Next week the WWE will be holding their first ever Hell in a Cell themed event, featuring for the first time ever; a total of three Hell in a Cell bouts. Though to be quite honest I am quite a bit skeptical about the quality of this event. One of the things that always helped these matches deliver in the past was the impact they had based on the rest of the card. In the past, you knew upon seeing a Hell in a Cell match you would be in for a treat. After all the structure is supposed to be the most vicious match to be involved in, even said to shorten the careers of those who enter.
That's the problem though, in the past the cell was always used as the cherry on top of an existing feud not just a gimmick match. Even look as recently as the last WWE Hell in a Cell bout, Edge vs the Undertaker and you have a match that was regarded by many to be one of the better matches of the year.
With over saturating the event with multiple matches of this kind you start to take away the importance of the bout. It also takes away from the aura of the match, as having multiple Hell in a Cell matches on the same card hurts the "anything can happen" vibe that is supposed to be given off by big matches. Due to needing the structure to be in tip top shape for the later bouts, obviously the first two bouts at the very least will remain confined in the structure.
Now that's not to say this will necessarily impact the matches as quite a few solid cell matches never left the confines of the cell. However, this brings up another major issue in the fact that none of these matches will feature blood. Again, the lack of blood doesn't make or break a match necessarily but you have to think about what we are meant to believe about this match. As I said before, this is supposed to be the most devastating bout to be involved in and thus you would think that a match of such magnitude with result in eventual blood loss.
Sure you can get away with it here and there, and obviously not every cell has featured blood. It's reasonable to believe that you can have a major fight without either competitor losing blood. Though is it reasonable to believe that throughout 3 matches; 8 competitors will enter this structure and all 8 will leave without losing a drop of blood? I'd have to say that one is a little tougher to suspend your belief on.
It's logical to believe that if you took 8 completely random people and had them fight within this structure that at least one of them would get busted open. Yet somehow I'm supposed to believe that 8 gifted athletes will not. That's the one thing I disagree with in terms of the whole "PG" outlook WWE is taking right now. That's another topic for another day though.
Day 58
When I say I disagree with something that's not necessarily to say that I don't understand it. Do I agree that there should be zero blood in a wrestling product? Absolutely not. I'm not saying we need copious amounts of blood and gore as if we were watching CZW. Blood has always been at the center of wrestling. Off the top of my head I can think of a few bouts where blood was shed that it really added to the intensity of the bout without coming off as overdone.
I forget which Starrcade it was but one of the early ones, you had a dog collar match between Roddy Piper and Greg Valentine. While I don't know if it was the first match of it's kind, it certainly was one of the first. The story of the bout was Piper's ear in which had been injured prior by an attack by Valentine. The significance of this injury was that it was believed to throw off the equilibrium of Piper, thus throwing him off balance for the bout. Yep, they actually went that in depth with it. So during the match Valentine mercilessly tore at Piper's ear with the chain and the amount of blood Piper shed from it would lead you to believe that Piper's ear had been ripped off. The blood in this bout really added to the story and made you believe that Roddy may actually be in trouble.
Then you have a bout featuring Kerry Von Erich against Jerry Lawler from AWA Superclash III. If you've never seen this match you really owe it to yourself to do so. In fact, I often recommend this match to people that don't take Jerry Lawler seriously as a good wrestler. The story of this match was that it was pretty well balanced up until Von Erich got busted open, and as the match progressed Lawler would continue to pummel the opening he had created in Kerry's head. Every time it seemed Von Erich was on the verge of finishing Lawler, Jerry would go right back to the gash on his head. When it was all said and done, even though Von Erich was doing fine and holding his own the referee would stop the match for his own good. The stoppage was perfectly timed and not done too soon and really made the fans hate the heel (Lawler) without damaging the credibility of Erich. Yet another match in which blood played a huge part of.
The last example I want to use is the classic Steve Austin/Bret Hart "I Quit" match. Going in everybody wondered who would quit and would Austin get propelled by making the veteran Hart quit or would he take a step back by being made to utter the words himself. The cut on this Austin's head during this match would lead to one of the most iconic moments in Wrestlemania history and perhaps one of the most graphic. As Austin sat in the sharpshooter yelling in pain, blood literally poured out of his head. In the end Austin never said "I Quit", but rather passed out from blood loss. So you guessed it, another match in which blood played a major role.
I understand the WWE's stance on this issue though, as they wish to cater towards a younger audience. While you can argue that the WWE very much did that during the 80's era in which the above two matches took place, but something was very different back then. As much as we want to think we've become more risque as a culture nowadays you have to understand the shift in the ratings system.
During that era movies like Big and Poltergeist were both PG movies. Big while is very much a family movie, has a decent deal of sexual innuendo and adult situations. Not saying it's a crude movie in the slightest but it would never earn a PG rating nowadays. The same can be said with Poltergeist, while it may not be a full on "R" rated horror film it definitely wouldn't nab a PG rating today. A PG rating, the same rating that an animated movie like Monster House received a few years ago. So by that logic, Poltergeist and Monster House are two films that would cater to the same audience which obviously isn't true.
