|
|
|
|
|
Submitted by Xan on Friday, August 25, 2006 at 7:57 AM EST
  Welcome to the X-Change. This week I am joined by my good friend and Excuse The Aggravation column writing partner, doublehelix. Xan: We're in an interesting time right now when it comes to the main events on the various wrestling shows. Interesting in the sense that none of them are, with the possible exception of ECW. Cena vs. Edge has been dragging on for months and at this point I don't care who wins. Jeff Jarrett vs. Sting I have absolutely no interest in and I'm sure it's over with no winner after the Christian turn at Hard Justice. Booker T vs. Batista is a little better, mainly because Book hasn't been World Champ in 5 years and Batista just got back from injury, but still there's been little build-up for that so far and thus no excitement. In addition to all of this, there appear to be no immediate prospects on the horizon. Helix, what should the WWF do to make the title picture in the organization exciting again? doublehelix: I don't have a clue, but I have some general ideas to, at the very least, make it/them not terrible. First and foremost, take away Edge's microphone (this one is important). The best thing to be said about Adam Copeland's promo ability is that he doesn't stutter, a trait which puts him on par with about 90% of the population - only 90% of the population doesn't think up such nefarious schemes as "having my own announce table" and "making fun of your Boston Celtics jersey". Keeping Edge from talking wouldn't by itself make Edge vs. Cena exciting, but I think it would be a fine first step towards not being the worst part of the show that doesn't involve The Miz (who is absolutely in-fucking-tolerable) or Randy Orton (complete list of things Orton does well: 1. Cocky facial expressions. 2. Dropkicks. 3. Not being Mike Mizanin). That aside, though, I think you're right: the biggest problem with Raw's title feud is that it's dragged on for so fucking long. Neither Edge nor Cena are so intolerably bad that they couldn't find a role on the show, but being so high on the card for so long has left them over-exposed that I'm pining for anything else. Smackdown's problems are, in this order, star power, health, and an inexplicable urge to push Mark Henry and the Great Khali when the previous two aren't applicable. At the moment, they have Booker, Batista, JBL (who's now a commentator), and The Undertaker (who doesn't work a full schedule nowadays) as an upper card, with a collection of bad livers, injuries and drug problems rounding things out in the midcard. For this, there really is no quick fix. They could make a trade with Raw; we haven't seen one of those in a while. Even then, though, there's no way to be certain the new acquisition wouldn't just die in a car crash. Times are tough. ECW's title scene doesn't need fixing. I'm enjoying it greatly. And, as an aside, I think everyone would benefit from the WWE finding a way to lure Chris Jericho out of retirement. Because Chris Jericho is awesome. Xan: First of all, let's be a trifle realistic. There's no way in the world the WWF is going to take the microphone away from one of its main eventers. Whether Edge is truly a main eventer or not is a separate issue that certainly has a place in this topic, but if you're going to leave him in the main event, he's definitely going to talk. Remember, one of the supposed prerequistes to being in that spot in the World Wrestling Federation is the ability to work the mic. The fact that Edge's style of working the mic is to be a complete dumbass doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things because while it doesn't help, it certainly isn't the reason nothing about the Edge/Cena feud is exciting in the least. It was, don't get me wrong, but that was back between New Year's Revolution and the night after the Royal Rumble. Everything since has been the very definition of meh, and the fact that the writers have resorted to sending Edge into Cena's parents' home is a strong indication that they've got no idea how to make us give a shit. Of course, if they truly knew how to make us give a shit, they wouldn't be giving us people like Orton and The Miz in the first place. Actually, isn't most of their lack of star power due in some part to health issues? Despite the fact that Smackdown airs on a national broadcast network, it seems like ever since the brands split Vince McMahon has seen it as the B show and that kind of begs the question: Why keep it around. So before we go any further with this discussion of the titles, Helix, let me axe you this: How many brands should the WWF have? Helix: Well, theoretically, three is the perfect number. Use Raw as your sports entertainment brand, use Smackdown as your pure wrestling brand, use ECW as the "edgy" alternative. There's something for everybody! If TNA were a big time, talent-stealing type of competition, rather than just the other promotion with a national TV deal, it might be a different story, but at the moment, the most-talent starved brand (ECW) still has 28 people listed on their roster page, most of whom are active. Quantity of talent is not a problem. Neither is quality of talent. Distribution of talent is the issue here. Raw lost RVD, Kurt Angle, and Big Show in a matter of weeks to ECW, and still has more going for it than Smackdown. When MNM split up, Raw got a future Intercontinental champion, Smackdown got Joey Mercury's rehab bill. Recently rehired Jeff