|
|
|
|
|
Submitted by Xan on Sunday, October 16, 2005 at 4:18 PM EST
  When I started writing columns a couple of years ago, the X-Change is the column that first got me notice as an innovator in column writing, and was probably the first work I did that I got universal praise for. Basically, it's a chance for another member of LOP, usually another columnist, though not always, to argue a topic back and forth. I started it as a section of my first column, known as "Putting the X in Wrestling", and when I began writing The Northern Star, it soon became its own column and I wrote both concurrently. Lately, these things have been few and far between, but I hope to make this a somewhat regular feature. I will probably have The X-Change in The Star once every 4-6 weeks, with different guest debators each time. For the record, this is actually the second X-Change to appear on the Main Page. For a while, I handed over the reigns to Winter and he handed them back to me in an episode of his former column "Let it Snow." Just thought I'd acknowledge a former comrade before introducing a current one: This week, my guest is none other than the author of Take Up Thy Wrestling Boots and Walk and the founder of The Wrestling Fans Hall of Fame. I am speaking, of course, of Pt2. Xan: Pete, there's been some interesting things going on with championships lately. After the U.S. Title meaning basically nothing for the majority of 2005, we've seen Chris Benoit dominating Orlando Jordan to retain it, building the strap up each and every time. Cena just defended his championship against Eric Bischoff. The NWA World Title seemingly got shit on when Jarrett won it back in a house show. Are championships still important? Pt2: Ah, a topic that's pretty close to my heart. Part of me wants to scream from the highest mountain that I can find that the championships are the most important part of wrestling and an integral part of selling the show - thats the way I remember it and still see it at times. Unfortunately, I'm a realist at heart, and despite my heady optimism surrounding championships that has lasted for years, eventually as a realist you have to accept that they don't mean what they once did anymore. WCW never managed to get their world title to mean much, and the WWF abandoned the IC title's prestige in favour of light entertainment in the attitude era. Even the people making these decisions know that Championships are handy things to have around, they can help guys and all that jazz, but no, I don't think Championships are anywhere near as important now as they were ten years ago or longer. Xan: You know, I kind of feel the same way, and yet...without his championship run would I still love JBL the way I do? I love the way that he picked up the ball and ran with it after Eddie Guerrero's reign fizzled for whatever reason and Lesnar quit. Without his championship run over those 10 months Smackdown would have been unbearable. But now the belt that he raised so high has moved over to RAW and the current champ just isn't doing that great a job with it. Jericho's desire made the belt feel special, but now it seems like that strap is just a prop in a tug of war between Eric Bischoff and John Cena. On the other brand, I'm hopeful that Eddie Guerrero will win the World Title from Batista at Survivor Series, because he's an unstoppable monster and there's no drama. They've made him look like it would take Garth from Knight Rider to beat him, and while that can have the tendency to make the championship look strong, I think here it makes the championship boring. Add in Jeff Jarrett regaining the NWA World Title, and you've got three major championships that need a serious exit out of Rutville. Pt2: No doubt, some of these belts really do need a major overhaul. But the problem is I really don't see it happening. With the exception of HHH and to a much lesser degree Chris Benoit, over the past couple of years the people holding the championships right up to the major championships have never really felt like champions. Whether it's the way they are booked, or one of the 700 other factors that people put forward about wrestlers today, Cena, Batista, Orton, none of them have really given off that vibe that champions like The Rock used to. As you say, JBL really managed to take advantage of his run at the top of the card and became a much bigger star than he'd ever been before, to the point where it's even been said that he saved Smackdown single handed. But even he doesn't have the same starpower, that same aura, that je ne sais quoi that champions had. It's quite easy for good wrestlers to carry belts that are over and keep them over. It takes a much better worker to acquire a strap thats been dragged through the mud, and make it seem special again. I look at the three belts you mentioned - and then I look at the rosters, and the men likely to be given the ball. And I don't see them being able to do it. There's going to be no quick solution to this. And since you mention Batista, I'll throw this in for good measure. The semi-undefeatable monster route