Post Night of Champions ramble

So there it is. Night of Champions took place, and I didn't see it [just as I promised I wouldn't]. I did however look over the results and see that I got 5 out of 7, prediction wise, if you count the pre show that I predicted correctly. I also consider the Del Rio v RVD match a correct prediction. It is very difficult to predict DQ finishes, but I thought RVD would be walking out of the match without the title, so I was right.

There were 2 matches added to the Pay Per View card later on, like, on the night of the PPV, that I never understand! I mean, the WWE is all about doing what's 'best for business,' so why don't they advertise their darn matches? Any match advertised is extra incentive to buy a Pay Per View. If you just throw in some matches on the day of the PPV, without advertising them on a previous Raw or Smackdown, then some people may have made their minds up by then, and not buy the Pay Per View [you know, because they might feel there were not enough matches on the card!].

Oh by the way, it looks like Triple H reads my blog. You know how I mentioned that the Night of Champions Pay Per View did not have all the titles on the line? Well Levesque must have seen that, and added a match for the Intercontinental title to it. Now where's my money? I mean it is thanks to me that he remembered.

On to the matches I got wrong. The Punk v Curtis Axel and Heyman match. What can I say? I didn't expect Punk to lose another match at a PPV, and I certainly didn't expect him to be pinned by that sleezy slime ball, Paul Heyman. Punk has now lost at 5 PPV's this year [6 if you count Money in the Bank, but that was more of a 'not win,' rather than a loss]. He has only won 1 match, at Payback, v Chris Jericho, who is not wrestling full time these days anyway.

I really expected him to win, and even though the finish was a 'screwjob,' because there is no way he was going to job to Paul Heyman clean, a loss is still a loss. I mentioned that I was hoping this feud would be finished at Night of Champions, but it aint looking that way. We also seem to have the beginnings of a Punk v Ryback feud, that we had about this time last year, on the horizon. Great! More repetition, recycling or whatever you wanna call it. I call it being uncreative.

The other match I missed [got wrong] in my predictions was the main event. In this case though, I'm glad the WWE did the unexpected and gave the win to Bryan. Having said that, it worked out the same in the end, because Bryan lost his belt the following night on Raw, so one way or another, he is not the champion, but credit where it's due, I was not expecting it to happen like this.

I sometimes wonder if they do stuff like this, just to shock some of the internet fan base. I mean, there were probably leaks about what was going to happen at Night of Champions, but I've heard that the WWE is making a lot of decisions very late in the day [like a few days before the PPV's]. Apparently Sheamus was set to win his match against The Big Show at HIAC last year, but a few days before the event, the decision was changed. Other rumours state that certain match endings sometimes get decided on the night. This could be a way to throw some people off. You know, people who like to know what is going to happen at a wrestling show, before it does [for whatever reason].

Anyway, I hope you enjoyed the Pay Per View, if you saw it. I'm not sure if the additional matches added much [well, other than more matches on the card]. I wonder how many more Pay Per View's the Daniel Bryan versus Randy Orton is going to span. By the sounds of it, Battleground is not likely to be a 1 on 1 match, since a vacated title is rarely picked up in a singles match [certainly not a title as big as the WWE title]. So the 2 might meet again in singles action inside a Cell. Then, and the following is a possible spoiler, they seem set to meet at Survivor Series [it is in some local listings]. So the feud will go on for a while. Is the feud interesting? Meh? Is it likely to produce some great matches? Well with Daniel Bryn in them, you'd think so.  

Night of Champions Preview

 

 

Well here it is, another month, another Pay Per View. I'll be straight up about this one, it's not a particularly appealing card and I definitely won't be watching it, but that doesn't stop me from being able make my predictions on what will happen.

First off, a couple of gripes. Why is Kofi Kingston on the promotional poster? Seriously, why? He's not even on the card. I don't understand. Oh and by the way, R Truth [who is also unlikely to be on the Hell in a Cell card in October, is on the Hell in a Cell promotional poster]. What's going on? Does Black History month span over two months now? What is the reason for this?

On a serious note though, I have nothing against black people on WWE posters, but I do have a major problem with people who are currently irrelevant in the WWE, being on Pay Per View posters. Ah fine, I don't really care that much, but you have to admit it makes no sense. Oh and why is a Pay Per View, with an 'all titles on the line' gimmick, not putting all its titles on the line? This gimmick is false advertising I tell you!

Anyway on to the predictions

PRE SHOW

Tons of Funk vs Prime Time Players vs The Real Americans vs The Usos v 3MB

I think we all know the question on people's minds here, what 2 of the 3 Man Band are going to participate in this match? Rumour has it, that it's going to be Heath and Jinder! Oh and so excited! No wait, no I'm not, I'm not excited at all. In fact if anyone is not going to win this match, it's going to be 3MB. They're losing to almost everybody, and in 3 on 1 matches too. They're only here to fill the Tag Team Turmoil stipulation with, you know, tag teams [you normally need at least 5]. Same goes for Tons of Funk. Stipulation fillers, nothing more. As for the other 3, well The Real Americans have been jobbing out a lot recently, probably because the WWE figures that people generally prefer to see 'racists' lose, or something like that, plus a heel v heel tag team match wouldn't make much sense. The Usos and Prime Time Players are both well liked faces, but the Prime Time Players seem to be on a high right now with the fans, so they'll probably go over.

