Five-Star Conversation 11.03.09: Red + Yellow = Black Tuesday

Posted by Geoff Eubanks on 11.03.2009

Well, I'm out to make friends again this week as I give a historical look at TNA's newest acquisitions and why I'm less-than-optimistic about their involvement in the franchise.

I hope everyone had a fantastic Halloween and that you've all got your dentist appointments in line after eating all that candy! I hit The Abbey early and was home before The Boulevard got too insane and just had myself a little Saw marathon, as planned. Saw + Skyy = Happy Halloween!

While he heals up from the Punk beat down, I want this guy to take Scott Armstrong's place on SmackDown!:



BLACK TUESDAY
Has anyone checked on Geoff? He should be on suicide watch after the news of his favourite Big Orange Goblin signing with TNA broke Tuesday afternoon. Get of the ledge, Geoff. The 5SC is a safe place. We're still here for you.

Can't you see it know? The World Elite comes out, beats down The Real American, Hogan hulks up, gives big boots to them all, then leg drops them all.

Seriously though, I think Bischoff's company can help with finding some other outlets for TNA besides Spike. And Hogan does have people talking about TNA. Who knows, maybe it will work out for TNA. What's your thoughts?
Posted By: Angry Bear

I literally laughed out loud when I read that, Bear, and believe me, I needed a laugh that day, what I'm calling "Black Tuesday". I basically felt like this:



I knew I'd have to talk about this and I've been dreading it. By Thursday morning I was already sick to death of talking and hearing about two of my least favorite wrestling-related personalities in Hogan and Eric Bischoff, and now I have to discuss them and devote time to them because this is one of the biggest stories of the year and I can't ignore it simply because I would piss on the two assclowns making the news if they were on fire.

For the uninitiated, I hate Hulk Hogan. No, really, I fucking HATE him. And it's not this trendy IWC in-thing kind of hate. Regular readers of this column are familiar with my views and why, so you guys can skim on down, I guess. For the rest, though, before we really get going, if you're a Hulkamaniac, or if you think Bischoff is a godsend genius, you'd probably do well to just skip this column, because you're just going to end up getting upset and leave me a bunch of angry comments I could frankly do without reading. No disrespect, by all means, like whoever you like, support whoever connects with you. That is certainly your right, so by all means, do so. But you're not going to find a kindred spirit in this column this week.

I remember the Saturday morning my brothers and I were watching Superstars of Wrestling when The Iron Sheik was scheduled to defend his WWF Heavyweight Title against former champion Bob Backlund, but, because Backlund's back was still suffering from having been punished in The Camel Clutch, a new #1 Contender was named to replace Backlund. Of course, that new contender was Hulk Hogan, who, if memory serves (and we've seen over the years that a lot of the time it doesn't!), had just returned to The WWF after having polished his act in The AWA. (I know this is all a grand oversimplification of this portion of wrestling history, but it's good enough for the purposes of this column. It's not a career retrospective, after all.)

Obviously, we all know what happened, we've all seen the match that started Hulkamania where Hogan played the American hero vanquishing the Iranian evildoer, and we all know what happened from there. As a fan, you either appreciated and bought into the whole phenomenon or you were like me, growing increasingly frustrated and angry over seeing the same…fucking…thing. Every program. Every promo. Every match. It was a rarely, if ever, deviated-from blueprint and I, for one, found it impossible to believe it. Of course, I'm a person who's very pragmatic about the fact that, sometimes, there's not a happy-snappy ending at the end of every story and that the good guy doesn't always win. But that's the ‘80s for you, I guess. When you find yourself going nuts because The Ultimate Warrior wins the title simply by virtue of the fact that there might be some change of pace at the top of the card, something's wrong (and, of course, we went from the proverbial frying pan to the fire in that instance, we found).

