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.

Designed Hypocrisy: Does Cena's Promo at the End of RAW Have Deeper Meaning?

Was Cena's lack of perspective intentional Monday?
Photo Credit: WWE.com

The final scene on RAW was indelible to say the least. Alberto del Rio locked his rival, Rey Mysterio, in the cross armbreaker after his successful title defense, and he would not let go. John Cena came to Mysterio's aid and then cut the angriest promo I've seen from him in the three years that I've been back watching. He looked pissed off, not because del Rio wronged him, but because del Rio wronged the Championship. He preyed on CM Punk moments after a hard fought victory and a sneak attack from Kevin Nash, and he didn't act honorably. On the surface, without any context, this makes sense. Cena's character is about hustle, loyalty and respect, and del Rio showed none.

The truth is, neither did Cena.

Go back to the RAW where Justin Roberts proclaimed "JEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHN CENA" as the new WWE Champion after defeating Mysterio. The diminutive San Diegan was wrestling in his fourth match in two weeks. He had wrestled a grueling match against The Miz, a former Champion himself, earlier in the program. The major difference between the two is that del Rio seized his own opportunity, while Cena had it handed to him by Triple H.

That may make all the difference in the world, but at the same time, refusing a title shot isn't really out of the realm of character for someone if the storyline called for it. Hell, CM Punk, the guy who was "wronged" by del Rio, forewent his rematch to chase Kevin Nash and try to uncover conspiracies that would keep him from attaining his deserved prize as "Best in the World". So, why couldn't Cena forego his title shot for one more week to get Mysterio at his best if that's the way he'd conveniently feel after seeing Punk get jobbed out of the title?

Some may point to internal inconsistencies, and I agree that with WWE Creative, as well as they've been doing lately, that's always a possibility. That being said, WWE Creative is doing pretty well for themselves lately, at least on the main event level, so maybe they do deserve some benefit of the doubt here. Maybe Cena's reaction was carefully planned to foreshadow a change in alignment.

Yes, the ultimate white whale of the Internet fan is a John Cena heel turn. Ever since he became a fan favorite, the cries have come it seems, and it always has seemed like a bad idea. He sold too much merch. He's too much of a house show draw. He gets too loud a reaction from the children, whereas no one else but the increasingly fragile Rey Mysterio would get. Plain and simple, it would have been bad business, even if it would have been better TV for folks who make up a small portion of the audience.

That being said, the appearance of Punk, and possibly even Miz, as suitors to the role of top hero make Cena as a bad guy increasingly tempting and viable. Of course, neither Miz nor Punk appeal to a family-oriented crowd as they stand right now, which to me would still call into question the wisdom of turning Cena heel. Having one kind of top hero, or appealing to only one audience, can be a good plan of action if you can clean up in that one area. That being said, if you can have versatility in direction, then why not try to aim for more than one demographic? Pixar has been doing this for years, loading up its movies with clever, adult-oriented humor that was well-hidden within the aimed-for-children stories and trappings.

But I'm not really here to judge whether it's a good idea, just to speculate as to whether this could be a deliberate shift in direction for Cena. One of the great parts about programming right now is that it's unpredictable. Just when you think you have the answers, they change the questions. Whether we'll see the same ol' Cena going forward or not is now more than ever not certain, and I think the promo on Monday, whether it telegraphs a change in character or not for Cena, was intentionally crafted that way to cause doubt, to bring more than just Cena, Punk and the McMahon-Helmsley ruling house into the, as David Shoemaker terms it, The Reality Era.

CM Punk Gets People to React... That's a Good Thing

Punk gets some boos, but no one sits on their hands
Photo Credit: WWE.com

I keep hearing about CM Punk getting "mixed" reactions like it's a bad thing. On one hand, I can maybe understand it. The calibration factor for Punk's reactions did not set a reasonable baseline. His two biggest appearances after the Las Vegas double taping were in Boston and Chicago. One is a town known for its smarky cheering habits and the other is Punk's home town. No doubt Punk wasn't going to get anything less than a hero's welcome in either location.

So, when he started getting mixed reactions in Indianapolis and San Jose, it shouldn't have been much of a surprise. Those are two cities that are places where John Cena still gets a good fan favorite reaction. Honestly, they've done nothing to lessen the reactions among the people who would cheer Cena either. So it's natural that there would be some wavering in the cheers that Punk was getting. The key though is that he's getting reactions. People boo him if they're not cheering him (although judging from the reactions he got at least this past week, I'd say even in San Jose, more cheered than booed). If you're in charge, don't you want your guy to at least elicit some kind of reaction?

