Ask 411 Wrestling: Why Vince Hates the IWC, Kane, Cena, More
Posted by Mathew Sforcina on 09.03.2014
Why does the internet hate John Cena so much? Why does Vince McMahon hate the internet? Who's held the WWE Title the longest? Is Kane the greatest gimmick of all-time? All this and more covered this week in Ask 411 Wrestling!
Hello, and welcome to Ask 411 Wrestling. I am NOT Ryan Byers, instead I am Mathew Sforcina. I'd like to thank Ryan for filling in for me for a couple weeks while I drank my sorrows over my last column I worked double shifts at work for a couple weeks.
Anyway, gotta get back into the saddle here, so just the one Total Opinion Etcetc and I'll be good to go, hopefully.
Look, I realised at a certain point that it wasn't going well, but I was FAR too deep in to stop. I do intend to go back and finish it, but yeah, chalk that up to my own ego getting away from me. And that's not even counting the ‘had' part which I ignored because to hell with that.
The Trivia Crown
Who am I? I'm known by a few names, the list including a reference to an old friend, a trademark and a number. I've wrestled in defence of the past, to try and get into a gimmick match that has only happened three time, and in a match that saw my opponent have to vacate his title. I've teamed with someone who originally ripped me off, and had to change the name of one of my moves in a company due to PGness. A uni grad, a former member of law enforcement and a guy who's rickrolled us all at least once, I am who?
… No-one? It was Colt Cabana.
Who am I? I'm currently on the WWE roster. Two of my (related) WWE accomplishments share a certain numerical similarity. The managers I've had are split 50-50 in terms of gender. I once beat John Cena in a sort of popularity contest (mainly due to who got to vote). One of my reigns was quite long, while I've held another title for less than a day. I once renamed a title, and myself, and my finisher, and am on the wrong end of a Royal Rumble record. Who am I?
Getting Down To Business/One Man's (Important) Opinion
Connor starts us off with a couple of simple, easy questions.
Why does everybody hate John Cena?
I don't hate John Cena, I am part of everybody, ergo everybody does not hate John Cena, QED.
I mean, there are Cena fans, and Cena defenders, and Anti-Anti-Cena guys, so obviously there is no set group think on this in terms of hatred to love. And even in hatred, some people will hate him for reasons other than the usual. Some people may hate Cena because of a personal reason that doesn't apply to anyone else.
But for the most part, most of the Cena hate isn't hatred of the performer, or even the character as such, but the booking. Cena as a character is continually booked as the strongest most important part of the show, never shows real weakness, never evolves as a character, never sells an opponent as a serious threat long term, and basically is symbolic of all the worst aspects of the PG era, and how WWE's booking during it is mostly sucky.
At least, I think that's why people hate him. I don't like his booking but I don't hate him. Perhaps the comments section will have an answer. I can say that I don't think Ambrose is the second coming if that helps…
Hulk Hogan or Ric Flair? if you had to build a company around one of them, they are arguably the two biggest names of all time, but who is better? who has the total package? workrate, drawing ability, promos, the lot
Depends on who my target audience is, what my TV deal is, what version of them I'm getting, who else I have on the roster and a whole lot of other factors that all have to be considered when you're booking a company. If I'm marketing to kids, I take Hogan. If I have lots of TV time to fill, I take Flair. If it's early 80's I take Hogan. If most of my other big names are faces I take Flair. No man or woman is an island when it comes to booking, and you have to consider who you have, or who you think you can get, before you start building a company around them.
But personally, I think Flair is the best of all time, in the sense that Hogan is arguably the absolute best in what he does, but what he does is not an infinite list. Hogan can sell like he's getting shot at point blank range with a sniper rifle, can give you a short passionate promo and get the hot tag better than pretty much everyone else ever in wrestling. But the thing is, where Hogan doesn't excel, he's kinda average. Whereas Flair, in pretty much any category you can think of, he's good to great at it. Short promos? He can do that. Need a guy to talk for 20 minutes? He can do that too. Work a 3 minute match? Sure! Go broadway? Not a problem! Be an authority figure, host an interview segment, face, heel, champ, challenger, no matter what role you want to put Flair in, assuming he's good to go, then he'll be great at it.