I've said this since Hogan's initial two Heavyweight Title reigns, and it seems to ring truer even now, if nowhere else but in my own fevered little brain - - Why couldn't The WWF have spread the wealth a little at the top? If you're going to say that Hulkamania was a winning formula that gave Vince McMahon a license to print money at a critical time in its' development, I won't argue with you; that's likely the reason they were so reticent to stray from that formula, or to change it up at all. Fans were still eating it up, so if it ain't broke…

However, it just seems to me there were several other deserving performers who never got the opportunity to wear the franchise's top belt simply because of bad timing. Ted DiBiase, Rick Rude, Ricky Steamboat, Paul Orndorff and Curt Hennig all could have carried the strap well and others like Randy Savage and The Undertaker could have had more time holding it as well. Too, Bret Hart could have been elevated sooner and might possibly have had more time in the top spot (since, it's my theory, that's one of the reasons he became so bitter, because he felt he deserved more time as the heroic champion before he was forced to pass the torch to Shawn Michaels, but that's definitely a different discussion for a different time!).

If Hulkamania worked with the title, it would work without it as a side attraction/double-main event situation. That way, Hulkamaniacs still got that same tired story and that same tired match they shelled out to see and experience, plus they could still go home with a smile in their little yellow and red hearts should a heel end up walking with the belt. Holy cow…diversity! And for those who might argue that, no, Hulkamania worked because the belt was involved, then I ask you to perhaps rethink the almighty power of Hulkamania. I get the whole "package deal" argument, and I'm suggesting Hogan be banished from being champion ever again, just give someone else in The WWF's an opportunity to extend his legacy by being given the ball once in awhile.

If I may borrow a phrase from Larry, let's Tarantino forward to WCW. Long before there was Hogan Knows Best (I'm biting proverbial tongue here), there was Hogan-era WCW. I understand the thinking behind that ridiculous extended job match where Flair dropped Big Goldie to Hogan on his first match with the promotion, but if you're playing out with the old and in with the new, shouldn't your "new" be, well, new? Hogan just brought the same old stale crap he'd been dishing out for years. Let me put it this way, Coca-Cola might be a great soft drink, classic Americana, but if you opened a can of Pepsi and tasted Coke, wouldn't you be a bit put off?

Of course, Hogan finally turned heel and co-founded the nWo with Kevin Nash & Scott Hall and we all know about that and I'll grant you that it worked because it was finally something new out of him! Too, we all know how all of that went down in WCW, the avarice, the selective booking of favored stars, how talent was given a national stage for the first time in their careers, but unless such talent had its' head so far up Bischoff's ass that they could tell you whether he preferred stuffing or potatoes at last Thanksgiving dinner, such talent was an afterthought, if that.

And that kinda brings us to Bischoff. I take a very unpopular stance where Bischoff is concerned. I think he gets a hell of a lot more credit than he's actually due. Yes, he was smart enough to mastermind a strategy against which to compete with The WWF, utilizing the advantages available to him by being part of the Turner family, ie, not having to convince a network to give him whatever time he needed because the network was already part of that family. Yes, he did have the cunning intelligence to take advantage of certain poor business practices employed by The WWF at the time, mostly out of cost-cutting necessity, such as the fact that Raw was taped a week in advance, thus leading to the Rick Rude debacle and giving away that night's Raw spoilers. Yes, he did take WCW to an 84-week ratings dominance over The WWF.

However, I'll submit to you that the means to make all of that so weren't conducive to a successful end. Vince McMahon likes to tell us that he's a genius and I don't buy it for a second. He's a solid businessman (even if he's losing his footing as he ages and his grip on that which is cutting edge and hip slides out of his grasp, rather, he's in the enviable position of being able to throw enough shit against the wall until something sticks), but he's no genius. Vince is what he is and has become what he's become because it's his money he's playing with, his family's money and the money he's leaving to his kids.

