Alberto del Rio Is Only Telling You Things You Already Knew

Baaaaaht... chu already knew that
Photo Credit: WWE.com

Hey, did any of those backstage segments with Alberto del Rio look familiar to you last night? Y'know, the ones where he was going up to Christian and Wade Barrett and Dolph Ziggler and trying to get them to do his dirty work against John Cena? If they didn't, let me introduce you to Sean O'Haire...





In case you missed it for that short time back in the early Aughts, O'Haire was telling people what they already knew, much like del Rio did last night. He was an Internet favorite who really didn't get the juice that other guys at the time were getting, and his character (and eventually job) was scrapped. Shame, because it could have been something. Then again, was he doomed to fail from start? He was saying things that would have made him very popular with crowds, but what was his endgame? He really wasn't programmed with anyone to start, and no one had a real reason to like or dislike him other than the stuff he was saying. Having interesting things to say is good in wrestling, but I think emotional attachment is needed, and in wrestling, conflict equals attachment.

That's where I thought WWE succeeded with del Rio. If you remember back to his debut vignettes, they had somewhat of a similar vibe to them. However, when he debuted, instead of just talking to people without really getting any kind of conflict going, bam, he attacked Rey Mysterio. Simple, to the point and right there, the crowds started to attach themselves to del Rio as someone they hated rather than some guy who was persuasive with no real conflict attached. Furthermore, when del Rio was going around playing the devil's advocate to Christian, Barrett and Ziggler, it wasn't just for jollies like when he convinced Dawn Marie to flash or Brian Kendrick to streak. It was to further his own agenda, to have minions of sorts to soften up John Cena for Night of Champions.

To that end, WWE finally got that character archetype right. While Sean O'Haire was telling people things that they already knew for no apparent reason other than hey, he found it amusing, del Rio is using that manipulation to further his rep as an evil genius. Conflict is key, and storyline progression, even if it's entertaining, is only going to be effective if there's an endgame. While it may have screwed over O'Haire back in 2003, at least another intriguing character type has now been proven effective and can provide some sort of variety to the cast of characters in a company that needs to have it to reach its full potential.

From the A1 Message Boards: What I'd Do with Unlimited Money and Wrestling Desires

My top guy

Newish A1 user Rick Rude (great tribute handle, by the way), posted a thread asking what you'd do with unlimited funds re: building a wrestling promotion. Here's his original post:

Imagine a scenario where you have acquired a stupendous amount of money. You are set for life, as well as your children and grandchildren if you have any. You have so much money, in fact, that it's basically impossible for you to ever not have money again, even if you wasted ludicrous amounts on bad investments. I don't care if you won three state lotteries, or were discovered to be a long lost Walton love child, the money is yours to do what you want.

You decide that you might as well be a money mark since you love wrestling so much.

The WWE, as a public company, is out of bounds. Everything else is in play. What would you buy, or would you start up something new? Who would you hire for creative and for on-air talent? What would be your marketing plan? Where would you perform? What about a TV deal? Would you look to take down the WWE empire, or would you prefer to remain low key and simply recoup expenses?

And here is my reply:

I'd head up the booking team, because it's my fed, my vision. My booking team would probably consist of any combination of Brandon Stroud of With Leather, the Fair to Flair crew, Bill Dempsey, David Shoemaker (the Masked Man), jerseyboy (commenter) and/or Linus (Ingoldsby, A1 poster and TWB reader - because I'd have to consider European sensibilities if I wanted to have a following across the pond). Why people I know/writers? Again, something different. It's my money, I'll succeed or fail with the people I want to succeed and fail with.

My vision would be to combine old-school ideas and concepts with modern sport sensibility, bound together with a healthy sense of humor. Like Jamey "FATSEXY" Litton, no one from "the office" would make an appearance in storyline unless it's to introduce a new commissioner (no GMs, commissioners, because again, I'm old school) or some shit like that. In ring, I'd promote a safer style based on mat wrestling and storytelling. Big finishers are meant to be taken once every couple of months, not once every couple of spots in a match. I'd draw people in with strong characters and emphasis on unscripted but "guided" promos.

At first, I'd probably run February through November with a two month offseason that'd coincide with the holiday season/football playoffs. Give people some time to catch up with what they might have missed in DVDs during the two months we'd be off.

As for talent, again, since I'd want for guys to draw people in on a basis of a combination of character and sound fundamentals rather than ZOMG WERKRATE, I pick up guys who can cut promos or act out as great characters. So guys like Davey Richards who just like to kill and get killed in the ring to have the awesomest match ever? Get lost. But a guy like Colt Cabana, who has killer personality and a sound grasp on how to work a mat-based style? Welcome aboard. In fact, he's probably my top face. Austin Aries would be my top heel. He has a rep of being a ZOMG WERKRATE guy too, but he also is a great character and has worked a "sports entertainment" style in some matches to great effect. From there, I build outwards and pick up some established guys (AJ Styles, Beer Money - provided they don't balks at the idea to leave Impact - Jay Lethal, Mike Knox, Chris Masters, Kazarian, El Generico, Kevin Steen) and some under the radar guys (Kenn Doane, Lucky Cannon, Eddie Kingston, the RockNES Monsters, RD Evans, Brodie Lee). Throw in a choice veteran, say, Steve Corino or Tommy Dreamer, and then start developing stories.

I'd start slow, 10-15 shows a year, and then try to grow with television and such. Don't go all in early, don't expect to succeed and build on stories, three acts of varying development. Always have something really good happening at a given show. That's what I'd do.

Furthermore, I'd also put on an honest-to-God joshi division, really push tag teams as serious business and probably have an appearance by a WrestleCrap hall of famer every year or so, just to remind myself not to take myself too seriously.

Photo Credit: Scott Finkelstein - Please visit his site to view the plentiful amounts of pictures he's taken for DGUSA, ROH and other indie feds: Get Lost Photography

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.

Tell Me Now, What's the Point of EVOLVE?

Post inspired by a Twitter conversation today with Sean Williams

Is the concept of EVOLVE being executed on correctly?

EVOLVE's been open for business for 20 months now, right? I was excited for the promotion from jump, and yeah, two of the three shows that I watched from it were really good. However, I'll be the first to admit that I'm an anomaly when it comes to wrestling fans. I can watch wrestling for wrestling's sake. I don't necessarily need context to enjoy a match, even if a good backstory always enhances a match for me, if that makes any sense. Most people would watch a real sport if they just wanted to see people do moves to each other all the time. I had high hopes for EVOLVE when it first started. A pure sport promotion, done right, could have been huge, could have been great.

But again, when pure sport is the only thing going for it, then it gets boring. You can tell me that whoever wins and loses matters and has meaning, but saying it and showing it are two different things. By now, I expected EVOLVE to have an endgame, a sort of thing that the wins and losses amount to. Instead, what are their metrics? What are, as KSP and Jason Mann would say, the MacGuffins? According to the mission statement, having the best record and having the longest winning streak are the only real prizes, and in the meantime, the other focus of the promotion was getting to know the "real" person.

