RAW 1000 - Contains Spoilers

Warning, contains spoilers (obviously!)

So, thoughts on RAW 1000.

First thing to say is that usually I record RAW and watch it on Tuesday, so I can skip through the commercials. I REALLY wish I had done that this time. 3hrs 20min of RAW, and I think maybe 80 minutes of that was actual content, with the rest commercials. It was atrocious.

Overall I think the WWE dropped more balls with this show than a Catholic boy’s choir hitting puberty. Large segments of the show just felt flat, none of the matches were even remotely special, the big announcements didn’t seem to go off well with the crowd, and the potential to really use the show as a catalyst for the rest of the year was never fully realised. With a few exceptions, it didn’t feel special at all.

The show opened well with a nice video package recapping RAW’s greatest hits and reminding us why we’re all here. I quite like scene-setters like that. The new logo I’m not mad keen on. Its cleaner and simpler, but I think they could have moved away further from the old look. The new set is a natural progression, so that all works.

Good to open the show with Vince coming out, but if he was planning to introduce DX, maybe they could have found a way to play to the times the group has annoyed him in the past. Then again, I suppose that doesn’t play to HHH as also being his son in law and COO. It was great to see all the members of DX reuniting, including X-Pac and the Outlaws once again. Billy Gunn just looked over the moon to be there and still looks in decent shape. X-Pac looked a bit of a state, and it was noticeable that they really didn’t give him anything to do in the segment. The crowd clearly loved them doing their schtick. Not sure whether I agree with using Sandow in that segment. Some will argue it elevates him to be in there pitching with DX, but personally I’m not sure.

I’m also not sure that there wasn’t a better way to link the DX stuff with the HHH/Lesnar scenario. But I’ll talk about that when we get to that segment.

The Six Man tag of Sheamus/Rey/Cara .v. Dolph/Jericho/Alberto was fine. It was what it was and I guess it advances the storyline between Jericho and Dolph. But I didn’t really like it for two reasons - the first being that Dolph deserved a bigger spot on the show, and the second being that I want to see Dolph firmly focussed on being the next WHC, playing it smart and taunting Sheamus constantly. I don’t want him wasting time feuding with Jericho. Actually, there is a third reason I didn’t like it - Sheamus as WHC just seems sort of there on a lot of shows. The WWE appear to be high on him and want to build him as the next Cena level face (hence him doing all the public appearances) and yet they haven’t really given him much to get his teeth into as champion. Does he even have a natural opponent going into Summerslam, other than Ziggles if he decides to cash in? Nice to see JR back for the nostalgia pop I suppose, but this was nothing extraordinary.

And so to the wedding. Of course you knew it was never going to go smoothly, so it was just a matter of waiting to see who interrupted. In the end, I thought this was a massive disappointment. Lots of possible angles coming out of this - a chance to bring in a new wrestler, a chance to cement Bryan as a heel by screwing her over, etc etc - and what they actually go for is her jilting him because she’s been named RAW GM...

...I’m sorry, lets say that again. She’s been named RAW GM? How? and Why? In what possible universe does it make sense for Vince to make AJ the RAW GM? How does that possibly add to the product. She’s amusing as the little nutty chick, but that schtick isn’t going to work as a weekly GM role. It will get old pretty damn quick. I thought this was another massive disappointment personally.

Of course, that segment lead to Punk/Bryan/Rock in the ring. Punk and Bryan always work well together, but we have seen a lot of it lately. Bringing the Rock in for interaction with the pair of them is a nice way to bridge the generational gap, and I think rowing with the Rock helps make Bryan in some people’s eyes. I also like the natural dynamic between Rock and Punk, and think that could be a great feud. But once again, I have a couple of problems. The first is that the Rock these days still sounds like he has a very clearly rehearsed script he is trying to remember to get his catchphrases in. He lacks the naturalness and flow that Punk has, and it seems strange typing that about a guy who was always regarded as one of the best talkers out there.

The second, and the biggest problem, is what the Rock’s appearance promised, versus what it delivered. It promised that the Rock was going to address the WWE title and his intention to once again go after it and become champion. Naively perhaps I assume this might involve him in a few matches back to earn his title shot. Having to perhaps go through the likes of Bryan, Show, etc. Maybe even win a multi-man match at Summerslam. Anything to show some real commitment on the Rock’s part that this means something to him...

...But no. Apparently he can just pick up the phone, tell the board of directors “I’d like a title match” and they say “Sure, fine, when’s good for you, how about January?” You could tell that the live crowd thought exactly the same thing as the announcement got no reaction whatsoever. It does nothing for the product at all, as it pretty much says he’s pissing off again for another 6 months.

