The first Raw following the WWE draft certainly set the wheels in
motion toward an actual "new era" and the format of the show could be a
refreshing change in direction for the product. Granted, with a weekly
year-round TV show, not every program is going to be a home run, but if
the ideology that was used here is followed, it can create much more
intriguing television.
First, the name of the "WWE
Universal title" is a little tacky and sounds like something from a Star
Trek convention, but you can see their logic since the audience was
branded the "WWE universe." More importantly, the title needs to be
established as something credible and prestigious, and the booking on
Raw did that. Finn Balor and Roman Reigns each had to win a fatal
four-way match just to advance to the main event number one contender
match, and the journey to the title adds the legitimate aspect to the
eventual champion. The structure of the matches themselves were designed
to give Raw something different than what was seen in previous months
on the show, the matches were given time to develop over the course of
2-3 TV segments. Instead of a 20-minute promo to open the program that
is unnecessarily long, the initial four-way match went almost 30 minutes
and essentially gave the viewing audiences a reason not to channel
surface between commercials because the result of the bout had a
specific importance. Obviously, wrestlers can be successful without
championships and there are certain performers that didn't need a title
to get over, (Roddy Piper, Tommy Dreamer, etc.) but in theory, every
wrestler on the roster wants to win matches and championships because of
the rewards of success.
There are many possible
variables when angles are booked for TV, but the bottom line is,
wrestling is still on the marquee, even if it's branded as sports
entertainment. For the audience to make an emotional investment,
something has to be at stake, and championships are basically the
foundation for most feuds. Furthermore, that's also why it's key that
the crowd makes an emotional investment into the characters, they want
to see their favorite performers win because that translates to success
for those particular competitors. Again, in theory, the WWE product is
presented as competition and if a title is important, it can add drama
to the matches because something is on the line. If a belt isn't
considered prestigious, does the result of a title match really matter?
Perhaps the best example of this in recent years is the Daniel Bryan
saga that unfolded during 2014 and the payoff created one of the most
memorable WM moments in WWE history. The audience identified with
Bryan's passion and recognized that he appreciated their support as much
as they appreciated his efforts in the ring so the crowd wanted to see
him reach main event status. The main event of Wrestlemania and winning
the WWE championship are a symbol of success, which is a prime example
as to why it's important to establish the importance of the WWE
Universal title. As far as this particular episode of Raw, the story of
determining a number one contender unfolded throughout the show, which
gave the viewing audience another reason not to channel surface. Too
often, Raw used the same formula every week, you could watch the opening
promo and then tune into the main event segment without missing any
information critical to the storyline.
Aside from the
number one contender scenario, there were a few squash matches featured,
something that hasn't really been used on the show since the original
Ryback push. Nia Jax, a cousin of The Rock, was drafted to Raw last week
and it's somewhat of a surprising move, considering her time in NXT was
relatively brief. Another aspect to be taken into accountant is her
inexperience level since she only started training to become a
professional wrestler in 2014 and squash matches might help her get
seasoned on the main roster. At 32, her jump to the main roster might be
a way to maximize the potential prime of her career, but rushing her to
main stream TV is risky. As mentioned, squash matches can be effective
because they can showcase a move set and establish a character, but at
some point, there must be progress up the card so it's more of a process
than just defeating jobbers. Nia won a squash match and for now, that's
all she has to do on TV. Braun Strowman smashed a jobber that looked
like he should work at a comic book store and it was a brutal display,
but it got Strowman noticed more so than anything he did during his
initial push that flopped. If Strowman makes anything of this renewed
push remains to be seen, but it seems like there's at least a chance it
will be more successful than the previous attempt earlier this year.
Sasha
Banks won the WWE Women's title and while some on social media said it
should've taken place at Summer Slam, it was a good move to do the
title switch on TV, as it gives the "anything can happen" atmosphere to
the show.
Finn Balor winning the number one contender
spot to challenge Seth Rollins for the WWE Universal title determines
two main directions for the program. After two years of pushing Roman
Reigns as the next top star, WWE brass might've finally realized that
he's not going to be the next John Cena. That's not to say that Roman
will flounder for the rest of his career, but it's clear that he will
need a drastic and fresh restart at some point if he's going to become a
credible main event star. Despite the booking that offered no help in
the past, it seems like the WWE abandoned his mega push after the
wellness policy violation and Reigns has nobody to blame but himself if
unwise decisions led to the violation. The other aspect to this scenario
is that the WWE is going in a new direction and put Balor in the title
picture on the same show that he made his debut. Obviously, Finn worked
NXT for two years, but main stream WWE TV is a different demographic
than the NXT audience so it's still somewhat of a gamble to book a
relatively new star in the main event scene directly after their debut.
That being said, Finn Balor, who worked for years around the world as
Prince Devitt has the skills to be a main event star for any promotion
in the world so as long as he's booked well on TV, the WWE could have a
new main event star for the Raw brand. The Seth Rollins/Balor match at
Summer Slam should be incredible and speaks to the point discussed
earlier, wrestling is still on the marquee, and it could be a refreshing
change to see an emphasis on the in ring product. Again, if the titles
are perceived as important, it builds more drama for the matches and
thus more of an emotional investment from the fans. That emotional
investment is the element that draws money and considering that the
brand extension will be a work in progress, it's possible that
management might actually start listening to the audience to determine
the competitors that become main event stars.
