Shining a Spotlight 05.07.09: Rules of Wrestling
Posted by Michael Weyer on 05.07.2009
I examine a recent post of Lance Storm on the "rules" wrestling promoters should follow and why some work and some don't.
I didn't intend to do another counter to an online commentary after last week's column. Let's face it, you could do an entire separate column of nothing but someone responding to various online blog comments and such. However, a recent rant I saw by Lance Storm has pushed me into doing this.
Lance Storm has always been one of those interesting guys. As a performer, I admired his in-ring ability but his personality…well, let's face it, there's a reason both WCW and WWE made light of the fact he was so ultra-serious. The man does come off okay in some shoot interviews but he's one of those guys who, once they're on camera, seems to freeze up a bit and comes off flat. Since his retirement, Storm still keeps up with wrestling, running a school and maintaining a website where he'll answer questions and offer commentaries on wrestling events. Those commentaries are insightful often but do have some interesting slants. One week, Storm will come up with a great piece I agree with wholeheartedly. The next, he'll say something incredibly off the wall, it makes me wonder if he's even watched wrestling in the last decade, let alone been part of it.
His latest rant is what I'm focusing on. It starts after Storm does a bit of a tirade on how he's tired of the bad writing and booking he sees in WWE and TNA. Now, Storm has had positive things to say on both companies before but does seem to dislike the over the top aspects both show so much of. He says we need to remember this is the wrestling business and while fans may know it's all fixed, the "sport" itself still matters. Thus, Storm provides a list of rules he thinks bookers should be following. It's a good showcase for Storm's opinions as some of them I agree with but others seem a tad…well, naive for anyone to really take seriously. I'll present his views first, followed by my own rebuttal to each:
1. The World Title means EVERYTHING: This applies to all titles really but the World Title has to be the main focus of the company. Credibility needs to be restored to the Titles. Titles can not be flip flopped all over the place. Fans need to be able to follow title lineage, and any time the title changes hands it needs to be a significant event. The World Title should only be defended in a 1 on 1 match. You could argue for 3 ways but in that event they need to be elimination so the best man wins and the former champ is always beaten to lose the title. The World Title means you are the best individual wrestler in the company and it should never be on the line in a match where other factors or other people can play a major role in determining who the best is.
I do agree with Storm on how the credibility of titles has lowered considerably. However, as with many of these points, the past doesn't always bear Storm's assertions out. First off, the World title did not always go to the best wrestler in the company. Exhibit A would be one Hulk Hogan. Hell, WWE guys have openly stated on DVD that for years the IC belt was considered belonging to the real best wrestler the company had. The problem is that the attention span of fans has shortened considerably in our world of text messaging and thousands of cable channels and a guy holding onto a belt for months on end really isn't in the cards anymore. However, titles do mean something on the main event scene. HHH, Edge, Cena even Jeff Hardy, these are top guys with WWE, guys who truly do deserve the main event slot and thus champions. They give those belts meaning by holding them, more than, say Great Khali did. As for those secondary titles, maybe they're no longer as illustrious but they still help to elevate some stars like MVP with the US belt or Swagger with the ECW title. That was their whole purpose after all and it still remains strong for fans. The days of belts held for months or years may be past but they still mean something for those who hold them and fans themselves and it doesn't need to be overly protected.
2. Champions do not Lose Matches: If a Champions gets beat what exactly is he champion of. Unless they are getting beat in a non title match that will lead directly to a title shot, the Champion has to go over. If he does lose a non-title match the loss has to be treated like a big deal and lead to something. If you can't put the champion over in the match DON'T book it. The only exception to this rule is tag team champions getting beat in a singles match, or a singles champ getting beat in a tag match but even that should not be done too often and should lead to something.
Again, Storm doesn't seem to be paying much attention to history as champions lost bouts all the time. Non title bouts were the usual fare but come on, Flair and Hogan lost lots of matches by countout/DQ as champs and it didn't really lead anywhere. Most of those were house shows and thus totally dismissed by the companies. Flair was a master of using tag matches or such to put over talent and make himself look easy enough to beat which meant fans would pay for the chance to see him lose for real. The lower rungs of tag team and secondary belts are filled with even more examples. Making your champion look superhuman and impossible to beat can be as damaging as making him look weak as why would fans really get into him? One of the biggest complaints I heard about HHH a few years back was his refusal to put anyone over him and yet Storm says that was perfectly fine. It does mean something when a champ loses in any way and making them look able to beat makes their upcoming title matches more important, a rule that still exists despite what Storm may say.
