BomberPat

that Kona Reeves shirt is tremendous.

Aaren never said "donate to my PayPal in lieu of me earning a wage". He offered up a PayPal link if anyone wanted to donate anything they felt comfortable with. If you didn't donate anything, fine. Nor did I. I tend to find that whole thing a little uncomfortable, whether it be PayPal donations, Patreon links, or anything that involves giving money to a performer, but I also know plenty of performers for whom a couple of extra quid from fans can make a real difference, as they're effectively self-employed.

I don't know how much Aaren made from this, or what he intends to do with it now (he said something on Twitter about buying gifts for people). I also don't know anything about the job he has since secured.

What I do know is that Aaren did have repeated doctors' visits to assess his injuries. I don't know what the outcome of those was, but he's not making them up.

If I have any criticism of Aaren, it's that I believe some of the reason for not wanting to referee again is psychological, rather than physical. I haven't spoken to Aaren about this directly, but I'm a referee myself, and speak with other referees on literally a daily basis, and it was in a conversation with another ref the night of the show that I found out what had happened. At that point, Aaren was unsure if he would work again, as much because of the anxiety and psychological after-effects of what happened as any physical injury (as a victim of assault myself, I know how difficult it can be to put yourself back in a situation why you might see the person responsible again, and the various tricks it plays on your mind), but with the NJPW show coming up the next day, didn't want to make that call. As it happened, he didn't work the NJPW show, or the RevPro show the day after. But I think there may be a point to which Aaren has overstated the physical injury, as perhaps he was more comfortable putting that in the public eye than risking the possible backlash of it being a mental health issue.

Again, this is nothing but pure speculation, which is why I've been reluctant to voice it until now. It's just as possible that he genuinely didn't know the extent of the injuries for a couple of days - I know I've worked through injury several times, or had a pain that I'd figured I would give a day or two to go away, which turned out to only get worse, or not go away as I'd hoped. 

In my experience, younger kids tend to love the idea of wrestling if they've ever been exposed to it, disproportionate to how much they actually watch. One of my nephews is seven years old, with a John Cena poster on his wall, and last weekend all he wanted to talk to me about was playing at "wrestling" with his mates - which was clearly a mixture of him recounting an actual play-fight, and telling tall tales about what he did to "win". His dad doesn't have Sky, and hates wrestling, and I don't think his mum has Sky either. So his actual access to wrestling is extremely limited, but the idea of it is enough of a cultural touchstone to fill his brain with ideas about it. I'm pretty sure I was similar at his age - when I think back, the extent of my wrestling obsession was completely out of proportion to the amount of wrestling I watched, or wrestling-related content I had access to. Anecdotally, I know plenty of other kids - children of friends', etc. - that are in a similar situation.

If there's a lapse, it seems to be mostly with teenagers. Wrestling isn't "cool", but nor is it at the Marvel/Star Wars level of something that can be considered "geeky" but acceptable, or somehow be seen as a badge of counter-culture despite being one of the largest media properties in the world. As someone involved in the "family-friendly" kind of wrestling show, I'd say teenagers are our biggest blind spot - we get young kids and families, and we get adult fans, but teenagers are too cool for it. They're not young enough to get caught up in it all and believe what's going on, but nor are they old enough to allow themselves to be suspend their disbelief. They're at an age where they'd be embarrassed to be seen enjoying it.

Santana and Ortiz not being in the title tournament makes me think they're likely to be Jericho's partners, then.

If Kofi's losing the belt, he should win the Royal Rumble. We've had ten years of "Royal Rumble specialist Kofi Kingston" but he's never won one. 

18 minutes ago, Chris B said:

I think that the videogames were a massively underrated aspect to the late-90s boom. WCW/nWo Revenge, etc, were all big, mainstream hits, and a bunch of people started checking out the show because the games got them into the wrestlers.

That's an interesting point, and could well be some truth to it. Anecdotally, I missed out on most of the Attitude Era, only getting back into wrestling in mid-2000, and the catalyst for that was a demo of SmackDown on the PS1; most of my friends, as it turned out, had already played Attitude or No Mercy, or the WCW games. The success of the Playstation (and, to a lesser extent, N64) could have played an underappreciated role in all of that.

To a small extent, the advent of the internet, allowing people to follow wrestling online, rather than through newsletters and monthly magazines, might have been a factor - though not enough to account for the success of the WWF or WCW at the time, it certainly started to have an influence on the creative direction of both companies, and was a huge boost for ECW.