Likewise, Eric Bischoff is a solid businessman, and he plays just as dirty as Vince has (and will), just a different quality of dirty. Vince always at least made the effort to put on a decent face and spin the story such that he can brainwash the listener into thinking he's an okay guy and did what he had to do "for the good of the business". Bischoff is as dirty as they come and he'll just sit there, beaming, that cat-who-just-fucked-the-canary grin on his smug face, look you in the eye and say, "You're goddam right I'm an asshole!" I'm not implying one is any better than the other, but I find it easier to respect the former approach more than the latter. That's just me, I'm not saying you have to agree.

Bischoff was a Roman candle in his position running WCW. He burned brightly yet burned out quickly and because he didn't have any scope in the decisions he made. He locked down talent into guaranteed contracts to prevent Vince from doing to him what Bischoff did to Vince, that is, lure away talent with exorbitant contracts, but it's my opinion that he became obsessed with putting The WWF out of business and so, with Turner's massive coffers backing him, it became about the having not the getting. He stopped being selective and opted for gluttony. Now I know he was planning on splitting the WCW brand and creating a separate nWo brand, thus necessitating stacking the roster, but really, if you think about it, even if Vince was left with just The Undertaker and Shawn Michaels as the two top draws, he could have left well enough (ie, talent like a past-it Big Bossman, Virgil and the like) alone and still have had a solid roster, with Vince's mid-card limping along, as stale as Bischoff tried telling WCW fans it was.

To this end, it's my theory that his acquisition of Bret Hart was his real undoing. Hart had stopped being a top draw for The WWF and wasn't living up to his end of his multi-million dollar, 20 year contract and was, quite frankly, siphoning a huge amount of money Vince could be using to help rebrand his flanging product. So when bitter Bret was approached by Bischoff to jump ship, Bret agreed, presumably because he knew that he had no chance at being the top dog behind his hated real-life arch-enemy Shawn Michaels, never mind Steve Austin's once in a lifetime rise to the top. Vince, on the other hand, while sad to his friend go, especially under the circumstances, realized what a golden opportunity he had to just what I described above. And he did it. Meanwhile, Bret put himself right back under Hogan's shadow under the pretense of a bunch of lies about "having lots of big plans" for him, even though he and Hogan were politically in bed with one another.

With the roster as bloated as it was, WCW was losing money. One wonders how much it cost Turner to feet the undercard to Goldberg, only to give away Goldberg/Hogan on free TV? Yeah, there's a genius at work right there.

Look, I want to be optimistic for TNA, I really do. As a matter of fact, I was astounded when I read Lance Storm's thoughts on TNA's acquisitions:

Considering my past views of TNA, this optimistic approach may seem like a new direction for me, but I don't think that it is. I've always wanted TNA to succeed and I've always maintained my support of their extremely talented locker room. My complaints of TNA have always been directed towards TNA's creative team (Primarily Vince Russo) and the fact that they (he) somehow manages to book a show so infuriating and nonsensical that I've had to completely quit watching despite many of my favourite performers being featured on the show.

That is almost verbatim my feelings on TNA prior to last Tuesday. Add to that the fact that I used to enjoy waking up and watching the iMPACT! replay on Saturday mornings that has been discontinued, and I don't think I've seen TNA in a couple months. But you know, it feels to me like not visiting your least favorite relative. You know you should, but every time you go, it drags on and on and on and you feel a little bit of your soul being sucked out of you, despite the fact that you know you're doing the right thing.

Adding Hogan and Bischoff into that mix takes all the guilt out of it now. Personally, I feel just dandy about not watching anymore. I put myself through Hogan in the ‘80s because, for all intents and purposes, for a good while, it was the only game in town (my town, anyway). I love Daniels, Styles, MCMGs, Red, Beer Money, Lethal, Angle, Joe, The British Invasion and Eric Young. But watching them toil under the booking they've had in that franchise for the last year and a half is like watching one of your best friends date a complete a and utter abusive asshole/bitch and being powerless to intervene. Now, though, it's come to the point that I just throw my hands in the air and say to them, "Look, if you wanna stay and deal with this kind of abuse, you deserve it."

