SLAM! Wrestling Editorial: The believability factor
By ALEX RISTIC -- SLAM! Wrestling
There are always issues to deal with in the realm of professional
wrestling, but there's one factor that affects all wrestlers,
organizations, promoters, and fans: believability.
The wrestlers get put into a story, or angle, the organization often times
comes up with it, promotes and markets it. The bookers or local
promoters book local matches that continue storyline and the fans
either believe it which contributes to a successful angle, or don't buy
into it, and it's dropped faster than Funaki with the hardcore title.
So what does believability have to do with this week's edition of Mat
Matters? Well, everything. Lately, it seems that angles and storylines
aren't being written well enough for the fan to suspend their collective
disbeliefs. More importantly, it rubs off on ratings, attendance, and
ultimately could hurt the performers themselves by leaving them buried.
Ultimately, believability in the past was tied in with kayfabe but that
almost no longer exists and is a huge factor in why most angles aren't
to be believed today. And the organizations really have nobody but
themselves to blame because of all the information they put out either
on web sites, or reality-based angles. And this isn't a one federation
issue either. All of the Big Three have made mistakes, as well as created
brilliant strategies, but currently, the effort just doesn't seem to be
there.
We'll start with ECW, and yes, we'll re-hash the "Network" scenario.
While there's nothing technically wrong with the angle itself, the
execution of it hardly has fans believing in it.
Back in the good old days, if someone stole your girl, betrayed you in
the ring or was hunting you down because of your title, it was
believable. Simple yes, but believable. As a matter of fact, it's often
said that the simplest plans are the best to execute. So here's the
inherent problems with the Network angle. One, ECW will eventually be
moving off of TNN, whether tomorrow, or by the dawn of 2001, so how is
it that there are ECW stars feuding with the Network cronies? Seriously.
If Vince McMahon didn't change his mind about his exclusivity rights on
TNN, there would be hardly any TV programming at all. So, if there was
no ECW on TV, then how do you keep an "evil" network angle going with no
network? The ratings seem to back me up on this as ECW hasn't garnered
higher than a 0.8 in at least a month when they were pushing 1.3 way
back in April.
If the fans don't buy it, they won't be there. I'm not arguing the
entertainment value of the angle - everything is entertaining to
somebody. But let's face it, outside of entertaining the audiences with
either mirth, or action, or special effects, the most successful movies
and TV shows achieved their status through people being able to suspend
their disbelief. Mirrored in other pro sports, the drama of that winning
touchdown catch, the batter waiting to tie things up in the bottom of
the ninth, or overtime in the last game of the Stanley Cup final, prove
to provide the most memorable moments.
The same goes with wrestling angles. One of the Number One angles in the
last two years was the Austin/McMahon feud. A lot of people hate their
employers or their jobs at the very least. In a perfect world, at one
point or another, everyone wishes they could do what Austin had done to
McMahon. The believability factor comes in because people can relate to
the angle, because they at least have the fantasy or in extreme cases have
lived out those scenarios - Austin brought in their living room though.
But the angle had a touchstone in the real world.
Of course, the WWF has had its share of doosies too. One of which, is
its current angle with Steve Austin. Is all this detective work really
necessary? We all know, and you don't have to be a smart, that it's
going to be one of the superstars of the WWF. Sure, they could pull a
swerve, and make it someone like Crash Holly but that doesn't make
sense and is definitely not a match the WWF could sell.
Walk through this one with me. Austin is hit by other someone who has a
score to settle, or someone looking to make a name for themselves. There
aren't really any other scenarios that would make sense to take into
account. So, do you waste everyone's time with a one-off kick, stunner,
match, or do you build a feud? You build a feud. So that easily
eliminates 85 per cent of the roster. So why is Austin stunning Kevin
Kelley and Steve Blackman? For comedic value only, much like Austin's
investigation itself.
The fact is, if the angle involved anyone else, save for the Rock, HHH,
Undertaker and Jericho, they wouldn't even do it. It's his name, and his
name alone, that's carrying the angle, not the story itself.
And the WWF has painted itself into a corner with this angle as well. If
it's Billy Gunn, based upon everyone else's observations and Internet
rumours, it's definitely going to be a one match feud. If that's the
highlight match and main event of No Mercy, you're going to see the buy
rate plummet. Fact is, if someone tried to run me over with a car, I
wouldn't just be looking to stun them, I would be looking to end their
career the same way they did mine - which means a prolonged feud of
bloody matches, culminating in a steel cage, or hardcore style match.
Which basically suggests you can narrow the list to about 7 people; HHH,
Rock, Jericho, Kane, McMahon, Big Show, and Undertaker.
And before you mention Chris Benoit, Tazz, or a bunch of others, please
use common sense. Tazz and the Radicals weren't even in the WWF at the
time and picking a member of a tag team like the Dudley's just doesn't
make sense. Plus, for those people not fully using their noodles, Shawn
Michaels is retired and so is Mick Foley. And seeing as how Austin
himself - not necessarily the WWF - has already exonerated Rock, HHH and
Undertaker, you've got four candidates left to choose from - how long
can it take to narrow it down to one? The angle, if done properly, for
which there's still time to fix it, could be spectacular. As it is,
totally unbeleivable. We already know Austin can stun anyone he wants,
so the charade of him going up and down the roster is a useless waste of
time.