Just now, The Dart said:

You seem like you have a really good understanding of wrestling, so I'm surprised you don't seem to understand that these guys are both heels.  You have a point with The Miz though, but most everyone in WWE seems to be really easily distracted and easy to defeat just because some music's playing or whatever.

They're both heels, but some consistency would be nice. Sami Zayn has turned from a decent wrestler to Jimmy Hart practically overnight, running away and stooging from The Miz. Nakamura is more of an issue with how heels are presented on commentary - I used to love it when commentators, Gorilla Monsoon in particular, would take the time to say, "this guy is such a good wrestler, he could win fair and square if he wanted to". Make it frustrating that a guy's taking shortcuts to get an easy payday, rather than because he couldn't win without them. Especially when it's a guy who, prior to being paired with Sami Zayn, was never presented as someone who needed the help.

Just now, garynysmon said:

My point is, is there anything in the current offering that's likely to draw in your casual fans like in days gone by?

If you look at the past WWF boom periods, neither of which were exactly known for "workrate" of match quality (a facet that's vastly overrated in my view), and rather are remembered for the characters, development, promos and storyline.

I have a pet theory, which I've probably banged on about on here before, that boom periods are dictated by changing technology and access at least as much, if not moreso, than by any one or two major stars. And it's driven by wrestling being closer to the zeitgeist - the two usually go hand-in-hand.

If you point to the '50s as the first US wrestling boom, that was driven by television.

The 1980s wrestling boom was driven by PPV and cable.

The "Monday Night Wars" or Attitude Era is the only period where I'd say there probably wasn't a major technological reason affecting the industry as a whole, but that the WWF switching to a change of presentation and production style, and a product in tune with the overall mood of the times, is what drove their success. 

Early 2000s saw a boom in independent wrestling, because production and distribution became cheaper and more accessible - promotions could afford to record, and to create DVDs, and fans could afford to buy them.

More recently, there's been a subsequent boom in independent and international wrestling (US fans following UK products and vice-versa, "Western" fans following Japanese promotions, Lucha promotions gaining a foothold outside of Mexico), which again has been technologically driven, as social media and streaming services have increased access.

So if there's something to attract casual fans again, it's a pivot toward embracing a new technology, or a significant change in production and presentation. Something that makes wrestling today look as drastically different from wrestling yesterday as Steve Austin looked from Hulk Hogan. I don't know what that is. If I did, I'd be a millionaire. 

Honestly, I think the future of wrestling is in the East. I think the most exciting thing about AEW is their relationship with OWE, and that a couple of their wrestlers represent the biggest leap forward in mainstream perception of what's possible in wrestling since Rey Mysterio first showed up in WCW, but only if they're presented properly. And I've been disappointed so far that AEW don't seem remotely concerned with changing up what wrestling looks like.

4 minutes ago, TildeGuy~! said:

If questioning a bloke asking for donations as he isn’t able to work due to unproven injuries and then less then a week later coming out and saying “cheers for the dosh, I’ve got a full time job now” is sickening victim shaming then you need to get out more.

If questioning a bloke who got the shit kicked out of him on camera, and in front of hundreds of witnesses, because he hasn't shown you a fucking x-ray or medical certificate doesn't fit your definition of victim shaming, I'd love to know what does.

I didn't mind Lesnar's loss to Cena so much - it was his first match back, I don't think anyone really knew how good he would be (because that match was superb, and a rare example of WWE deviating from their big match formula with great success), and the way it was booked was very much, "Lesnar lost because he got cocky", and that's been a consistent character trait of Brock's ever since. 

The loss to Triple H could fuck off, though, as could the entire feud. It felt like Triple H having to get in on the cool new thing, rather than a feud anyone was clamouring for. And in a period where Lesnar was restricted to very few matches a year, he had five matches in 2012 and 2013 combined, and three of them were against Triple H. One of them was a retirement match, which Triple H had to be goaded out of retirement to accept, which is the kind of set-up hack writers would still be making fun of WCW for twenty years after the fact, yet somehow we've let WWE get away with that one. Plus Triple H having his "arm broken" to zero consequence, and showing up on TV looking fine. The whole feud could fuck off.

On 9/15/2019 at 7:37 PM, DEF said:

Maximum Risk (1996) JCVD (2008) and Universal Soldier: Regeneration (2009) are all well worth a watch. JCVD is absolutely remarkable in fact.