The former to me feels like spinning wheels. Okay, you can have the best record or the most wins in an ephemeral sense, but that's just it. It's an intangible thing. Pure sport doesn't operate that way. Team sports have year long seasons. Combat sports have Championship belts. Individual sports like golf and tennis may not have tangible season long titles, but the thing is, each event isn't just a collection of head-to-head battles. They're tournaments with one winner.

But again, wrestling is not like "real" sport because it's not a sport. It has sporting elements, but in an environment where most of the fans, especially in the indies where everyone's moved past the whole "kayfabe-as-gospel" stage, know it's staged, it needs to have more pronounced stories to hold interest in a general sense. So how does that fit into a pure sports build? It doesn't mean that the stories have to be just like they are in Chikara or even in WWE, but they have to be pronounced. Even if it's chasing the right to be in a playoff system to compete for a Championship trophy to complete a season, that's a solid story right there.

I know what you're saying, a tangible Championship is no greater a story or no more tangible than a wins record or a winning streak. To a point, that's true, but only to a degree. Saying you want to win the most matches is great, or wanting to have the best record is fine, but at the same time, there's no transference. I can retire with the best record, or with the most wins, but there's no changing of the guard when I go, and that can be perfectly acceptable in the barebones scheme of things. In sport, that's okay because it's wholly results driven. In wrestling, having something be results driven is pointless because having the best record never means you're the best at what you do. It means that someone likes you or you're a great politician.

People see through that, and it's a HUGE reason why stuff like Shawn Michaels losing his smile or Impact Wrestling booking angles to strip titles so frequently go over like farts in church with many fans, hardcore or not. Stories need resolution, and in wrestling, stories need conflict. Any story where a guy can surpass another without ever facing him feels cheap. Especially when a lot of what has been used to sell tickets and DVDs for the promotion has been guest stars, from Ikuto Hidaka to Bryan Danielson to Finlay, that cheapness comes through when the main thrust of the fed isn't even the concept anymore, but the guys who come in and act as "gets" for dream matches.

Typical ROH Fan jokes on Twitter that Davey Richards leaving Gabe Sapolsky in the lurch was a big reason why EVOLVE was destined to fail. I'd say that even if Richards had stuck around, the concept would still be where it is because of the plan₁. It feels nebulous, and it feels like it's pandering to a crowd that doesn't exist, or at the very best, is small because they still like wrestling but don't realize what wrestling is all about. People who want to watch "real" watch UFC. I admit that I do want realism in my wrestling, but wanting realism and wanting it to be "real" are two way different things. I would even go to say that they're missing the point about what kind of realism they want. Again, putting on a pure sports fed where people are "real" would mean that there needed to be something to fight for more than just wins and losses or having a temporary prize like "the most wins" or "the longest streak".

I do admit that they have done some things right. The Style Battle was a neat diversion, they have done a few pretty cool - albeit short - feuds and yes, after the dreadful EVOLVE 1 card, the actual matches have been good for the most part. That being said, when there's not guiding principle at the top and too much focus is put on guest stars, things get stale and directionless.

So, 20 months in, I'm not sure it's an unfair question to ask what the point of EVOLVE is. What are they providing that isn't being provided, and are they doing it well? Even if you have an answer to the first question, I'm not sure that you can answer the second question in a positive manner. Wrestling for wrestling's sake is not an effective longterm vision for a good company, and I just don't want to see EVOLVE become just another fed that missed the boat because they were directed to a demand that just wasn't there.

1 - To be fair, so did Typical ROH Fan.

Photo Credit: Scott Finkelstein - Please visit his site to view the plentiful amounts of pictures he's taken for DGUSA, ROH and other indie feds: Get Lost Photography

CM Punk's Validation from... John Cena?

John Cena, WWE's narrator incarnate?
Photo Credit: WWE.com

Last night's overrun did more than just provide groundwork for the Night of Champions WWE Championship match. When John Cena came out and lambasted Alberto del Rio for the way he gained the Championship at the end of SummerSlam, he did more than just wax hypocritically (I'll have more on that this week), he legitimized CM Punk as a top tier player.

Wait, what? Legitimized CM Punk? Yeah, he did. Words are powerful in wrestling, sometimes even moreso than the actions that will secretly speak to a wrestler's true intentions. That's why guys like The Rock could hold so much sway. When Cena spits fire like he did last night, he's in that elite category. So, when he told del Rio that he had no problem with the way Punk won the title from him last night, that was the biggest sign that hey, Punk now belongs and is worthy of your respect. Granted, a lot of people, namely, the men in the audience, already have given Punk their allegiance, but there are a lot of wrestlers who get support from the crowds who don't get it from management, so to speak.

For better or worse, Cena is part of the management now. It's not explicit, but if he gives you respect on camera, especially when it comes to a Championship that he seems to monopolize lately, then it's an explicit sign that you have made it and that people have faith in you. Granted, the fact that the show prior to the main event had heavy doses of Punk and Punk-related storytelling was another sign, and the fact that he's been the main focus of the main show for the last two months is another big sign. That being said, I look at Cena's stamp of approval to be the final part of his validation.

This is very important to remember when looking at his pattern of winning over the last couple of months. The more pedantic point of view would be to look at his wins and go, "HE ONLY WON AT MONEY IN THE BANK BECAUSE CENA WENT TO INTERCEPT SUPER DAVE OSBOURNE!" or "BAH! HIS WIN AT SUMMERSLAM WAS TAINTED BECAUSE CENA HAD HIS FOOT ON THE ROPES!" In a medium of entertainment where the finish can be everything, yeah, maybe I can see that as a lack of faith in Punk. However, when the Corporate Champion comes out and blatantly tells you not to pay attention to the finishes and instead pay attention to the body of work, then it's a big clue that the finishes aren't meant to be as analyzed as they're being and that yes, Punk belongs.

So that's something to chew on while Punk is away from the title to gain his revenge and to figure out who among the sleazy cast of corporate characters is going to be his Vince McMahon. Cena gave him validation, and whether you care about it or not, it's an important piece to the narrative.

HOSS FIGHT: An Appreciation

I love me a good ol' hoss fight, I reckon
Photo Credit: WWE.com

When SummerSlam came on the air, how many people out there were looking forward to Sheamus vs. Mark Henry? C'mon, don't be shy, raise those hands. I'm sure there were some of you out there like me who thought that a fight between two big ol' hosses would be one of the best matches on the card, but I'm betting the majority of viewers really weren't looking forward to this. Granted, I'm not sure I can blame a lot of people who haven't come to appreciate both the Celtic Warrior and the World's Strongest Man. In the past, similar matches between big guys have been on the oafish, plodding and boring side. They either featured two guys who were immobile and there just because of their size, or in the case of matches such as Kane vs. The Great Khali at WrestleMania 23, one guy was apt and one was a slug.

