Claire Lynch wins 2012 WrestleCrap Gooker Award

[Sam Punk]

Feb 2, 2013 10:48:17 GMT -5 Celgress said:

It really didn't deserve the award, imo. Granted the angle was terrible, but at least we got some great Bad Influence antics out of it.

I see the award as being for an angle that's so bad that it becomes entertaining. So it would be a good choice for the award.

[Square]

What the hell have they done to the site, it just looks like a basic Wordpress site now

[Deleted]

Feb 2, 2013 17:56:45 GMT -5 Square said:

What the hell have they done to the site, it just looks like a basic Wordpress site now

That's what really should have won the Gooker.

[Celgress]

Feb 2, 2013 21:19:00 GMT -5 @thickmcrunfast said:

Feb 2, 2013 17:56:45 GMT -5 Square said:

What the hell have they done to the site, it just looks like a basic Wordpress site now

That's what really should have won the Gooker.

Indeed, I haven't visited in about six months, the site itself looks like crap now literally.

[chazraps]

Feb 1, 2013 22:50:33 GMT -5 @nichotine said:

I went with the Daniel Bryan 18 second loss on the basis that it was the highest level failure of them all. It set the tone for a horrible 80 dollar experience. Claire Lynch in some really bizarre twist of fate has been bringing out the best in Christopher Daniels and that roll hasn't even begun to slow down. Daniel Bryan/Sheamus just beat me down and showed utter contempt for a paying audience.

"18 Seconds" wasn't a failure at all. It's what solidified Daniel Bryan as a focal part of WWE programming. You got to see the exact moment that turned him into an absolute superstar. It's brought out the best of Bryan just as much as Claire Lynch brought out Daniels.

I can understand you being somewhat let down you didn't get to see what Bryan could do on the grandest stage of them all, but ultimately you saw something more important. You got to the the moment that has now effectively made his WWE career.

[Ash Kingston]

I think a small part for why this won over The AJ Lee Saga is that... well, as great as Daniels and Kaz have been overall (RD even admits that they're one of the better things going), it was still continuing the Never Ending Feud between Daniels and AJ that I'm pretty sure people were growing sick of the year before. I know that's why it took me forever to warm up to Bad Influence...

[crowwreak was WRONG]

This won over the OTHER atrocious AJ affair?

[Deleted]

Feb 2, 2013 21:57:52 GMT -5 chazraps said:

Feb 1, 2013 22:50:33 GMT -5 @nichotine said:

I went with the Daniel Bryan 18 second loss on the basis that it was the highest level failure of them all. It set the tone for a horrible 80 dollar experience. Claire Lynch in some really bizarre twist of fate has been bringing out the best in Christopher Daniels and that roll hasn't even begun to slow down. Daniel Bryan/Sheamus just beat me down and showed utter contempt for a paying audience.

"18 Seconds" wasn't a failure at all. It's what solidified Daniel Bryan as a focal part of WWE programming. You got to see the exact moment that turned him into an absolute superstar. It's brought out the best of Bryan just as much as Claire Lynch brought out Daniels.

I can understand you being somewhat let down you didn't get to see what Bryan could do on the grandest stage of them all, but ultimately you saw something more important. You got to the the moment that has now effectively made his WWE career.

I see what you mean. But I think the wheels were in motion for Daniel Bryan anyways, whether he lost in 18 seconds or in 15 minutes, the fans were going to make him look like a million bucks regardless. Nothing from last year, to me, carried quite the gut punch as that match did, and that show all together. Daniel Bryan/Sheamus had all the right things going for it, two guys who got shafted at Wrestlemania the year before, relegated to the dark match, now feuding for the World Heavyweight Championship as a result of Sheamus winning the Royal Rumble.

When you combine that with the fact that it was set to open Wrestlemania, it just really sucked to watch. Regardless if it turned around after the fact, Wrestlemania isn't the show that you use to kickstart something better. Bryan/Sheamus just felt like the most contemptuous booking as it gets, like it was booked only to hurt. Booked with contempt for the talent involved, contempt for WWE's undercard, contempt for the fans. The fact that it opened the show, to me, really screamed "look we know everyone is here for Rock/Cena & Taker/Triple H so we're just gonna get this over with as quickly as possible".