is the way to go with him. You don't really want him getting the crap kicked into him and going after the sympathy vote when he's the size that he is. It'd be like trying to get King Kong Bundy and Big John Studd to play as a "face in peril" tag team. But as much as the Batista push is the right way to go, he should have dropped the belt by now. There's only so long you can push it without revenge being the next logical step in the storyline. Otherwise he'll just fade. Xan: As far as I'm concerned, he's fading already. I loved the build-up for his title win, and I loved the match against Hunter at Mania, but everything since then has been very "bleh". As I think I already said(gettin' old), I felt it was a bad move to switch the champions to other shows because it destroyed everything they have accomplished, but I think it was worse for Batista because there just isn't anybody left on Smackdown roster that looks like credible opposition. If RVD, Angle, and the Big Show had stayed over there, I think they would have all been believable challengers even for the superman he's been built to be, but Booker T, Eddie Guerrero, and Christian? Please. Nothing against any of the three, but they just don't look like they could topple Batista as he's currently booked. With that being the case, there's really no one for us to doubt he'll beat, thus any intrigue is lost. Honestly, I think Randy Orton felt like a champion for the month he was, mainly because of the fanfare he received the very next night on RAW, but for the most part, you're right and it's not just for the major championships. Shelton Benjamin was Intercontinental Champion for 8 months and a day, and for the most part it felt like they were treating the strap as an adornment. I didn't even know that Paul London lost the CW title until recently, did you? And Orlando Jordan was barely visible as U.S. Champ after he beat Cena for it. None of the titles feel important, although the tag straps are starting to make a comeback. I think the WWF has guys that can make those titles really mean something again, despite your claim that there's no quick solution to it. How about these men: Chris Jericho. Yes, I still regard his reign as first ever Undisputed WWF Champion as the worst ever, but he's grown up a lot since then, and in his feud against Cena he made the title feel more important than anything else; something only Triple H has managed to do recently. Couple that with his ability to make anyone look like gold and I think you've got the makings of a man that can elevate the company [i]and[/i] the title. Eddie Guerrero. Another man who's first title reign failed, but there's a lot more for him to work with now. Taker's back, he could re-feud with Mysterio down the line, Benoit and Booker T are strong options for good programs with him, and so is Christian. He may not be able to be a huge star, but he will certainly get the latino viewers and he'll build the World Title more than Batista can. Not that that's saying much, of course. And then, of course, you've got the two "special attraction" wrestlers in The Big Show and Rey Mysterio. I really think the WWF missed the boat in cutting Goldberg's title reign short, because I think he could have become Hogan v. 2 if given a chance to really run with it, but alas... As far as TNA is concerned, I think there are also options there. Clearly Jarrett's out the window, and it's hard to tell how far they're going to push anyone else, but the three guys that come to mind for me with that organization are AJ Styles, Chris Harris, and Ron Killings, who are all caught up in the non-heavyweight title divisions right now. Pt2: I don't see Jericho getting the belt. I'm a big Jericho fan, but I just don't see a title reign in the near future for Chris. Definitely should always be a main event player but I'm not convinced that the guys with the power feel the same. Guerrero isn't the right man to fix a belt's image, I don't think. We all remember what happened in his last title reign, and that was when he captured the title at the apex of his popularity. It was all downhill from there. While I think he's one of the only other contenders for the title, Guerrero is in a weaker position to have a succesful championship reign than his first, and while he may prefer working as a heel, I don't see a Batista vs. Guerrero feud offering much - they don't seem like great foils for the other to play off. Batista and Hunter worked well on that score, and to a lesser degree, Batista vs. JBL seems to just about plod along, but Batista vs. Guerrero? Skillful booking needed to bring those two together and make it good, nevermind good enough to rescue the title. TNA is in a slightly different boat. They've just got onto Spike TV in the states, I believe, and they need to start harvesting a star, someone to lead them on these first few months and bring in the audience. Without that franchise player, that identifiable figure, they'll do much worse than with one. Imagine the the WWF in 1998 sans Steve Austin if you aren't sure why I believe that. Originally I