Rock Versus Triple H: 2015 Edition

The Rock is many things. He's a Hollywood movie star. He's a highly accomplished third generation wrestler. He's a former eight time WWE world champion. He's a future first ballot Hall of Famer. He's one of the two biggest babyfaces of the Attitude Era (the other, obviously, being 'Stone Cold' Steve Austin). Some may even go so far as to say he was the biggest star of that era but I'm not one of them.

Triple H is also many thanks. He is the current on-screen boss of the company. He too is a highly accomplished wrestler and future first ballot Hall of Fame inductee. He's also former eight time WWE champion. He's one of the two biggest heels of the Attitude Era (the other, obviously, being Vince McMahon). Some may even go so far as to say he was the biggest heel of that era but I'm not one of them.

Rock pretending to fly as he hits a Rock Bottom there.

Together they had one of the greatest rivalries of the Attitude Era. It started off over the Intercontinental title and gradually progressed to one for the world title. Somewhere along the way it became a defining feud for both men, one that didn't actually require the involvement of a title or a reason for a match to take place. It was simply one of those rivalries that had been going for so long that it was one of those rare ever-ready, ever-present disputes, the sort of thing that could flare up at any time. Sort of like Cena v Orton now, only good.

Despite the pair having separate feuds in 1998, 1999 and 2000 they never actually had a one-on-one match at WrestleMania. They completely deserved to but the closest they came was the closing portion of a four-way elimination main event, also involving Big Show and Mick Foley at WrestleMania 2000. Behind Austin versus McMahon and Austin versus The Rock it was one of the defining rivalries of the time. Behind that second programme it was the greatest rivalry of Rock's career. It was quite possibly the greatest of Triple H's, with only his work opposite the various guises of Mick Foley coming close to being both as good and as important to his career.

I mention all of this because there's been speculation since WrestleMania Play Button that Rock and Triple H will face one another at next year's WrestleMania Star in Texas. This has picked up again recently because of SummerSlam. With the event being stretched to four hours (the first WWE event not named WrestleMania to hit that mark) and being held in NYC it's fair to say that WWE will want to add something to the announced card to make it special. A showdown between the on-screen boss and his old movie-making rival would fit the bill nicely. If they came to blows to set up a future match that would be A Big Deal.

Of course, part of the previously mentioned speculative chatter regaining a Rock and Trips bout is that it would somehow involve Rhonda Rousey and Stephanie McMahon. This would make sense given the segment involving all four at 'Mania earlier this year. But while a mixed tag match at WM32 would certainly be memorable it would also feel a tiny but like a squandered opportunity.

In Rock v Triple H WWE has a perfect chance to revisit one of the company's defining rivalries and give them the only kind of match they've never had: a WrestleMania showdown. Were it to happen and Rhonda Rousey was still on the card (her ability to wrestle a match for WWE has been questioned since her UFC boss Dana White stated publicly that he wouldn't let her) then she and Steph could have a singles match. That would probably be more enjoyable anyway: a squash in which uber-heel Steph gets tapped out in a few minutes sounds like a good addition to a 'Mania card to me. Meanwhile if either Rock or Tripper were considering retiring at all in the next little while this is a match that could provide a fitting end to either career (although the assumption that Undertaker's retiring in Texas makes that unlikely, nobody wants to see two retirement matches in one night). It's the match I'd like to see WWE revisit more than any other. One final addition to the feud at a WrestleMania sounds pretty good to me.

The Concept of TNA

We all know that Impact Wrestling may cease to be on our screens at the end of the year. Even if it does stick around it’s unlikely to remain on Spike TV in its current form. If TNA exists in 2015 it will become something radically different to what it is at present. It will almost certainly be smaller, and cheaper, and very probably see its roster further thinned out.

The problem TNA faces here is the same one it’s always faced. It needs to find itself an identity.

It’s possible Spike is happy for TNA to be a very low budget imitation of WWE, getting the low viewing figures you’d expect such an uninspiring mission statement to generate. It’s possible that a new TV home would feel this way, happy to have a relatively cheap pseudo-sporting programme to attract a sliver of a specified demographic.

This attitude would explain a great deal but it’s not really much of an identity for TNA. And it’s not one that’s going to lead to a strong business model. If the last few years are any indication it’s not even enough to be a workable business model.

There are a variety of directions TNA could take to hook some fresh regular viewers. The first is getting rid of the bulk of their roster, hiring a bunch of young lucha-influenced guys and presenting themselves as the home of daredevil wrestlers who will thrill and excite with their planchas and rotation splashes. Then they could frame the introduction of new wrestlers with realistic, relatable characters and gimmicks with video packages in which the newcomers explain their character’s motivations and goals, keeping things clear and simple. The in-ring style is what the group flirted with in its early years with the X Division, although it ultimately took the route of building around ex-WWE and –WCW names instead.

A picture of Low Ki. Because why not, eh?

They could embrace their rep as a WWE tribute promotion and attempt to emulate the style of what is arguably WWE’s most successful period: the Attitude Era. On the surface that would mean more chair shots, swerve turns, blood, swearing and a greater emphasis on gimmicks. At a deeper level it would see the group understand the need to elevate new stars and have everyone on the roster doing something. Enough people argue for a return of the Attitude Era that it has to be a feasible option for TNA. It wouldn’t allow them to grow a great deal, but it might attract fresh eyes and allow them to increase their audience as their work out a direction in which to develop, taking their existing and new fans with them. Just as importantly, it’s an approach that WWE are definitely not going to go back to.

The direction I personally think they should take is emulating the early years of Ring of Honor. There the matches were what was important, rather than gimmicks and storylines. That more simplistic approach would allow TNA and its writers to strip away the fripperies that currently clutter up Impact. It could also allow them to trim a name or two from their writing unit. That’s probably desirable to a company looking at shrinking (again). And it would fit their current roster nicely.

Emulating old ROH they could make offers to guys like Paul London and Brian Kendrick to work alongside their existing crop of former Honor talents Low Ki, The Wolves, TJ Perkins, and, of course, Samoa Joe. That roster coupled with TNA’s underrated production values and backstage approach could allow them to look fresh and new. It wouldn’t alienate their existing fans (certainly not in any concerning number) and would stand a chance of attracting new eyes. The style such a roster would work is also one wholly compatible with the standard indy style, meaning that new hires could be slotted in with a minimum of concern and fuss.

None of these ideas are long term solutions for TNA. But they would provide a more coherent, recognisable identity than what the promotion currently offers. That would allow them to stick around long enough to come up with something original with a wide (preferably wider) appeal.

Global Boom

You’ve probably noticed that Jeff Jarrett has a new wrestling promotion under construction. It will be called Global Force Wrestling and it’s being created for a number of reasons. First and foremost it’s because Jeff no longer holds a position with TNA, the company he founded with his father (Jerry) in 2002. Despite selling control of the company to the Carter family’s Panda Energy Jeff kept a position with the group for a number of years, including the years after he stopped being a TV presence. That changed a few months ago when he announced he was leaving. It seems fair to assume, given his new venture, that Jarrett was tired of being a bit part player in a company he’d intended to be North America’s number two wrestling league. Jeff Jarrett wanted to be the boss again.