The fact that the fans couldn't get their ire at that match out of their system for a solid chunk of the show says enough that even if things turned around for Daniel Bryan, that match was a failure. The Claire Lynch saga, while Gooker-worthy, no doubt, never made me upset watching it. When it started all I ever really expected was your run of the mill shitty TNA storyline, but it grew into something incredible. At that point I'd been used to Christopher Daniels being squandered and AJ Styles having terrible feuds. So for it to become what it did I give it props for at least that. After Bryan/Sheamus I outright hated WWE. For the money it costs, Wrestlemania just isn't the show to do that kind of shit.

[cabbageboy]

I agree that the Bryan thing was a bad idea, and it did in fact feel like a ripoff to do that at WM. However, considering both Bryan and Sheamus are still pushed commodities it's hard to say that anyone came off too badly in the end.

The reason Claire Lynch won is that this was a very specific and bad storyline. The whole AJ crap with whatever guys (Bryan, Kane, Punk, Cena) is that it's almost too much to think about in order to focus in on which part was so bad. It all sucked. Further, the entire direction of the WWE title and Raw main event scene seemed focused on a random chick and her love life instead of two men fighting for titles and glory. As I noted when AJ was the ref for Punk/Bryan: In 1989 Elizabeth distracted Hogan and Savage at WM V...and she was thrown out of the building. Now they'd let her REFEREE the match!

[aaronslip]

Always ofund there to be something, sexy, about her. Wholesome.

[Reflecto]

Absurd. That was the single best thing in 2012 once they stopped taking it seriously and started making it up as they went.

AJ Styles was (not) date raped by a former drug addict who was secretly working with Daniels and Kazarian to ruin AJ. AJ Styles was also helping said former drug addict get clean with the help of Dixie Carter. Daniels made up an elaborate secret affair between AJ and Dixie even though he also had an elaborate pregnancy hoax involving crack addict Claire set up. Serge punched AJ in the face and AJ never thought to admit that the secret phone conversation that Daniels somehow obtained from either AJ or Dixie's cell phone and manipulated was a conversation about getting Serge a bouncy castle for his birthday party. Dixie also never thought to tell Serge that she and AJ were a two-person rehab team trying to save Claire Lynch. Daniels keeps appletinis in his locker.

You forgot the part where Daniels was originally blackmailing Kazarian in the storyline and then it turned into Daniels and Kaz blackmailing AJ.

That part is the hardest thing, since just that extra for the start of the storyline, if TNA handled it right, probably could have saved the whole storyline with one change, specifically:

-The thing Daniels was blackmailing Kazarian about at the beginning was that KAZARIAN was actually the father of Claire Lynch's baby- and as part of Kazarian agreeing to ally with Daniels, Daniels promised to put the blame on AJ Styles instead to get the heat off of him for it.

It may not have totally saved the angle, but at least everything would have been tied up in just enough of a neat little package to get it settled/

[chazraps]

Feb 3, 2013 15:01:31 GMT -5 @nichotine said:

Feb 2, 2013 21:57:52 GMT -5 chazraps said:

"18 Seconds" wasn't a failure at all. It's what solidified Daniel Bryan as a focal part of WWE programming. You got to see the exact moment that turned him into an absolute superstar. It's brought out the best of Bryan just as much as Claire Lynch brought out Daniels.

I can understand you being somewhat let down you didn't get to see what Bryan could do on the grandest stage of them all, but ultimately you saw something more important. You got to the the moment that has now effectively made his WWE career.

I see what you mean. But I think the wheels were in motion for Daniel Bryan anyways, whether he lost in 18 seconds or in 15 minutes, the fans were going to make him look like a million bucks regardless. Nothing from last year, to me, carried quite the gut punch as that match did, and that show all together. Daniel Bryan/Sheamus had all the right things going for it, two guys who got shafted at Wrestlemania the year before, relegated to the dark match, now feuding for the World Heavyweight Championship as a result of Sheamus winning the Royal Rumble.