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Saturday, July 23, 2016
Bill Cardille passed away
It's with great sadness that I read the news that radio personality and former voice of "Pittsburgh Studio Wrestling," Bill Cardille passed away earlier this week at the age of 87. He was diagnosed with liver cancer just a few weeks ago, which prompted thousands of messages from fans of his extensive and stellar career. Cardille, who first started on the air in 1957, had a broadcasting career that spanned over five decades until he retired in 2014. Nearly 40 years of Cardille's career was his work on Pittsburgh Channel 11, WPXI, where he was involved in several different roles, both in television and radio.
Among his many accomplishments in the media was the well known "Chiller Theater" show that ran for twenty years in the western Pennsylvania area before its conclusion in 1984. The show featured a variety of horror movies and as the host, Cardille earned the nickname, "Chilly Billy."
His time on Chiller Theater earned Cardille a cameo appearance in George A. Romero's classic film, "Night of the Living Dead," which was filmed primarily in Western Pennsylvania in 1968. As he continued to be a Pittsburgh staple for decades, Cardille had another on screen role for the remake of the cult classic in 1990.
Pittsburgh, the home of the legendary Bruno Sammartino, has a storied history of professional wrestling. In 1958, the station manager for the newly created channel 11, Shelton Weaver wanted to bring matches to the studio and his first choice as the voice of the program was Cardille. However, Cardille was hosting a game show at the time along with his usual broadcasting duties so he initially declined the offer. But, just a few years later, he signed on for the project in 1961 and through syndication, the show became extremely popular. During the 15 years that the studio league was on the air, Cardille hosted the show as Bruno, "The Carnegie Cop" Frank Holtz, Frank Durso, Bobby "Hurricane" Hunt, George Steele, Dominic DeNucci, Larry Zbyszko, and other local favorites were featured. When villains such as The Crusher were scheduled to battle the heroic Bruno, the heel infuriated fans, including the well known "Ringside Rosie" Ann Buckalew, an elderly woman that brought enthusiasm to the matches from her front row seat every week. The western Pennsylvania region was such a strong wrestling city that Vince McMahon Sr. and Joe "Toots" Mondt made it one of their primarily locations for the Capital Sports promotion, the predecessor to the WWWF, in the early 1960s. It's disappointing that because of the cost of tape at the time, many of the original episodes of Pittsburgh Studio Wrestling were taped over each week and it's very rare to find existing footage of the show today.
In his later years, Bill Cardille hosted various morning radio shows throughout the area, and did play-by-play for high school sports on the PBS affiliate WQED before settling into the role of a mid-day talk radio host in his final years on the air for the WJAS station.
As well known as he was for his extensive work in almost every form of media, Bill Cardille is known just as well for his kindness and generosity. Along with local charity work for many years, Cardille helped raise money for Muscular Dystrophy Association and took part in fundraising events despite his advanced age.
Despite decades as a local celebrity, Bill Cardille was always polite and welcoming to fans of his various work. Cardille didn't present himself as the iconic figure that he was, he was simply one of the people and his down to earth nature endeared him even more so to the blue collar population of Pittsburgh. But, make no mistake about it, as humble as he was, Bill Cardille is a media icon and not many in his line of work can claim the 57 years on the air that he had. Cardille often appeared on multiple programs at any given time, doing weather reports in the afternoon before hosting as "Chilly Billy" for a horror film at night. He announced Zbyszko matches and appeared on screen in zombie movies. Most importantly, he was a genuinely polite person that used his array of media exposure to help contribute to charity work. After such an extensive and accomplished career, Bill Cardille is undoubtedly a Pittsburgh legend.
Sincere condolences to Bill Cardille's friends and family at this difficult time
Among his many accomplishments in the media was the well known "Chiller Theater" show that ran for twenty years in the western Pennsylvania area before its conclusion in 1984. The show featured a variety of horror movies and as the host, Cardille earned the nickname, "Chilly Billy."
His time on Chiller Theater earned Cardille a cameo appearance in George A. Romero's classic film, "Night of the Living Dead," which was filmed primarily in Western Pennsylvania in 1968. As he continued to be a Pittsburgh staple for decades, Cardille had another on screen role for the remake of the cult classic in 1990.
Pittsburgh, the home of the legendary Bruno Sammartino, has a storied history of professional wrestling. In 1958, the station manager for the newly created channel 11, Shelton Weaver wanted to bring matches to the studio and his first choice as the voice of the program was Cardille. However, Cardille was hosting a game show at the time along with his usual broadcasting duties so he initially declined the offer. But, just a few years later, he signed on for the project in 1961 and through syndication, the show became extremely popular. During the 15 years that the studio league was on the air, Cardille hosted the show as Bruno, "The Carnegie Cop" Frank Holtz, Frank Durso, Bobby "Hurricane" Hunt, George Steele, Dominic DeNucci, Larry Zbyszko, and other local favorites were featured. When villains such as The Crusher were scheduled to battle the heroic Bruno, the heel infuriated fans, including the well known "Ringside Rosie" Ann Buckalew, an elderly woman that brought enthusiasm to the matches from her front row seat every week. The western Pennsylvania region was such a strong wrestling city that Vince McMahon Sr. and Joe "Toots" Mondt made it one of their primarily locations for the Capital Sports promotion, the predecessor to the WWWF, in the early 1960s. It's disappointing that because of the cost of tape at the time, many of the original episodes of Pittsburgh Studio Wrestling were taped over each week and it's very rare to find existing footage of the show today.