[Predicted winner] Prime Time Players


-------------------------------------------------

PPV CARD


ADR[c] v Rob Van Dam w/Ricardo Rodriguez [World Heavyweight title]

Okay so it probably won't be the first match on the card, but then again, it's not like the World Heavyweight title hasn't opened cards [for big events] in the past. I'm putting it first on my predicted card order, in order to symbolize how important I think the WWE considers the World Heavyweight title to be right now [i.e. not very]. A lot of people are expecting Ricardo Rodriguez to turn back heel. I think it's too soon for that. He's only just turned face, and while he might turn on RVD eventually, I doubt it's happening at Night of Champions. It's one of those odd combinations, where the WWE want fans to expect a heel turn, but it won't happen yet, they're going to make you wait. This much has already been done to death on Raw, so it's lost it's appeal to me. As for the result, they won't give RVD the title, because apparently he's too cocky and full of himself backstage. I think they're happy with Del Rio as the champ, and it's going to stay that way for now. Perhaps a re-match in October [at one of the two PPV's] will happen. We'll get to that if it does. For now, a Del Rio win.

[Predicted winner] ADR

---------------------------------------------------

AJ[c] v Nat v Brie v Naomi [Diva's title]

A match I don't care about. A match I know a lot of people don't care about. Having said that, AJ is the only reason anyone even knows that the Diva's title still exists, so why take it off her?

[Predicted winner] AJ

---------------------------------------------------

Prime Time Players v The Shield[c] [Tag Team titles]

So the Prime Time Players to get the tag title shot in this one, and most probably lose. The Shield is an important part of WWE shows now, so to have them job to the Prime Time Players, no matter how popular they might be, would make no sense. There's not much else to say here really. Of course the alternative could be to get the titles off The Shield, so they can be focused more in to the main storylines, without having to worry about constantly defending their tag team titles, but if they do lose the gold, I expect it to be to someone else, not some trending team who were recently jobbers.

[Predicted winner] The Shield 

---------------------------------------------------

Ambrose[c] v Ziggler [US title]

Similar reason to why The Shield is not likely to lose the tag team titles, Ambrose is not going to lose his US title to a guy who, since losing his World Heavyweight title, has been largely insignificant. Ziggler is currently a 'what should we do with him' guy in the WWE. He had his 15 minutes as the WWE champ, and now he's fighting for the US title, in a match where having him go over somebody who is currently getting a push [along with the rest of his stable], makes no sense whatsoever.

[Predicted winner] Ambrose

----------------------------------------------------

CM Punk v Axel Curtis and Paul Heyman [Elimination match]

Usual story here. Axel Curtis is going to make sure he keeps CM Punk away from Heyman, only tagging him in when Punk is down and Heyman is able to get a few cheap shots in. It's the only match on the card with no title on the line, and I feel, even though Punk is above the IC belt, they still could have put the title on the line [to raise the profile of the title, if nothing else]. They could have made this a match for the title. It could have been a normal handicap match, and Punk could have avoided a title victory, by pinning Paul Heyman for the win. Then later, somebody [Vince, or whoever], could mention that since the champion was not pinned in this match, the title stays right where it is. Simple, right?

Anyway the match is what it is and Punk can't afford to lose, he's already lost too many PPV's matches this year. For somebody if his status, a loss is out of the question. If he does somehow lose, it will be by DQ, not by getting pinned [or submitting]. Otherwise I expect Punk to win. People think something will happen to continue the storyline, but I feel the feud should end here. It's gone on since Money in the Bank. Put it to rest, I'm not that in to it anyway personally. The IC Champion is being thrown in to the mix, but the real feud is Punk v Heyman. Have the two go at it in the ring at Night of Champions [after Axel Curtis gets eliminated] and finish it. Unfortunately knowing the WWE logic, they'll probably have Punk lose the match in some 'screwjob' way, only to make Punk even angrier, and the make the fans wants to see him get his hands on Heyman even more. I'll ignore this messed up logic and go for a Punk win anyway.

[Predicted Winner] CM Punk 

------------------------------------------------------

Daniel Bryan v Randy Orton[c] WWE title

The big one of the night. This will probably span over numerous Pay Per Views. Orton is likely to pick up the win here, but of course, it can't be clean, or Bryan might lose some of his heat. The Big Show is not on the card, so a lot of people expect him to be involved and turn heel. Much like the Ricardo Rodriguez situation, I disagree. I think it's too early. He just returned as a face, and although he turns a lot and his involvement in this match is a probability, it will not necessarily be in the heel turning capacity. It might be nothing more than him showing up on stage to watch Orton screw Bryan, then have Triple H come out and warn him not to get involved. The whole anticipation seems to be on, 'when will Big Show get involved?.' Word on the internet is that a Big Show v Triple H match is imminent, that's why I don't expect a heel turn, but do expect a Randy Orton win, or double count out, or double DQ, or something like that. Either way, Orton is keeping the title, one way or another, [possibly thanks to a Shield interference, with Big Show not being able to do anything about it].

[Predicted Winner] Randy Orton

JR is fired....I mean, has retired!

 



Yeah, I think that's what I mean. It seems that yesterday, yes that's right, on 9/11, JR apparently decided it would be a great time to announce that he was leaving the company. Or did he? After that original press release, or information given by the WWE on their website, now some other minor details are starting to unfold, such as the fact that Vince had decided to get rid of JR, but called it, 'JR leaving' on the WWE official website, in order to make JR, who lets face it, many consider to be a legend in this business, look like he left on his own accord. Obviously leaving by yourself, and being asked to leave, are two completely different things!