That certainly wasn't the case here, it hasn't always been the case in WWE, and especially now, it's certainly not going to be the case for a long time if the current roster develops the way it is. While the meme is that Vince McMahon loves big guys with muscles and nothing else, there have been a good number of mobile, athletic big men who've come through the halls of WWE and can work matches with guys of any size. Undertaker, Davey Boy Smith, Kane, Brock Lesnar, Batista and when he wasn't in his lazy modes, The Big Show have all been big men who could be counted upon to deliver in matches. With Chris Masters (pbuh), Henry, Sheamus, Wade Barrett and Skip Sheffield coming into prominence in the last two years or so and with Claudio Castagnoli heavily rumored to be getting a contract if he hasn't already, the new breed of big hosses is as good as ever.

So, while everyone stereotypically loves the little guy cruiserweight MOVEZ-fests, and while everyone seems to enjoy a good David and Goliath story, the HOSS FIGHT genre is still in distant third when it comes to combinations of such body types. People are coming around on it, but at the same time, I think folks are still hesitant to pick up on two big ol' guys just wailing on each other in a veritable clash of the titans.

Last night's HOSS FIGHT to me felt like a watershed moment in the genre though. I think if there ever was a match that could change people's minds about having two big guys go in there and just beat the crap out of each other, it was the Sheamus/Henry match last night. The way they moved around the ring, well, they didn't remind anyone of the light heavyweight technicians and flyers, but I do think they were light years ahead of shitfests that would have come about with any combination of duds over the years like Ludvig Borga, Heidenreich, Luther Reigns, Big Daddy V/Viscera/Mabel, Khali or the like, even if they were in there with someone able. It wasn't just "good for a big guy" match, it was a good match, period. Both guys came raining thunder on each other. Both guys did their part to sell each other's offense. The feats of strength were plentiful, and no one needed to strain to believe that the stuff that was happening was actually happening.

And the finish? My God, that finish was amazing. You had to figure it was going to take an unreal act to finish either guy off, and I'd say slamming someone through the guardrail, not onto, but through, is a great way to leave that visual in the heads of those watching. It was one of the best bits of storytelling of the night and maybe all year.

So yeah, while the main event may have been better and while Bryan/Barrett might have had more technical finesse to it, the HOSS FIGHT to me was the most impressive match. The thing is, I was expecting Henry and Sheamus to impress me. I don't know about you, but I love when wrestling presents believably impressive Kaiju₁ theater for me without needing the participants be dressed up as monsters to do it. When mortal men can appear as themselves but still make themselves appear as more than mortal men is one of the many instances when wrestling works.

1 - Kaiju = monsters from Japanese destruction porn movies. Think Godzilla, Mothra, etc. There is a subculture fed known as Kaiju Big Battel, which also employs Gavin Loudspeaker/Louden Noxious, where guys dress up in costumes and wrestle.

Triple H: The Bravest, Smartest, Strongest, Toughest... and Boringest

Too cool for school? Booooring.
Photo Credit: WWE.com

Yesterday, I wrote about the beginning of where the Triple H backlash began and whether he really deserved it. The study in Triple H continues today.

If you ask most people who don't give a shit about the backstage stuff what annoys them most about Triple H, my guess is if they have an answer, and believe me, he has enough fans out there that you're going to have a bunch of people say nothing annoys them, is that nothing seems to faze him. He's totally unaffected in that nothing you can do or say to him will make him show any kind of vulnerability. To use wrestling terms, he doesn't sell, even if in the ring, he sells, if that makes any sense. He always seems to need to be the center of attention in any segment he's in, regardless of whether it's warranted or not.

A lot of times, this doesn't come off as anything but annoying. He tries to be funny, and the only one laughing is him and sometimes the people who are fans of his most. If he levies an insult at you, you're supposed to take it to heart, but nothing you can say to him will make him think of you as anything but a mere annoyance, someone that he'll defeat in the ring. He always has to be portrayed as the smartest, the funniest, the toughest, the bravest, the strongest, the coolest... hell, any positive adjective you can describe, and that's what Trips seems to have to be portrayed as. As I said in Instant Feedback Monday, it's like he has this pathological desire to have all his attributes maxed out at 99 at all times. Is it ego? Is it bad writing? I don't know, but what I do know is it plays off terribly most of the time.

Look at the final segment to RAW Monday. Everyone did their part to make it pop except for one guy. CM Punk held the crowd in his hand. John Cena served as a great counterweight. John Laurinitis' big ol' melon head was the perfect thing for Punk to kick. Then there was Trips, whom every time he interjected into the fray seemed to be out of place, changing the tone to one that didn't fit. I'm not alone in this either, as chatter from message boards, Twitter and from B-Stroud at With Leather all noticed the same thing. And it's nothing new.

Sad thing is, he didn't always come off like this. There were times when he actually showed vulnerability, and it enhanced his story. This well of goodwill dried up mostly in 2001, but at the same time, when he sold for guys outside the ring as well as inside of it, it made for a much more interesting ride towards the match. I mean, did anyone think that if Trips went "Pffft, nbd" at everything Batista did and said leading up to their WrestleMania 21 match that it would have been as much of a moment? No.

That's the thing, being a no-selling creep doesn't make for interesting storytelling for most. It makes things boring. When you have guys showing vulnerability, it usually reveals character, and character makes a story work, especially if the endgame of that chapter is having the guy who would be otherwise invulnerable winning.

So yeah, even if you discount the backstage stuff, and as people who aren't backstage or in the company and who don't know exactly what went down (don't kid yourselves, my guess is a bunch of dirtsheet writers don't exactly know either), there are a lot of reasons why Triple H is perhaps the most annoying and boring wrestler in the last 10 years. This is definitely a hurdle that folks like me have to enjoying him now, regardless of how many people he puts over or helps enhance.

The Goofy Bad-ass: Reflecting on What Kurt Angle Was and What He Could Have Been

Pictured: Unrealized potential
Photo Credit: ImpactWrestling.com

Jason Mann and Joe Drilling were discussing the 2000 SummerSlam main event on last Wednesday's installment of the Wrestlespective Radio SummerSlam main event series. Towards the end, they got to talking about Kurt Angle, one of the participants in the match, and how his class clown character never really resonated with them until he eventually dropped the har-har part and got more serious, saying that it made him more of like a Honky Tonk Man quality to his first title reign in the fall of 2000, that he was always getting by by the skin of his teeth. While that was good for the Intercontinental Championship, they said it wasn't good for the World Title. I disagree with that to a point; I think a Honky Tonk World Champion would work, but it has limited shelf-life, if you smell what TH is cookin'.

But onto a greater point, I was then given a shoutout by Mann about how I was a fan of Angle's goofy badass character. Certainly, that iteration of Angle was my favorite, mainly because he made me laugh, but also because of the unique synergy that he had as being a wholly comedic character with the potential to tangle with the best of the lot due to his amazing wrestling ability and his legit amateur background. He hit both my wheelhouses, funny guys and great wrestlers. How could I not enjoy the hell out of him? I will admit to people not buying him until he stopped being funny and started using drugs in a super hardcore fashion to be ZOMG INTENZ!!!1

Honestly though, that's not a fault with Angle per se. You see, in WWF/E, people have roles, and those roles sometimes are so narrowly defined that if you put someone outside of the archetype just a little bit, Kevin Dunn's head may just explode and then Johnny Ace has to clean up the brain matter, or at least find Winston Wolf to do the job for him. And Vince hates when Johnny Ace has to clean up brain matter.

