Hidden Highlights Special 05.05.06: The Great Positivity Debate II – THE REVENGE!!!
Posted by JP Prag on 05.05.2006
This time it’s the Shimmy’s Andy Clark versus Truth B Told’s Bayani Domingo and you decide who really should have won Rant Wars II!
Hidden Highlights Presents…
THE GREAT POSITIVITY DEBATE II:
THE REVENGE!!
Intro
Hello great lovers of positivity, and welcome to the second ever Great Positivity Debate.
You must be saying to yourself, "Why are they having another one of these? Didn't Team Hidden Highlights defeat Team MeeThinks? Wasn't that all about deciding who really had the most positive article in the IWC? What is the point of this?"
Glad you asked.
I enjoyed the Great Positivity Debate immensely. Not only was it fun was beating Meehan…
Meehan: Actually, "Who cares…" won…
Shush you! Anyway, not only was it fun doing that, but it was extremely challenging.
You see, staying positive is tough work. It is very easy to let yourself slip into just spewing off hatred when you are upset instead of being constructive. What's even harder is to cut through all the muck and just talk about the good without the bad.
So I though to myself, "Who are two people who are really proud of their writing style, are in a feud, and would be willing to settle the score on a grand stage?"
And that brought us to today's players:
Andy Clark — Runner-up of Rant Wars II in 2005, Andy won over the hearts of millions when he debuted on January 1, 2006 with his column The Shimmy. Named after the late Eddie Guerrero's patented dance, Andy entertained his fans on Sunday afternoons for five months until he moved to Mondays on May 1. Since he has been here Andy has participated in all the staff roundtables and Wrestler of the Week discussions (well maybe not ALL), has appeared on Fact or Fiction (both the Wrestling and Sports versions) and is a frequent guest in Hidden Highlights. He anxiously awaits his payback on Bayani Domingo, the man who not only won Rant Wars II but also cost Andy his opportunity in the 411 Royal Rumble back in January.
Bayani Domingo — Bayani has been a wrestling fan since Scott Steiner was a brunette and The Rock still had those foot-long sideburns. The winner of Rant Wars 2: Electric Boogaloo, Bayani took his smarky brand of humor and went on to create, Truth B Told which has been moved recently from Fridays to Primetime Thursdays. He endeavors each week to bring you a little bit controversy, a few laughs, and a whole lot of El Dandy. Neither El Dandy NOR Bayani are to be doubted.
And then there is me, tonight's moderator:
JP Prag — 411mania writer for over a year, JP has challenged past misconceptions with his premier article "In Defense Of…". When "In Defense Of…" was promoted to a Wednesday slot, JP used the opportunity to launch his other vision: Hidden Highlights. Hidden Highlights was designed to point out all those little things that make a huge difference. Together with partner James "JT" Thomlison, the duo work diligently to make sure they live up to the title "Most positive article in the IWC".
JT: Yet I wasn't even asked to be a part of this! How's that for gratitude?
JP: Oy vay… Ok, now with the rules:
I will list ten topics
Each side may have only one response to each topic
The response to the topic can be no more than 500 words
The response to the topic must be the most positive thing that side can think up
The positive response must be something that side believes in (honor code in effect)
The first five topics will be answered first by one side, and then the two shall switch answering order
At the end, you the readers will vote who is the winner
And then there is the prize…
At the end of the debate, you the readers will vote on the following question:
Who won the second ever Great Positivity Debate and who should have won Rant Wars II in the first place?
The winner takes home all the bragging rights.
I want to make it clear. Neither of these two competitors are fighting for who is more positive. Instead, they are fighting over who has more skill. Think of them this way:
Andy is Kurt Angle. Bayani is Chris Benoit. In the normal stage (WWE) they fight a certain way. They may cheat a lot, have outside interference, etc…. But now they are on my stage (ROH), and they have to fight a certain way. It constrains them. It forces them to be creative and think outside their comfort zone. That is what this is all about. It's not about who is the most positive in real life, it's about who can write the best and make the most valid points in the constraints that I have set. Please keep that in mind as this moves forward.
So, do you both agree to these rules and the prize that is at stake?
Andy: If Bayani doesn't want to pussy ou—
Bayani: Wait, this isn't enough for me.
JP: What do you mean?
Bayani: I've already kicked Andy's ass before. I need to take this up a notch.
JP: Like a steal cage match?
Andy: I'll put up anything you've got!
Bayani: Fine then. Here's the bet: Whoever wins gets to name the loser's column for a whole month.
Andy: Oh, I've got the perfect name for you column…
Bayani: And I'm going to call yours "Fruity Andy's Gay Superbowl with Rhinos".
Larry: Don't you think you bitches should have cleared this with me first?
JP: Whoops! Too late now. So is it a deal?
Larry: WAIT A MINUTE!!!
Andy: Deal.
Bayani Deal.
JP: All right then. Since Andy was moderator last time, he has home field advantage. I expect good things from you both. Let's get this underway!
JP says… Play that funky music!
Topic 1: Christian Cage's title reign
JP: Christian Cage's first title reign as NWA Heavyweight Champion has taken a backseat to the story of Jeff Jarrett vs. Sting. Is this a good decision by TNA management?
