|
|
|
|
|
Submitted by Hustle on Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 7:26 PM EST
 Good lookin out for the graphics work, Noc "From the first to the last of it, delivery is passionate.. the whole, and not the half of it.. vocab, and not the math of it.. Today's intro line is from a true Soulquarian, Mos Def. I think it rings true with how I bring the pain in my columns, personally. This is something I enjoy doing, and I hope that comes across to everyone reading. Welcome to another edition of The HIPE. Today's edition is something a bit different, though. Today, I'm not riding alone. No, ladies and gentlemen, today, I have a special guest to help me co-host this party. I have a.. well, I guess he can introduce himself.. Yes. I suppose I can introduce myself. I'm not an invalid contrary to popular belief. All kidding aside, some of you might know me by the psuedonym of Kross. Then again, some of you might not know me at all. But in honesty, it's a pleasure to be here and, as always, a honor to be working with Hustle. I'm guessing I should add a 'no homo' but it seems like it should go without saying. Haters are always looking for a reason to hate, though. Anyway, before I go off on a rant (again), I think it's about that time that we handle the bidness that we're here to handle. You ready? As always. To coin a particularly favorite phrase of mine: does the pope shit in the woods? Umm.. I'm guessing so. Uhh.. so, shall I proceed? (Yes, indeed.) Less dew eet!! Kross: My fellow Americans. Regardless of your political alignment, creed, color, or religious practices, history was made this week that affects the geo-political landscape as we know it. The Land of Opportunity as it has been called by some people has elected a man of color into the White House. I am speaking, of course, of one Barack Obama who, barring any sort of mishap, will become the leader of the Free World. And in a time where change is seemingly giving hope to the status quo who are being brow beaten by economic crisis, turmoil, hatred, and bigotry, it would seem to someone such as myself that entertainment would be a glorious means to sit down, relax, and enjoy the simplicities of life. Why change what has always been there for you, steadfast and true? Of what I am speaking about, ladies and gentlemen, is of course the art of the squared circle who some, such as my opposition here, might believe as outdated and stale. I am a firm believer that change is necessary for the growth of every individual be it man, woman, or child. However, change for the sake of change is a dangerous cocktail to be leaving into less capable, responsible hands. Hustle: Because there are more than just American people reading this right now, I shall address each and every one of you, not just those who my opponent feels are "worthy" of being talked to. No, whether we're white, black, brown, yellow, red, purple, or green with pink stripes.. we all deserve some sort of an opportunity to feel included. To feel worthwhile. To feel like we're part of something special. Pro wrestling can be the same way. Everyone, from the highest of main eventers to the lowest of "curtain jerkers" has their role, which is well-defined with their socio-economic status. K: I will grant my coeval that every person has their position that they hold. And every person has the right to be included and apart of something that can make history. What I do not agree with is elevating someone simply because of their charisma or ability to relate to a crowd makes them any more entitled to run things as they see fit. Loyalty, leadership, stability - these are more pertinent to the needs of the everyman. Much like our politicians, we need someone with a proven track record who has shown over time that he or she has the ability to work in any environment with conciseness, intelligence, savy, and adaptability. For every John Cena, there is a Bobby Lashley to counter-act him. For every Randy Orton, there is a Ken Kennedy. The gamble is too great a game to be placing in the hands of unattested x-factors with minimal training and far less emotional maturity than older, more reputable ring generals. H: I hope you aren't advocating the "WCW Method", Senator Kross. We've all seen what happens when that line of thinking takes place, and I cannot.. I WILL NOT.. allow that to happen again. As we come to the end of 2008 and look towards 2009 and beyond, we think of the way to plan for the future. The future, when names like The Undertaker, Batista, Kurt Angle, Triple H, and Shawn Michaels aren't around anymore. We simply cannot plan for that future if we're always clinging to the past, regardless of their training or "emotional maturity", as you put it. That term is a bit misleading, anyway. You can look at the names I've mentioned and count several instances in which they acted like children. Some of them still seem to have particular emotional issues that they