Hogan is the finest claw end hammer ever made. Flair is an extremely well made multitool. Sure, the hammer does its job perfectly, but the multi-tool can do almost anything you need it to.
But that's just my opinion.
Piero has a simple question.
let's say you can wrestle one match of the past. You can't change anything but you are there in the ring and experience the whole thing. Because magic. Which is the match and whose place you take ?
Any bra and panties match Victoria lost, I'll take the winning party.
Hogan V Andre, WM3, I'd be Andre. That match is pretty close to my tip top dream in wrestling, although I'd be walking into WM as champ in the perfect scenario, and to be a part of history like that, in front of that many people… Yeah, that'd be my pick.
HellloooNewman seeks clarification.
I've always heard that Eddie Guerrero dropped wanted to drop the WWE Title to JBL, and then nixed any further runs with the belt, because "he felt he couldn't handle the pressure" of being Champion. What exactly does that mean? During that time he may have been the WWE Champ, but he wasn't exactly "the guy", or even in the top program. HHH/Benoit/HBK were doing that. What exactly was it that he "couldn't handle"? He was essentially doing the same sorts of things as he was doing before, but he just had a belt to carry around.
Except that he's not. Even ignoring the extra work you have to do as champ, ignoring the extra appearances and signings and the like you have to do, being champ puts pressure on you, because the company is saying, usually, ‘You Are Our Top Guy', and that carries a responsibility. Hell, I was champ of AWF for 8 months or so, and every show I felt pressure to put on the best show I could, and to put over my opponents as best as I could, I took the Flair approach, which I probably shouldn't have in retrospect, but at the time I felt I had to. Being the champ is supposed to make you the focal point, and thus the company now lives and dies by what you do, you're now responsible for the future of the company. Overreacting? A little, sure, but the fact is that even though it's not ‘real', it's still a huge deal to be the champ, unless it's a transitional thing.
Now with Eddie, there was an added issue, just beyond the fact that he was old school and thus felt the pressure more, and that was the addictions. If/when I felt pressure, I ate some chips or blew off a deadline to play video games. Eddie, he had darker outlets that he was trying to fight, and the pressure of being champ, as I understand it, was slowly driving him back to them. He didn't succumb in a major way, to my knowledge, but since he felt himself slipping, he gave the belt up rather than risk it leading him back to where he didn't want to go.
Yes, objectively the belt isn't that big a deal, but for a wrestler, it is a big deal. Or at least, it damn well SHOULD be…
Doyle questions WWE's current booking idea.
Right now, is it better to have a fighting champion like a john cena who is on the show weekly and typically in a match, or to keep the champ away, like they do with lesnar, to build the suspense and give it the "big fight feel" setup?
Like pretty much everything in wrestling, there isn't a hard and fast rule here. Sometimes you want and need the champ to be there every week. Other times, the prudent thing to do is drag it out. It's a matter of asking if the money you lose not having the champ around is made up for when he does show up. Now, with WWE right now, I think they will be looking at the numbers very carefully. Have house show sales gone down? Are people renewing Network subscriptions to see Lesnar? Are the ratings down? These are the numbers they need to crunch, and then, if Lesnar as champ isn't doing well enough, then Cena becomes 16 time champ for maybe 5 minutes before Rollins cashes in, perhaps. But if Lesnar is paying off, then we get more Heyman One promos.
It's the old question, can you afford to lose short term gain for a bigger pot of gold later on. Only WWE can answer that, since they're the only ones with the numbers to crunch.
Brandon asks about Mr. Perfect's return.
