Ridiculous quotes from WO.com columnists

[Bob Morris]

With the A-Team, I don't think there's any excuse for anybody who follows pro wrestling extensively to not know anything about it. It should be common knowledge that Hulk Hogan guest starred on the show several times as a way for WWF to continue to cement a Hogan-Mr. T relationship into everyone's mind.

 

Rocky III alone did not cement the connection.

[tigerpride]

The guest host this week was Dule Hill from the TV show “Psych.” I don’t know who that is, but that’s okay. I’m going to be more tolerant of random Raw guest hosts from here on in. J

[rovert]

End of an era

[Loss]

One thing I've noticed reading Todd Martin's Raw review this week is that he isn't a huge fan of staples or formula. He gets angry when heels keep their backs turned to an opponent because a babyface shows up at ringside. He gets angry that the Royal Rumble is overhyped each year, because every year, they call it the most star-studded ever, whether it actually is or not.

 

I think Dave has always done this to a degree also, and I'm sure plenty of other people have too, so this isn't just limited to criticism of Todd Martin. But I don't understand people who seem to think that wrestling should contain as much truth as possible. It's a work, there is zero obligation or connection with reality.

 

As long as the reality that exists within the WWE universe (not to be confused with the WWE Universe) is logically consistent, who cares if it's really true or not? The job of the announcer or promoter isn't to give factually accurate information about their upcoming shows -- their job is to make them seem as eventful and must-see as possible. Why Todd would criticize WWE for talking about the Royal Rumble's star-studded line-up is beyond me. What should they say? "Folks, it's not the same cast from the boom period, but we have 30 moderately talented guys competing in a match that only comes along once a year. Some of them are still developing as stars and some of them are way past their peak, and honestly, only 2-3 of them stand a chance of winning, so most of the match is a pointless exercise. Either way, the winner will be in the main event of Wrestlemania, even though we may tease the winner not keeping his title shot a few times in the build to the big show to keep things interesting."

 

I also think it's an incredibly simplistic way of watching wrestling to call every segment where someone does a job or gets insulted a burial. Sometimes, a wrestler losing a match is good for him. While WWE is admittedly a petty company, they aren't "sending a message" to the losing guy in every single conceivable segment on every single show. They are "sometimes", and at times, "sometimes" is "much of the time". But it's ridiculous and over the top to suggest that every time a wrestler does a job or has someone cut a promo on them, they are out of political favor.

 

And regarding the overconfident heel being distracted by the babyface at ringside, this is wrestling. I love strong heels, but it's bogus to suggest that wrestlers should always make the same decisions that viewers would make in terms of having their backs turned, falling for tricks, etc. I think where WWE has fallen short over time, and this is a valid criticism, is at establishing clear behavioral norms and sticking to them. Whatever wrestling you want to pull from the past as the gold standard (I'll use Mid South) likely wasn't "realistic", but it was consistent in how wrestlers acted toward and reacted to each other. But there's a difference between criticizing actions not making sense within that universe, and criticizing WWE for portraying a heel as overconfident and leaving them susceptible to a loss.

 

Whatever, I'm on a tangent, and who knows if this post makes sense. I'll stop.

[Wahoos Leg]

I agree wholeheartedly. Wrestling, and enjoying wrestling, has always required some suspension of disbelief.

[Log]

But I don't understand people who seem to think that wrestling should contain as much truth as possible. It's a work, there is zero obligation or connection with reality.

 

As long as the reality that exists within the WWE universe (not to be confused with the WWE Universe) is logically consistent, who cares if it's really true or not? The job of the announcer or promoter isn't to give factually accurate information about their upcoming shows -- their job is to make them seem as eventful and must-see as possible.

Exactly. It's called promotion. What's funny, is that people criticize the WWE for this stuff, but it's common practice in any media. News stations consistently call themselves, the "most-watched", "most-accurate", "first on the scene", etc. Many times, they're manipulating numbers to make these claims true, or outright fabricating these claims.

