High Road/Low Road 12.11.09: Sheamus As The Number One Contender

Welcome back to the High Road/Low Road!

A brief explanation of the column: Sat takes the High Road (positive view) on angles, gimmicks, and other wrestling related “stuff” while Chad Nevett takes the Low Road (negative view).

Results for TLC as a Pay Per View:

High Road: 24%
Low Road: 48%
Both Roads: 29%

Chad Nevett: I’m a little surprised to see so many Low Road votes, but that’s where I’d probably fall… maybe Both Roads. Going into last week’s column, I was much more positive-minded about TLC, but coming up with counterarguments to Sat’s positives made me see a few big negatives. It’s the first time this column has ever changed my opinion, which is kind of cool.

Sat: I was also surprised initially, but the comments pretty much said that people are against the Tables match and the Chair match.

Sheamus as the Number One Contender

High Road:

The smart thing that the WWE has done is that they have Sheamus challenging John Cena in a Tables Match. It would be hard to imagine Sheamus pinning John Cena in a regular match, but it is realistic to see Sheamus win in a tables match.

Low Road:

Yes, but does anyone want to see Sheamus win the WWE Championship? That the only way his challenging Cena looks credible is because of the gimmick of the match shows just how ill-conceived and stupid it is. A title shouldn’t be defended in a tables matches to begin with let alone to a contender whose only shot of winning is in this sort of match. If Sheamus needs the gimmick to get over, he shouldn’t be in the match to begin with.

High Road:

I’ll give you the fact that this match will not entice viewers to buy the pay per view, but a TLC pay per view does not need an enticing match. If this match was held at the hold Armageddon pay per view, then I would agree that it makes no sense to have this match. But under a gimmick pay per view, it makes sense to have this match.

Low Road:

If it needs the gimmick match to make sense, it isn’t good booking. That the gimmick is the draw shows just how weak the booking is here, so why bother? Why not book a match that is strong enough to stand on its own and as a tables match? And if this isn’t a strong enough match to get someone to buy the PPV, why have it? It’s for the WWE Championship! If it isn’t enticing, then there’s something very wrong.

High Road:

As I wrote above, this match does not need to be an enticing one because of the gimmick of the pay per view. I would say the same thing about the Royal Rumble, so I see Sheamus also being the one to face John Cena there. This is easily possible by having him attack John Cena and keeping him down for the 10 count which can lead to a Last Man Standing Match. Or you could do a regular match by having him pin Cena in a tag match. I think it makes sense to have this match at the Royal Rumble because you really do not need a marquee match.

Low Road:

Sheamus would be a better fit as a contender at the Royal Rumble where the title is often defended against a contender not seen as threatening and there is more time for a build-up. However, that doesn’t make Sheamus the right contender at TLC where the build-up is much shorter and hasn’t made him look strong. Using this time to have Sheamus fight non-jobbers or compete in squash matches could have solidified him more in the minds of the audience, so a run at the belt at the Royal Rumble wouldn’t seem so out of the blue and laughable as it is here.

High Road:

The one thing that I find shocking is that we have all been complaining for months that we need a new challenger for John Cena. Now, Sheamus gets a chance and everybody is saying that Kofi should have gotten the title shot completely ignoring the fact that he is a feud with Randy Orton. Who else would have worked in this role, the only guy that may have worked is Jack Swagger, but he does nothing of note in awhile. We have finally got a chance to see a new challenger for John Cena and I think that this feud with be very similar to one we saw with Umaga a few years back.

Low Road:

I think the Miz would have worked as well given his feud with Cena earlier in the year considering the short build to the match. That the WWE is giving someone new a shot is good, but they chose the wrong guy. Sheamus isn’t as physically dominating as Umaga was nor as strong in the ring. He doesn’t come off as a threat the same way that guys that have held championships like the Miz, Swagger, and Kingston would.

High Road:

Whenever a heel shows up in the WWE, the general process is that wrestler goes thru a series of squash matches. That really tells us nothing about the wrestler because anybody can do squash matches. Now, throwing Sheamus into a match with John Cena is going to tell the WWE a lot about the guy. I think by the end of this feud with John Cena, we will know whether Sheamus has some staying power. I think because of this reason, it makes sense to make Sheamus the number one contender.

