1. If Becky wasn't going to be in the championship match at Mania, why have her win the Royal Rumble? Outside of Royal Rumble 1997, which was booked to have a controversial finish that was further marred by the championship being vacated because of politics and having to be crowned at another pay per view, this is a stipulation that has lead to the winner of the Rumble getting a title shot.
2. Additionally, people who have lost their title shots due to criminal methods have earned them back (Austin by beating McMahon in the cage in 1999, Rey after losing to Orton at No Way Out 2006)
3. Why is Charlotte being in the match a negative? She is a great worker and hasn't had a bad match against Becky or Asuka that I can remember.

4. We have a month of television programming between now, including Elimination Chamber, which has historically set up matches for Mania.
5. This is more my opinion, but I've enjoyed nearly every match Ronda has had,.

NWK2000 wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 08:44 1. If Becky wasn't going to be in the championship match at Mania, why have her win the Royal Rumble? Outside of Royal Rumble 1997, which was booked to have a controversial finish that was further marred by the championship being vacated because of politics and having to be crowned at another pay per view, this is a stipulation that has lead to the winner of the Rumble getting a title shot.
2. Additionally, people who have lost their title shots due to criminal methods have earned them back (Austin by beating McMahon in the cage in 1999, Rey after losing to Orton at No Way Out 2006)
3. Why is Charlotte being in the match a negative? She is a great worker and hasn't had a bad match against Becky or Asuka that I can remember.

4. We have a month of television programming between now, including Elimination Chamber, which has historically set up matches for Mania.
5. This is more my opinion, but I've enjoyed nearly every match Ronda has had,.

1, 2, 4 are kinda kayfabe, so if anyone is upset with, it's probably marks, yeah i said it, MARKS!

3 I already had a discussion with BRM, but now i'm going to take the other position. As a fan, I want to see Becky pin Ronda. I'm not scared that WWE will put the title on Charlotte,, WWE would have to be universally stupid to do so, but I want to see Becky defeat Ronda, I don't want Ronda running around saying 'you did't beat me, blah blah blah". I want to see Benoit tapping out Triple H here, and I think a lot of fans may feel that adding Charlotte not only steals Becky's spotlight, but also risks letting Ronda walk out unpinned. So yeah, Charlotte is a great wrestler, and given that it will be a long match, she will only improve it because (5) Ronda's matches are choreographed and I don't know how long she can go to be honest, but at the same time, she being off it wouldn't hurt either.

cero2k wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 09:16

NWK2000 wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 08:44 1. If Becky wasn't going to be in the championship match at Mania, why have her win the Royal Rumble? Outside of Royal Rumble 1997, which was booked to have a controversial finish that was further marred by the championship being vacated because of politics and having to be crowned at another pay per view, this is a stipulation that has lead to the winner of the Rumble getting a title shot.
2. Additionally, people who have lost their title shots due to criminal methods have earned them back (Austin by beating McMahon in the cage in 1999, Rey after losing to Orton at No Way Out 2006)
3. Why is Charlotte being in the match a negative? She is a great worker and hasn't had a bad match against Becky or Asuka that I can remember.

4. We have a month of television programming between now, including Elimination Chamber, which has historically set up matches for Mania.
5. This is more my opinion, but I've enjoyed nearly every match Ronda has had,.

1, 2, 4 are kinda kayfabe, so if anyone is upset with, it's probably marks, yeah i said it, MARKS!

3 I already had a discussion with BRM, but now i'm going to take the other position. As a fan, I want to see Becky pin Ronda. I'm not scared that WWE will put the title on Charlotte,, WWE would have to be universally stupid to do so, but I want to see Becky defeat Ronda, I don't want Ronda running around saying 'you did't beat me, blah blah blah". I want to see Benoit tapping out Triple H here, and I think a lot of fans may feel that adding Charlotte not only steals Becky's spotlight, but also risks letting Ronda walk out unpinned. So yeah, Charlotte is a great wrestler, and given that it will be a long match, she will only improve it because (5) Ronda's matches are choreographed and I don't know how long she can go to be honest, but at the same time, she being off it wouldn't hurt either.

Totally fair. But people are acting like Charlotte being in the match is a terrible thing, and Becky being out of the Mania match as of last night's Raw will mean she's out of it forever. As you've said, the only thing that will make it bad is either Ronda or Becky tapping Charlotte out. But again, that's not what I'm seeing. I'm just seeing vitriol as the story points out.

I'm not worked up over it, but I'll openly admit I'd prefer it just Becky vs Rhonda.

I'm just opposed to Triple Threat matches in general, especially in the main event of 'Mania. There's no such thing as a clean finish unless one of them pins the other two simultaneously. Nobody comes out the clear winner or clear loser, and I'll tolerate that at ANY OTHER show (unlike some of us), but not in the main event of 'Mania. Eventually we're going to get Rhonda vs Becky 1 on 1, but it'll be at Fast Lane with a dirty finish or at Backlash when it belongs at Wrestlemania.

