Regular VS host Rob Blatt is away this week, and the constant VS workload was getting to be a bit much, so, I, you’re friendly neighborhood Modest Responder will be picking up some of the slack and sharing judging with Blatt (and there’s a chance a pretty big writer will be returning to Pulse Wrestling to help out, but I don’t want to spoil that surprise).
Matthew Michaels is our beloved Fingers, the head of the wrestling section with the patience of a saint and a hankering for all sorts of interesting news bits. Matt also edits Moodspins.
Dan Hevia is an institution here at Pulse Wrestling. He doesn’t write a lot, but when he does, it’s always a quality read. If you don’t believe me, check out his article on the potential death of Kurt Angle.
1. Why is the popularity of tag team wrestling always changing in the WWE? What reasons do you think that it’s so weak right now? How can the tag division on Smackdown be fixed?
Matthew Michaels: Part one of this question is simple, and can be answered as such: (a) WWE doesn’t consistently push tag teams on TV, therefore (b) there isn’t much money in tag team wrestling in modern-day WWE, which leads to (c) there aren’t a lot of quality up-and-coming wrestlers that aspire to be IN tag teams.
I don’t think the WWE tag wrestling scene is weak right now because of a lack of quality teams, which is the easy knee-jerk answer to part two of the question. Unfortunately, WWE doesn’t know what it wants the “point” of tag wrestling to be. Should tag teams be the combination of two singles wrestlers that don’t currently have a program (and, upon breaking up, can therefore be put INTO a simple program their former partners)? Should tag team matches be used as a way to move more than one storyline forward in half the time (e.g., the all-too-often “Batista and Undertaker vs. Finlay and Booker (or Kennedy)” matches we saw on Smackdown over the past few months)? Or should the attention be on real tag teams (defined by me as teams where both members share a gimmick and a real storyline reason to be a team, including as many of the following points as possible: matching attire, a team name, at least one named double-team move and a double-team finishing move), in a competitive “division,” given somewhat of an equal amount of TV time to singles wrestlers? Ah… there’s the answer. Tag wrestling is weak in WWE right now because all of the “real” teams are spread across the company’s three rosters, rather than in ONE division with ONE set of championship belts.
How can the tag division on Smackdown be fixed? Simple. Move ALL of the real tag teams to Smackdown, unify the “WWE” and “World” tag titles, and make the division exclusive to the older-school, Friday night show. But — even though recent reports are saying Vince feels two hour wrestling shows are too long — where do you find “enough” quality time to give to, for example, The Hardyz, Hooliganz, Highlanders, Cryme Tyme, Bluebloods, Major Brothers, La Resistance, Redneck Wrecking Crew, Full Blooded Italians and World’s Greatest Tag Team? (Wait, was I just able to name ten teams, none of which were Hacksaw & Eugene or Kennedy & Finlay?) Simple. Move the cruiserweight division over to ECW, and give some airtime to the Nobles, Yangs, Moores and Guerreros of the world.
Dan Hevia: The popularity of tag team wrestling is always changing in the WWE due to the landscape that people have to work off of. If the booking team shows no interest in tag team wrestling, outside of having the two top faces win the titles for no apparent reason, why would anyone want to be in a tag team? The thing is, most people who get in to wrestling want to be the WWE/World Champion. They don’t want to waste time teaming with someone else. Back in the day people WANTED to dominate tag team wrestling. Now you have some rednecks, some greasers, some gangsters, The Hardys and off the top of my head, I can’t remember anyone else. There is no focus on those matches. The reason it’s always changing is the same reason it’s weak right now: nobody gives a shit.
To be blunt, without an overhaul of the entire division, including moving the division to one brand alone, there is you can do to fix Smackdown OR Raw. It’s interchangeable. Develop teams that people can give a damn about, don’t give them dumb gimmicks and let them go out there and give it a whirl. But the same can be said for the business in general. More people have to be developed with better gimmicks and they need to be ready with their talent to back it up in the ring.
Additionally, if you want to look real deep into something, the only time that tag team wrestling in the WWE is hot is when the business itself is hot. Look at your two hot stretches over the past 25 years. During the 80’s you had a myriad of teams that people bought into: The Hart Foundation, The British Bulldogs and Demolition to just name a few. Fast forward to the Attitude era: Hardys, E&C, Dudleys, Outlaws. On a consistent basis, whenever the business is hot, tag team wrestling is hot. Now I don’t know if tag team wrestling makes the business hot or it’s just something that happens when the business explodes, but it’s worth taking a look at the business as a whole before wondering why tag team wrestling sucks.
