Punk/HHH Is a Lot of Things, but Not a Hotshot

Is Punk a folk hero or an unlikable dick?
Photo Credit: WWE.com

There were a lot of differing criticisms about the end of RAW last night and the announcement that it would be Triple H taking on CM Punk at Night of Champions instead of Kevin Nash challenging the Straight Edge Savior. The one that seems to come up the most is that it's a hotshot. The announcement was abrupt, yes. They were building towards Punk/Nash since SummerSlam, yes. However, despite all that, this is not a hotshot. If you think about it, they've actually been building to this match since 6/27. Yeah, remember? Doofus son-in-law? Two months, Punk has been taking shots at Triple H, and for the most part, Trips took the shots in humor. Last night was his breaking point. There's nothing to suggest that this was the hotshot.

Now, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Again, if Triple H was the endgame for Night of Champions, why misdirect with Kevin Nash of all people? Maybe it was a way to get everyone's hopes depressed for the prospect of Punk having to carry his 51-year old carcass around the ring for an extended period of time to the point where Trips would seem like an improvement. While there's reason to believe that this was the story all along (although the reasoning on the surface seems flimsy at best), it comes off so much like swerve storytelling, stuff that gets a company like Impact lambasted (rightfully so, by the way).

Secondly, and most importantly, the narrative is screwed up. How's Punk getting underneath Trips' skin. He's insinuating that his wife keeps his balls in her purse. While that's good for occasional ball-busting among friends in a fratboy douchebag sort of way, the longer it's kept up, the more people are going to want to see Trips deck Punk, not for Punk to prevail over his "evil" boss (who's totally not being portrayed as evil).

Again, the story isn't flawed because it's being rushed. Hardly. Unless the endgame is Punk/Trips at WrestleMania, then a two-to-three PPV arc between the two should start right now if that's the case. Hell, it could end up that the two bury the hatchet and join forces because they're being set up by whoever it was who sent the text to Nash in the first place. The story is fatally flawed because it's a bad story in the context of the direction they've set forth.

Punk is supposed to be a folk hero, right? While this course he's on makes him a folk hero by the very definition of the word, those kinds of niche characters don't get over the way that wrestling characters are SUPPOSED to get over. Wrestling caters to a specific audience, and usually the kinds of people who gravitate to a caustic troll (which is what Punk's character is) don't gravitate to wrestling. Steve Austin was a folk hero, but he was an oxymoronic folk hero who had broad appeal. He raged against his corrupt boss. Triple H hasn't proven himself corrupt, so Punk comes off as a dick. Yeah, he's a dick who got screwed over, but until/unless Triple H is revealed as a liar, the more he goads the Game, the more he seems like he deserves to get screwed.

But as badly framed as the narrative is, it's not too soon for a match between the doofus son-in-law and the pipebomb-wielding future star of the company. To call this a hotshot is to do the same thing that people accuse WWE of doing all the time, ignoring longer-term history. That doesn't mean you have to like the story, but at least be honest in criticizing it instead of using smark buzzwords to frame an argument that doesn't fit the thing you're raging against.

A Bait and Switch? Who Cares!

Was this a bait and switch? Yes. Is that a bad thing? No.
Photo Credit: WWE.com

Let's get it out of the way, for the sake of argument. The ending of RAW Monday, with Vince McMahon telling Rey Mysterio to hit the showers because his match with The Miz for the Interim WWE Championship was postponed until the next week was a bait and switch. We, as viewers, were promised a one night tournament to completion. We didn't get it. This is definitely the kind of thing that ruined WCW, yes. However, there's a key different from the average ending to Nitro to what happened Monday. Well, there are several differences, actually.

The keyest difference between the powerful segment to end RAW and your average end to Nitro where the nWo would beat up on everyone and spraypaint shit and be dominant is exactly that. The WWE gave us something worthwhile, something that gave us a very important plot development. Given the choice between what we saw and what we were promised? Well, Mysterio and Miz would definitely have given us a good match, but then again, they can have that match next week too. It's not a crime to tip your hand and build towards a marquee match, even if it's on free TV (I'd say especially if it was on free TV). But the kind of TV that we got was once-in-a-lifetime, I think. I mean, how many times does Vince McMahon get fired from his own company with it having the kind of effect it had Monday?