need to work on in order to fully proceed as completely respected wrestlers and fine, upstanding human beings. K: The WCW Method, Senator Hustle? Hardly. No, what I look for is more growth and expansion on a performer's character. Some of those names that you listed are, admittedly not the best examples of what qualifies as mature. However, particularly in the example of Shawn Michaels, have grown in means that cannot be quantified. Far gone are the days of old where Michaels himself has admitted to going down a dark path and I see before me a changed man, working not in detriment to his craft but for the betterment and gradual uplifting of the younger talent. The same can be said for one Mark Calloway, better known to the populous as The Undertaker. And the same (though to a lesser extent) to Batista, Kurt Angle, and Triple H. Each of these men, regardless of their personal ineptitudes and shortcomings in the past, have been given the trust to carry their respective companies. It comes back to the old way of thinking that paying one's dues is tantamount to being even considered to hold the main championship in one's promotion. Let us look at the climate on RAW, for example. Specifically with CM Punk, real name Phil Brooks and purported King of the Indies. Touted as charismatic, well-versed, well-traveled technical wunderkind in an age where innovation subplants quality, Punk himself was elevated amongst the likes of Triple H and Shawn Michaels when he cashed in the Money in the Bank to defeat Edge with an assist from Batista. And by no means can Batista himself be confused with athletic or technically gifted, but he has proven that he can carry the ball when given it. CM Punk, on the other hand, had his position taken from him without him even being involved in the match up. You see now that the 'main event' scene on RAW consists of proven veterans such as Randy Orton, John Bradshaw Layfield, Chris Jericho, John Cena, Shawn Michaels, and Batista. The companies flagship brand has it's premiere talent on it with good reason; because they bring results, not false promises of hope. H: I've known you for years, and I cherish the bond that has been built between us, but I'm simply taken aback at the notion that Triple H has helped with the "betterment and gradual uplifting of the younger talent". That may have been one of the worst possible examples you could've given, sir. Now, I'm not out here to go off on that subject. I'm here to discuss the future. "Paying dues", as you mentioned, has a different definition now than it did years ago. It's about what is best for the business these days. The average wrestling fan has a shorter attention span in late-2008, and things need to be moved along quicker. CM Punk is a good example of just that. The way he was taken in by the fans had his push accelerated. The people simply wanted to see more of CM Punk, and Vince McMahon, despite the belief to the contrary, understood what the people wanted, and he gave it to them. The television ratings went up with Punk as the champion on the Raw brand, tickets sales were still doing well, and those fan reactions were still as strong for him as they were for anyone in the company. Those were his "dues". Those were the things he set out to accomplish. Those were the things he succeeded in doing. You'll notice that the television ratings have been going down once things began reverting back to "normal", with the usual cast of characters at the top of Raw. The people are simply not satisfied with that, and they're showing it by not watching the product anymore. This cannot continue. Those fans need to be given a reason to return. Change, my friend, is that reason. K: Oh? Triple H hasn't built younger talent you say? Well given that simply being in the same region as him grants someone a meassure of importance, I fail to see how that's entirely accurate. As such, his position on Smackdown! is indicative of this. In the WWE Championship Scramble match and the subsequent rematches that followed, Triple H has made Jeff Hardy appear to be a credible threat to his reign as the dominant champion on the blue brand while keeping him at bay due to his string of self-inflicted bad luck. Not to mention that I believe a new star was born in the likes of Brian Kendrick who, quite possibly, may be the next coming of aformentioned Shawn Michaels. To continue this trend, despite beating them on a recent episode of RAW, Triple H and Shawn Michaels collectively had put over the talents of John Morrison and the Miz who appear to be the new kids on the block. And to think that both of these gentlemen came from the loins of the WWE's trek into reality television? As for your assumption that the ratings had spiked when CM Punk was world champion, that is a given. Humanity will always enjoy watching something new but due that incredibly short attention span and their fear of the unknown, they will always revert back to what