Comment of the Week
The featured Ring Posts comment for the week of Jan. 25-31 comes from Barney, who responded to the entry “Raw: WWE tries to get viewers 'psyched about Royal Rumble".
Here is Barney's comment:
My review of Raw, written from the perspective of Kevin watching Impact:
Raw started by rehashing the old 1999 (and other years) storyline of having DX feud within itself, this time over who was going to win the Royal Rumble. Of course, that didn't stop Monday Night Wars veterans Shawn Michaels (who made his WWE debut in 1988) and Triple H (who made his WWE debut in 1995) from dominating the opening segment and defeating young tag team Legacy. Speaking of Legacy, that team wasn't getting along either. What is it with WWE and its insistence on having every tag team feud within itself?
Raw continued to allow veterans of the Monday Night Wars to bury young talent. Next was the Big Show - who wrestled in WCW as The Giant - pinning MVP clean.
Raw also featured its usual non-sensical booking. It promoted the Royal Rumble match featuring Randy Orton against Seamus by having Orton interfere in Seamus' match and attack him from behind. Since those are actions that only a heel would take, I guess that means Seamus is supposed to be the face in this match. Hard to tell since Seamus was booked as ready and willing to fight Cena, but the match was made by heel McMahon to punish babyface Cena. I almost expected to see Orton invading Seamus' locker room and trashing it while Seamus was gone, and then jumping Seamus as he comes back to confront Orton.
The nonsensical booking also included Mr. McMahon playing the billionaire owner who can never be told what to do, informing the crowd he would never let Bret Hart back into the WWE no matter what. Yet somehow Mr. McMahon was then easily convinced by John Cena to have Hart back on the show next week.
The show wasn't all bad - this week was the first show since the guest-host format started that didn't involve a wrestler getting beaten up by either the guest host or a midget.
Comments
He makes some valid points, I have to admit.
Posted by: Sean | February 2, 2010 10:12 PM
Well done, indeed! I was hoping this one would get Comment of the Week honors.
Posted by: Mr. Sarcasm | February 3, 2010 10:36 AM
A great comment.. however it should be noted the Big show is only 4 months older than MVP ;-)
Posted by: Lee | February 3, 2010 11:24 AM
I thought this guy hit the nail on the head with his comment. You seem to review the TNA product with a glass half empty approach. It's your blog and you can write whatever you want but I don't understand how a multimillion dollar company like the WWE can escape TNA-like criticism when they have all the resources in the world to take advantage of. Just because you hate Hulk Hogan doesn't mean you should hate everything about TNA.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 3, 2010 2:29 PM
That was a great post. The only thing I could add would be a complaint about a wrestler from another brand showing up on another show. Kevin still points that out every time is happens.
Posted by: ndugu | February 3, 2010 5:01 PM
lawl....
hes got you good
Posted by: delliott | February 3, 2010 6:48 PM
He forgot to mention that Michaels' motivation for wanting to win the RR was to face 20-year WWE veteran the Undertaker at Wrestlemania... in the main event... for the championship. Yikes! :/
Posted by: Small Deke Johnson | February 4, 2010 12:56 AM