Secondly, he feels that another wrestling boom period is imminent. While promoting his new league he’s said that now is the best time to start up a wrestling company because it’s due to shift back into the mainstream. He seems tuned in enough to realise that WWE is going to be the focal point of such a boom (should it materialise) but understands that being a new group while people are just getting interested in wrestling again (or for the first time) will help him build a fan base. A new promotion will feel fresh and new and be more capable of providing jump-in, introductory points than even WWE. There will be a certain dynamism that companies that have existed for more than a few years (basically the entire crop of meaningful indy feds) won’t be able to create.

It’s actually timing that may have doomed TNA from the very start. Wrestling’s last major period of significance started in the mid-nineties and ran through to 2001. It was characterised by the innovative ECW, the Monday Night Wars between the WWF and WCW, and the WWF’s Attitude Era. It was never going to last forever and in hindsight it was always going to wind down after either WCW or the WWF folded. The natural conclusion, basically, was always going to be an invasion of the WWF by WCW talent (or, in some alternate universe somewhere, an invasion of WCW by WWF talent).

Even if that storyline had been expertly handled and booked with no expense spared it was never going to stretch much beyond the early months of 2002. That it was so badly presented only helped to drive less enthusiastic viewers away sooner than would otherwise have been the case. By March 2002, a year after the closure of WCW, the WWF was the only game in town and it was not providing storylines anywhere near as compelling as it had two years before.

Setting up a wrestling company just a year after a hot streak had finished and while the market leader (which dictates how wrestling is perceived in general) was being particularly uninspiring was not the greatest move. But it’s the one the Jarretts made. And in fairness although it was ill-fated it did make sense. They couldn’t sit around waiting for the WWF (soon to become WWE) to get hot again. If they wanted to start a promotion they needed to do it then because there were still significant names floating around from the boom period that had only just ended, plus newcomers wanting a break that McMahon Corp weren’t going to provide.

This time it appears that Jarrett’s timing is better. While I’m not as confident as he is that wrestling’s about to explode into mainstream pop culture again, it is at least a positive sign that WWE’s doing better than when he started TNA. It creates an environment in which wrestling is taken as more acceptable. There’s also the fact that the viewing habits of fans have changed over the years. The internet has made it easier to watch wrestling from all over the world, and old footage too. People’s tastes have become more sophisticated and they understand the business better (whether the people in the business want to admit that or not). It’s easier to present a product that’s less storyline driven and more about athletic ability than it would have been ten years ago because fans at large have become more accepting of the variety of styles that make up professional wrestling.

And it seems as though that’s the approach ‘Double J’ is planning to take. We’ve heard that he’s “created a database” (a pretentious way of saying he’s got a list of names and numbers) with over five hundred entries on it. Obviously you’re not going to have five hundred main event calibre performers on any list. But equally you’re going to have a list that long and have no main event calibre names. Looking beyond the specifics of who Jarrett has and hasn’t signed we can say confidently that he will have some worthwhile talent available to him.

He’s also linked himself to a production company in California. That’s a good move in itself for the obvious reason that he’ll need to produce some sort of show to air and sell. Going with a company in California is a particularly good move. That’s the US’s entertainment mecca, making hobnobbing with other companies that could cross promote far easier than it would be if they were based in, oh, I don’t know, Baltimore, Maryland (cough, ROH, cough!). It also means that they’ll be promoting in an area that has all the technical equipment and venues (of all sizes) they could need. It also sets them up nicely to promote shows at next year’s WrestleMania weekend without going outside of what will I imagine will still be their comfort zone, although that’s more a happy coincidence than planning.

At first glance the idea of Global Force Wrestling has a lot of potential. That Jarrett appears to have worked out deals with talent from around the globe (presumably the name is intended as a literal reflection of his promotion’s scope as opposed to being an all too common bit of hollow wrestling wording) will allow him to present a variety of styles that will provide something for everyone watching. Theoretically it will help viewers discover new styles they enjoy too. As WWE only promotes the sports entertainment style (although in fairness it should be pointed out that this is far more flexible than many make out and does change with the times), DG USA and ROH don’t venture much outside their own comfort zones, and TNA are a complete shambles with no definitive style to speak of, that gives him something unique to offer anyone watching.

I think it’s safe to assume he’ll get some working arrangements sorted out with other promotions too. Jarrett was the man credited with getting TNA deals with AAA and Wrestle-1. As soon as whatever contracts are in place with TNA expire it’s entirely possible Jarrett will be able to swoop in and negotiate something for GFW in their place. In fact TNA itself is on shaky legs: should they go under Jarrett would have access to a wide selection of reasonably well-known names to feature on his shows.

Not everything about GFW inspires confidence. While Jarrett has been involved in wrestling for his entire adult life he’s not exactly got a string of successes to his name. I’ve already mentioned TNA, which is the closest thing we’ve got to a track record for Jarrett as an owner-operator-booker, is not in a good way. While the absence of former WWE, WCW and TNA stars will be a blessing for the most part it also means Jarrett will have to work that bit harder to get people interested. Modern fans may see quality wrestling as a reason to watch in and of itself but a significant name doesn’t hurt. And it may sound like nitpicking but the name Global Force Wrestling doesn’t roll off the tongue no matter how well it may reflect Jarrett’s international desires.

But the biggest problem I can see is that there’s not a particularly compelling advertising campaign attached to the group. Look back and see how it started: pictures of Karen Jarrett and the question of whether you missed her. She, at first glance, was the star of the group. While that no longer appears to be the case it’s still strange that they went with her in the first place. Yes, she’s an attractive woman who’d been an on-screen presence in TNA but if you’re trying to build interest in a wrestling company wouldn’t it be a good idea to start out by announcing you’ve got a significant wrestler on board? Perhaps the trouble there is that they didn’t and don’t have such a name interested and Karen Jarrett was their second best option (in such a scenario Jeff would be the top choice, although he doesn’t look as good lying around a beach) for presenting a big name from the business that could draw people in.

Social media (Twitter, basically) is likely to play an important part of GFW. If Jarrett’s going to be using a fraction of his purportedly five hundred strong roster (database, call it what you will) my assumption is that he’s going to be looking at social media response just as much, if not more than, the reactions of live crowds. So far I’ve seen nothing that makes me think he has anybody particularly ‘net savvy working for him in this department. The entire campaign has been based around posting pictures of the Jarrett and sometimes Karen posing with various wrestlers, everyone from Carlito to Jay Lethal to Gregory Helms to Bad Influence. Nobody interesting that they’ve shown pictures of (Nash and Bret Hart are about the only proven draws) is going to sign a contract, and the Lethals and Bad Influences of the world, as good as they may be, are not the stuff from which a dynamic new wrestling product can be fashioned.

Wisp of Fate

Whether you like Jeff Hardy or not it would take a pretty robust argument to convince most people that he doesn't have name value. As one half of the Hardy Boyz he was involved in some of the most exhilarating and interesting stunt matches of the WWF's Attitude Era. For much of the 2000s, whether he was working in WWE, TNA or elsewhere , he was considered one of wrestling's rising singles stars. When he returned to WWE in 2006 he immediately entered into a programme with Edge and went on to have a rivalry with Triple H. A WWE championship victory in December 2008 finally solidified him as North America’s, and possibly the world’s, premier babyface.