The problem isn't in the WWE, as they've simply gone back to a similar rating they've used in the past. The problem with that is, that the very rating itself has changed. What used to be okay for PG now is more suited for PG-13. In fact, the only rating that seems to have become more laid back in it's limits is "R" and WWE isn't moving to the TV equivalent anytime soon.
While it may be convenient to blame the WWE for it's watered down product, perhaps the blame shouldn't lie on their shoulders.
Day 59
I give them credit for trying, as the WWE has obviously been making the effort to stretch more and more feuds out lately. Slowly vanishing is the mindset of having matches with no build and then the "feud" ends before it even has a chance to get off the ground. That's not to say that things are being done right though.
One of my biggest gripes with these gimmick events so far is the fact that rather than finding new ways to continue a feud they are simply having the same matches over and over, just substituting the gimmick. I fully understand wanting to draw out matches like DX/Legacy and Cena/Orton but this will now be the third consecutive event that these matches have occurred. Why not freshen the design a bit?
For instance, at HIAC why not have a 3 on 3 match inside the cell between Cena and DX against Legacy. Not only does that allow both feuds to continue without simply repeating the same bouts, it also gives you a bout that to my knowledge has never occurred in a 3 on 3 Hell in a Cell match. Furthermore you also open up a space on the card to add another match and give someone else a chance to shine. In fact, if you so desired it would even allow you to bump somebody else into the third cell match. To be honest though, I think two cells is a better fit.
I know part of the blame has to be placed on the shoulders of the PPV schedule and the fact that top guys are forced to wrestle more often than they would some twenty years ago. On the other hand, the PPV schedule has been this way for some time and it's only in recent years that it seems that the cards have been more lazily put together. Perfect example is the abomination of an event that the J-Team just reviewed known as December to Dismember. Going into the night only two matches had even been booked.
Fans do indeed want to see feuds drawn out but we also want it to mean something. All undercard matches aren't going to have a point, but the top matches should. I should never have to look at a main event and wonder "why are these guys fighting?" The reason needs to be clear cut, but can also be as simply as wrestler x is the number one contender. Just give your match a purpose.
Lastly, just because two guys are feuding why should I care more about their second one on one encounter than I did the first? Is there some underlying revenge storyline or are we simply filling a card? The latter seems to be the case too often as of late and is something that really needs to change in order for freshness to be restored to your cards. Too often we are treated to feuds that don't have a true defined finale, they simply end because one man was victorious. Seems to be a silly logic that two guys won't wrestle again because one of them was victorious. After all, isn't that the case in every match? A logic like that doesn't separate a feud from just a standard grudge bout.
Perhaps therein lies the problem...
Day 60
You know one thing that the UFC continues to do that you have to love? Give away free events. Maybe Vince and company could take notice. I now we get Raw, Smackdown, ECW, and Superstars but I'm talking about pay-per-view quality. That was one of the more exciting things about WCW in it's prime, Clash of the Champions. On paper why should I have cared about this 2 hours of wrestling more than WCW Saturday Night? Saturday night was 2 hours as well yet I knew every time we got a Clash we'd not only get some killer matches but we'd also have some major happenings.
WWF used to have that with Saturday Night's Main Event, but somewhere along the line they decided they'd rather fill the time with about 15 minutes of wrestling and the rest all filler. Vince needs to understand that a major part of his audience are children and teenagers and quite frankly they don't have the money to shell out on a month to month basis. That's why they save it for the big events. Why not throw them a bone though? Why not reward those fans who can't buy these events every month?
Would it really kill you to put on 2 hours of pay-per-view matches every 4-6 months? I'm not even suggesting a major change of your show structure, just give a little something back. Don't just pack the shows with the obvious, really go back to the old days of Monday Night Raw. The days of anything can happen. Imagine watching and seeing John Cena defend the title against The Miz (fuck that guy) and everyone expects Cena to pull his Superman act. Out of nowhere though, The Miz wins the belt. Not saying he needs a lengthy reign but something like that not only lets you gauge a new star, but also makes people say "I need to make sure to watch this."
That's one of the biggest aspects missing from wrestling, not only on television but also on pay-per-view. That feeling of "what the hell is going to happen tonight" just doesn't exist as strongly as it used to. Maybe I've just become too accustomed to swerves (thanks Russo) and since I always expect a swerve I mistake a lack of a swerve for a letdown.
I do think with the obvious change to the older PG style WWE, why not retract to the old ppv schedule as well. After all, the changes originally occurred to try and keep up with WCW but with them gone now it just comes off as greedy. Not only in terms of money but also in terms of the health of your talent. Simple match would dictate that less shows equals fewer injuries thus equaling longer time in the business.
In short, let's get back to the core of things. If you really want to go back to the beginnings of the cycle then truly go back. Don't just go PG, let's scale back our events too. Let's make Saturday Night's mean something every few months for wrestling fans again. Let's help our favorite stars last in this crazy business. Most of all, let's simply give back.
Day 61
This may come off as completely random but I assure you I have a point: Ric Flair vs Shawn Michaels at Wrestlemania 24 wasn't that good of a match. Was it bad? No, it wasn't bad but it wasn't even close to the high level in which it is regarded. If you disagree, I dare you to stop reading right now and go re-watch the bout.