When you combine that with the fact that it was set to open Wrestlemania, it just really sucked to watch. Regardless if it turned around after the fact, Wrestlemania isn't the show that you use to kickstart something better. Bryan/Sheamus just felt like the most contemptuous booking as it gets, like it was booked only to hurt. Booked with contempt for the talent involved, contempt for WWE's undercard, contempt for the fans. The fact that it opened the show, to me, really screamed "look we know everyone is here for Rock/Cena & Taker/Triple H so we're just gonna get this over with as quickly as possible".

The fact that the fans couldn't get their ire at that match out of their system for a solid chunk of the show says enough that even if things turned around for Daniel Bryan, that match was a failure. The Claire Lynch saga, while Gooker-worthy, no doubt, never made me upset watching it. When it started all I ever really expected was your run of the mill s***ty TNA storyline, but it grew into something incredible. At that point I'd been used to Christopher Daniels being squandered and AJ Styles having terrible feuds. So for it to become what it did I give it props for at least that. After Bryan/Sheamus I outright hated WWE. For the money it costs, Wrestlemania just isn't the show to do that kind of s***.

Do you honestly think they booked to "hurt" or out of "comtempt?" A world title match always starts the show to pace it out, so that it wouldn't be immediately overshadowed by the several other main events. Would you rather they had a 5-8 minute forgettable match where they had to fit everything in, or a memorable 18 second spot that wound up just as talked about as the biggest moments on the rest of the card and THEN resulted in the freedom for both to have a match of the year candidate at Extreme Rules?

[El Cokehead del Knife Fight]

Feb 5, 2013 15:45:37 GMT -5 chazraps said:

Feb 3, 2013 15:01:31 GMT -5 @nichotine said:

I see what you mean. But I think the wheels were in motion for Daniel Bryan anyways, whether he lost in 18 seconds or in 15 minutes, the fans were going to make him look like a million bucks regardless. Nothing from last year, to me, carried quite the gut punch as that match did, and that show all together. Daniel Bryan/Sheamus had all the right things going for it, two guys who got shafted at Wrestlemania the year before, relegated to the dark match, now feuding for the World Heavyweight Championship as a result of Sheamus winning the Royal Rumble.

When you combine that with the fact that it was set to open Wrestlemania, it just really sucked to watch. Regardless if it turned around after the fact, Wrestlemania isn't the show that you use to kickstart something better. Bryan/Sheamus just felt like the most contemptuous booking as it gets, like it was booked only to hurt. Booked with contempt for the talent involved, contempt for WWE's undercard, contempt for the fans. The fact that it opened the show, to me, really screamed "look we know everyone is here for Rock/Cena & Taker/Triple H so we're just gonna get this over with as quickly as possible".

The fact that the fans couldn't get their ire at that match out of their system for a solid chunk of the show says enough that even if things turned around for Daniel Bryan, that match was a failure. The Claire Lynch saga, while Gooker-worthy, no doubt, never made me upset watching it. When it started all I ever really expected was your run of the mill s***ty TNA storyline, but it grew into something incredible. At that point I'd been used to Christopher Daniels being squandered and AJ Styles having terrible feuds. So for it to become what it did I give it props for at least that. After Bryan/Sheamus I outright hated WWE. For the money it costs, Wrestlemania just isn't the show to do that kind of s***.

Do you honestly think they booked to "hurt" or out of "comtempt?" A world title match always starts the show to pace it out, so that it wouldn't be immediately overshadowed by the several other main events. Would you rather they had a 5-8 minute forgettable match where they had to fit everything in, or a memorable 18 second spot that wound up just as talked about as the biggest moments on the rest of the card and THEN resulted in the freedom for both to have a match of the year candidate at Extreme Rules?

