|
The first companion book in the WrestleMania Era series, The Greatest Champions Of The WrestleMania Era, is also available now! ”The Doc” Chad Matthews has been a featured writer for LOP since 2004. Initially offering detailed recaps and reviews for WWE's top programs, he transitioned to writing columns in 2010. In addition to his discussion-provoking current event pieces, he has written many acclaimed series about WrestleMania, as well as a popular short story chronicle. The Doc has also penned a book, The WrestleMania Era: The Book of Sports Entertainment, published in 2013. It has been called “the best wrestling book I have ever read” and holds a 5-star rating on Amazon, where it peaked at #3 on the wrestling charts. Follow @TheDocLOP QUESTION OF THE DAY: What did you think of Money in the Bank? Match of the night? Sunday left me with a tough decision – watch one of the most intriguing PPVs in some time or Game 7 of the NBA Finals. It’s basketball season, so I went with the Cavaliers making history over Money in the Bank. That said, expectations didn’t change for what has become WWE’s June Classic and I’ve spent my spare time in the last couple of days getting caught up. The Fatal Four-way Tag Team Championship match was borderline terrible. The timing was off from the word go and though a few fun spots certainly seemed to get the live crowd on-board with the presentation, I thought it was one of the worst matches given a reasonable amount of time on PPV in quite awhile. There were moments when everyone just sort of stood there looking at each other to see who was supposed to do the next spot. In a time in WWE history when intricate spots are commonplace and the percentage on connecting with them is very high, this was one of the more recent examples of how not to execute a multi-man match of a spotty-nature. Disappointing performance (*) The surprise of the night for me was the Baron Corbin vs. Dolph Ziggler match. I almost skipped it, seeing as I had virtually no investment in it, but something told me that I might ought to check it out. The benefit of hindsight shows this to have been the better choice as opener over the 4-way. Ziggler was at his modern best, utilizing the credibility that he has built over the years and his penchant for bumping like a mad man to benefit a rising star in Corbin who, for the first time since I have been watching him over the last 18 months, showed considerable in-ring progress. I feel quite positive about the long-term future of the Lone Wolf's career now. He looked sharp and connected on a few sequences that I'm not sure he would have been able to do just a few months ago. Every few months, Ziggler has a match of this caliber on PPV to remind us of his value. Good match. (***) I'm sorry to say that I did skip the women's match. With this column to produce in a (relatively) timely manner and a podcast to record for Wednesday along with the rest of my non-wrestling commitments this week, I could find no reason to make room in my schedule for whatever the women's division has become since WrestleMania. A rant seems warranted but the sample size is still pretty small. Four months of the year has seen the women's division shine and the last three have seen it leap backward to its strange, “We don't know what we want this to be yet” early stages of the Divas Revolution. If you tell me it was worth it, I'll go back, watch, and review. Nattie turning on Becky is interesting, I suppose. The division could use some depth on TV; I thought Emma would provide it, but she got injured. Maybe Nattie is up to the task. The debut of Apollo Crews on PPV was just fine – pretty typical of the opposite scenario from the Ziggler-Corbin match of the established veteran bigger guy against the smaller newcomer. I have been quietly critical of WWE calling up Apollo; I hadn't seen much from him in NXT. Money in the Bank offered him a good opportunity against a game opponent and I thought he made good use of it, showing flashes of the athleticism that helps set him apart. The problem I foresee is that Neville is better at doing what Apollo is best known for, but that's a problem for another day I suppose. (**) Part of the reason why this Money in the Bank was put on the same pedestal as a WrestleMania was the dream scenario - and, more importantly, WWE's hype of it being a dream scenario - of John Cena wrestling AJ Styles. Combined with the main-event, this was a match that could have headlined much bigger shows than the June PPV. My anticipation for the Styles-Cena clash was immense, not really because of the reputation that Styles had built around the world these past 15 years as I know was the case for many of you, but rather for the reputation he had earned just in these last few