I'm sorry, no, I am not optimistic about this for all the reasons you've seen enumerated on this site in the last week. It's not out of the realm of possibility that I can be convinced Hogan's presence "running TNA", as he put it to a throng of fans over the weekend at a book signing, is a good thing. But it's going to take a loooooooong time of consistent selfless utilitarianism on his part, that he proves he's there to lend his considerable notoriety, enthusiasm and experience for the betterment of the company and its' talent, and not for "one last run at greatness, brother", but I don't think we'll see that. Hell, Mick Foley, who I think is a kind, good man with a heart of gold, went to TNA presumably under the auspices of helping the company grow and to give a rub to the kids like he did with Randy Orton and Edge, but, for the most part, there's he's been in the ring with The Main Event Mafia and is only now getting around to Abyss. How the hell can we expect the biggest ego in the business to be given the ball (and you know they will) and hand it back, saying, "Nah, brother, I'm here for the kids." That's kind of bullshit he hands out before he gets hired, not once he hears the roar of the Hulkamaniacs.

Of course one could suggest that he simply isn't physically able to compete any longer. Didn't stop him at WrestleMania after WrestleMania. Just ask The Rock. Or Shawn Michaels. Or anyone else during that last WWE run where he was paired up with a bunch of kids and/or superior athletes who worked their asses off to get a decent match out of his ass that was moving so stiff in the ring he looked like Linda McMahon staggering toward a brains buffet.

And if you're one of those people who argued earlier on that Hulkamania doesn't work without the title…well, where's your defense in this instance, and who stands to suffer the most? Nice title reign there, AJ. It sucks to be you.

The timing for this couldn't be better. I swear to Flair this is exactly as the sign is hanging just own the street from my apartment. I don't know Photoshop, so I couldn't have retouched it if I wanted to:



All things considered, Russo might actually be venturing into a new line of work, with the help of Real Estate Steve.

Okay, I'm sure at least one or two of you are bristling, so on your way down to flaming me, cool down a touch with a little levity:



COMMENTPALOOZA!
BRagging Rights was an alright ppv. COuld have been better, but oh well. My major gripe is with the World Heavyweight TItle. From Backlash to Summerslame, The matches involving the world heavyweight title have consistently excelled and were MOTN candidates. But since Taker entered the fray at Breaking Point, the matches have dropped in quality. Im not knocking the dead man's legacy, cos i know that a fit dead man can indeed go. Just look at his match v Angle in 2006, and his feuds in 07 and 08 v Batista and Edge. But he's not fit enuf now to give it his all and deliver quality matches. Its time for him to step aside. Im no HHH fan, i hate the bugger, but for all his hoggign the spot light, you can't deny that he delivers in matches (at least compared to Taker currently). Taker is occupying space in the title scene that could have been given to Rey or Morrison. I pray WWE takes the belt off of Taker at Survivor Series. Smackdown is suffering becos of him.
Posted By: Heel

Geoff, Knox being Punk's bodyguard is a great idea! His sadistic qualities would go great with Punk's asswipe personality. The point where Knox has had enough and turns on Punk could be great. If there is a problem with Knox getting over as a face, the WWE could just bring in Hillbilly Jim and say they are father and son. Then we have a real "Family Business" stable. Just kidding.
Posted By: The Great Capt. Smooth

Eubanks = Gold. No offense to Heel, but when I was reading his idea about Batista basically being Punk's bitch, I gotta admit, I wasn't feeling it at all (no offense)...but your spin with using Knox is GOLD! Totally elevates Knox, plus keeps Punk going as the BS heel like he was at Bragging Rights with letting everyone fight and trying to pick up the pieces.