thought AJ Styles, because he has the history of being the man at the top of the TNA card whose already gone out and proved their popularity, but I worry over his charisma, so instead I say they should focus their efforts on "The Truth" Ron Killings. With the exception of Raven, Killings is the closest thing they have to a total package. Xan: I agree. Ron Killings is definitely one of the best TNA's got, and he is their total package. Only one thing stands in the way of Killing becoming a major star. Not one thing, one man. Booker T. While I feel that TNA has the capability of putting on the better product--Bound for Glory looks far better than either of the WWF's last two offerings--they are undoubtedly viewed by most fans, IWC and casual fans alike, as the "B" league, or even "C" league, depending on how you view the split between RAW and Smackdown. I would say at least 99% of wrestling fans will have seen Booker T perform before they see Ron Killings, and the similarities are startling. First, let's state the exceedingly obvious. They're both youngish black men. Next, they both have cornrows. Most importantly, they have very similar move-sets. While Killings puts more flash into his moves than Booker does, he still uses a lot of the same kicks and they both use break-dancing as part of their characters. At this point, I don't see any way for TNA to avoid wrestling fans viewing Killings as the minor league version of Booker T, so he's probably only ever going to be a transitional champion for them, not the guy to carry the ball. And haven't you watched all the TNAs? I would have thought for sure you had, with the wrestling channel being free over there and all. Apparently you haven't because you say AJ's been the man "at the top of the TNA card". Are you fucking kidding me? The guy's had 3 reigns. The first one was decent in length, but horribly executed, including a double-turn with Jarrett the night he won the thing. His other two reigns have totaled something like 9 weeks. The guy has never been given a serious shot at carrying the big strap for the promotion as a babyface. A spot at which I believe he now has the tools to succeed. But, Chris Harris is still my pick at being their best guy to be a major break-out star, just as he has been for the previous 18 months. However, right now he's in an unavoidable angle being Jarrett's lackey and in a feud against the Dudleys/Deadlies/3D, which I, among other fans, have been drooling over for 2 years+. How about Abyss? He could be an interesting champion for them, though I do think the strap should end up on Raven sooner than later. How about we throw another thing into the mix. Do you think the WWF has too many midcard titles? If so, which should be dropped? And how would you feel about TNA adopting its own midcard championship? Pt2: Clarification time: AJ Styles may not have been at the top of the card all the time, but when he was at the top of the card he established themselves, and whenever anyone has needed to take the belt from Jarrett, AJ has stepped up from whatever he has been doing and been the man to do it. Recently that seems to have been toned down a little, but AJ Styles is the one man they seemed to make their star. And no, I haven't been watching all the TNA's. Free as they may be, I don't have access to the wrestling channel while at University, and have to make do with it in the summer months and around holidays - combine that with TNA's occasionally "eclectic" booking, something I'm informed has been toned down since Rhodes left their creative team, and often it was hard to have a clue what was going on. I do intend to keep following it as best I can though. See my previous comments about my ability to view TNA regularly when I say regarding Chris Harris and Abyss, I reserve judgement until I have more chance to see them. I will say that the Harris I saw in AMW was pretty impressive. Regarding midcard titles..... lets see. Start with the TNA one, because this is perhaps the more tricky. I say yes. If they want to keep the X Division championship on a par with the Heavyweight championship, then they will need to establish a midcard championship and place the X-D title on a higher billing, because otherwise there is a massive risk that any fans joining the TNA Flock from their new network move could be influenced by the presentation of a lighter weight championship in both WCW and the WWF, as second fiddle to the heavier divisions - adding another championship on a lower billing could possibly prevent that. Now for the WWE, I say no, based purely on working things through. There's only two specific midcard championships. OK, they treat the tag titles, cruiserweight belt and the womens title as if they were midcard belts, but lets be honest, they are all division specific, whereas the only two midcard titles for the majority of the roster in singles competitions are The Intercontinental and United States championships. One per brand. And we tried these shows without Midcard titles, and remember how much we clamoured to have them back then. Xan: I believe that