The funnier a wrestler you are, the more comically inept you are in the ring. Think about it. Santino Marella, despite having legit judo/wrestling chops, is relegated to the Superstars Zone despite being one of the most naturally talented guys at getting people to like him. Chris Jericho never fully broke through until he came back from hiatus and started calling the fans gelatinous tapeworms. The Rock made people laugh, but was there really anything comedic about his demeanor? The only exception here is Triple H, but at the same time, if all his attributes aren't maxed out to 99 at all times, he turns into a pumpkin. Or so I have read.

Honestly, that's why I feel like Angle was Honky Tonk Man, only basically impersonating himself circa 1996 rather than Elvis. WWE never felt comfortable taking the reins off him and letting him be a full on badass in the ring while being a jokester out of it. It would have made for a very interesting paradox in character, one that would have had so many different storytelling options without staying in the same stale boxes that WWF/E would keep guys in.

So basically, while Angle's credibility rose, at least my enjoyment of him declined as the years went on. It's to the point where yeah, the majority thinks he has great matches in Impact (For me, he's lost too much of his flair for psychology for me to say he always has good matches), but his character has been wholly drained of the panache that attracted me to him as a fan in the first place almost 12 years ago.

I get why pro wrestling, and sometimes, mainstream media on the whole, puts characters into archetypal boxes. For the most part, those archetypes are there because they're tried and true. However, Kurt Angle, the jokey ass-kicker, was a moldbreaker that had legs. It wasn't contrarian for the sake of being on the contrary. It was fresh and people latched onto it, whether it was the smarks like me who gravitated to him or the regular fans who wanted to see him get his ass kicked because of it. Sometimes you have to take a chance.

WWF/E could have taken a chance with Angle all those years ago, but instead, they didn't. You can argue over whether or not it was successful or not, and I'd say aside from the drug use that got him booted out of WWE, it was. But I can't help but wonder what could have been if Angle was allowed to develop as more than just an inept clown evolving into a more and more humorless legit wrestler.

The Queen Has Arrived: The Night Sara del Rey Became a Heroine among Heroes

Sara del Rey kicking Mike Quackenbush at Chikara's The Germans last year: Moments like this helped pave the way
for her crowning moment at Chikarasaurus Rex this past Sunday.

When Sara del Rey rolled up Claudio Castagnoli at the end of Chikarasaurus Rex weekend Sunday, the roar from the hundreds of fans who'd packed into the iconic indie wrestling mecca nearly tore the roof off the building. Compare that to the reaction she had gotten fewer than 24 hours prior, sound boos from a crowd that had some overlap, and you'd be surprised that it was the same wrestler. What happened between those two events that made the Queen of Wrestling the queen of the hearts and minds of Chikara faithful?

The easy answer would be to say that she went up against Claudio, the leader of the most hated group in the promotion, perhaps in its history. Wrestling against him in a Chikara ring would make anyone a favorite in the eyes of the crowd. However, I'm not sure that was wholly the case. There were some story elements going on here that really enhanced the atmosphere and really made del Rey's ascension that much more special.

First, del Rey has a legitimate case for the respect she feels she hasn't been shown by Claudio and the rest of the males in the BDK. This runs a lot deeper than "David vs. Goliath" or "Billie Jean King vs. Gerald Bobby Riggs" if you wanted to play battle of the sexes. If being a woman in a man's world was enough to make someone a babyface, then Sara and Daizee Haze would have gotten raucous cheers their first match as members of the BDK, a tag affair against the Osirian Portal. The cold truth is that del Rey has been a dominant force, holding her own against the men for the most part, imposing her will on a gender that is supposed to be superior to hers in every way when it comes to all things physical. Audiences, especially indie ones and especially indie ones that are as keen to storytelling as Chikara crowds are, pick up on this. It's not like Sara is a damsel in distress. She's the exact opposite, and that's why she commands respect. So when big, bad Claudio treats her like she's Kelly Kelly in a sea of Randy Ortons, then that's a major party foul. If there wasn't so much equity built up in Sara del Rey before this angle began, then there'd be no way that she'd command that kind of fan support for her to prove her "superiors" wrong.

And while I don't think that the whole "woman in a man's world" metric is the only or even the biggest reason, it certainly plays a part. Again, Kelly Kelly is the Divas Champion in WWE, and she's for the most part feeble. No one would buy her if she were to switch divisions and wrestle the men. Sadly, this is the archetype for the mainstream female wrestler, no matter how many Beth Phoenixes or Kharmas have come along. Even then, the trope is that a woman has to be of a certain build to compete, and often, that build is unflattering.

Only recently, and by recently I mean in the last 10 years if that, has the Joshi ethic of women of all shapes and sizes being asskickers caught on here in the American underground. It's obvious why del Rey would attract such a female fanbase, because hey, identification with a strong character is not solely a male trait. However, she's also getting props from male fans. This is not an accident. Again, Chikara attracts a much smarter, much more socially progressive crowd. That isn't to say that we've been itching to root for a woman, but if the right one comes along and kicks ass, you had better believe that she's going to get a massive amount of support.

Sara del Rey is the right woman.

The way that main event theater played out, it was no surprise that del Rey got the loudest reactions all weekend in that singular match. She was a true feel-good story without really pandering to the lowest common denominator. Yeah, Claudio overpowered her at times, but she more than held her own. It didn't matter if it wasn't "realistic" (as if 100% realism is even in the top 5 of things when it comes to a great story in pro wrestling); the crowd collectively bought it as if it were Mike Quackenbush the night before or Tommy Dreamer, Chris Hero or UltraMantis Black at events past. It was clear she was the underdog though, but at the same time, when she hit those three koppo kicks in succession, it worked. That's a testament to all parties involved.

I think that's what made the finish work as well as it did. Sure, the whole "pick up your beaten opponent at 2 only to get flash-pinned" is a tried-and-true story mechanism that works in all situations. It would only make sense that a chauvinistic man would do that to a defeated woman to prove a point. However, the fact that Claudio was doing it to del Rey? I don't know about the rest of the crowd, but in the moment, I felt insulted. It was because del Rey had proven herself worthy, not like some fluky über-underdog who gets the flash pin at the right time because of cockiness alone. There was a feeling that del Rey used guile and technique to counter Claudio's hubris, hubris that was unwarranted from get-go one because del Rey had earned the respect she demanded, at least with the crowd.

So that brings us back to the beginning of the post. del Rey rolled up Claudio for the win, and the place exploded. You now know the reason why the reaction was so magnified, and when I say that this was a true coronation of the new Queen of Chikara, it's not trite or cliched. It's real.