Low Road:

There are better ways to prove staying power and a too quick run at the belt isn’t one of them. If anything, that’s almost a guaranteed kiss-off unless the heel goes over big, which hasn’t happened to Sheamus at all yet. There are many competitors between Jamie Noble and John Cena, and Sheamus would be helped in the long term to work his way through them somewhat before being thrust in this sort of match.

High Road:

The interesting thing about this feud is the point that Jesse Ventura made about the fact that John Cena is the man in the WWE because he has the look that they want. This statement only works if an up and comer challenges for the titles and I think it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Low Road:

That angle isn’t Sheamus-specific and could work with any number of young challengers. While it adds to Sheamus’s challenge, it seems somewhat questionable if Sheamus is the guy that the boys in the locker room who resent Cena would get behind.

Are you taking the High Road or the Low Road?

High Road
Low Road
Both Roads
OR

Simply write “High Road”, “Low Road”, or “Both Roads” in the comment section.

E-Mails:

These are all of the e-mails that we received this week. We do not respond to the actual e-mail, but the reply to your e-mail will be below.

Sat: Quite a few voting emails, but no emails discussing last week’s topic.

Comments:

Below are the comments for last week’s columns and our responses. Every comment will not be included because it makes our lives a lot easier.

The Gold Standard Writes:

Low Road. Totally gimmick overkill besides theres only so many people who can have an entertaining ladder match. A table match kinda is like whatevers seeing that people go through them in extreme rules matches(are those still around?) and a chair match the concept seems stupid seeing that a hardcore or no dq match is like a chair match anyways I hope Christian and Benji rock the house.

Sat: The one thing going for this pay per view is Christian versus Shelton Benjamin. The rest of the stuff you can find flaws with.

Chad Nevett: Christian/Shelton Benjamin, and JeriShow/DX are the (announced) matches that give me hope about this PPV.

Mark Writes:

HIGH ROAD….

If we never see another TLC match for the rest of the year, up until next December. Just like Elimination Chamber, as long as they only do them in February, I see no problem.

Now if next April, we see a TLC match at a PPV, then LOW ROAD.

Sat: I definitely agree with this. Though it does make it difficult to cast a vote for you. I’ll go with Both Roads.

Chad Nevett: I don’t care about set schedules for gimmick matches just so long as they’re done when it makes the most sense for the story. If two different feuds use TLC in two consecutive PPVs, I don’t care so long as it works.

Guest#7336 Writes:

Low Road (just slightly)

Positives:
– It freshens things up.
– There’s enough wiggle room under the TLC umbrella to vary the match types.

Negatives:
– Terrible name.
– Jams feuds into unnecessary gimmick matches.
– All of the huge spots will probably be reserved for the actual TLC match, requiring the other gimmick matches to be toned down. In other words, no one is allowed to outshine the main event.

Sat: I’m expecting the ladder match to definitely be the shining moment for the pay per view. The name definitely could be better.

Chad Nevett: Terrible name that leads to having to include two terrible gimmicks (table/chairs matches).

Guest #7120 Writes:

Both Roads: Should be a good show but In the long run I think it cheapens the gimmick and makes it less important next time WWE tries to use it (see HIAC).

Also, the amount of gimmick PPV’s makes it harder for WWE to get fans to order a non-gimmick show so it could hurt buyrates on some of the “lesser” PPV’s because the fans will expect too much.

Sat: I think we are getting to the point where the gimmicks are only going to be used at their respective pay per views.

Chad Nevett: Since buyrates have been brought up, I do wonder if the increased numbers this time are a bit misleading since there’s an initial curiosity in seeing gimmick-based cards that may not carry over to a second time. One PPV focused around Hell in a Cell is a novelty, a second may just leave people cold because they’ve seen it already. Next year’s numbers will be interesting… I hope.

Jesuszilla son of Godzilla Writes:

Both Roads:
On one hand 2009 (and possible 2010) has WAY to many gimmick PPVs.

Royal Rumble- legendary WWE match fine
No Way Out- 2 elimination chamber matches always fun

Extreme Rules- all matches in gimmick matches

Night of Champions- all titles on the line

Breaking Point- submission theme main events

Hell in a Cell- self explanitory

Survivor Series- legendary WWE match that’s cool

TLC- ANOTHER gimmick show?

The good is that TLC matches are usually great. Off the top I can’t think of a bad TLC match so there’s definantly something to look forward too.

Sat: The star power is not there, so I think you need to gimmick up the pay per views.

Chad Nevett: I think you need to create compelling, interesting feuds and stories where gimmicks can be integrated logically. Gimmicks alone hold no appeal for me. But, I’m also… let’s say ‘different’ to be kind.

Guest#0582 Writes:

Low. as pointed out, what is the difference between a TLC match and a Ladder match? Also, with all of these gimmick PPVs now, what are they going to do with Extreme Rules? Actually have hardcore matches?

Sat: I think that this pay per view is going to show the difference between the two, basically in one you can only use a ladder, in a TLC match, you can use everything.

Chad Nevett: Yes, but in a ladder match, you can use everything else since the only way for the match to end is for someone to retrieve the belt. That they don’t use other weapons most of the time is the only real difference.

Yawn Writes:

Low Road.

The WWE Title match is a joke. Everyone knows Shaemus is going to lose, even if he gets some offense in.

It’s rather obvious that John Dinner is going to give him the ‘Adjustment through the table.

Sat: It is obvious that Sheamus is losing. If Sheamus wins, then it will be a rule that nothing in the WWE is certain.

Chad Nevett: Nothing is certain, which is why some are worried Sheamus may win just to shock and surprise.

Comment Board Poster Writes:

Low Road. Specialty matches are supposed to be…oh, I don’t know…special. That would be just as stupid as having an entire PPV with nothing but cage matches.

Sat: I am one of those guys that prefers Lockdown. It is always nice to see competitors that would not get a chance to wrestler in a cage, get the opportunity to do so.

Chad Nevett: I like certain gimmick matches, but, as I said, I prefer them to be capstones to long feuds where a regular match just won’t cut it anymore.

HBK’s Smile Writes:

Low Road x 10. As Chad said, the concept itself is a creative cop-out. Speciality matches are best developed organically, when a feud has evolved to the point where a regular match just won’t do and there is a particular match that suits the wrestlers’ styles and histories. Think how perfect it was for the 2008 Jericho-HBK feud to end in a ladder match. It made perfect sense. Compare that to Cena-Sheamus being thrown together in a tables match for no reason other than it’s the TLC PPV.

Sat: This is one of those arguments that I think is a good one.

Chad Nevett: Exactly. There’s no investment in the feud, so the gimmick is almost meaningless. And, where do you go after you’ve begun with something other than a regular wrestling match?

The Great Captain Smooth Writes:

High road. Matches with plunder are usually pretty fun. This is still the first one, so they can tinker a bit for next time. Finally, there is the potential for a “HOLY SHIT!!!” chant on a TV-PG PPV. Something the WWE can’t do anything about.

Sat: Good point about it being the first one and they can tinker with it for next time. I wonder though about how far the WWE will go with some of the things they will allow because of the fact that it is a TV-PG PPV.

Chad Nevett: I do like that the WWE is trying new things and do appreciate that this is the first one, so it will certainly be adjusted in the future. Still, trying new things isn’t an excuse for trying bad things.

JLAJRC Writes:

Low Road: TLC and Ladder matches are fun. But just plain tables or chair matches? Not so much. They should have a “Bring Your Own Weapon” PPV, instead.

Sat: I’ve always liked a tables match, but I can understand your concerns about having a tables only match and a chairs only match.

Chad Nevett: I’ve never been a big tables match guy unless it made sense for the feud. And never for the world belt since the world belt should require that there be an actual defeat, something that being put through a table does not deliver.

TWITTER

http://www.twitter.com/411mania
http://www.twitter.com/411wrestling
http://www.twitter.com/411moviestv
http://www.twitter.com/411music
http://www.twitter.com/411games
http://www.twitter.com/411mma
http://www.twitter.com/satuncletrunx
http://www.twitter.com/cnevett

Your reasons for taking the High Road, Low Road, or Both Roads and suggestions for future High Road/Low Road are welcome at [email protected] or in the comment section. Your reply will be included in next week’s column.