there are too many titles on each show in the WWF. I love both the Intercontinental and United States Titles, and they've actually been my overall favorites in all my years watching pro wrestling. You're right, we have tried the shows without midcard titles, and it really is weird to watch the shows without them. I think both of those titles belong, and I love the respect both of them have been getting the last couple of months. It's strange the way those straps have been treated over the last couple of years, though, don't you think? Randy Orton won the Intercontinental Title from Rob Van Dam in December of 2003 and held it until, I believe, June of 2004, when he lost it to Edge, who was stripped of the title due to injury. Jericho won the strap in a ladder match against Christian, then lost it at Taboo Tuesday against Shelton Benjamin who held it for over 8 months before losing it to Carlito, who barely defended it over the last couple of months before losing to Flair. With this victory, the Nature Boy became the second man in history to hold every major championship in both the WWF and NWA/WCW, which I don't think has been mentioned on WWF TV, and now is embroiled in what's likely to be a main event feud against The Game. How interesting would it be if the I-C Title were to change hands between the only two active men with 10+ World Championships? The attention this feud will get can do nothing but elevate the Intercontinental Title back towards the status it had when I first became a fan. Meanwhile, Chris Benoit is the perfect man to be holding the United States Title right now. Despite the lack of attention Shelton Benjamin received while holding the I-C Title, he was defending it nearly every week on RAW and was very visible as champ. Even if Ross and Lawler didn't talk about it often, it was still clear who was holding the title. In fact, Benjamin just doesn't look right without that strap around his waist anymore. However, the U.S. Title has gone through a two periods in its short WWF existence where it was easy to forget it even existed, much less who held it. The Cena/Booker T best of 5 series last summer should have raised the strap's importance, but all the matches managed to suck, so nothing was gained by the feud. However, Benoit's World Title resume, complete destruction of Orlando Jordan, and victory over Jordan, Booker, and Christian at No Mercy are helping to bring prestige to the strap for the first time since Eddie Guerrero lost it to the Big Show back in September or October of 2003. So, those belts should stay. However, I'm very much in favor of both the Cruiserweight Title and Women's Championship going away. The Women's Title was ignored for 3 months or so while Trish Stratus was out with an injury. We all lived through it, and with only 3 actual women now on the roster, why keep it around? It's not like they really need an excuse to show us eye candy. That's been proven on Smackdown with their very compelling food fights and such, and hell, with JR bitching about fans voting the bra and panties match the worst of the show, why not get rid of it all together? Aren't the fans trying to tell them something by that vote? As for the cruisers? Well, from what my wife tells me, Nunzio defended the CW Title against Juvi at No Mercy, but since I haven't watched the match yet, I have no idea who the champ even is right now, and before then when was the last time the cruiser champ was on a PPV or even on a Smackdown? Yeah, they just added Spanky(yay) and my boy, James "Noble" Gibson, but as far as I'm concerned, it's too little, too late. As for TNA, I see what you mean by adding the midcard title to make the X Title mean more, but I'd just like to point out two things. The first is that the X-division isn't about weight limits, it's about no limits. Yes, that's a slogan, and just about every man to hold the strap has been a light-heavyweight, but it's also true. The man who should be the top contender for whoever is the X Champ after Bound For Glory, Samoa Joe, weighs in at 260 lbs. and if he does become X Champ, like I believe he will, it will be hard for the viewer to see that title as a cruiser strap. The second thing is that Impact is only a one hour show, and with the difficulty TNA is having in getting the best guys on their show even every two weeks(Samoa Joe and World Tag Champs, The Naturals have yet to wrestle in the first two weeks on Spike TV), they're going to have a helluva time featuring another championship. So, while I'm in favor of a midcard title for the organization, preferably the re-instating of the Mid-Atlantic Heavyweight Championship from NWA days gone by, I think it should wait until they are able to secure a second hour for their program. Pt2: Well, we've got two choices here: We can either argue about the definition of a mid-card title, or we can agree. Because frankly I wouldn't shed a tear at the loss of either the Cruiserweight or Women's championships either. But, yeah, they really are more division specific than midcard... But anyway, onto the more interesting point. Whether