May 2023 Wrestling Talk

[Raziel]

15 minutes ago, SirSmUgly said:

If those two weren't connecting with you, there was Vader and Sting and Cactus Jack and Ricky Steamboat and Scorpio and even a couple of Liger appearances, if I remember, and a great Steiners vs. Miracle Violence Connection feud.

I mean, if we're going to reduce a company to its lamest parts, then was any wrestling ever good anywhere?

I'll go contend there was nothing great about that Steiners/MVC feud, it was actually pretty one sided until Watts ran the Steiners out of the company to push Doc, and to a degree Gordy, but he ended up sacrificing the Steiners for nothing.

[Stefanie Sparkleface]

7 minutes ago, SirSmUgly said:

If those two weren't connecting with you, there was Vader and Sting and Cactus Jack and Ricky Steamboat and Scorpio and even a couple of Liger appearances, if I remember, and a great Steiners vs. Miracle Violence Connection feud.

I mean, if we're going to reduce a company to its lamest parts, then was any wrestling ever good anywhere?

Sure, but were you getting all (or even most) of those wrestlers from week to week?

Here's WCW Saturday Night from October 10, 1992. Picked at random (okay, October 10 is my father's birthday).

Quote

Sting defeated ORION (2:42)
Arn Anderson & Bobby Eaton defeated Dave Diamond & Pez Whatley (5:24)
Robby Walker & Shane Douglas defeated Pat Rose & Sgt. Buddy Lee Parker (5:39)
Marcus Alexander Bagwell defeated Paul Lee (2:50)
The Z-Man defeated Scotty Flamingo (11:07)
The Vegas Connection (Diamond Dallas Page & Vinnie Vegas) defeated Gary Jackson & Joey Maggs (5:57)
The Barbarian & Tony Atlas defeated Jeff Daniels & TA McCoy (3:06)
Flyin' Brian & Stunning Steve defeated Brad Armstrong & Dustin Rhodes by DQ (12:32)

There's a whole lot of "stuff being thrown at the wall" in this show. That's what I mean about the weekly TV being difficult to get through. A lot of the main event guys/stars were kept off TV because they're arena draws and you're supposed to pay to see them, or if you did see them it'd be in highlights or in a rare treat you'd see them in a monthly squash (like Sting here against a job guy I've never heard of). Maybe you'll get them a tag match or a six-man like with the proto-Hollywood Blonds vs. Brad Armstrong and Dustin Rhodes. Maybe you get a TV title defense.

There are things that have their charm but when folks remember 1992 WCW, in my mind, I think they remember stuff like what was on the Clash, or the big moments that were in highlights. There's nothing wrong with that or enjoying that but it's an era that does get romanticized in retrospect.

[Elsalvajeloco]

8 minutes ago, Raziel said:

I'll go contend there was nothing great about that Steiners/MVC feud, it was actually pretty one sided until Watts ran the Steiners out of the company to push Doc, and to a degree Gordy, but he ended up sacrificing the Steiners for nothing.

When he came in and the first thing he did was push Doc and Gordy heavy, you knew he couldn't see the forest for the trees. Doing that tournament for the Clash and then GAB where one was taped and aired after the other had to be one of the most inept, WTF are you doing moments. It's the whole reason why GAB 92 suffered. No storylines outside of maybe Gordy and Doc attacking the Steiners. How is this any different than the Battle Bowl in 1991 or the tag team tournament for Starrcade 90? He just did the same shit Herd did except he took up the mats that protect folks from getting hurt (including someone like Foley who did everything in his power to get over by hurting himself) and told folks not to come off the top rope. Why are you this focused on two guys who (a) are already committed more to working in Japan so they won't be as helpful in US and (b) are very talented but aren't guys you really build your entire company around?

[SirSmUgly]

2 hours ago, Dog said:

Curious -- if you could make specific changes to AEW that would hew more toward your taste, what would they be? 

I am sorry that I missed this. This will be entirely too long, so I apologize. Bear in mind, I stopped watching AEW in the first eight months of its existence and have only seen about three shows since then. The last AEW show I saw was the one in Seattle, which I was actually at. 

Most of what I don't like about AEW is not necessarily AEW's fault. Wrestling as an art form is at a place in 2020 that is different than the place it was at in 1978 or 1984. 

