This is the end....

It seems that Vafa and I have both lost our passions for writing. For now, we are done with this blog. It will remain up as a testament to awesome memories, and that we really had some great ideas.

I may eventually start writing again, but for now, I'm through.

I'm more than willing to leave the blog in capable hands if anyone would like to take over.

Thanks for your loyalty, and I hope you enjoyed it as much as we did.

The old group is back!!

I am happy to report that the original, or "classic" ACA is back online and under old management! Way to go Mike and everyone else involved for getting the group back together!

WE WILL NOT DIE!!

We are back!

Just to let you know, I will start posting again soon. The ACA has a new home at http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=107459942625313

We are now the New ACA.

We are not dead, we will never die!

Keep reading, there will be more.

Thanks to Mike for talking me out of killing this blog.

R.I.P. ACA

Well folks, it appears that the Anti Cena Army is gone for good. I thought we could rally the troops and rebuild. But I don't think we can. Mike Top no longer has an account or so it seems, and he was our founder. This is a sad day for us all.

It is with a heavy heart that I announce that this will be the last post here on the ACA-CT. After what has gone on overnight, I cannot bring myself to continue. Maybe, if we can pick up the pieces and start over, then I'll post again, but until the ACA is revived, I cannot, out of respect, continue to post.

Thank you for your loyalty.

Goodbye,

Nic

First NXT rankings are in

This week marked the first round of NXT rankings. As "voted" by the pros, they stand as follows:

8. Darren Young
7. Michael Tarver
6. Skip Sheffield
5. David Otunga
4. Heath Slater
3. Justin Gabriel
2. Wade Barrett
1. Daniel Bryan

So, with that being said, for the most part, I agree. My only complaint is that Skip Sheffield isn't lower, and I would reverse the current 2 and 3 positions, moving Gabriel up, and Barrett down.

I am aware that this is all rigged, and there's a reason for these rankings. What the plan is right now, I don't know. I just want to see Danielson get a Goddamn win.

I don't know what the future holds for these 8 rookies, but for some of them, it looks pretty bleak.

My hope is that Skip Sheffield goes first. He's got the worst gimmick, can't handle a match, and he's no good on the mic. Do I want to see him eliminated? Yep yep yep.

I want it to come down to, well, the current top 4 in the end. I think that would make for a great match, and here's hoping Danielson wins.

Aside from that, David Otunga is hosting RAW this week. Big deal. The only reason he won is so they could bring in the celebrity he's banging.

I think NXT so far is a good concept that has been at times poorly executed. I think WWE can get it into shape soon.

For once, I have faith in the WWE and NXT. Good luck to all the rookies (not that they'll need it. What they'll really need is a desire to blow Vince).

A Small Note

Hello to all the readers of ACA-CT. I know it's been quite a time since I've posted something here, and because of that, I decided that I should make up a valid reason to why I haven't posted....or at least try to. As of late, I've been very busy with some school shit and some hard examinations. Unfortunately, the exams may last up until the rest of March and maybe into April. But when I have some more time to write, I promise, I'll deliver.

Vafa

HBK vs. Taker 2.0

It's almost time for WrestleMania again, and the card looks decent. That is, until I see Shawn Michaels vs. Undertaker for the second year in a row. Don't get me wrong, I loved their match last year. But why should I pay to see the same basic match again?

I don't know if the problem lies in WWE not having any new ideas, or if I'm just expecting too much from them, but either way, I was hoping for something else. To make matters worse, it's a retirement match for HBK. Granted, it would be a good way to send him out, but not to Taker. My ideal plans would see Triple H try to talk his partner out of facing Taker, only to have HBK flip and challenge Trips instead. Have him go out that way.

Undertaker and HBK had a great match, there's no reason to do a sequel. Some things are better left with just one installment. Again, I know Taker faced Kane twice, but those matches were 6 years apart, and Taker was still in good shape. I don't want to spend $70 to watch 2 old farts hobble around the ring for the second year in a row.

I want something new, something different. If you want to end the streak, end it with some up and comer. A veteran who is on his last legs doesn't need the push, and WWE is in dire need of new main eventers. Defeating Taker at WM would be a great career starter.

I do see the flaw in that it may make said youngster look like a one trick pony, but it's worth the shot. It's unique, it's a definitive angle, and whoever does it will be catapulted to household name status in an instant. This would best be done by a heel as well, because it would inflate his ego to epic proportions.

But back on track, give someone who isn't your son-in-law's best friend a chance. Don't put an established superstar in the ring to beat Taker, let a young guy do it. They need the rub more than an aging relic.