Except the crowd was pretty pissed. While the first hour of Mania was dire to begin with, this did not help the show.

[percymania]

This Claire Lynch angle certainly deserves the award. This story was so bad, I couldn't watch it. Normally I love trainwreck TV, but this was too awful. When I can't watch it, that's the sign of true Wrestlecrap to me.

[Deleted]

Feb 5, 2013 15:45:37 GMT -5 chazraps said:

Feb 3, 2013 15:01:31 GMT -5 @nichotine said:

I see what you mean. But I think the wheels were in motion for Daniel Bryan anyways, whether he lost in 18 seconds or in 15 minutes, the fans were going to make him look like a million bucks regardless. Nothing from last year, to me, carried quite the gut punch as that match did, and that show all together. Daniel Bryan/Sheamus had all the right things going for it, two guys who got shafted at Wrestlemania the year before, relegated to the dark match, now feuding for the World Heavyweight Championship as a result of Sheamus winning the Royal Rumble.

When you combine that with the fact that it was set to open Wrestlemania, it just really sucked to watch. Regardless if it turned around after the fact, Wrestlemania isn't the show that you use to kickstart something better. Bryan/Sheamus just felt like the most contemptuous booking as it gets, like it was booked only to hurt. Booked with contempt for the talent involved, contempt for WWE's undercard, contempt for the fans. The fact that it opened the show, to me, really screamed "look we know everyone is here for Rock/Cena & Taker/Triple H so we're just gonna get this over with as quickly as possible".

The fact that the fans couldn't get their ire at that match out of their system for a solid chunk of the show says enough that even if things turned around for Daniel Bryan, that match was a failure. The Claire Lynch saga, while Gooker-worthy, no doubt, never made me upset watching it. When it started all I ever really expected was your run of the mill s***ty TNA storyline, but it grew into something incredible. At that point I'd been used to Christopher Daniels being squandered and AJ Styles having terrible feuds. So for it to become what it did I give it props for at least that. After Bryan/Sheamus I outright hated WWE. For the money it costs, Wrestlemania just isn't the show to do that kind of s***.

Do you honestly think they booked to "hurt" or out of "comtempt?" A world title match always starts the show to pace it out, so that it wouldn't be immediately overshadowed by the several other main events.

Yes, the opening match sets the tone for the rest of the show, and that tone was "we got your Rocky money, you don't really wanna see this match, do you?". I'm not saying it's contempt as much as I'm speculating, but if it's not contempt, it's disregard for the paying audience.

Would you rather they had a 5-8 minute forgettable match where they had to fit everything in, or a memorable 18 second spot that wound up just as talked about as the biggest moments on the rest of the card and THEN resulted in the freedom for both to have a match of the year candidate at Extreme Rules?

Why can't I have a great match at both shows? It just doesn't make sense to me, why do I care if the 18 second match is talked about when that talk is mostly negative? I get the story, Daniel Bryan goes on a downward spiral being embarrassed at the biggest show of the year, and it honestly played out quite nicely. But like I said Wrestlemania just isn't the place for that. Wrestlemania should be where the best wrestlers in the world get to show what they do best on a grand stage. Every match should be booked with the idea that someone is paying to see it, and that hefty payment should be rewarded with a match of the year contender. I love their Extreme Rules match, but it's not like every wrestler is entitled to one classic match a year. Why do I get a better match on a cheaper show? WWE PPVs cost a fortune and Wrestlemania is the worst and a disappointing match is really hard to shake off watching live.

[aaronslip]

The crowd did die somewhat after Bryan lost - that cannot be denied. At least that's how it appeared on TV. Wasn't there even a Daniel Bryan chant in some random match about 40 minutes later?

[lildude8218]

Feb 7, 2013 15:00:05 GMT -5 aaronslip said:

The crowd did die somewhat after Bryan lost - that cannot be denied. At least that's how it appeared on TV. Wasn't there even a Daniel Bryan chant in some random match about 40 minutes later?

for the record, I was there and a large portion of my section was very happy that Bryan lost.