And he'd done it all under his real name. Today if someone who's made it to the top of WWE exits the company they have to leave their ring name behind. While it's rarely a full blown problem for promoters they go on to work for it can and does create needless hassle. Not being able to slap a WWE star's name on a poster means said promoters aren’t able to fully capitalise on their hiring. Which is why WWE does it of course.

Jeff Hardy and those who employ him to wrestle don't have that problem. They can use the name he competed under in WWE and benefit from the work Hardy did there. For a company like TNA, the promotion Hardy is still currently signed to despite not having appeared for a while, this should be irresistible. It's a way for them to show that they're on WWE's level. Not only that but it’s a way for them to use a former WWE star in the same fashion WWE used them. That's something TNA has built a reputation for doing.

The new look's fine. The name change isn't

But they're not doing that with ‘The Charismatic Enigma’. After years of presenting Jeff Hardy as Jeff Hardy, the sensible thing to do when you have him contracted to your company, TNA have decided to use him (or agreed to his request to work) as Willow. It's a simplification of the Willow the Wisp name he used to use when he first started wrestling, years before he got signed by the WWF and became a star. That’s a practice not uncommon for many wrestlers when they first start out: create a character to play until they figure out what they're doing, then discard it and adopt a new name or persona.

Barring one or two appearances, most notably at Ring of Honor’s inaugural Death Before Dishonor event¹ , that's what Hardy did. He switched to his real name, possibly because he realised he stood more chance of getting over that way but more likely because someone in the WWF did, and so that's the name that carries cache with wrestling fans. Not Willow (the Wisp).

I can understand TNA wanting to alter Hardy's on-screen persona in TNA. Aside from his heel run as part of Immortal he's been a face for both his stints with the company, which total either five or six years depending on whether you count his long periods of inactivity while under contract. A change was needed and a character more in line with Hardy's creepier Wisp persona is as good a fresh direction as any. It allows him to do new things and be placed in new situations. After so long doing and saying the same sort of things that's what he needs in order to remain relevant and continue to be of benefit. But the name change is a step too far. Jeff Hardy is who people will tune in to watch, not Willow (the Wisp). And with TNA still on their seemingly never ending quest to get people to watch their shows reasons to watch should be what they want to provide.

***

¹ That appearance saw him enter dressed in the Willow the Wisp outfit but compete as Hardy, getting heavily booed while doing so.

WWE 2K14 review

Have you ever wanted to see Cody Rhodes wrestle Andre the Giant? Are you disappointed that Big Show and Mark Henry never got around to teaming up and taking the tag team titles from The Shield? Have you regretted Hulk Hogan's loss to The Ultimate Warrior at WrestleMania VI for the last twenty-three years? Wish you'd seen Shawn Michaels versus The Rock happen?Think the main event of this year’s Hell in a Cell should've been Titus O'Neil versus Tensai inside the cage?

If you answered yes to any of those questions then WWE 2K14 is probably something that will interest you. Even if you're not into video games you'll almost certainly be aware of its existence. It's been mentioned prominently on RAW for the last month or so and was the sponsor of the Hell in a Cell pay-per-view. In a neat touch the game was integrated into background graphics for the show's matches. But that's by the by.

For me WWE games peaked with No Mercy on the N64. That was released in 2000, which either means I'm quite the fan of the game or that wrestling games have not had a good time of it over the last decade (or, of course, both). What I liked about the game was its chunky graphical approach (well-suited to depicting a group of people who you’d be astute to describe as beefcakes) and the grapple system. The latter saw you press a button to lock up with your opponent (y’know, like wrestlers actually do) and then select a move by pressing one of two buttons and-or a direction. It was so good because it allowed you to replicate the feel of a wrestling match.

Wrestling games since have failed to master these areas, which has led to my disenchantment with pretty much every game post-No Mercy. Some tried the awful approach of using button combos instead of simple grapples, which is completely counterintuitive to how wrestling works. Those that did stick with the grapple system usually botched it. Meanwhile attempts to create realistic character models were completely understandable but the technology wasn't there to allow for success. The chunky, cartoonish beefcake route was, until the last few years, the better one.

But with WWE 2K14 2K Sports have finally produced a worthy successor to No Mercy. Wrestler likenesses are superbly recreated on-screen, complete with signature taunts, mannerisms and egotistical arena entrances. Wrestlers respond in a realistic fashion and feel as though they have some weight to them. It’s the most well-thought-out experience since No Mercy.

Well, sort of. The system is actually just a polished version of last year’s WWE ’13. This year’s instalment was being created using all the same systems by THQ, who went bankrupt during the spring and summer. 2K Sports swooped in, nabbed the lucrative WWE license, and finished the game off. We’ll have to wait until next year to see a game that features a wholly 2K creative direction.

The create-a-wrestler options are, frankly, staggering. Anyone familiar with the previous game will be aware at how creative people with too much time on their hands are able to create rosters that boast characters as diverse as George W Bush, Ash Ketchum, and The Gobbledygooker. Hours of fun can be had with this feature alone, whether the goal is to fill in the handful of gaps on the roster (recent call-ups, NXT regulars, and wrestlers from bygone generations that couldn't be worked into the game), recreate themselves, or make a powerhouse Donkey Kong to job out John Cena with. The option to download various pictures and bits of artwork from the internet will be taken for granted by most people but it still amazes me. I'm used to being confined to The Rock's $500 shirts on No Mercy.

The main part of the game is its Thirty Years of WrestleMania mode. You’re presented with famous ‘Mania matches and tasked with playing through them to recreate key moments. It was a smart choice with the thirtieth edition of the show rolling around next year. The same thing was done with last year’s instalment of the game but with moments from the Attitude Era.

Your personal preferences for WWE eras will dictate what you think of the ‘Mania approach. People who believe that the Attitude Era is the be all and end all of WWE (and wrestling in general) will probably be nonplussed at playing through scenarios involving Big John Studd and King Kong Bundy. Those who can see passed the late nineties will probably be relieved that there’s less emphasis on Dude Love, Ken Shamrock and the Kane v Undertaker feud. Personally I’m a big fan of the Attitude Era but the focus on WrestleMania allows for a greater appreciation of the company’s lengthy history.

You’re rewarded for playing through these scenarios with new characters and arenas. Regain the WWF championship from ‘The Nature Boy’ Ric Flair at WrestleMania VIII as ‘Macho Man’ Randy Savage and you’ll unlock both. Scoop slam Andre the Giant as ‘The Hulkster’ and you’ll finally get to see that Rhodes v Andre dream match. It’s a simple formula but it works well, and should ensure even the most gifted gamers are kept busy for a week or so. It ties in nicely to the usual approach of making legendary names unlockable characters.

WWE 2K14 doesn’t do anything to completely revolutionise wrestling video games. But it does offer competition to previous kingpin No Mercy. In my book that makes it a tremendous success.