I don't think anyone is saying Charlotte is going to take away from the match itself, or that said match isn't Wrestlmania-worthy, but it's that Rhonda vs Becky is the bigger story - adding Charlotte is Vince forcing his agenda which everyone is already sick of between Brock and Roman. At least this time they're building the story around it, and it should be a good one!

As for the the folks crying that Becky is getting screwed... I'm not going to drop the 'M' Bomb, but I will say it's nice to see people getting upset for the right reasons. The kind of upset that will get people tuning in instead of turning off. It's great to see folks enjoying the product in kayfabe again!

Like I said, it should be a great build up! I just suddenly don't care about the match anymore due to the lack of closure.

It's all about "OH HERE WE GO WITH CHARLOTTE! AGAIN! AGGGHHH!"

You'd think it would change now that she's not the forced face no one wants anymore(yes BRM, SHE'S NOT THE FACE!") , but I'm not sure how much of a difference that fact makes to some people at this point. It's like if Reigns would have turned heel and stayed on top instead of continuing to try to be THE MEGA-FACE...how much would it really change the way people feel about...*this guy at the top*

Personally I'll say it's a refreshing change and obviously the right move kayfabe and booking-wise.

KILLdozer wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 10:59 Personally I'll say it's a refreshing change and obviously the right move kayfabe and booking-wise.

I'm on board for the change, and I'm DEFINITELY on board for heel Charlotte... I'm not on board with the Triple Threat at 'Mania

-They've been building Becky vs Rhonda for the better part of the year, and we're getting something else instead. Save your Triple Threat for Backlash. I want to know who the better woman is between the two.

-The SHOW would be better with Asuke vs Charlotte in the undercard. Becky took the loss to Asuke, Charlotte could stand to do the same. Asuke deserves that kind of moment for the sake of the bigger picture.

-The story will be good, but it's gonna get "McMahon-y". Rhonda vs Becky doesn't need all that, they sold it on their own and turned into 'THE' angle heading down the RTWM. The McMahon factor is WWE going all in on their top angle when I think Seth vs Lesnar could have used the help, or whatever shitshow their planning with Corbin and Braun and all those guys.

-Just my gut, but the writing is on the wall that what was supposed to be a true Battle Of The Titans in the Main Event of WWE's biggest show of the year is going to turn into McMahon vs McMahon while also pulling the trigger on Horsewomen vs Horsewomen in a bunch of stupid over-booked bullshit.

Bob-O wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 11:28

KILLdozer wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 10:59 Personally I'll say it's a refreshing change and obviously the right move kayfabe and booking-wise.

I'm on board for the change, and I'm DEFINITELY on board for heel Charlotte... I'm not on board with the Triple Threat at 'Mania

-They've been building Becky vs Rhonda for the better part of the year, and we're getting something else instead. Save your Triple Threat for Backlash. I want to know who the better woman is between the two.

-The SHOW would be better with Asuke vs Charlotte in the undercard. Becky took the loss to Asuke, Charlotte could stand to do the same. Asuke deserves that kind of moment for the sake of the bigger picture.

-The story will be good, but it's gonna get "McMahon-y". Rhonda vs Becky doesn't need all that, they sold it on their own and turned into 'THE' angle heading down the RTWM. The McMahon factor is WWE going all in on their top angle when I think Seth vs Lesnar could have used the help, or whatever shitshow their planning with Corbin and Braun and all those guys.

-Just my gut, but the writing is on the wall that what was supposed to be a true Battle Of The Titans in the Main Event of WWE's biggest show of the year is going to turn into McMahon vs McMahon while also pulling the trigger on Horsewomen vs Horsewomen in a bunch of stupid over-booked bullshit.

Yeah I realized while currently watching Raw...Corbin V Strowman and Lashley V Balor, and McIntyre V Angle...and just cram it all into one match.

THIS is what everything for Strowman leads to. I find it hard to believe as of last month or less...this was their plan for him...

KILLdozer wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 11:35

THIS is what everything for Strowman leads to. I find it hard to believe as of last month or less...this was their plan for him...

Strowman has cooled off a lot since losing to Lesnar, I think they're done pushing him to the top at least for now

cero2k wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 11:45

KILLdozer wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 11:35

THIS is what everything for Strowman leads to. I find it hard to believe as of last month or less...this was their plan for him...

Strowman has cooled off a lot since losing to Lesnar, I think they're done pushing him to the top at least for now

Probably because people just don't think they're gonna push him all the way at this point anymore. I know you can say "Daniel Bryan years ago and Becky Lynch right now, and no matter what and how much...if they want to see someone on top they won't stop cheering and pushing for it..."

But I think if that's the case even the fans have given up. I don't like it at all but I don't think he's "top guy material" for them.

At least not right now.

NWK2000 wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 08:44 1. If Becky wasn't going to be in the championship match at Mania, why have her win the Royal Rumble? Outside of Royal Rumble 1997, which was booked to have a controversial finish that was further marred by the championship being vacated because of politics and having to be crowned at another pay per view, this is a stipulation that has lead to the winner of the Rumble getting a title shot.
2. Additionally, people who have lost their title shots due to criminal methods have earned them back (Austin by beating McMahon in the cage in 1999, Rey after losing to Orton at No Way Out 2006)
3. Why is Charlotte being in the match a negative? She is a great worker and hasn't had a bad match against Becky or Asuka that I can remember.

