|
|
|
|
|
Submitted by XanMan on Friday, October 24, 2008 at 9:10 AM EST
 With XanMan and aisce Hello boys and girls, welcome to ETA. Today aisce and I review the unification poll results, the wonderful PPV that is Cyber Sunday, and Kimbo Slice, but... We start with Sting, and as I type this the debate has been raging for a week. It's time to hear [i]your[/i] take. Should he be TNA World Champ now? Knowing your views, I’ve tried and tried to find a respectable ‘devil’s advocate’ position for this, only to meet with abject failure. It makes no sense either in terms of storyline development, nor marketing. Truly. Sting as become the Hogan of TNA: liable to insert himself into any event at any time and walk away with the title just because he can, even if it means burying Samoa Joe. The way they are handling the whole ‘respect’ angle right now is tough to watch: you’re seeing a younger generation of wrestlers, the ones who arguably give TNA its foundation and identity, being sacrificed to the egos of the likes of Angle (who can, it seems, destroy whole locker rooms) and Nash. Is this they way it’s going to be, or will we see a long-overdue twist in this sorry tale? The Hogan of TNA? That's pretty harsh, isn't it? As much Sting bashing as I've been doing lately--and I haven't enjoyed any of it--I haven't said that or even thought anything close to it. I don't think Sting's working behind the scenes to politic for the big strap. That being said, my biggest gripe with Sting having the strap right now is what we talked about a month ago--his not wrestling the last 6 months prior. That said, if this is just another transitional run for him where he drops the strap to Styles almost immediately, in the long run it might turn out to be a good thing. Are we going to see a twist? We have to at some point, or the organization is going to die; and as much as you and many others don't care for TNA, I think everybody wants there to be more than one national company. Hopefully the start of that twist was Joe dropping the title to Sting so that Sting can put AJ over as the future of wrestling--the way that we all know he is. If, however, the "legends" end up winning this war, I don't see there's a point to ever tuning into TNA again. In some ways I think that Sting is worse for TNA than Hogan ever was for the WWE. At least when Hogan dominated the product, it could be argued that he was by far the most over star on the roster, and that a WWF with him as champ was a far more marketable product than otherwise. The choice of regular title runs for Sting is much harder to justify, as he adds little or nothing to the promotion in terms of interest or ability. It’s not so much that I don’t care for TNA, more that I feel they don’t care for me. I find watching them to be endlessly frustrating. As much as I despise armchair booking, and have no sympathy with those who clamour to have promotions run according to their own preferences and prejudices, I find that TNA makes too many choices which make no sense whatsoever. The ‘respect’ angle should indeed work out as you suggest, but contrary to all logic, it seems that the younger generation are not be portrayed as the exciting new face of wrestling, but as a bunch of upstarts with no manners or understanding of tradition, who will get their comeuppance at the hands of the good old establishment. It’s a confused and confusing set of mixed messages being sent out by TNA right now: look at the crowd reaction to Joe at Bound for glory to see how unsatisfactory that is. I'm hopeful that the speeches AJ's been making, along with the acceptance of guys like Styles and Joe by Mick Foley and the support of my favorite wrestler ever,[/sarcasm] founder Jeff Jarrett will be enough to swing fans' opinions around. If not, Kevin Nash ripping the entire world of wrestling fans and then teaming up with Sting should. Sting has been playing his role like a complete fucking dick; there's no question about that. What they really need to do is have all the other "legends" be out there with Sting, so the fans can have the lightbulb pop on that "Hey, he's associating with the FORCES OF EVIL." Why it isn't being booked that way is anyone's guess and mine is--surprisingly--that TNA are a bunch of fucking idiots. For once I will indulge in unwanted speculation and suggest that the real reasons for the wrongheaded and contradictory booking of this angle are the ambivalent feelings of Jarrett and his fellow bookers. They must know the right way to play things out is to have the torch passed definitively, However, that would be detrimental to himself, and to the highest earners and most powerful figures on the roster. Maverick Foley siding with Joe and Styles makes some kind of sense; Jarrett (the quintessence of the TNA old school establishment) does not. Once again, alignments are being blurred and mixed messages are being sent to the fans. The result is that outcomes are unclear and the success of the angle is jeopardised: what good is a Joe/Styles triumph with assistance from Jarrett? How does that cement the ascendency of the new generation? It