In his later years, Bill Cardille hosted various morning radio shows throughout the area, and did play-by-play for high school sports on the PBS affiliate WQED before settling into the role of a mid-day talk radio host in his final years on the air for the WJAS station.
As well known as he was for his extensive work in almost every form of media, Bill Cardille is known just as well for his kindness and generosity. Along with local charity work for many years, Cardille helped raise money for Muscular Dystrophy Association and took part in fundraising events despite his advanced age.
Despite decades as a local celebrity, Bill Cardille was always polite and welcoming to fans of his various work. Cardille didn't present himself as the iconic figure that he was, he was simply one of the people and his down to earth nature endeared him even more so to the blue collar population of Pittsburgh. But, make no mistake about it, as humble as he was, Bill Cardille is a media icon and not many in his line of work can claim the 57 years on the air that he had. Cardille often appeared on multiple programs at any given time, doing weather reports in the afternoon before hosting as "Chilly Billy" for a horror film at night. He announced Zbyszko matches and appeared on screen in zombie movies. Most importantly, he was a genuinely polite person that used his array of media exposure to help contribute to charity work. After such an extensive and accomplished career, Bill Cardille is undoubtedly a Pittsburgh legend.
Sincere condolences to Bill Cardille's friends and family at this difficult time
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
The WWE lawsuit
The world of professional wrestling can be one of those places where truth actually is stranger than fiction, where sometimes the real-life drama behind the curtain is more intriguing than the performances in the ring. Personal and business rivalries have been more hostile than some of the most famous scripted angles to play out in arenas. However, the recent lawsuit filed against the WWE by nearly 50 former competitors stretches the limit of logic even for the wild genre of sports entertainment.
The lawsuit claims that World Wrestling Entertainment, "placed corporate gain over wrestlers' health, and in doing so left them severely injured and with no recourse to treat their damaged minds and bodies."
For the purpose of this discussion, let's keep that context in mind because that is what this particular legal matter is based on. First, it should be pointed out that this is nothing more than an attempt at a money grab and these types of frivolous lawsuits do nothing to help some of the legitimate cases for injured wrestlers and dilutes the argument for when the WWE could actually help some of its former employees.
Among the names listed in the lawsuit is Terry Brunk, known around the globe as Sabu. As I've written before, Sabu may never fully get the credit he deserves for being one of the most innovate performers of his generation and in the process, he inspired many of the stars on TV today. But, one of the reasons that Sabu isn't a millionaire today is because of his own destructive choices, both inside and outside of the business. Again, this lawsuit claims that WWE is responsible for Sabu's injuries, but it should be noted that he was only under contract with the company for a year during the ECW relaunch. How exactly is Vince McMahon responsible for the injuries that Sabu suffered when he worked in ECW, years before he signed a WWE contract? Furthermore, how is anyone else responsible for Sabu's choices outside of the ring? When Terry Brunk made TMZ headlines in 2012 for nearly overdosing on pain killers prior to the Extreme Reunion debacle, it was his own decision. Don't get me wrong, I respect everything that Sabu has accomplished in his career and he's one of my favorite competitors to watch, specifically the stuff from the prime of his career, but how does one year under contract make the WWE responsible for his entire career?
Another random name on the list is manager Slick, who worked for the promotion for over five years until he retired from the business in 1993. Anyone want to explain how Slick was "severely injured" during his WWF run? Does Slick have any recurring health problems today specifically from his time at ringside? Granted, managers have been injured in wrestling, but what pay-per-view did Slick plunge from a scaffold? If Slick had such a dispute with WWE that he has to sue them, why did he agree to appear at the the hall of fame earlier this year? Other non-wrestlers include Earl and Dave Hebner, who were fired from the company in 2005 for selling unauthorized merchandise at a pro shop they owned a share of at the time. A reminder here, this legal claim is based on being too injured to "treat their damaged minds and bodies" How is Earl Hebner too injured when he has worked as a referee for TNA for the past decade?
There are many examples on the list of competitors that worked for other promotions, including Chavo Gurrerero Jr., Bryan Clark, and Ahmed Johnson. All three of those wrestlers worked for WCW at some point in their careers, why didn't they try to sue Ted Turner? Considering how many involved in the lawsuit worked for many different organizations, why is the WWE the only company that's being sued? Is it that a potential lawsuit against the WWE is the only wrestling company that a lawyer thinks they can get money from? Shane Douglas and Chavo also worked for TNA, why isn't Dixie Carter being sued? The bottom line is, as slim as the chances are of anyone getting paid in this whole debacle, the case seems more "winnable" if the WWE is painted as a corporate machine while many of those suing attempt to be portrayed as victims of the business instead of victims of their own decisions.
Don't get me wrong here, does the WWE structure have flaws? Absolutely, but very few names in the lawsuit have a legitimate claim and those that might have a claim are going to get lost in the shuffle. In my opinion, one of the main things that should change about WWE contract is that the performers SHOULD get health benefits while they work for the company. I don't know what legal decision allows wrestlers to be considered independent contracts, but clearly they are employees in even sense of the word so they should have access to the same reasonable benefits as workers in any other field.
