Over the Limit is behind us - how did WWE's May ppv stack up?

We also take a look at the situation with Ric Flair in TNA - what does the future hold for the Nature Boy?

Still with TNA, we also discuss what's happening with Alex Shelley and Matt Morgan, and we bring you our thoughts on the changes to WWe programming in NZ.

Glad to have you with us for this week's edition of Gimme Five.

1) So, did Over the Limit go, well, over? What were your highlights and lowlights of the show? Match of the night and dud? Who was your MVP?

Kirsty:
A solid show, what you'd expect from a mid-card ppv. Daniel Bryan and CM Punk turned in the Match of the Night, which was all I had hoped it would be and more - fantastic performance. I was very pleasantly surprised to see the Divas get a decent length of time for their match, and they turned in a good show - I'd like to see more of Beth and Layla.

Dud was the Ryback match - why do they keep forcing him down our throats? - and MVP has to go to John Laurainitis, who took one hell of a beating and still managed to walk out under his own steam.

A good effort from WWE - and it's great to see Christian back as well.

Blake:
All I got to see was the live YouTube stuff, so I'm gonna base my discussion on that. Kane vs. Zack Ryder was a much better match than expected. I expected a squash, but Ryder provided a good showing. The was also a brutal Broski Boot which looked uber painful. However, Kane hit the massive Chokeslam for a good win. Then we got some Santino humour, so naturally, he's my MVP. It was also nice to see some, for lack of a better word, lesser talents get some air time in the battle royal.

Dion:
Another enjoyable ppv from the 'E. Punk and Bryan was fantastic. Amazing wrestling and athleticism that stole the show. I'm looking forward to seeing more from these guys.

Cena and big Johnny was really entertaining, too.

David:
I thought it was a very good show for one of the filler pay-per-views, if you will. John Cena vs. John Laurinaitis was far from a classic, but I wasn't expecting it to be, and everything else was really rather good. I've got to say I was pleasantly surprised by the unannounced battle royal and then the Intercontinental Championship match, too. Better things to use PPV time on than Ryback and Brodus Clay doing the same thing. CM Punk vs. Daniel Bryan was absolutely the match of the night, and they can share my MVP nomination for it.

Stevie:
Well, it had one really great match - and we all know which one it was - and then a decent comedy main event. Everything else felt a bit flat to me. I'm now bored of Ryback & Brodus squashes too. WWE has suddenly become aimless, I'm not sure where they're going. I don't think they know either.

Luke:
I thought the WWE produced another solid show despite some of the terrible booking we have had in recent weeks. The highlight of the night was the match of the night and both MVPs of the night - Daniel Bryan vs. CM Punk. What a confrontation that was! An intense, well told story with amazing technical ring work. Definitely one of the best matches in recent years and reminisced the days of when we watched technicians like Angle, Benoit and Guerrero steal the spotlight. The lowlight of the show was Johnny Ace and Super Cena... terrible match, terrible booking and what a terrible way to end the show with a main event like that.

Scott:
I loved it. Punk and Bryan put on a five star classic, the Fatal Four Way built to an exciting fun ride, and even the main event was, let’s face it, a helluva good time. However the running order was off. Punk and Bryan should’ve closed the show – it was always going to be match of the night, and that’s what it turned out to be. John versus Johnny – especially with the predictable outcome – would’ve slotted nicely in just before it. There would’ve been no storyline implications of moving the match forward, and it would’ve left a far better taste in the mouth at the conclusion of the three hours.

My MVP might be a bit surprising, but hear me out. Think about to a year ago. Punk and Bryan’s match – even if move for move, beat for beat it was the same as we saw this week – woult it have been so amazingly good if we had to put up with heel Michael Cole on commentary? Since he dropped his heel gimmick as Jim Ross walked down the aisle at WrestleMania Cole’s commentary has not only stopped being annoying, at times it’s been downright interesting and entertaining. And for the Punk / Bryan match he was at his best, so much so I was often hoping Lawler would shut up entirely and let Cole (and Booker) do all the commentary. A small thing, but Cole made that match, and that pay-per-view.

2) Christian’s back, returning at Over the Limit to win the Intercontinental Championship from Cody Rhodes, seemingly with a face turn in the process. Your thoughts on Captain Charisma’s return? And what would you like to see next from Cody Rhodes?

Kirsty:
I'm always happy to see Christian, and I've missed him while he's been on injury hiatus. He's one of my favourites - I seem to have a thing for the Canadians - and I hope he'll be around for a while yet, face or heel.

While I don't know that much can live up to Christian's incredible angle with Randy Orton, I am hoping he can pull off something similar with Cody Rhodes.

