|
The first companion book in the WrestleMania Era series, The Greatest Champions Of The WrestleMania Era, is also available now! ”The Doc” Chad Matthews has been a featured writer for LOP since 2004. Initially offering detailed recaps and reviews for WWE's top programs, he transitioned to writing columns in 2010. In addition to his discussion-provoking current event pieces, he has written many acclaimed series about WrestleMania, as well as a popular short story chronicle. The Doc has also penned a book, The WrestleMania Era: The Book of Sports Entertainment, published in 2013. It has been called “the best wrestling book I have ever read” and holds a 5-star rating on Amazon, where it peaked at #3 on the wrestling charts. Follow @TheDocLOP QUESTION OF THE DAY: Did you like the original brand split? Do you think the modern version is a good thing or a bad thing? Why or why not? The following is a case study of WWE’s product for the month of May 2016. Raw vs. Smackdown 2.0 The biggest WWE news of the month came not from their two PPVs, but from last week's announcement that the brand split is returning; Details are still coming in as of press time but, once again, Raw and Smackdown will be positioned as separate entities under the WWE umbrella with distinct rosters of talent. As is the case in the modern era with most major decisions, WWE's choice to put their renewed wrestler-quality depth up to the challenge of sustaining two live weekly television programs has been divisive. It is a polarizing topic on which I stand firmly unconvinced either way. The original extension suffered from two major non-booking-related weaknesses: the primary was that, by 2004/2005, the talent pool had - aside from the OVW '02 class - already dwindled considerably, replacing Monday Night War veterans with what history would show to be less hungry, often entitled counterparts; the secondary was a result of the primary, as questionable ideas like brand-only PPVs and theme-driven selling points replaced conventional wisdom built around well-developed characters. The tweaks to the talent recruitment strategies seen in recent years have served WWE well in restocking the talent cupboard with world class wrestlers, so depth is no longer a concern. Rising tides lift all ships, developing an assumption on my part that better, hungrier wrestlers will yield smarter decisions to make good use of them. Creative deployment of that talent, however, continues to be a major issue. There is a reason I've written in recent Month-in-Review columns about changing viewership habits to reflect a less-essential TV product. On the one hand, splitting the rosters could re-ignite a sense of urgency from WWE higher-ups in regards to TV quality and simultaneously re-engage an increasingly disinterested TV audience. If it doesn't spark a basic philosophical change in booking, though, is anything significant accomplished? Personally, I stopped watching Raw because it had been boring for 95% of the previous 18 months and I stopped watching Smackdown regularly years ago when it stopped serving an essential purpose. As I will discuss in further detail this week on "The Doc Says" (co-hosted by LOP's Super Chrisss), I am cautiously optimistic that bringing back Raw vs. Smackdown is a sign that WWE is taking their multi-year TV deficiencies seriously. Triple H said months ago that he honestly didn't know what to do about the sinking ship that was their TV ratings; the brand split is at least something. The concept was always intriguing, taking Vince McMahon's self-expressed desire to create internal competition among those he employs to the extreme in order to draw superlative work out of everyone involved in the WWE process. For a variety of reasons, the original version failed (though certainly not completely and utterly as some have suggested). This is an opportunity for a do-over. Color me intrigued and certainly a little skeptical. If the mission is to get viewers like me to tune back in, then they will have accomplished it with at least one person when the split-related happenings get going on TV; I will give them a chance to re-engage me, but they will ultimately have to answer the question that in many ways prompted the ratings decline from 4.0 to 3.0 to 2.0: can WWE still, circa 2016, create a TV show worthy of watching religiously? WWE Payback Review Match of the Month: AJ Styles vs. Roman Reigns at Extreme Rules In a month with multiple PPVs, there are typically more contenders for this award and May 2016 was no exception. In a very tight race for the top spot, Styles-Reigns II narrowly edged out Owens vs. Zayn and Owens vs. Zayn vs. Miz vs. Cesaro. I am holding firm on the equal star ratings (****1/4) initially given