the TNA X-D really is about "no limits" or whether it is a slogan or not, Xan, I know you are a realist, and you know as well as I do that if a division is mostly lightweights, people who tune into TNA who aren't long term fans are going to view it as a secondary division, through the prejudices they soak up from exposure to WWE and WCW programming. I see your point about Samoa Joe. He can probably pick up that X-D title and carry it well enough to knock down some of the assumptions people would otherwise have come in with.... however, that said, he'll need to be given a decent run, because Chris Sabin vs. CM Punk, as good as it'll be (Hail Sabin), will scream lightweight title at a TNA Newbie. Your point about needing a second hour is probably a good one. Though, with a slightly more old school perspective, you could progress with four divisions in one hour a week. But it certainly isn't ideal, no. Back to the presentation of the IC title and US title over the past few years.... yeah, it's pretty odd. Sometimes they look like hallowed, prestigious belts, and other times they may as well be props from a school play. I remember when Cena dropped the US title, it'd been on a great run, held by some really solid champions who established it as a belt to hold (and even if he didn't defend it too often, I maintain that having a guy like the Big Show holding the title was a good move, because it instantly adds credibility), and then.... I don't know. I don't remember too much of Orlando Jordan's reign to be honest. It just seemed to happen. Then they put it on one of the more popular wrestlers in the company, ex-world heavyweight champion Chris Benoit. Not the most consistent work. Xan: Going back to what you felt was the most interesting point, which will also likely be our last topic, I don't think Total Nonstop Action does anything the same as what any other major company has done in the past. They let their wrestlers wrestle for other promotions, when they first started out they promoted their cruisers above everything else, they are the first and only organization to hold weekly pay per views, and, of course, there are the innovations they've used including the six-sided ring. Extreme Championship Wrestling made a name for itself by going in a direction neither WCW or the WWF had gone in at the time. Total Nonstop Action is doing the same thing, but in a different way. Instead of going in a hard-core direction(which they do sometimes, don't get me wrong), they've gone in the direction of innovations and focusing more on wrestling than on storylines. As part of this strategy, they've done an excellent job of making all of the divisions feel of the same importance; even on their first two Spike TV episodes of Impact! Sure, as I mentioned earlier the tag champs haven't appeared yet, but they did spend considerable time developing the AMW/Team 3D feud, along with equal time for the World Title and X divisions. I see what you're saying about the WWF influence causing a cognitive disonance in fans, but I think the bookers have done a pretty good job of setting up preventive measures for this. For instance, they don't always have the World Title match, or the match involving the World Champion,as the main event of the show. America's Most Wanted faced Triple X in a Six Sides of Steel Match to close one PPV and their most recent event had what some are calling the match of the year, AJ Styles vs. Christopher Daniels vs. Samoa Joe at its apex. I think mixing things up like this, making sure that you have the best match on the card as the main event no matter the division will help establish the new way they are trying to get fans to look at wrestling. They really are trying to be an alternative, despite their stupid re-sets every time they get a new deal. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if either the Monster's Ball or the 30-minute IronMan match for the X-division Title are the main event at Bound For Glory. Pt2: TNA, with the right man at the helm, has pushed on and tried to do things a little differently. Occasionally, someone gets the book and things go a little downhill (I'm not going to name any names, but TNA fans will have one or two slightly more old school bookers in their heads right about now), and not only does the sense of it as an alternative die down, but also the overall show quality. And both are essential. Especially now they have finally made it onto a major network and blah blah blah all the usual. They do offer an alternative, and they have, in the past, made it clear that they are an alternative - but they can't think that the hard work is done now. I love most of the TNA that I've seen, but there are times when I think that perhaps a little more stability wouldn't go amiss - and if you were to couple the previous times in the past where storylines have tended to wander almost aimlessly with a new audience that comes in with preconceived notions, your not going to keep them coming in. In short, I guess my argument is this: TNA has made a pretty decent name for itself on being the alternative - but the shows have to be so strong at the moment to make the most of this improved audience, that it can't hurt playing it safe and making sure that they get everything they can out of their major strengths - which are the X-D, and an approach to professional wrestling that you can't find anywhere else. If they can maximise their strengths and display them to the new generation of viewers, then they can be players. If they fail to do that, and many more casual fans don't buy it, then without their version of the nWo angle or their Steve Austin figure, TNA will always be also rans. And as a fan of the TNA I've seen, and wrestling generally, I really do hope they do make the most of it. Xan: Well said, my friend. I echo those sentiments with vigor. Thanks for taking some time out. I'll catch you later in the next TUTWBAW. Daniel writes: Hey, Just wanted to say that I love the column, and my favorite one to date was the X100, that one was pure genoius! But I noticed that in the X100, you ranked Tajiri at #54, then Again at #71. I just want to know what is tajiris actuall number and who will replace him! Thanks Daniel I'm glad you love it, Daniel and I appreciate the "genius" label. I've been called a legend before, but never a genius. Much appreciated. Also, if you like the X 100, hopefully you also liked the X-Change, though Pt2 and I were nicer to each other than these things can get. Next week I will be trying something else out I've never done before, so I hope it works just as well for my fans. As for Tajiri, the best I can say in regards to doubling him on the list is that I make every effort not to miss someone who should be on there, a la David Young in the inaugural edition in 2003. I also triple-check the list to make sure I don't have anyone doubled on there. Apparently I still fucked up, and cry your pardon. Tajiri's actual # should be 54. As for who I'd add? I guess I am probably now forced to put Jeff Jarrett on the list, as much as I'd hate to have him in my locker room. He goes to 100 and everyone between 71 and 100 moves up. How's that sound? Thanks for the feedback and excellent question, Daniel! Hope to hear from you again. In the Comment Box for his 4th time in five weeks, it's Benny Russ: G’day Xan, streak 2 continues, Enjoyed the column again, even if it wasn’t entirely about wrestling. I agree with most of what you said, and my disagreements are only minor things. I think sometimes we do need limitations, but I also agree that guidance is more important. Personally I do believe in an age limit for drinking. Of course, over here the limit is 18, much more sensible, and I don’t think that nobody should drink below this age, but by having a limit it indicates when people should start drinking. Personally I think that it’s okay for 16 year olds to have a few drinks, but I don’t think you should lower the age limit to 16, cos your gonna end up with younger and younger kids drinking. 21 is too high. 18 is about right, in terms of legally, cos youre always gonna have kids younger than that drinking, but not by too much. 16 is about right for most kids in actuality, but it also depends on the kid. Being an Australian, I do believe in drink driving laws, as well as seat belts for that matter, but we’ve always had those laws, I’m used to them, they make sense, and I don’t see the harm in them, as I think they’re sensible. But getting on to your kids, and what they should and shouldn’t watch on Telly, I’m with you 100% in terms of guidance being more important than limiting. When I used to work in Childcare, the kids who’s parents wrapped them in cotton wool and wouldn’t let them see anything even remotely violent, were normally the kids who actually were the most violent to others. They didn’t understand it, or its consequences, and you can’t shield them from it forever. But when they were exposed they didn’t understand it, and it turned out nasty. We’ve got an academic here at Uni, who everyone refers to as Ned, because he wears glasses, has a moustache, and has a lot of stupid sayings. One day, one of my friends asked his son, who was playing with a dinosaur at the time, if he was going to watch a dinosaur program on Telly that night. He was rapidly hushed up by “Mrs Flanders” and told the program was way too violent for her 7 year old son to be watching. I cringed. I think that you’re right to let your kids watch what they want, and I think it’s great that you watch with them. It is an important aspect, that they understand these things. Shielding your kids from the world won’t save your kids from it, it’ll just make them more confused when the shield is finally lifted. I think there may be times when you might need to stop kids from watching certain things, but only the more extreme things. I don’t know that I’d suggest all 10 year old kids should watch Kill Bill for example. But I’m not saying that no ten year olds should watch it either. It depends on the child, and it sounds like your Michele has her head screwed on straight, and coped with it fine. But, I’m ranting again, so I’ll stop shortly. Suffice