I still remember seeing K-Kwik wrestle in the WWF sometime around 2000 when DX had broken up, the New Age Outlaws had split and had their inevitable feud, and "The Road Dog" Jesse James was looking for a new tag team partner. After K-Kwik had wrestled a couple of single's matches, James' took him under his wing as his new "protege" and they were a tag team for what seems like only about a month.
According to Wikipedia, Killings defeated Raven for the Hardcore Title--and really, who didn't?-- early in 2001, so he was around longer than I remember, but he never made a major impact there. Actually, he never made an impact of any sort and he didn't make much of an impression on me, either. He wasn't too good; was just kind of a flippy rapper guy that the WWE brought in. He had a nice 450 splash, but there wasn't much to him.
Because of this, and the fact that I really only watched the WWF and at that time, his existence slipped my mind until the summer of 2002 when I watched a brand new wrestling promotion that was going by the name NWATNA. There I saw Brian Christopher--the former Grandmaster Sexy--engaged in a real garbage feud against a fellow by the name of K-Krush; a feud, might I add, that involved NASCAR drivers. Not too redneck, right?
Anyway, when I saw K-Kwik's existence had slipped my mind, I mean that it did so completely. When I saw the dude, I didn't remember I'd seen him before until Mike Tenay mentioned that he had used to be in the WWF as The Road Dog's tag team partner, which brought an "Oh yeah," from me. I can't say that I was any more impressed by the guy at that time, though I will concede performing against the selfish Brian Lawler doesn't help anyone.
About a month after TNA started, though, K-Krush was left behind forever, as Ron Killings emerged claiming that he was being held back by the man and being told who and what he had to be, and that he wasn't going to take it anymore. From there on out, he wasn't just going to tell the truth, he wasn't just going to be about the truth, he wasn't just going to live the truth, he was going to be the truth: Ron "The Truth" Killings.
In this new persona, Killings still used a lot of his old bag of tricks, but he also brought a new attitude that showed he was serious about being a professional wrestler and he was even the second man to hold the NWA World Title under the TNA banner, but then something insidious happened. He was booked to once again sublimate his real self as part of a stable called the 3 Live Kru, along with Konnan and his former running buddy James.
He still called himself "The Truth," but he was no longer that character and he instead went back to being a caricature for the next, what, 4 years? And it didn't really change upon his entrance into the WWE. He's still K-Kwik, just with a different name and it isn't doing him any favors. The guy's got talent, but it's hidden by a character that's never going to go anywhere. At this rate, he's a midcarder for life.
That's fine, I suppose. I think the guy's got world class talent that he's letting get hidden by a small minded gimmick, but a guy can make a nice living as a member of the WWE midcard, and at this stage in his career that steady paycheck is probably all important. That's understandable. But, if you're going to keep running with a gimmick that you know is holding you down, go all the way with it and take off the fucking vest when you're told to.
2. It's time to make the brand split mean something.
When it comes to the age that the WWE and most other entertainment companies look to as being the prime demographic, I'm definitely on the far verge. In a little under five months, I will have reached the magical number of 35 years and will be rolling toward that inevitable hill that marks the start of middle age; though I suppose you could also look at it in two other ways. The first is that we're always headed to that point from the moment we're born. The second is that the way medical technology is now middle age ain't what it used to be.
Nearing 35 shouldn't mean I'm irrelevant, though. I don't mean to get all philosophical on you guys, but sometimes I have to. I don't always think inside the box; in fact sometimes I forget that damned box is even there. That's just how I'm wired. I bring this all up for a couple of different reasons. We're all getting older every moment that we live, so it's always a good idea and never too late to seize the day. A lot of us are stuck in a rut in our lives where we can't do that, and I think it's especially true in the current economy.
But not the WWE, right? They're changing everything up to get out of the rut they've been in for about two years now. It seems like they're throwing everything at the wall and keeping a firm eye out to see if anything sticks; to see what's going to work to keep them afloat and you know what? Not much is right now, at least as far as I'm concerned. Oh, it's obvious that from a ratings standpoint the celebrity guest host thing is working pretty well, but creatively it isn't and the well will run dry sooner rather than later.
As a fan on the verge of entering into the less desirable 35-50 year old territory, but also a father of two children that are under the age of 15, I can tell you that there's been very few hosts so far that any of us have been excited about and a couple that made me want to fast forward every one of their segments. Seth Green was someone the kids were excited to see, because he was Oz on Buffy and created Robot Chicken; I was excited about Ben Roethlisburger because I think the guy is an awesome quarterback.