3. Simplify the Product: Not every match needs to have an angle. Wrestlers are professional fighters they can be booked in matches just because it is their job. The angle or motivation for the match is that if they win they make more money and if they win enough they get a title shot. Simple angles can be spun from matches and their results, not everything needs to be a storyline. Fewer segments and focusing on one or two main angles per show will make for a far more effective and memorable program.
I can tell Storm is speaking from personal experience here as he was in WCW in 2000 where there wasn't a single angle Vince Russo couldn't complicate a dozen times over. This point I do agree on a bit as oftentimes stuff can become a bit too convoluted and hurts the angle itself. Take a few weeks back where Orton is brought up for almost killing Vince and WWE actually offered a logical reason why a heel would get away with a big assault as Orton threatened to file an injunction to get Wrestlemania canceled and begged Stephanie to fire him. That was good, a great way to sell Orton's heel power and have him calling the shots. However, they ruined that with Shane running in to beat up all three Legacy members, making them look incredibly bad. TNA isn't immune either with the whole "Samoa Joe pulling a knife" thing and more.
I agree, the product could be cut down a bit in complications. However, the writers/bookers still remember how fans responded to the "everything goes" style of the ‘90's and still want to keep that. Let's not forget, one of the best things Vince Russo did in the late ‘90's was give a spotlight to the mid-card guys, really build them up as big as the main eventers and make fans care about them. Guys simply fighting for no reason doesn't make them look impressive or get fans behind them, you need something else. Sure, they go over the top often but at least it gets fans behind most of the roster, not just the top few guys and that's a good way to build up any new stars for the future.
4. Gimmick and Stipulation Matches should never be done COLD: Throwing cage matches, ladder matches, 3 way matches, stretcher matches, etc. out there cold with no build or angle is… in a word WRONG. These matches are supposed to be special and mean something and if they are done for no reason with out any build, no one cares and their value is lost. A prime example of this was the So Jo Bolt – Taylor Wilde match on Impact last week. There was absolutely no reason for that match to be a ladder match. There was no heat or angle building to it, there was no promotion of it in hopes of drawing with it, and there was no time or importance given to it, so it was a pointless 3 minute match that sucked. Those two would have had a better match with out the ladder and fans wouldn't have had to see a short boring ladder match which only served to kill the value of future ladder matches. Throwing gimmicks and stipulations everywhere on a show in hopes of drawing ratings only waters down their effectiveness, which leads to needing more gimmicks and stipulations in the future, which is a never ending downward spiral that is killing this business. I like to call this the Russo-Effect.
Yeah, hard to talk about this topic without mentioning its most famous offender. Russo is notorious for how his WCW run was filled with a ridiculous amount of stip matches thrown with no rhyme or reason and that still pops up in TNA. WWE is also known for throwing some stips onto bouts that may not always need them (like the recent McMahon/Legacy "Legacy wins, Orton gets belt" match). Storm is correct here, you just can't throw gimmicks out there at random, they have to be for matches that are really big and important. Also, you need to ensure the gimmicks themselves actually make sense for the match. TLC bouts do for Edge since he made his name with them and Undertaker is the master of Hell in the Cell. Of course you can go a bit too far with themes ("Piñata on a Pole" comes to mind) but you can make them work. I do remember in the ‘80's and early ‘90‘s, promoters would often throw lumberjack or battle royals on house shows for no real reason then to kill time or added bonus with crowds. Indeed, the very first WWF ladder match was just at a house show with no real build up so sometimes gimmick bouts can work out well. You just have to be careful setting them up.