It seems that the recent WWE 2K14 presentation, that JR hosted, with a star studded panel, is what cost him his job. Ric Flair [one of the panel], decided he would go off on a some drunken tangents during the night, and JR was not able to keep him in check, and move the show on, so 'Vince' basically terminated him for it [the full WWE 2k14 conference can be found on youtube]. 

Whether that is actually the reason he was fired, is arguable. The truth is, Vince McMahon has not liked 'good old JR'  for some time now. He made life difficult for him in the 90's, when he had his attacks of bell's palsy. He took him off commentary all together in 2005, and replaced him with Joey Styles, only to bring him back, then take him off, then bring him back every now and then, and so on. He finally took him off full time and gave him other roles in the company [as he did with Joey Styles as a matter of fact, who now works on the WWE site, last I heard anyway]. 

It wouldn't surprise me, and shouldn't surprise you, if Vince had thought about a way to get rid of JR for some time. Rather than just walk up to him and say 'I don't like you, you're out of here,' he needed some reason, but what reason good JR possibly give him? He didn't do steroids or offer anybody backstage any drugs. He didn't sleep around. He didn't make any nasty comments on the company, in the various interviews he gave. Aaah, but he failed to put Ric Flair in his place during the 2K14 stuff! That'll do, that's reason enough! Obviously Ric Flair can't be touched, he doesn't work for the WWE, but JR did, and now he doesn't.

Oh feel the love between them



Now look, I'm not some big fan of JR. He was never my favourite commentator in the WWE [although he wasn't my least favourite, Jerry Lawler takes that trophy]. To be honest, I was glad when he was taken off commentary. I mean, what did he actually do, while under contract with the WWE? Write a blog? Get Vince to put his barbeque sauce in the WWE shop? Talk to wrestlers backstage every now and then? Host the occasional get-together, like the 2K14 one? He might have done some others things too, that I don't currently remember, but let's face it, in a wrestling company, once you disappear off the air, and start doing stuff off screen, the fans stop caring about you. They forget about you, until you make an occasional one-off cameo on television again. He wasn't significant anymore, and Vince most likely felt that he didn't want to pay him, for being insignificant, anymore. It's just, if you don't want the man to work for you Vince, tell him, and get rid of him, don't look for some incident during some conference [or whatever you want to call the WWE 2K14 promo event], that isn't even his fault, and try to scapegoat him for it! Come on, where's your ruthless aggression? Have the balls to tell him what you think of him, rather than taking his job and then pretending it was JR's decision, and all ended well in your own little fairy tale land.

Of course, with the way this business goes, it's unlikely JR is going to reveal anything about the last conversation he had with Vince. Why? Simple. This is the kind of business where you can be thrown out of the company one minute, and then brought back a year later. Many wrestlers have parted ways with the WWE on, how to put it nicely, not the best terms, but when the WWE decided that they needed them, because they thought they would draw, they brought them back. Wrestling fans often pop for somebody who has been away for a while, even if they didn't care about them that much when they were there every week. They'd most likely pop for JR if he made a return, or even if the announcement that JR is returning was made. JR knows this is a possibility, so unless he is in a position where he feels that's it, there's absolutely no way he has any chance of being re signed [like Jim Cornette], he is going to try to keep in good terms with Big Vinnie Mac, and that's that. The WWE often bring legendary people back when the ratings drop, and JR knows he might be getting a call from Vince at some point in the future.

'Monsters of the Mat' review

Hi guys and girls [those few of you who are/were loyal enough to read my ramblings, but never cared enough to make any comments]. I've recently felt inspired to continue on with this blog. You might have noticed that not much [well, nothing] was going on here for the past five months. My apologies for that. There were a lot of other bits and bobs going on in my life at the time. A sports journalism degree to complete, a summer to enjoy, another Bleacher Report application to have rejected [apparently because I used the same word in a paragraph more than twice], a job to look for [and get, at last, though hardly a dream job]. Either way, with all that sorted, I have decided to continue on with this blog.

Before I get in to the book review, I want to let you know, that I am not going to be doing anymore 'overrated wrestler of the week,' or 'where are they now?' Why is this you say? It's because I can't think of any more wrestlers to put in to the overrated wrestlers section [plus I wouldn't want to be seen as overly critical]. There are enough wrestlers [and divas] for you to look over in the 'overrated wrestlers' section for now. As for the 'where are they now?' Well, that was the most boring part of my blog. It felt like a chore, having to write, so I decided to give it a rest, but the section will remain where it is, if you want to look over it.



On to 'Monsters of the Mat.' Recently, I popped in to my local library, that was close to shutting down not too long ago, and let me tell you, it shows. The amount of books there has dramatically decreased. I asked where I might find the sports books [I didn't dare ask about wrestling books, in fear of being laughed at], and was pointed to a part of the library that was almost completely bare. I found just one wrestling book there, 'monster of the mat.' Since I had specifically gone to find a wrestling book, I decided to take it out.

Having not flicked through it prior to taking it out [because I was in a bit of a hurry], I opened it, and to my horror, I saw that each chapter had a wrestler's name. It was a biography book! If you can call it that. More like a mini biography book. Each chapter has about three to five pages on a given wrestler. The problem with this was, that the information given is very bland. Nothing interesting. Nothing insightful. Nothing that you couldn't find a better, more detailed version of, on the internet.