4. We have a month of television programming between now, including Elimination Chamber, which has historically set up matches for Mania.
5. This is more my opinion, but I've enjoyed nearly every match Ronda has had,.

I'll deal with these a bit out of order:

3. In addition to what Cero said (and I would refer you to my discussion with him on the subject, as I think we covered most of it), adding Charlotte to Ronda vs. Becky has an opportunity cost. If Charlotte is in this match, she can't be in another match. Specifically, she can't wrestle Asuka. With Becky and Charlotte now both basically on the Raw side of the roster as far as title contention goes, Asuka is the only woman on Smackdown who is anything higher than a midcarder (and of the remainder, Naomi is the only one who I think it's even fair to call a midcarder). Are you going to turn Naomi heel and try to push her to freakin' ASUKA's level in seven weeks? Just about the only way I think they could get a credible opponent for Asuka would be to call Rhea Ripley up from NXT UK and give her a monster push, and even that would feel rushed as hell, and would reduce the NXT UK women's division to pretty much just Toni Storm vs. Jinny, and they haven't really even built Jinny up much yet.
Doing Charlotte vs. Asuka, on the other hand, not only is a proven awesome match that has a built-in story, but no matter what the result is, it can be used to set up yet another story down the line (if Asuka wins then you've set up for a rubber match, and if Charlotte wins then you have a story where Charlotte seems to be the only woman Asuka can't beat, plus a story about Asuka having a "WrestleMania jinx" that you can keep going as long as you want to with her).

5. Also, as Cero said, Ronda's matches tend to be more choreographed, and having a third person in there could just make things more complicated and difficult for her.

1,2,4. Just because the end result is the one we want does not mean that the story is being told in an intelligent or coherent manner. This one has been utter horse sh*t so far, and I don't think that is even debatable. as I've detailed in my reviews, Becky has come off as an self-important paranoid psychopath over the past two weeks while Hunter and Steph have both come off as much more than reasonable. None of these are babyface traits (and that's not even including the periphery issues about the McMahons that I go into in my review of this week's Raw *CHEAP PLUG*).
If, for some reason, you HAD to book a 3-way at Mania instead of a singles match (and Cero and I thoroughly debated the merits of this, and Wade Keller and his various guests have done the same on his audio shows, which area good listen), there were much better ways to do it. For example, to the Rock/Big Show finish from Royal Rumble 2000 where Becky is announced the winner at the PPV but Charlotte later provides evidence that it was a tie, setting up a PPV match where if Charlotte wins she gets added to the Mania match, then turn Charlotte heel there by having her cheat to win, and now you've gotten to the same place without turning the hottest babyface in the company into into a violent paranoid lunatic.

Bob-O wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 10:24

As for the the folks crying that Becky is getting screwed... I'm not going to drop the 'M' Bomb, but I will say it's nice to see people getting upset for the right reasons. The kind of upset that will get people tuning in instead of turning off. It's great to see folks enjoying the product in kayfabe again!

While I'm almost always in favor of fans going along with the storyline (provided that the babyface actually acts like a bayface and the heel actually acts like I heel), what I see in this reminds me a lot of what we saw when Cody Rhodes was the ROH World Champion. The storyline was that we were supposed to want Cody to lose because he was threatening to go defend the belt in other companies where he might lose it, but of the fans who wanted to see Cody lose the belt (i.e. people who like good wrestling more than they like Bullet Club t-shirts) all wanted to see him lose the belt not because of the storyline reason but simply because Cody kept having matches that were F*CKING TERRIBLE and we wanted him as far away from the main event as humanly possible. The one comment about this that sticks out in my mind was someone (I'm pretty sure it was Sean Seador, but I don't remember for certain) saying something to the effect of "should it really be considered 'good heat' if the people booing you are booing you purely because they think you suck at your job?"

Are the people who are unhappy with Charlotte being added to the match booing because they're unhappy from a kayfabe perspective, or are they booing because based on WWE's track record, they think WWE is once again going to take a surefire thing and f*ck it up? Is this "boooo! We don't like you, Tommaso Ciampa!" or is this "boooo! We don't like Roman Reigns so stop trying push him as your top babyface, Vince!"

I think it's pretty clear here (especially if you remember the way WWE tried to spin the whole Daniel Bryan situation heading into WM 30) that WWE's strategy and outlook here is "we're going to work the fans into being shoot angry at the office even though we fully intended to give them what they want in the end" in order to prove that "we're smarter than them because we can still work them even though they think we can't" and to prove that (as Vince said insisted many times during the earnings call) "we know what we're doing."