Whether del Rey goes on to win the Campeonato del Mundo from here is irrelevant. I think she'd be a terrific choice to win (and I've said so on two separate occasions now), but the real story here is that she's made it, at least in Chikara, she has. No other woman has really made this much of an impact in an indie fed that wasn't already dedicated to female wrestling excepting maybe Rachel Summerlyn and Portia Perez down in ACW, where men and women also wrestle each other on the reg. And she didn't do it by flaunting her tits or anything that would have made her rise cheap.

She earned it, every last bit of it. That's why this is so impressive, and that's another reason why Chikara is so much better than most other wrestling promotions out there.

Photo Credit: Scott Finkelstein - Please visit his site to view the plentiful amounts of pictures he's taken for DGUSA, ROH and other indie feds: Get Lost Photography

TWIOT: Harry Potter and the Eight Movies of Quality

This picture doesn't really have anything to do with the article. But it's Emma Watson doing the troll face. C'mon, that's awesome

The Harry Potter film franchise is over. After eight films, legions of fans being minted, tantalized and now satisfied and a boatload of money produced, the epic series finally wrapped up when Deathly Hallows: Part 2 was released a couple of weeks ago. I didn't see the landmark movie until a week after it was released, but when I finally saw it with my wife, sister-in-law and her fiancé, it was worth the wait, both from the end of last fall's Deathly Hallows: Part 1 and the week between release and my viewing.

This isn't going to be a review of Part 2, rather than a retrospective on the series. It's very hard to keep a strong narrative going over three films/books, let alone eight films and seven books. The thing is, it could very easily have been 10+ movies, given that they were considering splitting Goblet of Fire in two and, according to my wife who read the books, had enough material in Order of the Phoenix and The Half-Blood Prince to make each serial into two or even three movies apiece. Just ask George Lucas, who succeeded with his first Star Wars trilogy, but by many people's reckoning, absolutely failed with the second one. Or you could ask the Wachowski brothers, who followed up The Matrix with two underwhelming at best sequels. Or Sam Raimi, whose first two Spider-man movies were great, but who ultimately faltered with the third installment. That the Potter team, a collective of several different directors under the unchanging narrative written by JK Rowling, told an absolutely breathtaking story with very few moments of falter deserves praise.

Still, its greatest achievement is probably how it appeals to a broad spectrum of ages. Even the first two movies, which people will say are total kids' fare, have some very dark moments, and after it becomes "dark", it still has an appeal to kids, albeit ones that are older. The themes are more mature than what you'd find in your typical Dreamworks computer animated film. They deal with death, betrayal, orphaning, deception, war, murder, trust, politics, educational reform, and yet each film is cleverly set with wizards, mythical creatures and exaggerated characters who typify good and evil cleanly enough so that they can be digested by kids, who may not be ready for a full palate of grays on the canvas.

But while the characters retain a simple identity for the most part (with some exceptions, like Severus Snape, maybe the best character in the entire series – a good guy whose gruff exterior keeps you asking questions until the final exposition of his intents after he dies in DH Pt. 2), they're still fully developed and wonderfully acted, serving almost as archetypes in some cases. For example, Dolores Umbridge, the hawkish, almost fascist member of the Ministry of Magic, serves as the most evil character in any series. Her prissy, old-fashionedly feminine exterior belies her sinister intentions, toadying for the Minister's ignorance regarding the return of Voldemort and then using Draconian measures of punishment at Hogwarts on students whose only crime is satisfying their child-like curiosity. Her slow transformation of the school into a police state was the absolute best part of Order of the Phoenix, and one of the most effective displays of villainy short of portraying someone like Mobuto Sese Seko or Pol Pot in film.

Then there's Neville Longbottom, who throughout the series, is the prime example of all that is good in the world. From when we first see him in The Sorcerer's Stone until his final triumph in the last film, he is always fighting for what's right, even if he's not very good at executing his intentions at first. However, the way that he is portrayed, you can't help but root for the kid, making his triumph over Voldemort and his aiding of Harry in his final fight almost as satisfying – if not more so – than Harry's resolutions.

That's where Rowling and by proxy the filmmakers who were tasked with animating her fictional characters succeeded. From the ideation of the characters through casting to their final ends, whenever they may have been, each character was real, lifelike, even though they existed entirely in a fantasy world. From the bit players like Prof. Trelawny, through to the supporting characters like Bellatrix LeStrange and Sirius Black all the way to the main core, Harry, Hermione, Ron, Dumbledore, Snape, Voldemort and Hagrid, they all felt so real.

And that's why I can't begrudge the hardcore fans for being so sad that this is over. Having felt the same pangs over the end of LOST last year, I can empathize. Although the Potter series didn't strike the same chord of fanaticism in me that LOST or that pro wrestling still does, that doesn't mean I can't recognize it for how well-done and rewarding the entire series has been. I too feel like there's going to be a void in theaters now that Potter is finished. It's not like it's the only series that has legs, but it's definitely a series that I could wholeheartedly count on to deliver on a great film watching experience.

So with that, I bid a fond adieu to Harry Potter and his friends, enemies and acquaintances. It's been a great ride, and everyone involved should be proud of themselves.

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.

Impact's X-Division Storyline and Props

A happy ending for Impact... rare.
Photo Credit: ImpactWrestling.com

Back when TNA got its rebrand into Impact and declared that "wrestling mattered", they started an angle about Eric Bischoff hating the X-Division and wanting to get rid of all the wrestlers. It involved him going over Generation Me with the help of Matt Hardy (funny, all three of those guys are gone from Impact, either permanently or "temporarily") and Abyss taking out Kazarian and winning the X-Division Championship, eliciting lulz around the Internet. With Impact's track record of emphasizing and then deemphasizing the division, I was not the only one who was pessimistic about their ability or desire to pay it off in a way that would be satisfying to the great number of fans who cared about the more exciting wrestlers in that subset.

A funny thing happened though, as at Destination X, an event dedicated to that troupe of wrestlers and their brand of exciting fare, they paid the angle off in a very satisfying manner. In the Brian Kendrick/Abyss title match, the former Spanky won when his compatriots came out and thwarted Bischoff and his minions from pulling a screwjob and keeping the belt on Abyss. Afterwards, they all celebrated the title coming back to their own kind, and we actually had a satisfying resolution to the whole storyline.

For a company that is known for start-stop angles with no resolutions, this is not trivial. In fact, it should be applauded. My guess is that one of two things happened to make sure that we had some kind of finality to this angle. One is that Vince Russo actually is changing and made the call for the simple ending. Two is that Russo had nothing to do with Destination X or that storyline, and it was someone else, be it Bischoff, Hulk Hogan or someone wholly different that we're not considering. My guess is the latter.

It's not often that Impact deserves credit for producing a mostly satisfying story, but hey, I guess a blind squirrel can find a nut every once in awhile. I'm not getting my hopes up as to this becoming the norm, because hey, if I did that, I'd just be setting myself up for disappointment. They need to prove they can produce good stories all the time before I can start getting into what they're doing without any skepticism as to whether it's going to turn out alright by me, the viewer.