doesn't, of course, which is why Jarrett will presumably turn on Styles, Joe, etc. at some point. The best time to do this, of course, would be when Styles gets his first shot against Sting or when Joe takes on Nash. Then, the "legends" would be irrevocably heel and the babyfaces could fight against the seeming dominance of them. Judging by the last episode of Impact, it’s going to take an alignment with Jarrett to turn Sting heel in the minds of the fans. It’s not just the main event scene which is confusing the less-than dedicated viewer right now though: Daivari is X-Division champ? Care to explain that one? How can I explain something I don't understand myself? I think Curry Man is a pretty cool character, but I'd rather have Chris Daniels around and at least in the hunt for the title. I've got no idea why Consequences Creed and Sheik Abdul Bashir are now the top two X-Division members. It makes no sense to me. I'd rather see Petey Williams feuding with Chris Daniels; or if they aren't going to push MCMG, put them back in the division and let them shine. Oh, and bring Doug Williams back. He's fucking MONSTER. Doug Williams is nowhere near the wrestler he used to be, but he could still tear up that Division and make it must-watch once more. Hell, bring in Jody Fleisch and James Tighe (Burchill is probably too much to hope for) and have a British X-Division stable. I’d tune in for that, even if no-one else would (which is probably why it isn’t going to happen). Just . . . don’t hire Pac, that’s all I’m asking. Isn't X-Pac already a former X-Division Champion? Anywho...one problem they've had with the X-Division is finding guys to replace the guys that used to make the division run. Daniels, Styles, and Joe all had a tremendous feud over the X-Strap in 2005, but now Styles and Joe are seen by most(me included) as being above that championship, while Daniels is in a mask as Curry Man. I love Shark Boy's gimmick, but he'll never be a serious contender for it, Kaz is both injured and on the list of guys to be future main event contenders, and Lethal and Dutt are busy with their little personal feud. A division that was once so promising has been completely booked asunder. You know, come to think of it, this is actually an argument for splitting LAX apart, as they really need Homicide in that division to tear shit up. As you know full well, I didn’t mean that Pac. I do now, though. In all honesty, I think that Homicide is better off where he is. It is not as if the X-Division is short on talent, just that they are focusing on the wrong wrestlers. I wouldn’t like to see LAX split up just so that Homicide can face Shark Boy in meaningless curtain-raisers. As and when TNA decide to re-invigorate the division, though, he would be a fine choice. He would, indeed. Cyber Sunday, which is now the WWF's second most expensive PPV of the year, is coming up soon. Isn't there, say, anything to talk about as relates to this wonderful event? In the UK, Cyber Sunday falls under those PPVs that even the grasping hand of Rupert Murdoch’s satellite broadcasting company doesn’t have the nerve to charge for. Why they haven’t changed the name to ‘Premium Rate Call Sunday’, I don’t know. Anyone who, not only pays for the show, but also wastes $1 per event on a vote really needs some kind of medical assistance. Having championed the guy to a limited extent, I’m intrigued to see how Kozlov will acquit himself in a title match. I think he has all the tools to be an important figure in the WWE, and that even his mic skills are passable, considering. It’s a safe assumption that he will play a role in the match, particularly with Hardy having blotted his copybook (allegedly). Other than that, there isn’t much to catch the eye: the usual Diva nonsense, some uninspired ‘choices’ when it comes to match ups (though Hardy vs. Bourne could be worth a watch), and the inevitability of Austin becoming the special referee, and focus of, the main event. I wonder if it will end in a ‘no contest’ after a couple of Stunners? Hmmmm . . Or am I being unduly pessimistic? I'm not convinced you're being pessimistic enough. I like Kozlov nearly as much as you do, but having him squash Jeff Hardy--who was less than 1 second away twice from defeating Triple H at No Mercy--in order to try to sway the fans' vote was a despicable booking move and the kind of thing that only happens this time of year. On the other show, we've got Santino Marella getting set to square off against one of three very, very former Intercontinental Champions that really should be left to mic work or--preferably--nothing at all. This is the type of thing the WWF does that really pisses me off and doesn't allow me to take it seriously for at least a month after--bringing back Honky or Mae Young really amounts to the same thing: comedy bullshit that has no bearing on the current product. Austin being one of the choices for special guest referee is aggravating, but at least he's still a bit fun to watch and is possibly going to be in a feature match at Mania; so it's tolerable. Short changing the fans seems to have become