is safe and what is familiar. Ratings are not down because these old stalwarts are back in the saddle but rather because there are other means of entertainment floating through the ether. Trends come and go but icons remain eternal, Senator Hustle. Regardless of what outsiders might think of the medium, I think that you can agree that the business itself is evolving whether we like it or not. And while change will be a byproduct of this, allowing for things to slip into anarchy and slipping so far left as to pin our expectations on the untested would be succumbing to madness. The definition of insanity has always been termed as doing something the same way and expecting different results. I'd like to expand on that by saying insanity is also placing all of your eggs in one basket and hoping for the best. It certaintly did not work out when Brock Lesnar unceremoniously left the company to be met with failure and rejection. It did not fare too well for the company to invest their future in the clumsy care of Rob Van Dam. It did not behoove the WWE to place their faith in the often injury plagued Ken Anderson and whose sole credit is repeating his name in boisterous fashion. The people were shown the flaws of a system that thrusts youth and inexperience in unfamiliar terrain. Running the risk of sounding redundant, how is that fair to the average fan who might be inspired or moved by these men? They are often looked up to more as heroes rather than simply as wrestlers. We are a celebrity obsessed society. And to see their flaws is almost as devestating as looking in a mirror to peer into our own. We watch not to see these hideous truths but for the escapism of it all; to walk, for a day, in another's shoes. H: Because something doesn't always work, we should shy away from trying it again in the future? You can't have Brock Lesnar's decision to leave mentioned in this debate, for his push had nothing to do with his decision. He simply was not cut out for the wrestling business, and he was there for the financial security. Nobody was to know that he would simply walk away from the business like that. Nobody was to know that terrorists would strike a massive blow to this country on September 11th, 2001, but does that mean we shouldn't build towers anymore? No, it means that we rise, as people, and stand in the face of adversity.. defiant, and ready to move forward. We take chances. We take educated chances. We aren't just doing things on a whim. Giving a push to men like Brock Lesnar and Rob Van Dam wasn't done on a whim. They were educated chances that needed to be taken for the betterment of the business, as well as the enjoyment of the product by the fans. Looking back on it, they may not have worked out completely, but hindsight, as they say, is 20/20. It's easy to look back at mistakes that have been made and say that they were, in fact, mistakes. However, to be in the middle of things.. to push forward.. well, sir, that is the risk-taking that it takes to achieve greatness. This country has roots in taking chances, and it has helped us grow exponentially. Other countries have a similar track record. I want no part of a wrestling promotion that fears progress. I want no part of a wrestling promotion that fears risk-taking. I want no part of a country that fears moving forward, and instead, decides to sit still, or worse, move in reverse. This is a problem that TNA has been showcasing for far too long. Afraid of the future.. afraid of taking a chance.. afraid of truly getting behind those who would be a breath of fresh air, they rest on the laurels of men who should no longer be in the positions they are in. Men like Sting. Men like Kevin Nash. Men like Scott Steiner. You say we watch for the "escapism" of it all, but with TNA, do you seriously want to escape back to 1996? I, personally, have moved beyond my FUBU shirt-wearing phase, and have no intentions of going back to it. K: I think you're missing the point of what I'm saying, Senator. No where in this am I saying that all change is bad change. Innovation is the key to success, afterall. If not for innovation and taking chances, I dare say that this country you and I live in would not be here today. What I am saying is that by not doing so cautiously and calculating the risk efficently based on the theory of history repeating itself, we will be doomed to repeat the mistakes of our forebearers. Much like the example of TNA. Though it appears they are trying to eventually build towards that future by placing a spotlight on the likes of Jay Lethal, a charismatic youth with athleticism, heart, and passion to lead. Same with the matured A.J. Styles. But let us face facts. Obviously, with one of your favorites, Samoa Joe as the premiere champion of the company, the ratings on average declined. There's no disputing this. After what seemed to be an appeasement move or perhaps a means of garnering that pop of excitement, how