to each match after repeat viewings; they were all great matches. If you perform a thorough head-to-head-to-head analysis and the matches succeed on comparable levels differing mostly because of the styles in which they were wrestled, typically the tie is broken by the better feud. Frankly, there was not much difference in storyline quality either; Reigns vs. Styles was a fascinating clash of ideologies, Zayn vs. Owens was a rousing renewal of past conflict, and even the Fatal Fourway - not exactly a gimmick known for the depth of its pre-match psychological stimulation - was put together in a healthily logical fashion that tied together one great and one solid rivalry. Give the advantage in feud to Zayn-Owens, nudge the 4-Way slightly ahead on excitement and superiority within its genre, but in the end acknowledge Reigns vs. Styles for being a mixture of both story and entertainment, for being a microcosm of the WWE Renaissance and offering a riveting conclusion to a chemistry-laden saga that we needed after a WrestleMania season of mixed reviews. Previous winners: Ambrose vs. Owens at Royal Rumble (Jan), Ambrose vs. Reigns vs. Lesnar at Fast Lane (Feb), Dean Ambrose vs. Triple H at Roadblock (Mar), and Shinsuke Nakamura vs. Sami Zayn at Takeover: Dallas (Apr) WWE Extreme Rules Review Co-Wrestlers of the Month: AJ Styles and Roman Reigns How could you possibly separate these two after what they've accomplished together this month? I prefer to choose an outright winner but, for the first time since I began handing out these honors, I don't feel compelled to try and force the issue just to end up with one recipient. The fact is that they were both outstanding in their pair of destined-to-be-underrated matches and yet neither was particularly noteworthy during the build-up to them. As in-ring competitors, Styles is one of the best in the world and Reigns is one of the world's most underappreciated. Double R got back on track after a disappointing WrestleMania main-event and found a comfort zone with his character expressed most passionately during his PPV performances that nearly boosted him ahead of Styles, but it was AJ's ownership of the WWE main-event - that many of us who have followed him since the early 2000s never thought he would achieve - which kept him in the race. Previous winners: Dean Ambrose (Jan and Feb), Chris Jericho (Mar), and AJ Styles (Apr) June Predictions Money in the Bank has been a borderline replacement for Survivor Series in the WWE PPV hierarchy's "Big Four." Each year, it produces one of the best events on the WWE calendar with its mixture of crash-and-burn action via the Ladder matches and readily high profile title matches. In the All-Time PPV Countdown podcast series I put together leading up to Mania 32, I had all of the previous Money in the Bank iterations listed among my Top 100. This year is shaping up to be another classic show. Roman Reigns vs. Seth Rollins is highly anticipated, perhaps by no member of the wrestling media more than yours truly. I have been anxiously awaiting the first encounter between these former S.H.I.E.L.D. members for two years, dating back to when Rollins struck Reigns with a chair and infamously turned heel. Reigns backed off his pursuit of the Architect, opting to let his brother-in-arms, Dean Ambrose, go for the kill. The time has now come, though, for "The Guy" to face "The Man." All due respect to the Lunatic Fringe, but he's got a ways to go before he can catch his former cohorts; Reigns and Rollins have emerged as the alpha males of this new era and the battle between them should be an instant classic (though I wonder if they will intentionally leave a lot on the table for future matches on grander stages). With the brand split's shadow looming large, I half expect there to be some sort of shenanigans that creates a necessity for multiple championships again, but my prediction for now is some sort of tainted win for Reigns. The contract Ladder match could be fantastic. Last year's paled in comparison to the Rollins-won 2014 version, but the mix of personalities a year ago can't hold a candle to the line-up thus far announced for this year. I'm personally hoping that back-to-back Wrestler of the Month winner, AJ Styles, gets involved somehow after a second chance at qualification. If he were to be added, you would have five very intriguing possibilities for a winner; that unpredictability alone could carry the match and make it much easier for them to craft a compelling story. The best versions of Money in the Bank have featured the stunt brawl creativity with character-driven drama sprinkled in; such is what allowed 2014 to thrive. I would be surprised if 2016 didn't give 2014 a run for its money.
|