The Management Meme

The success of the Mr McMahon character had an incredible effect on pro wrestling. It created arguably the greatest heel of the nineties, certainly one of the greatest heels ever. It helped to turn the WWF’s fortunes around and shape the Attitude Era. And of course it gave ‘Stone Cold’ Steve Austin his definitive feud.

There were many factors in the success of this character. One of them was that it sprung from a real life situation. People knew McMahon was the real life owner of the company had “screwed” Bret Hart¹, which presented the company with the opportunity to present storyline developments as equally real. It was a perfect blurring of the lines, cloaking plot with reality. This is often where wrestling excels.  

Perhaps an even greater reason for the character’s success was Vince himself. Nobody but him could have achieved such success with the character. It went beyond him being the genuine, honest-to-goodness boss of the company. Vince was and is an incredible wrestling personality and performer, so good at making his character easy to understand and relate to (both as a face and a heel).He understand how to carry himself in any given situation on a wrestling show because he’d been promoting them for close to twenty years when he became the lead bad guy, and had been around them since he was a boy.

The Mr McMahon character worked because everyone knew Vince McMahon was the boss, the timing was right for the role, which had been around for a while, to really be pushed to the top, and because of the events that necessitated its creation. It excelled because of Vince’s performance.

This is something that a lot of people in wrestling appear to have forgotten. The origin of the Mr McMahon character appears to be misremembered by people writing wrestling television today. The assumption seems to be that it worked because Vince really was the boss, with little or no credit being attributed to the fact that Vince knew exactly how to pitch his performance to receive the desired reaction, further plots and build towards matches.

This miscomprehension has culminated in the heel turn of Dixie Carter. If there is anyone currently involved in wrestling on any meaningful level less suited to working as a heel authority figure I can’t think of them. Her flat, monotone delivery and inexperience and inability to gauge (and engage) a wrestling crowd has been noted before.

 

TNA's idea of compelling television

 

When she was presented as someone fans were supposed to rally behind it was bad. It was incredibly hard to remain interested and suspend disbelief whenever she had something to say. But ultimately her input was kept to a minimum and she was usually being used to deliver good news that fans were going to react well to, such as Kurt Angle’s Hall of Fame induction. Ultimately it was okay because her dreadful performances were overshadowed by the content she’d been given.

Now that she’s a bad guy (or gal) things are worse. She can’t be aided by the smokescreen of delivering good news. She has to deliver messages of substance and make fans actively dislike her. It’s important to note that they must dislike her, rather than simply be disinterested or bored by her. At the moment she does not know how perform this task. Nothing she’s done makes me think she’ll be able to learn.

And of course there doesn’t seem to be a plan for her turn. At the moment she is simply opposing an unruly, outspoken AJ Styles. That she’s not been linked to a wrestler means that there’s no match coming up. And ultimately that’s what every storyline should be about: setting up matches. If no matches can result from a storyline how can it be a worthwhile part of a wrestling show? This is a problem TNA could fix but I suspect that, in their usual style, they won’t until a large chunk of their audience have picked up on it.  

This is a problem with wrestling in general, not just TNA. That said there is no more prominent example at this time than Dixie Carter. It’s an approach I’d like to see the industry move away from. We’ve had over fifteen years of heel promoters and storylines revolving around backstage power struggles. It’s time for something new. Something that doesn’t so frequently place people very clearly not cut out for prominent on-screen roles into the spotlight.

***

¹ Easy to take for granted now, it was not common knowledge at the start of 1997. It became an aspect of company programming throughout that year.

In Fairness to Russo

Vince Russo had his strengths as a writer.

This is not something you’ll hear many people say. Or see them write. The general opinion on Vince Russo is that he takes credit for things he has no business taking credit for, has an unhealthy obsession with swerve turns and worked shoots, and that he was a talentless hack who produced nothing of value without Vince McMahon around to filter the good from the bad. Oh, and that he killed WCW.

There’s probably some truth to all of those points. He has claimed in interviews that he suggested certain lines or mannerisms to big stars such as ‘Stone Cold’ and The Rock, which have been refuted elsewhere by other people. In a collaborative field such as professional wrestling there’s always bound to be some dispute with regard to who created what but I’m generally inclined to side against Russo on this point.

He was around the roster but I can’t imagine him coming up with all the things he claims he did during the late nineties. Rock, Austin and others were talented enough to work out their own material. And still do, noticeably without the input of Russo.

His obsession with swerve turns and worked shoots is again something I shan’t try to argue against. Russo does seem to love both things. The evidence is there for all to see. His defence is that employing these tricks allowed him to better emulate “edgy” shows like Jerry Springer and Beavis and Butthead, which were popular shows during the Attitude Era and have been cited as sources of inspiration by Vinnie Ru.

I can see what he was trying to accomplish with this approach, although he came close to going overboard in the WWF and went completely off the rails when he was heading up WCW. There though it wasn’t Russo’s sole decision to employ worked shoot angles: a good portion of his time as head creative force in WCW saw him working alongside Eric Bischoff. You only need to look at the current TNA product, which Bischoff has been helping to produce for a number of years and has recently been put in charge of, to see that he’s just as enamoured of the approach as is Russo.

The thing about Russo being filtered by McMahon is probably valid too. When Russo moved to WCW he had nobody working above him as far as creative was concerned. He had to take into account the creative control clauses of certain performers and the desires of parent company chiefs but otherwise was free to produce what he wished. That it was mostly insane nonsense (though strangely compelling insane nonsense over a decade later) shows that Russo probably did need McMahon around to decide what would work and what wouldn’t.

I think it’s completely ridiculous to claim Russo killed WCW. He certainly didn’t help matters but the promotion was in trouble long before he joined and was going to be axed whether he was around or not. Turner bosses didn’t want to own a company that couldn’t pay for itself. Nor did they want a wrestling programme on their television schedules. That’s a fact and a larger contributing factor to WCW’s downfall than Russo’s booking. The ratings had been tumbling long before Russo was brought in, because the WWF had a more dynamic, interesting product.

For the record, the creative control clauses didn’t help WCW either. They hampered whoever was in charge and were a contributing factor to the WCW TV product gradually falling apart once the WWF took the lead. Everyone had been happy to go with the vision of whoever was in charge when WCW was on top. Once they were in second place everyone had a different view on how to get back into first, which prevented a coherent vision formed and presented.

 

Vince Russo: one of the most divisive figures to ever work in pro wrestling

 

What Russo did well was ensure that everyone on the roster had something going on. Whether it was a memorable gimmick or noteworthy feud, it was rare for any member of the roster to be doing nothing under Russo. In the WWF at least. His lack of success in WCW meant he wasn’t around long enough to pay attention to lower card performers there.

I don’t know what Russo booked in the WWF but I can hazard a guess. To my mind it seems reasonably safe to assume that Vince McMahon would have been more heavily involved with the headline scene and star creating process. Those were the most important areas for the promotion to concentrate on and McMahon, as the boss, would likely have made sure he was the one primarily concentrating on them. I imagine Russo would have had input and come up with broad storylines but it would have been McMahon’s area.

