>What I saw is Miro screwed himself with the turnbuckle thing
>and had to eat 2 finishers to lose the title by surprise.
>NWA/Midsouth/regional 80s wrestling was very big on doing
>these types of things from time to time so it felt like 'home'
>to me.

thats like, so silly and contrived tho. why would he do that? thats what i mean about the lack of logic. now the show is telling me that Miro is actually a moron who could have just submitted him in half the time it took to fuck with the ring. or Sammy could have slithered the camel clutch attempt into a clever pinning combination. its an injection of fuckery into a match that did deserved to live fuckery-free, bc those guys were bumping around like lunatics.

>Side note: turnbuckles are having a week! Roman better watch
>the fuck out!
>
>Similar to Rusev's WWE run, the aftermath of his first big
>loss is the key. He was an excellent TV champ and is basically
>always a grand worker. He just needs to either be kept away or
>kept as a dangerous thing.

i think that plays into the finish not working for me. he got pummeled at the end, rather than getting bit by a technical move that counters his aggression.

>Sammy is dope. And yeah, non-WWE wrestling in general now
>assumes that people think that everyone is at least
>good..especially if the announcers say so. I agree that
>SOMETIMES, all feds can do better at 'showing their work'.

Sammy Guevara the performer is great. But its a big miss for me when im supposed to use that real life appreciation as a justification for whats presented on TV. I assume that by showing your work you mean using whats been presented on TV yesterday as the justification for what happens on TV tomorrow, and thats kinda the main thrust of why it didnt snap into place for me. my issues arent with the wrestling (in this case) they're with the the "world-building" of the TV show

>WWE has done a strong gig of making sure you know that most of
>their roster ain't shit and that's not great.
>
>AEW is, at worst, guilty of 'pretending' that everyone is
>'good'. Of the two, give me 'everyone is here for a reason and
>can win any one match if things go their way'. Again, it
>reminds me of 80s wrestling in a good way. Just sell everyone
>as at least formidable and then go from there. It gives a fed
>more options too. AKA every big win can't have multiple shows
>and months of lead-up for it. Now sure, SOME SHOULD HAVE
>IT..otherwise, you're Russo.

i would agree, but its not so much that every big win needs months of lead up. its more that the finishes should align with what theyve presented beforehand, without having to rely on lazy shit like turnbuckles or distractions.