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.

Thoughts on THQ going bankrupt and final blog post

It seems THQ has gone bankrupt. The company that had recently made it's 14th game in the Smackdown Series [many people, including me, still call it the Smackdown series as it started off being called Smackdown]. The question is, does this worry me? It seems to be worrying a lot of people who are talking about how if another company gets the license they might screw the series up. I say, screw the series up? It's already screwed up. I don't think there is a single game in the series that I would call, brilliant, fantastic, or probably even very good. There might be a few that I would consider pretty decent, and 1 or 2 certainly stand out as being the best of the series and quite enjoyable, but still have a lot of room for improvement.

Truth is I'm not that bothered about it because THQ have had a long time to make a, at least 'close to perfect' game and have still not managed it. When they come up with a mode that might seem interesting, like the GM mode, they just get rid of it after a while. If they continued to make improvements to it then it might actually be a pretty good mode right now. What about the 'free roam' season that looked quite promising in the Smackdown days? That could be great if they had stuck at it, but instead they got tired of previous modes, gave up on them, and made new ones that were intriguing but again, needed improvement. Then after a couple of goes, they gave up on them. Universe is the most recent mode that was getting tweaked. It seems to have improved, from what I read [since I didn't buy the most recent one] but honestly people, it would not surprise me if it gets taken out in the next release, particularly since it is probably going to be done by a different company.

There was just too much wrong with the series as a whole and not enough was being done in areas that needed improvement for a long time. Yes, the commentary still, after so many years, sounds very generic and the gameplay, with the occasional tweak here and there, was pretty much the same for many years during the Smackdown v Raw days.

I don't have any issues with a different company taking charge [as long as EA does not get the license. Would be nice if Rockstar got it, even though they don't do sport]. THQ was never able to fully please fans of the series and while some releases were okay, others were truly horrible and a complete and utter waste of money. The grass is not always going to be greener on the other side, but it might be time to give someone else a chance with this. 

Other than that, I would like to inform that this is my last post on this blog. The reason? Quite simple, I am moving on to different topics in the new year, and while I may continue to write about wrestling issues, I hope to find a platform where I get readers. This blog does get views, but I never get any feedback on any of my posts, bringing me to believe that people do not really care enough to give me any feedback, so my time is up.

3 hours too much

Raw now runs 3 hours and has done for the past few months, as those who watch it might have noticed. There are a couple of big problems with this. 

The first is that 3 hours of a wrestling show every week is too much, particularly when it's of the quality that Raw currently is. The quality of Raw has fallen so much that its last Christmas Eve episode actually got the worst rating of a Raw this year. Well obviously, it aired on Christmas Eve, you might tell me. That's true, but it was also the worst rating that Raw has had since 1997. That is a long time. Think of how bad some of the past Raw episodes over the last 15 years were, and now think that this one, at least in the eyes of viewers, was even worse. The ratings are split in to 3, 1 for each hour of the show, so fans might have tuned in, noticed how bad it was, and turned away. I get tired of wrestling during a 3 hour PPV, and during a PPV you actually get to watch some wrestling, rather than silly in ring and backstage skits. 3 hours of what is mostly going to be horrible acting, is too much for me.

The second reason why 3 hours is a bad idea is that it makes the other show, Smackdown, look like a secondary show. Now some might say it feels like a secondary show anyway. Well if it did before, then it certainly does now. With Smackdown not only not being live but being an hour shorter than Raw, it's as if they want to turn it in to what Heat or Velocity used to be. They could make Smackdown 3 hours long, to show that they care about it, but that would cross the line. Can you imagine, 3 hours of Raw and 3 hours of Smackdown, every week? That would be too much to take. 

I know I have missed a lot of Raw episodes myself. I just can't take it. The characters and storylines on them are so bad, that it literally is un-watchable. For a wrestling fan like me, what is currently happening is intolerable. I refused to give the WWE any money a long time ago by not buying anything WWE related. Now I am going a step further, I am not watching the product, at least not regularly. I still try to keep up with what is going on, otherwise I would not be able to write about it. I might watch some highlights, if I intend to mention it in my blog, but to watch a show, from start to finish, and not break something near me? It can't be done. Even reading results on the internet makes me cringe. It's that bad. I do suggest the same for you, but it's your choice. I think going on a WWE diet might make you feel a lot better. Stop watching this crap, and if you really miss wrestling, put in some old DVDs or look them up on youtube, they're much more enjoyable than anything now.