I suspect Russo concentrated more on the middle and lower portions of the card. I’ve never read or seen an interview in which he hints that this is the case, but that’s to be expected. Why would he admit to being the man who booked Taka Michinoku, Val Venis and Steve Blackman when he can say he was the genius planning out the drama between Austin, Rock and Triple H, pulling them aside to feed them cool lines as he went? With nobody able to prove him wrong Russo is in a perfect position to embellish the truth.

The booking similarities between the WWF mid-card and the Russo-in-WCW experience in general lends this theory credence. The WWF mid-card featured a lot less forward planning and consistency than the headliners and rising stars did and is where most of the Attitude Era’s plethora of swerve turns took place. It was a less polished, more anarchic feel than the top of the card, similar to what Russo would later be unquestionably responsible for in WCW.

But, as I said, his strength was always having something for people to do. Everyone in the WWF, from Crash Holly to D’Lo Brown, from Mideon to Tiger Ali Singh, was distinguishable from their peers in a meaningful manner. Did it all work? Of course not. We got Naked Mideon, Lo Down, and the unresolved implied castration of Val Venis by Kai En Tai. But we also got Crash Holly’s belief that he was a superheavyweight, the Headbangers’ reign as “mystical” tag team titles and a variety of wrestlers appearing under the Blue Blazer mask as though they were all one person. It was hit and miss, but at least there was something happening.

Compare that to the modern WWE product. I’m not going to trash what WWE are giving us now because in truth the company has been steadily improving over the last two years following half a decade or so of infuriating drifting. Things are getting better thanks to an engaging main event crew and a renewed focus on creating new stars.

But the fact remains that once you get down to the mid-carders there’s not much going on there. Wade Barrett’s a good example. We’re told every week as he walks to the ring that he’s a former bare knuckle boxer from England. The only things about him that can be said to reference this gimmick (and true or not it is a gimmick) is his Bullhammer finisher and the taunt he does when he climbs into the ring. In practice there’s not really anything to separate Barrett from the various other mid-card villains running around the place.

The WWE writing team could learn from the Russo approach. The promotion will always succeed or fail based mostly on the strength of its main event line-up. But it doesn’t hurt to give career mid-carders something to do as it creates a livelier, more varied and compelling show. And, more to the point, the mid-card is the home of every future headline star the company has. Wrestlers don’t just turn up ready to win world titles and main event pay-per-views.

I’m not going to advocate Russo being rehired to write for RAW or being posted to NXT. He is not someone who should have any direct contact with any current WWE creative team member. But exposing writers to his approach by showing them videos could give them a better understanding of writing for a full cast, rather than just a select four or five.

Jerichoverrated

Why does everybody rate Chris Jericho so highly? This is a question that's been puzzling me for a while and it's finally reached the point where I feel I have to write about as an attempt at sort of catharsis on the topic.

I imagine I'm going to need to start by giving my reasons for feeling that 'Y2J' being overrated. I wish it were enough for me to say he just is, but I don't think that'll cut it. Which is fair enough.

So, if you're a Jericho fan, ask yourself when he last had a great match. And I don't mean a decent match or the best outing on any given TV show or pay-per-view, I mean an undeniable classic that people will look back on in years to come and agree that it's as close to a perfect match as you can get.

Don't point to his feud with Punk last year. That was dismal. His programme with Dolph Ziggler later in the year was better but that yielded no outstanding bouts either. In fact I'd say the best in-ring performance Jericho had last year was the four-way at Over The Limit. Even that, while enjoyable, isn't going to be looked back at in five years as anything special.

I imagine anyone trying to name Jericho's last great match will bring up his programmes with the likes of Edge, Randy Orton, Batista and Shawn Michaels. Of those I think only the rivalry with 'HBK' provided anything that could be accurately described as excellent. They had memorable matches at Judgment Day and The Great American Bash and a particularly wild brawl at Unforgiven. All in 2008.

 

The truth is that most of the time Jericho's matches are let down by an astounding number of botched and blown spots, generally poor timing, and attempts to cram far too much in. These are not the traits of one of the best wrestlers ever.

This is not to say Jericho is not good. He is good. But the amount of praise and adulation he gets is disproportionate to what he actually does as a performer. Things go wrong in matches from time to time. It happens to every wrestler, no matter how good or over they are. But the frequency with which it happens to Jericho indicates a problem specific to him. You don't see Undertaker, Triple H or Kane, men with similar numbers of years in the business, botching as often or as obviously as 'The Highlight of the Night'.

Look at his recent outing against Ryback and Rob Van Dam from Money in the Bank and the following evening’s RAW. There were numerous blown spots there. You can go back to earlier this year and see ‘The Ayatollah of Rock-and-Rollah’ loudly calling spots and entering sloppy performance against Fandango.

I will say this for Jericho, the dude's got a nice line in sparkly jackets

 

I think another part of the reason I find Jericho's lauded status amongst fans irksome is that he seems to agree with it. He really does believe himself to be one of the greatest wrestlers ever. I admit this is a contentious topic, but you have to pick some very specific criteria for Jericho to be rated as one of the best wrestlers there have ever been.

 

He's a better in-ring performer than big names like Hogan, Cena, and even to an extent Austin but that doesn't necessarily make him superior as an all-rounder. Those three were and are all far bigger draws than Jericho, which indicates there was something about them that set them above 'The King of Bling Bling'. Austin and Cena are arguably better than Jericho on promos too, and Hogan in his prime and during his nWo run wasn’t that far behind.

Yes. Promos. This is the other area where Jericho's overrated. He's far more consistent with a mic in his hand than with his wrestling boots on (perhaps it's all that singing he does) but he's far from perfect. Look back to that episode of RAW a few months ago where he loudly called spots to Fandango into a microphone that Fandango was holding. It was ridiculous. That's an unfairly obvious example, but you don't have to go far to unearth instances of Jericho audibly calling spots during matches.

It’s been a while since Jericho cut a truly great promo. His run from mid-2008 to mid-2010 was pretty good. He did a great job of slowing his delivery down and putting some thought into getting people to react how he wanted. But he’s lost his knack since returning in January 2012. No matter what role he’s playing Jericho now relies on boring catchphrases and uninspired clichés.  

A man of with experience should know better than this. The frequent botches, loud calls, and utter lack of humility are not the hallmarks of an all-time great. They are, in my opinion, the hallmarks of a pretty good but sloppy worker who feels he needs to propagate the myth that he's fantastic in order to stand any chance if being considered as great as he feels he is.

Again, he is good, but not as good as he's credited for being. If he wasn't a twenty year pro with name value left over from the Attitude Era I don't think he'd be anywhere near as highly regarded as he is.

Best in the world at what he does? No. Not even close.

The State of WWE: The Heel-Face Divide

Consider this a third part of the sort-of series I've done over the last two days regarding how WWE books their product. It will probably help if you've read them (check them here and here). I'm not intending to refer to specific stuff from them. It’s the general theme that will carry over.

Today's subject is, as you may have guessed from the title, the booking of heels and faces in modern wrestling (specifically WWE). Twenty five years ago a wrestler could devise a character or gimmick and be practically certain of what sort of reaction they'd get from fans. The latter half of the nineties changed that. First the nWo introduced the world of wrestling to the cool heel fad. Then 'Stone Cold' Steve Austin became the hottest thing since ever doing things that would traditionally would have been considered heelish but with such charismatic glee that fans backed him.