Over the past few years WWE has transformed into this insane, defensive "work first" mindset. They run these mind-numbingly long PPVs just to be able to tell investors that people are watching more hours of the Network per month even though that's a mostly meaningless statistic because you pay same same price no matter how much you want per month. They push these social media numbers to try to convince you that WWE really is popular even though those numbers mean next to nothing because the actual viewership numbers have plummeted. They tried so hard to work us into hating Brock Lesnar in the hopes that it would therefore make us like Roman when they faced Brock off against him but all it was kill any appeal Brock had and didn't do a damn thing for Roman.... and yet they still kept it up afterwards until they were forced to drop the Roman part of it because he got cancer and even after that they STILL kept it going. And now this mentality has led to a situation like this where they think that it's better to create a situation where they can channel our shoot dislike of them into worked dislike for this one angle just so they can give us what we want at the end and say "ha! We told you we knew what we were doing!" is better than putting any actual effort into fixing the sh*t that we makes us shoot dislike them in the first place.

KILLdozer wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 11:48

cero2k wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 11:45

KILLdozer wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 11:35

THIS is what everything for Strowman leads to. I find it hard to believe as of last month or less...this was their plan for him...

Strowman has cooled off a lot since losing to Lesnar, I think they're done pushing him to the top at least for now

Probably because people just don't think they're gonna push him all the way at this point anymore. I know you can say "Daniel Bryan years ago and Becky Lynch right now, and no matter what and how much...if they want to see someone on top they won't stop cheering and pushing for it..."

But I think if that's the case even the fans have given up. I don't like it at all but I don't think he's "top guy material" for them.

At least not right now.

This. He's a gigantic, North Carolinian Hirooki Goto.

I thought Becky's anger could stem from several things, and you're welcome to disprove them.


1.Being forced out of the initial Survivor Series match against Ronda because of the McMahons and her injury
2. Being screwed out of the SD Women's title by Ronda.
3. Again, being told that she coudn't wrestle due to a knee injury sustained at Rumble.

Your idea that Becky is actually a psychopath isn't wrong. In theory, she could've seen a doctor. But she is a woman so focused on her dream, anyone who's telling her no, no matter how sensible, is an enemy. And she even apologized for what she did and how she's been behaving in order to get what she wants, a match against Ronda, someone who she very much dislikes. And I think people respect that gusto (they also enjoy her Twitter escapades, but that's beside the point).

On the other end of the spectrum you have Ronda who's condescending to Becky at every turn (You're robbing me of my Mania match on and the bit about professionalism the 2/4 Raw and "Not apologizing means you're too cowardly to face me" on last night's Raw) and is a tweener, as she's a heel who doesn't like other heels.

Then you have Charlotte. Vince sees that Becky has a shitty, stubborn attitude, so he needs a representative who will do what she's told and that's Charlotte. Basically she's Corporate Rock.

There are certain things about this story that are clunky (Ronda's behavior especially) but I understand the story they're telling here.

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 14:47


Are the people who are unhappy with Charlotte being added to the match booing because they're unhappy from a kayfabe perspective, or are they booing because based on WWE's track record, they think WWE is once again going to take a surefire thing and f*ck it up? Is this "boooo! We don't like you, Tommaso Ciampa!" or is this "boooo! We don't like Roman Reigns so stop trying push him as your top babyface, Vince!"

The reason why people don't like Roman is because they don't think he's good at wrestling. Charlotte is an amazing worker, so why is there heat there?

I think it's pretty clear here (especially if you remember the way WWE tried to spin the whole Daniel Bryan situation heading into WM 30) that WWE's strategy and outlook here is "we're going to work the fans into being shoot angry at the office even though we fully intended to give them what they want in the end" in order to prove that "we're smarter than them because we can still work them even though they think we can't" and to prove that (as Vince said insisted many times during the earnings call) "we know what we're doing."

But they ARE working people. The on-screen authority figures are putting up obstacles for a babyface people like to overcome. That's a work

Over the past few years WWE has transformed into this insane, defensive "work first" mindset. They run these mind-numbingly long PPVs just to be able to tell investors that people are watching more hours of the Network per month even though that's a mostly meaningless statistic because you pay same same price no matter how much you want per month. They push these social media numbers to try to convince you that WWE really is popular even though those numbers mean next to nothing because the actual viewership numbers have plummeted.

You're so abhorrent of there business practices and you still watch/participate? That sounds like a "you" problem dude.

They tried so hard to work us into hating Brock Lesnar in the hopes that it would therefore make us like Roman when they faced Brock off against him but all it was kill any appeal Brock had and didn't do a damn thing for Roman. .... and yet they still kept it up afterwards until they were forced to drop the Roman part of it because he got cancer and even after that they STILL kept it going

There was a kernel of truth to what Roman said though. He's at every show, whereas Brock has a sweetheart deal because Vince likes him. The cancer bit though is/was pretty tasteless. Although it will gain him a babyface reaction if he comes back
.

And now this mentality has led to a situation like this where they think that it's better to create a situation where they can channel our shoot dislike of them into worked dislike for this one angle just so they can give us what we want at the end and say "ha! We told you we knew what we were doing!" is better than putting any actual effort into fixing the sh*t that we makes us shoot dislike them in the first place.

And this is a problem why? They're gauging audience reaction and averting course based on it, which is what all great creatives do eventually, and I say eventually because I know they did try to portray Becky as heel, but can you blame them? That's the story they were trying to tell.