5. Bring back Managers and Valets: I'm not sure when the people in this industry decided to stop using managers and valets but it was a huge mistake. Some of the greatest money feuds in this business featured managers and valets. I large portion of the Hogan era was Hulk Hogan feuding with Bobby Heenan and his henchmen. Even the Austin era was largely fueled by Vince McMahon who was for the most part a manager type character. The only explanation I've ever heard for doing away with managers was that because they did all the talking they got all the heat and the heat needs to be with the wrestler. To this I ask, WHY? Why does all the heat need to be with the wrestler? Is it not more important to just have heat somewhere? There are a lot of workers held back because they can't talk, and talkers held back because they don't have the ability or the body. Let's start pairing the talkers and the workers and as long as they get heat as a unit, everyone wins. Santino Morella needs to be a manager. Let him get heat by running his mouth and then have him hide behind a Mike Knox, or a Charlie Hass. Remember Brock Lesnar and Paul Heyman! Now on to Valets. Not every girl needs to be having wrestling matches, and throwing 10 of them out there in 3 minute tag matches servers no purpose what so ever. Valets, like Managers can differentiate and help liven up the individual male talent on the roster. Dawn Marie made me who I was in ECW. She gave me depth and character that I never could have developed on my own. Take the girls who look the part and have the personality and pair them with guys who need an extra something to stand out. You can still keep the Women's division alive, just do it with the girls who can work.
The key reason why managers/valets have passed by is because most guys get their promos scripted now and no longer need those mouthpieces. I do agree with Storm on how some guys need better talkers to help themselves out and managers can help them rise up. One of the examples was Abyss and James Mitchell. They worked because they were quite alike in dark and sinister tones and the promos were always good with Mitchell delivering great threats and Abyss grunting in the background. But as Abyss got bigger and more of a face, Mitchell's need decreased. It's like that a lot but let's not forget, some guys may be held back by managers. Steve Austin for example was hampered at the start of his WWF run by having Ted DiBiase as his mouthpiece as some guys already have what it takes to deliver on the mic. I do miss managers myself but it seems their time in the main promotions has passed. As for valets, TNA and WWE both are attempting to actually sell women as competitors and portraying them as valets seems a tad backward. We still get some good pairings like Santino with first Maria and then Phoenix but considering the way women are rising in actual wrestling, the whole valet thing is a bit passé. Another thing to remember is that folks are always bitching about how many big bouts nowadays end with interference and too many people and adding managers to the fray would only increase that. I do love those guys but it may be too much to expect them making a comeback.
6. Maintain Company Integrity: Bookers need to remember that the company is a business entity and needs to be presented like it is both competent and professional. The Company as a whole can not be involved in any comedy bullshit. This is likely my biggest TNA pet peeve, and was also a big concern of mine in WCW (this could be the Russo Effect version 2.0) Matches that are booked and presented have to be something that makes business sense to the company. We can't have blow up dolls on a pole, plastic Santas as weapons, guys playing on pogo sticks during matches, production crews visiting the "Deep Blue Sea" to interview the Shark family. The over all product, can not be presented as a joke, you can do comedy and have comedic characters but you can't "Cross the Line" and let the company as a whole come off like a joke. There needs to be structure and knowledge behind the product, management has to be in control, if they are not it hurts the product and also opens up endless plot holes and storyline inconsistencies.
Again, Storm's WCW experience has burned him a lot and hard to blame him there. When you see Sheri Sheppard or a Sarah Palin look-alike given ring time, it does make you lose faith as a fan. The thing is that wrestling has always had comedic elements in it as it's entertainment and the fans do enjoy some of it. Yes, both companies go way too far but a reason is because so many "comedy bits" manage to evolve into something that actually gets over well with fans ("Mr. Socko" comes instantly to mind) as you never know what clicks. On my column last week about booking, I got a note from a guy who books an indy fed in Chicago who said that one bit they added just for laughs is so huge they sell t-shirts of it. A key thing for promters is that whatever sells tickets and merchandise, you go with it, no matter how dumb it may be as making money is the whole point. Let's not forget that humor often lies in the eye of the beholder and some fans honestly do like stuff this stupid and that's who promoters often listen to. There are limits and the companies do recognize that as Shark Boy wasn't a main eventer or anything. However, lightening things up isn't a bad thing overall as wrestling is entertainment and some laughs to go with things are good.