something of a Cyber Sunday tradition. I enjoy comedy segments more than most seem to, but I also find the annual wheeling out of decrepit old 80’s wrestlers to be a pathetic waste of time. I’m tired of Austin going through the same old routine every six months, so his appearance holds little joy for me. Cyber Sunday has come to epitomise all of the problems inherent with the WWE running too many PPV, seeming to function only as some kind of stop-gap novelty show, doing little or nothing to advance current storylines or feuds. If the WWE was a show with a continuous narrative, it would almost be non-canonical. You make a very good point about the Hardy squash. I understand that there is a tradition of wrestlers being punished for off-screen transgressions in this manner, but don’t you think it’s time the WWE addressed those issues outside of their programming and offered the viewers some kind of logical continuity? It would be great if they were to do that. After all, suspending the wrestlers or punishing them on air doesn't make a helluva lot of sense. Hit 'em in the pocketbook. Suspensions without pay don't make a lot of sense to me; why not make them perform but fine them portions of their paychecks for a given length of time? That way they are still being punished, but the storylines and the fans who support the company aren't. Speaking of which: why the fuck was Regal squashed like a bug last night? You think that stemmed from his latest drug suspension? I suppose the WWE wishes to be seen to take action. Making fines public would mean some degree of openness about the wage structure, about which wrestling has always been very closed-mouthed. Nevertheless, it is ridiculous to me that they would mar their own programming to ‘punish’ a member of the roster. I can only assume that Regal’s drug violation is the reason why he was squashed twice on RAW. It isn’t as if they are short of candidates for a meaningless gimmick like that. Squashing seemed pretty much the order of the day on what was the worst RAW for quite some time. Snitsky (by Mysterio!), Haas and Cryme Tyme were all buried in double-quick time. In fact, only the mid-card tag match broke the five-minute barrier. I can’t even remember a show being so awful in that way before. It was truly an awful show. The kind that makes me wonder why I even watch. Answers? A) It's still better than TNA, B) ROH doesn't have a television show, and C) I am a mark for Survivor Series matches and hope we get something starting towards forming at least one of them soon. I think my continued viewership is based in the illogical optimism of ‘oh well, I’m sure the next show will be better’. When the WWE is on form, it is more entertaining than any of its rivals could ever hope to be, but when it is bad, it is horrid. I have mixed feelings about Survivor Series. I’m not especially drawn to multi-man matches, but given the proper build up, this can be a truly memorable PPV. Of course, proper build-up is only possible if they go back to not having a PPV every month, as discussed last time. Still, I frakkin love Survivor Series-style elimination matches. BTW, do you tend to watch lots of matches involving only one person? I know I don’t have to tell ETA readers that ‘multi’ derives from the Latin multus meaning ‘many’ and thus implies a number greater than two. Just in case I’m wrong about that, I shall try to be more clear in future. Meanwhile, have you been able to gather any hints as to what matches between three or more individuals may await us at Survivor Series? No. Perhaps they'll do some kind of brand vs. brand match? Maybe Triple H/Jeff Hardy/Kozlov/Shelton Benjamin/MVP vs. Jericho/Batista/HBK/Matt Hardy/Evan Bourne. Both brands seem a little disorganized to have actual feud partners on teams. IMO, they could easily have used the last couple of months to set up teams, but decided to have the title pictures all jumbled up. Having multiple contenders is great. Having multiple contenders with no clear feuds = chaos. If they don’t start to develop things soon, brand vs. brand will be the only option, albeit an awkward one. If the WWE absolutely must have all these cross-brand PPVs, I would much prefer them to be used to set up some genuine inter-brand rivalries and alliances. As things are, the blurred distinction between the shows just makes brand vs. brand even less of a meaningful rivalry. Poll Position No doubt some of you will recall that in the previous instalment of ETA, Xan and I came to the conclusion that the WWE would be better off with a unified top title. At the time, we suspected that this was something of a heterodox viewpoint and so decided to put it to the test via the unimpeachably scientific method of starting a poll in LoPForums. The results were as follows:  As you can see, the response was extraordinary. Now some may claim that a poll with nine responses is hardly valid, but statistically speaking, the sample size is far more satisfactory than any which are being used currently to predict the result of the US election. It seems that Xan and I were not only right about there