NWK2000 wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 15:20

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 14:47


Are the people who are unhappy with Charlotte being added to the match booing because they're unhappy from a kayfabe perspective, or are they booing because based on WWE's track record, they think WWE is once again going to take a surefire thing and f*ck it up? Is this "boooo! We don't like you, Tommaso Ciampa!" or is this "boooo! We don't like Roman Reigns so stop trying push him as your top babyface, Vince!"

The reason why people don't like Roman is because they don't think he's good at wrestling. Charlotte is an amazing worker, so why is there heat there?

Romans' problem was never really his wrestling, he had more issues with this promos. But with both of them is that they're known to be handpicked champions when there are others that the fans want. Roman didn't have Seth's wrestling ability, Dean's promo skills, and surely not Bryan's charisma, but he was Vince's big muscle pretty boy.

Charlotte is the same, she is Vince's hot blond big boob barbie, but fans want Becky, and Sasha before her. I think the backlash is far less since Charlotte indeed is a great wrestler and great promo.

cero2k wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 15:44

NWK2000 wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 15:20

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 14:47


Are the people who are unhappy with Charlotte being added to the match booing because they're unhappy from a kayfabe perspective, or are they booing because based on WWE's track record, they think WWE is once again going to take a surefire thing and f*ck it up? Is this "boooo! We don't like you, Tommaso Ciampa!" or is this "boooo! We don't like Roman Reigns so stop trying push him as your top babyface, Vince!"

The reason why people don't like Roman is because they don't think he's good at wrestling. Charlotte is an amazing worker, so why is there heat there?

Romans' problem was never really his wrestling, he had more issues with this promos. But with both of them is that they're known to be handpicked champions when there are others that the fans want. Roman didn't have Seth's wrestling ability, Dean's promo skills, and surely not Bryan's charisma, but he was Vince's big muscle pretty boy.

Charlotte is the same, she is Vince's hot blond big boob barbie, but fans want Becky, and Sasha before her. I think the backlash is far less since Charlotte indeed is a great wrestler and great promo.

Yeah...if you don't understand the Charlotte and Reigns comparison then I don't think you've read the discussions about said subject around here lol.

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 14:49

KILLdozer wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 11:48

cero2k wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 11:45

Strowman has cooled off a lot since losing to Lesnar, I think they're done pushing him to the top at least for now

Probably because people just don't think they're gonna push him all the way at this point anymore. I know you can say "Daniel Bryan years ago and Becky Lynch right now, and no matter what and how much...if they want to see someone on top they won't stop cheering and pushing for it..."

But I think if that's the case even the fans have given up. I don't like it at all but I don't think he's "top guy material" for them.

At least not right now.

This. He's a gigantic, North Carolinian Hirooki Goto.

Alright...what the heck does this mean? You know I don't watch that stuff lol.

NWK2000 wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 15:00 I thought Becky's anger could stem from several things, and you're welcome to disprove them.


1.Being forced out of the initial Survivor Series match against Ronda because of the McMahons and her injury
2. Being screwed out of the SD Women's title by Ronda.
3. Again, being told that she coudn't wrestle due to a knee injury sustained at Rumble.

Your idea that Becky is actually a psychopath isn't wrong. In theory, she could've seen a doctor. But she is a woman so focused on her dream, anyone who's telling her no, no matter how sensible, is an enemy. And she even apologized for what she did and how she's been behaving in order to get what she wants, a match against Ronda, someone who she very much dislikes. And I think people respect that gusto (they also enjoy her Twitter escapades, but that's beside the point).

Neither 1 nor 2 are the McMahons' faults,and you are misidentifying #3. She wasn't told she couldn't wrestle due to the injury; she was told she had to go get it checked out. She is afraid that she will be told she can't wrestle due to the injury. Also, #3 is Becky being treated no differently than anyone else, and for the most part, her objections seem to come out of thin air. No one else who has been injured and missed big matches in the past has acted like this. Look at Daniel Bryan. He- who had actual evidence that Hunter and Steph were trying to screw him out of the title, was told by a doctor that he had to vacate the title due to injury and he did so without complaint. Then, the very next year, he was forced to vacate another title and told his entire career would be over, and he didn't go around attacking people and refusing to see doctors. Becky missed ONE F*CKING MATCH, and now she's getting her match with Ronda anyway, so why is she so opposed to this?
If she is allowed to wrestle without the injury being checked out and it turns out to be bad and it gets injured, she's missing many anyway and could be risking her entire career by wrestling without getting her knee fixed (or maybe she does make to Mania and then gets embarrassed because MMA expert Ronda Rousey completely ruins her knee in a matter of seconds).
If she sees the doctor and the doctors that the injury won't cause her to miss WrestleMania (which is exactly what happened) then all is well and good.
If the doctor tells her that she'll have to miss WrestleMania then SO WHAT?! It's not like she loses the title shot and it's not like Ronda's going away after WrestleMania (she probably is, but that is neither part of the kayfabe story, nor part of the non-kayfabe narrative that WWE is trying to base this story on), and it' snot like Becky has never challenged to a title at WrestleMania before, so unless her dream is specifically to face Ronda Rousey at this particular WrestleMania, then what's the problem?
Becky's gusto is all well and good, but you are ignoring the meta-kayfabe narrative here, which is this idea that "Creative" as theoretically represented on TV by the McMahons want Charlotte to be the one to challenge Ronda WrestleMania because they like Charlotte better than they like Becky and thus are trying to keep Becky down. The problem is that (as I documented in my Raw review) there is absolutely no kayfabe evidence to support this, and plenty of kayfabe evidence to the contrary.

