Dirtsheets

If there was ever a definition of the term 'chalk and cheese'. Here are two reviews on last nights Raw segment featuring Cena, Punk and Vince.

Chris Cash @ Wrestlezone wrote:
Closing Segment: Punk/Vince/Cena

Ok, I sat back and simply enjoyed that. Let's see what we had there:

- A "We Want Wrestling" chant. Way to go Lagana..I guess Mark Madden can suck on that, eh?
- ANOTHER Colt Cabana reference.
- A "Colt Cabana" chant!
- A reference (and subsequent trending Twitter topic) to WWE Ice Cream Bars
- Vince acknowledging and pointing at a Zack Ryder sign

That last one simply says it all, doesn't it? It seemed to get a little "too deep" with Punk making reference to Cena now being what he's always hated in dynasties. "John Cena..you're the New York Yankies" and then BLAMO!...Cena punches him? You could tell the crowd wasn't ready for that because they hardly reacted.

However, everything "before" and "after" that one minute span was absolutely amazing and exciting to watch. It was honestly historic. Sean Waltman said on Twitter tonight that he wishes people realized how big it really was. He claimed Vince hated being apart of it, but he's too smart not to capitalize on it. I'm surprised to hear that Vince hated being in the middle of that, but either way, he definitely made tonight's segment match up to what Punk did on his own just two weeks ago.

In closing: I believe Vince is smart enough to capitalize on all of this. One step further and even more importantly: I don't think Vince is stupid enough to allow Punk "all" of this when a contract isn't locked down TIGHT.

Punk may take a month or two off - to appease GLAAD and to further the storyline - but he will be back sooner, rather than later. And maybe...juuust maybe (Ahricky Boobie), Punk leaves with the title this Sunday at MITB.

One can only hope, right?

Wade Keller of PW Torch wrote:

The Punk-Cena-McMahon segment at the end of the show was memorable and had great moments, but ultimately was too long and meandering. If this was a dry-run off-camera, I'd probably cut 70 percent of it, even some "good lines" that were entertaining. The "Ice Cream" reference took the crowd off-track in a way that hurt the final PPV pitch. Yes, it was hilarious and it may haunt Punk or McMahon for years as fans chant it, but it was akin to fans doing the wave. They don't do the wave during game seven overtime in the Stanley Cup Finals or during the final drive down the field with a minute left in a five point game in the Super Bowl.

-I'd also cut John Cena's awful, awful, awful floor mat bit. That was just so tone-deaf, it was on par really with the "Poopy" bit Cena did back when feuding with JBL. It was third grade "humor" and just wasn't witty or clever, and it just kept going on and getting worse. It was like when you write a dollar amount on a check and the number doesn't look right so you try to make the "5" look more like a "3" and by the time you're done you just have to rip up the check and start over. That's what that part of the promo was. Had he stopped at saying sometimes he sees Vince McMahon and wants to rip his face off, that was enough. It wasn't a time to try to be clever and get in a "laugh line."

-I'd have also cut some of Punk's more ludicrous demands, such as his face on the turnbuckle or a private jet. It took things into "entertainment-ville" when, for this storyline and angle to really click at the highest level, there has to be an aura of authenticity. So Punk should have instead demanded first class airfare and no early morning or red eye flights. He should have asked for his face in the opening of Raw in three places rather than zero. He could have demanded a line of t-shirts equal to Cena's in quantity with the same marketing dollars behind them. Those all sound reasonably legitimate, yet still "asking a lot." Once he got off the tracks and started making it a deal obviously Vince McMahon couldn't and wouldn't sign, it encouraged the crowd to treat what they were seeing as farcical rather than believable.

-In the end, I think it's a wash. I think people entered this show wanting to see MITB more than the usual PPV, and I don't think enough damage was done to offset that. But I also don't think enough good was done to enhance it. I do think Punk showed why he's a big star that McMahon should make sure gets another contract some day, but I think the key words from Punk came late, as he sat on the stage, when he said: "I'm tired." He really is ready for a break. If he got six weeks off twice or three times a year (along with everyone on the roster), he probably wouldn't be walking away right now.

-In the end, they made it clear Punk is probably leaving after MITB after hinting he might re-sign after all earlier in the show. What they didn't make up for is the needless attention drawn to the fact that last time Cena lost and was "fired," he never really left. I don't see the upside in bringing that up, as the key to this PPV selling is the fanbase believing that something is at stake and the stips have integrity to them.

-I would neither bet on it nor rule out the possibility of Punk working through Summerslam. I think most people would predict Cena beats Punk on Sunday, Punk leaves, and Cena moves on to something else for Summerslam. But leave room for Punk winning, everyone wondering what happens next, and Punk being bribed into one more title defense at Summerslam. I say that mainly because it seems like the last three weeks, so much attention has been dedicated to Punk, and it seems they wouldn't have done that just to pop the MITB buyrate. Plus, what could possibly follow this that is "Summerslam-worthy"? We'll see.

Two totally different views on this huge storyline.