Also, if HBK doesn't retire, how much longer can he go? For that matter, how long till Taker's knees totally die on him? There will be a point when both guy's bodies give out, and let's hope that WM 26 is their last stand.

As much as I like Taker, he needs to retire. If the streak were to end, he should. I think that is the only way Taker will retire, barring his knees blowing out permanently. HBK could do so much better to retire. Like I mentioned above, HHH should be his final opponent.

I would much prefer to see HHH beat Michaels at WM instead of Taker for a second time, or Michaels beating Taker.

But my main gripe is that it's not a new direction, it's a carry over. WWE is hoping to capitalize again on the success of the match last year. Booking the same match again isn't the way to do this. Find 2 other superstars that could put on hat kind of match.

People are going to get bored. You shouldn't need stipulations or clauses to keep people interested, it should be about the feud itself and not what the outcome will be.

But fear not, WWE, there are still 3 weeks to make things right. Let's hope you wake up and do something.

Nic

The Next Generation

As there are ends, there are also beginnings. This happens in most of the cases, an era leads to another, a show leads to another, a season leads to another, etc. As I formally said goodbye to ECW in my last post, I decided that I should also welcome the successor to ECW, The Next Generation. What I only know about it is that it'll have the same timing and the same wrestlers as ECW. So, is there anything different to this show other than the psycholigical change - will there be anything different to ECW apart from the stage set and name? Vince McMahon claimed it'll be a "next evolution of the WWE". Personally speaking, that was real ambigious, was Vince referring to the young talent that'll find their way on NXT, similarily to ECW, or was that just propaganda that Vince usually bullshits us with?

To answer the original question of if there was any change between NXT and ECW, I went out to wwe.com, to see if there was any information about NXT. Apart from some hype thrown here and there, there was nothing. So unfortunately, until I do, you'll have to do with this post.

Vafa











Hehe, I'm just screwing around with you. Instead, I'll be talking about NXT's future.

First and foremost, they should try to make people have a reason to watch this show. Yeah, I know young talents and technical match-ups are great with the smarks, but admit it, for the mainstream, it's not what they really want. And as well as we all know, not being on good terms with the mainstream has its consequences, as shown with ECW.

Cancel Superstars, seriously. It's just hogging the ever growing WWE time spots. Including WWE Vintage Collection, there's now over five wrestling shows per week. And trust me, the mainstream won't take NXT over Raw, nor Smackdown. Also, Vintage Collection has some interesting past matches, and because of that, they'll also take it over NXT. Superstars is yet another threatening competitor over NXT. The average wrestling fan doesn't even have time to watch both Smackdown and Raw weekly. Because of that, I'll heavily doubt that they'll free up some time for NXT.

Yeah, we all know that NXT is hyped as a "new WWE, new talents etc..", but if that was the case, ECW wouldn't have even ended, because ECW was doing a great job of getting new talent into the mainstream. NXT should become a show with some young talents and some known wrestlers. If that doesn't work out, you can always work out with the match quality. Go for the more high-flying and more adrenaline pumping type of matches - this will be both good with the smarks and the mainstream. This has worked well with TNA, so why won't it work with the WWE?

As for the PPVs, they'll stay in the same format for now. You don't want to be having a single branded PPV filled with nobodies, it's just a recipe for disaster. The commentators, referees and mostly everything else will stay the same.

So, as a final verdict...make it a show which is a breeding ground, while having some interesting promos mixed with some good wrestling action. This way, young talent can learn their trade while, at the same time, NXT can bring in some good ratings and avoid demising like ECW.

This post ends now...for real lol.

Vafa

Gimmick PPV's -- How they are ruining great matches

Everyone loves a good gimmick match. Notice the phrasing: a GOOD gimmick match. This seems to have gone right over the heads of those in WWE. This past year saw new "exciting" PPV events featuring a few too many gimmick matches.

I'm going to break down each of the gimmick PPV's to date and explain why they're shit (oh, like you didn't see this coming).

Bragging Rights: First off, this is quite literally Survivor Series. We don't need 2 PPV's with the same theme. Oh wait, they're fixing that by getting rid of Survivor Series for some odd reason. Bragging Rights will never be as good as Survivor Series, simple as that. I don't think I need to go into detail on why.

Hell in a Cell: I miss the good old days when HIAC matches were a year or so apart, and they were only used as for final showdowns. Also, until HIAC, there was a very unique record. Until that fateful September day, every HIAC match featured either HHH or Undertaker. I am aware of Kane vs. Mankind, but that match never officially started. Then, they went and ruined that with the likes of John Cena and many others.