Some of that is that I have a marked preference for a bunch of hosses doing press slams, and even the big men tend to be go-go-go. When the Giant did a dropkick, that earned a massive pop. Now dudes over 6'6 are doing dives on the regular. But even if you ignore that preference, I think the ante has been upped entirely too much in pro wrestling w/r/t the work itself. My feeling is that you can see the seams way too easily. Some of that is the acknowledgement that everything is a work from the wrestlers themselves, but then again, I can watch an episode of Succession and then watch Sarah Snook talk about what she thinks Siobhan's goals and needs are, and that doesn't bother me. So maybe that's not it, but what is the problem for me is that it comes through in the ring. I don't see Snook practicing her blocking when I watch an episode. I get the illusion that Shiv is Shiv, not someone pretending to be Shiv. This is a person deliberately distancing her husband from her because she doesn't understand how to trust someone enough to love them, not an actor pretending blah blah blah.

But when I watch a lot of modern pro wrestling, I can see the seams. I can see how contrived that tower suplex spot is. I can see the hesitation as Wrestler A gets into the right position to catch Wrestler B on an overelaborate dive. I actually think that most of the work today sucks. It's bad pro wrestling. And the issue is not an AEW issue or a WWE issue or anything else; it's an issue of what happens when your work becomes so intricate that you can't risk anything that even looks spontaneous because you're responsible for protecting the other worker. 

I don't know - you see Bret Hart pop on a ringpost Figure Four, and you don't see that really, it's the guy who is being put in the move who has all that responsibility to keep Bret from banging his head on the floor (thanks for nothing, Goldberg!). But I think the stuff a lot of modern workers do today cuts right through that. I can see the seams. 

In WWE, last I saw, it was really bad because everything about their house style is so repetitive down to how people enter the ring that nothing feels real or spontaneous. It very much feels like a wrestling if wrestling itself were a theme park. Everything is scheduled down to the second, and if anything happens that's out of order, it'll be quickly corrected by management, or otherwise the CEO's gonna have to come down and start firing people. 

AEW doesn't feel like that, exactly, but I can see through everything. And again, I think that's just where wrestling evolved to. I blame PWG and all those ladder matches in the Attitude Era and, while I don't blame lucha directly, I blame the influence of lucha on a bunch of guys who like the moves, but who don't know how to do them and also hide the seams. 

w/r/t AEW specifically, I don't like feuds that rely on shooty shit, I feel like the house style has two modes, generally - bloody brawl and flippy flippy flip shit (yes, that is a reductive POV, so believe me that I know it's just my POV and not a reflection of actual reality), and I struggle with all these young wrestlers they're pushing because I don't believe in any of them as stars. You can go down the line: I don't believe in Sammy, I don't believe in MJF, I don't believe in Darby, I don't believe in Britt, boom, boom, boom. I believe in young, happy-to-be-here Marcus Alexander Bagwell more than I have ever believed in any of the pillars. I am rooting for Ricky Starks personally, but I don't think he actually has it. 

Combine that with a veteran core that I also don't like , and really, you'd need a whole-ass personnel change to get me into AEW. But again, that's something that comes down to me. Way too much to change there. 

So I think the thing that I'd need changed for me to come back to AEW are: 1) no more try-hard segments were people cuss because they're on cable, so they can, 2) cut out the shooty stuff completely, 3) something that feels more like a variety show in terms of matches and styles, and 4) while I like good matches for the sake of good matches, I respond well to compelling stories with stakes. YMMV, but I haven't seen a feud yet in AEW that feels that way to me. 

Edited May 1, 2023 by SirSmUgly

[SirSmUgly]

11 minutes ago, Sparkleface said:

Sure, but were you getting all (or even most) of those wrestlers from week to week?

Here's WCW Saturday Night from October 10, 1992. Picked at random (okay, October 10 is my father's birthday).

There's a whole lot of "stuff being thrown at the wall" in this show. That's what I mean about the weekly TV being difficult to get through. A lot of the main event guys/stars were kept off TV because they're arena draws and you're supposed to pay to see them, or if you did see them it'd be in highlights or in a rare treat you'd see them in a monthly squash (like Sting here against a job guy I've never heard of). Maybe you'll get them a tag match or a six-man like with the proto-Hollywood Blonds vs. Brad Armstrong and Dustin Rhodes. Maybe you get a TV title defense.