The Stone Cold chapter for example, talks about his career up to a certain point, then just stops and ends it right there. Keep in mind that this book was published in 2002, the chapter starts off by completely disregarding his pre WWF days. The only mention is gives, of him doing anything other than WWF, is that he joined the WWF as a former 'WCWer [as written in the book].' No mention of ECW, no mention of anything else. It talks about his debut as the blonde Ringmaster, and discusses his claim to fame at King of the Ring 1996. From there, it takes a [more or less] linear path up to Wrestlemania XIV, when he won his first World title, only to completely disregard anything from that point on, and jump straight on to his heel turn at the Invasion PPV [not the 1st heel turn, that was disregarded too].

This very sketchy, vivid look at wrester's is continued throughout the book. The chapter on Chris Benoit misses big events, such as his WCW World Heavyweight title triumph [in fact there is literally one paragraph dedicated to his time spent in WCW]. There is also no mention of his great WWF title bouts with Stone Cold Steve Austin, or his big injury in 2001 during the triple threat match at King of the Ring. Diamond Dallas Page's part in the Invasion angle is not even mentioned, while The Rock's bio is all over the place. It goes from talking about some of his Attitude era feuds, to discussing his movie roles. Again, no order of any kind to be seen. It jumps all over the place.

As tempting as it is, I won't go in to describing what is wrong with every wrestler's bio. When the book finishes with the biographies [thankfully], it goes on to explaining what you need to do, in order to become a professional wrestling. Well, it doesn't actually explain anything, it just talks about how difficult it is to be a wrestler, and how many people have thought they were 'tough enough' before dropping out. It then goes on to say, if you still think you've got what it takes, try contacting one of the following wrestling schools [commence list of wrestling schools].

After a few pages of wrestler's real names [very useful], we get a Wrestlemania section, where we are 'treated' to a rundown of Wrestlemanias, starting from Wrestlemania 1 [Wrestlemania 18 didn't make it, so I assume this was published in early 2002]. Each Wrestlemania gets a couple of paragraphs, explaining what its highlight was, before we see the full card at the end. Once again, the writer doesn't seem to have his priorities right, and omits big matches. One of the most obvious examples is the Wrestlemania 13 description, that gives no mention to one of the greatest matches of all time, between Bret Hart and Stone Cold. It merely mentions that Stone Cold was one of the 'rising' stars on the card.

With the Wrestlemanias out of the way, the final part of the book is simply three pages of wrestling jargon. There you will find what words like blade, card, face, heel and jobber really mean [in case you didn't know that].

All in all, the book in very poorly put together. The information is spewed out in a very uninteresting way, with constant over-usage of terms like 'warriors' or 'gladiators,' to describe wrestlers. It's one of those books that, with the age of the internet, is completely useless. You can find much more information out on the internet now [even just on Wikipedia alone], and none of the stuff in this book really gives us anything to think about. If you look this book up on amazon.co.uk, you will notice it has one review, and a one star review at that. Yep, I am indeed the one responsible for that. It's no less than it deserves. I did toy with the idea of giving it two stars, but then couldn't think of a single reason as to why it deserved that, so it stayed as it is.

Incidentally the guy who wrote this book, Robert Picarello, is apparently the author of other, New York Times, best selling wrestling books. If this is the case, that can mean one of two things. Either this was his worst book of the series, or he is vastly overrated, and people will buy anything [just not from me!].

 

Score out of 5 stars

 



        

Smackdown hits an all time low

 

 

I'm not just referring to the pathetic excuse for a show that was on last night. I didn't watch, but I did read a write up of the show online, and that was just as bad. Last night's show was just another example of how little the WWE currently cares about Smackdown. Here's what I haven't understood for a long time, and continue not to understand. If the WWE doesn't have any interest in putting any effort in to the show, why keep it around? Much the same way as, if the WWE doesn't have any interest in the World Heavyweight title, why keep it around? It makes no sense. They just seem to be going through the motions with some stuff. It's clear that certain wrestlers are never, and I mean never [okay perhaps once a year] on Smackdown. Obviously they're deemed too important to appear on a half assed, horrible written show like this. 

Last night was bad, but it wasn't that much worse than usual, it was just a much worse version of the crap you normally get. The card was cut in half [or even in to a 3rd] and most of the show was filled with re-caps and Wrestlemania promotion. Smackdown is often used as a re-cap show for Raw, but this time it was used to keep hopping over to fan Axxess for pointless segments and promotion of their big Pay Per View. Type in #WWEsucks on twitter, you'll see I'm not the only one complaining. It really was a horrendous show, but it just stuck the nail in the coffin to what was already a pointless show if you ask me. Any arguments that Smackdown has a purpose have evaporated. If there is a purpose, it's to annoy fans. I've seen better Heat shows back in the day. Oh and dear WWE, what about the fans who paid to be there? Do they deserve to sit through a show that is just used to promote another show? This calls for some refunds to cheated fans, and while they're added, how about giving them their wasted time back?  

Overrated wrestler of the week

Lex Luger

 



Whenever I'm a little stuck, wondering about who to stick in here, all I need to do is have a look at a list of champions and pick somebody who clearly did not deserve a title reign. That's why this one is easy, and to be honest, it's not just because he is a former champion, it's because he somehow passed for being a wrestler, when he wasn't one.

