LAUGH, CLOWN, LAUGH (ONE OF THE MOST OVERUSED MUSICAL REFERENCES IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, BUT WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?)
Last week’s STABBING ISSUES featured a commentary on JBL’s very entertaining comedy-based character, which I think belongs in the midcard rather than the main event. I reached two possible conclusions: (1) Comedy-based wrestlers don’t belong in the main event, with the possible exception of Ric Flair (who, while funny, was more than just a comedy act). (1a) Those characters that are funny because they insult their opponents (e.g. The Rock) are exceptions to this. (2) JBL is the butt of most of the humor surrounding him. His plays the buffoon, and he lacks credibility. This credibility gap may be because of the inherent weakness of comedy wrestlers, or it may just be that JBL isn’t as great as he thinks he is.
I received a couple of emails that pointed me toward another possible exception to these rules: Kurt Angle. For the first 2-3 years of his tenure in the WWF/E, Kurt Angle’s character was steeped in comedy. He was a pompous windbag, an arrogant coward, and generally not so tough. If he were in a Marx Brothers movie, some type of food or drink (probably a cream pie) would have ended up splattered across his face by the end of the picture. And yet, despite being a ridiculous figure from 1999 to 2002, he was a fixture in the main event scene. He won matches against all (or most) of the top guys in the company. Today he’s arguably the top guy on Smackdown, perhaps second only to HHH on Vince McMahon’s (probably hypothetical) depth chart. As Michel Foucault would say, what gives?
Kurt Angle’s gimmick, from the moment he entered the WWF, was that he’d won an Olympic gold medal for amateur wrestling. Anyone remember the tag line on those earliest vignettes? It was something like “The Greatest Real Athlete in WWF History.” His early promos all emphasized his ridiculous code of ethics (The Three I’s), his personal integrity (“It’s true, it’s true”), and his general sense of superiority to all the other wrestlers in the company (the winning streak angle, especially in the phase where Angle was teaming with Steve Blackman). Rather than using Angle’s legit athletic background as a springboard to credibility (as had been the plan with Ken Shamrock), the WWF turned Angle’s Olympic medals into a curse rather than a blessing. Angle was overconfident and perhaps under-prepared, relying on cheating rather than his training or innate skills.
Most of my friends hated Angle at first, but I thought he was mildly funny, and I liked his suplex-intensive offense. Over the following six months Angle improved by leaps and bounds, becoming more confident on the mike and more dramatic in the ring. His improvement, more than anything, probably shot him up the card, as it became evident that he could hold his end of a feud (both in terms of matches and promos) with the likes of the Rock or HHH. Despite his rising star, Angle’s character still remained a pompous windbag, his ass unable to cash the checks which his mouth wrote. He remained the butt of jokes, including frequent references to his supposed virginity and overall geekiness.
This remained the case even after Angle won the WWF title from the Rock in October of 2000. I would argue that Angle did not reach a turning point until Wrestlemania XVII, when he feuded with Chris Benoit. This feud didn’t set the WWF on fire or anything, but it did emphasize Angle’s amateur background. The point of the feud was to determine who was the better pure wrestler. Angle came out of the feud looking more legit because the fans finally got to see him cut loose in his matches with Chris Benoit. During this feud, Angle starred in several hilarious sketches with the heel Steve Austin and Vince McMahon which probably demeaned Angle more than anything which he’d done before (the child’s cowboy hat probably being the most humiliating). But Angle’s character survived, perhaps because the WWF was finally acknowledging that Angle was an incredible technician. Consider this exchange between Austin and McMahon regarding Angle (this is paraphrased, so bear with me):
Austin: I don’t like him. He’s a geek.
McMahon: Yes, but he’s a dangerous geek. And he’s our geek.
Angle turned face soon after the WCW Invasion storyline began, feuding chiefly with Steve Austin in the summer of 2001. Angle was a very strong face during this time, peaking with his near-classic match with Austin at Summerslam. This match was, for me, the zenith of the entire Invasion angle (the fact that neither guy was really a WCW or ECW wrestler is pretty telling, huh?). An exhausted, injured, and desperate Kurt Angle clawing at Austin’s tights, trying to get back to his feet, is one of my favorite wrestling memories.