needing to be a unified title, we were also correct in assuming that the idea would be unpopular. As for the accompanying written replies, they ranged from anonymous’ mawkish sentiments (‘No, because then Kane's slim chances of holding a major title again go totally out the window’) to Sean_Taylor’s oblique, yet harsh approach to the question (‘The problem isn't about whether or not the titles should be unified. The problem lies with the wrestlers themselves.’). As promised, though, we have chosen the best responses on each side of the argument and present them here for your consideration. Out of our incredibly large sample size, I finally managed to cull a couple of winners out. It was painstaking, mind you, to go through the myriad responses, but the ol' Ambassador does what he does for love of you, and he was able to persevere. Arguing against us--and thus against unifying the two titles--is RIPBossman: "Unless they are going to unify the brands, I would say no. I understand how many people would like to see only one World Champion, but with two brands, the brand without a major contender currently in a storyline for challenging the one World Champion would seem to be lacking something, and more often than not, would have at least a small sense of being less important. As in boxing, fans usually like to see one, unified champion. However, fighters don't have to be exclusive to certain boxing promotions, and thus can seem to be in the hunt at any given time, and in theory the Champions always seem to be taking on the top challengers in the entire business, not just the best from a certain promotion at a certain time. The roster split has been working just fine for a few years now with different World Champions, and on top of that, the pay per views really do seem to be inclined to be more exciting, due in no small part to two World Title matches taking place at each ppv. It's not broken, so they don't need to fix it." The boxing analogy is interesting, but in the end irrelevant, because we're talking about a sport that has contract for individual fights vs. a fake sport who's companies employ entertainment professionals. As for the first objection he had, I don't get that at all. The way it worked when there were two brands under one champion before is that the brands alternated who would have the #1 contender each month. How in the world would that make one brand superior to the other? Each member of the entire company would be fighting for the same prize, so to me that would make the brands more equal. I must disagree with RIPBossman’s comment that the two-title-match PPVs are ‘not broken’. Partially, this is because it skews the way the event is paced. The crowd is built towards a false climax with the first match, and then needs to be taken down with some godawful Diva gimmick battle, or somesuch, before being roused again for the real main event. It may seem as though the WWE is offering us an embarrassment of riches by having two title bouts on one show, but what they are really doing is creating invidious comparisons and offering a diluted sense of occasion. Ah, yes, invidious. The very word I was looking for...as well as a word I've never, ever heard before. Sometimes the really pompous word is the only correct one to use, though I would willingly have recourse to a fitting surrogate, if available. Wow, the pomposity of that statement almost overwhelmed the pomposity of your use of the word "invidious" that brought the subject up. That's frakkin grand. That’s what we’re all about here at ETA: raising the standards. Speaking of standards and our parade of Main Pagers, romans_3:23 makes a great argument against the third point, so I'll let his quote take it away: "I believe that the WWE should unify its World titles. I say even unify the ECW belt into it as well. In this era of loose brand affiliation, I think it would be better if there was one champion who defended on both Smackdown and Raw. The champ could spend the bulk of his time on the brand that has his upcoming challenger for whatever PPV, and I don't think that overall this would cost anyone much screen time. Also, by having one World champ, WWE could make the IC and US belts much more meaningful. They could be the defacto top belts for each brand. ECW could bring back the ECW TV title, which could serve as the top belt for its show. This way the secondary belts would have more importance, and the World title matches would seem extremely special. I guess this would short circuit somethings like Santino's little IC run, but in the end, he could be just as entertaining without being the IC champ and defending against jobbers each week." I posted the poll before the last column went up, but it seems Romey had the same thought that both aisce and I did--that being that the Intercontinental and United States titles would instantly be given greater credibility, and would become the de facto brand titles if the company only had one major title. Given the level of talent normally put in ECW, I don't agree that their title should be done away with; to me it isn't treated with the