Blake:
SmackDown needs a fresh face face, so this is probably good. I prefer Christian as a face anyway. Also, Christian and Cody Rhodes would be able to put on an awesome match for when Rhodes cashes in his 'rematch clause'.

Dion:
Fantastic to see the return of Christian. I'd like to see him and Rhodes working together for a few months, I think they could do some really good business.

David:
I think it was quite cleverly done to have him show up right at the end of the YouTube pre-show there. That could have been the hook that pushed a few indecisive viewers to book the show. Not many, but a handful. Nice to see Christian has no ring-rust either - straight back to the title picture. I don't know what happens to Rhodes now. A horrible month followed by a Money in the Bank win, perhaps?

Stevie:
I've always really liked Christian but felt a bit underwhelmed by his match. Maybe I just prefer him as a heel. Cody is coming off some really weird booking but he's still nicely over with the fans. He's got a future World Title run coming up, I'm sure.

Luke:
I was happy to see Christian back though I thought he should not have returned as a face. I think his best work is done as a heel and he proved this last year. Major shock to see him not only compete for the Intercontinental championship but be demoted from the main event scene after his run last year. That said, it's great to see Captain Charisma back in action. As for Rhodes... I see the WWE championship in his crystal ball.

Scott:
I can’t see Christian going into the IC scene as anything but another retrograde step for a man who, while talented, has never seemed to find the right moment or backstage support to suit his talents.

3) Rumours are doing the rounds of ructions behind the scenes in TNA. Ric Flair is supposedly skating on thin ice after having provided “Ric Flair level behaviour” backstage and while on tour, but not bringing “Ric Flair level performances” to their shows, nor doing anything to boost TNA’s ratings. What are your thoughts on hearing these latest tales of turmoil involving “The Nature Boy”? Do you think he has any kind of future in TNA, in WWE, or in wrestling at all?

Kirsty:
Look, I know Naitch is one of the industry's greatest living legends, and I try to respect that, even if I do think he's always been highly over-rated. But it becomes increasingly difficult to do so when he behaves this way. For a start, he's spent years hauling his leathery old body around a ring when he should have hung up his boots a decade ago. I'm sorry but it's just plain embarrassing. He could have contributed far more in a non-active role, but he insisted on getting in there and tainting his legacy.

If these latest reports on his behaviour are true, then it is also embarrassing because Flair, of all people, should understand the importance of professionalism and of living up to set standards, as well as providing an example to those in the locker room. Yet as he grows older, he appears to become more selfish and less concerned about doing a good job. It's not for us to say why, but it certainly places doubt on any kind of a future he might have with the industry.

I would have liked to see Naitch pack it in after his loss to Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania 24, the Hall of Fame induction and the outstanding and emotional farewell on RAW.

Blake:
Honestly, I've always seen Flair as one of the most over-rated wrestlers in history. So honestly, I don't care.

Dion:
It would be difficult to imagine any wrestling promotion firing Ric Flair. That said, his promos as of late have been nothing compared to his best, by far.

He does bring star power ton TNA, but I'd they're not getting value or feeling he's progressing them in any way, then it would appear that there is only one option.

David:
It doesn't surprise me to hear that Flair lives the gimmick. It's just such a shame that he didn't bow out gracefully once and for all after his 2008 retirement, because that really was about as close to perfect as you're ever going to get. He could still make sporadic appearances for WWE down the line, not unlike Shawn Michaels has been, but for now I think it's best if Ric Flair takes a little break from the business.

Stevie:
I think Kirsty pretty much said it all here.

Luke:
Kirsty summed this one up perfectly for me.

Scott:
Flair just needs sign a WWE Legends deal (to formalise their financial support; after all, Flair somehow found the money to buy his way out of his trouble with Highspots, then the NWA Championship at the centre of the dispute then appeared at this year’s WrestleMania Axxess). Then he can sit at home pulling in the money from WWE and elsewhere and not continue publically tarnishing his already very corroded legacy. But Flair’s addictions – to alcohol and the spotlight – keep getting the better of him, it seems.

4) TNA have also been reported to have both lost Matt Morgan and Alex Shelley, both apparently coming to the ends of their contracts and choosing not to re-sign – and rumours are both might soon be seen in WWE. Is this a loss to TNA, and (if the rumours are true) would you like to see either of these men in WWE?

Kirsty:
It's a loss to TNA. Especially Alex Shelley, who's been one of their own homegrown talent almost since the beginning. I've never been a huge fan of Matt Morgan, but he might do OK in WWE his second time round... I assume they won't resurrect that ridiculous stutter.

Shelley's the kind of guy WWE needs more of, but after so many years in TNA I wonder if he'll be able to fit in. WWE have a very structured way of doing things, and Shelly has, for a long time, got away with a somewhat questionable attitude in the business. I don't imagine it would be tolerated in WWE.

