"Political Hit"

[Jimmy Redman]

Mark Calloway the human owes his entire career to Vince.

 

The Undertaker the wrestler is a fucking zombie who controls lightning and buries people alive, he owes his career to his God damn self and shouldn't give a single fuck about Vince's parenting problems.

[kjh]

Hard to think that there isn't a political hit out with stories about Reigns using blood capsules and posting obviously fake surgery pics. Maybe Vince doesn't understand how that would play in hardcore fan circles, but Triple H should.

[Slasher]

Mark Calloway the human owes his entire career to Vince.

 

The Undertaker the wrestler is a fucking zombie who controls lightning and buries people alive, he owes his career to his God damn self and shouldn't give a single fuck about Vince's parenting problems.

I know we are supposed to pretend the undead zombie is different than the biker American Badass, but regardless this is the same guy who forced JR's face into Vince's ass while claiming that everyone in the WWE should be doing the same witb a smile on their faces, rather than JR's reaction which is attempting to refuse and not respecting Vince in that way. But if you wanna limit to the undead guy, this is the same guy who at the height of his evil Ministry leader, recognized Vince as the "higher power". So I mean in kayfabe that attitude is also prevalent of Taker's character to respect Vince to that extent. When Vince buried Taker alive at Survivor Series 2003 he returned not even bothering to go after Vince but rather his brother Kane. I don't think it is a stretch to imagine his character being willing to be used in that manner as a pawn in Vince's game with Shane. If nothing else, Shane is much more easily beatable and almost guaranteed night off for Taker while making the big bucks to boot.

[Jingus]

So what? They typically ignore almost everything from that long ago. Absolutely nothing that Undertaker's character has done in the past dozen years suggests that he's a stooge for Vince (or anyone else) in any way whatsoever.

[Jimmy Redman]

American Badass Taker was a normal guy who did politically minded things.

 

Undead Zombie Taker is not. They're two separate characters. There is absolutely nothing about Taker's current character that would make him want to be a pawn for Vince or get involved in the Authority storyline. Especially not on the side of Vince and the heels. It makes no sense.

[Luchaundead]

American Badass Taker was a normal guy who did politically minded things.

 

Undead Zombie Taker is not. They're two separate characters. There is absolutely nothing about Taker's current character that would make him want to be a pawn for Vince or get involved in the Authority storyline. Especially not on the side of Vince and the heels. It makes no sense.

Are we sure he's Undead Zombie Taker anymore? seems pretty regular guy to me from his last 8 matches

[sek69]

If anything, this reminds me of the angle where Vince was bossing around Taker and Kane, got too cocky, and they broke his leg leading to that wacky "Vince in a wheelchair" era.

[Jmare007]

edit: delete, missed like 2 pages thinking the conversation stopped at page 3.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

American Badass Taker was a normal guy who did politically minded things.

 

Undead Zombie Taker is not. They're two separate characters. There is absolutely nothing about Taker's current character that would make him want to be a pawn for Vince or get involved in the Authority storyline. Especially not on the side of Vince and the heels. It makes no sense.

 

Are we sure he's Undead Zombie Taker anymore? seems pretty regular guy to me from his last 8 matches

Which is ironic because it's probably the closest he's ever looked to being an actual zombie.

[Jmare007]

 

 

Look at how great of a job they did getting Reigns over while he was in The Shield. Look at how great of a job they've done building up Brock Lesnar. Look at how great of a job they did building Rusev in 2014. This is a company that still knows how to build up stars.

 

Reigns has been booked like crap since. Rusev has been booked even worse.

 

They may know how to handle the initial build, but they sure as hell can't sustain it.

 

Even Brock was fucked around with his first year. I don't even mean the Cena loss, which I absolutely praised back then because it was right decision at the time (Brock walked away from his previous run and Cena was the ace, so they weren't about to put their eggs in the Brock basket again right away because that would've been a bad business decision if he had bailed a second time) - I'm referring more to the baffling Triple H series and WM loss.

 

 

They know how to sustain it. They don't want to sustain it. They were done with Rusev. They decided to make something out of Brock finally and then followed through with it. I don't believe anything in WWE happens by accident other than fan responses.

 

 

By that logic, WWE hasn't wanted to sustain anything in the last, what, 10 years?

 

[FMKK]

 

Look at how great of a job they did getting Reigns over while he was in The Shield. Look at how great of a job they've done building up Brock Lesnar. Look at how great of a job they did building Rusev in 2014. This is a company that still knows how to build up stars.