Andy: Up until the Lockdown PPV I would have agreed with you on that point, even mentioning so much in my column. However, judging by the time and overall attention that they gave to Christian-Abyss over Lethal Lockdown and you can see where TNA's priorities really are. Lethal Lockdown needed to be in the main event slot because it was their big gimmick match, just like how the Royal Rumble Match is almost always on last at the Royal Rumble PPV. Outside of the whole "Don West goes crazy" deal with AJ's splash off the ladder, there wasn't much emotion involved in that match. Compare that to the storytelling that actually occurred during the NWA Title Match (something TNA has been known for lacking) and it almost seems as if TNA consciously put more effort behind that match as opposed to Lethal Lockdown where they just threw eight guys out there to do their thing. By the looks of things coming out of the Impact Tapings, it appears as if the Christian-Abyss feud will be the true main event at Sacrifice, putting the spotlight back on the title. Sting and Steiner are new toys for TNA, so they're playing with them while they still hold our attention. Christian Cage and Abyss are our favorite toys, though, old reliable, a fact that TNA, and their fans, surely know. Compare the cheers that Christian Cage gets compared to Sting. Sure, Sting gets some nostalgia pops, but both TNA and the fans in the Impact Zone are aware of the fact that Christian Cage is their bread and butter.
Bayani: To me its pretty clear that TNA is pushing Sting's involvement into the spotlight. It pains me to say this because I love me some Cap'n, but I think for the time being it's the right thing to do. Sting is on a one year contract and you have to use him as much as you can. The whole reason he was brought in was because Spike TV wanted TNA to get some bigger names. They did just that and managed to slap WWE in the face by signing one of the only guys they never could. In fact TNA has managed to do that 3 times prior by getting Samoa Joe, Christian, and retaining AJ Styles. That has to serve some kind of notice. The fact is that Sting is here mainly for the "Network" so pushing him is one reason they even moved to Thursdays. They might even be able to parlay this into a second hour *fingers crossed*.
Relations with "The Network" aren't the only benefit either as more casual fans may be aware of TNA now. They are obviously aiming to get back those WCW fans they just stopped watching wrestling instead of switching to WWE. I think for the time being Sting should be showcased until his contract runs out and I think an eventual clash with TNA torch bearers like Samoa Joe, AJ Styles, Christian, Monty Brown, or Abyss are inevitable. How else is he going to be able to give people the "rub" unless he's pushed as a big deal. Right now Christian doesn't have the same notoriety to give that kind of rub. Besides, I think not being in the "Main Event" of a PPV doesn't necessarily mean you're on the backburner. Hell, Andy mentioned the Royal Rumble and how that was really the focus of the PPV without actually being in the "main event" slot. Christian isn't being hurt by letting Sting shine for the time being, in fact it makes him look like a real "company man" while also paying respect to one of the great legends of the business. I have to say though that while I do agree with letting Sting shine a little bit more than Christian right now I think its for a very important reason. Sting has the ability to give several guys "the rub" right now while Christian doesn't have the ability yet. So far Ron Killings, Rhyno, AJ, and now Sting's new partner for Sacrifice (don't worry, no spoilers here) are all going to benefit from that. Shoot, if anything I'm impressed, even Lita hasn't been able to rub all 4 of those guys yet. Which clearly means one thing: Sting > Lita. You can't argue with math people… you just can't.
JP: Andy – 265 words. Bayani – 459 words.
Topic 2: God in wrestling
JP: Recently, Vince McMahon has booked a match involving God, has had God doing pyrotechnics, and has brought Shawn Michael's religious convictions to the surface. In the past, many wrestlers have thanked God and/or Jesus for their wins, and others have used their religion (IE Islam) to get over as a heel. Does religion belong in wrestling?
(Editor's Note: Andy answered this question before Backlash and Bayani answered it after, so their answers are peppered by the timing.)
Andy: Let's get this out of the way now: in a perfect world, wrestling could be the center of a wrestling show. That being said, we don't live in a perfect world. Ratings have proven that Diva Searches and Live Sex Shows actually pop a nice rating, while some heavily promoted wrestling matches just draw an average rating. Many wrestlers, as talented as they may be individually, need a special trait or gimmick to put them over the top and some storylines need to be spiced up a bit. Wrestling storylines tap into a wide arrange of emotions and are based on many different events, some stemming from real life and some just happening in the convoluted world of sports entertainment. Religion is a part of real life, something that everyone can relate to, whether the love it, hate it, or lie somewhere in between. Many people have been known to call wrestling a "soap opera for guys," and while that may be a bit stereotypical, the sentiment is noted: wrestling on television is a drama, and as such should be able to utilize the same dramatic elements as Law & Order, ER, or and other television show. Has religion never been mentioned on any other television show? Even still, has there not been a fictional character that had their religion be a focal point to their personality? Up until the whole "faux decapitation" bit I didn't hear an overwhelmingly negative response to Muhammad Hassan and no one seems to mind all of Shawn Michaels' t-shirts with Christian overtones. It seems people only complain about using religion in wrestling when they suddenly feel offended, despite whether or not others feel offended themselves. Athletes invoke the name of God every time they give an interview and no one pays any mind, so why the issue with a wrestler thanking God post-match? Sure the outcome is pre-determined, but hey, wouldn't it be God's idea to give the idea to the booker anyway? In an entertainment media like professional wrestling, every topic should be fair game from sex to violence to religion. Amen.
Bayani: Religion in wrestling is like a fat chick at a club. I think that says it all. Okay, next question.
What? I thought that was pretty self explanatory. No? Okay, FINE then… well fat chicks at clubs are just inevitable. No one really wants them there, no one really invited them to the party, but somehow they end up there, we just try to ignore them and go about our business. The problem is that fat chicks are usually there because they are part of a package deal. You're really there to see the hotness that the club usually offers (i.e. AJ Styles, Sting, HBK, Jake Roberts, Etc.) but for some reason with the hotness comes the fat chick. You can't get around it. Now while the fat chick (religion) is more or less tolerated, it is in no way welcomed nor does it really belong there. We just don't care enough to really do anything about it. The fat chick is in the corner, with her drink minding her own business and we usually just leave her there and don't give her a second thought. But what Vince McMahon is doing is not only bringing the fat chick out of the corner, he's buying her body shots, he's getting her plastered, and he's convincing her to dance on the top of the bar topless. That's just fucked up Vinny Mac….fucked…..up!!
