Inside Pulse Wrestling | The View From Down Here – Now And Then 3 (CM Punk, Austin Aries, Bret Hart, Randy Savage)

The View From Down Here – Now And Then 3 (CM Punk, Austin Aries, Bret Hart, Randy Savage)

by Steven Gepp on August 20, 2012

Hardcore Justice, Summerslam. Neither were terrible PPVs. In fact, both were rather entertaining in their own way. Some nice and welcome surprise wins (TNA had Aries retain, WWE had Bryan defeat Kane). Some good matches (Aries/Roode, Ziggler/Jericho). Some dreck (Knockouts match). Some boredom (HHH/Lesnar). I was less impressed than usual with TNA’s in-ring product – the main event and ladder match were very good, the rest average (or less). Some of WWE’s booking decisions still leave me confused – the booking of the end of Sheamus/Del Rio, where was Ziggler’s cash-in.

But here’s the problem – I felt underwhelmed by both shows. I watched them, enjoyed them for the most part, and then promptly forgot about 90% of each of them. And it’s not just me. Reading comments and tweets through both shows and afterwards, talking to friends who follow wrestling, this seems to be a common feeling nowadays. Main events don’t have that main event “feel” they used to. I couldn’t name the main events of the PPVs this year without looking them up (though I have a feeling that if I said ‘John Cena’ I’d get half marks for most WWE main events). The last match that I really got into was CM Punk v Chris Jericho at Wrestlemania. I enjoyed a lot of the rest of the show, but that match was one I really got into.

I can’t remember a thing about it except the ending.

And yet I can remember three quarters of Bret Hart v Davey Boy Smith from Summerslam 1992, and probably half of Ultimate Warrior v Randy Savage from the same event. I haven’t watched either match in years, but they grabbed me so much better than the wrestling I’ve seen in probably the past five years.

So what is it? Why do so few matches grab us like they used to?

First is, I think, the sheer overdose of wrestling that has to be at the highest level. This is due in no small part to the Monday Night Wars. But what this means is that so few matches have that “big time” feel any more. The big matches are given away for free on the regular programming. In the 1980s would Goldberg have defeated Hogan on Saturday Night’s Main Event? No – it would have headlined one of the four Pay-Per-Views. And then when we do get the big feel matches – Rock v Cena, Brock v HHH – even if the match delivers (and verdicts are certainly mixed), the build-up feels forced, and it seems this reduces the enjoyment of many.

Second leads on from this, and that is too many Pay-Per-View events. Actually, this might not be so much of a problem if they put different people on top for some of the events (and, to be fair, TNA does this with Destination-X focusing on the X-Division guys). But with John Cena headlining every single PPV when he is not allowed to have a moveset out of the mundane is just ridiculous. I thought Roode was a great heel champion, but I am so glad Aries has defeated him because having him main event 7 or so PPVs was probably too much. In 1997 WCW PPVs were the same – show ends, nWo stands triumphant in the ring. Called it a mile away.

This leads to number three. Too many PPVs can be alleviated by having more guys at the top and swapping and changing the main events. Look at 2002; the main events were: Jericho/Rock, Jericho/Austin, HHH/Jericho, Hogan/HHH, HHH/Nash, Undertaker/Hogan, Undertaker/HHH, Rock/Undertaker/Angle, Lesnar/Rock, Lesnar/Undertaker, Lesnar/Undertaker (again), Lesnar/Edge, HHH/Michaels and an Elimination Chamber match (won by Michaels). Ten years later, what have we had so far? Punk/Ziggler, Cena/Kane, Cena/Rock, Cena/Lesnar, Laurianitis/Cena, Cena/Big Show, Cena winning MitB, and Lesnar/HHH. Only two did not have Cena thus far, whereas 10 years ago, at the height of HHHmania, HHH featured in 5 main events for the whole year. Cenoverdose is close.

And finally, the in-ring quality just doesn’t do it for me any more. TNA has some of the best televised wrestling out there at the moment. But in the past three or so years barely a handful of matches are even close to memorable. I am not saying none have been good – in the WWE as well, but TNA moreso – but that none have been classics. Again, look back at SummerSlam 1992 – Hart/Smith is a bona fide classic, and Warrior/Savage is damn close. But, seriously, have any matches in the past three years really been as good as the classics from our youth? My favourite US televised match is from Wrestlemania VII, but I have a number of friends whose favourite match is one of the Rock/Austin matches, a few who like matches featuring the SmackDown 6, and a few more who go crazy for one of the ECW garbage brawls, and at least one who thinks the TNA Unbreakable 2005 3-way main event is the best match he’s ever seen. Notice something? The most recent of these comes from 8 years ago. How many matches can people honestly say from the past few years have been classics that some one would consider the best of all time?