I remember when the Royal Rumble was happening in 2002, the biggest thing in my eyes was that 4 WWE Superstars were returning: Goldust, Val Venis, The Godfather, and Mr. Perfect. I was very excited about Mr. Perfect returning, but it seems like after the Rumble, as excited as the crowd was during the event, the company didn't do much with him. He wasn't even on any of the pay per view events after that, including WrestleMania X8. Any reason for that? I know the infamous plane ride from hell was what lead to his eventual firing, but before that were there any issues?
Man, that gum swat was, well, perfect.
Anyway, from memory, the thing was that at the time, it was a, say it with me, one shot deal. They were bringing back the other three from injury/rehab, and they wanted a fourth to be able to sell the ‘4 IC Champs returning' soundbite, as so Hennig, despite the booking, was there as a one off. And then he went out there and was awesome, and WWE then signed him back full time, but then they didn't really have anything for him, beyond have him work with some of the younger guys on the B-shows, which was a perfectly legitimate use of him at the time. I'd have put him back in the booth, but that's just me. He didn't have any heat on him, far from it, they just didn't have anything major for him to do, but he was a good hand, so they had him around. Not everyone can or should be a major star on the roster, after all…
Nightwolf has a simple question.
In your opinion, who would you say is the greatest technical wrestler in the WWE today?
I mean, if you're asking who is the best guy WWE has under contract at the art/sport of pure technical wrestling, then it is legitimately Regal. If you want to specify that it's someone who is a wrestler under contract, Kenta. If you want to specify that it has to be someone active, then Daniel Bryan. And if you want to specify that it's someone active and actually wrestling right now, I want to pick someone in NXT but really it's Cesaro or Swagger, depending on if you want pure ability (Swagger) or being the best at being a wrestler who is technical (Cesaro).
Chris has a simple enough question.
Who has spent the most time as WWE Champion?
A comment Jim Ross made on Twitter about title reigns got me thinking about this one.. JR mentioned that being a 16 world champion isn't *that* great because it means you lost the same time title 15 times, and that the LENGTH of a champion's reign was more impressive. I'm guessing either Backlund, Hogan or someone from that era holds the record for longest single world title run (in WWE anyway), but who has actually spent the most amount of time holding the top prize? Cena? HHH? Someone else?
That specific belt? Bruno. Bruno, in his two reigns, held the WWF Title for a total combined total of 4,040 days. That's almost as much as the next two combined. Hell, even if Bruno's second reign didn't happen, he'd STILL be the winner, as his first reign was 2,803 days long.
Only five men have past 1,000 days as WWF Champ, and they are:
Bruno Sammartino, 2 reigns, 4,040 days
Hulk Hogan, 6 reigns, 2,185 days
Bob Backlund, 2 reigns, 2,138 days
John Cena, 12 reigns, 1,240 days
Pedro Morales, 1 reign, 1,027 days.
… Actually, I'm curious. I wonder if Backlund would win if he got his way, and he never lost the title to Sheik, and so his reign was from February 20, 1978 through to November 26, 1994, would he win?
*finds day calculator*
Good enough for me!
frankiemon asks about a gimmick near and dear to my heart.
Kane, Great Gimmick or the Greatest Gimmick. I know you have written extensively on the man with your various schematics over the years so what is your view? For me he would have to be one of if not the most versatile performers in any era. He has been a pyscho killer, dX wannabe, Necrophile, Child Killer and Genital Mutilator amongst other things but somone still comes up smelling like roses after years of Wrestlecrap and hot and cold booking that would've killed a lesser character
How much of that is the gimmick and how much is the actor portraying it? I mean, Cena, Sheamus and Reigns are all roughly playing the same rough gimmick, but there's a lot of difference between them in terms of how they pull it off. Or WWE comedy as a rule, what one guy can make work (The Logistics of Alligators) another guy can't (anything involving Photoshop).
Plus, how do you judge? My Name Is Stone Cold Steve Austin is forever going to be held up by me as a superb gimmick that was awesome and was played beautifully, and it killed Austin's drawing power and hurt the company. Is merely surviving crap feuds a good indicator that the gimmick is solid?