Judge Glazer’s Verdict: Matt begins with a great point about why the WWE doesn’t value tag wrestling and gets his hands dirty with how to fix it, even listing 10 teams. Without listing teams, Hevia makes much the same point about unifying the division. Where Hevia loses me is saying tag wrestling is only hot when the business is and mentioning only two eras of WWE wrestling. Tag teams were hot for a time in WCW with The Steiners, The Road Warriors, Doom, Harlem Heat and others chasing the tag titles. It was also hot at various times in ECW and TNA, neither of which had a hot period comparable to the WWE. If tag wrestling is hot when WWE is hot, why does this not hold up for other companies? Matt is direct and to the point here, with a simple solution that makes sense. Hevia is more ambitious in his response, but leaves holes too big to ignore within. Point to Matthew, 1-0.
2. TNA’s proven that just because you have a big name, it doesn’t mean ratings will increase. Kurt Angle and Samoa Joe haven’t helped ratings or buy rates. Maybe this is because they are utilizing the big names incorrectly. What should the role of these big names be in TNA?
Matthew Michaels: You can tell Aaron wrote these questions since he actually had the gall to compare Samoa Joe’s star power upon joining TNA to Kurt Angle’s. One note here: Joe joined the TNA roster as an indie star, particularly with Ring of Honor. This wasn’t “adding a star to TNA to get a ratings pop” but was rather “adding a great indie talent to TNA in order to turn him INTO a NATIONAL star to build the company around.” Kurt Angle was one of WWE’s TOP SUPERSTARS over the past few YEARS. Oh, and he (and Sting, who you can classify along with Angle) did help ratings and buyrates get a quick spike, but not long-term growth.
That being said, the premise of this question is absolutely correct: the big stars haven’t been used correctly… for a long enough period of time. Christian was brought over days after appearing on WWE television, and while he of course wasn’t going to pop a buyrate (he debuted on pay-per-view the day Eddie Guerrero died), TNA made the mistake of confusing the huge crowd reaction for a good reason to book him as a babyface, yet his strength — as seen now — is obviously as an antagonist. TNA brought Sting back to a huge feud with Jeff Jarrett that led where at the end of the day? I believe Sting was chasing “the cancer” out of TNA, but did so in one of the most anti-climactic title changes in history. And after what I feel was the RIGHT move of putting Angle up against Samoa Joe right off the bat, instead of having one match and making fans wait months for the rematch… or even having two matches, and having fans wait six months or longer for the rubber match… TNA shot its load, took the luster and “special” feeling away from the feud, and continued to let fans down when all they wanted was to see Joe finally become World Champion.
So how should big stars be used? The only stars left that TNA has any chance of bringing in are Chris Jericho, Rob Van Dam and Bill Goldberg, so I’ll focus briefly on each of them. Jericho? Bring him in as a surprise entrance into a Slammiversary King of the Mountain match, have him WIN the title and then turn SUPERSMARMY heel and lead to a build where Joe finally wins the belt at Bound For Glory. Rob Van Dam? Have Nash win the X Division title and then bring in Van Dam to beat him and start the process of bringing glory back to the championship. Goldberg? Same as the Jericho scenario, since he’ll be a major heel to the TNA crowd, but instead of a smarmy heel, make him Brock Lesnar circa his initial WWE run.
My point? Use them in a program to SPECIFICALLY bring a championship AND a young star to the next level. Period.
Dan Hevia: I take issue with this question. Kurt Angle and Samoa Joe are big names…to us, the internet fans. Quite frankly, there are not enough of us to make a dent in the ratings, so there should be no shift. Yes, a casual fan may say “Oh, Kurt Angle.” But that doesn’t produce anything. Be honest, Kurt Angle’s run in WWE and the buy rates at that time were a direct result of the landscape he painted on. That landscape including Steve Austin, The Rock, Foley, Undertaker. When those guys left, Kurt went main event and business wasn’t what it was. NO casual fan is going to even know who Samoa Joe is and via their knowledge of WWE television, those casual fans would look at Samoa Joe and think he is Umaga’s cousin. Are they utilizing these guys poorly? Yes, but that’s because Vince Russo takes the short bus to Orlando…we all know that. The only role they should play is to have great matches whenever possible and hope a few casual fans are watching when they do. Otherwise, go out and sign a big name, like Hogan, to draw the fans in and take a look at what these guys can do.