As for WCW, the main problem is Vince Russo. Not necessarily all of his
ideas, but there are a wack that just scream "I can't believe it." Come
on. You have a match against Booker T, with no outside interference
allowed (even though there was plenty), against a man twice your size,
who's an actual wrestler. And as we all know, it should have been a walk
for Booker T. So here it is, in the most elementary Sherlock Holmes
fashion. Fact, Booker T should win, so we have to do a swerve in order
to get people to tune into the match. If you knew for a fact there
wouldn't be shenanigans going on you wouldn't bother tuning in. You know
Russo has something up his sleeve. But there's the double edged sword.
You already know something negative is going to happen to Booker T, so
how can you believe he's going to defend his title successfully? Russo
was damned if he did, and damned if he didn't, as soon as he put himself
in the match, because in one way, or the other, the outcome of the match
would have not been realistic.
Of course, I can hear the bitching and moaning now; "But it's wrestling.
It's supposed to be fake." Well, in a way, yes. But as I already stated,
look at programs like Law & Order, or Hill Street Blues. Shows that won
awards, had longevity, and ratings, because of the drama and
believability of the stories. The same with movies - all the successful
ones are the ones that capture your imaginations, like Star Wars.
To prove my point, we'll use Al Snow as an example. While currently, he
is a better technical wrestler than Steve Austin, how many of you would
actually pick Snow to go over on Austin. Probably less than 10 per cent.
So, there you go. If you don't believe something is going to happen, it
probably won't.
If that's not enough, look within, to your memories. Which angles did
you tune into and enjoy the most? In ECW, the Mick Foley/Terry Funk
feud, I'm sure, is near the top of the list. Two athletes proving to one
another who is more hardcore, and one upping each other at every turn
for bragging rights - kind of mirrors pro sports doesn't it. In the WWF,
the aforementioned Austin/McMahon feud, as well as the Hart
Foundation/USA. It's no secret that many Canadians are fed up with
certain US attitudes, and that the US thinks we're just another state.
That angle was totally believable. As for WCW, how about the nWo?
Several high profile super stars claiming superiority and running
roughshod over all the lesser talent. It was believable because in a
popularity sense it was true. Hogan is one of the most recognisable
grapplers of all time, and Kevin Nash and Scott Hall were hot
commodities in the WWF.
All the feds have to exercise some believability in angles for stories
to work, otherwise, fans just get cheated.
Reader Feedback
Sep. 22:SLAM! responds to J.R.
I am a college senior and a big professional wrestling fan. I have visited
SLAM! almost every day for the last three or four years. As long as SLAM!
Wrestling continue to be the most professional Web site on pro wrestling in
the Internet, I will continue to visit for a long, long time.
I wish to applaud you for today's editorial. John Molinaro (my favorite of
the SLAM! writers, not to diminish your talents at all) wrote a very
professional and well thought out criticism of the WWF's bizzare media
policy. The real reason why Jim Ross, the WWF, and their few friends flamed
Molinaro and SLAM! is because the truth hurts, and they tried to give the
hurt back to you guys. Unfortunately, thanks to their aloof media-relation
policy when it comes to the Internet, they gave a more childish and
condescending response than WCW or ECW would have. Their attack didn't even
register, and SLAM! (through you) delivered another blow to the WWF. Either
the WWF will feebly fight back, or they will decide that it's not worth
fighting and try to work better with you guys, as well as the other
professionally-run pro wrestling sites.
I am a fan of all three major federations, but it doesn't mean that I have to
like everything that they do! Here's hoping that you will land Kurt Angle
and Mark Henry before the Olympics end. I, for one, would love to read about
their experiences and see if they contrast with those of Mad Dog Vachon and
Bad News Allen's.
Have a good day, and keep up the usual excellent work!
Rich Knopf
You hit the nail right on the head. I read the WWF site for "news" and
info about the WWF talent and stories. I read the Ross Report to find
out any little bit of "inside" info that he might give. I became an avid
reader of yours because as a crazy hockey fanatic, I can get better
inside info on my home team (the San Jose Sharks) on your web site than
I can at home. You have the only credible and objective coverage of
wrestling on the web. You certainly will not find wrestling covered by
any regular newspapers sports page here the U.S. I read you guys almost
every day. You are definitely in the right on this issue. I would love
to see any WWF superstars interviewed on your website, especially since
some of their best talent is Canadian.
Keep up the good work.
Elliot Brand
Sunnyvale, California
Since when are you a professional "journalist"? I understand CANOE is a big Canadian portal owned by big separatist Quebec company, but like the TSN site, all you guys are just staffers who get to express their views in your spare time. When you guys can show us your journalism diplomas and you actually get paid to cover wrestling (Glen Cole, Alex Marvez, Cody Monk...and that's not their main beat) then you're a professional. The fact is the site looks anything but professional and the grammatical errors made by most of the "journalists" would easily fool good 'ol JR when he surfs over to see if you're not a 12 year old. How come neither Wrestleline, Wrestlingobserver and to a lesser extent pwtorch get lnterviews? Even the LAW gets interviews.
scooter@netmart.com
Well, if they don't want to give you the interviews, why do you have to
report their press releases? They don't give you the interviews, so what? Go
talk to the guys that are willing to talk in ECW and WCW, and soon enough the
WWF will come around. On the other hand, just because you're on the Net
doesn't mean you have a right to all-access information. It would be stupid
of them to have un-biased reports on THEIR site. The same goes for ECW and
WCW. The point of a company is to promote itself. When I want to hear
"unbiased" reports, I'll go to SLAM! or any of a plethora of other Internet
sites.
Jobberman