I never really got behind the Muhammed Hassan gimmick after they turned it uber racial and religious. I didn't like the idea of basically vilifying all Arab and Muslim people for the sake of a storyline. If they took any other religion and did so I would be appalled. Could you imagine what would happen if they ran similar religiously charged angle with any other religion? Say if Billy Kidman had been using the "Shooting Star of David Press" as a finisher or if Goldberg came back to battle DDP in a "Pork Sandwich on a pole match". Horrible, just horrible. While I do agree that just about every facet of real life has been used in wrestling and will continue to be used in wrestling, I do not condone them using religious or racial overtones in storylines. Especially when it becomes preachy to the audience and starts swaying public opinion, consciously or not about what religions or races are good or evil. Think about it. Muhammed Hassan was "evil", i.e. so are Arabs and those of the Muslim faith. While HBK is "good", hence Christianity and shirtless white men with leather pants and pony tails…wait… does that seem like an oxymoron to anyone else?
Bottom line is that while religion, like fat chicks, are tolerated in wrestling. I don't think they really belong. We just kind of accept that they are there, welcome or not, and just to to focus on the real hotness we came to the club. Unless of course you're Andy Clark, I mean, that guy is a serious chubby chaser. He once told me sex with a fat chick is like a 3-way with 2 skinny broads.
JP: Andy – 349 words. Bayani – 513 words.
Topic 3: Keeping them grounded
JP: The WWE Cruiserweights on SmackDown! have been told to tone down their style to a safer, more mat based series of moves. How is this good decision for the cruiserweight division?
Andy: This is certainly a tough point to make because, let's face it, everyone likes seeing a bunch of little guys fly around for ten minutes. A match like that is an instant gratification for fans who can get hit with spot after spot and not have to worry about pesky things like ring psychology. The place where this worked best was in WCW, who really helped pioneer cruiserweight wrestling in America. The thing is WCW had a seemingly endless supply of cruiserweights, one of the benefits for the huge roster WCW employed. This allowed for their cruiserweights to be relatively replaceable, bringing in people from ECW, the Indies,and overseas. WWE does not have as big of a cruiserweight roster, and there really isn't much of a reason to have a big one since they don't focus heavily on it. Therefore, they can't run the risk of their cruiserweights getting injured. Remember back in WCW when it seemed like Rey Mysterio was getting a knee surgery every other month? Cruiserweights would disappear and you wouldn't be sure if they got injury or fired (I'm looking at you Psiciosis)?
WWE needs their cruiserweights to stay healthy for three reasons: 1) They often serve as enhancement talent. Say what you will about the actually use of the cruisers as enhancement talent, but the fact it that they are often needed in that capacity; 2) They need them for their tag division. Look at the tag division on SmackDown. You've got the Mexicools, London & Kendrick, Noble & Kash, and Scotty & Funaki all working in tag teams, plus Nunzio teaming with Vito. If WWE were to let their cruiserweights go nuts and they got injured, not only would their cruiserweight division take a blow, but so would their tag team division. 3) Just in case. Remember in 2003 when they tried giving Jamie Noble a push outside of the cruiserweight division? Any guess as to why it was Noble they pushed instead of Shannon Moore? Or how about all the attention guys like Tajiri and Chavo Guerrero often got in the midcard? Those guys are more reliable higher in the card because their style of wrestling doesn't lend them to being hurt. These men were cruiserweights that wouldn't have to be changed in order to fit the main event style. This way, by toning down the cruiserweight, if they ever wanted to push someone like Kid Kash in order to fill a hole in the midcard, they could depend on his staying relatively safe.
Bayani: Isn't Gregory Helms working with a broken nose right now? Didn't Kid Kash break his arm recently as well? All this happened AFTER the WWE told the cruisers to tone down their style too. I mean, we wouldn't want the cruisers getting hurt at the rate they had before. Like when Chavo got hurt after Kidman botched his SSP. Or when….um… and then … uh. Wait, what did the Cruisers ever get hurt before? I think the WWE is using the Chavo injury last year as a reason to change the CW style. Its clear they never really wanted a CW division but had to in order to compete with WCW and the division just kind of stuck around so they'd have some little guys to feed to their mid-card and main event guys when they needed to. I think now the WWE is trying to keep most of the CW's away from TNA rather than actually competing with the X-division. That is why they are toning down the style of most of the cruisers right now.
What I find funny about Andy's response is that he seems to think that prior to the CW's being "grounded" that they were all injury prone. That wasn't the case. In fact, when you look at how often CW's are inured compared to the big guys, it isn't even close. Do you really think Batista was hurt after Mark Henry botched an 450 splash (the rotation not the weight)? Was Kane or Edge hurt from any no hands planchas? Ashley got hurt taking a simple bump to the outside. It isn't the moves that are causing injury, but rather not learning how to take moves or not being protected by your opponent. I would think that if the CW's are used to pulling out "high risk" moves and taking said moves, they would stand less of a chance of getting injured than working a style they aren't as accustomed to. PLUS the fact that no one wants to see a CW pull off DDT as a finishing move if they can pull off a Phoenix Splash.
WWE has some great athletes who are able to get over based on their athleticism and moves in the ring. Denying them the ability to use those moves and get over is just plain wrong. I think the real reason WWE is grounding the cruisers is because it puts everyone on more equal ground and doesn't expose the other sub-par workers they have who can't pull off flashier, or even basic wrestling moves. This is just like making the accelerated learners in class do remedial work since the rest of the class can't keep up, instead of getting the slower learners up to speed and challenging them to do better. Why hold back a talented worker just so the other wrestlers can feel better about their lumbering offense. But then again, its not like Vince himself would do any unnecessarily dangerous stunts just to get himself over…right?
JP: Andy – 421 words. Bayani – 500 words.
