Keith Lee vacates NXT North American title

Everything that is happening in the wrestling world.
Post Reply
User avatar
cero2k
Site Admin
Posts: 19864
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 11:32

Keith Lee vacates NXT North American title

Post by cero2k » Jul 22nd, '20, 20:10

src: https://www.f4wonline.com/nxt-news/keit ... set-315946

With a major announcement hyped for the show, tonight's episode of NXT opened with Keith Lee revealing that he's vacated the North American Championship.

The explanation for Lee vacating the title was that he doesn't want to limit the roster's opportunities and wants to make sure they all get the same opportunities he had. Lee defeated Adam Cole in their winner-take-all title vs. title match two weeks ago to win the NXT Championship and retain the NXT North American Championship.

Lee vowed that he'll defend the NXT Championship as much as possible.

Lee said he wants as many people as possible to get a chance to win the North American title. William Regal then announced that the new champion will be crowned in a ladder match at TakeOver XXX on Saturday, August 22. There will be a series of triple threat matches to decide the participants for the ladder match.

Johnny Gargano vs. Roderick Strong vs. Bronson Reed is the first of those triple threat matches. It's taking place on NXT tonight.

NXT TakeOver XXX is being held on the Saturday of SummerSlam weekend. The special was originally supposed to be TakeOver: Boston.

Lee had held the North American title since winning it from Strong in January.
Image

User avatar
cero2k
Site Admin
Posts: 19864
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 11:32

Re: Keith Lee vacates NXT North American title

Post by cero2k » Jul 22nd, '20, 20:11

If there was ever more proof that WWE books reactionary. Why do a title vs title and unification if you're gonna undo it two weeks later.
Image

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 25273
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: Keith Lee vacates NXT North American title

Post by Big Red Machine » Jul 22nd, '20, 22:49

cero2k wrote:
Jul 22nd, '20, 20:11
If there was ever more proof that WWE books reactionary. Why do a title vs title and unification if you're gonna undo it two weeks later.
I'm not going to say they're not being reactionary, because the timing of the match wasn't an accident, but I do think they wanted the belt on Lee in particular (to look woke), so I'm not certain that the "champion vs. champion" part was reactionary (or, at least not reactionary to AEW) so much as it was a consequence of circumstance.
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Northern Gate
CHIKARA Hot Off the Griddle

User avatar
cero2k
Site Admin
Posts: 19864
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 11:32

Re: Keith Lee vacates NXT North American title

Post by cero2k » Jul 23rd, '20, 08:58

Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 22nd, '20, 22:49
cero2k wrote:
Jul 22nd, '20, 20:11
If there was ever more proof that WWE books reactionary. Why do a title vs title and unification if you're gonna undo it two weeks later.
I'm not going to say they're not being reactionary, because the timing of the match wasn't an accident, but I do think they wanted the belt on Lee in particular (to look woke), so I'm not certain that the "champion vs. champion" part was reactionary (or, at least not reactionary to AEW) so much as it was a consequence of circumstance.
the "champion vs champion" is the consequence of hot shotting the match to align to AEW's big show. If the end game was to put the title on Lee, they'd have done it at any other point, taken their time to properly remove the NA title off Lee, and make the world title match for later.
Image

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 25273
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: Keith Lee vacates NXT North American title