Hardy (who is, on some level, a "name" guy) will be debuting on Raw, even though Smackdown's that could use the help (insert joke about the WWE wanting to keep the drug suspensions balanced between the three brands and/or joke about how by not putting Jeff Hardy on the blue show, they are helping it). Back to just after WrestleMania, with Eddie Guerrero dead and the show in general reeling, the WWE decided that this would be the year they didn't have a draft lottery. The WWE's line of thought is extraordinarily Raw-centric; like you said, they seem to think of Smackdown as a B-show. And if that's the way they're going to handle it, they'd do just as well to kill it and spread the roster between Raw, ECW, and the unemployment line. I'd hate to see that happen, though, because even with this run of terrible luck, Smackdown shouldn't suck this much. Xan: No, it shouldn't, but wrestling today has become more or less like any other television show. You have to have stories to really gain interest from the mainstream fan, and Smackdown's [i]real[/i] problem is that because of the injuries, trades, free-agent signings, and whatever else, they've been unable to sustain any level of consistency in their storytelling. Booker T is scared of the Boogeyman, yet he's King of the World and World Heavyweight Champion. Finley and Regal are feuding, but they're a tagteam; and by all rights should be the #1 contenders for those straps. JBL was the salvation of Smackdown in 2004 and is the Wrestling...............................God, yet he's their color commentator. Undertaker's still a legend, but he's barely around; and Gregory Helms is the longest reigning cruiserweight champion of all time, but how many times has he defended the strap on any kind of television? 6? Where's the consistency? You say you can't believe this is the year there was no draft lottery to help Smackdown, when that's never what said lottery has done. It has ALWAYS worked to RAW's benefit. Last year, remember, RAW got John Cena, Kurt Angle, Rob Van Dam, The Big Show, and Carlito. Smackdown got Batista, Chris Benoit, Randy Orton, Christian for a few months, and Muhammed Hassan for a few weeks. Now, I'm not that down on Batista, and I like Benoit, Christian, and Hassan, but even if the last two on the list had stayed, what works out to a trade was a completely unbalanced one that once again cemented how little the WWF cares about Smackdown. To be fair, I don't see RAW as brightly as you do, right now. They've been stuck with the same feud--Edge vs. John Cena--for what seems like forever and the only other true main eventers they have right now are still embroiled in a feud against the McMahons. So, while I agree with you that all brands have relatively the same amount of talent, the fact of the matter is that RAW is just as hurting as Smackdown is in MAIN EVENT talent, and let's be honest about something else. Right now the 4 men at the top of the WWF card are Batista, Booker T, John Cena, and Edge and absolutely none of them are anywhere near what guys like Hulk Hogan, Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Steve Austin, Triple H, and The Rock have been for the company in the past. In that sense, they truly have no go-to guy that can guarantee people will care about what's happening at the top of the company, so it certainly doesn't help that they've spread those main event guys across two shows; that RVD, Kurt Angle, and The Big Show are on another one; and that the aforementioned Chris Jericho and Chris Benoit are currently unavailable. I think, given this, the WWF actually may have the right amount of shows, but they may have gone about organizing ECW the wrong way. Helix: I disagree; I think they organized ECW perfectly. As much as you and I might not want to admit it, I don't think Sabu, RVD, and Co. alone could kick-start a nationally televised, late prime time TV show at this point in time - so the WWE gave them a guy who can most certainly be classified as a star (Kurt Angle), another guy who's a name guy but rarely ventures beyond the midcard (Show), and some developmental talent of varying quality (CM Punk > Mike Knox). I think this is about as perfect an approach to building the initial roster as the WWE could come up with. If Angle and Show are still on Raw, then we're treated to six months of RVD vs. Sabu, which, awesome as they are, might get a bit dull around month five. Basically, if they don't organize ECW the way the did, we're probably having a discussion in a month or two about how crummy ECW's main event scene is, as opposed to Smackdown. So, that in mind, it might be that three shows is too many, but I really have a hard time saying that when the least-populated brand has about two dozen wrestlers available to fight for its one title. I guess I'll refer back to what I said earlier: Theoretically, three is the perfect number. When working with WWE's Raw-first booking and roster distribution philosophy, though, two is probably ideal. Or, hell, maybe three brands is just biting off more than you can chew. (Also, I disagree with your assessment that Raw's main event scene is in as dire a situation as Smackdown. The title scene, as it stands now, is about as bad, grant you, but Raw has the benefit of two legit stars in Triple H and Shawn Michaels who could step into the title scene at almost anytime without anyone batting an eye, as well as having Carlito right on the verge of legit title contention. Smackdown has a