However, the problem is that certain former wrestlers think that they are owned a living simply because the WWE is a global corporation, but those same individuals often make unwise decisions to get themselves into a position where a lawsuit is their way to make money. For example, Marty Jannetty is on the list, but it has been mentioned in interviews for years that he used substances during his career. Although he isn't involved in the legal dispute, Ricky Morton of the Rock N Roll Express appeared on an edition of Kayfabe Commentaries' timeline series and complained about financial difficulties when taking about a low royalty check he received from the WWE. During the same interview, Morton talks about hundreds of dollars worth of drugs that were bought accidentally getting destroyed on a charter flight. Again, the WWE isn't responsible for someone's terrible decisions and maybe if some of the wrestlers named in the lawsuit would've made better choices during the prime of their career, maybe they would be in a better financial situation today.
At the same time, there are a few cases where it seems like some of the workers could have a legitimate claim for some type of compensation from the WWE. Mark Canterbury, who worked for the WWF as Henry Godwinn, suffered a broken neck in 1997 and was eventually forced to retire because of the injury. Canterbury was hurt inside a WWF ring when he was working for the company and the direct result was that he had to retire so it would be reasonable for his claim to be considered. If nothing else, it would be a nice gesture if the WWE set up some type of assistance for wrestlers that have serious health problems. For example, Kamala is confined to a wheel chair as a result of diabetes and it's extremely sad so it would be nice if he could get some help to deal with the situation. The difference is if the WWE sets up an injury fund or something similar as a sign of goodwill, it would be their decision to do it and that's completely different than an attempt to order them to pay for every competitor that didn't get a main event run while employed there.
I would guess that some lawyers convinced some struggling wrestlers from the 80s that if they put their name on the list, there could be some money in it for them so that's probably how this lawsuit got filed. Considering that 95% of those involved haven't been employed by the WWE in years, what do they have to lose? Hypothetically, if they win the legal process, they get a check and if they don't it's not as though they are going to costs themselves another run in the company. There are some great performers on the list that had respectable careers so take nothing away from that, but it's obvious that this lawsuit is a money grab. The reason that the WWE is being sued instead of Ted Turner or TNA is because the WWE is a global entity and theoretically, there's more money is on the table for the lawyers that filed the case. It's ridiculous for anyone to claim that Vince McMahon should pay a settlement to every performer that had a cup of coffee in the WWE. Believe it or not, there are a few jobbers that only worked a few shows on the lawsuit list as well. Again, WWE contracted wrestlers SHOULD get health benefits while they work for the company, but that doesn't make the promotion responsible for every former wrestler that is struggling today, especially if it's a result of their own unwise decisions. The bottom line is, nobody is owned a living just because they worked for the WWE for a few years and there are many examples of how important it is to be financially responsible when competitor is in the prime of their career. As mentioned, this lawsuit makes the few legitimate cases get lost in the shuffle and it dilutes the entire situation. Considering that similar lawsuits have been dismissed in the past, that will probably be the result here, but it wouldn't be surprising if another lawsuit is filed in a few years.
The lawsuit claims that World Wrestling Entertainment, "placed corporate gain over wrestlers' health, and in doing so left them severely injured and with no recourse to treat their damaged minds and bodies."
For the purpose of this discussion, let's keep that context in mind because that is what this particular legal matter is based on. First, it should be pointed out that this is nothing more than an attempt at a money grab and these types of frivolous lawsuits do nothing to help some of the legitimate cases for injured wrestlers and dilutes the argument for when the WWE could actually help some of its former employees.
Among the names listed in the lawsuit is Terry Brunk, known around the globe as Sabu. As I've written before, Sabu may never fully get the credit he deserves for being one of the most innovate performers of his generation and in the process, he inspired many of the stars on TV today. But, one of the reasons that Sabu isn't a millionaire today is because of his own destructive choices, both inside and outside of the business. Again, this lawsuit claims that WWE is responsible for Sabu's injuries, but it should be noted that he was only under contract with the company for a year during the ECW relaunch. How exactly is Vince McMahon responsible for the injuries that Sabu suffered when he worked in ECW, years before he signed a WWE contract? Furthermore, how is anyone else responsible for Sabu's choices outside of the ring? When Terry Brunk made TMZ headlines in 2012 for nearly overdosing on pain killers prior to the Extreme Reunion debacle, it was his own decision. Don't get me wrong, I respect everything that Sabu has accomplished in his career and he's one of my favorite competitors to watch, specifically the stuff from the prime of his career, but how does one year under contract make the WWE responsible for his entire career?
Another random name on the list is manager Slick, who worked for the promotion for over five years until he retired from the business in 1993. Anyone want to explain how Slick was "severely injured" during his WWF run? Does Slick have any recurring health problems today specifically from his time at ringside? Granted, managers have been injured in wrestling, but what pay-per-view did Slick plunge from a scaffold? If Slick had such a dispute with WWE that he has to sue them, why did he agree to appear at the the hall of fame earlier this year? Other non-wrestlers include Earl and Dave Hebner, who were fired from the company in 2005 for selling unauthorized merchandise at a pro shop they owned a share of at the time. A reminder here, this legal claim is based on being too injured to "treat their damaged minds and bodies" How is Earl Hebner too injured when he has worked as a referee for TNA for the past decade?