Brodus Clay and Dude Love really showed that Swagger is either going to get his walking papers any day, or else is due a major relaunch. I would have much preferred to see them using the faces of FOley to bring out a different side to Brodus. Have Foley backstage with him as Dude Love, but then talk about having to get serious. Remove the bandanna, the glasses, and the tie dye to reveal a Cactus Jack shirt, and then talk about being able to release that brutal side of himself. Then talk about how Brodus has that powerful side and how he should tap into it. Brodus then becomes a good natured dancer who turns into a total beat when he gets annoyed. Meh, just an idea.

So next up was the IC championship match. Not sure that having Bret guest ring announce really added to the product here at all. If the idea was some nostalgia for the IC belt, then OK, but if his lackluster intro for the Miz was supposed to hint at their previous angles, then they could have made a lot more of it. The match was fine. No more or less than that really, and I did like the result in that I think Miz deserves a title (I’d have preferred him to take the US one back from Santino). However, pretty much everyone knew it was going to happen, so once again it didn’t feel special to me.

So to Triple H and Lesnar. Now, I liked the final confrontation and brawl, and I like the fact that the fight is on for Summerslam. Brock looks to have toned up a little, which will be good, and that was a decent end to the segment. Also like the fact that Steph is looking WAY hot again. I also quite liked the anti-Heyman promo she cut, as it played to there being some genuine animosity between the McMahon’s and Heyman. She delivered it well. However, the segment itself made absolutely no bloody sense whatsoever in terms of what it took forward.

Heyman comes out, tells HHH that no, Lesnar has no intention of fighting him. HHH tries to goad Lesnar into a fight by calling him a coward and Heyman laughs in his face, asking HHH if name-calling is really the best he has. He says its pathetic, and won’t work. So Steph comes out when Heyman mentions the kid, and she tries some name-calling. Miraculously, this DOES work on Heyman, and because she insults HIM, he suddenly ups and decides the match IS on after all?

Why? How? If you’re Lesnar backstage, why wouldn’t you just go “No, piss off, he’s my representative, but I said no and told him to go tell you that. He represents my decisions, he doesn’t make them. Sod off Triple H, I couldn’t give a toss what Heyman says”

Lesnar has come across as the man in charge up until now. The guy calling the shots. But suddenly he now fights at the drop of a hat because Heyman is insulted. Rubbish.

As I say, I would have tied this in to the DX stuff. I’d have had Lesnar show up and when HHH is in the ring asking if the match is on, Heyman walks out on stage with security personnel in front of him blocking the ramp. Cameras cut backstage to a locker room where Billy Gunn is laid out, and X-Pac and Road Dogg are bleeding and battered. Then have Heyman say “Brock has your answer right here”. As HHH tries to fight his way through, Lesnar then walks out on stage with Shawn Michaels in his grasp and F5s him right onto the stage. Lesnar yells “You’re on!” and smiles at HHH as Trips goes bat-shit.

And now the Legends versus Heath Slater. Lita? Really? Lita was the best you could do? Fair enough she looked good and she hit a crisp moonsault, but there was no-one else you could have called? It was great to see the APA reunited, and Slater took a magnificent bump for JBL off the clothesline from hell, but I think the crowd felt a bit let down by Lita (they popped a lot bigger for JBL and Simmons) You wonder if the original plan was for Stone Cold?

Actually a couple of mentions of other legends/appearances. The Trish stuff was a nice throwback to the old “hammerlock training” segment, but I would have preferred to see her doing more. Great to see Sean Mooney back for an appearance, I loved that.

Charlie Sheen = waste of time, effort and money. This “social media” crap is getting real old real quick, and this Tout stuff is appalling.

Brothers of Destruction .v. assorted jobbers. OK, it was nice to be able to squeeze Taker onto the show I suppose, but again it was just sort of there.

And so the main event. Punk and Cena have had fantastic matches in the past, but this wasn’t really one of them. It was fine for TV, but no more than that. The interference of the Big Show was totally predictable. I do like that Cena becomes the first unsuccessful cash in, and that he now has reason to go after Show going into Summerslam, but I don’t think the supposed “point” of the match really worked.

Supposedly, we are all supposed to think Punk is now a massive heel because he happened to clothesline the Rock (very well actually with Rock selling it well) and then hit the GTS on him. But for me, that doesn’t make him a heel. Rocky comes swanning back into the WWE and gets an instant title shot, proclaiming himself to be the next WWE champion and the biggest thing on God’s green earth. He then sticks his nose into the final match. I think its entirely fitting for Punk to slap him one. If they wanted Punk to turn heel, he should just have capitalised on Show’s interference with a huge grin on his face.