part-time wrestling Undertaker and full-time wrestling JBL. In terms of having an immediate light at the end of the tunnel, Raw has the advantage. But I digress, if this can even be counted as a digression...) Xan: It can't be. You're right, RAW is in slightly better shape, but it still isn't great and I'll tell you why. They are extremely limited in how they can use Shawn Michaels. If what happened a year ago is any indication, he won't remain heel for any length of time and this DX thing isn't going to last forever. Adding to this is the fact that the WWF is apparently convinced, perhaps rightly, that Cena is their super face of the future. We've already seen The Game vs. HBK and Cena and we've already seen Edge vs. HBK and Cena, so the only original mixtures left between this group of four is Edge/Game and HBK/Cena and the latter just doesn't look likely to happen, as much as I'd like it to. Carlito, as you mentioned, is an X-factor here and Kane should be. They key word to what you said about ECW is "kickstart." Of course they wouldn't be thriving if that's all they started with, but that doesn't mean Angle and The Big Nasty had to be added to the ECW roster. They could have had a limited interbrand feud until ECW got established and rolling and still remained with the WWF. If that were the case, Angle and Orton would still be with Smackdown and the Big Show would remain on RAW. These three guys being where they are substantially hurts their former shows to the point where I don't see a point in the WWF keeping Smackdown and RAW separate. I know this isn't anywhere near an original idea, but this is really all Smackdown has that's worth mentioning: Rey Mysterio, Chavo Guerrero, Matt Hardy, Ken Kennedy, Bobby Lashley, Batista, Chris Benoit, The Boogeyman, Gregory Helms, Jamie Noble, Paul London, The Undertaker, and Booker T. The rest can be kept around as your jobbers to the stars, but these are the cream of the crop on the blue brand; at least as long as JBL is remaining in the commentating booth. I say put Helms, Mysterio, Guerrero, Hardy, Noble, and London in ECW and the others into a re-integrated WWF. The brand split was a good idea and it lasted for a while, but it really is time for it to end now while the WWF still has an audience. This move creates a ton of new match-up possibilities and would make the title picture mean something again. But still, helix, you probably think it's a bad idea. Why? Helix: I don't think it's a bad idea, I just don't think it should be necessary. I've said this a bajillion times (give or take), but for the sake of redundancy, I believe that in the ideal scenario, maintaining three brands isn't much of a hassle, and is in fact optimal. In the WWE's current situation, which is partially brought on by shitty luck and partially by Raw-first thinking, two is probably better. I guess the reason I'm so hesitant to hop on the "kill the brand split" bandwagon is it would feel like wasted potential. Even with Smackdown in as crappy a situation as it is, you were able to name 13 guys who, generally speaking, don't suck. Sure, not all of them are main eventers, but a number of them could be at one point soon. That in mind, it's not so far-fetched to think that, in a few months, the blue show would be worth watching, and, with the help of an annual roster draft (and the occasional cross-brand trade) to keep things fresh, remain that way. If that were to happen, we'd have three shows worth watching, each with their own distinct flavor, showcasing a variety of wrestlers and styles. Will that happen? Probably not. But the idea that it could makes any other result kind of disappointing. It's sort of like when you hype up a match in your head so much that there's no way the actual match can live up to your expectations. The match can be perfectly fine, but your own idealist thinking kind of fucks it over for yourself. Also, "kill the brand split" has been trendy before. Maybe this is just another short-sighted trend. If I can re-use this cliché again, the light at the end of tunnel for Smackdown isn't right there, but with a talented undercard and Chris Benoit supposedly due back by September, it does exist. Xan: I don't see much there to argue against, but I will offer an alternative to the brand split that I've offered in past columns, since the WWF has still never closed the loophole that makes it possible. What do you think of the idea of separate Smackdown and RAW brands, but a single champion for them the way it was when the split first began? Not only would that automatically create new match opportunities: Cena/Batista, Edge/Booker T, Triple H/Lashley, but I'd add another stipulation to this. When the champion loses his title there is no automatic rematch clause and he becomes a free agent who can sign with whichever brand offers him the "best deal." Helix: That's not a bad idea. The only issue is the same one as the WWE had back when they were originally doing this: what does the brand without the #1 contender do for a top-tier feud? In this age of brand-exclusive PPVs, how would Raw fill the card if the title feud is predominantly focused on Smackdown, or vice versa? Do you just scrap the brand-exclusive PPV thing? I wouldn't object to that, but all available evidence suggests that the WWE really want Raw and Smackdown to be viewed as totally different entities, which probably means that show-specific PPVs are here to say. Not every non-title feud can be billed as a dream