There are many examples on the list of competitors that worked for other promotions, including Chavo Gurrerero Jr., Bryan Clark, and Ahmed Johnson. All three of those wrestlers worked for WCW at some point in their careers, why didn't they try to sue Ted Turner? Considering how many involved in the lawsuit worked for many different organizations, why is the WWE the only company that's being sued? Is it that a potential lawsuit against the WWE is the only wrestling company that a lawyer thinks they can get money from? Shane Douglas and Chavo also worked for TNA, why isn't Dixie Carter being sued? The bottom line is, as slim as the chances are of anyone getting paid in this whole debacle, the case seems more "winnable" if the WWE is painted as a corporate machine while many of those suing attempt to be portrayed as victims of the business instead of victims of their own decisions.
Don't get me wrong here, does the WWE structure have flaws? Absolutely, but very few names in the lawsuit have a legitimate claim and those that might have a claim are going to get lost in the shuffle. In my opinion, one of the main things that should change about WWE contract is that the performers SHOULD get health benefits while they work for the company. I don't know what legal decision allows wrestlers to be considered independent contracts, but clearly they are employees in even sense of the word so they should have access to the same reasonable benefits as workers in any other field.
However, the problem is that certain former wrestlers think that they are owned a living simply because the WWE is a global corporation, but those same individuals often make unwise decisions to get themselves into a position where a lawsuit is their way to make money. For example, Marty Jannetty is on the list, but it has been mentioned in interviews for years that he used substances during his career. Although he isn't involved in the legal dispute, Ricky Morton of the Rock N Roll Express appeared on an edition of Kayfabe Commentaries' timeline series and complained about financial difficulties when taking about a low royalty check he received from the WWE. During the same interview, Morton talks about hundreds of dollars worth of drugs that were bought accidentally getting destroyed on a charter flight. Again, the WWE isn't responsible for someone's terrible decisions and maybe if some of the wrestlers named in the lawsuit would've made better choices during the prime of their career, maybe they would be in a better financial situation today.
At the same time, there are a few cases where it seems like some of the workers could have a legitimate claim for some type of compensation from the WWE. Mark Canterbury, who worked for the WWF as Henry Godwinn, suffered a broken neck in 1997 and was eventually forced to retire because of the injury. Canterbury was hurt inside a WWF ring when he was working for the company and the direct result was that he had to retire so it would be reasonable for his claim to be considered. If nothing else, it would be a nice gesture if the WWE set up some type of assistance for wrestlers that have serious health problems. For example, Kamala is confined to a wheel chair as a result of diabetes and it's extremely sad so it would be nice if he could get some help to deal with the situation. The difference is if the WWE sets up an injury fund or something similar as a sign of goodwill, it would be their decision to do it and that's completely different than an attempt to order them to pay for every competitor that didn't get a main event run while employed there.
I would guess that some lawyers convinced some struggling wrestlers from the 80s that if they put their name on the list, there could be some money in it for them so that's probably how this lawsuit got filed. Considering that 95% of those involved haven't been employed by the WWE in years, what do they have to lose? Hypothetically, if they win the legal process, they get a check and if they don't it's not as though they are going to costs themselves another run in the company. There are some great performers on the list that had respectable careers so take nothing away from that, but it's obvious that this lawsuit is a money grab. The reason that the WWE is being sued instead of Ted Turner or TNA is because the WWE is a global entity and theoretically, there's more money is on the table for the lawyers that filed the case. It's ridiculous for anyone to claim that Vince McMahon should pay a settlement to every performer that had a cup of coffee in the WWE. Believe it or not, there are a few jobbers that only worked a few shows on the lawsuit list as well. Again, WWE contracted wrestlers SHOULD get health benefits while they work for the company, but that doesn't make the promotion responsible for every former wrestler that is struggling today, especially if it's a result of their own unwise decisions. The bottom line is, nobody is owned a living just because they worked for the WWE for a few years and there are many examples of how important it is to be financially responsible when competitor is in the prime of their career. As mentioned, this lawsuit makes the few legitimate cases get lost in the shuffle and it dilutes the entire situation. Considering that similar lawsuits have been dismissed in the past, that will probably be the result here, but it wouldn't be surprising if another lawsuit is filed in a few years.
Sunday, July 17, 2016
The Brock Lesnar/USADA situation
Some interesting news has surfaced about former WWE and UFC champion
Brock Lesnar, who fought last weekend at the historic UFC 200 card,
defeating Mark Hunt via unanimous decision. The United States
Anti-Doping Agency, the same organization that handles the testing for
the Olympics, has flagged Lesnar for a possible violation from an
out-of-competition on June 28th prior to his return to the octagon after
a five year absence. The ramifications of this violation remain to be
seen, but this could have a devastating effect on his WWE status and his
ability to fight in the cage again. The unprecedented experiment that
allowed Brock to compete in mixed martial arts while still under WWE
contract could backfire and bring press negative press to everyone
involved in the deal. The WWE released a very generic statement, only
saying that Lesnar hasn't competed for the company since Wrestlemania
and isn't scheduled again until next month. As of this writing, nothing
official has been made public about the substance that Lesnar tested
positive for and the Nevada State Athletic Commission meeting to make a
decision must take place before anything can be made official about his
UFC status. A rumor surfaced online that an inhaler could've caused the
flagged test, but it was posted from an unconfirmed source and
considering that Lesnar passed the previous tests before UFC 200, it's
doubtful that something he was prescribed didn't show up on those
results. Plus, fighters are required to disclose any medication that
they are prescribed to the athletic commission before an event.
