Between this tweet, wearing a Lucha Underground shirt, and giving Kevin Owens advice, it would seem that Rocky pays more attention to non-WWE wrestling then we would think.
The Rock really loves the business (not just WWE,
the business as a whole); he'll probably be giving props to indy cats 20 years from now.
Also, I'll reiterate another thought I had in the thread: anyone who thinks the last Takeover was better than this is on something. Yeah, it may have had better matches, but matches aren't the only thing that makes a show what it is. All In had a better flow to it (despite being 5 hours. I didn't even notice matches were running long until after Okada/Scrull), better payoffs (HUGELY important when considering the feel of a show), and a better vibe overall (it, at no point, felt like a chore to watch. I can't remember the last time I said that about a WWE affiliated PPV). Sometimes, those qualities are actually far, far more important that mere match quality.
Think about it like this: I watched the Ric Flair/Kerry Von Erich match where Kerry won the belt yesterday. Now, the match itself really wasn't
that good (1984 Flair could only do so much with a 24 year old Kerry in an 11 minute match), but it felt huge given the stakes and the payoff of Kerry winning the belt his family spent nearly 3 decades trying to capture. When you have that, how much does match quality
really matter?
Another example: We constantly call the first One Night Stand one of the best PPVs ever, right? But were there really any classic matches on that card? In my opinion, no (in fact, that card had the most disappointing Eddie/Benoit match ever on it). But the context and overall feeling of the event makes it what it is, and allows us to understand a bunch of entertaining but merely good matches for what they are: final tributes to what ECW once was and once meant to wrestling. THAT'S what makes that PPV legendary, not the match quality.
Final example: If and when you tell your kids about the Undertaker losing at WrestleMania XXX, are you really going to foreground how mediocre the match was, or are you going to focus on the historic payoff of Lesnar beating the unbeatable Undertaker and the shock the moment registered in the crowd?
I mean, if you think Takeover was better, fine, whatever. But I can't be sure you actually understand what wrestling is really about if you do.
to them
a Mr. Rhodes is the enn dub yee ay champion