Blake:
Morgan would be great in WWE. Shelley? Only if they restart the much needed Cruiserweight division. Either way, this is a loss to TNA.

Dion:
I remember in the 90s when a big star would jump ship from WCW to the WWF or vice versa. That was always exciting. And I'm excited by this prospect, too.

As amazing as Kurt Angle, Ken Anderson and RVD were for TNA to acquire, we haven't quite seen someone jump ship the other way withuch excitement. I hope we're in the verge of some interesting signings. I'm looking forward to seeing these two in WWE if the rumours are true.

David:
Shelley hits TNA hard because he breaks up the Motor City Machine Guns. Matt Morgan, not so much. I like him a bunch, but now his feud with Crimson seems to be over there aren't many loose ends for the Blueprint to tie up. I instinctively want to say that WWE isn't the best place for Alex Shelley, but you only have to look at CM Punk or Daniel Bryan or even FCW with Antonio Cesaro and Kassius Ohno and Seth Rollins to see I've got no grounds to say that, so why not? And Matt Morgan's done it before - he'll fit in just fine too. As long as they don't make him st-st-st-stutter again.

Stevie:
Shelley in particular is a massive loss to TNA. I wish TNA was a huge opponent for WWE - because then they'd just debut these guys a week after their contracts expire to much fanfare. As it is, they'll probably both get re-tooled somewhat or watered down.

Luke:
I think Shelley is a huge loss for TNA. The Motor City Machine Guns are one of the best tag teams in the world and a huge draw for TNA - they were one of the reasons I attended the Impact tapings. I don't think Matt Morgan is a huge loss for TNA nor a huge gain for WWE. I would love to see Shelley in WWE, though I would be afraid they will water him down and screw him over like every other talented individual they sign. Perhaps team him with Chris Hero?

Scott:
I don’t think WWE needs yet another big man debuting or re-debuting on their roster; goodness knows what they’d do with him if Morgan also appeared. On the other hand Shelley has both charisma and athleticism. Cruiserweight division or no, he’ll find a place on the roster, even if he’s just lurking down there with the Evan Bournes and Justin Gabriels. But even as I write those names I also begin to hope that the oft-rumoured return to a Cruiserweight focus might appear one day soon. WWE’s got a lot of talent to burn…

5) It’s been a couple of big weeks of news regarding RAW – firstly SKY TV will be moving WWE’s flagship show from Friday to Tuesday nights, showing in New Zealand just hours after being broadcast in the United States. And WWE has announced that from July 23 RAW will permanently become a three hour show. Are you looking forward to these changes?

Kirsty:
It's fantastic that New Zealand audiences will be able to see RAW so close to it's live US airdate. I kind of liked having RAW on Friday nights as a way to kick off the weekend, but I won't miss being spoiled throughout the week when something big goes down.

As for three hours, I'm not so sure about that. For purely selfish reasons, I'm getting too long in the tooth to say up that late on a school night!

Blake:
The move is great for us. However, who wants to watch three hours of RAW every week? No-one.

Dion:
Great to see RAW will be airing so close to the US!

Monday Nitro moving to 3 hours worked for a while, but it may have been one of the reasons that WCW's weaknesses began to come out.

I think WWE will be much smarter with their 3 hour show. It's going to be very interesting to see what they do, and how fans react.

David:
Yes I am. I have found there to be a lot of NZWPW or KPW shows on lately that make watching Friday night RAW somewhat harder for me - but no one ever runs on a Tuesday night! Three hours is slightly long to book the TV for on a Tuesday though, but it's not like there aren't enough wrestlers on the roster to put on a quality three hour show. I guess we have to wait and see how the first couple go, but I'm cautiously optimistic about this one.

Stevie:
The Tuesday night change is great. The 3 hour RAW... I'll reserve judgement but also prep my trigger finger on the MySky remote.

Luke:
I am definitely looking forward to the Tuesday night change! This is momumental for New Zealand in terms of how fast we see the product now, especially with how easy it is to spoil the show. As for three hours? I'm already sifting through a two hour episode as it is - so not looking forward to that. WWE needs to focus on creating compelling television, not expanding their time slot. It's hard to be engaged in their lacklustre shows as it is without adding an extra hour. Anyone remember the original three hour telecasts of WCW Nitro? If you don't, you are one of the lucky ones.

Scott:
Friday night or Saturday morning RAW has been a tradition of mine for so long I’m not sure how I’m going to manage shifting that up. I honestly don’t watch broadcast television during the week, but now find myself being forced to do so – and, no, I just can’t watch it later because someone has to write up the show for NZPWI! But I’m sure I’ll cope.

On the other hand, if the answer is “let’s make RAW three hours!” I think WWE is asking the wrong questions.