Topic 4: Video Library
JP: The WWE has the largest video library in the world when it comes to wrestling and can use it any way they see fit. Does the WWE have the right to create videos such as the "Self Destruction of the Ultimate Warrior" and the proposed "Screwed: The Bret Hart Story" before Hart got involved in the project?
Andy: Remember the old saying "He who wins the war gets to write the history books?" Well that applies perfectly here. WWE has won the war, at least against everybody that they now own video of, so why shouldn't they be entitled to document things the way they see fit? In fact, this could be quite the economic idea, by having a negative DVD like "Self Destruction" and then, when WWE and Warrior finally mend fences they can put out a pro-Warrior DVD as well.
It's not like WWE is really going after some arbitrary superstars, either. There was an interest in hearing some of the negative stories about Ultimate Warrior, just as there probably would have been an interest in a documentary on the Montreal Screwjob. I doubt very seriously we'll see "Fuck Ups of Shawn Michaels" any time soon, but that doesn't mean they can't market a DVD about the Kliq. The fact of the matter is that a DVD that talks about some of the Ultimate Warrior's meltdowns would probably sell better than a DVD of Warrior's best matches, therefore that's the route WWE went on.
WWE isn't really rewriting history like some claim, either. Was there more to the Ultimate Warrior than his craziness or is there more to Bret Hart than the screwjob? Sure there is. But that doesn't mean that the occurrences that WWE chose to examine on their DVDs didn't happen. WWE owns the footage of many different wrestlers from many different promotions, which legally gives them the right to do whatever they want with it. They gave Warrior the chance to participate in his DVD and he declined, and we saw the results. Bret Hart on the other hand took WWE up on their offer to get involved and his DVD was all the better because of it. The bottom line is that it is WWE's footage to do with as they please, and if anybody wants to prevent WWE from doing something with their likeness that they would not approve of, then I'm sure they'll have the opportunity to do so.
Bayani: Aww Yes, a "Revisionists History" argument. The fact of the matter is that WWE used the Ultimate Warrior DVD to make an example out of him and show anyone who didn't want to cooperate with the WWE that they could bury them as well. This wasn't a case of Bret Hart wanting to work with Vince, but rather not wanting to be buried and not wanting to disappoint his fans by having the WWE rip him a new one. Using the argument that there was more interest in seeing Warrior in a negative light than seeing a "Best of" type DVD is the same reason that the National Enquirer or Entertainment Tonight exists. People love celebrities…but we love them more when they are at their worst and most vulnerable. Sure there are some people who'd want to see Britney Spears now in a bathing suit by the pool. But who DOESN'T want to see "fat Britney" with no shoes or make up on coming out of a 7-11 with a big box of Chili Cheese nachos? Which…by the way are DELICIOUS. After 2 am. When you're drunk.
We love seeing people fall from grace after we've hoisted them on a pedestal, but that doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. Does WWE have the right to show whoever they want in any light that they choose? Yes they do, they own the footage, legally they can do whatever they want up to a certain point. I mean, I'd hate to see "Sting: The Untold Baby eating story" out on video shelves anytime soon. But as we all know, "Legal" and "Morally Right" aren't always one in the same. So while WWE has the legal authority to do what they please with the footage they have. They do have an obligation to the fans to present the truth, when possible, when portraying the characters and men and women who put so much of themselves into the company. You can either make a buck or you can make a legacy, it's up Vince to decide what's more important to him right now. Although, I am looking forward to the 2007 release of "Brock Lesner: Gay as they come" from WWE productions.
JP: Andy – 349 words. Bayani – 371 words.
Topic 5: ROH = Wrestling
JP: ROH is often acclaimed for having some of the best wrestling matches in North America. Yet compared to the WWE and even TNA, its audience is extremely small. Are these wrestlers wasting their abilities and putting too much of their body on the line for such a small audience?
Andy: The answer to this is pretty easy, and that is a solid "No." I've made no bones about my dislike for some ROH fans overestimating ROH's value, but that doesn't mean that they'll aren't an influential and integral part of the wrestling landscape. This particular question can be answered in two ways.
1) The wrestlers love to perform. Sure, they may not be working for WWE or even TNA, but I think most wrestlers will tell you that they just love going out there and doing what they do best in front of an audience, no matter how big or small. I'm sure that most wrestlers would love the chance to wrestle in front of 20,000 people at a major event, but many I'm sure would just like to be able to showcase their talents in front of an appreciative crowd. Look at current ROH Champion Bryan Danielson. Considered by many to be the best wrestler in the world, Danielson has stated that as long as he is ROH Champion, he will not be accepting a job for either WWE or TNA. While this doesn't really make sense monetarily, it does prove the satisfaction that Danielson feels just performing in front of the smaller ROH crowd. I hardly think that Danielson feels like he is "wasting his abilities" by putting on outstanding matches in Ring of Honor, and I think most wrestlers would be willing to put their bodies on the line (to a certain degree) for their Indy fans.
2) ROH is a great place to showcase your skills. OK, so Bryan Danielson won't leave ROH yet. That doesn't mean that once his ROH Title run is up that he wouldn't entertain the idea, and what better way to show your value to a promotion that to point to the body of work you had in ROH? CM Punk and Paul London have been the only notable WWE pick ups from ROH, but TNA has picked up some of their key players from ROH, including AJ Styles, Samoa Joe, and Christopher Daniels. What frame of reference did WWE and TNA have to judge these wrestlers in? That's right, Ring of Honor. Hell, Jamie Noble, pretty much just your run-of-the-mill midcarder in WWE went on to become an Indy super hero just off of his work in ROH alone, something that eventually landed him a job back with the ‘E. Much in the same way as ECW was a minor league for the WWF and WCW back in the day, ROH is a proving ground for the superstars of WWE and TNA today. As a result of these two theories the wrestlers that compete for ROH need to go all out when performing in order to both enjoy the appreciation of their fans and to constantly look good for the big boys.