Luger is one of those bodybuilders who managed to get in to the wrestling business, quite simply, thanks to his physique. This is a 2 time WCW World Heavyweight Champion and a man who headlined multiple WWF PPV's back in the early 90's. Have you ever seen him in the ring? I know I have and I now wish I had spent my time better. It's not that I watched him and thought, he's no Bret Hart and Chris Jericho. It's that I watched him and thought, when is this guy going to actually, you know, wrestle? He spent most of his fairly short matches posing in the ring, taunting [by posing] and trying to lift the crowd [by posing again]. The occasional kick or punch was thrown in, with perhaps a suplex if you were lucky [it didn't always happen]. Then, his traditional submission finisher, and it was over, unless of course he lost, then there was no traditional submission finisher. He and Batista are two absolutely perfect examples of muscle men who have shown that even if you have zero wrestling ability, you can still make it to the top [more or less].

 

Who's driving this flying umbrella?

 

Does the WWE have anyone in charge. You'd think it was the big, greasy, egotistical self loving Vincent Kennedy McMahon, but by the way things are unfolding in the company, perhaps he's taking a lot of time off from the helm of the company and leaving the running to Mr Helm-sley? Perhaps not. Stephanie? Doesn't seem like it. Okay so one of the three has to be held responsible, but I'm actually going to pay them a compliment. I believe they have all been involved in wrestling too long to be making decisions as stupid as the most recent one I heard about. If I had to pick somebody though, my money's on Vince. Despite creating the biggest wrestling promotion [although he likes to call it an empire] in the world, I have seen more than enough loony ideas in the past to believe that he has just thought this one up as well.

What's the decision? Alberto Del Rio's super face push actually. No I don't have any problem with him being heavily promoted as a top baby face. It's the way that they intend to do it. This is what I have a problem with. I have a problem with the fact that someone in the WWE was stupid enough to actually make the serious suggestion of bringing in a writer from a Spanish 'telenovela.' Yes you heard [saw] right. There's no mistake in the sentence. If you didn't know, the WWE want to hire a writer from one of those awful Spanish soap opera's, to write Alberto Del Rio's storylines, because the Spanish writer should be more plugged to the Spanish audience of today, at least, more than the ordinary dim witted people who currently make up storylines in the WWE.

No! Si! No! Si!

The writing is bad enough as it is, why make it worse? Then again, the storylines in the WWE are currently horrible. The acting is about as wooden as wooden gets. This guy should fit right in. He/she going to be working with the same type of oily air head bimbos and muscle-men on steroids, as he/she does in the telenovela shows he writes for. I can just see it now. Love angles, lots of intense camera pans, zooming in and out of Alberto Del Rio's face to show his true emotionless, emotion. Doesn't it make you laugh? It used to make me laugh. Wrestling, I mean. I used to find it funny in a positive way. This was many, very many, looooong years ago. Now I only laugh because the alternative would be to cry.

I don't know, perhaps it's just that I'm older, so I now see just how lame the WWE is, but then again, it can't be. When I stick in an old tape and watch a show from 10, 12, or 14 years ago, I still enjoy it. Something was better back then. Now it's ruined. It could be that it was just a unique unrepeatable era. Perhaps there was something in the air during those years, it was wrestling's high time. Now, I think, if only there was something in the air, to wipe out most of the roster and writers with them, we might get better shows.
   

Overrated Wrestler of the week

 

Bubba

 

 

 

 

I didn't know whether to refer to him as Bubba Ray Dudley, Bully Ray or by his real name, Mark LaMonaco, so I just went with Bubba. You know who I mean. Why is he here, in the overrated wrestlers section? That's an easy one. TNA. Yes TNA is the reason he is here. Countless times in the past, WWE has taken a wrestler who felt unappreciated in WCW, and turned them in to 'stars'. The WWE showed that WCW missed a beat with many guys. WWE showed WCW that they had a star and let them slip away. Guys like Chris Jericho and Chris Benoit were not happy with their roles in WCW [Benoit was eventually given the World title in WCW but by then it was too late, he left right after]. In the WWE they felt like they meant something [both going on to win World titles]. Stone Cold Steve Austin is probably the best example of somebody who the WCW had no ideas for and eventually released. He went on to be a headliner in WWE and one of the most known recognizable wrestlers in the world.

 

So what does this have to do with Bubba in TNA? Well, it seems that TNA have wanted to get their own back [since a lot of the guys in TNA were former WCW employees]. They want to show that WWE had a 'main eventer' in Bubba Ray Dudley, who they let slip through their fingers. Unfortunately they are only fooling themselves [and perhaps some of their fans]. Bubba was not, is not, and will most probably never be, main event material. I've said it before, but I'll say it again, there are 3 important factors to being a champion. Wrestling ability, mic work and superstar look. If you have all 3, you are perfect championship material. If you have 2 out of 3, there is a good chance you will be given the World title eventually. 1 out of 3 is hit and miss, you might be given the belt one day, if the company thinks you can draw and make them money, but the chances are, you won't. Unfortunately Bubba, has none of the 3. His in ring ability is, well, average at best. His mic work is, once again, average. Superstar look. Are you kidding me? At least we know he doesn't do steroids [and if he does, they aint working]. So why he was recently made the TNA World Champion is beyond me. They got it in to their heads at TNA that this man has been overlooked and it was time to give him the belt, but any logical explanation as to why he is the right man to lead the company is hard to find. Bubba would never have made it to the overrated wrestlers section, if TNA had not overrated him and given him the World Heavyweight title belt. 