7. Reduce Scripting of Promos: Guys need to be allowed to come into their own, and find themselves. Too tightly scripting everything dulls individual creativity and will greatly decrease the likely hood of anyone breaking out. Leave the under neither and mid card guys alone somewhat and let them find their own way. When you book and script a guy to be a 2 minute undercard promo that is all he is ever going to be and no one will ever break through and become a star. Finding new Main Event stars is a real issue today and unless guys are allowed to develop themselves and create their own personality they are never going to get good enough to break out of that 2 minute cookie cutting promo that is keeping them in the mid card. Guide and nurture, but don't out right script. Tell wrestler A the day or week before that he will have a 2 minute promo to cut on Wrestler B and see what he comes up with. Austin 3:16 wasn't scripted, it just happened.
I find it very ironic that a man infamous for his flat promos can complain about them being too scripted. It's true some guys may be held back as I've long believed that the best personas are simply the real person taken to the tenth power. But the fact is, guys like Austin, Rock and Flair who can take a mic and work absolute magic off the top of their heads are a rare breed. Sting had tons of charisma but not all of his promos were really that good. A little scripting can be a good thing as well for some. I still remember the absolutely ridiculous over the top and often incomprehensible promos of Hogan, Savage and Warrior in the ‘80's. And who can forget some of Booker T's early stuff or such Sid gems as "You're half the man I am and I have half the brain you do!" A lot of guys are simply not the best talkers and need help getting their point across and get fans invested. Sure some are held back but a majority of them are actually helped out and even get over better thanks to some direction.
As I said, a few points here make a lot of sense and should be followed. Others, however, seem a bit out of touch with how wrestling works and what fans may want to see. As I pointed out in my column last week, wrestlers can often be a bit too involved in order to properly grasp what fans outside the business may really want to see. For someone as ultra-serious and workrate driven as Storm, that translates to being a real stickler for "the good old days." This ignores how things have changed in the last decade for the business and for its fans.
Wrestling is not an exact science since there's no real telling what will and won't go over with fans. Those "rules" above do make some sense at times but any promoter can tell you that just because something is planned out well is no guarantee it's going to succeed. Rules are good to follow but being overly strict and holding them too high can be just as hurtful. So perhaps you can look at these rules as suggestions but try not to put too much value in them as being absolutely true for the entire business as a whole.
Storm isn't saying the guy holding the world championship is the top worker. He's correct in saying the world title is used to signify the best individual wrestler in the company because he's talking about it in the kayfabe sense.
When you have a champion dropping matches left and right it makes them and the title they hold look insignificant, and titles are traded entirely too much for the most part, while the guys who don't deserve the long reigns get them and the guys who deserve the long reigns don't get them.
Angles are best when they evolve out of matches, and thus the blow-off matches and inbetween matches generally mean more rather than having some complicated issue force an initial match and subsequent feud.
The ladder match you speak of between Bret and Shawn was done at a house show just to test the waters for how it would go over. It wasn't put on a television broadcast out of nowhere with no significance. Even the lumberjack matches were made because all of those were rematches of bouts where the heel champion/challenger would run from the ring and take a count out loss, making everyone want a rematch where they couldn't get away.
Everyone knows managers and valets are a must and they don't need to wrestle at all. Company integrity is at such a low-point I don't know if they can ever get it built up, but at the least they should try.
While you bring up the example of Sid spouting off at the mouth like an idiot in his unscripted promos, take these two things into consideration. 1) He wasn't fumbling trying to deliver a scripted line losing all intensity and coming off forced, 2) If he had a manager to speak for him it might have gone a little better right?
The scripted promos are terrible because they're all cliched and not creative because they aren't being written by wrestling people. For the guys who do cut lackluster promos, if they had a Heenan, Cornette, Hart, etc etc we wouldn't have that problem anymore and you'd be drawing more interest to boot, in the angle, the match, and the talent.
Posted By: Patrick Mullin (Guest) on May 06, 2009 at 11:24 PM
As Patrick Mullin states, I think you missed the point of the Storm's first rule. Hogan wasn't the best worker, but he was the guy the fans believed in as the top guy, and as such, should be treated in this way. Still, nice column
Posted By: Denno (Guest) on May 07, 2009 at 03:11 AM
Good column. I agree that Storm has his heart in the right place but is a bit out of touch in some areas.
Posted By: Bimmy (Guest) on May 07, 2009 at 06:07 AM
Managers' time has passed them by?
Let's not mince words, Vince doesn't think managers draw, much like tag teams and he's wrong.