That's why this bait and switch was a good idea, on several levels. It traded off something potentially good and gave us something really great. It gave that "something good" another week to simmer and get people excited for it. I mean, there was literally nothing wrong with what they did, and to me, pretending that there was is just that, pretending.

See, WWE, for all its faults in booking and execution, has done a great job in making sure they delivered what they promised for their main event. That's what made this change so powerful, because WWE doesn't do it all the time. And really, when WCW did their weekly shitting on the main event, was it ever powerful? Impactful? Maybe the first couple of times it was, but they kept running it into the ground.

Measuring what's good on a wrestling program by the tropes they use is shortsighted in my view. You need to judge on emotional impact, resonation. If you didn't like the last segment on RAW because you thought it schmaltzy or overacted, then fine, I cannot begrudge you your opinion. However, if it's because it was what WCW used to do, then I think you might have your criticisms misplaced.

Into the Great Wide Open: WWE Money in the Bank 2011 Preview

All about the briefcase, two times
Photo Credit: WWE.com

I get a lot of inspiration for blog posts from people saying smart, dumb or otherwise in between things, and me agreeing, disagreeing, replying, retorting, building upon or just plain making fun of those statements. When it's someone like Razor of House Kick-Out!! saying it, you can bet I'm either agreeing with it, or if not, retorting civilly because he's a sharp guy. This is one of the times when I'm in full agreement:

I think MITB is one of the least predictable PPVs in recent memory. I can see every match going either way and the MITBs are wide open.

Think about it for a second. You might jump and say "WELL, I KNOW WHO'S GOING TO WIN! HE'S WRONG!" but then you think, and it's quite possible that the only match on the card that's even close to being easy to predict is Big Show taking on Mark Henry. I mean, Henry's gotta win that match, right? Right?

Well, no, because what if it's the blowoff, and Show gets to give Henry his comeuppance here before both men move onto threats on their respective brands? See what I mean? This has to be the first WWE PPV in a long time with so much mystery surrounding what the matches themselves are going to produce in terms of results.

That's not a bad thing, by the way. In fact, it probably makes this the most appetizing event on the schedule for WWE so far this year. People by and large don't want to tune into foregone conclusions. They want drama, intrigue, suspense and some kind of struggle or conflict to go with their potentially happy ending. The way WWE has built up the top matches for this PPV has been superb, especially for the nominal main event, John Cena defending his title and his job against a potentially exiting CM Punk. For the first time in a long time, the story isn't being framed to make Cena the obvious victor. There is drama, coming from all kinds of outside sources. There's Vince not having faith enough in Cena to get the job done. There's Punk's recent winning streak against The Champ. Everything's so perfectly staged and virtually anything can happen.

I mean, there are also two Money in the Bank matches, spectacles in and of themselves, with no clear favorites going into the frays beforehand. I mean, yeah, I handicapped both matches on here, but let's be real; the whole point behind Money in the Bank, why it exists anyway, is to be able to throw a curveball and have someone who isn't in the picture suddenly get into it. That's why it's ends with a briefcase being taken off a hook by means of climbing a ladder, something fluky and attainable by anyone, whether they were the aggressor or just picking the scraps from a spectacular car wreck, and not a pinfall or submission.

Oh yeah, and Randy Orton and Christian get to wrestle again in what's certain to be a damn good match. This angle has been brushed off to the side in the gigantic wake of Punk/Cena, and rightfully so in a way. Any feud that goes three PPVs in length with this much of a one-sided tilt to it is going to induce groans when it continues. But Christian has done his best to drag great matches out of Orton, and who knows, maybe fourth time is the charm.

But that's the fourth-most intriguing match on the card at best. If you get this event, you're getting it for two car crash ladder matches and to see whether CM Punk is going to walk out of Chicago - and WWE - with the title. And if you're like me, you have no fucking idea where to start forecasting what's going to happen.

If that doesn't give you butterflies - the good kind, that is - then I don't know what would.