Becky's fear and anger are all well and good and very human. The problem is that she is taking her anger out not just on the wrong people (she hasn't done sh*t to Nia, who was the one who actually injured her at the Rumble, and Nia's punishment for the face-breaking was a mere shove, and she hasn't done anything to really go after Ronda, either, even after Vince gave both her and Charlotte clear permission to do so) but also that she is taking her anger out on those people for completely insane reasons. The moment she says "I don't trust you McMahons. I think you're trying to keep me down like you always do" she ceases to be a normal human dealing with normal human emotions in human ways and instead becomes a nutjob conspiracy theorist, making assertions with no evidence.

Yes, Becky apologized here, but she did so in a way that made clear that she wasn't actually sorry and just apologizing to get the thing she wanted. If I'm supposed to believe that Becky has been right this whole time then Alexa is right and Becky is a sellout. If I'm supposed to believe that she has been acting unreasonably, then this apology doesn't change my view of her because she still seems to lack any sort of understanding as to why the way she behaved was wrong.

NWK2000 wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 15:00 On the other end of the spectrum you have Ronda who's condescending to Becky at every turn (You're robbing me of my Mania match on and the bit about professionalism the 2/4 Raw and "Not apologizing means you're too cowardly to face me" on last night's Raw) and is a tweener, as she's a heel who doesn't like other heels.

Are agree that Ronda is often hypocritical and comes off as unlikable, both as a person in general and also in the "big outside star comes in and doens't realize how many dues she got to skip paying in the wrestling business" way. But Ronda's condescension doesn't undo the damage Becky has done to herself. It's the Brock/Roman fallacy: Just because Ronda is an asshole doens't mean that putting someone else against her will get that someone else cheered if that someone else is also acting like an asshole."

NWK2000 wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 15:00 Then you have Charlotte. Vince sees that Becky has a shitty, stubborn attitude, so he needs a representative who will do what she's told and that's Charlotte. Basically she's Corporate Rock.

This is all well and fine, except that they did nothing to really move Charlotte in this direction. They have made her more heelish over the past two or three weeks, yes, but they've done nothing that in any way implies her becoming more of someone who management (or even just Vince) would theoretically see as a model employee who can also be a superstar wrestler. The last time we saw her and Vince together, Vince was telling both her and Becky to stop complaining about Ronda and go do something about her, and neither of them did.
I think the story works better if it's Charlotte who loses to Asuka and gets put in the Rumble (but Nia still injures Becky's knee), because the way things stand right now, Becky has been shown a lot more favoritism than Charlotte has (both in being allowed to enter the Rumble at all and in Hunter and Steph being extremely lenient with her over the past week).

NWK2000 wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 15:00 There are certain things about this story that are clunky (Ronda's behavior especially) but I understand the story they're telling here.

Maybe it's a perspective issue and I apologize in advance if this bit seems a little condescending, but I think what you understand is the story they're trying to tell here (or perhaps the story you want them to be telling, as I don't think that WWE for one moment thinks Ronda is in any way a heel here) rather than the story they actually are telling. It's something I see in the treatment of both Delirious and Gedo's booking, where people have seen enough wrestling to understand what the story is supposed to be and thus are willing to overlook the problematic details that this version of the telling of the story so flawed. In other words, you're making the mistake of giving them credit for being as smart as you are even though they're not.

NWK2000 wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 15:20

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 14:47


Are the people who are unhappy with Charlotte being added to the match booing because they're unhappy from a kayfabe perspective, or are they booing because based on WWE's track record, they think WWE is once again going to take a surefire thing and f*ck it up? Is this "boooo! We don't like you, Tommaso Ciampa!" or is this "boooo! We don't like Roman Reigns so stop trying push him as your top babyface, Vince!"

The reason why people don't like Roman is because they don't think he's good at wrestling. Charlotte is an amazing worker, so why is there heat there?