However, Vince McMahon made the decision to turn Angle heel a mere four months after his face turn. It’s too bad that Angle’s face run couldn’t have lasted a little longer, but McMahon’s decision was understandable. The Rock was returning from filming The Scorpion King, and the audience was clearly turning Steve Austin face. Add in Rob Van Dam as an up and coming face and a returning HHH eager for a face run, and the decision seems pretty obvious in retrospect.
Unfortunately, Kurt Angle’s heel character was unchanged from mid-2001. He was still a geek. Worse yet, his momentum from mid-2001 now seemed arrested; he established (and won) feuds with the likes of Kane, Hulk Hogan, and Rey Misterio Jr. While the latter feud at least produced a great match at Summerslam 2002, the others were basically filler. Angle didn’t start building momentum again until paired with Chris Benoit in a feuding tag partners storyline.
But Angle’s real turning point came when he began feuding with Brock Lesnar. This feud succeeded in part because Lesnar was at the peak of his popularity, and in part because Angle and Lesnar’s amateur credentials built up a solid base of hype, propelling the two into the main event at Wrestlemania XIX. I would argue, however, the primary factor that drove this feud was Angle’s neck injury. The injury was both an overt plot element (Lesnar’s brief friendship with Angle) and the subtext for the feud (how far can Angle go, and will this be his last match?).
Angle’s character was fundamentally different after the Lesnar feud. Gone was the cocky geek; in his place was a cold eyed killer. The defining moment of Angle’s post-Lesnar character came when he reffed a match between Eddie Guerrero and Chavo Guerrero shortly after Eddie won the WWE Title. Angle didn’t laugh at Eddie when he refused to count–he just stared him down and went to work. Angle has shown a marked sadistic streak all through 2004, even as the wheelchair bound commissioner (which was a cool visual that was never used to its fullest potential). Yes, the steely-eyed sadist is a simple enough character. But every chef knows that the simpler a recipe is, the more important it is for the ingredients to be of the highest quality. There are very few wrestlers who could portray this character as effectively as Angle.
NOT EVERYONE CAN DO THIS
So why did Angle successfully make the transition from geek to killer? This is clearly not something that just anyone could do. Angle is a special case, for a number of reasons. And here they are:
1. His talent
Angle was just too talented to keep out of the main event. History has shown that audiences will begrudgingly respect those wrestlers who receive consistent main event pushes, assuming that they’re not totally lame. And Angle, even as a geek, was never totally lame.
2. His amateur background
Though he’s since outgrown it, Angle’s Olympic credentials were the defining element of his character for the first couple of years he was in the WWF. Angle and the announcers constantly reminded viewers of his legit athletic background.
3. His amateur background actually came into play
This is what separates Angle from Ken Shamrock. Shamrock wasn’t able to convey his MMA background in his matches–partly because he wasn’t talented enough, and partly because his opponents weren’t talented enough. In feuding with Chris Benoit, however, Angle had the perfect opponent to show off his amateur background. This was also around the time that Angle’s submission skills became a bigger part of his offense and character (the “I Will Make You Tap” t-shirt). This gave his matches a clearer focus, and also provided him with a more formidable weapon in the ankle lock.
4. His matches
Angle had a series of brutal matches in 2001, including the cage match against Chris Benoit (in which he did a moonsault from the top of the cage) and his hardcore match with Shane McMahon. These matches, along with his more focused in-ring style, gave him greater credibility when he stepped into the ring. Fans were better able to divorce his geeky backstage persona from his more serious in-ring persona. Still, this came at the expense of Angle’s long term health.
5. His decision to change his character
The sheet writers tell us that Angle’s backstage power has grown considerably in the last two years. The IWC is more apt to give him a free pass on this, or even encourage this behavior, because we like him more than HHH. But we can’t deny that Angle almost certainly played a role in making his character more serious. This probably reflects Angle’s changed outlook since his neck problems began, but it also reflects his talent and track record. Vince McMahon doesn’t give power to the Billy Gunns of the WWE.