From a PR stand point, it's negative toward everyone involved, but it has varying levels of consequences for each company. For Brock, obviously this is a completely embarrassing situation and it taints his UFC victory if the results are confirmed after the "B sample" is processed. In many ways, Lesnar looks like a fool because he claimed his motivation to return to the UFC was to prove he was still a "legitimate" fighter, but a PED violation tarnishes his credibility across the board. A failed test would prove that he couldn't get it done in the octagon without performance enhancers and he wouldn't be the first athlete to leave money on the table after a failed drug test. You have to wonder, if Brock knowingly took a banned substance, how did he expect to get around the test? Is it possible that he took something without knowing it? Sure, but the more logical scenario could be that he was looking for an insurance policy to ensure that he didn't get embarrassed in MMA the way that he had previously.
The WWE is getting the worst side of all this for a few different reasons, but most importantly, they are the ones that stand to lose the most from these test results because they didn't get a chance to generate the revenue from Summer Slam, which was the entire point of the deal for them. The negative press alone could affect their bottom line for Summer Slam because instead of potentially garnering some of the MMA fans to watch Brock on the network, he will be categorized as "just another pro wrestler on steroids." The stereotype is again perpetuated from this failed test and it puts the WWE wellness policy and their testing process under a microscope. Obviously, if Roman Reigns, the performer the WWE tried to protect the most, was suspended for a violation, it's a safe bet that WWE's wellness policy is legitimate, but to the causal observer that might not be aware of Reigns, they read the headline that a Brock failed a test and make the general assumption towards pro wrestling. As much as the Roman violation made the plan to continuously push him despite the fan hostility even more illogical than before, the Lesnar test probably does more to damage the WWE public perception because Brock is a much bigger star.
As mentioned, a failed test tarnishes Brock's credibility as the "legitimate" athlete in the WWE and that's something that management spent the past four years establishing on their shows. The justification for ending the streak was that in theory, Lesnar was the one that could do it because he was the most legitimate athlete from competitive sports on the roster. The two decades of the history and the emotional invest of the WM streak were scarified to build Brock as the ultimate monster. The perception of a PED violation for Brock is much different than the standard WWE wellness violation because Lesnar as the "legitimate athlete" is viewed in a different light than his sports entertainment peers. Technically, the time and money that the WWE invested into Brock since his return in 2012 are at risk since it could sour fans on him if he gets labeled as "just another pro wrestler that does steroids."
The WWE is a publicly traded company and just a few months after they touted the record numbers for Wrestlemania 32, two of the top performers that were on the card failed drug tests. It was acknowledged on Raw that Roman will finish the 30 days suspension in time to work the Battleground pay-per-view. Considering that USADA is one of the most well known testing agencies in sports, if Lesnar failed for PEDs, the WWE is put into a corner where they have to suspend him for at least 30 days if they want to maintain the public image of a clean roster. There's much speculation about the entire situation, but unless some reasonable explanation surfaces, the damage could be done in terms of public perception.
The UFC already generated over a million pay-per-view buys for UFC 200 and Lesnar was one of the main reasons for it so from a business perspective, the Lesnar deal was a success for them. However, Brock's MMA career could be in jeopardy depending on the decision rendered from the Nevada commission. Without a reasonable explanation for the positive test, Lesnar could be banned from competition for two years and he will be 41 when he could return. Considering his age, if Brock is banned for an extended period of time, it's doubtful that he would fight in the cage again.
As mentioned, at this point there's a lot of speculation and the official decision made after the Nevada commission process could affect how this situation is viewed publicly. If an inhaler did actually cause the flagged test and it's deemed not to be a PED then Lesnar won't be subject to the negative publicity. However, if Brock doesn't have a reasonable explanation for the positive test, his credibility and drawing power could be damaged for his WWE run.
From a PR stand point, it's negative toward everyone involved, but it has varying levels of consequences for each company. For Brock, obviously this is a completely embarrassing situation and it taints his UFC victory if the results are confirmed after the "B sample" is processed. In many ways, Lesnar looks like a fool because he claimed his motivation to return to the UFC was to prove he was still a "legitimate" fighter, but a PED violation tarnishes his credibility across the board. A failed test would prove that he couldn't get it done in the octagon without performance enhancers and he wouldn't be the first athlete to leave money on the table after a failed drug test. You have to wonder, if Brock knowingly took a banned substance, how did he expect to get around the test? Is it possible that he took something without knowing it? Sure, but the more logical scenario could be that he was looking for an insurance policy to ensure that he didn't get embarrassed in MMA the way that he had previously.
The WWE is getting the worst side of all this for a few different reasons, but most importantly, they are the ones that stand to lose the most from these test results because they didn't get a chance to generate the revenue from Summer Slam, which was the entire point of the deal for them. The negative press alone could affect their bottom line for Summer Slam because instead of potentially garnering some of the MMA fans to watch Brock on the network, he will be categorized as "just another pro wrestler on steroids." The stereotype is again perpetuated from this failed test and it puts the WWE wellness policy and their testing process under a microscope. Obviously, if Roman Reigns, the performer the WWE tried to protect the most, was suspended for a violation, it's a safe bet that WWE's wellness policy is legitimate, but to the causal observer that might not be aware of Reigns, they read the headline that a Brock failed a test and make the general assumption towards pro wrestling. As much as the Roman violation made the plan to continuously push him despite the fan hostility even more illogical than before, the Lesnar test probably does more to damage the WWE public perception because Brock is a much bigger star.