Universal Soldier: Day Of Reckoning is also much better than it has any right to be, really enjoyed it, really clever take on the franchise, and I honestly didn't see the twist coming. Lundgren is superb in it, too.

The thing with Jean Claude Van Damme is that he's self-aware enough to do the "aging action movie star" gimmick a lot better than the likes of Seagal who are still so hung up on being seen as a bad-ass.

I was trying to work out the other week how many films Van Damme has been in where he plays either multiple characters, multiple versions of the same character, or an ironic version of himself. If we count TV, in Jean-Claude Van Johnson he manages to do all three! 

Watched maybe half of the show last night.

• Should be over it by now, as it's WWE 101, but I hate cobbled together singles guys doing better than established tag teams. If they wanted Ziggler and Roode to be a dominant heel team, they could have teamed them up and had them string some wins together before the match that earned them a PPV title shot here.
  It doesn't help that Rollins feels like an absolute scrub. He's beaten Brock Lesnar twice in recent memory, and is no better off than when he started - if anything, he's in a worse position than he was before the second match. Not helped by the announcers saying how the heel team's strategy should be "make sure Braun Strowman doesn't get in the ring" - what a way to put over your babyface world champion, he's the weakest member of the tag team.
  That Rollins effectively lost clean to Bobby Roode, in WWE terms a complete no-hoper, is ridiculous. No wonder no one gets over. Yes, they did a miscommunication spot, but it was a shoulder tackle. The guy who beat Brock Lesnar was sufficiently knocked out by a shoulder tackle to get pinned by a midcard guy's finish? How the hell is he world champion? They could have explained it away by saying that he lost because he wasn't sufficiently focused, or even that he was prepared to risk one defeat to remain fresher for the main event, but nope. 
  Hell, why did they even have them work double duty in the first place? The roster's stacked, there's no need for it. And it's not like it added any drama or tension to the main event, because they both did it. If it were just Rollins, or just Strowman, they'd be coming in at a disadvantage, and that would be the story. As they both worked twice, what does it matter? It's a level playing field.
   
• Becky's promo, starting with the corporate-mandated reminder that she's Seth Rollins' Girlfriend, felt like charisma desperately attempting to burst through an overly scripted promo. The look in her eyes told more of a story than the material she was given.
   
• First time seeing heel Bayley, and it's great, feels like a logical extension of the character she was before, rather than a "boo, she's a baddy now" abrupt turn. Weird dynamic with heel Bayley and face Charlotte, but it worked well enough.
   
• Did anyone get over from The Miz vs. Nakamura? Sami Zayn came out of it looking like a coward, Nakamura came out of it looking like a guy who can't win without help, and Miz came out of it looking like a gullible idiot who'll fall for the slightest distraction.

PCO said that the contract he got from ROH/Sinclair is the most money he's ever made in wrestling, and I don't see why he'd kayfabe people about that. That's a guy who worked for the WWF in the early '90s, WCW in '96/'97, and WWF in '98, and ROH are paying him more money than any of those. If they can get anyone signed to a contract, it's because Sinclair puts them in the position to be able to offer big money, and that they're desperate to offer it, because WWE and AEW are trying to sign up everyone else.

Martina going there feels like a sideways move at best for her, but I understand a large part of her concerns over WWE were around maintaining creative control and keeping her gimmick. 

I'd say the best time would have been Wrestlemania 29 - rather than shitting on the "Once In A Lifetime" gimmick with Rock/Cena, they could have gone with Cena vs. 'Taker and Rock vs. Lesnar on that show; I think the draw of The Rock was still big enough that it didn't need Cena on the other side of the ring, and Brock was still fresh enough back in WWE that he still felt like "UFC's Brock Lesnar".

One of the biggest names in MMA taking on the biggest star in Hollywood, on WWE's biggest show, would have been a huge money match, and also a massive statement from WWE to say, "there's MMA, there's movies, and then there's WWE, and we can give you the best of both worlds". That frees up CM Punk to do something else, and I'm not sure what else would have been viable at that point for him.

