ShareThis Page

LaBar: WWE RAW filled with gaps of logic

| Friday, Sept. 5, 2014, 12:20 a.m.

RAW on Labor Day Monday was the best example of “phoning it in.”

I understand fewer people are expected to watch on a holiday, but the people who are going to watch are the hardcore fans who will make the most noise on a poor-quality show.

Logic flaws and head-scratching decisions consumed the three hours. WWE was too worried about promoting what was going to be on the next episode when they go up against Week 1 of NFL Monday Night Football. As I said though, the only people watching RAW were likely the hardcore fans who are going to watch WWE anyway.

If there were casual fans watching RAW at any point, I can't imagine they stuck around long to see the promotions for next week. It was a tough show to sit through.

In the opening segment, WWE's hero looked like an idiot. John Cena threatened legal action on Triple H if he didn't get the rematch he already was intending to have against Brock Lesnar. The hero doesn't use legal action. Legal action is often associated with heels. Lawyers and litigation is something a Paul Heyman would use. Did Batman ever try to take The Joker to court?

We saw another tag match between Mark Henry and Big Show against Luke Harper and Erick Rowan. WWE made a big deal of promoting the more than 1,400 combined pounds of wrestlers in the match. I liked the promotional tag because it's four big guys, and it's an attempt to add something to a match we've already seen before. My question of logic is this: If 1,400 pounds were in the ring and it didn't break, should we ever see the ring-breaking spot again?

I really like The Miz's character. He's a natural heel. I like the creativity he's adding to a wrestling character that has been done so many times — sitting in the chair during a tag match, having a makeup artist and best of all having a stunt double in Damien Sandow. What I want to know is if WWE realizes it's parodying itself.

The Miz started doing this Hollywood A-list character after coming back from filming The Marine 3, a WWE Studios production. A straight to DVD production, and he's calling himself an A-lister. The more you think about it, the funnier it is, and I wonder if WWE gets the joke it's telling.

Then there are my Bella twins. I really hope this is all because of an E! Network executive who is forcing WWE to run with this feud on weekly television. It's just not good or logical.

Nikki Bella's stories about how terrible Brie was to grow up with were interesting. WWE has to make it a point to prove Nikki was lying, otherwise they accidentally painted Brie as a terrible person. She's supposed to be the sympathetic babyface.

The stories Nikki was telling about stolen prom dates, wrecked cars and taking tests in high school had me cracking up. I'm waiting for the voting to open on the WWE app for which Bella vs. Bella match we want to see: Nikki vs. Brie with prom date Ryan on a pole; Nikki vs. Brie with the winner getting a new 2000 Honda Civic; or Nikki vs. Brie with the loser having to go back to high school to get their diploma. It was a memorable RAW for the wrong reasons. I found it ironic that the script from this bad episode got leaked to the Internet. Yes, they actually had a script written down for this three hour mess.

The show was so bad that things can only get better for the next episode, you know, the one with Jerry Springer on it.

The worst part of RAW was it made me miss the world premiere of the Unauthorized Saved by the Bell movie on Lifetime Channel. I don't know what's more depressing — the quality of RAW or it made me mad I missed something on the Lifetime Channel.

Join me for a Monday Night RAW viewing party at Wintzell's Oyster House off Route 51 on Sept. 15th with food and drink specials.

Justin LaBar is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7949 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.