High Road/Low Road 12.01.06: Batista vs. King Booker at Survivor Series
Posted by Chad Nevett on 12.01.2006
At the Survivor Series, Batista won the title. Was it a good idea to put the title on Batista or was it a bad idea? Did King Booker and Batista have a decent match or a bad match? You decide in this week's High Road/Low Road.
Welcome back to the High Road/Low Road! A brief explanation of the column: Uncle Trunx takes the Low Road (negative view) on angles, gimmicks, and other wrestling related "stuff" while Sat takes the High Road (positive view).
The Results for the Samoa Joe Versus Kurt Angle at Genesis:
High Road: 60%
Low Road: 40%
E-Mails:
These are all of the e-mails that we received this week. We do not respond to the actual e-mail, but the reply to your e-mail will be below.
John Bryant Writes:
Well technically they have done single PPV matches. The Royal Rumble for instance?
What are your thoughts on a potential Samoa Joe/AJ Styles v. Kurt Angle/Christopher Daniels tag match?
Sat: I think you misunderstood what I said about the pay per views. What I meant was that at Armageddon, there should always be a Hell in the Cell match. At No Way Out, there should always be a Punjabi Prison Match, and so on. The reason that Royal Rumble is so successful is that it always as the Royal Rumble Match. The WWE should try to make a staple for each of their pay per views.
That would be one hell of a match, but I do not see it happening.
Uncle Trunx: That match would be a bit of a clash of styles (no pun intended) although it could work as long as it wasn't booked as a spot fest. Personally, I think the number of gimmick based PPVs is fine at 2; Royal Rumble and Survivor Series, with King of the Ring also working to a lesser extent. Any more devalues the idea somewhat and means that the storylines are going to get even more contrived to work them all in.
Nathan Carter Writes:
* Puts up flame shield* Now before you guys decide to flame me, hear me out. This was another high/low road where I was split 49 / 51% and had to go with low road. Now there was nothing wrong with the match itself. However the reason I went low road was because I do not like the way the match was booked and the way the match panned out. I am one of the ones that feel that it was way to soon for this match to happen in TNA. There was really no reason for these guys to want to fight each other and it really seemed like the only way there were in the match was because of the obvious great match they could have, Angle vs. Joe. I think there should have been more of a build and an actual legitimate reason for Joe and Angle to fight each other. Now the match itself I thought was excellent, MOTYC. However I felt as though the match could have been longer and Joe should have gone over to extend the feud further. It would have made more sense for Joe to beat Angle and have Angle be pissed off and ask for a Rematch, not the other way around. And the whole ill give you a rematch on one condition "you watch my back and ill watch yours" really annoyed me. For me, I was excited to see Angle in TNA and fight Joe but now that it has happened I am not really that excited to see Kurt Angle in TNA anymore. I am not really a fan of rematches. I do not know why, but they do not really interest me, once is enough for me. Again I felt the match itself was great, but that is the problem, its over and the spark is gone. 49% High 51% Low road split.
I just want to say also that I love this column and participate almost every week. Great job guys keep up the great work.
Sat: I have been thinking about adding a Hi/Lo Road option to the poll because some of the topics are right down the middle. I like the idea of having only two options, but I am willing to change it. Maybe Uncle Trunx can give his opinion below.
There is a reason for them to fight. To see who the absolute best wrestler is. The match is kind of rushed, but as I said last week the match is going to be sold on the wrestlers, not on some angle.
I think that the match at Turning Point will be longer. Excellent point about having Samoa Joe win; it probably would have worked better. The condition "you watch my back and ill watch yours" is stupid. I think that it would have been a better move to have Angle face Abyss for the NWA title and have a number one contender's match where Joe wins and face Angle.
Uncle Trunx: We could trial the idea; the trouble is, once you give an option to "sit on the fence"; it gets too easy to do that every time! I believe someone said in the last column that Samoa Joe should have won the match… :D
Matt Short Writes:
I'm voting High Road on Angle vs. Joe I.
That match was just refreshing to see on that PPV. After most of it featured bad to generally good matches to the WTF booking. Then this a straight up battle between a man who has cemented his legacy in wrestling history and a man who's going to become a legend in his own right. Angle vs. Joe more than lived up to expectations. Having it as the main event was smart too, as had the NWA Title match followed this the crowd would not have wanted to pop for Sting or Abyss winning the title. It was a great, great event. Joe's reputation is undamaged by this loss, thanks to TNA having booked him so strongly for so long. And yes, he did only lose to Kurt Freakin' Angle. And he looked damn good while doing it. Joe's the kind of wrestler who always looks good, whether he wins or looses. This match reminded me a bit of Joe vs. Kobashi (which I watched prior to the event). Even though Joe lost that he lost no respectability because it was friggin' Kobashi and he had looked very good in that loss. Now the little after match interaction between Angle and Joe sets up the obvious rematch and I think that was what makes some people think the match hurt Joe. Angle refusing to acknowledge that Joe had taken him to the limit does add to the fire for a rematch and gives Joe a reason for the rematch other than "Angle beat me and I want revenge." Now it's a respect issue and Joe needing to prove himself to Angle.
But was this match too soon? Yeah, it was. They could have booked this to happen at least a few more months down the line. The build technically did start back before Bound For Glory when Angle was first brought in. Their interaction then was really good, but I do think they jumped the gun with the actual match. I understand their reasoning for it though. They need both guys to be at the PPV, in matches. But there really wasn't a story for Angle to get into. Joe meanwhile had nothing either. He hasn't had a real feud for awhile and had just been tacked onto matches like Monster's Ball. I think the better thing would have been for them to use Genesis to further add depth to the feud then to have the match right off the bat. Perhaps for Genesis they could have kept Jeff Jarrett around for another month and had him seek revenge on Joe for stealing the NWA belt or Angle for getting involved with his match with Sting. Though in that scenario one guy is left with nothing to do except maybe get booked into a high profile squash match. While maybe it was too soon, the match was great. The rematch being the very next show at Turning Point I would definitely call too soon. I figure Joe will win that one to set up a rubber match somewhere down the line. It's definitely a worthwhile feud right now. Nothing over titles or any back story besides these guys just want to beat the snot out of each other. Wrestling could do with more feuds like that.