Valets suck, for the most part. They're window dressing and make for flimsy angles at best if they're just out there to look good. Elizabeth was the only one at the time, now you have 10 signed by the fed.
So many guys who need "real" managers who can work the stick and ad lib.
I'd also go back to filming interviews backstage instead of live for some guys
Posted By: Hawkins (Guest) on May 07, 2009 at 01:11 PM
MAAAAAAAAN, DAT'S SUM MO BUUUUUUULLLLLSSSHIIIIIITTTTT!!!!!!!!
Posted By: MAAAAAAAN (Guest) on May 07, 2009 at 01:38 PM
I love it when so called wrestling journalists try and question they thoughts and ideas of people who are actually in the wrestling business, and actually know a thing or two about how the business works, i mean last time i checked, lance storm was a far bigger authority on pro wrestling then you
Posted By: COdy (Guest) on May 07, 2009 at 02:20 PM
Although I usually love Lance's articles (and agree with a lot of your dissection here today) there's a lot that I just can't agree with here.
1. I have to agree with Lance here. The World Title should be reserved for the best in the company. Not necessarily the best worker but the most-charismatic or most hated in the company. There are enough other titles to help raise talent up in the fans eyes.
2. I agree with you fully. There have to be ways to keep a champ looking strong while also building up his opponents...this seems the best way. If not by countout or dq other options need to be used.
3. Agreed in full with points both of you make.
4. A show with no gimmick matches draws lower ratings or lower gate numbers. Gimmick matches, cold or otherwise, are needed but not in bulk numbers.
5. This is where people miss the main point of why we are missing managers today. There are many managers in the Indys only the big two are lacking managers. It's never been about them not being needed it's been a measure of their worth (salary plus benefits) vs putting the money into more in-ring talent. It's a big big mistake. Without Jim Cornette the Midnight Express were just solo enhancement talent. Without Bobby the Brain Heenan there would've been no Islanders or Hercules Hernandez. It was the rub by these managers that gave the guys the personalities they were lacking. Look at Umaga, it was Estrada who helped him get over big...without Estrada people don't care about him much anymore.
6. In this point Storm is sooooo wrong and you're definitely right. The BWO, Gillberg, and Disco Inferno all sold a lot of merchandise during their prospective runs. All good for the top dollar. While hardcore wrestling fans want everything 100% serious it can be found boring that way to the casual fan. This is why even as a heel fans love Santino Marella. Comedy is definitely needed to keep the casual fans here and the leagues in business.
7. The old WWF/E/WCW/ECW way promos wee did is what made stars. The talent would be given bullet points to what needed to be covered and said what needed to be said in their own words...those that couldn't meet the expectations, got managers/valets to speak for them and put the emphasis on their in-ring talent.
The big two need to learn from the past not shun it like a bastard stepchild. Sometimes retro should be done mentally and not just visually.
Posted By: RDR (Guest) on May 07, 2009 at 02:31 PM
I don't know if this bothers anyone else, but I cannot stand it when there is a backstage angle featuring two people sharing secret plans and they don't even notice the enhanced lighting or the camera crew in the room filming them for all the world to see them on the Titantron. I know as fans we have to suspend disbelief but good lord, these things take it too far.
Posted By: Bryan (Guest) on May 07, 2009 at 05:16 PM
Agreed with Patrick and Hawkins, you are taking stuff too literal in some areas, and are just flat out wrong in others. There is very little out of touch in Storm's rantings, and ALL of the base ideas are right. Take your "the business has changed in the last decade" New Theory BS and stick it, because the change hasn't been for the better. In fact business is borderline tanking at the moment, and getting back to basics can only help the frequently awful current onscreen product, which will only help the bottom line.
It does need to be all about the title. That should go without saying, and for the most part, it should only be defended in 1-on-1 matches. The occasional Elimination Chamber, Scramble, King of the Mountain, etc. are okay, but any standard three/four-ways should be elimination and end with the champ retaining or being the last elimination, barring something extremely rare like Edge's Elimination Chamber adventure.
The champ should only lose if it leads to something. That doesn't mean burying guys. Great matches can still be had and the challenger can still look like a star and a threat, even if going down in defeat. It's not about being superhuman, and it's not about countouts or DQs, which DO lead to more down the road. We're talking pinfalls, baby, and the champ simply cannot be allowed to be pinned often, and when it happens, it HAS to lead to a bigger encounter in the near future. Non-title pinfall losses and countouts/DQs shouldn't become cliche with a guy. The champ should look at least competent, if not overly strong. What is wrong with that?