It comes from the world we live in nowadays. People want to play it safe. Heel tactics that would have just garnered heat ten, fifteen, twenty years ago now see people suspended or even fired. There are too many entertainment options out there, and playing it safe is a guarantee of at least some sort of an audience, whereas edgy can fail. Yes, PG-TV bears some of the blame, but not all of that can be put down to :Linda McMahon’s senate run. It’s that by playing it safe the WWE can more easily gain mainstream acceptance. TNA is arguably showing the better wrestling and, AJ/Clair aside, has the better storylines – simple, straight-forward, focused on wrestling. But they cannot get a foot in the door. Why? Sure, WWE have been there longer, but TNA’s been around for a decade now. It’s no longer a new kid on the block; ECW only lasted nine years, remember. It’s because WWE’s safe programming appeals to a wider mass-market and audience. We, the wrestling fans, may decry it, but it clearly works.

So while I sat there and was mildly entertained by the PPVs in the past two weekends, I was not completely impressed. They were just there. Some good matches, some boring matches, some crap. But nothing to grab me and make me think, Wow! It’s all just too dull. But in a world where blandness like the Twilight books and Fifty Shades Of Grey top best-seller lists, where action by the numbers in the latest Bourne film tops box office lists, where disposable pop or bland rip-offs of music popular years ago (see Glee) sell more than anything, where the biggest things on YouTube are cats playing pianos, maybe wrestling is where it should be. It’s nearly always been a follower and not a leader of pop culture, and so today, in a bland world, wrestling has to be bland to maintain its position.

And that there’s the third instalment in “Now And Then.”

This fortnight’s Australiana comes from Shaun Micallef. And have you bought a copy of my book Relick yet? Why not?

Enjoy.

PS: Please feel free to comment, but I’m afraid I can’t respond as Disqus has decided I am not allowed to. I even upgraded the browser like it suggested (Google Chrome is better? than what?), and it still says I can’t comment on InsidePulse any more. So don’t think I’m ignoring you; I really do want to hear what you all think.

For further reading, try this.

Tags: Austin Aries, Bret Hart, Brock Lesnar, cm punk, Davey Boy Smith, hardcore justice, HHH, john cena, Main Event, Randy Savage, Roode, Summerslam, TNA, Ultimate Warrior, view from down here, WWE

Steven Gepp

view profile »

Australian. Father. Perpetual student. Started watching wrestling before Wrestlemania 1. Has delusions of grandeur and was known to regularly get the snot beaten out of him in a wrestling ring. Also writes occasionally in Pulse Sports.Thinks Iron Mike Sharpe is underrated. http://stevengepp.wordpress.com

Follow on Twitter · Email Steven Gepp

Recent Posts »

CB40

For the second time in as many columns, I must say that you are really bringing your A-plus game with your commentary Steven. I agree with every single point you made, and THANK YOU for so eloquently explaining what was missing from SummerSlam (and Hardcore Justice, albeit to a lesser extent in my opinion, because at least they had the right winner in the right main event match).

And your coining of the phrase “Cenoverdose” is just outstanding.
Zork

First off, cats and the internet just get along. Seriously, that has nothing to do with blandness. Some of the highest viewed videos on Youtube has to do with a lot of stupid shit. Like a guy eating a whole stick of Old Spice, or anything involving boobs (boobs aren’t stupid, but videos that have boobs as a misleading picture for you to click and the video being something else entirely is a stupid tactic). I feel as if you may be over simplifying things and maybe even failing to recognize that each decade has something really stupid or bland but it’s really popular anyway. For instance if we’re going to talk about film, I’d argue the 90s was one of the worst periods of time for quality film experiences.

In the case of wrestling, it doesn’t have much to do with following the lead of pop culture at all in my opinion. While attempts are made to follow pop culture by certain wrestling organizations, (primarily the WWF/E) they do not get initially popular by following pop culture’s lead. More often than not it’s been right place, right time, careful planning, taking risks, and that one guy or angle that captures everyone’s attention.

In the 80s boom with the WWF, they got popular initially pretty much just because of Hulk Hogan. The idea of Hulk Hogan was Vince’s brainchild, I don’t care what anyone else says. He had the marketing savvy and was willing to take a risk with this guy. What happened after Hogan made his first title reign? WWF popularity skyrocketed as a result, then Vince got in bed (uhhh…) with MTV and formed the Rock n’ Wrestling connection, people stuck around and some ended up enjoying the other wrestling characters WWF had to offer in those days.

During the Monday Night Wars, WCW gained their lead with a single angle involving WWF talent stolen away from the company, and Hulk Hogan, and to my knowledge they never attempted too much to make a pop culture connection during those times. Ya there would be some spot on MTV where they’d be wrestling on the beach or something but those were just one shots and barely count if at all. I also remember the Dennis Rodman factor, but if you are going to say that pop culture did have a hand in helping wrestling, it would’ve been the 80s of all times.