Uncle Trunx: Wrestling probably could do with more feuds which were just about the competition, however I can't help but feel that even using that line, this should have been made to mean more, been drawn out longer and ended differently to prolong the payoff.
Sat: I can't comment on who it compared to the other matches because I haven't seen the rest of the pay per view. The rematch is too soon. I commented above on one of the e-mails on who it should be down. That would be a great idea having matches based on competition.
This week's High Road/Low Road featuring...
Batista versus King Booker at Survivor Series
High Road:
It was time to get the title off of King Booker because of two reasons. One, he has held the title since July and it was time for a change. Two, if he had won this match, then there was nobody for him to face. By having Batista win the title, he could have a rematch with King Booker. Or, the WWE can go a different route and have Batista face Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy did defeat the Undertaker and he has also defeated Batista. Either way, it was time to put the title on Batista. King Booker's possible opponents were limited, so it was time to put the title on King Booker.
Low Road:
I don't think it was time for a change. I've been enjoying King Booker's title reign. I much prefer the face to be chasing the belt rather than holding it. As for the charge of there being nobody for him to face, I think that it's just not the case. Benoit has returned now, he always has to be considered as a main event level guy. There's Kane, currently working face and long overdue for a title run; there's Undertaker, who is slowing down but who is undoubtedly a main event level guy, and there's Batista himself; surely the other three could have occupied King Booker until Batista found a (storyline) way of earning another title shot (such as the Royal Rumble).
Compared the list of heel challengers; you have both Finlay and Regal, who are both great wrestlers but are tarred with the "henchman" tag now and thus are less credible in storyline terms; you have MVP and Kennedy, both of whom need more time to develop into main eventers, and you have Booker himself, who is possibly the only contender. Either they plan to hotshot the title back to him (in which case, why have him lose it in the first place) or they plan to use a contender who is simply not ready. Neither option works as well as Booker keeping the belt in my view.
High Road:
WrestleMania is only four full months away, so this was the time to put the title on Batista. By putting the title on Batista, he can pick up steam and when he loses at WrestleMania, it will mean something. Batista is the best option to be in the main event at WrestleMania and he can drop the title at Mania.
Low Road:
Having the face lose the belt at WrestleMania seems somehow wrong. Batista is far from the best option to be in the main event; guys like Benoit would have a far better match and if they took the belt from King Booker after he had held it for 9 months, their victory would mean far more.
High Road:
We all knew that this match was going to be Batista's last shot at the title and we knew that King Booker was going to try anything to get out of this match with his title. That is why it was a great move by the WWE, when Theodore Long announced that the title could change hands on a disqualification or count out. Kudos to the WWE for eliminating that loophole because I had a gut feeling that we might be seeing some trickery by King Booker.
Low Road:
Trickery by Booker to keep the belt would have further emphasized his cunning, and would have built the feud up all the more. By including the "belt changes hands on a DQ" rule, then not using it nor even playing up to the rule, they have wasted the opportunity. By having the face cheat to win, they have devalued him. Had they simply made the match no DQ, so Booker couldn't keep his belt that way, they would have legitimized Batista's way of winning and not undermined his face status.
High Road:
It was a great idea by the WWE to have this match last because there was so much on the line in this match. This was going to be Batista's last chance at King Booker's title. More importantly, Philadelphia was the host for the Survivor Series and this was where Batista relinquished his title. There was so much stuff built into this match that it had to go last. Batista was either going to regain the title that he never lost or we was not going to get any more chances at King Booker's title.
Low Road:
Last chances are never permanent in wrestling. I was hoping that Batista would lose, so we could see how he overcame the stipulation. Sadly, that's yet another opportunity lost by the WWE.
High Road:
One of the things that I have read is that this match was awful. I do not agree with this assessment. The match was not a five star or a four star classic, but it was passable. Both guys are not going to lead anybody to a great match, but both guys can have a decent match and that is what happened at Survivor Series.
Low Road:
So the main event match at one of the "big 4" Pay Per View events being "passable" is a high road? SmackDown is loaded up with great wrestlers, however for some reason none of them get to the main event. Instead, we get a world title match which is "passable".
High Road:
Batista's victory was not a clean victory and when King Booker beat Batista on SmackDown, it was also not a clean victory. That is why it makes perfect sense for the final match in this feud to happen at Armageddon. Here is a possible scenario. King Booker comes out on the 12/1 SmackDown and says he wants to use his rematch clause for a rematch. Theodore Long can come out and mention the previous matches and say that the final match in this feud will be at Armageddon in Hell in a Cell.
Low Road:
A clean victory would have given this whole matter some closure and allowed them to move on. Instead, we get a lesser PPV promoted at the expense of a bigger one. As for the idea of these two in a Cell, I'd rather see that gimmick used sparingly and not just because these two can't help but cheat to win. Falls count anywhere or no DQ would be more than enough to settle this run of the mill feud.
Are you taking the High Road or the Low Road?
High Road/Low Road Plugs
We are taking the high road on these articles so you should read them...
Ari Berenstein has the ROH results from Long Island, the ROH news, and a preview for ROH in Edison and a new member goes in the Ring of Shame in the Column of Honor