Let's go all Viva La Resistance (not the tag team, the South Park movie) and overthrow the writers.
Posted By: Shane-o-Mac

Hey SHane, I was quoting Justin, who came up with the batista bodyguard role. I dun like the idea at all :)
Posted By: Heel

Since you brought up Punk, Schmoovster and Heel, I think now might be an appropriate time to officially start bitching about the fact Taker is being allowed to continue on as World Champion. Look, I respect both men more than I necessarily like them, but that respect is vast and well-earned on both counts. I learned the hard way while analyzing SmackDown! in The R's to not be so quick to blast a booking decision before allowing it to play out, and we may see Punk's path wind back to the title, but at this point, it appears as if Taker is moving along to face The Big Show and Chris Jericho in a Triple-Threat match at Survivor Series.

First of all, in this series, Punk is the kid in the white headgear:



Everyone was upset that Punk had his momentum yanked out from underneath him by dropping the title to Taker and I tried to be the voice of reason. Tut tut, said I, don't let's be hasty. And then I detailed, if I may say so in my own defense, a damn good little story as to how to use Taker to give Punk a rub to help really cement him as a bona fide top level titleholder. But no. Sometimes, friends, patience is not a virtue. Now he's fighting referees. And do you think Teddy Long is far behind?

I do think we're seeing the beginning of Vince's wacky involvement WrestleMania match, and that he's going to be in Punk's corner, and that Long will find someone to manage for ultimate control of SmackDown!, but I don't know who that would be, although I can see this being the means by which we see Punk and Taker's paths crossing once more, considering the history Long and Taker have (they settle their differences to go after the real bad guys in Vince & Punk). However, if this does come to pass, it double sucks for Punk, because not only does it ensure that Punk will lose the match, he damn sure won't be regaining the title.

Anyway, back to the comment at hand, it strikes me as a cautious way to involve Knox in a bigger role on the roster, to kinda test him out and see how he fares, if fans accept him, etc. If people buy him, perhaps consider a larger role for him. I mean, Kane's not gonna be around forever…hahaha. I didn't really see Knox turning on Punk, though; rather I envisioned Punk getting a little too creeped out by Knox' freakiness and trying to distance himself from him, with Knox pulling a sort of co-dependant need to have a leader, a kindred spirit (even though in his own mind only, because Punk doesn't see him that way, he only wanted some back-up). This forces Knox to man up and be his own man, although that's sketchy territory, because that type of turn, although can be done such that the freshly-turned face can maintain his edge, here is where we've typically seen such talent turn all cuddly and kid-friendly, and Knox as the "loveable giant" does not jibe with me.

I was wondering, Eubanks, if you've seen any of the Cena/Orton Iron Man match, and if so, what you thought. Because, I've come across something that strikes me as a little ironic within the mixed reactions to it...



Many people are calling this a "garbage match." Some of these people are Jack Evans-worshiping spot-junkies, who will NEVER be impressed by anything Orton or Cena do, and that's certainly their prerogative. Some of the deriders, however, are so-called "purists"; people who had 63-minute long erections when they watched Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels' Iron Man match. It's these people whose smack-talking I find ironic, and here's why...

I was live in attendance at Bragging Rights, and during the Iron Man match - I mean ALL of it - the crowd was more pumped than I've ever seen a crowd at any wrestling event. That's including Attitude-era college crowds. That's including Rock vs. Angle and a ladder match between the Hardys and E&C.

Lest we forget, before the Monday Night Wars, the WWF made their money selling TICKETS. The people who bought these tickets were people who wanted to see a show that made them feel excited, involved, and made them give a shit. They didn't buy tickets to a TV show. The ticket-buying audience at Bragging Rights got what we paid for and more in the Iron Man match. There were arena-wide cheers, boos, screams and at least two palpable collective gasps. We weren't "marks" or "smarks" or "smurfs" or whatever; we were fans. And it was very, very fun. It was the most fun I've ever had at a wrestling event (even though the other two main events totally sucked). Anyway, what I'm saying is, many of those same people will be buying tickets for the next WWE event here in Pittsburgh.