This was a time where both the major companies fed off each other, and ECW enjoyed a neat little cult status they had to call their own. The WWF regained their popularity by being increasingly edgy, taking a page or two from ECW (Vince gave Paul money and free promotion, I’d say he’s entitled to embellish a bit), and Stone Cold. Stone Cold lead the charge this time and while the Attitude Era can be considered pretty trashy in terms of whether or not it is good wholesome family programming, the WWF was more accepted in the mainstream than ever. Surpassing the amount of money made during Hulkamania and the 80s has to count for something, especially in such a short period of time in comparison to the Hulkamania era. I also realize that during this time the WWF certainly had it’s detractors, otherwise we never would’ve gotten things like Right To Censor but this time WWF wasn’t trying too hard to follow pop culture.

There were celeb appearances such as Mike Tyson which is the most notable, but after that point celeb involvement with the company lessened greatly and popularity only increased from that point. There were no big partnerships, and there weren’t too many other attempts to reach out to celebs during this time. In this era, it really seemed like it was more about the product, the characters, and the wrestlers themselves and that’s what caught everyone’s imagination.

That’s my opinion on everything before, or the then. The now and the explanation for why it isn’t as good? There are multiple reasons. No real competition like the Monday Night Wars times, lack of stars that really appeal to everyone (Not saying that nobody is appealing, but they’re missing that guy that just capture’s everyone’s imagination…John Cena is not it), detrimental internal changes in the WWE and how it runs things since post Attitude (that could be a whole column in of it’s self). Chris Benoit certainly didn’t help matters either, if anything that did a lot of damage to how the mainstream perceives wrestling. I could go on, but this has already turned into a very lengthy post.

I’ll bow out here and just say thanks because that was fun to write. If you can manage to respond to me, I’ll try and fire back.
http://wrestling.insidepulse.com/insider/kjfxxo9/ Kyle Fitta

Pretty much feel the same way. Both shows were mildly entertaining, but didn’t set my world on fire. At least for TNA’s sake, Hardcore Justice wasn’t supposed to be a special PPV. Summerslam is supposed to be the arguably second or third biggest WWE show of the year.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=507858658 Chris Nikolopoulos

Overall, I get what you’re saying and agree on many levels. But, IMO, two matches of “recent memory” that can definitely go down as some of the best of all time are Shawn/Taker @ WM25 and Punk/Cena @ MITB 2011 (Both memorable). Granted, Punk/Cena wasn’t exactly a wrestling clinic, but that match was magic. So in fairness, you can’t say that we need to go back 8-9 years to find the latest most memorable match. We had one a little over a year ago and another one wasn’t even 5 years ago.

I still agree that matches don’t captivate as they once did. I partly attribute that to me as the viewer. Back in those days, Hogan/Warrior or Bret/Owen or Shawn/Razor would stick to my mind because as a kid back then, I viewed wrestling in a different light. I get heavily invested in stories these days, but back then, my 8-9-10 year old mind BELIEVED the stories unfolding and when the matches came along and were actually 5-star matches, they’d more easily get etched in my mind.

I also agree that matches don’t have that big time feel anymore and you state two great reasons why: too many PPVs and RAW/SD are stacked with big name vs. big name matches. It takes away from the appeal when those two clash on a PPV. Why pay 40-50 bucks when I’ve seen these guys fight on a weekly basis for so long.

Personally, I’d minimize the amount of actual PPVs (probably scale it back to the Big Four) and the rest of the year, while RAW and SD run, once a month or so I’d hold a special that would be like a PPV but not exactly one. I’d make one a King of the Ring theme, another one a Great American Bash theme and such. It would be a mix between an actual PPV show and RAW/SD and I’d present it on live television.
Michael L

It hasn’t helped that with few exceptions, the WWE talent consists of pretty much cookie-cutter wrestlers with very little to distinguish them from the pack. I can count on the fingers of one hand a wrestler whose character has really been allowed to break from the pack in the last few years, and even then the WWE does their best to reign him in if they get too “over” for being different. Why should we care about these guys if the WWE can’t give us a reason to care about their characters?

Take Claudio Castagnoli for example. On the Indy scene he had an effective character in the “very European” snob, but I can’t even tell what his character is supposed to be these days. Ziggler has improved as a wrestler, but I still can’t see a real reason to like or hate him other than the fact that he’s with Vicki Guerrero. R Truth was interesting as the insane heel, but they neutered him by turning him into another babyface. Punk was an interesting guy taking on the system last year, but he degenerated into a generic face, and now he’s a generic heel.

Of the rising stars, only Daniel Bryan has emerged as a fun character to watch on a consistent basis, and even then they cross the line into self-parody at times (the psych test a few weeks back for example).

It’s only the established stars that have been able to pretty much do what they need to get their characters over, and when they’re gone, who is going to replace them?

This is why the WWE should move back towards having good bookers, rather than writers. Trust the wrestlers to come up with their own material, and when they get over–get out of the way!!!!

Then and only then will the WWE be interesting again on a consistent basis. Until then, it won’t matter how good the matches are on a star system. The fans just won’t care.