So yes, for me there was a hell of a lot that didn’t work on this show as well as it could have. It was a “fine” episode of RAW, when it should have been a stellar episode. WWE messed up here by a long way.

I knew it would suck and thus didn't even bother to watch it.

Now, by reading your reaction, I believe I made the right call.

I also like how you mention what you would have done, and those ideas would have been incredible, here.

But the other weird thing from that, was that your ideas actually sounded like also what I would have expected WWE to do back in the 90's. a.k.a: When I watched, a.k.a: When the product was good, a.k.a When the writers weren't complete idiots.

In the end, I avoided this Raw like the plague because I knew what it would be. It wouldn't be a fitting tribute to the past, it would just be the same shit they're doing now, with pointless cameos of past superstars flittering about randomly that adds nothing to the show other than "hey look, it's that guy that used to be there. There he is, yup that's totally him. k, bye now, here's your $500 bucks for showing up."

Also, AJ for Raw GM?


Fucking. Stupid.

That is all I gotta say there.

And yeah.

About Punk attacking Rock.

Totally agree that Punk does NOT come off as a heel here.

Becuase when the Rock first came back, I defended him from the people saying he only came back for the money. I said to that "No, Rock has all the money he could ever need. He's just there becuase he wants to be back."

Now I think I had it sort of right.

Rock is back, not for the money, but because he wants to be in the WWE again. He wants to be in the WWE again, because that's when people pay the most attention to him, personally. He wants everyone to say he's still got it. he wants everyone to pat him on the back for gracing us with his presence. He wants everyone to suck up to him and say "Oh Rocky you're so right, we couldn't get along without you, oh how wrong we all were, why did we ever criticize you!"

And he figures while he's still there, being a publicity hound, he can finally grab that gold ring, shove everyone else he can out of his spotlight, because dammit, he put everyone over when he was there, so he can be the Hulk Hogan politicking to get the title handed to him and celebrate in that giant congratulatory winners circle all he wants now, because he earned it paying his dues at one time.

I think his intentions started out pure. And about a month in, suddenly realized "Hey, why CAN'T I make it all about myself? I earned it, I have Vince by the balls, convinced that i'm the best thing in the company right now. I'll take that title, i'll do my victory lap and erase all the bad things people said about me! Yeah. I'm the man, I'm the champ. Yay me!"

I liked Rock. But he's adding nothing anymore. He could have let his legacy go as "The Great One that moved on into films." But I think he's now too hung up on proving himself to everyone that he's becoming "The overrated mugging one, who suddenly came back to clutch his spot and won't let go."

I'm starting to see why he's not popular backstage lately. At first, i didn't get it. Now I do. He came back. He said he would never... EVER leave us again. I already kinda wish he would, now.

The Rock is getting to be that guy that wins a major award that he deserved, and stands there on the podium giving a self-serving acceptance speech that lasts 7 fucking hours, until someone needs to kick him off the stage.

Punk just GTS'd his teeth in. Thank you Punk.

And no Stone Cold Steve Austin.


The man that made Raw.


Not there on the 1000th episode.


What. The. Fuck.

I must admit when I first read the results they read a lot better than it seems it was when you watched it. Never mind the ideas being like the 90s they are just good ideas, we've seen them more recently than the 90s, we saw them back then. Good ideas are just ideas! The WWE has always had the ability to mess up!

What I meant by the thing with 90's ideas compared to what they do today, has to do with the dumbing down of concepts that they're all about, now.

Taking David's "Brock attacks DX" scenario as an example, I can easily envision in the 90's, the backstage bodies of DX strewn all over looking like the aftermath of a 50 car pileup.

That was commonplace back then, as were backstage attacks that were more like car wreck disasters.

These days, it's all about appealing to little kids, so they NEVER show anyone backstage brutalizing anyone, or even the aftermath of that kind of thing, unless it's done in the most inoffensive way possible. i.e: One guy just looking like they're taking a pleasant nap and someone else standing around looking mildly surprised.

If you notice, WWE today is dumbed down to the point where they rarely even show or even imply any extra violence, even to further a story. They don't want to let ANYONE, even bad guys truly look like a bully, hence their hypocritical and misguided anti-bully campaign, even though they still will show peer-pressure and insults. (And Vince McMahon mocking Down Syndrome in a cowboy hat. Speaking of... Why even pussify their major storylines when they still occasionally act like insensitive assholes in side segments?)

Back then, things were at stake, because the threat of real violence was a storyline tool that could further intensity.