But that doesn't mean that I can't call a spade a spade and give them credit when they earn it. They've certainly earned it here.

Wrestling Revolution Sounds Mighty Interesting to Me

I dig it

I'm going to do something that I did yesterday on here. I'm going to pimp to you the podcast that my Fair to Flair colleague and this week's guest on The Wrestling Podcast, Razor of Kick-Out Blog!! did with Jeff Katz, the Hollywood producer and rabid wrestling fan behind the new concept promotion Wrestling Revolution. It really does give a look inside the mind of a guy who made it in life and now is going to attempt to create something different in the world of pro wrestling.

For those of you who are podcast-a-phobic or who have an axe to grind against Razor and KO or who won't listen for whatever reason, Wrestling Revolution is basically turning wrestling into seasonal format. Before you start cringing at the idea of having a wrestling show working like an icky TV show, realize that Katz isn't here to bastardize the product. At least that's what I got from the podcast. It'll still be wrestling. There'll be matches, promos, everything else that makes wrestling wrestling, but there'll be major differences:

1. The wrestlers will be playing a character ideated and developed by Katz and his producers, not playing their "regular" characters
2. In fact, there won't be any "names", just guys being invented or in the case of folks who have WWE/etc. history, reinvented
3. Like I wrote yesterday, storytelling will reflect scripted drama and the "three act" format
4. It will be in seasonal format, meaning there'll be an offseason

So right off the bat, this is something that is striving to be what Impact should have been all along - an alternative.

Katz is saying all the right things, and unlike some other people hawking things that he is promising now, I'm inclined to believe him. For one, he's got a lot of friends in the wrestling business. He's also got Hollywood connections, and that's a huge incentive for guys who may not want to kill themselves in the ring for their whole careers.

I think what's most appealing about this project to me is Katz's candor and realism about it. In the podcast, he claims that he's not really getting his hopes up, and if he can do one season of good TV, then he'll be happy with it. The biggest mistake an auteur in any medium can make is to get too greedy and think his or her project is going to own. I think it's that perspective that gives me the most hope. Katz isn't going to try and reinvent the wheel through some grandiose science experiment using the most dangerous form of energy to fuel it; he'll try to start something grassroots but real, and hopefully that will leave an impression on the industry to go along with (and maybe even influence) WWE.

I know that hope always springs eternal in the wrestling industry, and the perception is that it's rarely ever paid off. While I think there has been more than enough in terms of good resolutions, I'm not going to say that a majority of the stuff that has started out good in wrestling has ended well either. That being said, I still think this has a much better than normal chance of providing good content at the very least. I'll be sad if it doesn't succeed, but if Katz gives me one good year with Wrestling Revolution? Then you're damn right I'll be happy about it. That's the thing, finding quality wrestling rather than trying to latch onto something because you think it'll be successful.

So with that in mind, I'm really looking forward to this, and I hope that Katz at least creates a cult classic if anything. Honestly, there needs to be more people with his mindset rather than the one that has poisoned the industry for as long as I've been following it. Trying to recreate the past to a tee doesn't work₁. Trying new things doesn't always work either, but that track record has a way, way, WAY better percentage of success than blatant and blow-for-blow rehashing. With all that in mind, I hope you're as jazzed for this as I am.

1 - There's a big difference between trying to catch lightning in a bottle twice and using tried and true tropes that have worked in wrestling for over 100 years to help get new stories and people over. The former sucks. The latter should be a part of any wrestling promotion, whether old or new, traditional or innovative, if that makes any sense to you.

Remember you can contact TH and ask him questions about wrestling, life or anything else. Please refer to this post for contact information. He always takes questions!

The Lost Art of Telling a Story

Pictured: Katz, a guy who gets it
Photo Credit: Ames247

If you haven't listened to the landmark 60th episode of Kick-Out Radio, what the hell are you waiting for? Seriously, it's one of the best personalities in the wrestling journalism/opinion writing community talking to Jeff Katz about turning the wrestling industry on its ear. If you have listened to it, then you know that Katz spent about an hour detailing his vision for Wrestling Revolution, which is his plan to take wrestling to its next evolution. He laid out a lot of really good ideas, but one thing that he mentioned in the interview was that he hoped to lay out a wrestling promotion that had a three-act storytelling structure.

If this idea in general sounds revolutionary to you, then man, to quote Kurt Cobain, "I wish I were like you, easily amused". In terms of movies, television, scripted stage productions, etc., this format has been around since the dawn of recorded history. So why would he be so adamant about bringing that format back to wrestling? Well, "back" is definitely the key word here. That overarching storytelling trope has been lost in both WWE and Impact Wrestling, either for instant gratification, the swerve-for-the-sake-of-having-a-swerve model or some combination of both, depending on what month it is. If that doesn't make you sad, then hello, Vince Russo! Glad to see you reading my blog. I'm not sorry that I trash you on here, because you deserve it.

For everyone else who likes to have a cogent story attached to their wrestling, this has to sound like a breath of fresh air. I mean, what happened to having acts, having rising action, a climax, falling action and a resolution? WWE gives you 5 PPVs in a row of a babyface beating a heel clean as a whistle and tells you it's supposed to be a story. In what universe? Impact starts stories, muddles them with swerves and gives us no resolution. What sane person would buy a book or watch a movie if they were promised nothing even coming close to an end to the story? Wrestling companies in the mainstream strain to be accepted as part of the established entertainment, so why do they abandon the thing that keeps people coming in and satisfies them with the greatest success?

While wrestling is more than just theater, and while it has way more elements to it than scripted drama has, the fact is that the artform is still very much storyline driven. The matches are only a part of the equation, and even then, those matches probably should have some kind of story contained within to be good, whether it's part of a continuing arc or whether it's self-contained within the match.

Granted, WWE does give you a good story, but by and large, their angles and feuds are muddled messes where babyfaces dominate for the most part. Impact had one story that was put together okay in Jarrett/Angle, but other than that, it's best that we don't talk about them. Consistency, an overall master-plan and having people delegated towards planning the future for the individual stories while keeping the whole vision of the company in mind are all things that are missing in both companies and in some of the indies in America today.

If these problems are fixed, would it lead to another wrestling boom? I don't know, and really, I don't care. Unlike some people, I couldn't give any more of a fuck than what I give now if wrestling returned to 1998 levels of popularity. Let it stay afloat enough so that I have options. I care more that the product I'm consuming is good. That's why I feel like guys like Jeff Katz should be supported. If the only contribution he had in the next five years was that WWE and/or Impact ripped off his ideology, then he'll be rightfully lauded as one of the great people in this business. It shouldn't be up to CM Punk alone to make the show's story feel like something more than a hastily-thrown-together mish-mash of instant gratification.