it was handled by the performer afterwards was lackluster. The same can be said for the WWE. During the third quarter, much of which CM Punk was champion during, the company's net profit declined. Coupled with sagging ratings, it is only fair to assume that it was because the flagship show did not have a viable talent as their 'guy'. Other examples can be found in sports today such as the Oakland Raiders hiring and firing Lane Kiffin after an aged Al Davis admitted his mistake over putting such a young, green, arrogant youth in a position of power. Avery Johnson of the Dallas Mavericks fame had failed to bring a championship caliber team back to the promised land of an NBA Title. No, I am not saying remain stagnant, Hustle. I am saying that with so much uncertainty and so much pressure on being bigger and better, whose to say we are not putting too much pressure on these young men who have not the experience to deal with these situations in the spotlight? One could argue that the growing concerns of performance enhancing supplements are only to appease the growing expectations of what an up and coming superstar should appear to be. Are we not to blame, in part, for pushing such lofty conjecture on human beings? It is simple to me, really. Unless one is sure that faith can be placed in a person to lead by example, there is no need for them to even been considered. Your very own John Cena is a great example of this simple truth. Unfortunately for him, his overexposure cost him some of his potential popularity. Had his ascent been slower, he might not have had his so-called fans turn on him as quickly as they did. H: Did you just defend a move that Al Davis made? While I understand how close to the situation you are, with your roots in Oakland, I fail to see how anything Al Davis has done in the last several years can be defended. Lane Kiffin was not the problem for the Oakland Raiders. Al Davis is, and has been, the problem for the Oakland Raiders. Nobody can succeed in Oakland as long as Mr Davis is in charge. They have a far more talented team than their records will indicate, but it all comes down to the lack of freedom that the Raiders coaches get. Al Davis is stuck in the past, and is afraid to move forward, and the team suffers because of that. Your mention of the ratings decline being linked to the lack of a viable talent as the top guy doesn't take into account that the ratings dropped even further with people like Batista and Chris Jericho at the top of the Raw brand. Like with Al Davis, it isn't about the change itself, but how the change is handled. You mentioned this yourself with TNA and Samoa Joe. The company gave Joe the proverbial "ball" to run with, but the general line of thinking is that it was given to him several months too late. They didn't capitalize on his meteoric rise in popularity, and instead, they waited until the fans simply didn't see him in the same light to finally go ahead and make him their champion. This is not Samoa Joe's fault. This is the fault of the people in charge at TNA for failing to make the correct decision for themselves and for their business, but at this point, is it really a surprise when they make poor choices? Bringing up Al Davis fit the argument far better than you could have thought, even though you did not intend on bringing him up to support my cause. Are we putting too much pressure on the wrestlers? Of course we are, but we can't sit back and baby them, either. Without pain, there can be no pleasure. The chances and risks that are taken NEED to be taken. As for John Cena and the people that have turned their backs on him, you know just as well as I do, Senator, that most of these people have not been completely honest in their reasoning for turning on the man. His ascent had little to do with this, as these fans have no problems supporting those who have risen quicker than he ever did. His supposed "stale character" has nothing to do with it, either, as again, those particular fans have no problems supporting those who have had twice the time for character "tweaks", and yet have provided half the change. These people do nothing but demand change when Mr Cena is the champion, and yet, according to you, they feel more comfortable with things that are more "familiar" to them. It sounds to me as if these fans are either being dishonest, or they don't really know what it is they want. Which is it, Senator? Which is it? K: Al Davis can be defended, dear Senator, on reputation alone - which your new breed of talent lacks. Much like Davis during his heyday of the 70's and 80's, reputation and constant vigilance were the tickets to becoming something special in the league. But lost amongst the shuffle somewhere has been the heart of wrestling. It's become mired in mindless flash that tells no story and has no substance in it. Angles, crash tv, sex, violence, degredation, and debauchery have become common place amongst the