So what’s my conclusion? It seems that Angle, like Flair, is just a special case. Most wrestlers do not have Angle’s talent, or built-in credibility. Most wrestlers couldn’t survive what Angle’s character has endured, and the WWE writers would be well-served to remember this in the future.
STABBING ISSUES
The wrestling section of this site features many great writers whose analyses shape the way the IWC (and, I would argue, casual fans who don’t even read the internet but have friends that do) views wrestling. Many of these writers (okay, Hyatte and Eric S.) are famous for including non-wrestling related material. In fact, you could probably argue that this is what got them their notoriety in the first place–Hyatte’s writing/advice on porn, literature, and the reality of growing up, and Eric’s on computers, current events, and work.
Now I’m not saying that I’ve earned the same credibility as those two, or even a fraction of it. And I’m not going to get in the habit of using this column to gripe about things other than wrestling. But right now I feel the need to vent about a particular topic: going back to school. So your regularly scheduled STABBING ISSUES is temporarily on hiatus.
As some of you may remember from previous columns, I’m a grad student in history at a very large (and prestigious) university somewhere in the middle of the country. Like most grad students, I rely in part on teaching to pay my way through college. Like many grad students, I am significantly older than the average college student (like about 8-10 years older). Like some grad students, I’m a cranky old bastard who just wants to be left alone most of the time. Like very few grad students, I have an informal venue to talk with college students–i.e. this column, since most of my readers seem to be in the 17-23 year old range. So, here are a few observations, complaints, and a wee bit of advice from someone who’s not only been in your collective shoes, but who’s been behind the scenes as well, so to speak.
1. Getting around campus
You kids need to stop walking four abreast down narrow sidewalks, especially in the late summer/early fall when there’s still al fresco dining. You may have all the time in the world, but I have places to go and things to do. Pay attention to your surroundings, and don’t block the damn sidewalk. And remember that lesson when you’re 50 years old and visiting your kid(s) at college, cause middle aged folks are even worse about doing this.
If you ride a bike, you can get bent. Bikers are hypocrites. You complain that car-drivers run you off the road, but then you do the same thing to pedestrians. You whiz by on the sidewalk, which is for WALKING, GOD DAMMIT! One of these days I’m not going to get out of the way. I’ll probably get thrown to the ground, but so will you. I’m a big guy, and you’ll have a piece of metal between your thighs, so I’m fairly confident that I’ll walk away in better shape. And you all dress like idiots, too. Here’s a piece of advice: learn some manners, or start walking. That’s what I do. I don’t drive or ride a bike, and I do okay.
As annoying as bicyclists can be, the worst folks of all are you idiots who insist on riding scooters to school. Are you that Goddamned lazy? I live in a town where the high temperature is frequently in single digits, and I still manage to walk two miles to school every day. Meanwhile, spoiled rich kids who live in on-campus dorms insist on riding their dumb-assed scooters to their classes, which are JUST DOWN THE STREET. It wouldn’t bother me so much if you f*ckers didn’t drive like maniacs, zipping between cars in traffic and nearly hitting pedestrians. Now, I’m not so confident that Goforth vs. The Scooter and the Moron Riding It would go as well as Goforth vs. The Idiot Bicyclist. So my threat is this: scooters aren’t that heavy. I will track you down and throw your scooter in the lake, asshole.
2. Entertainment
You’re in a band. You decide you want to play on campus. This is a mistake. Why? Cause I have to hear you, and your band sucks. It’s true. Any band that has to play for free on campus sucks. The only people who will stand and listen to you are your friends, and chances are that they’re at least slightly embarrassed that you’re in such a lame ass band (if they’re not embarrassed, then they’re too stupid to realize how bad you are). So let’s just leave well enough alone, and you and your musically illiterate friends can just stay in the practice shed in your mom’s backyard.