Until then though, storytelling will remain a lost art in pro wrestling, and as a long-time fan, that makes me sad. I want a lot of things out of my wrestling, and to be completely honest, storytelling is tied for first along with great wrestling action in the ring. I'd dare say that it should be like that for you too. But if I did say that, I'd be projecting.

Remember you can contact TH and ask him questions about wrestling, life or anything else. Please refer to this post for contact information. He always takes questions!

The Economy of Time: Why NWA Hollywood Succeeds Where the Mainstream Fails

The Cutlers taking it to Johnny Goodtime outside the Showcase... a sampling of what you'll find each week
Screen Grab Credit: NWAHollywood.com (pardon the ad!)

One of the big reasons why I continue to go out of my way to watch NWA Hollywood online is because they have so many stories that keep my interest. If it were just wrestling like the ROH on HDNet show was, with very little serial storylines to keep me enthralled from week to week, I might skip it, might being the operative word here. However, not only do I find an outlet for good indie wrestling, they do their best to tell several stories each week.

Their show on KDOC-TV has one hour of runtime each week. Take commercials and other stuff out, and it distills down to between 40 and 45 minutes of "meat" each week, with the term meat referring to matches, promos and angles. In that three-quarters of an hour, NWA Hollywood manages to put over at least four if not more angles. Furthermore, nearly every other story in the company at least warrants a mention throughout the telecast. Contrast that with the other companies.

Impact Wrestling distills down to between 80-90 minutes of meat each week. Most of it is spent on three to four top angles for each show, some of which don't carry over into the next week. Angles are started and dropped with no resolution at times. Guys don't appear on the show for weeks at a time and garner no mention from Mike Tenay and Taz. The WWE is a little better. They have anywhere between 2.5 and 3 hours of meat each week on actual TV, with two web shows that run 40 minutes a piece on average. Those times can be cut into by fluff segments, recaps of stuff that happened barely a half-hour prior or blatant advertising for patently non-wrestling things. Furthermore, many times, their idea of a feud is the face beating the heel cleanly in consecutive weeks with no real rhyme or reason why the story is continuing after the first clean defeat.

With NWA Hollywood, you get the aforementioned 4 angles minimum each week. You also get a sense of purpose for each one, be it through promos, matches or post-match happenings. Often times, it's not anything complex, whether it's Ray Rosas, Rico Dynamite and Peter Avalon cheating to win a match or Candice LaRae walloping Buggy across the head with a chair. Hell, I think the most "complex" thing that happened recently has been the Cutlers and the RockNES Monsters brawling out onto LaBrea Boulevard, with Excalibur noting the next week that no criminal charges would be pursued from the melee. It's all simple pro wrestling stuff, but the rub is that it works. It makes everything make sense.

Now, is the storytelling perfect? No, it's not. Sometimes, circumstance dictates that they have to drop an angle, whether it's Austin Aries signing a one-month or longer deal with Impact that precludes him from coming back to tapings to continue his heat with Scorpio Sky, or Colt Cabana losing his NWA World Championship because the NWA is an antiquated model that doesn't know what's good for it, or because Adam Pearce got hurt and might have to retire. Sometimes, they tell stories that fall flat, but it's not for lack of effort.

It might be trite to talk about effort like this is some grade school exercise, but at the same time, the effort going into making NWA Hollywood what it is right now is certainly appreciated and it makes up for the lack of production values they may have compared to even Impact. Effort doesn't always equal quality, but when that effort is combined with a vision like the one that the folks who run the fed have, it can totally make for a great viewing experience.

Remember you can contact TH and ask him questions about wrestling, life or anything else. Please refer to this post for contact information. He always takes questions!

Promoting the Ultimate Conspiracy Theory: Why R-Truth Should NOT Get a Rematch

Little Jimmy gets his revenge and Truf bitching about it would be gold!
Photo Credit: See the watermark to the left

R-Truth got his first-ever shot at the WWE Championship last night at Capitol Punishment. It was an unsuccessful endeavor after a "Little Jimmy" threw soda in his face, the ultimate full-circle moment in the five-week build that allowed John Cena enough of a distraction to put Truf down with an Attitude Adjustment. While the match felt like a blowoff to most who watched last night, (and reading recaps, it read just like a blowoff as well) the trend in WWE is that when you get one PPV title match, you usually get three or four of them, regardless of how many of them in a row you lose. I fully expect Truth to come out and blather on about how he was robbed and expect to get a title shot.

And that's exactly why he shouldn't get one. Because once he gets denied, are you going to doubt that the meltdown will be anything less than epic? I don't. The thing with Truth is that as great a character as he's become in the last month, he really hasn't evolved in the ring to match his character. Yeah, we all loved his Larry Z stall-job to earn said title shot, but at the same time, that was wholly independent of anything he could do in terms of moves, selling, pacing etc. He played cat and mouse, and while it was great theater and awesome storytelling, what would come to pass when he had to actually wrestle?

If you give Truth the title shot at Money in the Bank, that's what you're banking on, Truth carrying a rematch angle on the promise he and Cena can deliver a good match. Even worse, the other scenario would be the GM giving Truth what he wants, and then making it a steel cage match so that the "Little Jimmies" of the world can't get involved. From a traditional storytelling background, that is obviously the best thing to do, but at the same time, this really isn't a traditional character. Well, scratch that, the conspiracy victim IS a traditional character, but it's not a character where this traditional storytelling trope works.

Keeping Truth away from the WWE Championship would create, in my mind, a better opportunity for a very limited WWE Creative team to generate a memorable story. I'd say have Truth beg for his shot because he was done in by a fan who had no business interfering. The GM denies it, citing the numerous shots Christian got on Smackdown as an example of guys who clearly don't deserve it continuing to get shots, and saying he doesn't want to be like Teddy Long because Teddy Long is an awful human being. The ensuing meltdown would be epic, and the next couple of months could see Truth trying like hell to get his shot back, either by legal means or by continually calling the GM to the carpet for trying to screw him out of his rightful second title opportunity. Or better yet, have Truth win Money in the Bank for RAW and every time he goes to cash it in, have some sort of nefarious circumstance prevent him from cashing it in. That would keep the story going and it would give Truth an out to get his title opportunity down the line.

Besides, we all know the money program here is to start prepping Alberto del Rio for his SummerSlam title opportunity. I mean, they already tipped their hand with this Youtube video that WWE Games put on their channel. They told as good a story with as good an ending for the time being in five weeks as they could have, which is more an argument to me for eliminating the number of PPVs and extending time between them than it is continuing the program with Truth for the time being. Let it go for now and start ramping up to SummerSlam.

I know that Truth has gained a lot of fans over the last month. I know, I'm sort of one of them. However, the idea that titles are the only thing that mean importance nowadays is pretty antiquated. A title means something in the right situation. For Truth, the lack of a title in his future is the best story. In the modern day, and really, any time in wrestling history for that matter, the story is always the most important thing. What's the better story that can be told? TO me, it's R-Truth complaining about The Man keeping him from a title opportunity, not him getting the obligatory, warmed-over weaksauce build that tends to happen in the second PPV of a several-PPV-title-feud.