Around Undertaker in general, the years leading up to the end of the streak, then the subsequent matches, I feel like they missed a trick anyway. Around the Michaels and Triple H matches (especially the latter) they toyed with humanising him, with showing that he was older, more vulnerable, and maybe a little desperate, that perhaps the Streak was the only thing he had left to fight for. But when it came to the matches, they never really booked him that way, and still presented him as on top of his game. If they'd booked him as an aging veteran, it'd make for a more compelling story. They toyed with it in the Bray Wyatt feud, but that was a one and done he barely showed up for, and then in his post-streak feud with Lesnar, where he was cheating and kicking him in the dick - Undertaker as a crazy old man with nothing less to love was an evolution of that character that could have kept him fresh and interesting. In theory, losing the streak could have been a gift, because his matches were no longer a foregone conclusion - when I watched Wrestlemania 30 live, everyone in the room was barely paying attention to his match with Lesnar until the finish, talking amongst themselves, because they weren't invested, they figured they already knew how it would go. 

14 hours ago, Jonny Vegas said:

Well mate, my opinion would be that he probably thinks he's being very smart by not making direct threats which he likely knows is illegal.

It's Dan Edler, when has not being legal ever put him off?

Maybe that you haven't actually backed up any points beyond "they're different", or that "high culture" Vs "low culture" is just classist snobbery?

Daniel Johnston. I'll probably be back to post thoughts on this one, it feels like a gut punch.

Nothing quite like doing the right thing once you've exhausted all other options.

I just find it bizarre that we have two versions of events - the account of the victim, which is backed up by video evidence of him being assaulted, and hundreds of eyewitnesses, and the account of the three people responsible, at least two of which have demonstrably lied about it (Bodom claiming Aaren tried a takedown on him and he cut it off, and Quildan claiming he had no knowledge of it and there was no footage), yet you feel it's Aaren's account that needs to be questioned and held to the highest degree of scrutiny, to the point that you even seem to be doubting where he said he was trained. 

Again - "he didn't say anything for a week" is bollocks. He told people about this the night of the show. Quildan was making decisions directly influenced by what happens the following two nights. It's bullshit when Quildan says Twitter was the first he'd heard of it, and it's bullshit when people looking for any excuse to exonerate the pricks responsible say, "why did he wait a week before telling anyone" to try and question Aaren's credibility. That you'd rather believe, in the face of all evidence, that a referee would make this up to gain "sympathy bookings" says far more about you than about Aaren.

As for Aaren tweeting about the show, I can't put myself in his mindset, but maybe he wanted to try and put it all behind him - he was under the impression he had more shows to work that weekend, that he had been booked for. Maybe he didn't want to dwell on the negative, and wanted to focus on the good parts of the show. Maybe he hadn't realised the extent of the damage. I've refereed shows with broken toes, with a concussion, and with ligament damage in my shoulder, and not realised how bad it was until hours afterwards, sometimes not til the next morning.

2 minutes ago, Onyx2 said:

Haven't seen it (Dad's Army is one of the worst British inventions) but it's Robert Bathurst of Cold Feet fame isn't it? Which I thought was outstanding casting. I imagine he plays exactly the same character. 

It is - physically, he looks the part, but his timing is off more often than not. Le Masurier is the heart of Dad's Army for me, and does so much with a look, or a lingering smirk, that's just absent here. Could be in the (fairly lifeless) direction, though.

Watching the new Dad's Army thing - it's done well enough to get the quality of the script across, and some of the casting works, but Kevin Eldon comes off too much as someone doing an over-the-top Clive Dunn impression (which was already gimmick casting in the first place), while the guy they have playing Wilson is pretty dreadful - just none of the smirk or charm of John Le Masurier.

2 hours ago, westlondonmist said:

However any forthcoming York Hall shows or new japan merch sales could suffer. 

Doubt it. Plenty of people will see RevPro's apology as the end of it, and even a lot of those who think RevPro are still at fault will suddenly forget their conscience and buy tickets the moment they announce Okada or Naito or whoever again.

If you're basing your opinion based on "Aaren didn't say anything for a week", consider the people who are making that claim, and who stand to benefit.

I found out about this the night of the show, because Aaren told people. 

It's a screenshot from Bodom's Instagram story, appearing to show a message from Quildan saying "this ref is kicking up a shitstorm", but promising that he has Josh's back.

Combined with Quildan claiming that the footage showed nothing wrong, and denying all knowledge, until fan footage made his position untenable, it doesn't paint him in a good light.

Again - he's claiming he was unaware there was a problem before Aaren Tweeted about it. Anyone with half a brain should be able to see through that, but I know for a fact he was aware of it within two days of the show, and most likely on the night.

Andy "we would have made immediate action" Quildan.