months (since the Rumble) and the manner in which WWE has treated him since his debut. I absolutely loved the series between Styles and Reigns and very badly wanted to see the momentum keep rolling for AJ this summer, hence my unbridled enthusiasm for Cena being his next opponent. I was genuinely curious to see how Cena would wrestle this match given the style that he utilized last year to such critical acclaim; I thought that a match with Styles called for the approach that he used against CM Punk and Daniel Bryan in years gone by and was happy to see a little less spotty a performance from the Golden Boy. The story that they told was reminiscent of Cena's work against Shawn Michaels in 2007, an under-appreciated pair of classics if there ever were any. Styles was presented as the superior talent and his counters to Cena's signature offense put a unique spin on the archetypal "JC vs. indy guy" match. There were a couple of iffy moments, but overall it was just tremendous. I had no issue with the finish, as I went into it hoping that Styles would win no matter how the climax was executed. Cena is not yet beyond protection and, as silly as that is, I have just come to expect it. (****) The Money in the Bank Ladder match was a mixed bag. There were a few innovative moments that stood out in what was for the most part a stunt-brawl version of the gimmick, but the timing was off on several occasions as well (Jericho was responsible for two of them - has become a regular theme in his 2016 matches). The finish with everyone unenthusiastically brawling on the ladders did the climax no favors either from where I sat. I also don't think it helped (for a 2nd straight year) that we just saw a similar type of Ladder match two-and-a-half months ago at WrestleMania. The novelty of the Ladder match is aided by infrequency. With TLC and Money in the Bank six months apart, that is a good opportunity to let the wrestling fan mind become less conditioned to the stipulation. Adding one to the Mania card disrupts that important scheduling flow. The Contract match from two years ago continues to be the standard-bearer to which all ensuing modern versions will be compared and I don't think this year's was much better than last year's, which was nowhere near as good as 2014's won by Seth Rollins. Even some of the basic things like ladder placement logic was more flawed than usual. That all said, Dean Ambrose winning was a huge moment that segued to an even bigger moment at night's end. (*** ½) The US Title match was what it was. I had a hard time getting invested to be frank. It felt like a TV match without the title at stake to me. I do, however, appreciate that Rusev is finding his rhythm again as a character. He can be an important contributor. Seth Rollins vs. Roman Reigns was one the best WWE matches of 2016; maybe the best. It felt like a big deal despite a crowd reaction that was a bit muted and it was wrestled like the Mania main-event caliber match that it was. I said on my podcast a few weeks ago that the face-heel dynamic between Rollins and Reigns was in the eye of the beholder, but on this night Reigns wrestled like the heel in many ways, putting Rollins in a position to adopt the underdog babyface role with his physical response to Roman's powerful assault. Rollins maintained via his facial expressions a rather villainous tone, though, basically turning this bout into the characterization of my podcast comments. Throughout the course of the 26-minute duration, you could see each of them through both personic lenses. I thought that was cool, something you will not often see, and a testament to their versatility. Reigns, despite his reputation as a limited wrestler, does a lot of little things well. Rollins has attributes that well complement Roman's more flattering gifts. Their collective athleticism jumped off the screen to me, certainly in the form of a few the effortless power moves executed but best exemplified by the Pedigree counter to the Spear which brought me out of my chair and had me believing that Rollins could win when I was completely sure that he wouldn't. The second Pedigree to end the match prompted a mark out moment for me not felt on an equal level since Rollins cashed in at WrestleMania 31. Then, Ambrose cashing in Money in the Bank amplified my enthusiasm. I have long desired to see the Shield triple threat match which now seems on the horizon. (**** ½) All in all, Money in the Bank threatened to be what it claimed to be in its opening video montage - the greatest ever - and while it certainly was a noteworthy event with a couple of classics, the failure of the Ladder match and the opening tag to fully deliver or deliver at all, respectively, prevented the maximization of the PPV's quality.
|