You don't need to have a plan going into every match. Sometimes throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks with no preconceived notions can be a good thing. And there is nothing wrong with a fun exhibition if there is no followup. Simplifying also means not overshadowing titles with hacky storylines. It is wholly unnecessary for the world title, at least. Edge, John Cena, and Big Show don't need a lame love triangle involving Vickie Guerrero to sell a world title match at Wrestle-freakin'-Mania. Leave that convoluted crap for occasional blood feud. Nothing should make the world title incidental, even when a world title program gets extremely personal.
I'll leave the gimmick match one alone because there is really no rational argument for doing gimmick matches all willy-nilly without proper build-up and/or reason, house show battle royals notwithstanding.
Managers and valets are a necessity. Just because we've got scripted promos and such doesn't mean they are okay and we don't need a boisterous and charismatic character to do most of the talking for the less verbally gifted charges, and make them and their matches and storylines more interesting and visible just by being there.
Posted By: Galaxy Express (Guest) on May 07, 2009 at 05:49 PM
Continuing where I left off...
Valets are not necessarily a step back. I'm not talking about taking the talented wrestling women and making them valets at the expense of their own wrestling. But the ones that really have no business being in the ring on a regular basis (at least not yet), the likes of Maria, Kelly Kelly, Layla, the Bellas (debatable), and Rhaka Khan... they can all be effective (and capable of useful physical involvement in Rhaka and maybe the Bellas' cases) arm candy. Melina is one who can go both ways, being a talented wrestler who can also be better than most in a valet role.
Maintaining Company Integrity doesn't mean you can't have comedy. Comedy and "Comedy Bullshit" are not the same thing. It just means keeping things in check and maintaining some order and sanity. All things in moderation, as it were.
Scripting promos (and everything else that can be for that matter) is bad bad bad bad bad. It matters not if Lance Storm isn't necessarily the right guy to complain about it, it is a terrible development in professional wrestling. There is a HUGE difference between giving them "some direction" and scripting. Giving some direction is the bullet points thing, guiding the performer while letting them be themselves and talking and reacting in a natural way that is comfortable to them while properly getting the message across. THAT the way to go. And if a guy doesn't have the mic skills, get 'em a valet or manager that can do most of the talking for them. Scripting a promo won't make a guy with poor mic skills any better. As was mentioned, Sid would still fumble some if he was scripted, and he would be stripped of some of his trademark intensity in the process.
I guess that pretty much covers my thoughts on this. You keep doing these responses to commentary and just might be forced to come back and read them, whether I agree with you or not. Adieu.
Posted By: Galaxy Express (Guest) on May 07, 2009 at 07:04 PM
I agree with you on some stuff but you've misinterpreted storm on other stuff. Eg. the comedy rule he says it's fine to have some comedy, just don't make it take over everything which is exactly what your rebuttal says...
Posted By: Jonberg (Guest) on May 07, 2009 at 09:29 PM
I would totally name my band Edge's Elimination Chamber Adventure if I were in a band.
It would be a terrible band and it would last two weeks but GOD DAMN IT WOULD HAVE THE BEST NAME EVER
Posted By: The REAL MP (Guest) on May 07, 2009 at 10:12 PM
Managers don't draw by themselves. Used properly and in moderation, they can help a wrestler draw, or draw more.
Heyman/Lesnar was a great example. The WWE wanted to launch a newcomer with a great look to the main event scene. Does this happen so quickly without a manager like Heyman? Edge, Christian, & the Hardys started as enhancement talent. Their first pushes came with managers.
Steve Austin is not a great counter example. Who knew he was gold on the mike at the time? I'm guessing the WWF people who hired him didn't know. This is also a problem that fixes itself - managers are not meant to be forever. They give a boost to a guy who can't speak. Eventually he gets out on his own.
I don't think Storm or anybody else is really suggesting keeping certain wrestlers with a managers forever either. This is something that should be judiciously used. How many times has it been said that Shelton's only flaw is that he can't speak (and that he blows big spots). Many have suggested a manager for him.