 





Women of wrestling [then and now]

I can't be the only one who is tired by the cheap attempt for ratings that the WWE and TNA try to get by having women who flaunt their body during the show. It's almost as if they have completely given up on trying to put together a good wrestling show, so they think, ah, let's just stick some half naked women in there, that should entertain the audience. I don't want to sound like a pervert, but I can't be the only one who has watched a women's match [though I watch very few of those now] and thought 'these girls are pretty' rather than 'this is an interesting match. It's because most of the women in today's women's divisions can't wrestle. They're are just there to look nice. Eye candy, as you call it.

Kelly Kelly? Trish Stratus? Mickie James? Velvet Sky? Kaitlyn? These girls were [and are] women's champions? Is this a joke? Women like Molly Holly and Ivory, they could wrestle [a bit]. At least with them, it wasn't about what they were wearing, but more about what they could do in the ring. Not it's difficult to tell if TNA is trying to stay clear of using women as objects. Sting himself is supposed to be a born again Christian. So is Vince Russo [who was writing for TNA not too long ago], yet TNA is still filled with women 'flaunting their stuff.' As for the WWE, well they're supposed to be a PG program now, but that does not stop them from including women with very little on, as part of the show.

I miss the older days with the likes of Miss Elizabeth standing at ringside. She was not a wrestler, she was a valet, but she had class. Some of the valet's now seem like they're put there to take the attention off the match. Just look at the difference between Miss Elizabeth and Molly of the older days, and the current female champions of the WWE and TNA promotions.

 

 

Then

 

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Now

 

 

 

Current TNA Knockouts champion

 

Current WWE Divas champion 

 

Overrated wrestler of the week

Sting

 

 

This is another one of those picks that might get a negative reaction. I've thought this for some time now and I have finally decided to put him in here. Let's face it, his in ring work does not merit him being a multiple time World Heavyweight Champion. This guy has had 15 World titles, and this includes 6 in WCW and 4 in TNA! Yes TNA, a company created when Steve Borden, the man behind the face paint, was already well in to his 40's, yet he still managed to not only join the company, but he won [was given] the World title on 4 separate occasions.

 

I don't remember ever seeing a match with Sting in it and thinking, 'wow, that was a great match.' He's an average wrestler, with an average move set. His 'scorpion death lock' finisher has nothing on Bret Hart, or even The Rock's version of the sharpshooter, and his other moves are bland at best. His most famous move, now sometimes used by others, the Stinger splash, is nothing to get excited about [it's just a running splash in to the turnbuckle], yet somehow this face painted 'Crow' rip off is considered one of the big names of wrestling. I just don't get it. It's not that I don't like him either, but when I heard the rumours of him being considered for Wrestlemania a while back and saw people getting all excited about it, I didn't understand it. 




WWE Show disproportion and TNA's PPV cut

Two topics to discuss in this post. First, something I'm sure I must have mentioned before, or if I didn't, I must have at least spoken about it. I can't be the only one with the feeling that Raw is the only show that the WWE seem to care about right now. I've already spoken about the obvious lack of the roster's top stars on Smackdown. How often do you see John Cena, CM Punk, The Rock [I know he was there once or twice in recent weeks] or The Undertaker on Smackdown? Yes The Undertaker is never on TV anymore until the few weeks leading up to Wrestlemania. When he is on TV during that time though, don't tune in to Smackdown if you want to see him. He seems to be exclusive to Raw, like many of the other top guys. We know Main Event and NXT are secondary shows anyway, but Smackdown is [or at least was] not. It would be one thing if there was a reason for the absences of these guys on Smackdown, but I can't seem to find a reason as to why they are only on Raw. Most of the remaining roster seems to be able to make it to Raw and Smackdown, so why can't Punk and Cena? It's as if Smackdown rolls around and the writers go 'ah no, we're gonna have to fill this show up with matches and segments again.' I'm not hounding the WWE for doing this, but it just seems completely illogical. They want ratings, yet people who used to watch both shows, in the old days, when Smackdown would be a continuation of Raw, or the slightly less old days, when there was a brand split and Smackdown and Raw both had their own top guys, can now see that Smackdown does not matter. You can miss an episode of Smackdown, or even a handful of episodes of Smackdown, and you'll be fine. All this will do is get fans to start missing Smackdown, knowing it's less important. Raw is where it happens.

Moving on to TNA. Not too long ago they made a decision to only do four PPV's per month. What does this mean? Will it be better? Well I don't know. I highly doubt that having less PPV's is going to improve the quality of their product, but it's a move they have made for reasons that I can only image to be 'these PPV's cost a lot more to promote and not enough people are buying them.' It seems they simply are not generating enough interest. That could partly be because the PPV cards are not gripping, or because a lot of them take place at the same Disney studio arena that Impact airs in. If having a PPV every three months means storylines get more time to develop and the PPV's themselves are actually big events, with more interesting cards, then I'm all for it. Of course there is no guarantee that this move will improve the product, but we will just have to wait and see.

Where's the money now?

 Shane McMahon



 



I actually used to get more excited when I heard the 'Here comes the Money' entrance hit the PA system, than I did for most of the roster. Shane McMahon, despite not actually being a 'wrestler,' was probably one of the most entertaining guys to watch in the ring. He knew he wasn't officially a wrestler so he always went out of his way to put on an entertaining performance in the ring, taking a lot of high risk moves in the process. He wasn't half bad on the mic either. He made his first appearance on WWE television in a strange way, as a referee in the early 90's. He was named Shane Stevens, so as not to give away that he is a McMahon.