Judge Glazer’s Verdict: And here we have the opposite of the last question. Matt is quite ambitious, claiming that TNA has already blown its current crop of big stars and discussing the next potential set of stars. This is well and good, but some more effort needs to go into the explaining of what’s wrong with Christian, Joe, Angle and Sting here before I’ll buy into it. Hevia just points out that Angle was never big for buyrates in WWE. That’s true to a point, but that point ends when we note that TNA did huge buyrate for his PPV debut. Where Hevia scores big and steals the point is noting that TNA should bring in Hogan so as to pop a buyrate and then hook the casual viewer with great wrestling. It’s a good strategy for the use of TNA’s current main event crop. Point to Hevia and we’re tied 1-1.
3. Which is the better model for growing a wrestling promotion, the TNA model or the ROH model? Is it fair to compare theses companies in the first place?
Matthew Michaels: Obviously the Ring of Honor business model is better since the company is profitable and TNA isn’t. And the fascinating part of this to me is that NOW that ROH is profitable, it’s exploring new channels for growth and potential profit (i.e., six pay-per-views over the next year). If the PPV plan works, bringing new fans into the fold, selling more merchandise (including DVDs) and tickets to live shows, then who knows where the future will lead? And if it doesn’t, they can just go back to being the small “indie promotion that could.” Sure there’s a risk, but you have to take a risk in order to take things to the next level. That being said — and I’ll even forgive TNA for its initial try at a weekly-PPV model since it had never been done before and “you never know” in this business — TNA’s risks have been costly, they haven’t learned from the mistakes from the history of the pro wrestling industry, and they similarly haven’t learned from the successes of companies like WWE and UFC with regards to converting TV viewers (albeit a pretty solid audience compared to where they were a few years ago) into PPV buyers. And of course it’s fair to compare the two companies — they’re both in the same industry, competing for a finite number of potential consumers.
Dan Hevia: Neither. WWE is. First off, neither TNA nor ROH are hugely successful. Is TNA on pay-per-view and ROH on their way there? Yes. But so is The Marine. That doesn’t mean that it’s a huge success. ROH taps into the DVD market, but the big money is in lining up sponsors and getting a national TV deal. That would be when your ppv numbers would go up, unless you’re TNA. TNA is run with a “chicken with it’s head cut off” mentality, where you have Dixie Carter giggling like a school girl because she has her own company, Vince Russo booking and some old stars and new stars trying to make their way through the shit.
If you want a model for how to grow a company, look no further than WWE. Throw all your chips on the table, buy everyone out, take the biggest names and best talent in the world and go global. Done.
Is it fair to compare the two companies? In some ways it is. They are both struggling companies that are a tiny bit bigger than independents, but they are both taking drastically different routes to growing their business. TNA is the home of the former ROH stars and WWE/WCW mid-carders. ROH is the home of the new fresh talent in the business who are looking to make a name for themselves. The only problems with ROH is that they have an ECW like feel, where all their guys will be swallowed by WWE or TNA and they will be caught running on a treadmill until someone pulls the plug and they go flying away.
Judge Glazer’s Verdict: I hate to say it, but I have no idea what Dan is talking about here. The fact that neither company is a huge success was not the question. The question was, which is the better model for growing a company. Hevia ignores that it’s an either or question and goes with the third, entirely unrealistic model for each company. Matt meanwhile makes a simple, perfect point: ROH is profitable, TNA is not. That he notes TNA’s utter unwillingness to learn from the past is another bonus. An easy point for Matt as he takes the lead 2-1.
4. So now that ROH is going to be on PPV, they need to lock in some talent. Build a core Ring of Honor roster using five guys that aren’t currently signed to TNA or WWE. Explain why you’re using those guys.
Matthew Michaels: The Rock The first person I lock in, the moment his contract is up this summer, is Mistico. He is more well-known by wrestling fans worldwide than anyone on the current ROH roster, his style would match up perfectly with the hardcore fan-base typical to ROH audiences, and you want people to buy $10-15 PPVs every other month? Last I heard there were quite a few Latin American wrestling fans in this country. Secondly, I travel to the other side of the world and (admittedly I’m not sure of his contract status) lock up KENTA. ROH fans have seen what he’s able to do as a novelty. Now the company should at the very least get North American rights to the Japanese star for those six PPV dates over the next year. Third is, of course, Bryan Danielson: the top free agent in the U.S. today, and one of the top ten in-ring performers in the country. ROH fans know and love him, there are built-in storylines between him and several ROH mainstays, and if the rumors about him becoming the first NWA World Champion in the post-TNA era are true… let’s just say, he’s unified two titles before, and him holding two belts at once could be mighty fun to watch. Fourth, I’d select Hulk Hogan Brent Albright. Talk about WWE underutilizing a talent and then letting him go prematurely… I’ve seen some of his promos from his OVW days, and while I never found him overly impressive on Smackdown, his match with BJ Whitmer at Final Battle 2006 won me over big-time. He’s big but not a muscle-head, just familiar enough to the WWE fan who could potentially be won over, and a good fit for a variety of styles, depending on how ROH Booker Gabe Sapolsky wants to feature him. Finally, I’d sign Jack Evans. The guy’s impressive, good-looking enough to draw some female fans to the product, and would round out the Top Five you’ve strapped me down and forced me to choose quite nicely.