In the beginning the argument against Roman was that he wasn't particularly good, but as Roman improved, it (righfully, IMO) morphed into "you're not as good as Bryan/Ambrose/Owens/Zayn/Cesaro/Joe/Ziggler/Nakamura/AJ/Balor/etc. but are getting pushed to a better spot than they are because Vince has decided that he wants you to be the chosen next 'face of the company' because he likes you look, therefore we will boo you because it's not fair that you're getting a spot you don't deserve."
Charlotte is similarly getting a spot that she doesn't deserve simply because management wants her in the spot. It's not an indictment of her working abilities or work ethic in any way. But people think that at this point, Becky vs. Ronda is the better story than a three-way, both in terms of what feels like a bigger match to fans and in terms of what makes for a better story to sell to the media. If the goal of the Ronda rub is to try to propel Becky into some manner of mainstream consciousness (non-wrestling fans had heard of John Cena even before his movie career. I don't think the average person on the street would have any idea who Charlotte Flair or Becky Lynch or Sasha Banks or Nia Jax or Alexa Bliss! are), then adding a third person into the match will split the spotlight (and the media will focus 50% on Ronda no matter what, so it's a question of whether Becky gets the whole remaining 50% to herself or whether she splits it 25-25 with Charlotte). If the goal is (and it should be) to get as much attention on Becky's story as possible (which is a story that sells a lot better than Charlotte's "born with a silver spoon in her mouth to a famous wrestling father who is also best friends with the #2 guy in the company so the company loved her from day one... oh yeah, and her brother tragically died so she's doing this all for him) then adding Charlotte to the mix inhibits that goal.
And, from a fan perspective, Charlotte has felt pretty irrelevant in this feud. Everyone is following Becky and Ronda's Tweets back and forth; I havne't heard one person bring up something Charlotte Tweeted about either of them.
There is also a debatable risk that shoe-horning Charlotte into this match will turn her into the female Roman and you'll never be able to use her as an effective babyface again. Remember that Becky's whole thing started when WWE had her lose clean and turn heel in a well-told story but fans completely rejected the idea of Becky as the heel and Charlotte as the babyface simply because they wanted Becky to win at SummerSlam and Charlotte won instead. if they're responding that way when WWE tells the story competently, one where WWE doesn't tell it competently at all can only make things worse.

NWK2000 wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 15:20

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 14:47 I think it's pretty clear here (especially if you remember the way WWE tried to spin the whole Daniel Bryan situation heading into WM 30) that WWE's strategy and outlook here is "we're going to work the fans into being shoot angry at the office even though we fully intended to give them what they want in the end" in order to prove that "we're smarter than them because we can still work them even though they think we can't" and to prove that (as Vince said insisted many times during the earnings call) "we know what we're doing."

But they ARE working people. The on-screen authority figures are putting up obstacles for a babyface people like to overcome. That's a work

I'm not saying they're not working people. I'm saying that it's a better solution in both the long term and the short term to just book the whole f*cking product better instead of trying to meta-work people for one big pop. If you book the product well, people will still be angry at the heels and cheer the faces (and in more feuds than just this one) but they also won't be angry at the product 99% of the time. Becky/Ronda/Charlotte is just one feud of many that will be going into WrestleMania, and there will be other ones coming out of it. Booking shouldn't be about making your fans miserable for 95% of the year but giving them those big pops at the end. It should be about telling stories that result in there being ups and downs; I might be really angry about one angle, but I should at least have three others to be happy about, and another three at a midpoint.
WWE's booking seems to an attempt use this one story to justify to themselves (and, perhaps, some investors... all of whom didn't even know enough to ask about the declining ratings) that all of the other sh*tty booking they do is right.

NWK2000 wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 15:20

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 14:47 Over the past few years WWE has transformed into this insane, defensive "work first" mindset. They run these mind-numbingly long PPVs just to be able to tell investors that people are watching more hours of the Network per month even though that's a mostly meaningless statistic because you pay same same price no matter how much you want per month. They push these social media numbers to try to convince you that WWE really is popular even though those numbers mean next to nothing because the actual viewership numbers have plummeted.

You're so abhorrent of there business practices and you still watch/participate? That sounds like a "you" problem dude.

You're not wrong. Pro wrestling fandom (and especially in North America, with WWE, TNA, and WCW being the prime examples) can often be like an abusive relationship where it's just really hard to leave. Watching pro wrestling is a habit. What am I supposed to do with myself on Monday night if I'm not watching Raw (especially fi neither the Yankees or Rangers are playing)? I justify things to myself by saying that I only pay for the Network so I can see NXT and 205, and I don't feel like I'm helping them by watching the show because I don't have a Neilsen box, but I am still paying them $9.99 every month, so you're not wrong.
But at the same time, I do think everyone has a breaking point. I hit mine with TNA after YEARS of things not getting better. WWE has been pretty bad for maybe three years or so (though there have been some big bright spots at times), and I do think there will become a point where it's not worth it to me to keep paying them money. I have heard a bunch of people say they hit that point this past year over issues ranging from the Saudi stuff to Hogan being let back to Brock stuff to Ronda stuff to being sick of buzzwords to the just plain bad programming in the "Corbin Era." We've seen TV rating PLUMMET over the past two years (and especially this past year), and that does cost them commercial revenue. WWE will need to confront this fact at some point and fix their booking problems.

NWK2000 wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 15:20

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 14:47 They tried so hard to work us into hating Brock Lesnar in the hopes that it would therefore make us like Roman when they faced Brock off against him but all it was kill any appeal Brock had and didn't do a damn thing for Roman. .... and yet they still kept it up afterwards until they were forced to drop the Roman part of it because he got cancer and even after that they STILL kept it going

There was a kernel of truth to what Roman said though. He's at every show, whereas Brock has a sweetheart deal because Vince likes him.