 

It's the same as the disdain for the use of "WWE Universe". It's branding. ESPN has Sports Nation. There's Red Sox Nation, blah, blah, blah. It's the same thing.

 

I think people need to get used to the fact that WWE is a company. They're going to do things that companies who want to promote themselves and make money do. It's not going to fit with what a lot of people see as "wrestling" promotion. But it's good promotion for a business, which is what they are.

[kjh]

I think Loss makes some strong points, but to be fair to Todd when he wrote "This segment sure buried MVP, Miz and the title", I don't think he was implying that it was intentional, just that was the consequence of the segment as it was played out. In general Loss is correct about losing sometimes being a positive, but I don't see how MVP losing clean in very short order to the Big Show is a positive to MVP or Miz (who MVP is feuding with) or the US title (which MVP is the no. 1 contender to).

 

However, I do agree that the MMA mentality of Bryan and Todd when they apply it to wrestling is a bit OTT and stupid. Loss has already dealt with the fact that a babyface distraction causing cocky heel to lose is pro wrestling 101. But that doesn't deal with Bryan on Wrestling Observer Radio being bugged that Kofi doesn't get a title shot out of beating the Miz. The whole point is MVP cost the Miz the match, whomever beat him doesn't deserve a title shot because MVP's distraction caused him to lose. It's funny how Bryan wants wrestling booked more like a shoot (even in the example above where it doesn't make sense), yet is one of the first to scoff when sport gets in the way of the title match ups he wants to see in MMA.

[artDDP]

Maybe a little off-topic, but reading the most recent posts made me think of this: Why does it appear WWE wants to only have five or six credible wrestlers and everyone else is booked like Disco Inferno?

[Grimmas]

Maybe a little off-topic, but reading the most recent posts made me think of this: Why does it appear WWE wants to only have five or six credible wrestlers and everyone else is booked like Disco Inferno?

Because only the top couple matches on the show draw, so why care about the undercard guys. I believe that is their philosophy.

[jdw]

To protect the top spots of certain people on top.

 

John

[sek69]

To protect the top spots of certain people on top.

 

John

 

This, basically. If everyone is booked to look like an idiot, then no one is ever seen as worthy of a main event push.

[Loss]

It's sad how anytime they do segments that feature the entire roster, they all look like a bunch of nobodies instead of a roster full of stars. It's a far cry from 2000 when they did that segment on Raw where the Rock led the entire locker room down to the ring to protest the McMahon/Helmsley facgime, and it really looked like a roster full of popular guys.

[artDDP]

Based on the booking lately I get a feeling the Royal Rumble will come down to Shawn Michaels and Triple-H.

[kjh]

I don't think it is all to do with sabotage and maintaing the status quo of the powerful guys on top, though that certainly plays a part. I agree with Grimass, partly it's Vince's promotional philosophy that the undercard doesn't really matter, the money is with whomever the top guy is at the time, whether it be Hogan, Austin, Rock or Cena. But I also think part of the problem, recently espoused by Dave Meltzer on his radio show, is that they learned the wrong lessons from the popularity of the Rock during the Attitude era, who dropped falls pretty much every other week including to several midcarders. That guys should be able to get over with parity booking, not that the Rock was so talented he could remain over despite jobbing left, right and centre. That's how wrestling should be booked because that's what worked when the product was hot, not realizing the unique set of circumstances that led to the wrestling boom and not being that familiar about wrestling history before that.

[KrisZ]

I remember Rock doing jobs for Christian & Rhino

[MikeCampbell]

When Rock was (arguably) at the height of his popularity as a wrestler, he jobbed cleanly to the Big Bossman.

[Bob Morris]

Kev is right that Vince is too stuck in the mindset that certain guys belong in the midcard and, if they aren't somebody he particularly thinks is main event material, he won't get there. Cena, Batista, Orton, HHH and Shawn all started in the midcard, but Vince was the guy that saw each of them has having what it took to be in the main event for one reason or another, hence why they got pushed there. He tends to be stubborn when it comes to who he thinks should get to that main event level.

 

And this is really nothing new. He was like this back in the 1980s, it continued into the 1990s and it remains that way today.