to say, I agree guidance and understanding is more important than limitations when it comes to children. Comments about your comments on my last lot of comments. Didn’t end up watching Homecoming. Kinda glad I didn’t, having read what people are saying about it. Shame about the Hardy/Edge ladder match, but that seems to be the way things go in the WWE at the moment. Jarrett: I agree he is a shitty wrestler, who makes everything looks choreographed. I don’t know how true it is that he refused to be in that match because he wasn’t getting the title back. I’m not saying it’s not true, just saying I don’t know if it is. I was away travelling around the world at the time, and wasn’t reading IWC reports. And he just doesn’t strike me as egotistical as HHH is. I could well be wrong. But I also don’t think he’ll hold on to the title for more than another couple of months. And I think Raven is the one he’ll lose it to. But that’s just my opinion. As for the Bunny comment, I did actually figure it was a typo, but thought I’d bring it up anyways, just for shits and giggles. Keep up the good work, both with the Column and your kids, Cheers and Beers The original Benny Russ Howdy, Ben. I'm actually convinced that the whole "Bunny" thing was a result of clicking the wrong button on my spellcheck, but be that as it may, it's a nice ice-breaker; like we needed one. Here's the news item about Jarrett being such an egotist: Jeff Jarrett did not wrestle or take part in the main event at TNA's third anniversary PPV, Slammiversary, this past Sunday in Orlando. Although Jarrett was heavily advertised to take part in the match along with AJ Styles, Sean Waltman, Abyss & Monty Brown, Jarrett made the decision to bow out of the match voluntarily. Raven was instead added to the match during the pre-show. According to reports, Jarrett was upset that he wasn't being booked by the new writing committee in TNA to win back the NWA World Title on Sunday. Jarrett reportedly felt that it would have been damaging to his character to not win the match after putting himself over as the "King of the Mountain" all year in TNA. Dixie Carter was said to have stood her ground regarding the decision and would not allow a change in the match to take place to give Jarrett the win. After this took place, many in TNA aren't expecting "smooth sailing" to take place between the Jarrett's and Carter family in the next few weeks as the struggle for power continues in the company. So, there you go. I guess it depends on whether you believe the report or not. Seems legit to me all around, and the link's available by clicking here. Reading Daveyboy's latest I guess I gained a little appreciation for what they were trying to do at Homecoming, but I still thought the show sucked ass, and wouldn't recommend anyone watching it; aside from the IronMan which was actually pretty good until the ending. Now onto "Have a Care": Seatbelt laws are, indeed, sensible. However, just because something is sensible doesn't make it right. I believe in laws against drinking and driving because of the simple fact that you are not only putting your own life at risk by doing so. But, who does not wearing a seatbelt harm? You and only you. It's akin to telling me that I have to take my antibiotics when I have an infection. If I choose not to, or not to eat, for example, that's my business. I think the legislators and police have a lot of *real* work to do without bothering us peasants with this kind of stupidity. To me, it's one of those things that they use to try to distract us from the real issues, but I don't want to get on another rant here. If you want to read more of my feelings on these issues, check out "The Rose" by clicking here. In any case, it's nice to know that someone who appears to be as educated and well-reasoning as you are agrees with our parenting style. Be well, Ben. and finally, I managed to get some real passion out of Big Brother: fuck man... you're taking lessons from Morpheus to piss me off ? ;) Okay now seriously for a minute or two... your last column was... well... euh... strange. Because there was two different points that, in my mind at least, seemed to contradict each other. Yes, you are right, People should stand up and take responsability for their own actions. I'm fucking tired of people going to court because they are stupid. You know that's why they have this warning on coffe cups : "Warning, the content may be hot" WELL DUH ! But you know somebody burned himself and sue the restaurant (I think it was McDonnalds but I'm not sure) and actually fucking WON ! If you don't know that cofee is hot, you don't deserve money... you deserve medical attention. Same thing with all those other warnings... By the way... I don't know why I never imagined you as older than 22 or 24. Just a side comment like that... But on the other hand, you are telling me that you shouldn't (and we shouldn't) restrain our kids too much. You see, this is where I don't agree. If those parents would have taken their responsabilities, those kids shouldn't have been able to watch wrestling