In 1998 he debuted as an on screen character, and had on and off feuds and matches since then, right up until he eventually decided to leave at the end of 2009. His most memorably role was probably as the head of WCW, then later the Alliance [along with his sister Stephanie] during the Invasion angle.

Where is Shane now? Well he left to pursue his own ventures, and that's what he is doing now. Not long after leaving the WWE, he signed a deal to become the new CEO of China broadband Inc. He is also involved in sports management, representing well known golfers Ernie Els and Rory Mcllroy.

 

Overrated wrestler of the week

 

Ric Flair

 

 

 

Yeah it's Ric Flair and yeah I do seem to be making mug shots of wrestlers a habit recently but, what you gonna do about it? Let me start by saying, his son, David, is much worse than he ever was. David Flair sucks, he has zero wrestling ability. I would much rather put him here than Ric, but I can't, because he's not overrated. He didn't deserve to be wrestling on television, that's for sure, but I don't remember a single time where I ever heard a comment about how great David Flair. He was never the focal point of any storylines, never in any main events, and never the World Champions, although I do believe he was the Television champion for a brief time, something he did not deserve.

 

Back to Ric Flair though. Look at that mug shot. Look how old he is now. I think he return to the ring in 2002 played a bit part in him being in the overrated section. He's a guy who, for me, outstayed his welcome. He didn't leave on a high, he hung around, and watching him wrestle in the WWE, he was clearly a shadow of the man he used to be. He always seemed a step behind the younger guys he was wrestling. His matches were poor, but his reputation carried him and meant he continued to be loved by audiences.

 

Having said all that, his bouts back in the day were not that great either. Most of the matches were made up of chops, kicks, punches, more chops, a few submission holds, begging for his life, thumb to the eyes, skinning the cat and a figure four leg lock. He didn't have an Arsenal of moves to impress, yet somehow managed to put in long matches with many near falls. I'm not saying the man was useless in the ring. There are Ric Flair matches I enjoyed, but he is a 16 time World Champion and referred to as one of the greatest ever. That, in my eyes, is overrated. Many fans love him, that's great, I have nothing against it, but his reputation flatters him.

 

 



Best for business

Over time you realise that anything you thought was real in wrestling, could have been a work. We know the matches themselves are works and we know the fueds that build them up are works. What we sometimes get told about is some shoot that supposedly happened. Some backstage bust up. Something that one wrestler said about another in the ring that was real. Truth is, these incidents might not be shoots or they might not even have happened. For years people used to think that wrestling was real. When it was revealed that it wasn't and some fans got upset, the WWE simply said 'hey, we never said it was real.' That's right folks. Even though they passed it off as real, because they never officially said 'This is real', the notion that it was real was just that, a notion, an assumption, a theory. That would be like finding out that athletics is not real, it's scripted, but because there was never a statement made about athletics being real, they're not lying to us. Now we hear internet rumours about supposed shoots that have happened, but once again, if we found out one day that they were not shoots, we would be in no position to question the WWE or any other wrestling organization about it, since they have openly said that anything is a shoot, even if they implied it.

Let's forget the questions briefly and look at some past events that are most likely to be shoots. When Stone Cold left the WWE in mid 2002, that was real. It was not part of a storyline. He was gone for over half a year and it didn't look like he was coming back. Eventually the business side won. WWE felt they needed him to get ratings and he was offered the right amount of money and the type of position in the company that suited him.

Ric Flair spoke ill of TNA numerous times while working for WWE. After retiring and leaving the WWE, where did he go? Straight to TNA. Why did TNA hire him? Did TNA know about the comments he made? He said it on television, so you'd think they would have. If Flair disliked TNA so much, why did he go there? The answer to all those questions is the same. Business. They felt his presence would bring in ratings and he was out of a job so he went over to them.

Jeff Hardy turned up to the main event of a TNA PPV, high on some recreational drug or another. Did they get rid of him for this? Of course not. What is his role in the company now? Well, he's the TNA champion as it happens.

Mick Foley left the WWE a few years ago after a bust up with Vince McMahon. He went to WWE's rival TNA, but has since made appearances in the WWE.

Bret Hart famously left the WWE in 1997 after he was cheated out of a title match. It was not part of the booking [as far as we know]. He was supposed to win but ended up losing after the referee rung the bell to a sharpshooter that he had not tapped out to. He had spoken about his hatred for Vince McMahon on many occasions since then, yet decided to call Vince just over 3 years ago and ask if he play some role in the WWE. Vince took him back with open arms, because he knew it would be great for business.

The morale of the story here is that if you're a wrestler who has a big enough name in the business, it doesn't matter if you go AWOL, take drugs, speak badly about a company, get in to an argument with the owner of even attack the owner and speak badly of him for years. If you bring in ratings, you might get a call one day, asking you to return. What you did or said in the past will have no meaning.

Overrated wrestler of the week

 

Lita

 

Yep it's Lita without all the showbiz make up and razzle dazzle. Suddenly not so appealing is she?



It gets more and more difficult to find these overrated wrestlers every week. The more I name, the less there are to chose from. Where as at first I had many people in mind, now I am actually having to dig deep and search them out, but I do have one for this week. It's a female and only the second female to make the overrated wrestlers page, but I think she deserves it. It's Lita.