match, or a blood feud that goes beyond championships, or something like that, and I'd think constant Triple Threat matches would get dull, and likely lead to the bookers start randomly throwing in (and promptly ignoring) a third person who's just there to give his brand some title match representation. But still, not a bad idea. Just as long as we never get that Cena/Batista match you suggested. Ugh. Xan: You know that match is going to happen eventually and that when it does the WWF will view it as megastar vs. megastar. As far as the brand-specific pay per views go, you already know I think there are way too many PPVS on the WWF calendar. The way their television shows are booked now and the sheer amount of pay events really hurts the already struggling creative team and I'd think they'd be much better off going back to 5 PPVs a year for that reason, but that's another column. BTW, after watching SummerSlam I now realize there's a couple of other guys that are able to easily fit into the RAW title scene we didn't mention: Umaga and The Nature Boy. Shame on us. Okay, I've dished out my ideas. What would you do to make the WWF main events mean something again? Helix: I could have sworn I mentioned Umaga somewhere along the way... I must have typed something about him out and then deleted it when it wasn't smug and know-it-all-y enough. But anyway, as for your question (which I think was the original question, that I answered with the always insightful "Edge sucks")... Here's my three-point plan to save the WWE, because as we all know, there is absolutely no way I, someone with no real knowledge about the wrestling promoting business, the WWE's financial situation, or the pressures of bending your show to meet the will of disagreeable audiences and demanding television networks, could have no idea what the fuck I'm talking about. - I'd take away Edge's microphone (I'm dead set on this). This alone would improve Raw's main event ten-fold, and, once his feud with John Cena has mercifully ended, it's just a matter of working in guys like Triple H and Carlito and the like, followed by freshening things up after 'Mania with a lottery draft. Like I said, Raw isn't that far off from having an entertaining main event scene. It's just that Adam Copeland fellow who's fucking things up. - I'd trade some midcarders who are having a hard time making the Raw card to Smackdown. Grant you, this will do absolutely jack shit for Smackdown's main event scene in the short term, but before the show can be great, it has to be watchable. Guys like Shelton Benjamin would get a chance to run with the ball alongside Smackdown guys like Lashley, and whoever the crowd gets behind gets a push. Phase 1: Collect midcarders. Phase 2: [shrug]. Phase 3: Profit. - I'd give Paul Heyman a raise, provided I never, ever see Kelly Kelly in anything other than a porno again. Xan: Paul Heyman will get a raise when Aurora Rose Levesque's mother's corpse is rotting in the ground. Beyond that, it's hard for me to figure out which of our ideas are more unlikely to happen. It's not that I really expect the WWF to reduce their number of PPVs, no matter how much sense it makes, but there's no way Edge is going to remain an upper card player and stop talking. Meanwhile, the recent transfers of Randy Orton and Johnny Nitro from Smackdown to RAW, with no compensation and the fact that Jeff Hardy is going to RAW instead, and that the drafts they've done have all improved RAW suggest that McMahon and company have no interest in improving Smackdown. Despite already having Ohio Valley Wrestling, they seem to think Smackdown is a testing ground for potential RAW superstars. Would it make sense for a few guys: Shelton Benjamin, Kane, Matt Stryker, and Nick(not Eugene) Dinsmore to move to Smackdown? Yes. Will it happen? No, because while that might benefit the company it won't benefit RAW. We both keep coming back to that because the evidence is pretty clear, despite the intuitive logic of what should be, that Smackdown is RAW's redheaded stepchild. Truthfully, I'm not sure I want anyone from RAW going back to Smackdown anyway, because of the curse that keeps rearing it's ugly head, but the curse and the stepchild factor are just more reasons to go back to being just one WWF. If they aren't going to be separate but equal, what's the point of the segregation? The original reason for it, I believe, was to spread out the talent between the brands, but when there's room for Diva searches, Tatanka, The McMahons being active wrestlers, the tagteam of Eugene and Hacksaw Jim Duggan, and a long procession by a new King of Wrestling every week, there certainly seems to be a lot of room for plugging in talent. But, whichever way the WWF goes, they certainly need to do something. I wonder if McMahon is still so out of touch that he doesn't realize that no one gives a damn about his main events right now. I hope so, because if he wants to know why ratings and interest have dwindled the last few years, he only has himself and his poor distribution of talent to blame. That will conclude today's voyage on The Northern Star. For feedback, please email me atXanManX@hotmail.com, with the words "Northern Star" or "feedback" in the subject line or go start a new thread in the Feedback Forum of the reloaded and revamped LOP Forums. The Northern Star will rise again in 9 days. Until then, Long days, pleasant nights *NEW GALLERY* The WWE Developmental Divas REVEALED! Must See Shots!
|
|