Post by Big Red Machine » Jul 23rd, '20, 09:52

cero2k wrote:
Jul 23rd, '20, 08:58
Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 22nd, '20, 22:49
cero2k wrote:
Jul 22nd, '20, 20:11
If there was ever more proof that WWE books reactionary. Why do a title vs title and unification if you're gonna undo it two weeks later.
I'm not going to say they're not being reactionary, because the timing of the match wasn't an accident, but I do think they wanted the belt on Lee in particular (to look woke), so I'm not certain that the "champion vs. champion" part was reactionary (or, at least not reactionary to AEW) so much as it was a consequence of circumstance.
the "champion vs champion" is the consequence of hot shotting the match to align to AEW's big show. If the end game was to put the title on Lee, they'd have done it at any other point, taken their time to properly remove the NA title off Lee, and make the world title match for later.
I think them putting the belt on Lee is a result of wanting to appear woke due to the protests. They didn't really have time to take it off him in a way where losing wouldn't hinder the idea of him getting a title shot against Cole. I'm not saying that AEW's show didn't provide them with a convenient target, but even with no AEW to counter-program, they would have hot-shotted this at some point in July (to then have time to build a challenger for TakeOver at SummerSlam weekend). Even delaying till SummerSlam weekend and having Lee lose the NA title between the end of May and then would be hard.
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Northern Gate
CHIKARA Hot Off the Griddle

User avatar
cero2k
Site Admin
Posts: 19864
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 11:32

Re: Keith Lee vacates NXT North American title

Post by cero2k » Jul 23rd, '20, 13:24

Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 23rd, '20, 09:52

I think them putting the belt on Lee is a result of wanting to appear woke due to the protests. They didn't really have time to take it off him in a way where losing wouldn't hinder the idea of him getting a title shot against Cole. I'm not saying that AEW's show didn't provide them with a convenient target, but even with no AEW to counter-program, they would have hot-shotted this at some point in July (to then have time to build a challenger for TakeOver at SummerSlam weekend). Even delaying till SummerSlam weekend and having Lee lose the NA title between the end of May and then would be hard.
it's as simple as having Lee defend the title before the Cole match, lose it because Cole costs him the match, Lee has the choice to either go after Cole, or try to regain the NA title and decides for the World title. I don't disagree that it may had been a BLM related attempt, but even in that case, they're late to the party.
Image

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 25273
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: Keith Lee vacates NXT North American title

Post by Big Red Machine » Jul 23rd, '20, 14:14

cero2k wrote:
Jul 23rd, '20, 13:24
Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 23rd, '20, 09:52

I think them putting the belt on Lee is a result of wanting to appear woke due to the protests. They didn't really have time to take it off him in a way where losing wouldn't hinder the idea of him getting a title shot against Cole. I'm not saying that AEW's show didn't provide them with a convenient target, but even with no AEW to counter-program, they would have hot-shotted this at some point in July (to then have time to build a challenger for TakeOver at SummerSlam weekend). Even delaying till SummerSlam weekend and having Lee lose the NA title between the end of May and then would be hard.
it's as simple as having Lee defend the title before the Cole match, lose it because Cole costs him the match, Lee has the choice to either go after Cole, or try to regain the NA title and decides for the World title. I don't disagree that it may had been a BLM related attempt, but even in that case, they're late to the party.
You have to create a reason why Lee can't have both, though. Why should he only be able to go after one of the belts when this has never been even hinted at being a rule before (which you'd think it would have been going into this match, and, in fact, we've seen the North American Champion put in #1 contendership matches).
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Northern Gate
CHIKARA Hot Off the Griddle

User avatar
cero2k
Site Admin
Posts: 19864
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 11:32

Re: Keith Lee vacates NXT North American title

Post by cero2k » Jul 23rd, '20, 18:28

Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 23rd, '20, 14:14

You have to create a reason why Lee can't have both, though. Why should he only be able to go after one of the belts when this has never been even hinted at being a rule before (which you'd think it would have been going into this match, and, in fact, we've seen the North American Champion put in #1 contendership matches).
it's not that he can't legally, it's just that it's too big of a load to fight UE and whoever took the NA title from him, he must either let go his grudge with Cole, or let the NA title go and focus on the world title. This adds way more depth to the story than "I barely defended both titles, but i'm vacating the title just cuz".
Image

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 25273
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: Keith Lee vacates NXT North American title

Post by Big Red Machine » Jul 23rd, '20, 20:43

cero2k wrote:
Jul 23rd, '20, 18:28
Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 23rd, '20, 14:14