Bayani: When you say "Audience" I assume you mean the live audience right? Because RoH actually makes a ton more money on their DVD releases. So really the wrestlers aren't just putting their bodies on the line for a few hundred fans, but also for the thousands of fans who buy the DVD. I am going to agree on most of the stuff Andy talked about. I know that seeing a lot of the RoH/TNA guys in the ring you can tell that they really love wrestling and performing for the crowds. Most of those guys just aren't good enough actors to fake that kind of thing. To me RoH has to be considered almost on pair with TNA and just barely behind WWE in terms of significance. I know that sounds crazy, but a lot of the moves you see now a days are coming out the Indy's, RoH is a pioneer of a lot of the crazy X-Division moves, as well as a few that WWE wrestlers have stolen. Also RoH has indeed been a "D-League" of sorts for WWE and TNA so going all out for the crowd serves as much as an adrenaline rush and thank you to the fans, as it does provide a platform for the wrestlers to move on to bigger and better things in TNA or WWE.
Now while the "joy of performing" and the potential to be "discovered" by one TNA or WWE is a good reason to put your body on the line night in and night out, there is still one more reason. If not now, when? There are guys like Danielson, Nigel McGuinness, Colt Cabana, Jack Evans, etc who either haven't had the opportunity to get a spot in TNA or WWE or guys like Jimmy Yang, or James Gibson who either were or are looking at a 2nd chance by reinventing themselves in RoH. Those are the guys who have a chance of actually getting picked up by one of the "Big Two". There are other guys like Jimmy Jacobs, Delirious, and Tony Mamaluke are just never going to end up with a permanent spot on a TNA or WWE roster. So for them, and many other guys RoH is there "Big Time", to borrow a pun. So for a lot of these guys who have dreams of being WWE and TNA wrestlers, they know it will never happen, but putting on the best performance they can in an armory in Philadelphia is about as close to the big stage as they can get, so why not put it all on the line? One day about a year from now CM Punk will be signing autographs outside an arena in the Midwest and chances are the fans out there aren't going to be asking him to sign a WWE photo taken from his match against Trevor Murdoch on Heat, it will be a black and red DVD produced from a little "Indy Fed" on the East coast.
JP: Andy – 472 words. Bayani – 499 words.
JP says… I like to move it, move it!
Topic 6: Dixie on timeslots
JP: In a recent interview the Wrestling Epicenter, Dixie Carter said that if TNA wanted an earlier timeslot, they could take it, it just isn't what they want right now. Is she telling the truth? And if so, is she right that the current timeslot is better than an earlier one?
Bayani: Dixie, Dixie, Dixie. First off I wanna congradulate you on becoming the first alumni of "Designing Women" to own your own wrestling company. Quite impressive. Next I want to congradulate you on being able to keep that same zest and zeal you had as an actress and putting on quite a performance in that interview. Its like when Clark was telling me that he "Could have worked for PWinsider, but enjoyed the ‘underdog' appeal that 411 had". Or when Cook said he COULD have gotten a date with Traci Brooks when she was wrestling in the Mid-West but preferred his right hand instead. Pure and utter fiction.
I think the only way that the statement she made was true is if they were offered the choice between 11 am and 11 pm and choose the later slot instead. The other way is if they were offered a slot only if they sign a big named wrestler that they decided they didn't want to, or couldn't bring in and decided not to pursue that avenue. I think this is all a matter of "spin" and right now I think Dixie should be happy for a Thursday slot as is without having it sound like TNA handpicked the time themselves.
Now the question is rather vague because an "earlier one" could mean anything in terms of timeslots. If the question is: Is the current TNA timeslot the best one they could have? Then the answer is no. But 11 pm on a Thursday beats out just about every possible timeslot with the exception of perhaps 10 pm. The problem is that Thursday nights are still traditionally a packed night and it would be hard for Impact to compete with most primetime shows. So while 11 pm isn't HORRIBLE, a 10 pm slot would definitely have been a lot better for those of us who aren't up anyways playing Everquest in our mom's basement. According to JBL that is. If at some point TNA gets to take over the 10 pm timeslot and extend their show to 2 hours I think you will end up with probably the best timeslot for them at the time. There is no sense in going head to head with RAW when they have yet to grow their audience by enough to even offer any realistic competition. Why expose your weaknesses and risk the deflation of backstage morale when you don't have to. It's the same reason why Andy wears t-shirts in the swimming pool until he drops those "5 extra lbs".
Andy: I can't honestly say that I believe Dixie Carter in this instance, but I definitely agree that this is the best place for them right now. As of now TNA has not proved that they can bring in a substantial fan base. As such, Spike TV seems interested in packaging TNA with their UFC programming and seeing what becomes of it, and until TNA really gets their act together there isn't any reason to treat them differently. TNA presents a nice wrestling addition for the "first network for men" but Spike is currently banking on The Ultimate Fighter in the same way that they used to bank on Raw, and treating TNA as they did with TUF when it first started out. I do think that Spike TV is receptive to eventually giving TNA a better timeslot, possibly even a choice one, but at this stage in the game TNA hasn't really warranted it.
Bayani is right in stating that a timeslot being "earlier" is rather vague as the Spike surely has the leverage there. Not much of a timeslot could be worse than their old one on Wednesday at 3 am in Japan or whatever the hell Fox Sports had them on. TNA is more or less an experiment for Spike and if Dixie Carter or anyone else in the TNA front office were to think anything different there's no telling what slot Spike could put them in. Remember, even though it is a different name this is still the same channel that screwed over ECW back in the day and I hardly doubt that they'd have some sort of problem doing the same thing to a company that at this point probably has less notoriety.