Now immediately I sense an uproar from the wrestling world. Not only did I stick Trish in there some time ago, but not Lita is there too! Admittedly, Lita is not as bad as Trish, or should I say, not as overrated as Trish, at least not by the WWE, since she didn't win anywhere near as many titles as Trish did, but I think she is overrated by fans a little bit. In her case, unlike Trish, I think she was not that bad in the ring, but she was nowhere near being the best female wrestler I have ever seen. Her moves, much like Trish's, were sloppy and awkward.

I remember when the two fought each other in Trish's final match at Unforgiven a few years ago. It went on for nearly 8 minutes, so far surpassed the standard 3 to 4 minutes women seem to get. How was the match? It was, okay. A lot of people might have thought it was an amazing way for Trish to end her career, but I don't think it was that great. I realised after seeing it, that it was probably the best these two women could have done, that's when I realised that the pair of them were overrated.

Lita had some 'neat' athletic moves. Her Hurricanrana [that she called the Litacanrana] was pretty impressive, I'll admit. Her top rope moonsault was not half bad either. A few other moves she did were nice on the eye as well [much like she was]. The problem is, once you get past the few 'wow factors' she had in her moves set, the rest was hard to watch. The standard moves, like a headlock or a DDT, looked terrible. Her version of the twist of fate was terrible too. In my view, she definitely deserves to be here.

Back with a Vengeance. Predictability and lack of logic.

So I decided to continue my wrestling website. No I didn't get a single post from anyone asking me to continue on with my writing or anything like that. Nobody missed me, I simply missed it. I got to the stage where I thought 'I don't care if nobody cares about my posts [rants] enough to reply, I need to do this. I need to write. It keeps me sane. I need an area where I can put down my thoughts, and the site that I started back in September is the place to do it.

I have not written about wrestling in a couple of months but that doesn't mean I was in exile somewhere, not paying attention to what was going on. Okay, as far as TNA goes, I admit it, I wasn't paying attention, but in the WWE, I do know that John Cena won the Royal Rumble and that The Rock is the new World Champ, leading to an inevitable match between the two at Wrestlemania. Oh yeah, I also know that Del Rio is the other world champ, but I say that as an afterthought, since the World Heavyweight title is clearly an afterthought in the WWE. Why is it still there?! No really, why? It makes no sense. It is used to open PPV cards. What is this all about?

In order to follow up on what the title of this post promised, the WWE is too predictable. Way too predictable. I might be stating the glaringly obvious, but does this not give you enough of a reason not to bother watching? Unless you're 10 years old, you knew that The Rock was going to beat CM Punk for the title. Yet people still bought the PPV. They didn't buy it to see who would win in that match. They just bought it to see The Rock, period. They knew he would win, but wanted to see him do it. As for Cena winning the Rumble, that was possibly a little less predictable, but the Cena v Rock main event at Wrestlemania was not. We knew that one way or another the two would meet. The question was how? As it turned out, Cena being the Rumble winner was one way it could happen [and probably the most logical but that doesn't mean the WWE would do it]. Now the Wrestlemania main event is set, and once again, we pretty much know that Cena will take the belt. The Rock has to get back to Hollywood to make more movies and John Cena, as the number one guy in the company, can't afford to lose a 3rd Wrestlemania in a row. What would the kiddies say? They might turn on him. Then who would buy the merchandise?

Speaking of Wrestlemania and moving on to the lack of logic part of the post title, why pit Triple H against Brock Lesnar in a re match from Summerslam? Is it not supposed to be the other way around? A rematch can be hyped, but it's never going to have quite the same hype as when it was going to happen for the first time [unless the first time was over 10 years ago or something]. The original match should take place at a grander stage than the rematch, like the Brock Lesnar v Kurt Angle original match took place at Wrestlemania, then the rematch was at Summerslam, not the other way around. This time, a Summerslam match is going to get a rematch at Wrestlemania, if it actually happens, but there are strong suggestions that it is indeed the plan, so that's why I'm discussing it.

How about this logic. The Big Show faces Sheamus three times on PPV, wins twice and gets DQ'd once. He is made to look great, since Sheamus was on a role as the champion since Wrestlemania 28. So what do they do? They have him lose to Alberto Del Rio [you know that really 'over' guy. Not]. Then they have Big Show to lose to him again at the Royal Rumble, and then again at the Elimination Chamber. What doesn't make sense is, there was no indication of any kind of push going to Alberto Del Rio. In fact, he lost three or four times in a row to Randy Orton. Why give him the title? Why make him a face? What's with all the recent face turns anyway? Ah forget it.

On to the final piece of illogic [although I'm sure there are many more]. This is again based on a rumour, so I won't go too harsh on this one, in case it doesn't happen, but CM Punk v The Undertaker is said to be in the pipeline, so I'll rant about it. What are they thinking in making this match [if they do]? Three reasons why it makes no sense.

1/ The Undertaker has already buried CM Punk before so this match is not as exciting as if he was fighting someone for the first time [like Sting].

2/ If Punk loses, he is going to have 3 PPV losses in a row, following his over 400 day run.

3/ Continuing on from 2/, it's pretty darn obvious that CM Punk will lose. There's just no way, given some of those who have jobbed to the 'Deadman' at Wrestlemania, that Punk is going to end the streak. It's just not believable enough that he can win [again, unless you're 10 years old], so what is the use in doing this?

I'll leave you with that. I do feel a lot better. Keep checking the site for more posts folks, they will be there.