What i want to know is, what are your favourite dirtsheets? Who's opinions do you like reading? Personally i find Wade Keller extremely picky and negative and disagree with alot of what he says. He goes into great depth and over analyses way too often. Guys like Justin LaBar and Chris Cash seem like huge douches, but i prefer reading their spin on things to be honest.

Your thoughts?

Keller is very analytical and picky, but that's his job. He is a wrestling analyst. I think it's really difficult to disagree too much with what he says, personally. I can understand someone not enjoying his stuff, but I think that's probably because they're not keen on over-analysis. It doesn't mean he's wrong. For me personally, as a very analytical follower of wrestling, he provides the perfect coverage.

Chris Cash, who I am not familiar with, just sounds like a smark. I don't like using that word, but that's what he sounds like; someone who thinks he's "insider" but who is as much of a slave to WWE than the 8 year old in the Rey Mysterio mask. I'm sure 80% of "internet wrestling fans" (ie those who frequent boards such as this one, or wrestling news websites) would prefer his coverage than Keller's because it's easier to read, more positive and less elitist, but from a depth or quality perspective, I think there is just zero contest.

I think it's like choosing between a tabloid and a broadsheet. A broadsheet has far better writing, deeper analysis and treats the reader as an intelligent adult, but a tabloid is a much easier read, less downbeat and just informative enough to make you feel like it was worthwhile.

The wrestling tabloid-reader (ie Wrestlezone) would scoff at the Torch or Observer for "taking it too seriously". The Torch and Observer do take wrestling very seriously. Neither approach in and of itself is right or wrong, but if I had a wrestling company and I had to choose between Wade Keller's or Chris Cash's advice on making the most money, I'd go with Keller every time.

I see what you are saying crips and agree to and extent, but i often find that Keller rarely has anything positive to say or praises the product, he's more of a critic than an analyst. Dont get me wrong its interesting to read his views but i find them repetitive and can almost predict what he's going to say before i've even read it.

Wrestlezone is obviously an easier read and i agree it is tabloid like, but personally i just dont like the way Keller tries brainwashing the readers with his over indulgent and all too often critiques.

Well, I guess it boils down to your opinion of the product, or perhaps what level you wish you watch it on.

Opinion-wise, if you think that WWE and TNA maximise their earning potential through their booking, if you think they are ethical companies, if you think the positives of their product outweight the negatives, then a) you will not agree with Wade Keller, and b) are you taking drugs?

If you don't care about those things, and just want to be entertained, then you will find Keller's coverage negative and unnecessary.

I just think it depends what kind of fan you are.

I also think it's important to point out that Keller is very positive about certain things as well! But he judges each thing on its own merits.

I also suspect that if someone realises how good something could be, they will get more frustrated, and be more critical when it fails to meet those standards.

In terms of his analysis here I do agree with him on somethings (such as John Cena pandering to those with the humour level of a seven year old) but on the rest of the promo I never got the feeling that it felt like it was too long or too wordy.

I would also say that it would be very surprising if WWE cut Punk loose now because he has been set up as the perfect anti-hero, the "voice of the voiceless" the man who cares about the guys that have been stitched up by the WWE etc.

There doesn't appear to be a logical route that the MITB main event can go, which is good because it means that whatever happens we should hopefully be entertained.

The logical part of my brain says that Cena will win at MITB but there is still a part of me that says a) for WWE to capitalise on this Punk needs to win and b) I still think that Cena needs a break to recuperate before moving towards his WM programme as WWE can't risk him being injured, especially if Rocky is a bit ring rusty come next year.

Another note to sort of add to what Josh says: Keller has not only watched hundreds of thousands of hours of wrestling and dedicated the last 25 years of his life to it, but he has also analysed everything along the way. What worked and why? What didn't work and why?

I doubt Chris Cash can say the same. I'm not criticising Cash, but he has a reader-friendly formula that works for him. However, it doesn't make him the industry expert Keller is.

Keller might be very negative about a lot of modern day wrestling (and he is probably less negative than he is accused of being), but that is because he is well aware of what wrestling has the potential to be and the fact that it is currently falling short in many basic but key areas. One thing I would say about Keller is that he is always very objective; you get a sense of who he likes and dislikes, but he judges everything without bias.

I read TJR on rajah website, he seems alrite and writes things that i tend to agree with and things i even think of before ive read it also.

I'm a massive fan of Keller. I listen to his livecast on wednesdays where he analyses Raw with Jason Powell & I can't recommend it to anyone high enough.... If your a fans Crips I'd download it off iTunes.

I might give it a listen, in what way is it good?

bretmeharty wrote:I might give it a listen, in what way is it good?

Its Keller talking with Jason Powell who's editor of Pro Wrestling.net about Raw & they have callers phone in with questions & comments. Extremely interesting as both know there stuff & have great wrestling minds & I feel know what the audience wants. Give it a whirl. I listen to it at the gym but if the mrs ain't staying over before bed is a good time to

yea ill download it and give it a try

I listen to most Torch Livecasts but my favourite show of theirs is the members-only Bruce Mitchell Audio at the weekend. Can't recommend the membership option high enough.

The "holy sh1t" chant was back!!!