JP: Bayani – 424 words. Andy – 287 words.
Topic 7: Stacy has got dollar signs
JP: It was recently revealed that Stacy Kiebler was being paid $125,000 a year by the WWE, yet made $200,000 for her few episodes of Dancing with the Stars. Does the WWE pay its talent enough given the number of days they work and the toll they put on their body?
Bayani: This is kind of a tough question because WWE salaries vary greatly. Without going employing my Economics Degree it would be hard for me to exactly quantify what each wrestler is actually worth. Right off the bat, let's not going with the argument that professional athletes / movie stars get millions of dollars a year and that "wrestlers" should be commiserate with that kind of salary because they are both athletes and actors. That just ain't going to happen. You need to kind of look at what a minor league ball player or stuntman might make to have a more realistic figure. Now while guys like Kurt Angle, HHH, Undertaker, and HBK are making $1 million PLUS, there are other guys who are putting in the same amount of work on Heat or at House Shows or PPV's that are being paid $100,000 to $200,000 a year. Now is 200K a good salary for you and me? Hell yeah it is. As it would be for a Firefighter, Police Officer, Construction worker, or anyone else who has a more dangerous job.
There is a saying that goes, "Something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it". I think that is the case here. I doubt that the WWE "Superstars" could find anywhere else to work that would pay them as much as they get now. I don't see the WWE paying them anymore because quite frankly they don't have to. They also aren't being out bid on any of their talent so why even broach the subject. Basically most of these guys are working around 2 to 3 days a week and making between $1,000 to $2,000 an appearance. Not too shabby when you look at what most Indy guys make, especially when they are working a much less dangerous WWE style while not being forced to take the same kind of bumps.
While I agree that some of these guys are overpaid compared to what some of the other WWE guys get. When you take the WWE salaries out of the vacuum and compare them to other wrestler's salaries then they seem totally legit. I think we tend to look at wrestlers and compare them to other professions, or even to guys like Vince of Linda McMahon, but I think when you take the WWE and compare it to the rest of the industry, their salaries are pretty much in line with what they should be. The only reason to argue they deserve a raise is if the WWE was reporting higher and higher profits and you felt that the dividends should go to the wrestlers instead of the management. While I do agree with that. All it means is that the wrestlers should be getting more than they do now, not that they aren't getting a fair wage currently. Then again, Lita makes close to $300K. Man…suckin' dick sure does pay well. Right Andy?
Andy: I don't know, B, I'll be sure to ask your girlfriend the next time I see her. On to the question at hand, have we learned nothing from WCW? Look, being a professional wrestler is as hard as an entertainment-style job as there is. Travel, injuries, the toll on family life, and being ultimately disposable are all tough situations that I think most fans can agree deserves compensation. The only problem is that like in all entertainment venues there has to be some sort of hierarchy, the main eventers need to get more than the job guys just on principle alone. Tom Cruise gets paid more money to do a movie than Peter Sarsgard and Peyton Manning gets paid more to play football than Ken Dorsey, that's just how the world works. In wrestling though, outside of a few people its hard to work a contract out to fit around a person's place on the card. Case in point: Eugene. Two years ago Eugene was a borderline main eventer, the hottest ticket in the company. If this were football his agent would have demanded a contract extension or some other sort of compensation for performing so well. If this were a movie he could have held up production until he got more money. But look at Eugene now. From being in a co-main event at SummerSlam to jobbing to Lance Cade on Heat, what would have happened had WWE paid him a main event level salary when he was big? You can't offer people large chunks of money in a cyclical business; otherwise you end up writing everyone on your roster a huge check, just like WCW did.
WWE seems to have the best idea when it comes to incentive based deals, something that the NFL has picked up on in recent years. You'll be compensated if house show attendance goes up due to your work, you'll get a bigger chunk of change if your merchandise sells more, and you'll probably get a vote of confidence from the front office if you prove your worth. Edge had a highly successful if short lived title reign this past January. Before January do you think WWE would let Edge take some time off if he needed it? Probably not. But after seeing how successful Edge could be in a prominent role, you can bet anything that his leverage with the company has increased. Wrestling is not so much about making the most money it is being able to help dictate your own business, whether it be creative control, TV time, or time off, something that WWE seems to have down OK.
JP: Bayani – 489 words. Andy – 439 words.
Topic 8: WWE Films
JP: WWE Films is set to launch Eye Scream Man on May 19th, the Marine starring John Cena in September October, and has begun pre-production of the Condemned starring Steve Austin. Is WWE Films a good use of the the WWE's profit, or is it set to fail like the World Bodybuilding Federation, the XFL, and SmackDown! Records?
Bayani: Man, I totally forgot about Smackdown! Records. Then again, so did everyone else. The Bodybuilding Federation and XFL are also classic blunders that just make you pine for the days of "Brawl For It ALL" and the old "Gravy Boat" matches. Lets look at a few movies that starred The Rock: The Scorpion King ($36.1 M opening weekend), The Rundown ($18.5 M), and Walking Tall ($15.5 M) all grossed over $15 million for just their opening weekend. Now while Kane doesn't have the same kind of name Cache' of one Dwayne Johnson, the chances are that Stone Cold and John Cena could be pretty close. Well really all a movie has to do is make about a million dollars to at least have a satisfactory return on investment. I would doubt that any of the movies set to be released cost more than $10 million to make and based on just the opening weekend for some of The Rock's films one would have to assume that they would at least gross that much during their theater run.
Even if they didn't make that much in the theaters you also have DVD sales and possible syndication later on the USA Network. I would pretty much guarantee that the WWE isn't going to lose any money on this deal and at the worst case scenario is probably going to be very close to making the minimal profit. What you also have to look at is that this is further publicity for the WWE as well as wider exposure for their wrestlers. When you consider that now the WWE can start waving a future acting and movie career in front of their current or potential wrestlers then the WWE seems like a more viable option as a company. TNA can't offer that kind of exposure right now and if I was a hot Indy talent trying to make a career decision I am probably swayed by what one company can offer me after my in-ring career is over than by the chance to work for an upstart federation.