 

Look at how they ended up "ruining" them eventually. No one ever talked about "political hit" when Brock was ruined by HHH, or when Rusev was completely wasted last year, we all chucked it up to incompetence. The problem isn't WWE not being able to create a star o create big moment, their problem for almost a decade has been sustaining something they were able to create. Reigns doesn't seem to be any sort of special case.

 

 

 

I don't think anyone put the wasting of Brock in that first year or so down to incompetence. It was partially that, certainly on the part of Vince, but it was mainly a case of HHH egotism dominating the product. They had a hot, compelling character who essentially played the role of a generic monster heel as a cog in the wheel of a tale completely centred around the heroic warrior Hunter. And no one bought it.

 

The incompetence in this case is Vince's for once again allowing HHH to devalue an important asset for no reason other than ego masturbation.

[Slasher]

 

 

American Badass Taker was a normal guy who did politically minded things.

 

Undead Zombie Taker is not. They're two separate characters. There is absolutely nothing about Taker's current character that would make him want to be a pawn for Vince or get involved in the Authority storyline. Especially not on the side of Vince and the heels. It makes no sense.

Are we sure he's Undead Zombie Taker anymore? seems pretty regular guy to me from his last 8 matches

This. He is basically an old man doing a nostalgic character. He's not even presented anymore as an actual undead zombie. He is presented as a WWE legend who shows up once a year for one match in costume.

 

And that's the guy who'd play Vince's stooge.

[Jimmy Redman]

I'm sorry, but quibbling about his exact state of zombie-ness aside, there's no way Undertaker the character is ANYONE's stooge, let alone a stooge of the heel Authority McMahons. He's a badass and his own man. The only exception from this run has been when someone steals the urn and controls Taker with it.

 

It will take some explaining as to why Undertaker would be fighting for Vince and Steph, if that's what he's really going to do. That's all I'm saying. There is, at this moment, no earthly reason why Taker's character would be a. on the heel side, b. on the side of Vince/Steph, or c. care about the politics of the Authority at all.

[Matt D]

I'd guess it'd be more of a case of Vince booking a match and Taker just wanting to destroy someone. Shane has tons of hubris and a punchable face. It's more that Vince gave Shane a mythical task. The dragon doesn't care about the king who sends the knight to slay it. It just wants lunch.

[Loss]

 

 

 

Look at how great of a job they did getting Reigns over while he was in The Shield. Look at how great of a job they've done building up Brock Lesnar. Look at how great of a job they did building Rusev in 2014. This is a company that still knows how to build up stars.

 

Reigns has been booked like crap since. Rusev has been booked even worse.

 

They may know how to handle the initial build, but they sure as hell can't sustain it.

 

Even Brock was fucked around with his first year. I don't even mean the Cena loss, which I absolutely praised back then because it was right decision at the time (Brock walked away from his previous run and Cena was the ace, so they weren't about to put their eggs in the Brock basket again right away because that would've been a bad business decision if he had bailed a second time) - I'm referring more to the baffling Triple H series and WM loss.

 

 

They know how to sustain it. They don't want to sustain it. They were done with Rusev. They decided to make something out of Brock finally and then followed through with it. I don't believe anything in WWE happens by accident other than fan responses.

 

 

By that logic, WWE hasn't wanted to sustain anything in the last, what, 10 years?

 

 

 

They've sustained Cena, Undertaker, HHH and Orton during that time.

 

I do think some of it is incompetence, and I don't think it's a bunch of WWE management sitting around a table plotting about how to ruin careers. I think it's more that HHH has always been hypercritical of other wrestlers and he's made Vince that way over time as well. So now, they see glaring flaws in just about everyone they have on their roster, and they use that to justify not pushing them. I don't buy into the idea that they don't want new stars like some people do. But I do think that they don't want someone like Cesaro or Dolph Ziggler getting over at a main event level because they've convinced themselves that they are undeserving.

[GOTNW]

 

They've sustained Cena, Undertaker, HHH and Orton during that time.

Let's not forget guys who aren't here anymore-Edge, Shawn Michaels, Rey, Batista etc. didn't leave that long ago.

[Jimmy Redman]

 

 

 

 

Look at how great of a job they did getting Reigns over while he was in The Shield. Look at how great of a job they've done building up Brock Lesnar. Look at how great of a job they did building Rusev in 2014. This is a company that still knows how to build up stars.

 

Reigns has been booked like crap since. Rusev has been booked even worse.

 

They may know how to handle the initial build, but they sure as hell can't sustain it.

 

Even Brock was fucked around with his first year. I don't even mean the Cena loss, which I absolutely praised back then because it was right decision at the time (Brock walked away from his previous run and Cena was the ace, so they weren't about to put their eggs in the Brock basket again right away because that would've been a bad business decision if he had bailed a second time) - I'm referring more to the baffling Triple H series and WM loss.