Other than those, though, I've been mostly bored to hell with the whole concept, and it doesn't help that the WWE has gone to a PG format this year. According to Vince McMahon, the reason for this is that they are following their audience and trying to reach out to them. Well, guess what? I'm part of their audience, you're part of their audience, and I don't think people in my age group really want to see an entirely PG product. Sure, they hooked me in with that style when I was younger; but my tastes have changed. Dexter's my favorite show, for Christ's sake!
Does that mean I think they should have a serial killer on their programming? I don't know, maybe. What I do know is that they've got three different brands they are running, plus a fourth show that includes matches from the other three. Why not differentiate those brands up? RAW is their flagship show that they are intent on making more about entertainment than about wrestling and it is also the show that reaches the most viewers and upon which they have their biggest stars, so why not have that one be the PG entry for the brand?
Smackdown, meanwhile, can be the show for the adults. The show where anything can happen, and everything is about the wrestling. I hypothesized making Smackdown a dark show before, and they came close but then veered away. They've already been mentioning drug use, they have four gangstas on the show, and The Undertaker is stating he started a reign of darkness, so it really isn't that big of a stretch to move to more adult storylines there and have each of the two major brands be distinct in a way other than one having a glass ceiling.
What would this mean for ECW? I don't know; it really isn't even ECW anyway, and if it is the "E" isn't for extreme anymore. What is it for, then? Maybe the abbreviation is for Entertainment Classroom Wrestling. ECW only exists to further the WWE brand and give guys that aren't ready for the other shows a chance to develop and catch on while doing so. I'm not saying the show doesn't serve a purpose, but they never had that sort of show before and they seemed to do alright without it, so maybe they should just drop it and stop bastardizing the name.
All of this leads, of course, to merging the ECW wrestlers into the other two rosters and then separating out the pay per views, as well. I think you can have ppvs that contain both PG and mature elements, but not on a monthly basis. I'd prefer they only had 5 ppvs per year, but I don't think that's going to happen, so I think they should go back to the alternating format, while having the original four be multibrand and offer something for everyone. That's the way they can reach all of their audience; not just the ones with no money of their own.
3. TNA needs to get themselves some Indians.
I ain't trying to be derogatory; I know those people like to call themselves Native Americans nowadays, but I really don't give a fuck. I was born in this country, too, so if that doesn't make me a native American, what does? What, because you capitalize a letter, all of a sudden you change the meaning of the phrase? Columbus may have been idiotic enough to think he'd landed at the West Indies when he was actually "discovering" the place Amerigo Vespucci was many years earlier, but why try to change the name centuries later?
Besides, there's really no such thing as a "Native American" by the definition they're trying to push. Were their ancestors here before the European emigrants? Of course, but they are believed to have arrived via an isthmus; not to have originated here. All this politically correct crap that the media and the...wait for it...politicians try to push is just meant to keep us divided. There are too many names for populations in this country. I don't call myself a Polish American; I call myself an American.
Huh. I guess I still have a lot of anger inside me and I went off on a little rant tangent that could turn off 80% of my readership. Still, my point holds, even if it's a bit off topic. The whole thing is here that TNA seems to have too many chiefs right now. What the hell is going on there, and how in the world is the company going to last if--to mix metaphors--they keep letting the inmates run the asylum or all these cooks spoiling the broth that apparently keeps boiling the fuck over?
I never thought I'd say this, but maybe Jeff Jarrett wasn't the problem in that organization after all; maybe he was the glue that held everything together, because it sure seems like things have gone to hell ever since he was suspended indefinitely for unprofessional misconduct of some kind. I wonder if we'll ever know if he did anything worthy of the distinction , or if sleeping with the wife of the promotion's top star qualifies him for that alone. Look at what has happened since he's been away, though.
Here's the list: Jim Cornette apparently threw a fit backstage about the way some of the talent was being used and was let go. He has now signed on to be the television producer for ROH which really is TNA's truest competitor, no matter how they view themselves, so that hurts. Booker T reportedly politicked himself out of wrestling a match he was scheduled to lose and ended up wrestling in a different match that night instead. And now reports surface that Foley did something similar, causing a match to have to be retaped.
I ask again: What the hell is going on there? Clearly there is a lack of direction backstage and if Vince Russo and his coterie are allowed to continue in power unchecked, there's going to be disastrous consequences. Do I think they should bring Jarrett back? Compared to what has gone on over the last few weeks, I don't think his addition could be any worse for the locker room than letting these cancers run rampant. Personally, I believe that Foley truly was trying to make the story better, but the others? Doubtful.