You have to create a reason why Lee can't have both, though. Why should he only be able to go after one of the belts when this has never been even hinted at being a rule before (which you'd think it would have been going into this match, and, in fact, we've seen the North American Champion put in #1 contendership matches).
it's not that he can't legally, it's just that it's too big of a load to fight UE and whoever took the NA title from him, he must either let go his grudge with Cole, or let the NA title go and focus on the world title. This adds way more depth to the story than "I barely defended both titles, but i'm vacating the title just cuz".
That doesn't feel like a very babyface attitude. We see wrestlers wrestle pretty much every week. No one should have trouble defending two belts, and we haven't seen past double-champions have this sort of trouble.

And if you watched the promo Lee cut, he's not vacating it "just cuz." They used it to build up his character a bit. He doesn't want to be limiting to others by holding two belts in the same division. I don't like the idea of vacating a title unless there is an injury or some sort of really big angle, but they used it to help get across that Keith Lee is the consummate babyface in a way that even Johnny Gargano or John Cena or Hulk Hogan weren't, so I don't think it's fair at all to characterize this as vacating a title "just cuz."
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Northern Gate
CHIKARA Hot Off the Griddle

User avatar
cero2k
Site Admin
Posts: 19864
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 11:32

Re: Keith Lee vacates NXT North American title

Post by cero2k » Jul 23rd, '20, 21:22

Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 23rd, '20, 20:43

That doesn't feel like a very babyface attitude. We see wrestlers wrestle pretty much every week. No one should have trouble defending two belts, and we haven't seen past double-champions have this sort of trouble.

And if you watched the promo Lee cut, he's not vacating it "just cuz." They used it to build up his character a bit. He doesn't want to be limiting to others by holding two belts in the same division. I don't like the idea of vacating a title unless there is an injury or some sort of really big angle, but they used it to help get across that Keith Lee is the consummate babyface in a way that even Johnny Gargano or John Cena or Hulk Hogan weren't, so I don't think it's fair at all to characterize this as vacating a title "just cuz."
no no no, this isn't a post-title win solution. Lee MUST lose the title beforehand, never have the double champion. it's hot shotting the double champion that is the issue.

I saw the promo, it's a promo you cut last week, not this one, and if we're talking babyface attitudes, then he should relinquish the title before GAB if he is so confident that he will win. He had an excuse, and it sounded as hot shotted as the title vs title match. Hell, why the hell did Regal think Lee's decision was such a great idea if he's the dumbass that booked the match in the first hand? Shit Regal, if putting the title up for grabs to the whole roster is such a good idea, why didn't you book that to begin with and let Lee go after Cole?

It's just bad booking, they're booking day-to-day with no idea of where they're going.
Image

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 25273
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: Keith Lee vacates NXT North American title

Post by Big Red Machine » Jul 23rd, '20, 23:27

cero2k wrote:
Jul 23rd, '20, 21:22
Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 23rd, '20, 20:43

That doesn't feel like a very babyface attitude. We see wrestlers wrestle pretty much every week. No one should have trouble defending two belts, and we haven't seen past double-champions have this sort of trouble.

And if you watched the promo Lee cut, he's not vacating it "just cuz." They used it to build up his character a bit. He doesn't want to be limiting to others by holding two belts in the same division. I don't like the idea of vacating a title unless there is an injury or some sort of really big angle, but they used it to help get across that Keith Lee is the consummate babyface in a way that even Johnny Gargano or John Cena or Hulk Hogan weren't, so I don't think it's fair at all to characterize this as vacating a title "just cuz."
no no no, this isn't a post-title win solution. Lee MUST lose the title beforehand, never have the double champion. it's hot shotting the double champion that is the issue.
Why does he have to lose it beforehand? I think it's better to, but that doesn't mean that you can't tell a story this way, also.
cero2k wrote:
Jul 23rd, '20, 21:22
I saw the promo, it's a promo you cut last week, not this one, and if we're talking babyface attitudes, then he should relinquish the title before GAB if he is so confident that he will win. He had an excuse, and it sounded as hot shotted as the title vs title match. Hell, why the hell did Regal think Lee's decision was such a great idea if he's the dumbass that booked the match in the first hand? Shit Regal, if putting the title up for grabs to the whole roster is such a good idea, why didn't you book that to begin with and let Lee go after Cole?
1. Because relinquishing the title before the match wouldn't be fair to Cole.
2. Because if Lee wants to relinquish the title then there is nothing Regal can do about it. If you're Regal in that situation, than doing this ladder match with the bunch of qualifiers is a fine idea. That doesn't mean Regal thinks it's ideal, but if it's his best available option then why not go with it?