It strikes me ironic that the so-called "purists" would completely disregard the importance of SELLING TICKETS in the world of pro wrestling.
Posted By: KanyonKreist

Very well said, KanyonKreist. If you didn't get excited during that match, you might as well turn in your fan card, or join the IWC, whatever works.
Posted By: Bill

I was at the show too. 3rd row on the rear side from the camera's point of view.

While the crowd was into the match, it was nothing like the attitude era. I was only 3 rows back and I saw LOTS of people deciding to leave (for snacks or bathroom, not leave the event) as soon as the hour-long match started. The crowd was into it (as was I), but it was far from anything impressive.

My best compliment to the match is while the first roughly 15 minutes of it was slow, the rest of the hour flew by. The match also had Orton earn my respect, as he did great in that match (or in person) as he was just another good performer before.

We'll see how the crowd shows on DVD, but in person it didn't compare to the TV of the best of other crowds, so I don't see it see coming close to them in most people's opinion.
Posted By: WWEfan

Selling tickets ought not to have an impact on one's enjoyment of an artistic work. Does Mylie Cyrus sound better than The Velvet Underground because she sold more records? Is Transformers better than Bladerunner because folks bought more tickets? You can enjoy Cena-Orton, but don't use sales as a measure of its esthetic value.
Posted By: Iron Knee

@ Knee:
I know what you're talking about. I was just looking at it from a standpoint of "was it successful?" Partially, too, I was guilty of using the Kevin Nash-esque "the best worker is whoever makes the most money" logic.

I'm just saying, it may not be your cup of tea, but that doesn't make it in any way a failure. No sense in trying to get some objectivity out of some people, though. Not you, Knee, other people; the "EP1C FA1L" crowd. That actually begs the question: why would someone who doesn't like Cena or Orton's work pay to watch them wrestle for an hour...?

@ WWEfan:
I know what you mean about the snack break. I was thinking the same thing; I went to get some popcorn after the 4-way because I, oddly enough, thought they'd close with the 14-man tag match. I'm not a Cena fan, by any means, but I, like nearly everyone else in attendance, was totally drawn in by the show they put on when it was said and done.
Posted By: KanyonKreist

@Kanyon
Understand your point totally. Watch how many people turn on Nigel now that he's on TNA. There's some weird pathology out there where popularity makes things bad.
Posted By: Iron Knee

Well, Knee, there's certainly a history of grass-roots pop cultural movements, in general, making it big and losing some of the magic that made them popular (SNL, Family Guy, etc.) And there are just as many cases of something of quality saturating the pop culture scene to the point of deep resentment in people that actually liked it originally (Napoleon Dynamite, Transformers, Green Day). So, playing devil's advocate, I can understand SOME people's genuine concerns when things like that happen. Again, I'm being very general here.

HOWEVER, yeah, any of Nigmond McWolfness's "fans" who suddenly hate him for making it to basic cable are just desperate to identify themselves with "counter-culture."
Posted By: KanyonKreist

::Whew!:: That was a conversation! I love it when you guys talk to one another! Normally I'd take credit for having done my job, because, in the end that really is the goal of this column, but Kanyon gets all the credit in this instance, because that was a topic you started, so well done! Get this man a column of his own!

Unfortunately, no, I have yet to see this match. I've not bought a PPV in eons, but I always catch up on DVD via Netflix when it's made available, so I can discuss this in a more informed fashion at a later date. However, it strikes me as kinda funny that spot-monkey junkies are referring to an Iron Man match between two of the greatest psychologists of their generation (that's gonna earn me some heat) a "Garbage" match. I included that Jack Evans/Matt Sydal match in your comment purposefully. I have a real sweet tooth for that kind of wrestling, but, let's be honest, there's virtually no psychology at all in that match. Hell of a lot of fun to watch, but, let's be honest, right?