 

 

They know how to sustain it. They don't want to sustain it. They were done with Rusev. They decided to make something out of Brock finally and then followed through with it. I don't believe anything in WWE happens by accident other than fan responses.

 

 

By that logic, WWE hasn't wanted to sustain anything in the last, what, 10 years?

 

 

 

They've sustained Cena, Undertaker, HHH and Orton during that time.

 

I do think some of it is incompetence, and I don't think it's a bunch of WWE management sitting around a table plotting about how to ruin careers. I think it's more that HHH has always been hypercritical of other wrestlers and he's made Vince that way over time as well. So now, they see glaring flaws in just about everyone they have on their roster, and they use that to justify not pushing them. I don't buy into the idea that they don't want new stars like some people do. But I do think that they don't want someone like Cesaro or Dolph Ziggler getting over at a main event level because they've convinced themselves that they are undeserving.

 

 

Pretty much this, and the incompetence comes in when they book someone like say Cesaro or Dolph into a shitty position, or treat them as a total afterthought, or screw up any momentum that they ever do get, or they just get stuck in the midcard abyss like everyone does, which makes Vince point to them and say "see, they aren't over".

 

Like yeah, during the five seconds you booked them competently they were super over, and they lost all their momentum when you screwed it all up, but surely it's just because kids these days can't get themselves over. It's self fulfilling.

[sek69]

That's why Vince's famous brass ring comments were so infuriating, as if it was all the fault of those damn lazy millennials not being able to get over rather than their slavish devotion to 50-50 booking.

 

Also how funny was it to read Friend of Hunter Road Dogg getting into a Twitter spat basically saying you're a dumb mark for still thinking wins and losses matter? As if HBK didn't make a career of doing his god-diddly-damnedest never to lose.

[Jimmy James]

That's why Vince's famous brass ring comments were so infuriating, as if it was all the fault of those damn lazy millennials not being able to get over rather than their slavish devotion to 50-50 booking.

 

Not to mention how workers in the last generation had about ten times the amount of leverage with Vince in any negotiation, just because WCW existed.

[Slasher]

I'm sorry, but quibbling about his exact state of zombie-ness aside, there's no way Undertaker the character is ANYONE's stooge, let alone a stooge of the heel Authority McMahons. He's a badass and his own man. The only exception from this run has been when someone steals the urn and controls Taker with it.

 

It will take some explaining as to why Undertaker would be fighting for Vince and Steph, if that's what he's really going to do. That's all I'm saying. There is, at this moment, no earthly reason why Taker's character would be a. on the heel side, b. on the side of Vince/Steph, or c. care about the politics of the Authority at all.

Well of course they have to explain why Taker would side with the Authority. I was not suggesting that Taker just shows up for the match without Taker explaining it. Keep in mind that I am only speculating in regards to all of this. I understand that Taker's character is so far removed from the ongoing storyline that it is hard for people to fathom. But how I see it is that Taker the undead zombie who feuds with monsters and elite players of varying degrees like legends and upstarts and franchise cornerstones retired when Triple H, Shawn Michaels and Undertaker celebrated the end of the HIAC match with Triple H. At that point to me it feels like he's just Mark Calloway showing up once a year to play his legendary character. He wrestled Punk because the undead zombie wanted to put Punk out for disrespecting his dead manager. Against Brock, it was just him challenging his mortality within the WWE and facing Death Incarnate and putting his streak on the line much like how Shawn put his career on the line to make his greatest challenge...ending the streak and adding to his collection of accolades and achievements. Against Bray Wyatt, I dont think he ever bothered to show up in the build to explain why he is willing to face Wyatt. So I can only assume that it was a Bray Wyatt trying to make a name for himself by replacing Taker as the in-house dark monster. And Taker simply obliged him partly because he needed to prove to himself that the loss to Lesnar was just a bad night for him as opposed to having begun to decline in skills and ability to win matches at 50 years old. With this one against Shane, it doesn't have to be about helping the evil authority group. It could just be Taker needing an opponent for the show to maintain his reputation as one of Wrestlemania's greatest performers of all time. Furthermore it doesn't have to be booked like a stooge. It could just be that Taker is obligated to do Vince a favor for all the years Vince has supported him. It works because he is Mark Calloway playing the role of Undertaker. Kayfabe is dead. It really to me isn't like the fans doesn't know that he is one of the few who really has earned his place in history. It was even acknowledged by Paul Heyman on air that Taker was sent to the hospital by a concerned Vince McMahon. Their relationship is there in the open. It's no longer like the guys can pretend that the announcer isn't the owner of WWE. Vince may be playing a heel but like WWE likes to beat us over in the head many times that Stephanie is a nice lady, that Triple H is the traditionalist's wet dream of an owner of the best brand in all of WWE, that Vince cares about his guys for the most part. The lines are blurred and so it is plausible to believe that Taker would do it.