That said, the Kane gimmick is perhaps the Swiss Army Knife of gimmicks, in that I don't think anyone else outside of maybe Flair was been able to do comedy and seriousness seemingly at will, being able to work face and heel at the drop of a hat, and while guys like Flair and Piper started from a solid base, Kane's had to start in the height of the Attitude era, so there's some more respect there, given where he started from and where he is now.
Greatest gimmick? That's a big call… Certainly I'll say he's the most diverse and resilient gimmick ever…
I'm not sure what is and isn't fresh, so here's Tank Abbott several times over.
Jay wants to talk the REAL World's Champion…
In your opinion what's the lineage of the real world title? What and when is the top title changed, by that I mean the most important champ in the world (I'm guessing NWA to WWF to WCW back to WWF/E at some point the World Championship then back to the WWE tite) and when does it change, whos holding the belt and why does it change.
Mathew Sforcina's Guide To The Real World Champion In Wrestling History
The following is just the opinion of Mathew Sforcina and has no bearing on anyone else's opinion, actual facts or perceptions of said facts. 411mania and Mathew Sforcina cannot and will not accept any responsibility for misuse of this guide, mistakes made in the guide, or The Miz in general. Should pain persist, see your doctor, screw your health care professional. In the event of accidental swallowing, induce vomiting by watching Eva Marie doing anything really. Any questions, feedback or complaints should be submitted in writing, in triplicate, and in an envelope addressed to Antonio Inoki. By reading this disclaimer, you absolve Mathew Sforcina of any wrong doing in the past, present or future of this or any other universe, timeline or plane of existence. This guide is general advice only, and does not take your personal situation into account, given that you're unlikely to be in the discussion of being a real world champion. Guarantee void everywhere.
May 4, 1905: European Greco-Roman Heavyweight Champion Georg Hackenschmidt defeats American Heavyweight Champion Tom Jenkins, and becomes the first true Professional Wrestling World Champion, referred to as Catch as Catch Can World Heavyweight Champion.
April 3, 1908: Frank Gotch, the man who defeated Hackenschmidt to win the title, retires. This causes several disputed World Champions, none of whom stand out as being a legitimate holder of the honor of being True World Champion.
July 5, 1915: Joe Stecher defeats American Champion Charles Cutler and becomes the first Post-Gotch World Champion that earns the title. Title remains True World Title through several title changes, up until…
November 27, 1949: Lou Thesz is awarded NWA World Heavyweight Championship due to injuries suffered by Orville Brown, Thesz unifies this title with National Wrestling Association World Title he already holds, thus superseding the original World Title by unifying the two main competitors to the claim.
May 21, 1952: Lou Thesz wins original Catch as Catch Can World title, unifies them under the NWA banner. Despite later splits and controversies, the NWA World Title becomes the True World Title. NWA Title holds the honor for over 30 years.
January 23, 1984: Hulk Hogan wins WWF Championship from Iron Sheik. Retroactively, this is the point where the WWF takes over as being the biggest horse in the race and thus has the ‘True' World Title. You may debate the start point, but somewhere along here, Hulkamania brings the WWF Title the glory. WWF Title and NWA title are arguable for several years, however, with both sides getting close to taking the position, but WWF holds on until…
August 10, 1996: Hollywood Hulk Hogan, leader of the nWo, wins WCW World Championship at Hog Wild from The Giant, proclaims it the nWo World Title, becomes most important World Title in wrestling. Several title changes occur, until
March 29, 1998: The Austin Era begins at Wrestlemania XIV, Austin wins WWF Title, Austin 3:16 takes over from WCW. WWF Title remains on top, through to unification in 2001 to become Undisputed WWE Champion, until
September 2, 2002: Brock Lesnar signs exclusively to Smackdown, thus turning the Undisputed Title into just the WWE Title. World Heavyweight Title is formed on Raw, but WWE Title remains on top.
October 20, 2002: World Heavyweight Title unifies with IC Title, which has almost every other title in wrestling history unified into it by this stage, thus World Heavyweight Title takes over as most important.