same level of importance as the other two--and shouldn't be. Toss-Up More likely to win a Royal Rumble in the next 2 years: Jack Swagger or Ted Dibiase. Oh DiBiase without a doubt. I would be surprised to see Swagger still with the company in two years time. Having said that, I think that the usual suspects have a good few years in them yet and I don’t expect any wrestler who is not currently in the main event to be winning a Rumble in the foreseeable future. When the ‘respect’ angle reaches its climax, who is more likely to be a face: Sting or Samoa Joe? First of all, Jack Swagger is awesome. If he's released it'll be the greatest WWF travesty in the history of always, say true. Samoa Joe is going to turn heel--or preferably--tweener, but I expect that it will happen at the conclusion of the respect angle. Either right after the deciding match or the following Impact!. Sting will probably change during the angle, so I say Sting will turn face and they will both be face as the angle concludes, but Joe will turn heel immediately after. Which has a chance of being brought back first: The Cruiserweight Title or the Hardcore Title? Now that is an excellent question. Though I don’t expect either to re-appear in the near future, I would say the Hardcore title has the better chance. The WWE seems to be going through a phase where size is not a pre-requisite for being up and around the main event (as is the case with Punk and Kendrick). Thus, the Cruiserweight title is less needed than previously and, indeed, would be seen as something of a demotion for the aforementioned wrestlers and Mysterio. The addition of the ECW title has effectively given the smaller mid-carders such as Chavo and Matt Hardy something to compete for, which is another purpose that the CW title doesn’t need to fulfil these days. Not that there is an obvious need for the Hardcore title either, but I could see it being brought back for some 24/7 novelty fun at some stage. Who is most likely to make an appearance of some kind in a wrestling promotion: Brock Lesnar or Kimbo Slice? I'm not a fan of MMA. Occasionally I'll catch it on Spike or Vs for a few minutes if there's nothing else on, but other than that I don't watch it or follow it, which means I have no idea how good either of them really are. I think Kimbo's got a great "look," but I also think he's fairly old--35 or so, maybe--which means he'd have to be a Batista/MVP type of guy, so I'll go with Lesnar. Stranger things have happened than him returning to the WWF, and he has no burnt bridges with TNA or New Japan. Big Finish Speaking of Brock, he was featured on ESPN's "E60" program, which is fine in itself, but what sense does it make to ask Bret Hart about The Pain? Isn’t there some kind of law which states that whenever the words ‘washed-up’ and ‘former wrestler’ appear in a televised programme, Hart must be on hand for illustrative purposes? WWE Superstars are now to be called ‘entertainers’ on air in order to evade tax and the attentions of State Athletic Commissions. Is this the last nail in the coffin of the sport’s legitimacy, or nothing to get worked up about? It's irritating to me, but also kind of justifies my earlier point(actually written earlier on the same day) that you can't really compare a boxer to a wrestler. I think it's the last nail in the coffin for the WWF's legitimacy, but not for wrestling's. The other big companies don't refer to themselves as "sports entertainment" to my knowledge. The New Orleans Saints "host" the San Diego Chargers at Wembley Stadium this Sunday. In what section are your seats? When invited to select an NFL team to support some months ago, I chose the Chargers on account of their snazzy logo, cool kit, and hilarious failure to win anything of significance. Once you pick a team, it’s for life. The Republican party has spent $150,000 in the last three months, trying to make Sarah Palin look classy. Money well spent? Not when you consider that they could have easily gotten most of the American vote just by "admitting" that she's Tina Fey's long lost older sister. Yes, aisce, many of my countryfellows really are that stupid. For continuity and out of curiosity, how do you view Major League Soccer? Major League Soccer functions as a nice little pension plan for ageing European and South American stars. That’s about the only good thing I have to say for it. Football thrives in the rest of the world due to its deep roots in working class sensibility and local pride (which is why a country the size of England boasts 92 professional clubs), The US just doesn’t have that going for them. The quality of play is abysmal too. Any MLS team would be taken apart by any side from the second tier of English or European football. Well, so much for all the(not any) pride I had in U.S. soccer. If you'd like to send feedback to XanMan Click Here If you'd like to send feedback to aisce Click Here To email feedback to both of us or to send topics you'd like us to cover next time Click Here or if you're a member, in the LOPForums. Well, folks, that's all we've got. We'll try to do better next time.
|
|