As mentioned, a failed test tarnishes Brock's credibility as the "legitimate" athlete in the WWE and that's something that management spent the past four years establishing on their shows. The justification for ending the streak was that in theory, Lesnar was the one that could do it because he was the most legitimate athlete from competitive sports on the roster. The two decades of the history and the emotional invest of the WM streak were scarified to build Brock as the ultimate monster. The perception of a PED violation for Brock is much different than the standard WWE wellness violation because Lesnar as the "legitimate athlete" is viewed in a different light than his sports entertainment peers. Technically, the time and money that the WWE invested into Brock since his return in 2012 are at risk since it could sour fans on him if he gets labeled as "just another pro wrestler that does steroids."
The WWE is a publicly traded company and just a few months after they touted the record numbers for Wrestlemania 32, two of the top performers that were on the card failed drug tests. It was acknowledged on Raw that Roman will finish the 30 days suspension in time to work the Battleground pay-per-view. Considering that USADA is one of the most well known testing agencies in sports, if Lesnar failed for PEDs, the WWE is put into a corner where they have to suspend him for at least 30 days if they want to maintain the public image of a clean roster. There's much speculation about the entire situation, but unless some reasonable explanation surfaces, the damage could be done in terms of public perception.
The UFC already generated over a million pay-per-view buys for UFC 200 and Lesnar was one of the main reasons for it so from a business perspective, the Lesnar deal was a success for them. However, Brock's MMA career could be in jeopardy depending on the decision rendered from the Nevada commission. Without a reasonable explanation for the positive test, Lesnar could be banned from competition for two years and he will be 41 when he could return. Considering his age, if Brock is banned for an extended period of time, it's doubtful that he would fight in the cage again.
As mentioned, at this point there's a lot of speculation and the official decision made after the Nevada commission process could affect how this situation is viewed publicly. If an inhaler did actually cause the flagged test and it's deemed not to be a PED then Lesnar won't be subject to the negative publicity. However, if Brock doesn't have a reasonable explanation for the positive test, his credibility and drawing power could be damaged for his WWE run.
Thursday, July 14, 2016
Brock Lesnar vs. Randy Orton
At UFC 200, the biggest event in the history of the promotion, Brock
Lesnar returned to the octagon after a five year absence and defeated
veteran Mark Hunt. The fight itself wasn't exactly spectacular and many
are wondering why Hunt, primarily a kick boxer, didn't throw more
punches, but Lensar used take downs to get the win. Despite the lack of
major action, the victory for the former UFC Heavyweight champion has
already started speculation that Brock could fight again in the future.
When asked about the possibility of an another MMA bout at the
post-fight press conference, he said that Brock Lesnar does what Brock
Lesnar wants to do. However, all that would depend on if the WWE would
be willing to allow Lesnar, who is still until contract, to compete in
the cage again.
As I wrote a few weeks ago, the WWE took all the risk in this deal, and if Lesnar would've been defeated or was injured, it could've damaged the selling point of Summer Slam. Considering the experiment went relatively well, it seems possible that Vince McMahon would allow Brock to fight again, but the risk/reward aspect of the deal won't be determined until Summer Slam next month. In theory, Lesnar winning in the octagon and an ad for WWE airing on the UFC biggest show will boost viewers for pay-per-view next month, but will it actually translate to more network subscriptions?
As a part of the promotional ads for WWE, it was announced that Randy Orton, who was on the sidelines for several months, will be Lesnar's opponent at Summer Slam. When you take into account that neither Brock nor Orton have appeared on WWE TV in several months, you can bet that management will look to build the feud during the next month and a half, but logistically, will it translate to a bigger draw?
The diehard and many causal MMA fans tuned into UFC 200, as well as many pro wrestling fans that might not usually watch UFC events to see if Lesnar could win in the octagon again. They saw Brock use ground and pound punches to cut his opponent. While Mark Hunt wasn't necessarily in major danger of the fight being stopped because he continued to attempt to defend the strikes, Lesnar dominated the bout to win via unanimous decision. After watching Brock punch his opponent in the head for the majority of the third round, is a match with Randy Orton really going to be believable? Sure, it's common knowledge that pro wrestling is a work, but if Brock's MMA win is going to be used to promote Summer Slam, wouldn't it be somewhat of a letdown if the match with Orton looks blatantly staged in comparison to UFC 200? From a booking stand point, the WWE is somewhat in a corner because if Lesnar is pushed as the MMA fighter, would it be believable if he's selling for Randy Orton? That's not a jab at Orton either, just an observation that after the UFC bout, would it be believable if Brock was running the ropes during the match?