There are things that have their charm but when folks remember 1992 WCW, in my mind, I think they remember stuff like what was on the Clash, or the big moments that were in highlights. There's nothing wrong with that or enjoying that but it's an era that does get romanticized in retrospect.

I just watched the week-to-week TV last year, and I've had no problems generally enjoying it. I think it's just a YMMV thing here. 

 

14 minutes ago, Raziel said:

I'll go contend there was nothing great about that Steiners/MVC feud, it was actually pretty one sided until Watts ran the Steiners out of the company to push Doc, and to a degree Gordy, but he ended up sacrificing the Steiners for nothing.

I love the hell out of that feud. Four big dudes beating the shit out of each other? Yes. The Steiners always felt like a cheat code as a tag team in WCW, so having a team that could finally out-physical theme was compelling. I just re-watched it last year (see above) and loved it again. Again, it's YMMV. 

I don't think you build the division around Doc and Gordy, but having the Steiners meet a force they can't just bully and have to endure worked for me. We just never got a payoff because the Steiners left and then ended up not making all the money Vince told them they were going to make in WWF. But that run ruled, too, so I'm fine with it. 

 

[Elsalvajeloco]

27 minutes ago, Cobra Commander said:

there's always the "these people didn't know what they're doing, but I do, and i'll do it right" people who will go in on an idea, and then lose money on it

From P&L standpoint, they would more likely be wanting to recreate 94-98 WCW than the previous era. 1990-early 1993 tried so hard to be "we're the real wrestling...not that cartoon bullshit on the other channel" that it alienated what was a potential larger fanbase. The scary reality is that Hulk Hogan was like a prime Reggie Jackson or ARod or 2009 on Kobe Bryant where you should be able to compete for championships for multiple years but good luck unloading that contract and getting rid of the toxicity.

I believe there is someone who believes they if they can wrangle John Cena or Batista from Hollywood or siphon off whatever little Bill Goldberg has left, build around that, and go from there similar to what Bischoff did and compete with WWE and now AEW. I don't believe someone who has the necessary capital looks at the transitional era of 1991-1993 and half of 1994 as something that can be replicated and improved upon. The closest amalgamation for better or worse is TK. The next best guy would be some guy working a 9 to 5 who runs an indy on the weekend. That's about it.

[A_K]

Looks like there was some good analytical conversation generated on previous pages: will circle back and read through tomorrow.

Meanwhile: SD -- absent of Roman -- continues to absolutely smoke it, w/ 2.5 million viewers or +25% YOY. For all the whataboutery re: narrative decisions taken prior to & during WM, it continues to prove as was clearly the case at the time -- the outcome of the ongoing Bloodline saga is to have made a product w/ 6 or 7 bonafide main eventers at the top of the card, each with their own distinctive character and traits who can be rotated in and out of the grander story arc. Not 'hypothetical' main eventers or draws .. guys that 2.5 million people will tune in to watch absent of the number one guy being on the TV set. The creative team at WWE are making guys up and down that card superstars right now at a pace and consistency they haven't for going on 20 years prior.

This is building a narrative-laden, story-driven roster with foundations. Venues are selling out for every show; talent are getting intended reactions up and down the card; vets & young guns can be cycled in and out while maintaining narrative flow. So when the contrite question emerges from the echo chamber of "you whine too much: what ever makes you happy?" .. actual quality output like this (& hot shows like WM) make me happy. The industry being reduced to carnival drivel on the other channel while guys with talent like Hobbs & Acclaimed are being blown to smithereens by a talentless fan fiction writer w/ zero governance or quality control living out his fantasy by virtue of his father's check book conversely does nothing for me.

 

Edited May 1, 2023 by A_K

[Stefanie Sparkleface]

11 minutes ago, SirSmUgly said:

I just watched the week-to-week TV last year, and I've had no problems generally enjoying it. I think it's just a YMMV thing here. 

Which is fair! I want to be clear that there's plenty of that era that I enjoy, but I would very much pick and choose if I rewatch. After all, as mentioned upthread, I'm a noted Barbarian fangirl, so the Barbarian World Title push got a lot of love from me. Of course, said push was one of the most criticized things of that era. Can't win 'em all. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Elsalvajeloco]

12 minutes ago, A_K said:

guys that 2.5 million people will tune in to watch absent of the number one guy being on.

Find me something on Fox airing regularly in prime time that does less than 1-2 million. 