The Attitude Era is packed with examples of faces taking on heelish attributes. The Rock is the most obvious additional example, although once he became a force of good following his bad guy run in the Corporation his heelish traits were not as overt as the likes of Austin and D-Generation X.

Morally grey

It cut both ways. Kurt Angle was introduced as a clean cut American hero, draped in the red, white and blue of the nation’s flag and appearing in vignettes talking about being a national treasure. It was the sort of character that would have been adored a decade earlier. By 1999 fans saw this sort of act as dated and booed 'The Olympic Hero'. That was, of course, the response WWE desired. Angle had been introduced in that fashion to turn audiences against him.

Basically the nineties blurred the lines as to what made a heel and what made a face. The language of television changed and took wrestling it.

WWE spent a significant portion of the last decade seemingly trying to reverse this. They recreated the Four Horsemen, Angle became more generic as a heel but über-patriotic as a face, and feuds settled down into rhythmic exchanges of good versus bad, something the Fed had moved away from during the late nineties. It was an exercise in futility. But then so was a lot of WWE's output from that time.

What's noteworthy is that on the December 15^th 1997 episode of Monday Night RAW Vince McMahon opened the broadcast with a segment referred to on-screen as “the cure for the common show”. In that he announced to viewers that the promotion was going to begin moving in a new direction, heading away from good versus evil battles and offering characters with their own sets of morals to provide unique and interesting stories. Some of McMahon's comments were obviously digs at opponent WCW although the entire exercise was a retaliatory manoeuvre in the first place (because WCW had been hammering the Fed in the ratings).

That announcement was a signal to viewers that things were changing with the WWF product. Those changes to Austin and the various other morally grey personas of the era, freshened up the product and created a wealth of booking opportuities. Each guy, no matter their standing or spot, was distinguishable from his peers, having characteristics completely his (or her) own.

That's a far cry from where WWE was three years ago, a little over a decade after Vince’s speech was made. Every non-headline heel on the roster sounded and acted the same. They would hold the audience in contempt, cheat to win matches, and back down from fights. Meanwhile the babyfaces loved the fans, upheld the rules, and would routinely challenge whatever bad guy they were feuding with to square off outside of sanctioned matches "like men".

Okay, fair enough these are good basics to adhere to. It's difficult to imagine a babyface who insults fans for example (although Eddie Guerrero did pretty well for himself breaking rules). But these attributes don't add up to make a personality and they certainly don't create compelling television when they're the only things on offer.

What wrestling fans want are characters with their own opinions and ways of doing things. CM Punk turned heel last year but still received scattered cheers because people recognised that he was staying true to his overall character. All ‘The Second City Saint’ has ever cared about has been the WWE championship. When he went heel his approach to promos changed, as did the people he feuded with, but he was still adhering to the same set of goals he always had.
 

Another surprisingly good example in recent times has Big Show. Since aligning himself with John Laurinaitis and officially going bad last summer Show has been booked according to a set of principles whilst at the same time flirting with becoming a babyface again. The obvious example was his union with Randy Orton and Sheamus to combat The Shield. It felt a little strange but it could be accepted because he didn’t become a completely different character.

Look at a company like Ring of Honor. They routinely book face versus face battles and occasionally even go in for heel versus heel battles. They’re comfortable with doing so because they trust their audience to pick a favourite and back them, which creates a pretty interesting dynamic when bigger name matches occur.

They’ve also moved away from having everyone have a defining moment for a heel or face turn. At the end of last year Roderick Strong was most definitely a heel. Over the course of the year so far he has stayed playing the same character but has heard a growing number of cheers during his matches. ROH haven’t responded by putting him in an angle to say he is definitively a face again, they’ve simply booked him against a wider variety of guys and Strong himself has reacted to audiences in a less antagonistic manner.

Characters on non-wrestling TV shows are rarely black and white. People want more from television than that in this day and age. It no longer works to present someone as a good guy with no foibles anymore, especially when the likelihood is that they’ve played a reprehensible charlatan at some point in the not too distant past. Moral absolutes are not interesting to watch. Characters with moral grey areas should be embraced by wrestling as they have been with other types of television.

The way forward regarding wrestling personas is to let wrestlers develop something themselves. They’ll not only feel more comfortable but they’ll also be able to rationalise face and heel turns more easily when they have to perform them. The key is not to say that someone’s a good guy and then expect the audience to cheer them, it’s to present a character and see how the audience responds. Book them accordingly from there.

WWE: The Attitude Era (DVD Review)

You'd have thought that a DVD focusing on WWE's Attitude Era would pretty much put itself together. The company has access to a large number of the biggest stars of the time, as well as those employed by WCW, the chief opposition during the boom period. There are more than enough great moments to choose from to highlight the strengths of the time, not to mention plenty of feuds, performers, angles and events to focus on.

Despite this WWE's Attitude Era DVD (released to eyebrow-raisingly little fanfare last year) doesn't do a particularly good job. For starters the main feature is only an hour long. This is a perfectly reasonable run time and allows WWE to cover the majority (but not all) of the most important stuff to a satisfying degree. Unfortunately it's not long enough to cover everything that should have been covered in sufficient detail. Some things you'd expect to be covered heavily are glossed over or omitted altogether. Bizarrely some things you'd think wouldn't get much of a mention are granted a hefty portion of the run time.

Chris Jericho's debut is a good example. While the his first appearance on RAW is included in full as an extra it's not really tackled on the main documentary. The same goes for Kurt Angle. Both men were important signings during the era and could be considered stars by the time it ended. They remain stars today, which makes them relevant to the documentary. That their involvement is downplayed feels odd.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into it. After all neither Austin nor Rock, undeniably the Attitude Era's biggest hitters, get much of a profile either. The only act to get what would anyone would consider a lengthy amount of time dedicated to it is D-Generation X. The approach is at least consistent but for the most part it could leave someone unfamiliar with the product confused as to who placed where on the pecking order.

The selection of talking heads feels limited compared to other WWE releases. Some of the contributors are strange choices. I can't imagine anyone was desperate to hear so much from Rikishi, who crops up time and again to give his opinon on practically every subject covered. His involvement should've ended after he took credit for inventing the Too Cool gimmick (a lie by the way: Taylor and Christopher were repackaged as a hip hop act months before they were united with Rikishi and their deliberately bad dancing was a part of the fun and games from the off). Ron Simmons gets a surprising amount of face time.

Better value are Road Dogg and, amazingly, Mark Henry. Roadie offers a great deal of insight, his sense of humour helping him to come across well. Henry is self-depreciating, useful when the Attitude Era provided fans with so many amusing moments at his expense. He seems genuinely touched when talking about a fan who told him they'd appreciated his work during an angle that saw him dating a transvestite. ‘The World’s Strongest Man’ comes across well.

The feature starts focusing on DX before moving on to Austin (hilariously described by the gruff and intimidating narrator as "a monsoon of good fortune") and the importance of long term stories to the era's success. Anyone who watched WWF programming at the time will be able to tell you the McMahon's appeared a lot as part of those long term stories. According to Pat Patterson that was something everyone wanted to see. Lies like that are what keep Pat employed.