You're not wrong that it's a promo that might have been best cut last week, but last week he was giving his big emotional speech about his grandmother and his recently-deceased trainer, and was planning on putting both titles up at once again Dijakovic. He was giving out an opportunity last week, and if he lost, the decision would be Dijakovic's, not his.

cero2k wrote:
Jul 23rd, '20, 21:22
It's just bad booking, they're booking day-to-day with no idea of where they're going.
Just because they hot-shotted an angle doesn't mean they don't know where they're going. You can hot-shot an angle and have your follow-through all planned out because you've made a new plan. Hot-shotting doesn't mean you don't have a plan. It just means you're changing up and doing big matches sooner than you otherwise would have because you're worried about the rating or the house instead of waiting for the big payoff on PPV.

And they've been teasing Cole and Lee for a while.
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Northern Gate
CHIKARA Hot Off the Griddle

User avatar
Serujuunin
Posts: 2466
Joined: Dec 17th, '10, 19:56

Re: Keith Lee vacates NXT North American title

Post by Serujuunin » Jul 24th, '20, 01:39

I haven’t watched NXT yet (because it’s not available until Friday up here), and so I can’t really have a solid opinion yet, but I would have had Lee pull double duty defending, showing that he’s determined to be a fighting champion for both titles, perhaps have a grueling NXT championship match one week where he goes into a NA championship match the following week less than 100% and loses it. It still has the determined baby face feel to me and doesn’t have the rushed feeling that vacating it has. I don’t even think it would reflect upon the new NA champ too badly unless it was Dijakovic (he would probably say he knew Lee was less than 100% so it didn’t feel like a fair victory or some such and they’d have a match again).

But I’m thinking of it from a storytelling perspective, which I think is a bit more abstract than booking sometimes.

User avatar
cero2k
Site Admin
Posts: 19864
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 11:32

Re: Keith Lee vacates NXT North American title

Post by cero2k » Jul 24th, '20, 08:58

Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 23rd, '20, 23:27
Why does he have to lose it beforehand? I think it's better to, but that doesn't mean that you can't tell a story this way, also.
To avoid booking yourself into a half-assed double title reign, it's almost like a swerve to tell your fans that you're crowning a double champion and then undoing it two weeks later.
Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 23rd, '20, 23:27
1. Because relinquishing the title before the match wouldn't be fair to Cole.
2. Because if Lee wants to relinquish the title then there is nothing Regal can do about it. If you're Regal in that situation, than doing this ladder match with the bunch of qualifiers is a fine idea. That doesn't mean Regal thinks it's ideal, but if it's his best available option then why not go with it?

You're not wrong that it's a promo that might have been best cut last week, but last week he was giving his big emotional speech about his grandmother and his recently-deceased trainer, and was planning on putting both titles up at once again Dijakovic. He was giving out an opportunity last week, and if he lost, the decision would be Dijakovic's, not his.
1. Answer me this, who won the title shot? Cole or Keith? If Cole is not the one 'earning' the shot, then he doesn't lose anything. The "title vs title"
2. I'm not saying Regal's excuse is ok, but it contradicts the sentiment being sold two weeks ago.