 

It is just my opinion. You are entitled to feeling like it makes no sense and I can't argue your perspective because it's your perspective and it is what it is.

[Mr. Lacelle]

I think you guys undervalue Pat Patterson in this whole equation. When he stopped working with Vince on a daily basis there was a sharp decline. Vince needed someone who's opinion he trusted which didn't suck.

[Parties]

To begin, I'll say this: I think some of this stuff is a work, not a shoot. Meaning: HHH knows that if he bloodies Reigns and throws crotch chops, it'll get more of a reaction (esp. online) than if he did some more temperate slow burn storyline where Reigns comes off looking his equal and they do a bunch of dull contract signing skits. We're all talking about it extensively here. What looked like a dud Mania main event two weeks ago is now filled with political intrigue. Some of this may simply be a worked shoot angle produced by HHH, a guy whose entire life is a worked shoot.

 

Loss, two things you said here stood out:

 

“HHH and Stephanie have made clear that as soon as they get the chance, Dunn is out the door.”

I'm not doubting it, but when have they made this clear? And if they think Dunn sucks at the job (which he does) or is undermining them to the point of insubordination, why don't they just say so to Vince? Why would Vince take Dunn's side over that of his daughter and son-in-law, who clearly have more of a future in the company than Dunn does? People are assuming Vince has an incredibly strong allegiance to Dunn that rivals his love for his own daughter.

 

“One day, [Vince]'ll look up and realize he doesn't run his company anymore, and it will have all happened so incrementally that he didn't even notice it until after the fact.”

If we've thought of this many years ahead of time, isn't it possible that Vince is aware of it too? I don't see it quite as a deal where Vince is duped or is oblivious to the HHH-Dunn dynamic. Perhaps Vince gets older, his health fails in some fashion, Dunn sees the writing on the wall and opts to retire rather than getting Future Endeavored. Same end result, but I do think that Vince is still wily enough that we can assume he's aware that both sides are in conflict, if they in fact are. All of HHH's manuevering here would have to be perfectly executed in a way that doesn't raise Vince's ire, and Steph's as well if we think she has any fondness for the old man.

 

If we're throwing conspiracy theories around, here's one: Vince knows Hunter is Machiavellian, and has brought Shane back into the fold because he thinks Shane will carry on something closer to Vince's vision than Hunter will. Maybe King Lear just likes having his three kids all back in the nest. If you believe that art here imitates life, then Shane is resentful of Steph and Hunter for taking his spot, and has come to view himself as the rightful fourth generation heir. That makes him a potential pawn or potential spoiler, depending on what shakes out. Maybe Shane turns out to be Fredo, but Vince's will and testament haven't been written yet, and there's likely a lot of time left on the clock.

 

Also: There's way too much speculation/assumption/fantasy booking in those Cageside Seats pieces to be holding them as credible. Hunter pushed Laurenitis aside for being terrible at his job. No shit. Dunn missed a cool looking shot of the Shield on a PPV because Dunn sucks at his job. Dunn thought Adam Rose, Paige, and Bo Dallas didn't have star power or the right look for TV because he hates accents and love handles. If that's your proof of Mafia Warfare, then that's pretty weak tea. I totally buy that HHH is a power-hungry manipulator who views interoffice politics as Game of Thrones drama, but those CS pieces still lack depth/meat/evidence. They need sources, or to show their work in a better way than linking to their own prior conjectures.

 

But even if Hunter wants Dunn gone (very good possibility), the conspiracy theorists still haven't explained why that translates to burying Reigns via two consecutive main events at Mania. Stomperspc summarized it well: “Rather than accepting that it is equal parts the usual incompetent booking combined with Triple H’s usual desire to make himself look good at all costs, this theory has been concocted to explain it.” I'm a Banality of Evil guy on this one. Mediocre employees following bad orders out of self-preservation. Ignorantly thinking they could transparently redo the Bryan movement with Reigns note for note. It isn't that an intricate plan came together to destroy Reigns. It's that they botched his push several times in a row, and Hunter wants to be the star of the all-time biggest Mania. Coupled with JVK's hesitation theories: Vince knows he only has time to create one more ace babyface, and he's not sure if Reigns is that last, best option. The “political hit” theory doesn't explain how Reigns became a Dunn guy or why that matters. There'd have to be some sort of rift between Reigns and Hunter, where Hunter either came to dislike Reigns personally, or came to decide that Reigns was in Dunn's pocket rather than his own. (I've kind of always enjoyed the theory that Hunter resents Reigns for being the Rock's cousin, as I'll at least totally buy that Hunter really, really dislikes the Rock.) If the Shield were HHH's pet project two years ago, was Reigns simply the one of the three that Hunter didn't like for whatever reasons? What does Reigns moving from being a “Hunter” guy to becoming a “Vince/Dunn" guy look like?