Vince Russo has never been a great booker. His strength was always his productivity of creativity. He had so many ideas that a few of them were bound to be good. The dude needs a filter, though. TNA's television product has been damned good the last six months or so, but something appears to have fallen apart backstage and it's only so long before that's going to trickle into what we see on Impact! or the pay per views. Talent should be able to come to the creative team with ideas, but that team can't be afraid to tell them "no." In fact, that's probably what their response should be most of the time.
4. John Cena should lose at Bragging Rights.
Remember, folks, this thing I do is called "Seven Things I Think I Think This Week." Well, right now, what I think I think is that John Cena should move to Smackdown, where Batista just went, but I may feel very differently next week; I just don't know. Who knows how true the Punk doghouse rumors are? Smackdown has been so hot since Backlash, but if these "lack of respect" stories have a large amount of truth to them, we may be seeing Punk's de-escalation right before our eyes and a new Batista/Undertaker program that no one drools for.
If you add Cena into the mix over there, you pretty much turn the show into RAW Fridays now, though hopefully still with more wrestling. It's a move that I don't want to see; especially long term, but at the same time...Batista isn't going to hold out forever. His history is such that you can't ever count on him to stay healthy, so maybe having a quick program between he and Taker is the best bet; that way at least you get what could be a good drawing feud in before the Tister is on the shelf again.
I don't know what the WWE is thinking, because who among us can really ever know that? However, as much as I hate the thought, that's probably a logical way to go, though I think a more logical way to go is to just assume that Dave's already done the best he ever will and that it's time to invest in the new star you've been building up for over a year and a half. Punk's time to shine is now. Maybe he'll get to, maybe he won't. And we won't know until we see what happens at Bragging Rights...maybe later.
So, does Cena fit on Smackdown? With Batista there, I really don't see how he would right now, but at the same time, I don't see where he'd go for a feud on RAW for the WWE Title. If Orton loses the match, he doesn't get another title shot, but who steps up? Swagger isn't ready, neither is the Miz. Jerishow are the tag champs, and who really wants to see another Big Show/Cena feud, anyway? I don't think either McGuinness or Danielson are going to walk right into a title shot, and he's already owned both members of Legacy.
However, what if at least one member of Legacy is the next contender for the WWE Title, but against Orton rather than Cena? While I don't buy the theory that Ted Dibiase needs to turn just because he's going to be in some dumb straight-to-dvd movie, it's become apparent that being with Orton has done nothing to help either he or Rhodes. Meanwhile, during their series against DX, Cody Rhodes has become a star, and Dibiase isn't far behind. Now with Legacy apparently headed toward fracture, maybe Orton can finally help get them over.
Now, following the rule that some people seem to for football teams, maybe Rhodes and Dibiase shouldn't have a chance against Orton either in this hypothetical main event situation. After all, if Cena beat the hell out of both Dibiase and Rhodes and Orton beat Cena, then why would either of Legacy have a chance against Orton? Simple. Rhodes and Dibiase have raised their game to another level. They look like future world champions now instead of the elephant fodder they were 90 days ago.
I think Legacy should split for the simple reason that with DX's help, the stable has served its purpose. Rhodes and Dibiase are ready to be stars without being under the "guidance" of Orton, and from what went down on RAW, their characters are starting to rebel against him. It would be an intriguing story-- if done correctly. For this reason alone, it makes the most sense of any possibility out there. What other challenger is capable of holding our interest? Kofi? I like the guy, but I think not. It's time for a Legacy to be fulfilled.
5. I'd love to see Shawn Michaels get one last main event run.
Yesterday, I received this feedback from Andy:
"Wow, Xan, I am completely surprised at the ommision of Shawn Michaels from your list of people who could challenge Randy Orton next. You named The Big Shit, and Swagger, yet didn't mention HBK. We all know that DX aren't going to be together for much longer, and they have a good enough reason to split after their Legacy deal is done, so is Michaels not the ideal candidate?
Triple H can be occupied by mid-carders and maybe even a feud with DiBiase could serve both men well. IF DiBiase is put over, he can walk straight into a feud with Orton. Or do you just not think Michaels is the right man to fill the position. I know you're a fan..."
I am, of course, a fan of Shawn Michaels, and this is in response to my column yesterday when I suggested that John Cena should move to Smackdown to clear the way for Legacy to battle amongst themselves for the WWE Title. I haven't been in the mood to sit down and write The Northern Star lately, and I try to keep these daily columns at seven paragraphs; sometimes I fail, but that's always the intent, and sometimes in order to accomplish this goal, I leave out something. In this case, I chose to ignore both HBK and Triple H.