I don't buy it, just vacate NA and give Dijak his one-on-one for the world title. Dijak won't be mad, i assure you.

cero2k wrote:
Jul 23rd, '20, 21:22
It's just bad booking, they're booking day-to-day with no idea of where they're going.
Just because they hot-shotted an angle doesn't mean they don't know where they're going. You can hot-shot an angle and have your follow-through all planned out because you've made a new plan. Hot-shotting doesn't mean you don't have a plan. It just means you're changing up and doing big matches sooner than you otherwise would have because you're worried about the rating or the house instead of waiting for the big payoff on PPV.

And they've been teasing Cole and Lee for a while.
[/quote]

it's not the hot-shotting that exposes it, it's like the whole preceding decisions and follow up that does.
Image

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 25273
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: Keith Lee vacates NXT North American title

Post by Big Red Machine » Jul 24th, '20, 10:41

Serujuunin wrote:
Jul 24th, '20, 01:39
I haven’t watched NXT yet (because it’s not available until Friday up here), and so I can’t really have a solid opinion yet, but I would have had Lee pull double duty defending, showing that he’s determined to be a fighting champion for both titles, perhaps have a grueling NXT championship match one week where he goes into a NA championship match the following week less than 100% and loses it. It still has the determined baby face feel to me and doesn’t have the rushed feeling that vacating it has. I don’t even think it would reflect upon the new NA champ too badly unless it was Dijakovic (he would probably say he knew Lee was less than 100% so it didn’t feel like a fair victory or some such and they’d have a match again).

But I’m thinking of it from a storytelling perspective, which I think is a bit more abstract than booking sometimes.
The issue with this is that it will (often, but not always) result in a vicious cycle where Lee theoretically has a rematch against the guy who won the NA Title, and if that guy wins the rematch, he has now pinned Lee and thus earned a shot at the NXT Title, and it continues in a cycle. You've got to deal with the rematch factor somehow, and in this case, I don't think getting the title off of one of them very quickly is a good idea (although maybe I could be down for it with Grimes stealing the belt and then Dijakovic chasing him, but that might feel too similar to Grimes vs. Priest).

Now that I think about it a little more, a way out of that could have been a sort of "Euro-continental Title match" sort of situation, with the third guy (maybe Cole fits?) taking both pins (or maybe you work in a fourth guy so you don't have to beat Cole twice, but I don't know who would fit). If Dijakovic is in that match it does create something of a problem with Kross because he has made his intention to go after Lee and the title very clear and he doesn't seem like the kind of guy to wait around. Maybe you find some sort of big scary monster for him to beat in the meantime (Dane, or maybe a returning Ciampa?) and then basically rush to a TakeOver on a four-week cycle after the SummerSlam TakeOver to do Lee vs. Kross?
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Northern Gate
CHIKARA Hot Off the Griddle

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 25273
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: Keith Lee vacates NXT North American title

Post by Big Red Machine » Jul 24th, '20, 11:32

cero2k wrote:
Jul 24th, '20, 08:58
Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 23rd, '20, 23:27
Why does he have to lose it beforehand? I think it's better to, but that doesn't mean that you can't tell a story this way, also.
To avoid booking yourself into a half-assed double title reign, it's almost like a swerve to tell your fans that you're crowning a double champion and then undoing it two weeks later.
I'd normally agree with you, but if they have a long-term story in mind that works, I'm happy to give it a pass, and NXT's booking has earned enough good will that I'm inclined to keep an open mind.
That being said, I'm having trouble thinking of a story that would really work that wouldn't either 1) go too long term for it to be a good idea or 2) require Lee to lose the NXT Title way too quickly for a guy you want to be a top babyface just for the sake of having him go after the new North American champion in a "but you never beat me for the belt) angle that pretty much has to end in Lee losing to that guy to avoid invalidating his entire title reign.
Maybe if the real situation is that Vince has said that he wants Lee in three months and the plan is Lee vacaes the NA Title, loses the NXT Title to Kross at SummerSlam TakeOver, loses a rematch to Kross and then loses to the new NA champ. In that case you've only got a limited amount of time with Lee and have no new opponents for Cole so using Lee as a transitional champ to get Kross over and then using him to get the new NA champ over is a good way to use him on the way out (assuming the new NA champ will be a guy who could use the win over Lee, like Grimes, Reed, Thatcher, Priest, Lumis, etc., as opposed to someone like Roddy, Gargano, Ciampa, etc.), and this is a way that not only sets that up in the limited time-frame you have, but also lets you hurt the competition in the process.