April 3, 2005: John Cena wins WWE Title. Thus it takes over.
November 23, 2008: John Cena wins World Heavyweight Title. Thus it takes over.
September 13, 2009: John Cena wins WWE Title. It takes over.
October 27, 2013: John Cena wins World Heavyweight Title. It takes over.
December 16, 2013: WWE and World titles unified. Remains true World Title till this point.
At least, that's how I see it. The readers might disagree.
Kevin talks Elite.
I got WWE Network and while I am hoping for all the WCW TV shows, I am sating myself with some PPV's. Anyway, I just watched Spring Stampede 99 and the crowd was HOT and the PPV is one of the better ones the last twenty years. WCW could still put on a good show...so I am going to try and piggy-back a bit off that as I have been watching WWIII 98 and now Souled Out 99.
What was the plan for the nWo Elite? Did they have one? WCW was still doing great business, and even building new stars and then Bischoff came up with this "great" idea to end the Wolfpac/nWo feud and unify them. The first couple months showed WCW doing great business in 99 and then nothing. By Stampede the nWo was all but done, and they drifted from angle to angle. Was EB and WCW hoping that the Elite would just bring back the magic of 96? I actually liked the Wolfpac and felt they prematurely ended it, and while it was getting stale it could have finished off at Fall Brawl. So, what was the plan? Or was there one?
Depends on who you ask. Those who were there at the time have answers, ones which slant towards them looking good, of course. And then the view of the fans tends to be negative, what with the Fingerpoke being singled out as some giant moment that killed the company, which is really wasn't…
Now, ‘good business' they may have been doing, but they were still losing to WWF, so you have to take that with a grain of salt, but overall, the idea was to end the feuding nWo factions, since that wasn't working. By combining them again, you could then, theoretically, run Goldberg through them to go get his belt back, you have one solid angle again rather than trying to run a three way war, you simplify everything in a cleverish way and then finish up the nWo angle later on now that it's in one group, you can kill it off in one go.
Now, clearly that was never going to happen because this is WCW we're talking about, but that's the basic idea, supposedly. nWo V nWo V WCW wasn't working, so go back to nWo V WCW, which you know works. About it really.
Ace talks Savage's last WWF Title run's end.
Why did Savage drop the title to Flair on Prime Time Wrestling in what was described at the time as one of the worst WWF Title matches of all time? Since the WWF proved that they weren't scared to do face vs face matches that year (See the double main event of Summer Slam 92), wouldn't it have been more meaningful to have Savage drop the title directly to Bret Hart in Canada? It seemed pointless for Savage to drop the belt to Flair so soon after SummerSlam, only for Flair to do nothing with it, and drop it to Bret Hart a month later (which was another poor WWF Title Match).
Summerslam 92 wasn't meant to be a face V face match for the WWF Title. It was meant to be a match where Warrior turned, and then they changed their minds and thus went elsewhere. And Bret/Bulldog was face/heel, given that Bulldog got cheered out of the building and Bret worked heel for the match. And also, Flair/Bret wasn't meant to happen that soon either.
See, the whole thing was a clusterfuck of sorts. See, once they left Summerslam, Vince knew that he needed to go youth, and so he had to get the belt off Savage. But, his short list of guys to push were faces. Running Savage V Anyone was a risk to getting the new guy off as a fresh faced face. So, he gives the belt to Flair as a transitional champ. The fact that the match sucked was in part due to an ear injury Flair had.
And that injury just got worse, and as it did, Vince suddenly felt he needed a new champ who was smaller and clearly not on roids (even if he was) ASAP. And, had he waited, he probably would have gotten talked out of it.
It was just a case where the plan got sped up due to injuries, outside pressure, and most of all, the whim of Vince McMahon.
Rahil asks a simple question.
Is MVP really an owner of TNA or is it like it says on wikipedia (71% janice carter, 29% jarrett) ?????