product up until recently as the WWE has decided to return to the roots of its programing. As I said, when things are uncertain, people return to the familiar. Which leads me to this...people, at the heart of it all, confuse easily. They think they want change but fear what it might produce. They think they want things to stay the same but bark on things being stale, flaccid, and impotent. Dancing back into politics, why is it that the American public, despite having low approval of one George W. Bush, elected him into another term for the presidency? Because they could trust that, despite his numerous and obvious flaws, they knew he would stick to his guns and continue to play ball. People did not have faith in a flippant, robotic John Kerry who simply faded into the ether soon after his defeat at the polls. Regardless of the ambigious nature of how his defeat came about, you're skirting the real issue here and arguing around what is the meat of the matter - why should I, as a business owner of a multi-million dollar media corporation, trust an unknown over a known? It's a very simple question that I ask, Senator, and one that you've failed to answer. Furthermore, why should I subject my consumers (read: fans) to someone who might not be there for the long term? A brief distraction is just that but to protect my assests as well as the interest of my associates and to maintain the stability of my product, I want to have my best foot forward. One would assume that experience would play in well with this. Going back to the football analogy, it has been shown that rookies can be both benefitial and detremential to any football franchise. Or at least youth. The undefeated Tennesse Titans star quarterback in Vince Young, while talented, hasn't proven to be consistent with his arm or leadership ability. As of right now, they are riding Kerry Collins and his management of the game to the playoffs. The same goes for Tampa Bay and their faith in Jeff Garcia or the New York Jets and Brett Farve, who are faring considerably better with him than in their projected starter of Kellen Clemens.The same cannot be said for your 49ers whom I know you are so fond of. Potshots at one another's teams aside, and back to the wrestling side of things, if Samoa Joe is supposed to be the next "it" in wrestling, it shouldn't matter when or where they give him the title. The anticipation and what he does with it should indicate how the long term is going to be and so far, Samoa Joe has been as dismal a disappointment as your faithful friend Ken Kennedy......Kennedy. H: I don't even know where to begin, Senator. First, the Tennessee Titans are not riding Kerry Collins towards the playoffs. They are riding their much-improved running game and their suffocating defense to an undefeated record to this point. Vince Young has proven repeatedly that he is a "winner". However, what he is NOT is emotionally stable enough for the NFL, or anything else for that matter. He needs help, and I hope he gets it. As for your personal mudslinging about my beloved San Francisco 49ers, I will say this.. their lack of Quarterback success is because of bad decisions by those in charge. It's not that the team didn't need a new person to take snaps for them, but they went ahead and picked the wrong person, much like Vince McMahon, if he would've went ahead and chose someone like Mr Kennedy to be at the helm of one of his shows. Making the incorrect change is not something to be held against the idea of change itself. It is something to be held against those making the change. Without that change and lack of fear of the unknown, we wouldn't have had Hulk Hogan and Hulkamania. We wouldn't have had the amazing success of "Stone Cold" Steve Austin. We wouldn't have had the multi-layered success of The Rock. At those moments, I'm sure there were people much like you, Senator, who were championing the cause of those who were "tried and true", but those were more than likely the same people who were excited when the changes worked, when the gambles paid off, and when the risks looked like great decisions. "Confuse easily", indeed. K: Despite your continued efforts to completely ignore that I'm not saying that change is terrible, I bring this to you, the audience. For too long we, the people, have been subject to people such as Senator Hustle who continue to push for an extreme when what is needed is moderation. There should be a healthy, calculated balance between veteran and rookie, rising and fading star. It is only through this balance that this form of entertainment shall not only survive but florish. I ask not to remove every younger nor do I advocate that we allow for the prior generation of superstars to continue to tear at their body simply for our own morbid delight. What I expect for my viewing pleasure, ladies and gentlemen, is temperance. Long gone are the days where wrestling was just that; wrestling. It has become an