If WWE is looking for a traditional reaction here, they're going about it the wrong way. Neither Cena nor Punk are playing up a classic bad guy. The closest thing to a true heel in this scenario is the specter of Vince McMahon, who is represented by John Laurinitis, but even he's just peripheral at this point. They've cultivated a split crowd, and that's what they've gotten.

So the fact that the crowd reactions have been there is the thing to look at here. This is very much a successful storyline from the standpoint that people are reacting. The crowd split makes it unique. I hope that WWE doesn't try to consolidate the crowd like they did with Cena and The Rock after WrestleMania. It's a great dynamic, and it can lend itself to having two top good guys that can carry two top feuds. It can only be a good thing.

So the crowd reactions being mixed isn't bad. The fact that Punk gets people reacting should be the main story here.

Truth, Heels and Gender Roles: Why Kelly Kelly Is the Real Diva Villain

The actions of an honorable woman?
Photo Credit: WWE.com

All Beth Phoenix wants is to be taken seriously. It's hard for her to do so when she's one of the few in a division who strive for that. When most of the Divas base their offense on how hot they are, or how well they can shake their asses, it can be hard for a legitimate female wrestler to ply her trade when all she wants to do is bust skulls. What was her repayment? She's painted as the villain, and furthermore, Kelly Kelly, the most egregious of the ass shakers and stink-facers, gave her the waylaying of a lifetime.

Coincidentally, K2 is considered the face of the Divas division.

While this may not seem "right", it has been the status quo in WWF/E for a long time to some degree. The heels were the ones who told the truth, often times uncomfortable, while the faces spun propaganda to some degree. This was no more evident than in the broadcast booth in the '80s and '90s, when Bobby Heenan and Jesse "The Body" Ventura would point out flaws in Hulk Hogan's or the Ultimate Warrior's games. Obviously, they were bad for a reason; they'd often ignore the misgivings of their bad guy counterparts, but this is nothing new for WWE.

However, the level at which this attacking of the truth, at least from an institutional level, seems to be a bit excessive from where I sit. Let's switch the narrative around a little bit. Instead of Beth wanting to turn the Divas away from looks, splits and booty-shaking, what if she came out and wanted to rid the Divas of politics and ass-kissing? She'd be CM Punk, right? CM Punk's a good guy, or at the very least, he's a fan favorite (which may still yet make him a bad guy if the fans are into that kind of thing), correct?

So, basically what the WWE is saying is that it's okay for the men to have real competition, but the ladies should be there to shake their asses. I'm no feminist, and believe me, I've gotten my fair share of erections looking at sexy photo shoots, but that's not kosher from where I sit, ESPECIALLY when the one company that does nearly everything WWE tries to do, only worse, gets it better than they do in this instance, even now when their women's division is at its worst. When Impact books women better than you, you have problems.

Even more troubling are the demographics for WWE. Apparently, 36% of the audience is female. That's not a trivial number, and it's one that needs to be catered to. That begs the question, what caters to women? Do you assume they're all vain and easily fooled by platitudes like being called "smart, sexy and powerful" without any evidence of that being the case, or do you assume they're real people who like real, three-dimensional characters, or at the very least, two-dimensional characters who can actually wrestle? The WWE thinks it's the former, but I'm going to make the not-so-wild assumption that 36% of their audience would like to see more of the latter.

So you can very much agree on why I feel like positioning Beth as a heel is a bad thing, right? Especially when the thing she's been fighting against was so expertly personified as a bad girl trait during LayCool's epic run on Smackdown. Strong women are good role models. Conversely, the woman with minimal wrestling skills maybe shouldn't be held as the paradigm. I mean, K2 uses the Stink Face, a move that was used by someone 300 lbs. her heavier. The girth was the efficacy, but now, it's reduced to lesbian homoerotica. While I'm not exactly going to argue that I dislike that kind of thing, I don't think it should be used in something that is being staged as legitimate competition. Then, in response, she Pearl Harbors Beth, partially out of retaliation for last week, but you could assume she was a bit miffed at the criticism. Then again, when did the good guy sneak attack someone? Oh yeah, that's right, it's SOP in WWE. No one fights with honor anymore. But I digress.

The point is, if the gender here was inverted, Beth Phoenix probably would be a folk hero. Instead, she's used as a monster to get over the paradigm that you need to be PRETTY PRETTY OH SO PRETTY to be a good girl in WWE (completely oblivious to the fact that there are people in the fandom, of which I'm a member, that think Beth is way hotter than Kelly). When you have a significant portion of women in the audience, especially impressionable youths, maybe it's time you start portraying the fairer sex as more than just pretty faces, fake tits and shrinking waistlines.