No, MVP does not actually own any stock in TNA. The Carters, through Panda Energy, own most of the stock, and Jarrett remains owner of the rest. MVP being the investor is an angle, nothing more.
Kfabh8r is the unfortunate victim of Queue Delay.
The first one is about when Hulk Hogan had said once about turning heel that he had wanted to do this in the WWF but Vince said so no. Of course this the same Hulk Hogan that said that he Andre who at the time weighed 740.6 million metric ton (please update that if it's incorrect). But I can understand that Vince didn't want to turn him heel, to me this is legacy booking. Why don't the IWC (apparently) don't get legacy booking? For example John Cena staying face and him not turning heel and to me the greatest example to me is The Undertaker with his Wrestlemania streak, because as soon as they started calling it the streak there was no chance that he will ever lose even against Taker's wishes about doing the "right thing".
Because by that logic you never make any new stars. Look, as a booker you are supposed to understand that you have to kill the goose you have now for more geese later on. No matter how beloved or popular or successful any character or storyline is, you need to end it eventually, or at the very least alter it. That's the thing about Cena, no matter what people claim, the majority of the time, it's not that he wins all the time, it's that the storylines are boring and repetitive and he never changes. ‘Turning Heel', as I've said before, it really saying ‘Turn Interesting'. A heel turn is a simple way to do it, but what they are doing now, if Brock crushes him just as hard at Night of Champions? That might well do it…
The second is about the different definition of Smarks. To many, mostly in the IWC, Smarks means smart marks. But to people like Vince - especially Vince - consider smarks means stupid marks and the most stupid of these are those who write and/or have "Dirt sheets". Which to me is the reason for the "war" between them and the dirt sheets and the IWC. Here's the question; Daniel Bryan is beloved by the dirt sheets and the IWC and wants him to be pushed and ultimately win the title at WM 30 and we know of the opinion of Vince with the dirt sheets/IWC. Is he being Lucy with football and the DB fans are Charlie Brown with this push that he loses at WM 30? In that "You want it, you got it," booking is a ruse because now he's getting beaten down by Triple H and damaging Bryan's shoulder to the point that I can hear Michael Cole now with "He gave it all. But the damage to his shoulder meant that he couldn't give it his best!" to screw over the stupid marks.
So obviously not.
Now, here's the thing: I can't tell you the attitude that Vince and the WWE has to fans, I can't tell you how TNA or ROH thinks of them. I can barely tell you how Australian Indy Wrestlers react, so this is conjecture of the highest order, but the thing about the IWC is that it's not hatred as it is resigned annoyance.
Because the IWC has this nasty habit of not only thinking they understand the business (which, to be honest, a good chuck DO), but that they are critical of the product and support other companies.
Vince wants everyone buying his stuff only. So while the IWC is buying the Network and the Games and stuff, they're also buying other stuff, and that's money Vince would prefer to have. The tweeting and the message board discussion, that's annoying, and wrong in his mind, sure, but that's not the problem. The problem is getting all the money. And the IWC are ‘educated' customers.
You don't want that. You want wallets with legs.
I'm sure Vince would disagree with me, both in public and in private, but that seems like the issue to me, simply because complaining about the IWC thinking it knows the business is something you say but if you're genuinely upset at that, congratulations on having woken up from cryogenic storage from at best the early 80's…
The Final question is about Vince's booking and attitude towards guys that where successful elsewhere come into the company. Since the early 80s it was obvious to me that Vince had the attitude of "If I didn't make you! You're no-one until I make you!" which leads to what some would call "bad" booking and I'm not talking about a "company rite of passage". Again using Daniel Bryan as example and how he was negatively booked and the related complaints. Why don't the (especially the older) dirt sheets/IWC and fans don't realise this?
My next door neighbour gets up every morning, and goes outside and drops his pants and pisses on his lemon tree in his front yard. He claims it's helping the tree grow, and at worst it's not hurting it, but it's still a stupid thing to do, can be disgusting at times and regardless of how long or how often he does it, I will still complain about it, because it's still a crappy thing to do, no matter how much he does it.