9-1-1: 4.5 million for the last show

9-1-1 Lone Star: 3.35 million for the last show

The Masked Singer: 3.4 million for the last show

Next Level Chef: 1.76 million for the last show

Fox is such a strong platform that if WWE did below 1.5-2 million average, they would have to make some creative changes at the top. That has very little to do with AEW and Tony Khan. Why cannot WWE's bad fiction writers who are living out of their fantasy by virtue of Vince's checkbook beat out a shitty reality show and two shows that are basically the same show over two nights?

[SirSmUgly]

5 minutes ago, Sparkleface said:

Which is fair! I want to be clear that there's plenty of that era that I enjoy, but I would very much pick and choose if I rewatch. After all, as mentioned upthread, I'm a noted Barbarian fangirl, so the Barbarian World Title push got a lot of love from me. Of course, said push was one of the most criticized things of that era. Can't win 'em all. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Barbarian absolutely rules, that we agree upon. He was good in the Powers of Pain. He was good in the Faces of Fear. He could work compelling singles matches. He knew when to no-sell and when to weeble-wobble sell and when to actually leave his feet. He's easily one of my favorite wrestlers ever.

I can buy Barbarian at World Champion-contender level or even transitional World Champ, but you have to build him to that level. I think we also agree that Watts wasn't a very good booker in 1992, or at least a wildly inconsistent one. We talked a few months ago about how badly he botched the Ron Simmons title run, and that's because he threw guys at Simmons who just weren't built as believable threats at that point (Barb, Cactus) when in the undercard, the actual guys who were believable threats did other things (Rude, Vader, Steamboat). 

[JLowe]

1 hour ago, odessasteps said:

I think history likely shows the best business often coincides with the worst on-screen product, at least in the modern era. A weird inverse bell curve. 

You will never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator 

[A_K]

13 minutes ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

Find me something on Fox airing regularly in prime time that does less than 1-2 million. 

9-1-1: 4.5 million for the last show

9-1-1 Lone Star: 3.35 million for the last show

The Masked Singer: 3.4 million for the last show

Next Level Chef: 1.76 million for the last show

Fox is such a strong platform that if WWE did below 1.5-2 million average, they would have to make some creative changes at the top. That has very little to do with AEW and Tony Khan. Why cannot WWE's bad fiction writers who are living out of their fantasy by virtue of Vince's checkbook beat out a shitty reality show and two shows at basically the same show over two nights?

SD is up 25% YOY in viewership. AEW is down, whatever it is now .. 30% YOY on viewership. Do you really want to float the idea that the contrasting trajectories of the two over a prolonged period is even partially because of the platform? One is thriving and one is wilting while existing in the very same context they existed in before.

I know that was a quick-draw post reply for you .. but as previous post hopefully inferred, WWE creative team have added objective, quantifiable value to the underlying. I mean, that cannot even be argued - it is all there in the numbers, all in black and white. They're thriving top to bottom. They're making new stars top to bottom and refreshing talent who've been with them for years (Sami; KO etc.) in entirely new contexts.

To be honest, I'm not even really evaluating AEW in the context of WWE (although the contrasting fortunes over a long period of time now paint -- as above -- a very rotten picture that makes it so easy, and does away with the argument that the industry as a whole is just in an inescapable mire). AEW's work is just bad. How the same online community that would pore over the WON accounts of disaster-days WCW w/ hilarity somehow manage to convince themselves that Sammy Guevara + Jack Perry doing a mic job on national television that would make Evan Karagis & Shannon Moore blush while Daniel Bryan runs around like a slapstick character with a screwdriver and Jay White comes in on his debut to a parity-esque match with a 5 "5 guy who lines up all his moves like a Cirque Soleil acrobat for others to fall down like card soldiers in Alice in Wonderland is remotely acceptable for a national offering is just .. utterly beyond me. This stuff embarrasses the industry. Its just so, so bad.

Edited May 2, 2023 by A_K

[Elsalvajeloco]

7 minutes ago, SirSmUgly said:

Barbarian absolutely rules, that we agree upon. He was good in the Powers of Pain. He was good in the Faces of Fear. He could work compelling singles matches. He knew when to no-sell and when to weeble-wobble sell and when to actually leave his feet. He's easily one of my favorite wrestlers ever.