They cover the Brawl for All and wisely don't try to disguise what a failure it was. JBL admits it was a stupid idea. He also reveals that it came about from an idea he submitted to management that was, it turns out, more in line with what the hardcore division became. This wasn't something JBL just decided to do, the entire roster was encouraged to submit ideas regarding what they'd like to be doing on TV. WWE should consider doing something similar with their current batch of stars.

Talk of the hardcore division naturally leads to clips of all the famous bumps and dives of Mick “I’m a hardcore legend” Foley. He's acknowledged as a great hardcore wrestler but it feels half-hearted, as though the people saying it haven't stopped to think about what the term hardcore in relation to wrestling means anymore. There's something off about Foley's spot on the DVD in general. It's as though he's being mentioned grudgingly. Perhaps he is.

Speaking of Foley he crops up as a talking head, usually contributing something either instantly forgettable or giving an example of WWF programming he didn't care for. Most of the things he finds distasteful involved the portrayal of women, although stuff involving DX and 'Sexual Chocolate' upset him too.

Road Dogg and Mark Henry happily reminisce about the more provocative clothing WWE's female talents wore back then. They also mention girls taking their tops off in the audience. I mention this mainly because Henry is hilarious on the subject. Other amusing comments are Big Show describing everyone before Sunny as looking rough and Stephanie McMahon popping up to say the girls of the Attitude Era were "sexy, fun and manipulative". It makes you wonder what sort of values she’s instilling in her daughters.

We're told that when SmackDown debuted the WWF deliberately sought a more comedic tone. It's not made clear why. In fact it wasn't clear that it was actually happening when I was watching SmackDown during the period in question.

Still, it does at least provide an excuse to play the footage of Mae Young giving birth to a hand which leads to Mark Henry announcing he wasn't completely sold on the reveal. When he asked Vince McMahon why a hand had been chosen the reply was "It's a hand!" That story is worth the price of the DVD by itself.

The documentary wraps up by blasting through some clips of 'Y2J' and Angle, devoting a surprising amount of time to Patterson, Brisco and the Mean Street Posse, and the 24/7 era of the hardcore division. I hated that gimmick at the time. I'm still not wild about it now.

Over on the extras disc things are pretty good. You get a hefty selection of matches and angles to browse through. Some merit inclusion more than others. I can't imagine anyone was desperate to see Bart Gunn legitimately KO 'Doctor Death' Steve Williams and the highlight of the Sable v Marc Mero encounter is the commentary of Jerry Lawler and Jim Ross.

Better is a four team tag title match featuring Austin, Rock, Undertaker, Mankind, Kane, and the New Age Outlaws (along with odd man out D'Lo Brown). It's not a bad effort but it's most interesting for involving so many of the major players of the time in one outing. Rock versus Mankind from Survivor Series '98, the infamous beer bath segment, and Chris Jericho v Eddie Guerrero from April 3^rd 2000 are all worth looking at again too. All the extras, good and bad, are pretty solid representations of what made the Attitude Era what it was.

Despite the assorted failures with the main feature they do manage to give viewers a taste of nostalgia for a fondly remembered wrestling era. It's also pleasing to hear acknowledgement that Attitude didn't come about purely by design: it was able to happen because the WWF was smart enough to capitalise on viewing trends with American audiences. Various contributors also admit that the Attitude Era saw numerous guys all hit their stride at the same time. It's true and it was the biggest contributing factor to the WWF's success.

The Attitude Era is far from the worst wrestling DVD out there but it does feel like something of a missed opportunity. The period from late '97 to early '01 is critically acclaimed and loved for a reason. It's also the reason WWE is still in business today. It deserved more than an hour but makes good use of what it’s given.

Anti-Authority

Why is it that every wrestling promotion under the sun (well, the ones in North America at any rate) feels the need to clog up valuable minutes of air time with authority figures? WWE is the prime culprit. This year we've seen AJ Lee become the GM of RAW only to be fired a few months later for "inappropriate relations" with a talent, Booker T appointed as the new SmackDown boss with his assistants (Teddy Long and Eve) bickering and one-upping each other continually, and, of course, the entire John Laurinaitis saga. The latter was a holdover from one of last year's central stories.
 
While authority figure storylines are a WWE speciality they're not the only ones at it. Over the last few years TNA has become a pustule of unsightly continuity plots with match-making power tossed around seemingly at random between Sting, Eric Bischoff, Hulk Hogan and Dixie Carter. Not content to simply rotate established names through an existing job a new role was also created: GM of the Knockouts division. Designed exclusively as a way to get Brooke 'Hogan' Bollea onto television it's a move that hasn't improved Impact at all.
 
Even Ring of Honor, the company all about emphasising in-ring competition and downplaying frivolous stories (supposedly), has seen an above average amount of time dedicated to match-makers this year. Executive Producer Jim Cornette was the main rival of world champion Kevin Steen before being written off TV (because of his real life dismissal from the booking squad) to be replaced by Nigel McGuinness.
 
In 2012 there is no need for these figures to be featured so prominently. Yet they are. Their prominence is a holdover from the days of the Attitude Era, where the Mr McMahon character first gained notoriety and become a money draw. People had filled similar roles before, but never had they gotten over so well. Vince was so fantastically good at the heel owner shtick that the promotion’s writing team (which was installed during the Era’s latter years) became used to writing with such a character.

The man who started the trend

Authority figures have become a crutch to the WWE writers. They rely on them for easy storytelling and eliciting the desired reaction (usually boos or cheers) easily from fans. It’s a habit that needs to stop. Wrestling shows do not need weekly appearances from General Managers, Executive Producers, Managing Consultants, commissioners or any similar fictitious role.

That’s not to say that these roles should be done away with completely. There’s always a need for authority figures in wrestling. A GM, commissioner or owner is someone who can explain the storylines and book the matches on screen. It’s a good way of getting retired or limited performers (or over non-workers) onto television. They just shouldn’t be on every week talking for twenty minutes.

TNA, WWE and ROH are all just as guilty as one another when it comes to this. All three need to decrease the amount of time dedicated to these performers and start focusing on signing and pushing new acts whom they will be able to rely upon in the years to come. People won’t buy a pay-per-view to see matches being made. They’ll buy a pay-per-view to watch matches being wrestled.

Who's Next?

Ryback's failure to defeat CM Punk for wrestling's top prize was predictable. What wasn't predictable was the way in which he lost.
 
As 'Big Hungry' hoisted Punk onto his shoulders (avoiding a botch, thankfully) for the Shell Shock the referee delivered a textbook Attitude Era low blow. This allowed 'The Second City Saint' to roll the big man up, grabbing a handful of trunks along the way, and get a fast three count for the tainted victory.
 
Yep. WWE went for a screw job finish. Interference by Brock Lesnar would have set up a match between he and Ryback. Having a mid-carder cost him the match would have done the same, plus given someone lower down the pecking order a boost by associating them with Punk and setting them up for a clash with the promotion's hottest star.
 
Going with a corrupt referee was a good choice though. It plays into the quickly forgotten angle that occurred after Night of Champions, when CM Punk complained about sub-par officiating. That the same official was chosen to aid Punk makes it clear that the whole thing was, as Jim Ross would say, a setup all along.