TLC: See the above about matches being a year apart and so on. The magic has been taken away form these matches because it's no longer exciting to hear about them. It used to be "OMG TLC MATCH!!" now, it's "TLC match, kinda obvious." Also, these matches supposedly shorten careers, so assuming that this happens every year, plus the stagnant title pictures, these people should be retired by 2012 (that is NOT an apocalypse joke).

Night Of Champions: This one I actually like. The only gimmick is all titles on the line. We don't see the same match 4 times a night with different people. Plus, with all titles on the line, it properly builds hype. I mean, it gives a chance to shake up the title picture (not that they really do) and the idea is sound. With some tweaking (IE the title pictures themselves) this makes a great event.

Extreme Rules: Way to bitchslap ECW. This whole PPV makes a mockery of hardcore matches. Also, has anyone else noticed that hardcore, extreme rules, no DQ and street fights are just the same match with different names? You could wrap shit in tinfoil, put hooks on it and call it earrings, but in the end it's still shit in tinfoil. These matches are in no way extreme. One chair shot, 5 seconds in the crowd, whoopity doo. I WANT BLOOD DAMMIT!

Now, for the names. Do they really need to be this obvious? I mean, we know there's going to be Elimination Chamber matches at No Way Out, so why does the name need to reflect that. Plus, the names sound stupid. Seriously, when the poll asking about new names for NWO, there was one good option, and that was "Heavy Metal." I thought that if the name HAS to be changed, this is the one to go for. It's got an ominous sound, it gives a general idea of the theme, but it's not obvious.

I get the feeling that WWE thinks that people can't follow along with something that isn't obvious. They think that they need the dumbed-down version of things for their fans to comprehend. But if they didn't try to attract idiots, they wouldn't have to.

In the end, these PPV's take all the magic out of these once special matches. WWE thinks it will make things interesting, but they are going for quantity over quality. Again, you may have 5 tons of shit, but it's still shit. Give me one good HIAC match a year, and I'll be happy. Give me one good TLC match a year, and I'll be happy. But make me waste $40+ on a PPV that's ruining something's former glory, I'll want your head on a platter.

Start focusing on quality, and you MAY stand a chance. Just make sure you have a solid idea first, which these PPV's aren't. 2010 is a new year, let's see some progress.

Nic

The Day ECW Tried To Live

Listening to Soundgarden the other day definitely pumped me up - if you think Axl Rose can shatter glass, Chris Cornell then can surely shatter rocks. And hearing that they reunited a month ago is surely some great news. However, after hearing Cornell's solo album, I somewhat doubt that he'll regain his voice and songwriting talents of his Soundgarden/Temple of the Dog and maybe Audioslave days. Because of that, it reminds me of another 90s alternative rock band that were the best of it's kind, only to have a really grim demise. The band I'm talking about obviously are the Smashing Pumpkins.

However, this doesn't also apply to music only, heck, it even comes into play in the WWE. Yes, I'm talking about ECW. Like the Smashing Pumpkins, both were at their best at what they were doing around the 90s; Smashing Pumpkins released two amazing albums(Siamese Dream and Mellon Collie And The Infinite Sadness), while ECW was the best at showcasing some hardcore, blood-pumping action. In the 00s, both were still good, however, slowly reaching the end of the century, they were getting worse and worse. Yeah, the Pumpkins occasionally have a good gig or two, and that's the same case with ECW - one or two good shows.

Last year, I made an appearance at Ez's ECW Analysis blog and I talked about how ECW is an unrespectful successor to the old ECW. I said that ECW was nothing like old ECW, and all it did was to farm new wrestlers for other brands.

Here's an excerpt from the post:

However, three to four years ago, it wasn't the C show because of its wrestling talent. See, back then, it was real entertaining or at least remotely entertaining. Nowadays, ECW is neither. It's a place for youngsters to job while looking to make an impact, or washed-up has-beens who are looking to restart their careers. Even if they get the occasional wrestler who has talent, they instantly export him or her to some other brand, and in exchange, they get even more youngsters and has-beens.

The post can be seen here.

And with the news that ECW is going to be dropped after Elimination Chamber, it's both great and stupid. It's great because ECW completely does not resemble the old ECW, and that it'll leave ECW to rest in peace finally, waiting to be grasped by maybe another revival, a decade, a year or even a couple of months later. It's stupid simply because I thought it would've been discontinued at Wrestlemania, you know, with the "grand finale" and shit like that. But then again, it also may showcase the new show with a bang at Wrestlemania.

So, for better or worse, I guess this is the end of ECW.

Vafa