Remember you can contact TH and ask him questions about wrestling, life or anything else. Please refer to this post for contact information. He always takes questions!

From the Why Hasn't Anyone Thought of This Before Dept.: Pre-Match Commercial Breaks

The only match with a break on the show
Photo Credit: WWE.com

One of the big things that I noticed on RAW Monday was that we got to see more complete matches thanks to one minor change in production. If you noticed, most of the matches went to commercial right after one of the entrants came to the ring. Then, they would come back either in the middle of the second guy's entrance or right after it, causing more of the match to be able to be viewed by the audience at home. Only one match, the main event, had an interruption by commercial.

I don't know about you, but I thought it was great. Now, I'm not totally opposed to the commercial interruption like some. Sure, it makes the flow of a match choppy, and I hate the predictability that comes along with a guy going to the floor and Josh Mathews/Michael Cole/Scott Stanford/Matt Striker/whomever musing whether that person will be able to come back, and that we'll find out after the break. But it's not a deal killer. That being said, as an in-ring enthusiast, I like to see the whole product, as-is.

SO with that slight shift in production, the WWE theoretically upped the quality of the in-ring product substantially. They didn't have to lay out the matches any differently. No spots were changed. Nothing was really done to change the fabric of the match, and yet the quality went up. It's funny how the little things go and can improve stuff.

Now, the only drawback I saw with this was maybe highlighting how short RAW TV matches usually are. Then again, I'm more a quality guy rather than quantity when it comes to wrestling. If you can tell me a story in 4-6 minutes, then you know what? I'm cool with them not needing 8-12 minutes to tell the same story. I mean, I took shit for saying a random Miz/Bourne match from last year was awesome despite it being like less than 5 minutes long, but you know what? I stand by that assessment because they used every second they had and made it work. Maybe that's why I have so much respect for WWE workers on the whole. They go out there with little time and get something over without needing the kind of match lengths their indie counterparts have on average. That's pretty swanky.

SO yeah, even if it does highlight how short the matches are, I much like seeing every moment of said matches rather than miss a chunk of the storytelling in the middle. Having the commercials come before the match is a great help at giving me that whole picture. Kudos to the guys in the production trucks and those in charge of laying out the show. It was a small change, but it was a change that worked big time.

Remember you can contact TH and ask him questions about wrestling, life or anything else. Please refer to this post for contact information. He always takes questions!

Wash, Rinse, Repeat: WWE's Spin Cycle of Booking Malaise

Great match, boring story
Photo Credit: WWE.com

Stop me if you've heard this one before. WWE books a heel to win a match or get heat on a babyface one week. The very next week, the babyface gets his retribution, and either the angle ends, or more annoyingly, there's a third match without the heel doing anything to warrant that rematch...

...oh yeah, you have heard it? A million times? Yeah, it's a staple in WWE feud "building". The phrase "bullshit parity booking" hasn't been trademarked by Dylan Hales, but it should have been, because he would have made a mint off how many times I or other A1-ites residing in the blogosphere have used it to describe this annoying habit of the WWE writers. The latest example was in the last two weeks, when CM Punk and Rey Mysterio traded wins with the respective wrestler winning on the respective episode of RAW. There was no indication of whether the angle would continue this week either; Mysterio counteracted Mason Ryan's interference and then got the pin with a tornado DDT and a top rope splash. He got out of dodge, no sneak attack, no recourse.

There's still one week left before the PPV, so something else CAN happen in order to culminate the feud reprisal, but it would be rushed storytelling on top of the poor storytelling that's happened over these last eight days. It seems like this is par for the course. If you don't believe me, click on the "WWE Creative sucks" tag at the bottom of the post. You'll find quite a lot of posts there, many with the same theme. I mean, I've been beating this dead horse for so fucking long that it's turned into horse dust (but not HorseDust, the short-lived, equestrian-themed character Dustin Runnels was rumored to have portrayed at an ill-fated Louisville house show in 1997...).

This is not a pedantic, "bitch for the sake of bitching" argument here either. It's bad storytelling that really turns me, as a viewer, off to the product. Like anyone else, I want attachment. How am I going to get that attachment if wrestlers I like, like Punk (and for the fan at large, that's Mysterio), don't give me a story to be drawn into?

The other argument is, "well, they're already writing stories for other angles, be happy with what you have!" Well, fuck that argument. You know why? Because I want consistency with my wrestling, not just good here, but lame, unengaging stories elsewhere. Quick, two-week angles are just so unsatisfying, especially when there's no storytelling other than guys trading heat. I'm all for extended in-ring feuds, but there's nothing about this Mysterio/Punk doubleshot that screams "extended" from that context. The wrestling is good, yes. The wrestling is very good. I do like wrestling for wrestling's sake, but I like it when a good story is attached even better. But when a weak story is attached, it feels weak.

If this Punk/Mysterio feud is to continue (and I hope it does), then they need to do a better job building it going forward. Give me something extracurricular if you're going to finish matches clean. Give me some post-match promos, motivation, anything. Don't just give me a doubleshot of matches, both with clean finishes, with the second match being a face win with a clean-slate heat trumping.

Bad TV is bad TV, no matter how much else is going right. ESPECIALLY when the performers involved are guys whom I WANT to be invested in, it's frustrating to see their story be told so hamhandedly.

Remember you can contact TH and ask him questions about wrestling, life or anything else. Please refer to this post for contact information. He always takes questions!

I Changed My Mind on the Finish to Last Night's Main Event

Brilliance in action
Photo Credit: WWE.com

In my instant feedback post last night, I intimated that I didn't like the finish to the main event tag match last night. There was no reason for Bret Hart to get physically involved in the match, I thought. It was bad storytelling because the faces shouldn't need those kinds of shenanigans, and Hart didn't have the history with CM Punk or R-Truth to get involved, I thought.

I thought wrong. Looking back on the match, CM Punk totally had it coming, and it was a brilliant bit of in-match storytelling that was really, really rewarding and satisfying.

If you didn't notice, Punk was artfully goading Hart all match by doing every single one of his five moves of doom (Russian leg sweep, second rope elbow, etc.) all the way up to teasing putting Rey in the Sharpshooter. He was foiled and used the attempt at the hold to gain another devious advantage, but by this time, Hart had taken enough disrespect. When it came time for Hart to levy the revenge for his disrespect, he did. It wasn't "fair", but then again, who could blame Hart, a grumpy old man who was being mocked outright, for not being able to hold back?

Now, I know what some people might say. There's no way a referee should blatantly interject himself in a match! It's not realistic! Well, nuts to that, because this was one of the situations where the beauty of pro wrestling - how it marries together the world of real sport and staged theater in a way where the latter can make something otherwise totally implausible work within the context of the former - shone through beautifully. Just another reason why I'm glad that Bret Hart was able to make peace with Vince McMahon and why CM Punk is just the man.

Remember you can contact TH and ask him questions about wrestling, life or anything else. Please refer to this post for contact information. He always takes questions!