 

One last point that came to mind on reading JVK's take. I'm almost certainly not the first person to come to this conclusion, but it's amusing that there are parallels to Hardcore Fans vs. Vince/Dunn and the Ideologues vs. Party Politicos conflicts playing out on both the right and left of American politics right now. Vince/Dunn (the two-party establishment) believe that eventually the crowds will come to their senses and swallow the conventional wisdom that Owens is a slob, Cesaro a boring Swiss socialist, etc. Meanwhile the crowds get louder, the gap between polarized views widens, and the rhetoric grows divisive.

[Dylan Waco]

I'm trying to not be lazy and work on a longer piece about this theory to come out sometime in the next 5 or 6 days.

 

That said I will say two quick things

 

1. I don't think Stomper's point that is highlighted by Parties is wrong or misplaced. In fact to a large degree that's my theory. I would absolutely say that I've accepted that this is a combination of incompetence and HHH being HHH, the difference is I believe much of the incompetence has been managed, encouraged, or at the very least enhanced by HHH's actions. The "conspiracy theory" tag is something people are latching on to and I get why. I can see how the term itself, and some aspects of the theory come across as cloak and daggery to people. That said, no one seems to object to the idea that HHH has done things to undermine people in the past, though in many cases the arguments are at least as conspiratorial as what is being posed here. I also strongly doubt people will disagree with my other contentions, some of which were outlined by Loss, though I plan to go into more detail.

 

2. I am by no means an "insider," but over the last couple of years I have gotten closer to people in and around the wrestling business than I ever intended. The closer I have gotten the more I believe this theory to be true. Not necessarily because of any inside knowledge or backstage political shit I've heard about, but because as you see how the wrestling culture works up close the idea of deliberate sabotage as a means of solidifying or taking control really doesn't seem far fetched at all.

 

Hopefully I'll get my shit together and knock out something readable and coherent in the next few days. I'll do my best to answer any objections or challenges people have to my argument, as long as they are actually challenges to my argument and not to an argument I'm not making.

[kjh]

Regarding Laurinaitis being pushed out by Triple H, it wasn't just that, he gutted the whole talent relations department and did the same in developmental, replacing all the key people with his own hires. That's his MO. That's a mixture of both good and bad, as clearly Hunter picked some people wisely (William Regal has obviously been a hugely important influence in widening WWE's search for talent and being less closed minded), while also making his own blunders (making Bill Demott WWE's head trainer was a disaster waiting to happen and he didn't disappoint). I don't think it's making a jump that he'll do exactly the same with other departments when Vince is out of the picture, particularly someone who if the whispers are true he dislikes.

 

Regarding why Triple H/Stephanie don't use their influence with Vince to force Kevin Dunn out, I don't think it's that easy, because Dunn is so far up the corporate food chain today. He's EVP of Television Production. They'd have to pay a lot of money to break Dunn's contract.

 

Regarding Dylan's #PoliticalHit theory, there was a very interesting paragraph in this week's Observer:

 

In recent years, Levesque has become Vince’s protégé as he was hands-on teaching him the business. Still, Vince had said that nobody was going to take his spot before he dies, unless they could be so ruthless to figuratively stab him in the gut and steal it. Shane attempted to take his advice, but it didn’t work out.

 

In that context, Vince likely welcomes all the infighting and intrigue. He doesn't want to give Triple H power on a plate, he wants him to grab it for himself.

[Matt D]

Regarding Laurinaitis being pushed out by Triple H, it wasn't just that, he gutted the whole talent relations department and did the same in developmental, replacing all the key people with his own hires. That's his MO. That's a mixture of both good and bad, as clearly Hunter picked some people wisely (William Regal has obviously been a hugely important influence in widening WWE's search for talent and being less closed minded), while also making his own blunders (making Bill Demott WWE's head trainer was a disaster waiting to happen and he didn't disappoint). I don't think it's making a jump that he'll do exactly the same with other departments when Vince is out of the picture, particularly someone who if the whispers are true he dislikes.

 

 

Naylor leaving felt very weird at the time, that it was something that had to be done on a corporate level, that it had to be a clean sweep of sorts, just necessary business. I could be way off, mind you, but that's how it felt at the time.