I'm one of those people who regards Bret/HBK as one of my favorite matches. Honestly, for two guys who legitimately hate one another to get ten quality minutes out of one another is a miracle, to pull off an hour-long Iron Man match of that quality and with that many near-decisions with such grace and nail-biting moments is a testament both to each man's professionalism and, yes, excellence.

I did read Larry's R's break down of the PPV and he admitted he was really impressed with his home town crowd's response, as they, apparently, typically, tend to require a lot of convincing to get excited about a show (that's one of my greatest criticisms of a Los Angeles crowd, as well). The only thing about gauging a crowd's response (especially a WWE crowd) from the DVD is that post-production can really beef up a reaction if it so desires, so that point could be moot…we'll see.

And not be all snarky with one of my favorite readers, but just because WWE puts on a solid and well-appreciated match one night doesn't mean everyone who dug it will be shelling out for the next show that comes through town. It could be an issue as simple as economics. I managed for a good while to score comp tickets when WWE came through Staples Center and nothing makes an event more enjoyable than knowing you paid squat to see it. However, when I look at the price tag on the ticket, I think to myself whether or not I'd have paid that much to see the show.

Conversely, when I paid $150 to sit opposite the hard camera for a SmackDown! taping/ECW broadcast, I recall being let down when the show pretty well sucked, but I wouldn't necessarily say that is directly connected to the price tag of my seats. In sum, it strikes me, watching a lot of WWE programming, that the bulk of it is booked to give the fans in attendance a good time, though not necessarily so for the viewing fans at home. This particular SD! I went to see was the other way around and, because I paid so much, I was hoping to get a good show. It just didn't turn out that way (although getting my "Moo-Moo-Cita" and "If my ex sucked like Adamle, we'd still be together" signs on TV was cool).

WWEFan, were fans getting up and getting snacks/pee-breaking at the beginning of the match? Because that would make sense to me. Grab some grub and empty your bladder then settle in, since you know you've a whole hour coming. Now if they were leaving midway through, that to me would signal a worse situation. Barring the little kids who inevitably make you leave at a crucial point in an event, an exodus out of the arena because a plate of overpriced nachos is suddenly more appealing than the match in the ring is a much worse sign.

There are certainly different levels of what is considered "successful", not just in business, but in life. Some measure success by one's net worth, how many kids they have, to whom they are married, etc., while others would rather live a simple life getting by and making a small contribution of their own making and design. In the wrestling industry, there are those who measure success by getting the biggest pop or the biggest paycheck while others aren't content unless they have the most technically sound match on the card. I say, variety is the spice of life and that applies to any professional wrestling show. Like I said about that Evans/Sydal match, that was a hell of a lot of fun, but three hours of that would burn out a crowd and it would be too much of a good thing.

I can understand someone like Nash having that kind of mentality, ie, he's no spring chicken and has to be looking to retire soon, as well as the fact that he can move at all at this point, in consideration that wrestlers typically have really bad knees and that, the taller one is, the worse off those knees will be, is a miracle in and of itself. However, I really think it should be the promoters who have that quality of business-mindedness in a show situation, because it should be the performers mindset to, well, perform. In a perfect world, the best performers should get the best pay, but then we all know that rathlin'th a wacky bidneth, eef you we-yull.

But because there should be a variety of styles on display at each show, comparing, say, Cactus Jack to Kurt Angle becomes an apples and oranges affair, just like Miley Cyrus and The Velvet Underground. Both are important to their respective industries, but one is definitely an artist while the other is the cash cow who allows the record company to make the money to be able to afford to sign an artist of The VU's caliber.

Wait, did we just miss CM Punk from the list of big time heel turns of late?
Posted By: Ray Church

Absolutely. You caught that…good call, especially in this regard, because Punk's current gimmick is something he did in RoH and we know how Vince hates to allow performers to rehash stuff that has been done in other promotions, even if it was better and would make perfect sense! Well done!

That's gonna be all for this week! Let the games begin.
RESPECK!