I try to read one main page column per day in addition to Doc Monk's blog and I haven't gotten to Joe's case about HBK being overrated, but I've read similar comments from him before. Still, as much as I respect Joe's opinion overall, I'll never agree with him about Rey Mysterio--especially against large opponents--and while I'll read the argument and keep an open mind, I doubt that my opinion of Michaels is going to be changed. I had hard feelings about the Montreal Incident for quite a while, but still had tears in my eyes when he retired.
Do I think Shawn Michaels is the perfect wrestler? No, I don't. There are things about him that I do not like. Off the top of my head writing today, I can think of three things that I don't like about Shawn Michaels: 1) He uses a flying elbow drop as a set-up move. 2) He stomps his feet to let his opponent know he's coming before attempting the Sweet Chin Music. 3) He apparently refuses to be a heel. I say "apparently," because I don't know what goes on backstage, but it's my belief that he won't do it due to a contrast with his beliefs.
Do those three things affect him as a performer? Of course they do. The first two take something away from the believability of his matches and the third makes it seem like there's never a chance that he won't be the good guy; which really is only a weakness for the "smart fans." I doubt the promotion's target audience gives a shit about it at all. We aren't meant to do what we do, folks, but we do it anyway, because we care about the intricacies of the art form we watch, and in so doing we make ourselves both more and less than fans.
From the perspective of an average fan sitting in the audience, Shawn Michaels is probably pretty close to being the perfect hero, and that counts for a heck of a lot. So yeah, while I'd love to see a heel turn and a nice run in that mode as WWE Champion, I really don't expect the change to occur; especially not any time soon. Still, I think Michaels is deserving of one more title reign, reagardless of in which status his character is. Face or heel, faults or no, he's a tremendous world class performer that should get the belt again.
That doesn't necessarily mean it should happen right now, however. Andy states that we know that the DX thing isn't going to last much longer, and to that, I say, "Really? How do we know that?" DX is probably the biggest short-term draw in wrestling now that Hulk Hogan and Steve Austin are out of it and they've only had one feud since their return. My hope is that Triple H's promo with Jerishow on Monday wasn't just a one-off and that we're going to end up seeing a feud between those two teams before DX separates amicably again.
If the separation isn't amicable, I hope it's Michaels that turns on Hunter instead of the other way around, hopefully leading to a blow-off between the two at Mania and a Michaels title run shortly after. If Michaels doesn't turn heel, hopefully he'll get his title shot at Mania. The point is that right now is not the time for that; both members of Legacy are on the verge of breaking out with a lot of credit for that going to DX, and to waste their efforts and the momentum at this time would be absurd. So, today Legacy, eventually the Kid.
6. I'm afraid I don't have a Flair for the old.
As a fan of the San Francisco 49ers, it was painful to watch when there became a quarterback controversy. If you look only at statistics, right now one would have to say that Brett Favre is the greatest quarterback of all time, but I'll never believe that to be true. To me, it will always be Joe Montana, who won four Superbowls for my beloved team. But, in 1993 he was traded to the Kansas City Chiefs because as good as Joe Cool was, he was no longer as good as his heir apparent and it was time for Steve Young to take the reins.
As painful as it was to have both quarterbacks on the team and see the animosity that developed between master and protege, it was even sadder for me when he was traded away and was no longer part of the team that he was a major part of making a power in the NFL. When that happened, and the Niners ended up playing the Chiefs during Montana's second season there, I was rooting for Joe to do well, but for my team to beat him. It ended up that the Chiefs squeaked by with a victory by a touchdown.
It ended up that the Niners got the last laugh, because they did end up winning their 5th Superbowl under Steve Young, while Montana only took the Chiefs to the AFC Championship game, but there are never really any winners in a split filled with that kind of animosity. Still, will I remember that Joe Montana finished his career in a jersey other than that of the San Francisco 49ers? Apparently I will, because here it is nearly 15 years later, and I haven't forgotten about it, but I'll still cherish his contributions to my team.
I feel much the same way about Michael Jordan. I'm not really much of an NBA fan, because I hate the rules, the three point line is too short, the court is too short for the length of the players, and if you go to see a game live, it's more about the entertainment than the play. Thecollege game is the most pure version of the sport and is the one that really bears watching; if it wasn't for Jordan's amazing ability, I may never have given a damn about the pros. Jordan pulled me in and had me cheering for the Bulls, but when he came out of retirement to play for the Wizards it was another sad sports day for me.