Drinking sounds like fun, right? Yeah, if you’re too young and dumb to have anything else going on for entertainment purposes. Eventually you’ll learn that drinking is a means to an end, and not an end unto itself. Until then, please shut the hell up as you stumble from bar to bar on Friday night. I have things to do, and I don’t need to hear you screaming “DUUUDDE!!!” at the top of your lungs. And for God’s sake, go vomit in someone else’s yard.
Weirdo religious types are a fact of life on many campuses. I’m not talking about the Campus Crusade for Christ (but beware of them) or Intervarsity or student Catholic organizations, all which are usually staffed by well-behaved and well-meaning young folks. I’m talking about the weird bearded guy with a copy of the Bible and Don Rickles’ penchant for childish insults. This type of guy (or, in some cases, this type of woman) will try to bait you into engaging them in debate by calling you a “slut” or a “queer” or something like that. Be advised that these yahoos are notoriously litigious, so don’t dare lay a hand on them, no matter what they say. If you are truly offended by what they have to say, the best course of action is to ignore them, and try to let them become part of the background noise of life on campus. They want to engage you in debate, and if you agree, they will not fight fair (their god doesn’t believe in logic, I guess). Most of them seem to be less interested in winning souls than in making a lot of noise and annoying us pointy-headed intellectual types. I hold that the best course of advice is to let them exercise their right to free speech, and let your refusal to speak to them be your response to their stupid bullshit. For the sake of political balance, let me add that this approach will work on any group, secular or sectarian. It’s just that the fundies are particularly loathsome in their tactics.
3. School itself.
In case you’ve forgotten, you’re in school to learn. Beer commercials and bad movies might have fooled you into thinking that college is one big party. Well hey, it can be, but there are consequences. Like your inability to party and study at the same time. And if you don’t study, professors and teaching assistants will be able to tell, since you’ll do something stupid like identifying Jefferson Davis as a leading abolitionist. (The correct answer: one of our greatest presidents.) (Just kidding.)
If getting straight C’s doesn’t sound too bad, keep these things in mind: (1) Your parents might not agree. And most of you are dependent on them for the funding you need to stay in school. (2) If you don’t rely on your parents to pay your way through, you probably do depend on a scholarship of some sort. Your college/university probably has even higher standards than mom and dad. (3) “C” isn’t an average grade anymore. It’s sub-average. Employers know this, and many of them will ask for your college transcript when you give them your resume. (4) Unless some incredible travesty of justice has occurred, you won’t be able to get your grade changed after it’s been given to you. This is doubly true if you wait for a year or two to contest the grade.
There’s a strong temptation to treat college as nothing but a great big single’s club or vacation resort. You’re around people of the same age, with similar socioeconomic backgrounds. If your school is big enough, you can probably find people the same interests as yours, no matter how stupid they are (I saw a sign advertising a Lord of the Rings reenactment club the other day). That’s all great, and it can help relieve some of the homesickness you’ll probably experience while in college. But don’t forget why you’re in school. If you do forget, it may come back to haunt you later. If you haven’t been taking things seriously and want to make a change, remember that most everyone in a position of authority at a university wants to see you succeed. You should also remember that your previous actions might cause these folks to doubt how serious you are about changing your ways, so try not to abuse this good will.
And your writing should be more formal than this column. Most of the writing I do is formal, so I’m eager to let off some steam in this venue (though I always aspire for clarity above all else). Try to reserve your less formal writing for emails, message boards, or columns (if you’re lucky enough to have one). Don’t use profanity in your papers (unless you’re quoting someone). And for Chrissakes, don’t use parentheses as frequently as I do. It’s a bad habit (which I have no intention of breaking).
So there you have it: your official guide to keeping Goforth relatively happy and sane. If you’re already in compliance (and I’m sure most of you are), then I offer you my heartfelt thanks. Spread this far and wide, and do your part to keep me from getting even bitterer.
NEXT WEEK
I return to the all-wrestling, all the time format with a comparison of wrestling with other media–like film, literature, and music. It’s time that we as wrestling fans realize what wrestling is and is not capable of doing, and it’s time that we quit apologizing for its shortcomings. Wrestling is what it is, and over the next two weeks I’ll try to uncover just what that means. Or something.