I can buy Barbarian at World Champion-contender level or even transitional World Champ, but you have to build him to that level. I think we also agree that Watts wasn't a very good booker in 1992, or at least a wildly inconsistent one. We talked a few months ago about how badly he botched the Ron Simmons title run, and that's because he threw guys at Simmons who just weren't built as believable threats at that point (Barb, Cactus) when in the undercard, the actual guys who were believable threats did other things (Rude, Vader, Steamboat). 

Watts letting Scott Hall go to WWF was very shortsighted considering if you look at Diamond Studd, he had a much better body than 2/3 of the roster and was finding his footing as a wrestler and overall performer.

I know WWF in 1992 was a catastrophe in terms of a lot of the in ring stuff, quality of the TV and definitely behind the scenes, but Hall stepped in and took over a pretty high spot on the WWF totem pole within months and performed well. He couldn't have done that in WCW? 

[GuerrillaMonsoon]

My issue (and it seems others) is how much is on air purely because they have so many hours of TV to fill and so many weeks till the next PPV.

So many TV series nowadays are taking the route of a few weeks off here and there, followed by back to back eps, or a double length episode where it's required to effectively tell the story, and I wish both major promotions did the same.

It would be great if the relationship between the network and the promotion was effectively "here's X amount of TV time for the month, you cant have this slot because of the NBA playoffs, otherwise let us know in advance what you need and it's yours", and the booking reflects that.

Not this convoluted eight weeks of tv to reach foregone conclusions for the PPV card to take shape. Not throwaway stuff because there's so much mandatory television hours to fill each week that goes nowhere. Your content can only be so good and compelling when it's mandatory.

[Elsalvajeloco]

15 minutes ago, A_K said:

SD is up 25% YOY in viewership. AEW is down, whatever it is now .. 30% YOY on viewership. Do you really want to float the idea that the contrasting trajectories of the two over a prolonged period is even partially because of the platform? O

Yes because Smackdown ain't even the fifth best performing show on Fox. If you add in Fox News, it don't break top 10. Why can't WWE and their fan fiction writers beat those shows out? 

Platforms absolutely matter. WWF had a very good thing going USA. Why did they still jump to TNN? Cause USA was on the way down and it looked like TNN was the future. Turned out to be wrong in hindsight, but that was their decision.

[Elsalvajeloco]

Here is what is currently on TBS:

Quote

Current programming[edit]
Original programming[edit]
Sports programming[edit]

TNT, through Warner Bros. Discovery Sports, holds the broadcast rights to the following sports telecasts:

NBA on TNT (1989)
Major League Baseball on TBS (2007; overflow games for the MLB Division Series only, featuring TBS branding)
NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament (2011; preliminary rounds and Team Streams in TBS years)
AEW Rampage (2021)
NHL on TNT (2021)
U.S. Soccer (2023)

Acquired programming[edit]
Drama[edit]
Charmed (2001)
Supernatural (2009)
NCIS: New Orleans (2017)
Lucifer (2022)
Cold Case (2005–11, 2022)
Titans (2021)
Harley Quinn (2022)

Syndicated from TBS[edit]
Game show
Wipeout (2021 version) (2021)

Here is what is currently on TNT:

Quote

Current programming
Original programming
Sports programming
TNT, through Warner Bros. Discovery Sports, holds the broadcast rights to the following sports telecasts:

NBA on TNT (1989)
Major League Baseball on TBS (2007; overflow games for the MLB Division Series only, featuring TBS branding)
NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament (2011; preliminary rounds and Team Streams in TBS years)
AEW Rampage (2021)
NHL on TNT (2021)
U.S. Soccer (2023)

Acquired programming
Drama
Charmed (2001)
Supernatural (2009)
NCIS: New Orleans (2017)
Lucifer (2022)
Cold Case (2005–11, 2022)
Titans (2021)
Harley Quinn (2022)

Syndicated from TBS
Game show
Wipeout (2021 version) (2021)

This is sub UPN. UPN had at least The Parkers and Girlfriends, which were big hits. Without basketball, playoff baseball, and AEW, TBS and TNT wouldn't exist. They're basically an average syndication channel now....years after syndication stopped mattering. Dynamite is their biggest scripted programming cause it's their only scripted original program. Fox is a goddamn juggernaut in comparison.