Right. And if Drew McIntyre or Dean Amrbose or Finn Balor or Kevin Owens or AJ Styles or Braun Strowman had been the one saying it, people probably would have happily gone along with it (at least for a while, but after so many restarts they probably would have gotten tired of it, too). But true or not, after YEARS of ploy after ploy to get us to cheer Roman when we made it clear that we didn't want to, the babyface "I'm here every single night" part of it felt like just another ploy to get us to cheer Roman (as if Owens, Ambrose, Balor, etc. aren't here every night?) so that part of it didn't work and all we were left with was "we're still not going to cheer Roman, but you're not wrong about Brock so we don't like him, either."

NWK2000 wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 15:20

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 14:47 And now this mentality has led to a situation like this where they think that it's better to create a situation where they can channel our shoot dislike of them into worked dislike for this one angle just so they can give us what we want at the end and say "ha! We told you we knew what we were doing!" is better than putting any actual effort into fixing the sh*t that we makes us shoot dislike them in the first place.

And this is a problem why? They're gauging audience reaction and averting course based on it, which is what all great creatives do eventually, and I say eventually because I know they did try to portray Becky as heel, but can you blame them? That's the story they were trying to tell.

What I'm blaming them for is the self-deluding belief that just because they worked everyone on this one thing means that fans are wrong about everything else, too, because even if you like the Becky/Ronda/Charlotte stuff, SOOOOO MUCH of the rest of the booking is flat-out terrible, the characterization is terrible, and the announcing is insufferable, and most of the titles are treated like sh*t.

cero2k wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 15:44

NWK2000 wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 15:20

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 14:47


Are the people who are unhappy with Charlotte being added to the match booing because they're unhappy from a kayfabe perspective, or are they booing because based on WWE's track record, they think WWE is once again going to take a surefire thing and f*ck it up? Is this "boooo! We don't like you, Tommaso Ciampa!" or is this "boooo! We don't like Roman Reigns so stop trying push him as your top babyface, Vince!"

The reason why people don't like Roman is because they don't think he's good at wrestling. Charlotte is an amazing worker, so why is there heat there?

Romans' problem was never really his wrestling, he had more issues with this promos. But with both of them is that they're known to be handpicked champions when there are others that the fans want. Roman didn't have Seth's wrestling ability, Dean's promo skills, and surely not Bryan's charisma, but he was Vince's big muscle pretty boy.

Yeah. Roman's promos were definitely an issue, both in terms of delivery and scripting. He often came across like a smug douchebag heel who would justify insanely violent behaviors (lest we forget his totally unprovoked assault on Hunter after winning the title, or that time he tried to MURDER BRAUN STROWMAN WITH A TRUCK BECAUSE BRAUN HAD THE GALL TO CLEANLY DEFEAT HIM IN A WRESTLING MATCH) and he was never called out for it by the babyface announcers (and often rarely even called out on it by the heel announcers, either).

cero2k wrote: ↑Feb 12th, '19, 15:44 Charlotte is the same, she is Vince's hot blond big boob barbie, but fans want Becky, and Sasha before her. I think the backlash is far less since Charlotte indeed is a great wrestler and great promo.

The big-boobed Barbie thing is definitely an issue, too. You can't be the agent of change that WWE wants and look the same as the prototypical "problem" women of the era you're trying to break away from (unless you're got that legit Ronda Rousey type of credibility and portrayal). Almost all of this is a problem of WWE's own making due to the way in which they have pushed their campaign (which is both very loud and inherently sex-negative). In NXT, where they simply just started by treating the women like athletes instead of shouting about their upcoming change from the rooftops before rolling it out with its own catchphrases, no one cared about the size of Charlotte's boobs (or those of Emma before her) just like they didn't care about the smaller size of Sasha's, because the idea of pushing a big-boobed blonde Barbie doll was not villainized the way it was with the Divas'/Women's R/Evolution. They never pushed the idea of change; they just changed, and it made fans happy and proud. On the main roster (and this is not limited just to women's stuff) they feel the need to brand and push the idea of change, often to the point where anything short of an extremely radical change which they've repeatedly shown themselves to be not comfortable with under almost any circumstances comes across like a failure.
For that reason, Charlotte cannot be the hero of change. Is it fair? No. Is she essentially being discriminated against due to the fact that she fits traditional standards of beauty very well? Absolutely. But this is the situation that WWE has put themselves in, and they need to understand that the public hero of change has to be the badass, sharp-tingued redhead who rarely ever shows her large breasts, or the small-breasted woman with the purple hair or the punk with the short hair and crazy tattoos all over the place or the non-sexualized lesbian MMA fighter (I'm not saying Sonya Deville is in any ready ready for this type of spot, but she's an example of someone who could work if she was better in the ring and on the mic). Charlotte or Alexa Bliss! or Liv Morgan or Mandy Rose or Lana Dana Brooke or even Nattie (despite her in-ring credentials) even Naomi (large-breasted former cheerleader, she's obviously not blonde, but she is definitely the African-American version of the same archetype) cannot be the big hero. At least not until the message of change has been made clear and been accepted by all... and some of the stuff they've done recently (with Alexa in particular) has made it pretty clear that not even everyone in the company has accepted the change yet.