While going into the Movie Biz may not be the BEST use of WWE's profits. It isn't a bad one either. Anytime you can try to capitalize on the popularity of your brand while exposing your current employees to future possibilities you have to take it. Sure there is a risk of John Cena or Kane getting so popular in Hollywood that they end up basically leaving the WWE like The Rock did, but you have to remember one thing: It's Kane and John Cena. Relax, unless the "Police Academy" franchise is opening up again soon, I think you can pretty much assume Hollywood ain't going to be knocking down the door anytime soon.
Andy: WWE has been making movies forever. Yeah, that's right. They are constantly making movies. Some of them are flops, some of them are hits, some are in between. Every January starts the beginning of blockbuster season and it normally lasts through March and early April. Occasionally they'll drop another blockbuster in August or in May, and lately they've been doing some Indy work in June. They are dramas, they are comedies, sometimes they are even softcore porn.
OK, so enough with the cute metaphors. The point is if WWE is going to be doing side projects, why not let it be something they know how to do? They know how to write stories and more often than not they know the difference between good storytelling and bad. They damn sure know how to produce; look no further than the PPV intros and feud video packages. Anybody ever marvel at how good they make a bad PPV look in their Encore Presentation commercials? And if the production values to their feature films are anything like they were for The Mania of WrestleMania, which was supposed to be the first WWE Films project, than they have nothing to worry about.
Bayani already covered the multiple ways that WWE could at the very least break even on these deals, and as Vince always says, any publicity is good publicity. Every newspaper in every major city in America is going to have to send a movie critic to cover their movies, meaning even if they suck, the names of Kane, Steve Austin, and John Cena will be in newspapers nationwide. This isn't a bad investment on behalf of WWE. I mean, have you looked at Kane's co-stars in See No Evil or Cena's in The Marine? WWE isn't exactly bringing in top quality actors here, meaning this shouldn't be costing them much. This is pretty much a no lose situation, and considering that it keeps Brian Gerwitz busy it should be considered a win-win for everybody.
JP: Bayani – 459 words. Andy – 332 words.
Topic 9: Shockmaster
JP: People often complain that the Shockmaster's premier in WCW was one of the worst things ever and ruined the career of Fred Ottman. Is this true?
Bayani: You invite THE most ELECTRIFYING writer at 411 on to participate in this so called "Great Positivity Debate" and you expect me to waste some 500 words on the SHOCKMASTER?? I ought to slap the dick out of your mouth for wasting my precious….PRECIOUS time Jay-Pee. But I hear JT bruises easily. Usually I wouldn't even dignify this kind of question with a response, but you know what? This gives me the opportunity to share with you a little info on the man I like to call Sho-Mizzle. In order to put a more positive "spin" on things, I'd like to say that Fred Ottman's career made Viscera's look amazing by comparison. Fred Ottman debuted with WWF as "Tug Boat" as he sided with Hulk Hogan against Earthquake. He later joined Earthquake and formed a tag team known as The Natural Disasters under the name Typhoon. This was the 2nd name chosen as Hurricane Fatty Fat Fat was turned down after they couldn't sew all of that on the back of his tights. Apparently they couldn't fit the last "T" on, cuz' that boy had one big fat ass. He went on to win the Tag Team titles once and then…. Jack shit.
When he went to WCW as the Shockmaster. Ottman was already hitting his mid to late 30's and was on the downside of what little career he had. To say that the "Shockmaster" gimmick ruined his career was wrong. Being fat and unable to work more than a 2 minute match without getting ‘blown up' was what ruined his career. Ottman was already on the downside of said career, HENCE, there was no way that his career was ruined by one horrible gimmick. Hell, remember a certain Evil Dentist who came back in a red mask? Or someone being the "Ring Master". Even one bad gimmick is salvageable so I don't see how if Ottman was truly a great worker or talent he couldn't have just figured a way to still be successful.
I will say that the "Shockmaster" debut was in fact one of the worst WCW premiers ever. This ranks up there with ‘The Yeti', KweeWee, and any gimmick they happened to come up with that week for Ed Leslie. Then again I think at the time it was perfectly logical to debut a wrestler wearing a glittery storm trooper mask, long fur vest, and busting through a paper mache' wall with pyrotechnics. I mean… it was the mid 90's, Russo and Ferrera were running wild and…let's face it… Cocaine's a hell of a drug.
Andy: Whaaa, whaaa, whaa. Sorry to disturb you, B, don't worry, I'll be brief; I don't NEED 500 words to defend this. Quite simply, the debut of The Shockmaster was not only NOT bad for Fred Ottman's career, it was the BEST THING that ever happened to it. OK, so yeah, he was Tugboat, a wrestler that aside from costing J.D. Dunn a girlfriend, was just another big dude from the 80's for Hogan to beat down. But then he comes to WCW and is hyped up as the Shockmaster. They really put the promotional blitz out on this guy, and what happens? He falls through the damn wall, ruining everything. Classic! Now every wrestling fan knows about Fred Ottman and just the shear mention of "Shockmaster" is enough to bring back memories just like the utterance of "Montreal" or "Katie Vick." Did being the Shockmaster and subsequently blowing his WCW debut ruin any credibility Fred Ottman had left in his career? Sure it did. But did it make him one of the most infamous wrestling superstars of all time? You damn right.
JP: Bayani – 430 words. Andy – 182 words.
Topic 10: Bloated Roster
JP: TNA only has one hour a week on free TV to get their guys over, put on quality matches, and built the PPVs. Yet their roster consists of over 50 people! Does TNA have too many people on the payroll for the amount of time they have?