These men may always be remembered for their outstanding careers as leaders of the teams with which they played the majority of their careers , but there will always be a taint on their legacies because they moved on to other teams. Joe Montana is still largely considered the greatest quarterback of all time and Jordan is almost universally acknowledged as the greatest basketball player, and no doubt sports history will record their accomplishments as such, but that's for the future. Fans that watched them are going to recall how they went out.
Neither football nor basketball are my favorite sport, though; professional wrestling is, even if it isn't considered one. Now two legends are coming out of retirement as Ric Flair is apparently joining in on Hulk Hogan's oversees tour, and I feel even sadder about that than I do about Montana or Jordan. Ric Flair is a 16 time World Champion who a lot of people think is the greatest wrestler ever, while without the boom that Hulk Hogan helped create I may never have become a fan of the sport of kings.
Now because both are broke, Hogan's doing a tour and Flair is negating the beautiful storyline he went out on. Flair says Vince McMahon has told him to "go for it," and Jim Ross asks in his blog who loses. Everyone does, don't they? I have Flair's dvd sets--all three of them--and I'd like to get Hogan's some day, but right now I can't think of them as anything more than has-beens. Maybe history will tell the tale of how great they both were in their own ways, but my memory of that is forever clouded, and I bet yours is, too.
They reportedly both need the money because of bad decisions in their personal lives and squandering of everything they ever earned, as well as the women they had pledged their lives, too. It's all very tragic. There are people out there that hate these men for different reasons, but no matter which way you slice it, they are icons of the sport; maybe the only two real icons there ever have been, regardless of what TNA says about Sting and what HBK says about himself. By the time their careers actually end, that number may be down to zero.
7. Today wrestling, tomorrow entertainment, Monday the world.
HOLY FUCKING SHIT! That was my first reaction to reading the news yesterday, and I bet it was yours, too. In fact, I texted those very words to my wife directly after reading the news item, and when my wife asked me what, I sent back "Shane McMahon retired from WWE." Guess what she replied back to me. No, seriously. Go ahead, guess. I'll wait. Still waiting. I'm not going to keep typing until you guess. Fuck, this isn't working!
Fine, you win. Thanks for being such a poor sport about it. I don't know if I've ever been more disappointed in you than I am right now. I'm shaking my head in disbelief that you couldn't just make a guess instead of reading on. I guess that's what I get for trying to make something interactive in a completely written format. Anyway, enough whining. No! Not by you, by me. Geez! What she replied with was, "Holy shit!"
I'm sure all of you thought the same thing and had your jaws drop down in shock, and I'm equally sure that a lot of you started forming speculation in your heads that Shane had had a falling out with his father or his sister or his brother-in-law, because why else would he leave a multi-million(or is it still billion?)dollar company with which he was set for life? Surely he didn't actually want to pursue future endeavors!
Turns out that maybe he did. I have no idea how good Shane McMahon was in his backstage role for the WWE, but I certainly have been worried that the WWE isn't going to last once Vince steps down or dies. Sure, they obviously aren't doing gangbusters right now and more often than not are out of touch with their audience, but I've never been convinced that the children can keep it afloat, much less get it to thrive again.
Turns out that may end up being the job of just one child and a child-in-law. I guess we'll see what happens. In the meantime, though, we have a McMahon running for United States Senator from the state of Connecticut and another leaving their company to help her. Maybe this is just the middle of a great American story. Regardless of who's running it, nothing ever lasts forever. Shit occurs, dreams fade, and corporations crumble.
New Yorker staff writer Malcolm Gladwell was on Pardon The Interruption yesterday talking about a study on concussions and how, even as a football fan, he feels that within 10 to 15 years, there may not be an NFL, because as more and more parents find out about the affects of playing he believes any self-respecting one is going to encourage their child to do something else rather than risk serious head injury or early dementia.
Speculation? Sure, but boxing was once the largest sport in the U.S. and it happened there, so why couldn't it happen to football? Point being that failure can happen anywhere. If the WWE fails, though, maybe that's okay, because the family will already have branched into something else. Maybe political success for Linda will one day lead to the President of the United States being Aurora Rose Levesque.
Think it can't happen? Really? In this society? Then you must never have heard of Ronald Reagan. I don't think I've ever seen the dude act in a movie, but that's where he started. Then he became governor of California; later POTUS. I still remember that being the final straw for Doc Brown not believing Marty in Back to the Future. Folks, if you think the WWE has to be the end game for this American family, I just have thing to say to you: Don't be so gullible, McFly.