[Slasher]

This is why Christian, despite getting good reactions and "star" treatment by fans, will never be a main eventer in the 'E.

[kjh]

Hmm, not sure I'd go that far. There are plenty of wrestlers that a stubborn Vince eventually got behind because the crowd demanded it or injuries forced his hand.

[rovert]

Off topic for the thread but Joe Babinsack wrote something nice and coherent:

http://www.f4wonline.com/content/view/12122/

[tomk]

I don't think there is a ton of parity booking on the top of the card.

 

I wrote a couple years ago about the WWF midcard:

 

 

http://segundacaida.blogspot.com/2008/03/b...nth-day-29.html

 

One of the things that people who write about wrestling don’t write about enough is the “party” atmosphere of the live shows during WWFs peak period. Fun over midcard acts like the New Age Outlaws or Too Cool/Rikishi were an important part of WWF’s successful formula. For the live audience singing along with Roaddog or clapping for Rikishi and Too Cool as they put on their sunglasses and danced was fun. And you go to the WWF wrestling event to have fun.

I think this is part of what Loss is talking about when he says a roster full of stars. The WWE used to be able to protect hot midcard acts. It seems like there is no interest in that anymore. Either an act gets popular and then is fed to the top stars or it's just jobbed out.

[tomk]

It's about Todd being too much of a pompous blowhard to admit that he misread people's familiarity with an old TV show

The real issue isn't what celebrities Martin recognizes versus which he doesn't.

 

It doesn't matter.

 

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111800733...yId=14&cs=1

 

McMahon said. "By bringing in the celebrities, we're saying, 'If it's OK for them, it's OK for you too.' "

The celebrities are a way of saying “hey we’re not some entertainment ghetto separate from the rest of the celebrity circuit.” It doesn’t matter who the actual celebritires are. The actual celebrity on a variety show doesn’t matter.

 

A couple months back I was babysitting my niece and watching Yo gabba Gabba. Yo Gabba Gabba is a variety show with a weekly musical guest. That weeks musical guest was Lady Tigra:

 

 

Lady Tigra was one half of late 80s Miami Bass duo Lil Trimm: “ We like the cars the cars that go boom , we’re Tigra and Bunny and we like da boom”. My two year old niece doesn’t know who Lady Tigra is. My guess is most of the parents watching Noggin with their kids can’t identify Bass artists. I don’t know how many parents in their thirties remember Miami bass artists from the late 80s, either.

 

In the seventies pre-Three’s Company how many kids watching the New Scooby Doo movies knew who Don knots was? Who Mama Cass was?

 

In the 80s what percentage of the audience watching The Love Boat knew who Pearl Bailey was? What percentage recognized Theodore Bikel, Red Buttons, or Cyd Charrise? You turn on the Love Boat and you know that you’’ll get Hollywood stars of yesteryear and up and coming current ones. No one opened their Tv guide and went “Normally I don’t watch the Love Boat but oh shit Morey Amsterdam and Scattman Crothers are going to be on this week”.

 

You tune in to see a variety show with a celebrity (who that celebrity is doesn’t matter).

[kjh]

I don't think there is a ton of parity booking on the top of the card.

Name me a top star John Cena hasn't jobbed out to in the last couple of years. I know Shawn, Hunter and Taker are a bit more protected by the booking, but I think this statement is a bit of a stretch today.

[Eduardo]

I don't think there is a ton of parity booking on the top of the card.

Name me a top star John Cena hasn't jobbed out to in the last couple of years. I know Shawn, Hunter and Taker are a bit more protected by the booking, but I think this statement is a bit of a stretch today.

 

Yeah one major criticism is they really could do a better job protecting Cena. He's done way too many unnecessary jobs to guys like Triple H and Shawn Michaels for no reason these past few years.

[tomk]

Cena not being as protected as DX doesn't seem to be an example of the problem of parity booking.

 

Cena working an opening match at 2008 Judgement Day isn't parity booking either.

 

To protect the top spots of certain people on top.

 

John