without supervision. You know what I mean. It's like with the videogame industry. "Gran theft Auto is too violent for childrens". Then don't let those fucking childrens play it. I don't know for you, but if my mom or dad decided that I wouldn't watch, let's say, Basic Instinc... well I wouldn't have the opportunity to do so. It baffles me that so many parents let their kids do what the fuck they want and then put the responsability of their kids actions on medias such as movies (remember the stir caused by Batman... the first... well... the first good one) or videogames (who could forget the medias ripping a new one on Mortal Kombat). Kids need to learn from themselves on certain things, I will agree completely with you. But I know that, even if he's only 3 year old, my son will watch the shows I want him to watch. Because there are shows that are simply too fucking stupid and that a kid should not watch, even if he is the intended target (Teletubies comes to mind). Anyway, not a wrestling column. you could have easily linked it better by talking more about how you thought wrestling should or shouldn't be prese3nted to kids but, you know what, I'm glad you didn't. Because you would have ended up making the link just to makie sure it was wrestling related... which isn't really the best way to have a killer column. Read you soon ! Your friend (even with killer comments like you can do) Big Brother Wow, now I almost feel bad. You're right, I suppose, I could sugarcoat my comments a bit, but I kind of hold to what Cordelia said in Buffy, "Tact is just saying untrue stuff." I suppose it has its place, but I much prefer being honest. I also said you were doing a good job trying something new to help out the CF, even if I, personally, didn't like a lot of the topics. I do think the ones toward the end were better, though, if that helped. And though I didn't leave you feedback, I enjoyed your interview regarding Pro Wrestling X. That sounds like an awesome game, it just sucks they aren't going to bring it to PS2. Moving onto your column feedback: You're exactly right. If I had written that stuff in, it would have been only to link it to wrestling. As you've heard me say before, Brother, I tend not to plan out what I'm going to write for the Star. Instead, I start with a topic in mind and let my heart carry me on from there. When I don't do that, you get a column like "On the Ball", which, while I didn't think it was bad, it certainly isn't as good as my best work. Ripper was right on that. In the case we're discussing, the topic I had in mind was basically that blaming pro wrestling for children doing things is irresponsible, but that's not what poured out into the column, and I wasn't about to go back and modify my work just to make it fit with what I had planned to say. It would have been hollow, and it wouldn't have been me. Why you never imagined me as older than 24, I don't know, since you probably read Drugs or Jesus twice and I said in the opening paragraph I was born March 4, 1975. Honestly, I don't see where you see a contradiction. I simply believe limits do the opposite of what they're intended. I believe if you don't set a limit on something, children aren't as adapt to try to push past said limitation. I suppose that sounds obvious, but I did try to make an example with the whole drinking thing that Ben picked up on above. Honestly, I don't know what the level of drunk driving and alcoholism are in Canada, but they seem high here in the States. I was pointing out that instead of imposing a restriction on which age levels can drink and making it a law that instead it is up to each parent to set guidelines for each of their children. I believe you should provide guidance, not limits. If you advise your children strongly against violence, that what they see and hear in television, videogames, and music is fictional and not really that way in life, you've done your job in that regard. You've given them the guidance necessary in life. If they choose to disregard it, who's to blame? They are. You may still feel responsible, but clearly Grand Theft Auto isn't to blame for your kid shooting up a store and you can't put it on the Teletubbies if he carries a purse. It seems like you may have the idea I don't consider you a friend or we've had a falling out. Just want to make it clear that's not the case on my end. Take care, BB. Because the Columns Forum has slowed down a bit, instead of being the best columns posted in the last week, these are the best I've read this week. A small distinction, but a difference nonetheless. Here are your shining examples: Hardtime #38: A Moment in Time La Femme Xtreme--The It Factor has been found. Kev Dogg & SmarterChild present the RAWKTOBERPALOOZA Pre-Extravaganza Extravaganza Kay's Corner: A Family Tradition Continues That will conclude today's voyage on The Northern Star. Please e-mail any feedback to XanManX@hotmail.com, with the words "Northern Star" or "feedback" in the subject line. The Northern Star will rise again in 6 days, one day early. Until then, Long days, pleasant nights
|
|