Dan Hevia: Oh boy. Not signed to TNA or WWE and you want to draw PPV numbers? Ok, here we go:
1. The Rock: He owns his name so that’s not a problem. Shell out the money and use his name to draw in the people. It’s The Rock and he is still more marketable than anybody in the business. You could sell the PPV with him fighting the right person. That person would be…
2. Hulk Hogan: Redo Wrestlemania X8! Draw those buys kids! Why not bring in the biggest name the business has known, even with his blown out knees and really old age.
3. Brock Lesnar: The Next Big Thing would probably be willing to come to ROH for the PPVs. Big name, big guy and big talent. SIGN HIM!
4. Randy Savage: Hell, you have Hogan on the roster; you want to see shit go crazy, sign Savage! He can get the match he wants…you could do it for charity and get good press off of it and he’s a huge name.
5. Matthew Michaels: If you’re gonna be successful, you need at least 1 diva.
Judge Glazer’s Verdict:: Financially neither company really has a shot here, but while Hevia’s picks – the Rock, Hogan, Lesnar, and Savage- would make ROH successful in the short term, they’d likely destroy the company long term due to killing any financial flexibility and causing trouble with their giant egos. Matt’s picks wouldn’t likely bankrupt the company and while they would be quite costly, they all fit in beautifully with ROH’s established mode of operation. That kind of thing buys plenty of currency with the faithful fan and as they discuss it more, the company grows by word of mouth. Successes born in a day often die in a day. A steady rise to success leaves a far greater chance of that success lasting and Matt seems to get that while Hevia doesn’t. Point to Matt as he will win no matter what with a 3-1 lead. We have a point system, as well as a Won-Loss record going here, so don’t think the last question doesn’t matter. Let’s see how it turns out.
5. Vince is the ECW champion. Who’s the second worst heavyweight champion of all time? David Arquette is clearly #1, so we’re going to remove him from the conversation.
Matthew Michaels: If Arquette is clearly #1, then I’d place Vince Russo at #2 — definitely a worse World Heavyweight Champion than Mr. McMahon. Say what you will about Vinnie Mac, at least he has an impressive body, knows how to work the crowd, is a great talker, and isn’t afraid to take a vicious beating to put his opponent over. Russo’s none of the above, and while his writing talents are often called into question, he’s much better suited for an office/behind-the-scenes role than anywhere near the ring let alone on television.
Dan Hevia: This is very simple: Bret Hart. First off, during his reigns as champion, whichever company he was in went on a significant downslide. If they were sliding already, he jumped in his Canadian sled and helped push. He didn’t draw big numbers. In fact, he drew less than most champions.
But the big thing to me is that he didn’t carry himself properly as champion. See, I could make the argument that Arquette should be number 2 here with Bret Hart being number one. The reason for this is that when Arquette was told he was losing the title, he did the job. Bret Hart wouldn’t do it for the company that made him a star. For that, he is probably the worst heavyweight champion of all time. If you are a champion, you do what is asked of you for the business that created you. David Arquette knew that and lived that. Bret Hart couldn’t swallow his pride for 1 second and come to grips with the fact that his reign had to end. That is a piss poor champion and the absolute WORST champion of all time.
Judge Glazer’s Verdict: Oh man, I can’t believe Hevia picked Bret Hart. Terrible idea. While Bret might not have been a great champion in terms of business, he was largely responsible for making several stars with the belt and had many great matches. He was always over as the champion and had to work with quite a bit of dead weight, even making guys like Kevin Nash look great. Vince Russo was an amazingly terrible champion and if Blatt and I remembered him he might have been disqualified too. I think I’ll go back to ignoring that memory and give Matt the final point for the win 4-1.
Matthew Michaels (4) defeats Dan Hevia (1).