The man who would be champ

 
It was the right finish. Ryback lost but not convincingly. It was a great way to protect him. Meanwhile Punk looks like the conniving, unscrupulous and unfair heel he's meant to be. He cheated to win because he knew he couldn't defeat the babyface fairly.
 
The finish could indicate that Paul Heyman has a degree of influence on WWE's booking. He's written dodgy referees in the past (most notably Bill Alfonso). It feels like the sort of suggestion he'd make. If the former ECW chief is involved in the writing process then that's good news for fans.
 
But what's next for Ryback? More precisely, who's next? A rematch with CM Punk seems unlikely. The two men clashed either as an experiment to see how over Ryback is or because John Cena is injured. Ryback will likely confront 'The Voice of the Voiceless' on RAW but a return performance seems unlikely at this time. A resumption of hostilities with John Cena is the next probable step for the champ.
 
Having proved himself in a big match environment Ryback could head into a rivalry with Big Show, the new holder of the World Heavyweight championship. A short reign for 'The World's Largest Athlete' seems likely and beating him would reinforce 'back's standing as a powerful beast. That would then test Ryback out as a world champion in a low pressure fashion.
 
Perhaps he could scale back his title ambitions and concentrate on Antonio Cesaro's United States gold. 'The Swiss Superman' could work a decent-length non-title match with Ryback and then lose a rematch. Cesaro has helped make the US strap mean something since winning it. Ryback could enhance it further.
 
The trouble there is that targeting a mid-card belt could make Ryback seem weak or indecisive. It may look as though he's decided to go for second (or fourth) best because he can't succeed at the highest level. If he's going to go after a champion other than Punk then Big Show seems a much better choice.
 
Alternatively Ryback could target one of the many men currently treading water. Wade Barrett, The Miz, or Alberto Del Rio would all be fresh challenges for the man from Sin City. Any of them could work an entertaining month-long programme. Ryback could even tangle with a tag team. The Prime Time Players or the Rhodes Scholars could mock him for losing to Punk, inciting a rivalry.
 
The inevitable first loss has arrived far earlier than most people expected and it has taken away one of the Ryback's most significant selling points. WWE will need to be very careful what they do with him next. He may have been protected in defeat, but if it happens once too often fans are going to lose interest.

The Scene of the Crime

Tonight's RAW will emanate from Montreal, Quebec and will feature an appearance by Bret 'The Hitman' Hart. Anyone wrestling fan familiar with the Montreal Screwjob will be able to tell you how significant this appearance is. Most people reading this will likely already know what the Montreal Screwjob is but for those that don't I'll attempt a brief summary.

Bret Hart was recognised as the WWF champion heading into Survivor Series '97. It was relatively common knowledge that he was due to leave the promotion within weeks and join WCW, due mainly to Vince McMahon and the WWF being unable to pay Hart's contracted salary.
 
Hart was adamant that he would not lose the WWF championship to Shawn Michaels, his scheduled opponent at the pay-per-view. Some have said he was willing to lose the title to Steve Austin or Mick 'Mankind' Foley, while some have stated the problem wasn't just losing to 'The Heartbreak Kid' but losing in Canada in general. Hart took (and takes) his public perception in his home nation very seriously and the general consensus is that he didn't want to lose to a man he personally disliked in front of his countrymen.
 
The Hart versus Michaels match ended up going ahead, with a planned finish agreed between the opponents and company owner and chief creative director Vince McMahon that would see Hart retain the championship. Reports vary on when Hart believed he would lose the title but it’s generally felt he was under the impression he would retain the belt on pay-per-view and then drop it on Monday Night RAW sometime in the following weeks.
 
The planned finish didn't occur. What happened instead was that Michaels placed 'The Hitman' in his own finishing hold, the Sharpshooter, and Vince McMahon ordered the bell to be rung and the match ruled in HBK's favour.
 
The combatants looked confused in the ring as a new WWF champion was announced. This was a ruse on Michaels' part, he had been in on the deception along with Vince McMahon and other key names. Hart spat on Vince and drew the WCW initials in the air for the hard camera as the show went off the air.
 
Hart wouldn't appear on RAW again until January 4 2010. He moved to WCW for a disappointingly forgettable run that saw his career reach a premature end in a match with Bill Goldberg.
 
The Montreal Screwjob left a sour taste in the mouths of Hart's family and friends for years to come. It tarnished the legacy of one of wrestling's most important figures and offended many members of the WWF locker room (Davey Boy Smith, Owen Hart, Mick Foley and the Undertaker, among others).
 
It also did a great deal of good for the WWF. It allowed for the creation of the hated Mr McMahon character, who proved the perfect foil for breakout star 'Stone Cold' Steve Austin. It also set the tone for the Attitude Era, which is what eventually allowed the WWF to triumph over WCW.
 
It may not have been Vinnie Mac's finest hour but it's hard to argue that he didn't make the right decision for his company in the long run.
 
As I noted above Bret returned to the (now renamed) WWE in 2010. He publicly buried the hatchet with Shawn Michaels and embarked on a feud with McMahon that climaxed at WrestleMania XXVI. He has made sporadic appearances over the last two and a half years and remains a popular nostalgia-fuelled act.
 
The company are going to want to make Hart's televised return to Montreal memorable. It's likely he will be given time to talk about what appearing there means to him and (hopefully) acknowledge that it (finally) signals an end to the fallout of the Screwjob.

Tonight is a big night for this guy

 
I cannot see his appearance being limited to a speech though. It is too perfect an opportunity to get some heat on a heel act. Any wrestler interrupting Hart's address (or diatribe, call it what you will) will meet with an intensely frosty reception from the Montreal audience.
 
Theoretically any bad guy on the roster could be scripted to interrupt Hart's monologue. The Miz, Alberto Del Rio, Cody Rhodes and Dolph Ziggler would be particularly good fits. All would benefit from the spot and are established enough to pull it off believably. None of them seem likely though.
 
To my mind there are only two men who can realistically be expected to confront 'The Hitman'. The first is Damien Sandow. In truth it's not that likely that he'll interact with Hart, but he's been booked so strongly and management are so high on him that it's just about imaginable enough to be a realistic possibility.
 
The other name, and the man I think will confront the former five time WWE champion, is CM Punk.
 
The current WWE champion is now the promotion's top heel and is becoming more arrogant and condescending with each passing week. Having him lay into Hart for whining would cast Punk in an incredibly negative light and make the fans in attendance loathe him. It's all too easy to imagine a situation in which 'The Voice of the Voiceless' lays into Hart for "disrespecting" him by wasting time and talking about something that happened fifteen years ago.

Placing Punk in this spot would also open up the possibility of having Paul Heyman interact with the Canadian hero. The alliance that appeared to be revealed in the closing moments of last week’s RAW is expected to be addressed tonight and there would be no better way of giving the pairing something memorable to do than having (to my knowledge) the first televised interaction between Heyman and Hart.
 
Whatever happens tonight I expect it to be a memorable segment and something that will looked back at again and again for years to come. There is no better use for Bret Hart in 2012.