While one of my main problems with their writing today is that basically, any disagreements boils down to either someone in the ring saying something to someone else in the ring that they don't like, or calls them a name, or degenerates into a "yeah huh! nuh uh! yeah huh! is not! is so! is not!" schoolyard disagreement, followed by usually ONE very basic punch or kick that puts them flat on their back in a bouncy ring and selling it like they've been massacred.


Back in the 90's Vince and the WWE wasn't afraid of doing anything to evoke a reaction to further a storyline with variety and intensity.

These days, they do nothing but restrict themselves, play it as safe as they can, and thus get stale when almost everything that furthers a fued comes down to more words than actions.


So basically, you have a WWE now, where Triple H and Brock Lesnar are motivated by some words between HHH, Steph and Heyman, instead of Brock actually doing something to really enrage HHH, such as beat up... dare I say... BULLY, his DX buddies.

Years ago, the writers wouldn't be afraid of upping the ante by having Brock make it personal by reducing DX to wallowing in a pool of their own blood. Today it's just "Brock said no. Oh yeah, well Brock is a chicken! Your family is bad! Well, you failed at business! Ok, you get the match now!"

I'm not invested in anything, although a 10 year old I suppose might be thinking "oh he just got told off! ooo!"

Speaking of not being invested in HHH vs Brock Lesnar, did I really just see Brock not only refuse to face HHH, but then get tossed out of the ring, and reteat?

Way to make HHH's insurmountable and dangerous loose cannon obstacle Brock Lesnar look like a total pussy.

I know what you mean and there is a lot to say for the Attitude Era. I just don't subsribe to the belief that it was so much better in the old days. I don't agree that you need the threat of extra violence to get better stories. I do think they have gone too far in making it child friendly but I think more of the problem is the lack of quality writing. If they do it right then they can entertain without the need for the extremes. It's about hitting a balance. And don't forget that you always aim for the ones putting the bucks in the tills.

I happen to agree with you that the Attitude era is often blindly held up as the be all and end all of the wrestling business, and people gloss over the faults that it had and the fact there were plenty of misses amongst the hits. Also agree with you that good writing is a lot more important to a good product than mindless violence without reason. It's why some of these ridiculously hardcore federations never get beyond bush league status.

However, sometimes a bit of violence and pushing the boundaries can help an angle. If done right it can add to the intensity. I don't thnk we need to have buckets of gore every week, but I do think it would have been an idea last night.

That said, some better writing throughout the show, and you wouldn't care about the violence I suppose.

I dont' disagree with the violence and, like I say, I think they have gone too far in terms of toning down. But, like you also say, if you're telling a good story then that's more than half the battle for me.

I do agree that the product now is suffering from poor decisions and writing. Don't get me wrong, there's still some excellent stuff there from time to time. But they could do more with the talent they have.

BTW, the whole Stone Cold thing. It wasn't a case of the WWE forgetting to invite him, or of them making a conscious decision to exclude him. Neither was it a case of Austin and McMahon being on bad terms. The truth is a bit simpler.

Austin has had to have knee surgery, and had his latest procedure on 2 July. He's currently on crutches and started physio to rehab his knees, before he needs to spend around 12 weeks in knee protectors. He couldn't have the procedures done before now because he was filming, but wanted them done as soon as the doctor was available. That came up in July.

Reading between the lines, it appears he WAS originally booked to appear on the show (possibly to pay off the Slater feud) but when the surgery came up, he had to have it done, and took the decision that it was more important than appearing on the show. He also decided that although he can get around on crutches, it would just have been wrong for people to have the image at the 1000th RAW of Stone Cold Steve Austin limping out. He said that if he was going to appear, it had to be as the Austin we all know and love.

He didn't want people blaming WWE or the writers or Vince for him not being there, and wanted to clear things up.

He will almost certainly play a big part in the RAW 20th Anniversary show in January 2013.

As far as that Austin thing, I 100% understand better, now that I read the reply Steve gave.

In fact, I was going to post it here, but David beat me to it.

So I totally retract my statement about Austin's absence.

And by the way, yeah, my point was preciecly about what David mentioned in terms of writing.

I wasn't nessessarily championing the Attitude era itself, just the fact that from the 90's up to 2005, WWE had writers that weren't ridiculously restricted into kiddifying things, and thus losing about 70% of the possible situations they could write to give wrestlers motivations for matches.

People can say what they want about the PG era, but all I hate is that nearly EVERYTHING in WWE for character motivation has to come down to someone saying words someone else disagrees with and then get into a childish insult trade, all the time.

It's the #1 thing I am so sick of seeing right now. And if WWE wasn't so hypocritically anti-bullying and anti-violence right now, they could finally go back to giving motivations to characters that amounted to fists and feet doing all the talking.