impatient, impertinent shell of it's former self. And how was this allowed? By the thought process of innovation by any means without assesing risk. Risks that, in the end, we all paid for. We have had to sit through a young generation who has no reverence for the phsycology and art that wrestling once was. Rest assured, this is by no means cloying to the glory days of old but a look into a bleak future where, if not fixed quickly wrestling might not endure the next hundred years. It is up to you, the fans, to choose to sustain history. My companion here said towards the beginning of our debate that everyone has the right to partake in history. I say this your chance to right the wrongs that have been perpetrated by talented yet unmotivated, uninspiring blemishes in wrestling's history; the Samoa Joe's, Ultimate Warrior's, Sid's, Kennedy's, Lesnar's who linger in the wounds of memory. So I say unto you that now is the time to speak and be heard...that no longer will we, the people, accept the mediocrity that has been passed off as talented. I say unto you to continue to support the Vanguard that has stood beside you for so long, so far with the hope that one day, the youth of his generation might assume responsibility and accept that now is not yet their time. What the future holds remains to be seen but with your help, we can build towards it together. H: Do not tell me what I am and am not doing, Senator. I am not "pushing" for anything. If a wrestler is over, both while wrestling and while cutting promos, then he is deserving of a "promotion". If he can improve his craft while his popularity increases, then he is deserving of a chance to be in the same conversation as the more "proven" talent. I see no reason to deny the people who it is they want to see. Sure, they are a very fickle bunch, but everything is FOR them, and that is the key point here. If the people are calling for a change, then it is the job of wrestling companies to give it to them and to give it to them when they are asking for it, unlike TNA with Samoa Joe, who did, despite what you think, take far too long in pushing the man who the people were asking for. Everything was handed to them on a silver platter, and they botched things so badly that it became difficult to watch. Again, though, this isn't a surprise when it comes to that company. At this point, it is more of a surprise when they do something correctly. What I am saying to the fine people reading this right now is that change IS needed. Change IS good. When CM Punk became the champion, ratings did go up, because the change was desired and was given to the people. When Punk, as the champion, was trotted out before everyone as no better than the fourth or fifth biggest name on the brand, that's when people turned their backs. They knew the "old guard" was still in charge. They knew the change was a hollow one. I don't need to sit here and "wow" people with a large vocabulary or with fancy terminology like my opponent, because I don't need to hide behind anything. I, like all of you, am a fan. I am a fan of these wrestlers that perform for us every week, trying to grow and trying to obtain a higher status every week. We need something new, fresh, and exciting to root for. Perhaps that is Kofi Kingston. Perhaps that is Evan Bourne. Perhaps that still is CM Punk. I don't know, and I'm not the one in charge of making those decisions. However, what I DO know is that things aren't as bad as my opponent may try to have you believe. Raw's ratings are down, not because of what IS happening, but because of what ISN'T happening. Senator Kross was correct about one thing, though, in that the future can be built if we work on it together, and that means actually WORKING ON THAT FUTURE, and not.. I repeat, NOT.. holding on to the past like a fearful wrestler clutching to his "spot" that he no longer deserves. I have my own wrestling column on the internet, and I now want it to be known that I have absolutely no problem with being completely and thoroughly destroyed in a debate in said wrestling column. Wow. That was impressive. I want to take this time to shout out the homie, Kross, for participating in this with me. Had I known about the ass-kicking that was coming my way, I might have thought twice about it, though. Real talk. Either way, it was an honor to have you as part of The HIPE. You've got some real skills, without question. There you have it, folks. Believe The HIPE. It's real. Another column is in the books. You know good and well that I'll be back tomorrow.. same Hustle time, same Hustle page.. with the 10th edition. Until then, from across the street from a Blockbuster, a McDonald's, a grocery store, a Korean BBQ restaurant, and a bunch of other places.. I bid you farewell. Aloha and Mahalo Nui Loa. "I'm exceedin expectations, you barely meeting quota.. I give it to em straight, you cut it with baking soda.." Hustle HIPRNFeedback@gmail.com 
|
|