[A_K]

25 minutes ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

Yes because Smackdown ain't even the fifth best performing show on Fox. If you add in Fox News, it don't break top 10. Why can't WWE and their fan fiction writers beat those shows out? 

Platforms absolutely matter. WWF had a very good thing going USA. Why did they still jump to TNN? Cause USA was on the way down and it looked like TNN was the future. Turned out to be wrong in hindsight, but that was their decision.

Geez. SD recording 2.5 million viewers on Fox as opposed to 1.9 million viewers on Fox is because Smackdown is on Fox while AEW recording 800k viewers on TBS as opposed to 1.2 million viewers on TBS is because AEW is on TBS. Did I get that right?

Hell, SD recording 2.5 million viewers in direct competition w/ NBA, Stanley Cup Playoffs & NFL Draft ain't nothing to shout home about because it didn't beat out The Masked Singer on Wednesday Nights. Come on bro, I expected better than that. Its almost more believable to run the line as some others are that WWE is only doing so well right now because it is lowest-common-denominator narrative for low IQ idiots as opposed to the high-art, avant garde offering that only 200k ppl watching Matt Hardy & The Firm on Rampage can wrap their minds around or the 750k odd people that stick around to see Brian Danielson running around with a screwdriver or Jack Perry being sent out there week after week like some weirdly coiffured sacrificial lamb. 

Edited May 2, 2023 by A_K

[Dolphman 3000]

 

[Elsalvajeloco]

16 minutes ago, A_K said:

Geez. SD recording 2.5 million viewers on Fox as opposed to 1.9 million viewers on Fox is because Smackdown is on Fox while AEW recording 800k viewers on TBS as opposed to 1.2 million viewers on TBS is because AEW is on TBS. Did I get that right?

Hell, SD recording 2.5 million viewers in direct competition w/ NBA, Stanley Cup Playoffs & NFL Draft ain't nothing to shout home about because it didn't beat out The Masked Singer on Wednesday Nights. Come on bro, I expected better than that.

I don't expect better from you cause you're AK. Not exactly a brand known for quality. 

Given all their resources and genius, why cannot they beat out 10-12 other shows on Fox and their related networks? They got money out the wazoo now. No excuses. Meanwhile, based on what they got, AEW is going to be the top scripted show on TBS/TNT for the next 70 years. On their next TV deal, they're going to get good money for a organization that's only been around not even five years.

[Elsalvajeloco]

33 minutes ago, Dolphman 3000 said:

 

Good for her, but apparently a motherfucker (said motherfucker being MASADA) set himself on a fire a couple weeks ago. And apparently, no one knew what to do.

Why wasn't this bigger news and why is Rob Black still allowed to promote in loosest terms "pro wrestling"?

[Dolphman 3000]

3 minutes ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

Why wasn't this bigger news

It made TMZ and a ton of other news outlets

https://www.tmz.com/2023/04/28/wrestler-sets-himself-on-fire-in-deathmatch-event-suffers-significant-burns/

[Elsalvajeloco]

Just now, Dolphman 3000 said:

It made TMZ and a ton of other news outlets

https://www.tmz.com/2023/04/28/wrestler-sets-himself-on-fire-in-deathmatch-event-suffers-significant-burns/

It happened on 4/23 (the videos on Twitter are 4/23) and TMZ got around to it on 4/28. That's an Observer 1992 level turn around. Were they waiting for someone to send them a video tape?

Did someone post about it in last month's general discussion thread?

[Eivion]

13 minutes ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

Did someone post about it in last month's general discussion thread?

Yes, but i think most missed it or didn't care as this type of stupidity is kind of expected at this point.

[Elsalvajeloco]

1 minute ago, Eivion said:

Yes, but i think most missed it or didn't care as this type of stupidity is kind of expected at this point.

You would think, but here is my favorite part of the TMZ writeup:

Quote

Video of the match -- a no-holds-barred contest where weapons are allowed -- shows MASADA grabbed a flaming torch, poured a substance in his mouth ... and then tried to blow the liquid and the ensuing flames at his counterpart.

The problem? The stunt somehow went awry ... and the fire went everywhere, swarming MASADA's entire upper body.

Somehow? Man, how could a man catch fire when he had all those carefully installed safety precautions in place? It was a strange act of God, apparently.

[odessasteps]

Quote

Report: CM Punk Played UNO Backstage At IMPACT Wrestling Taping

Auditioning to join Da Party?