As for valets, neither was this properly argued against. Storm suggested using the ones that can't wrestle well (Maria). They can still train. Moreover the second part of that was to use women wrestlers who can wrestler as - - - wrestlers.
If the goal is to have women look like serious wrestlers, you can't explain the presence of Kelly Kelly or Maria.
Further, women valets can be used as managers - talking and acting like a professional - while still wrestling in their own matches. A valet is just pretty meat, you see. One dressing and acting like a professional is not acting like just window dressing.
Posted By: Guest#0458 (Guest) on May 07, 2009 at 10:16 PM
some of your points were very good, but at other times, I thought "You just wrote that so you could disagree with Storm"
Posted By: sestersparrow (Guest) on May 07, 2009 at 10:19 PM
For the most part I agree with Galaxy Express.
You took some of what Storm said out of context & other times I don't think you understood what he really meant. While I wouldn't agree with everything Storm said (Like, How titles should only be defended one on one. It should be defended one on one for the most part but multiple man matches without elimination rules can be a good way of getting a title off of a guy without him having lose. Technically Storm is right but that's just not the way it works. You just need the title change to happen this way sometimes. If every title match you had to beat the champ then lots of guys would have never been given the title.. It's a nice way of changing titles without having to worry about coming up with a reason for interference or shenanigans everytime your top guy is going to lose his title. It adds variety.) for the most part I don't think he's out of touch with anything & I was actually surprised by how much I agreed with.
Posted By: StOr (Guest) on May 08, 2009 at 12:46 AM
Your column is covered in more bullshit than a rodeo clown.
You giving Lance Storm a lecture on wrestling is like me giving you a lecture on 25 year old virgins whose mothers still iron their underpants, and get upset at the shortness of diva battle royals when they dont constitue enough masturbation time making you shoot to the sight of festus's ugly bald head.
Loser.
Posted By: Lee G (Guest) on May 08, 2009 at 02:41 PM
The scripting of promos isn't a good reason not to have valets and managers. If that were the solution to the no charisma/poor speaker problem it would have been done long ago. The problem with poor speakers isn't that they don't know what to say - by the time a wrestler gets to the WWE they can at least speak without stuttering - but they don't say it very well. Scripting sounds flat and artificial, whether on TV or a presentation.
It is also hard to suggest that the WWE is trying to establish the women as serious wrestlers when we have Cryme Tyme. I mean, if people really want to see skin, the internet does the job much better than the WWE can ever hope to do. Moreover, any wrestling attire is going to be tight anyways. I'm not complaining about seeing women dance or wear even less cloth, but these things don't show women as being anything other than meat.
The stipulation matches are a good point by Lance. When movesets were reduced, the argument was that this would reduce injuries and lengthen careers. Attitude had resulted in an escalating spots. But part of de-escalating the violence is reducing stipulation matches.
Posted By: Guest#9101 (Guest) on May 08, 2009 at 09:32 PM
I think everyone's missed the point on the comedy one, or maybe I have lol.
He's not saying not to have comedy, just that the 'company' isn't involved with it. For example, Mick Foley can create Socko, santino can be funny because they're individuals. But The 'piniata on a pole match' of having a blowup doll on a poll, is demeans 'the company' because 'the company' planned all this bought the material, paid guys to prepare it etc.
Foley making a sock is 'he's insane but funny'
WCW buying a blowup doll and putting it on a pole is 'the guys running the place are idiots'.
Hope I explained that well enough.
Posted By: Robin (Guest) on May 09, 2009 at 10:17 AM
I liked this column a lot. I believe that like you said, Storm has great logical points, but some of his views maybe a little retroactive as it's a different game than it was even 7-8 years ago.
Also, I remember hearing from somewhere a few years ago that a lot of Rock's stuff was either scripted or crafted with/by Pat Patterson. I wouldnt doubt this, but Rock is one of those once in a lifetime type guys who could do barley anything and have the crowd in his hand.
And I recall seeing a shoot interview with Sid, on YouTube I think, where he said right before walking thru the curtain for the interview, Russo told him to say that. Who knows if it's true, but that would be a pretty funny buddy comedy a la Pinky and the Brain!
Posted By: amusing comments (Guest) on May 12, 2009 at 02:54 PM
Copyright (c) 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.