Often times in the heat of the moment we as fans often mistake a classic moment for a classic match. I've simply found myself dumbfounded over how many people treat this match as if it was some sort of 5 star or even 4 star wrestling clinic. What happened that night was classic for different reasons then the holds that were performed that night.
Going into the match it was about a 99% chance that Flair was going to lose. Thus there were those who watched every second of this match just based on a "what if." "What if somehow Flair beats Michaels?" "What if somehow Flair extends his career to another day?"
The majority of us knew though, and we just wanted to be there for the ride. We wanted to be able to say where we were on the night when a legend finally hung up his boots. At the end of the night we simply wanted to be able to say that we witnessed the final match of possibly the greatest wrestler we'll see in our lifetime.
The match wasn't classic, you take the stigma and aura surrounding the bout and all you are left is with a decent match. Not the barn burner we chose to remember it as. We hold it so dear to our heart because of the moment and nothing can take that away from us. Nothing can cheapen what made that night and match a classic moment.
Unless that wasn't Flair's final match. Then that classic moment means dick. Who cares who Flair wrestled during his next to last match? So when Ric Flair laces up the boots and faces Hulk Hogan what legs does your moment have to stand on? I'd imagine none.
Day 62
So I was watching the Ultimate Fighter bout last night (yeah I missed the first airing and caught the rerun) and watched the Nelson/Slice fight. First let me say this, showing the world a more down to Earth Slice is a good thing and makes people want to relate to him.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Slice fan and think at his age and his range of skills that his career will be over before he has time to become a truly accomplished fighter. Deep down Kimbo has to know that too, yet he keeps going. He always seems eager to learn and is pretty humble which is nice to see. That's when it hit me. Why should we hate Kimbo?
As much as I don't respect his ability and enjoy seeing him taken out, I find myself feeling like a hypocrite. Kimbo is simply a man who loves to fight that was given a bigger stage to do it on. Should I be angry because he took the opportunity to do what he loves? Can I honestly say I wouldn't do the same? I can't, I simply can't. No matter how hard I try, I am unable to tell you that I wouldn't do the same thing in his shoes.
As a fellow family man I understand the responsibility to put food on the table. To be given the opportunity to do so while doing something you are passionate about is something most of us will never be able to say we've done. Yet for some reason we are angry? Angry that Slice does movies, television, and commercials. Maybe we felt that he cheated to get to the top, but did he really?
So Kimbo was able to leapfrog the part of most MMA fighter's careers where they spend years training, does that give him an advantage? When you think about it, it's actually quite the opposite. He now has to play catchup and train extra hard in order to try and be on the level of guys who have trained, and have put in the time.
The more I think about it, I don't know if I can ever be a fan of Kimbo Slice the fighter. Though I do know that I can respect Kevin Ferguson the man.
Day 63
Something has been in the back of my head lately, well a couple of things I suppose. First off, the World title has never changed hands inside of a Hell in a Cell match. What better why to change history as well as show people that the matches are still relevant than to have a title change. That beckons the question of which one?
On the Raw side something interesting has transpired. More times than not the Raw main event follows the simple formula of "whoever one ups their opponent on the Raw before the PPV will lose." Obviously it's not a fool proof plan, but it seems more times than not this is the case. That brings me to the treatment of Randy Orton. After being on such a hot streak it seems that Orton can simply do nothing right lately. Following his loss to Cena at "Breaking Point" he got squashed the next night by Batista. Keeping the trend rolling, he would most recently fall victim to a beating by John Cena in a situation in which Orton should have easily won.
Does that mean Orton is a lock? No, not necessarily but there is something else that stands out to me. This is Orton's "last chance" which of course means no more title shots while Cena is champ at least. While a storyline where Orton has completely hit rock bottom could be compelling what does it do for your show? Any way you slice it, Orton is the top heel on Raw and nobody else even comes close. So reducing your top heel to a top level jobber who can't fight for the title, greatly changes the dynamic of the show. While some may welcome the thought of change, who can you honestly say is ready to take over the reigns?
What I'm meaning to imply is that if Orton loses, where does Cena go next? Who is the next top level guy ready to get that main event shot? It's for this reason that I have to go with the Orton upset at Hell in a Cell. The funny thing is, if you had asked me who I thought would win a week ago I would have said Cena.
On the other side of the coin you have the World title, a belt that has been passed around for quite some time now. As obvious a pick as it would be to say that the Undertaker wins and avenges his loss, I think the decision is more complex. The fact of the matter is, the Undertaker's body doesn't have a lot left. He is entering that stage in his career where it's time to start putting over the next generation, and who better than CM Punk.
At some point in time somebody has to start to establish themselves as a legitimate World champion on Smackdown and why not start now. It's time to get past the transitional champion rut and finally bring prestige back to the belt. The only way to do that, is with a Punk win and Sunday that is just what will happen.
As always I am the Monkey and you've just seen the world through my eyes
Feel free to send all feedback to monkeyweasel9821@yahoo.com