To me, it's everything that made non-violent cartoons so wishy-washy and irritating, when a protagonist always has to defeat a villian by using a sword or a knife to cut down a rope from the ceiling and trap them in it.

Things like that always bothered me, and when it comes to a wrestling show environment, I feel similarly.

I'm ok with them not cursing up a storm. I'm ok with having no sexual themes. I'm ok with WWE not having abortions, shock humor, and mockiing sensitive social issues. Actually, I'm glad to not see any of those things.

But I do expect to see wrestlers beating the living shit out of each other, making things personal, attacking their loved ones, and/or using a chair or a tale, or a hammer, or anything else they can find, to make their point to further a story. Wrestling and violence go together and you can't seperate them. Just like you can't have a Popeye cartoon without Popeye and Bluto slugging it out.

All other shock aspects can go. But conflict needs to stay. It's the one thing I have the most problem with WWE trying to remove or sideline. More than anything, conflict is everything. It's the driving force, and especially the point of it all. I just think, at least, it needs to go further than "I hate you. Yeah, well I hate you, too! Let's wrestle!"

I watched TNA last night, and really enjoyed the show. They've definitely changed the way they do things, and it works well. Less talking, and more action. The stories are still flowing, but there's more time devoted to the actual wrestling side of it. If every week is like this in TNA, they are going to be giving WWE a run for their money.

Eh. I still say that TNA's best possible night ever would still barely amount to a grain of sand next to a desert. No matter how lame Raw might get, TNA couldn't give WWE a "run for their money" if they had a 5 mile race head-start and a row of ATM's all the way to the finish line.

But for me, it was a great excuse to watch nothing at all that night and get some extra sleep.

I eventually caught up with Raw 1000 on Youtube out of morbid curiosity. Was glad when it was over, so I could play video games.

If it came down to a choice between lame wrestling shows and bad wrestling shows, i'd choose no wrestling shows and just do something else.

Then you're likely to be missing something good! How can you say RAW is as bad as you say it is and then totally disregard TNA? Have you actually watched it recently? Sure the WWE have a big head start but if TNA keeps improving then there, and there are as many people wanting proper wrestling as you say, then people might start giving it a try.

Plus you keep saying you're done with the product but then you keep going back. There must be something drawing you back, even if it is that morbid curiosity.

I totally accept that you don't like the kiddie friendly WWE. Each to their own. But, like I said, the WWE has to reflect the times it's in and the market it has. That means the people who are putting money into the cash tills by buying tickets to see them, the people who buy the t-shirts, and the people who buy the toys. And, guess what? A lot of those paying customers (or at least their parents are paying) are kids.

I have fond memories of the 80s. Of Hogan v Warrior, despite the fact about six moves where used in the entire thing. Of the Hart Foundation and The Bulldogs. Those were times less extreme than the 90s. But time moved on, the product moved on. It does that and will again.

As I said before wrestling is very much about violence. I get that and I like that. But it doesn't have to be rated 18 to get that. Some of the worst stories have been 18 plus ones (hello Katie Vick...). Good writing mixed in with stylized violence - that will get you punters.

We'll probably not see eye to eye (even with a long lens across the Atlantic!) on this. I hear what you're saying. I don't agree but I hear you.

As long as the people are in charge of TNA as there is now, and as long as ANY combination or individual make-up of either Dixie Carter, Hulk Hogan, or Eric Bischoff remain in any kind of managerial standing in that company, I absoutely, positively will not even watch it at all.

My sole problem with TNA is the complete and utter incompetence behind it and it's product. I won't even waste my time.


I've only criticized WWE for missing the point of a lot of what they're doing, and for being uncreative and lame. But lame or not, they aren't blitheringly incompetent. And I'll admit that even WWE at it's dumbest is far more worth watching.

I will never watch TNA until it straight out removes and clears out all of it's current management, completely reinvents itself with 100% different ownership and turns itself into something that even deserves TV broadcasting.

There's a huge difference between lame and flat-out awful. WWE is lame, but it still has potential, a reason to be. It's gone in and out of many low and stale periods in it's long existence many times and has proven many times to be completly capable with it's management to pull out of that funk, and do something spectacular when they feel like trying.

TNA has had since the very beginning of it's television deal years and years ago to ever even so much as rise their head above water even once, and with it's current management it's very much the reason why. I see no reason to ever even give them a chance anymore until there's an incredible house cleaning.

And by that I mean, TNA's management needs a colonic irrigation before i'll ever even consider tuning in.

The day I hear Dixie Carter is 100% gone, Hogan is 100% gone, and Bishcoff is 100% gone (and not just from appearing on tv, I mean out of the company) is the day i'll consider looking into it.