made a show of the same name) or some Japanese or Mexican wrestling. Because as long as your knowledge of the industry comes purely from WWE.com and the six hours of 'stellar' programming the 'E puts out with mind numbing regularity, you'll be nothing more than a mark. And it's fine if that's what you want to be - just stop pretending you know anything about wrestling.

:lol:

You can't answer the question can you? Is it because...*gasp* you over-exagerated?

 

[Misanthrope]

Ah, I found your question.

Maybe it's not a yawning chasm, but it's also not a small thing. You cut down on the atrocious guest host crap, and suddenly you've got time to make your MITB qualifiers appear at least a little meaningful, give the Legacy/Orton build something slightly decent, and maybe even manage to work in an undercard match over two stars.

When WCW was around and Vince had to think to succeed, shows had to be compelling to hold a rating. This meant meaningful main events and undercard matches that hold attention. WWE and WCW knew how to do this, although both were still guilty of shocking booking. But when you're accountable to your audience, your product benefits. It's no surprise that the quality of WWE programming has diminished since their fans stopped having a choice.

The guest host thing has turned acceptable episodes into painful ones. You acknowledge that, but then go on to defend a Raw that could have been booked better.

 

[Big Pete]

I didn't defend it. I can just see the E's POV on the matter. To them, it's better business.

It's similar to a degree with the E changing to Gimmick PPV's. I hate it but it saw their PPV revenues increase by 18%. Not bad at all.

I dislike both concepts. But as long as they remain succesful, I can see why the E persist with them.

Like I said, what do you expect with MitB? Qualifying matches have always been fairly average.

Orton/Legacy is still obviously building.

The Attitude era really wasn't as good as you remember it to be either. 1999 for instance was a terrible year.

 

[Misanthrope]

I didn't defend it. I can just see the E's POV on the matter. To them, it's better business.

I'm not arguing business isn't good for the WWE, but business being good doesn't mean it can't be better. It's all well and good to capture the merchandise buying tween and pre-teen audience, but there's a big audience of actual wrestling fans and/or older fans out there that could be being better catered to. I think the WWE is capable of doing that. I think TNA is capable of doing it.

I'm just not sure either of them will, and that sucks

The Attitude era really wasn't as good as you remember it to be either. 1999 for instance was a terrible year.

But from a wrestling standpoint, I'd still have it above most recent years in WWE/TNA history.

 

[Big Pete]

I'm not arguing business isn't good for the WWE, but business being good doesn't mean it can't be better. It's all well and good to capture the merchandise buying tween and pre-teen audience, but there's a big audience of actual wrestling fans and/or older fans out there that could be being better catered to. I think the WWE is capable of doing that. I think TNA is capable of doing it.

I'm just not sure either of them will, and that sucks



But from a wrestling standpoint, I'd still have it above most recent years in WWE/TNA history.

What was so good about 1999 in the E?

 

[Manurewa_Marlins]

1999?

The Ministry
Edge and Christian
Hardy Boyz
Mick Foley
The Corporate Rock

all of whom > Any thing the WWE is doing nowadays, otttttttther than CM Punk.

 

[Big Pete]

The Ministry

The Undertaker was decent. Turned to s**t in a hurry though.

Edge and Christian

Were green for the majority of the year.

Hardy Boyz

Ditto

Mick Foley

On the mic, maybe. In the ring he flat out sucked in 1999.

The Corporate Rock

The Rock, I will give you. In a big way, in that nobody in wrestling comes close to the level of The Rock or Austin that year.

Although, the latter could barely wrestle around that time.

Aside from Austin and The Rock. I'd just about take everything from today over that year.

 

[Misanthrope]

....

No words, Pete. No words.

 

[Big Pete]

I'd love to here how you loved The Kennel From Hell match, The Blue Blazer gimmick, McMahon winning the Rumble, McMahon winning the title, McMahon being the head of the Ministry, McMahon main eventing three PPV's, Billy Gunn winning King of the Ring and so on.

Go, please, come on, do it.