cero2k wrote:
Jul 24th, '20, 08:58
Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 23rd, '20, 23:27
1. Because relinquishing the title before the match wouldn't be fair to Cole.
2. Because if Lee wants to relinquish the title then there is nothing Regal can do about it. If you're Regal in that situation, than doing this ladder match with the bunch of qualifiers is a fine idea. That doesn't mean Regal thinks it's ideal, but if it's his best available option then why not go with it?

You're not wrong that it's a promo that might have been best cut last week, but last week he was giving his big emotional speech about his grandmother and his recently-deceased trainer, and was planning on putting both titles up at once again Dijakovic. He was giving out an opportunity last week, and if he lost, the decision would be Dijakovic's, not his.
1. Answer me this, who won the title shot? Cole or Keith? If Cole is not the one 'earning' the shot, then he doesn't lose anything. The "title vs title"
2. I'm not saying Regal's excuse is ok, but it contradicts the sentiment being sold two weeks ago.
1. Lee earned the shot by winning a match with the title on the line against two others guys. But if you say whoever won the #1 contendership match would have to vacate the title, why even make it a title match?

And if it's not title vs. title and Cole wins you wind up in the vicious circle situation I've been describing where Cole now deserves a shot at the North American Title, and if Lee retains the title against Cole he'll have earned a shot at the NXT Title, again, etc.


2. Just to clarify, what "sentiment" from Regal are you talking about. To me, Regal didn't know that Lee would do this, and whether he likes it or not, it doesn't do him any good (and does the company some harm) to go out in public and say "I don't like this because I think it will devalue the title, but I will because Lee wants to."
cero2k wrote:
Jul 24th, '20, 08:58
I don't buy it, just vacate NA and give Dijak his one-on-one for the world title. Dijak won't be mad, i assure you.
Yes, but Dijak isn't the issue. If Lee is going to defend one title in this match, he might as well defend the other. Otherwise, you've got the same vicious circle because Dijak should also be owed a shot at the other one.

Hell, maybe it just never occurred to Lee until last week that if he's defending both titles at the same time then only one person (or one matches' worth of opponents) can be in the title picture at the same time because, like in NJPW, the belts are de facto unified, even if they aren't unified de jure.

cero2k wrote:
Jul 24th, '20, 08:58
Big Red Machine wrote:
Jul 23rd, '20, 23:27
cero2k wrote:
Jul 23rd, '20, 21:22
It's just bad booking, they're booking day-to-day with no idea of where they're going.
Just because they hot-shotted an angle doesn't mean they don't know where they're going. You can hot-shot an angle and have your follow-through all planned out because you've made a new plan. Hot-shotting doesn't mean you don't have a plan. It just means you're changing up and doing big matches sooner than you otherwise would have because you're worried about the rating or the house instead of waiting for the big payoff on PPV.

And they've been teasing Cole and Lee for a while.
it's not the hot-shotting that exposes it, it's like the whole preceding decisions and follow up that does.
And I'm saying that you don't know that they don't know where they're going, or that they weren't planning on doing this at some point and decided to do it when they did because they didn't want to lose the proximity to the BLM protests and because it was the best way to f*ck with AEW.


On a totally unrelated note, do we know why Fyter Fest and Fight for the Fallen weren't done as PPVs or even as lesser iPPVs this year? Was it always the plant to do it that way, or was this just a COVID adjustment to try to pop a rating. When they first announced Fyter Fest it seemed like they were saying it would be one night.
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Northern Gate
CHIKARA Hot Off the Griddle

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests