The Wrestling 5 & 1 2.09.13: Eve and Stacy Keibler The Rematch!
Posted by Tony Acero on 02.09.2013
Stacy Keibler battles Eve in Vs, a look at whether predictability hurts the WWE and the possibility of Wade Barrett ending the Undertaker's Streak, plus Alicia Fox is your "& 1" Model of the Week and more!
It's the Wrestling 5&1, and The DeMarco is asleep! That means you get all Tony tonight, and with all Tony that means….AJ LOVE FEST!!! Oh, there's some writing, too. But first….
BRING ON THE GIRLS!
The Versus Royal Rumble
With Tony Acero
Last week, we had some controversy with the Divas Royal Rumble, and since more than one of you felt that there may have been a bit of a fix on the results, we're going to take a step back and do this all over again! The issue arose with the slight alteration of the rules in that the final Versus with Stacy and Eve was made so that you were to vote for the LOSER, when – for a few years now, we have had you vote for the Winner. With that being recognized, I bring to you THE REMATCH OF THE YEAR!!! Ok, not really, but let's do this the right way. Eve vs. Stacy. You choose the WINNER. Vote for the WINNER. Click the center of her hole if you want to profess your love, and let's see if Stacy's win was a fluke or not….
(Note, the Battle of the Bang will continue next week, but in case you were wondering, Stacy beat Candice Michelle)
Will Stacy win again, or will Eve prove to be the true victor after the confusion of last week? You decide!
The poll expires Tuesday night, and you can vote once every 12 hours. Now get voting!
In response to the bobsky Cena promo. Isn't it also possible that Cena values his job security and outright saying 'no' equals insubordination? Vince still holds the cards, he already thinks Cena is past his prime and should be replaced soon, so why not sooner? especially since he is getting belligerent and is being a prima donna, exactly what bit vince in the ass with HBK and WCW showed what happened when it became the workplace culture for top guys to disregard management and do whatever they want. Vince could just job Cena to hell and back while finding himself a new golden boy. He already KIND of has Sheamus and Orton at the ready.
Regarding the Commentary team, I completely agree with Tony. The commentary team is there to sell whatever shit is put in front of us, not put it down even though it sucks MAJOR BALLS even to the casual observer. The method of showing personality mixing it in with in-jokes while still enhancing the product is what JBL does. He never detracts from the match, puts over the wrestlers (especially if they are JBL guys, which is a permanent distinction), and never flip flops from his position. Cole and JBL was an awesome team. Taking the WORST parts from 2 great commentary teams (JR and King; Cole and JBL) and putting them together is just asking for trouble.
But on a personal note, I love Cole shitting on stuff. It proves he's just as much of a fan as we are, and isn't ashamed of saying when something sucks. When they say 'everyone in the wwe universe has a voice' why can't Michael Cole have his own opinions? I liked heel Cole when he had that mini feud with Daniel Bryan. He was an unrelenting WWE apologist which was great as a character at first, but he later took it way overboard.- Mr. Ace Crusher
You know, I thought of the job security of Cena, and although I feel that not any one person is bigger than the WWE, I do feel that a simple "NO, I don't think that's a good idea, Vince" is something that will get him canned. He's John Cena, and we've heard many-a-story of dudes going up to him and saying, this ain't cool man only for him to respect them all the more.
As for the commentators, I think it's not so much the fact that they should sell us what's going on, even IF it sucks balls (although, that brings a whole other issue up of quality), but more to the fact that if they think it sucks balls, shut the fuck up. They detract, not just from the sucktitude of the situation, but from the idea that they are actually doing this for the fans. In other words, knowing ful well that this segment sucks and still putting it on, then pointing it out is almost saying "we know, but we don't care because you're still going to watch." And you know what….we do.
Its possible that Cole and Lawler actually was amused by the cookie puss remark. Also JR and Booker T's reaction to Lawler's "anal bleeding" still has me cracking up to this day. - Who is Kho
Oh it's very possible, and even more likely. But that doesn't remove the fact that it detracts. There are moments that stand in time, and have a lasting impact, and whether they be funny or serious, or otherwise, the reactions should truly be just the fans'. I think Booker's reaction to the "anal bleeding" comment was a "….what?!" Which was infinitely funnier than a giggle-snort that Cole tends to do on the sidelines.
I'm surprised no one ever points this out, but the biggest reason womens' wrestling sucks is that they're doing it in a ring made for men who are usually a foot taller than them and 100-200 pounds heavier than them. How good would the NBA be if the rims were 14 feet high and the 3 point line was moved out to 40 feet? - It's All About The Game
I can't agree that this is the "biggest reason." Adapting to a ring is far easier than adapting to an unreachable height, and it's a bit of a stretch to compare NBA to the WWE, even if Kobe the Rapist would be a great heel…
"I want to be surprised like I was when I was a kid"
So Austin winning in 98, Rock winning in 2000, Austin winning in 2001. Oh yeah, NO ONE called those wins, but DAMN IT, because it's Cena, lets SHIT ALL OVER IT. YEAAAAAH!!! - Asshat
If you're going to quote, assure that you're doing it correctly. As for the surprise that I was looking for, it wasn't necessarily who won that mattered (although, that was a large part of it), but the match as a whole. Outside of Goldust and The Godfather, excitement waned because Cena was winning was practically a foregone conclusion. The match was simply a means to an end. Also, one simply cannot compare the entire air of awesomeness that was the heyday of wrestling, when Austin and Rock were almost universally loved as opposed to John Cena, who simply is not.
You Decide: Is Tony overreacting about the commentary team?
Yes. - The Psychedelia
NO! I! WAS! NOT!!!!!
Cole and especially Lawler's commentary is fucking atrocious. But then it is in line with most of what WWE puts out so why are we surprised ? When Cole is allowed to be serious he can be ok. I enjoyed the commentary with him and JBL. But the second Lawler was back is was down the shitter again ! I swear the first thing I thought after hearing about his heart attack was "shit ...!!!! Really ???? and he's what ? In hospital ? .... ...Cool ,won't have to put up with his fucking commentary any more :) 'm gonna enjoy Raw a whole lot more now " . And I did !
Conversely...Jerry returns next week........."Bollocks :( Raw will be shitter than it has been these last weeks" And it was ! - K Bon Vivant
Many people clamored to the thought of King dying, and a lot of King sympathizers came out the woodwork to applaud his past efforts. I never would wish ill will on him, but due to King leaving, we got back JBL and a few moments of JR. Judging by their past, King and Cole can commentate and play a particular role really well, but a part of me feels like they are both very, very lax in their jobs. In fact, I can imagine them sitting with their feet on the table more often than not, as if they are simply "going through the motions." They need a significant alteration.
I'm no rocket scientist, but think I know who's going to win every match 100% of the time and I'm right 98% of the time and it's never impacted my enjoyment of a match.
Sports are different. It's a competition that culminates in a winner and a loser. I really can't enjoy a game where I know the outcome since the outcome is the whole point. I love football...but I don't have a DVD collection of old games. I don't watch old games on Youtube when I'm bored.
Wrestling is different. The outcome is a small part of the entertainment. The match is the real entertainment and the story and performance of the match. I have a bunch of DVD's with matches I've seen many times and I'm frequently on Youtube watching matches that I've already seen.
It's like a movie. I know Batman gets the villain at the end and John McLain vanquishes the terrorist. Sure the rare movies with the twist or unexpected ending are great, but they're so rare. Besides, the ending is secondary to the story and the performances. I can't tell you how many time I've watched The Dark Knight and Die Hard. Hell I've known the ending to Die Hard for 25 years and I still love watching it...kind of like Flair vs Sting from the 1st Clash of Champions. I paid 20 dollars just to have it on DVD and I knew with 100% certainty that Sting would get The Scorpion Deathlock as the bell rang.
I'm wondering if maybe Tony will take the time next week to explain why knowing or convinced you know the ending of all the matches at Wrestlemania is so bad. - Dowadidi Dididumdidido
Well damned if that ain't a good idea…
Dowadidi Dididumdidido and a few others brought up some interesting arguments that circled around the predictability of the WWE, and whether or not that's a detriment to wrestling as awhole. It was Didi that posed "I'm wondering if maybe Tony will take the time next week to explain why knowing or convinced you know the ending of all the matches at Wrestlemania is so bad." The statement, as it stands, can be refuted with a short answer of "because I said so," but I wouldn't be a writer if that was all I put, right? If I were to take it at face value, then we are asking if the entirety of the card were predictable, would that be bad, and I'd say yes without hesitation.
This, of course, brings us to the Rumble, where we all knew Cena was going to win, and which is actually the catalyst of this all. Are we, as "smart" fans, damaging the fun of the event due to us knowing (or properly guessing) the ending of matches and pay-per-views? I don't think that's true – which contradicts my statement previously, but let me explain. Knowing the end result of matches that we have seen flourish on the show mean one of two things: the WWE is not trying to trick us or the product is simply that stale. Sometimes, it's a combination of both. Does this mean that we are losing something in watching the show? Is knowing that John Cena was going to win the Rumble a bad thing? What about the Austin won? Or The Rock? Are we hurting our enjoyment by knowing what's going to happen? And what of the surprises; do they have more of an impact BECAUSE we think we know it all?
I suppose it's all in the eye of the beholder. More often than not, I am watching wrestling with the wherewithal that I will most likely have to write about it. Truly, the only time I don't watch "analytically" is during Smackdown, when I know I don't have to write about it. RAW and PPV's are more of an intent viewing, with a notepad nearby. My mind is fine tuned in the possible outcomes of the match that are – mostly predictable. But the answer of whether or not this damages my ability to enjoy the show is a resounding NO. Just as a few comments alluded to, the end result isn't ALWAYS the determining factor of enjoyment, rather the trip getting there is what we look forward to. To wrap this up with the question posed, however; an entire card that is predictable is not something that would excite me – even if the matches were looking to be solid. Simply put, although we're smart enough to guess the end results, there is still something about the element of surprise in the wrestling world that evokes goosebumps, and that warm fuzzy feeling that causes me to forget there's a pen in my hand, forget that 411mania needs a write up in an hour, and just relish in the fact that with all the knowledge we possess, there are still times when a man like Jericho can blind us with his jacket and us not know a damned thing about it…
You Decide: Does easy predictability of the product hurt or help the product?
Typecasting. Clever, right? Cuz I don't want to be type casted…and I type…and in essence, you're casting the future of the column…no? Shit. Being a writer, there's this thing you must worry about called Writer's Block. Lucky for me, I write so damned much for this site, for school, and for my own pleasure, that I hardly am able to have time for this particular dastardly fellow we call WB (ok, only I call it that, and just now), but considering this is a reader-friendly column, I thought this was a good time to ask you peeps what you want to read about. I've wrote enough 5&1's to know that this is a pretty solid group of readers, and even when we don't agree you're very thorough in thought processes, and – for the most part – have valid arguments. Truly, there's hardly a troll in sight, and that makes me more than willing to reach out and ask what you want as a topic here for future columns. It is my hope I get enough recommendations to have at least one of the five spots a week dedicated to you, the reader! So get to it! Place in the comments what you want my verbose and sometimes raddling monologues to focus on!
You Decide: Pick a topic, and let me do the work.
Greg DeMarco seems to think that Wade Barrett should go over The Undertaker at Wrestlemania, and I have LONG since stood my ground on The Undertaker never losing the streak. Before Greg puts his piece in, we want to hear from you.
You Decide: Should The Undertaker lose to Wade Barrett at Wrestlemania? Should he lose to ANYONE at Wrestlemania?
About The Greg DeMarco Show:
Greg DeMarco isn't just a must-read wrestling analyst (via http://www.411mania.com and http://www.bleacherreport.com) with a copious amount of sound bites on his show. Greg brings several years of experience within the wrestling business—as well as eight years of stand-up and improvisational comedy experience—to the masses each week.
He's joined each week by best friend "The Wrestling Realist" Patrick O'Dowd. Not just another sidekick, Patrick balances hard-hitting commentary with an innate ability to provoke Greg in ways that very few can. These two best friends collaborate to provide the most entertaining wrestling program on the planet, and do so while breaking down the product in ways that no one else can.
The Greg DeMarco Show is streams LIVE each Tuesday night at 10 pm eastern/7 pm pacific at SmashWrestling.com or on the show's Blog Talk Radio channel blogtalkradio.com/gregdemarco.
You can reach the show via e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org and on Facebook by searching for "Greg DeMarco Show."
Hit up the ‘Mania on the TWITTER (so Ashish will like me, okay?)
Alicia Fox has what I call the Rihanna Complex where she could look fine as hell one night, then not so great the other, but make no mistake about it, I'd not deny those legs the opportunity to pretzel around my….