10 Words That Most Accurately Describe Wrestling Right Now
5. Disappointing
WWE pay-per-views rarely, if ever, live up to their promise on paper.
Money In The Bank was more or less a glorified episode of SmackDown with its cheap finishes - as well as the fact that a sequel was presented a fortnight later. Great matches on paper often disappoint as a result of WWE's galling rule of three, in which the first match invariably is never conclusive. Consider Kevin Owens Vs. AJ Styles at Backlash; their match, as so many do, ended with a question mark to justify another round. This is life as a WWE fan in the Network age.
Programmes that don't follow the pattern mostly feel like they might as well have not happened, such is the company's counterproductive insistence on protecting name performers in defeat. When Seth Rollins defeated Samoa Joe at Payback, it wasn't sold as some tactical victory a la Bret Hart in the New Gen era. Rollins hadn't outwrestled him. Joe sold the roll-up as a fluke, and both men remained in more or less the same position they occupied 15 minutes and 57 seconds prior. Even WrestleMania and SummerSlam have become too long to absorb and enjoy in one sitting. The Royal Rumble is now synonymous with the failed Roman Reigns top guy experiment.
WWE, at its best, is still awesome. McMahon has an uncanny ability to hook even the most disenchanted of hardcore fans just when it is felt he has lost them; by February, few could have predicted how awesome the finish to the Goldberg Vs. Brock Lesnar series was.
It's just best not to get your hopes up.