Yes, Vince has a mentality that he has to make you if he's gonna push you. And regardless of whatever justification he can have, at the end of the day, it's a waste of talent. Today it's not such a big deal given that you've got NXT to sort this out before they get to the main show, but how much talent has Vince wasted because he didn't create it? Sure, he's done it for decades, and will continue to do it until the day he retires and/or dies, that doesn't mean we should excuse it, or accept it.
Obviously it means when we complain about it we need to be realistic about the affect it'll have, because it will be none, but still feel free to complain about it. You have every right to do so.
Nicholas wants to discuss Edge/Hardy.
I know you may have answered this one before, but I can't remember it, so I figure I might as well put it in for consideration. I was re-watching SummerSlam in 2005 (mostly for the Rey vs Eddie "I'm Your Papi!" match and Y2J/Cena), but was a little curious about match timing. The Matt Hardy versus Edge match followed a United States championship match that ended by submission in rather brief fashion. The battle they had was brutal, but incredibly brief, due to Hardy getting busted open after landing face-first on the ring post. Considering that the match was called immediately afterward, was that a botch? The way they played it off made Hardy look even more desperate and Edge even more vicious, but it was clear that Edge was a little bit out of sorts when the ref kept pushing him back. Considering everything, I really have no idea whether the busting was hard-way or if it was a worked shoot. Any clarification would be appreciated.
No, that was booked. He clearly holds himself up and then drops down and ‘hits' the ringpost. Also, the blood is wrong, if you get busted open shoot, it'll be an old wound, or a nose or mouth, or an eyebrow in a worse cast scenario. You don't tend to bleed from the forehead in a real fight.
So clearly there's a question of what the booking was trying to achieve. And as soon as I work that out, I'll let you know.
(OK, I sorta get that they wanted to put over Edge being slimy bastard and Hardy as a guy who wouldn't give up, but that wasn't the way to do it, unless you wanted to bury Hardy, which is a possibility, I suppose…)
Brian asks another ‘If WWE hired you…' question which seems more and more theoretical by the day…
If you earned yourself a WWE developmental deal, how would you hope your nationality might be portrayed? How might you be worried it could be depicted (for example, they could also bill you from Boggo Road).
Hope: It's mentioned in passing, in terms of ‘Hailing From…' and maybe a nickname or two, but it doesn't play into the gimmick at all. (Beyond one skit where an interviewer has both me and Emma there for some reason and assumes me and Emma know each other, I tell them off for ‘racism' in assuming all Australians must know each other, and then spend a minute on ‘Madison says Hi, by the way…' chatting.)
Expectation: I can't do a Crocodile Dundee voice, I don't sound Australian. So if I were going the silent route, then it doesn't really matter, and if they wanted an Aussie gimmick, I can do that, in that the Pissed Off Aussie Sportsman is a possibility. I mean, think about it, every sport on the planet, Aussies are up there. Swimming, Australia dominates. Greatest tennis player ever? Australian. Squash? Australian. Cricket? Australian. Aussies have won the Tour De France, The Masters, every football code other than Soccer (we're working on it) and American (which doesn't count), Australians will always get to the top of whatever sport you say.
Except one. No Australian has ever been WWE World Heavyweight Champion. Hell, no Australian has ever had a shot at the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. Why is that? Why is Australian Wrestling not on par with all the other sports? We invented tag team wrestling! After all, in Australia we have to take on every style, as an Australian Wrestler, I've beaten European Technical Geniuses, Mexican Lucha Libre Wizards, Japanese Strong Style Warriors, Canadian Bruisers, American Brawlers, African Savages, Samoan Giants and Quick Kiwis, I've mastered every style, I can beat anyone… And that's the rub. Clearly, the WWE is scared of an Australian winning the title. Because we'd never give it up.
And so on. Or I could team a Kiwi as Team Anzac, that'd work. And on that, I bid you goodbye, and I will hopefully return to usual next week. Good to be back!