Bayani: Let's do a comparison. WWE has roughly 40 – 50 guys on each show. They have 2 hours of TV time and each show runs a PPV every 2 months or so. Do they have too many people on their payroll for that amount of time? No. They just don't use their time wisely enough. TNA has a little under 50 actual wrestlers who aren't either suspended (Jeff Hardy), rarely make appearances (Kevin Nash), or aren't actually road agents who happen to occasionally wrestle (Diamond / Lynn). They have 1 hour of TV. So yes 50 ‘seems' excessive. But don't forget PPVs. You have to plan to have a few multi-man matches or tournaments, i.e. "X-world Cup". Even 50 isn't that many when you compare it to the ultimate symbol of roster excess. Back in the WCW days they had over 100 guys on the roster with guaranteed contracts just staying at home and collecting a check. TNA has only a handful of these guys signed to long term deals and most of their roster work on a pay per appearance basis. These guys thus far have a pretty tight pay roll so it's not like they are hemorrhaging money ala WCW.
I'm going to run out a few names here: Sonny Siaki, Kid Kash, Frankie Kazarian, Shannon Moore. All of these guys were TNA guys that left for WWE and you know what? It didn't seem to hurt them in the slightest. Why you ask? Well TNA's roster was big enough to absorb a few defections. If they built their show around 25 core wrestlers and lost 2 or 3 of them to the WWE, they'd probably be in a tail spin, but a roster that is slightly larger than they need is able to absorb the inevitable defections. Its simple economy of scales in this case. You need a little attrition when you are living on the edge by employing so many guys with non-guaranteed contracts.
When you think about it, having these guys paid on an "Appearance Basis" is more cost effective, but it is also riskier. There are always the threat of someone no showing because they got more money else where. There is also the danger of planning around a wrestler only to have the WWE snatch them up. But that is the risk you run when you don't have the deep pockets that the WWE and Vince McMahon. I will admit that they do not have enough time, period. TNA needs a 2nd hour to be even close to competitive with the WWE. That's not even debatable, but I think at this point they need to have a lot of people on hand just for the reasons I listed above. You need a Plan B, C, and D when you're trying to run with the "big boys" and right now TNA's roster is probably about where they have to be at.
Andy: You'd think that having as many people as TNA does would be a problem given that they only have one hour of national TV time (two if you count Xplosion which I don't) but it really isn't. Take a look at the TNA roster. Who, that isn't one of those exceptions Bayani listed, have you not seen on TV for a while? That's right, nobody except for Lance Hoyt. Somehow TNA manages to fit all 50+ of there wrestlers onto their shows and finds a (normally) acceptable way to get them on the PPVs. Perhaps it is the reliance on multi-man X-Division matches. Maybe it's the fact that they actually have a tag team division, matches that automatically fit at least four people in the mix. Look at their tag team division: AMW, Team 3D, Team Canada (which can be broke into two teams), The Naturals, Diamonds in the Rough, LAX, James Gang, Chris Sabin & Sonjay Dutt, Shark Boy & Norman Smiley, AJ Styles & Christopher Daniels, and Austin Aries & Roderick Strong. That's twelve tag teams. TNA manages to fit at least two tag team bouts on almost every PPV card, plus another possible tag match on the pre-show. Having a tag team division gets a lot more attention to a lot more of your roster. TNA also has the propensity to book a lot of main event level Six and Eight Man Tag Team Matches. In the past few months we've seen Rhino & Team 3D vs. Jarrett & AMW, the Eight Man War at Destination X, and Lethal Lockdown this past month. This helps get more people in the spotlight as well as help draw out feuds instead of giving away too much too soon.
TNA does an excellent job at giving their roster face time even with their limited amount of time. This past month at Lockdown TNA had 38 wrestlers involved in matches (including LAX and the James Gang for their involvement in the Arm Wrestling Contest; and really 40 if you want to include Gail Kim and Jackie Gayda), and still had time to give face time to Team Mexico, Larry Zybsko, Christy Hemme, and Raven. That's 46 wrestlers all getting face time on one PPV. Compare that to WWE's WrestleMania, the biggest show of the year for them and they even add an extra hour. WWE only managed to get 31 of their superstars on the show and they had more time to build them up. Compare: WWE has six hours of show a week and a four hour PPV and they couldn't fit their Tag Team Champions on the card. TNA has one hour of TV time and a three hour PPV and they can not only fit Shark Boy on the card but wrestlers FROM ANOTHER PROMOTION. The style of wrestling that TNA promotes lends itself to getting their wrestlers more exposure and thus validates the size of their roster.
JP: Bayani – 486 words. Andy – 490 words.
JP says… Fellas grab your girl, tell her that you love her, ‘cause that's the way you're livin' when you're livin' in living color!
JP: Well that was… well…
JT: Now can I contribute?!?!
JP: NO! This isn't about you, JT!
JT: But it is somehow about you?
JP: Errr…
Ok, now comes the hard part. You, the readers, need to make a decision. The polls will be open until Saturday May 13, 2006. The results will be announced in my article, Hidden Highlights, the next day.
JT: You mean OUR article.
JP: ……… Sigh……. So without further ado…
Let's Vote
Remember, beyond the bragging rights listed in the poll itself, the winner gets to name the loser's column for a month. With that in mind, please select your answer to the following question from the FIVE (5) options below…
Conclusion
Man, it's much more entertaining being on this side of the table.
Want a little fun fact before you go? Both Bayani and Andy made their Hidden Highlights debut in Issue #10 on November 6, 2005. So this really is the six month anniversary of that historical day. Neat, huh?
Thank you for participating in the second ever Great Positivity Debate. Remember, polls remain open until Saturday May 13, 2006 and the results will be posted in Hidden Highlights the following day. ‘Till then!