Along with that, Randy Orton might not be the ideal opponent for Brock at this point because his in ring style might not translate with a worked-shoot match. Orton has a specific formula and pace to his matches, and he doesn't usually take major bumps so that isn't exactly comparable with Lesnar's stiff style. For example, one of the reasons that the Lesnar/John Cena series worked was because Cena didn't mind Brock's stiff style, and he was bleeding on more than once occasion during the Lesnar feud. If you're reading this, you've probably heard the story about Ken Anderson getting fired when Orton complained after a suplex on Raw. You can bet that Orton doesn't want to take any stiff suplex or elbows. Again, that's not a jab at Orton, just an observation that he might not be the best opponent for Lesnar.
Seth Rollins made Brock look like a monster, and made himself a star during their triple threat match with John Cena at the Royal Rumble in 2015 so he might've been a better selection. Even Nakamura, who actually had a match with Lesnar in NJPW in 2006, would be a good choice for a match at Summer Slam. In fact, a Nakamura match could be promoted similar to a UFC contest with training vignettes aired on WWE TV instead of multiple in ring appearances. Plus, Paul Heyman has cut the best promos on WWE TV in the past few years and he could sell the bout on the mic prior to the PPV. There could be an in ring confrontation between Lesnar and Nakamura the week of the show and the match is set up. Lesnar's MMA training and Nakamura using strong style offense could be an intriguing selling point for the show.
Regardless, Randy Orton is booked for the spot and if nothing else, it's an indication that Lesnar will win another match at a major show, but at least the part-timer isn't defeating the younger stars that aren't fully established this time. The WWE is paying Brock an amount of money that makes him one of the highest paid performers on the roster and while he always delivers quality matches, it seems counter productive to get a return on their investment if they don't use his appearances to help make new stars. For example, wouldn't Dean Ambrose have more steam as the WWE champion if he defeated Brock Lesnar at Wrestlemania? Orton plateaued in terms of how over he is with the audience and a loss at Summer Slam won't damage his value to the company. Obviously, Orton has name value, but his run as a top tier main event star mostly concluded after the lackluster main event at Wrestlemania 25. This scenario allows Lesnar, the bigger star in the contest, to get the win and stay strong on WWE programming without hindering the progress of any of the younger stars on the roster.
How the match goes and if the presentation is believable remains to be seen, but more important than that is if more fans are willing to pay to see Brock Lesnar compete for the sports entertainment environment. If the WWE/UFC deal translates to more money for both companies then not only is it a success, but it also proves the type of commodity that he is for sports. For Lesnar, it's a win-win situation because he was the highest paid fighter on the UFC card and he continues to be one of the highest paid performers on the WWE roster.
As I wrote a few weeks ago, the WWE took all the risk in this deal, and if Lesnar would've been defeated or was injured, it could've damaged the selling point of Summer Slam. Considering the experiment went relatively well, it seems possible that Vince McMahon would allow Brock to fight again, but the risk/reward aspect of the deal won't be determined until Summer Slam next month. In theory, Lesnar winning in the octagon and an ad for WWE airing on the UFC biggest show will boost viewers for pay-per-view next month, but will it actually translate to more network subscriptions?
As a part of the promotional ads for WWE, it was announced that Randy Orton, who was on the sidelines for several months, will be Lesnar's opponent at Summer Slam. When you take into account that neither Brock nor Orton have appeared on WWE TV in several months, you can bet that management will look to build the feud during the next month and a half, but logistically, will it translate to a bigger draw?
The diehard and many causal MMA fans tuned into UFC 200, as well as many pro wrestling fans that might not usually watch UFC events to see if Lesnar could win in the octagon again. They saw Brock use ground and pound punches to cut his opponent. While Mark Hunt wasn't necessarily in major danger of the fight being stopped because he continued to attempt to defend the strikes, Lesnar dominated the bout to win via unanimous decision. After watching Brock punch his opponent in the head for the majority of the third round, is a match with Randy Orton really going to be believable? Sure, it's common knowledge that pro wrestling is a work, but if Brock's MMA win is going to be used to promote Summer Slam, wouldn't it be somewhat of a letdown if the match with Orton looks blatantly staged in comparison to UFC 200? From a booking stand point, the WWE is somewhat in a corner because if Lesnar is pushed as the MMA fighter, would it be believable if he's selling for Randy Orton? That's not a jab at Orton either, just an observation that after the UFC bout, would it be believable if Brock was running the ropes during the match?
Along with that, Randy Orton might not be the ideal opponent for Brock at this point because his in ring style might not translate with a worked-shoot match. Orton has a specific formula and pace to his matches, and he doesn't usually take major bumps so that isn't exactly comparable with Lesnar's stiff style. For example, one of the reasons that the Lesnar/John Cena series worked was because Cena didn't mind Brock's stiff style, and he was bleeding on more than once occasion during the Lesnar feud. If you're reading this, you've probably heard the story about Ken Anderson getting fired when Orton complained after a suplex on Raw. You can bet that Orton doesn't want to take any stiff suplex or elbows. Again, that's not a jab at Orton, just an observation that he might not be the best opponent for Lesnar.
Seth Rollins made Brock look like a monster, and made himself a star during their triple threat match with John Cena at the Royal Rumble in 2015 so he might've been a better selection. Even Nakamura, who actually had a match with Lesnar in NJPW in 2006, would be a good choice for a match at Summer Slam. In fact, a Nakamura match could be promoted similar to a UFC contest with training vignettes aired on WWE TV instead of multiple in ring appearances. Plus, Paul Heyman has cut the best promos on WWE TV in the past few years and he could sell the bout on the mic prior to the PPV. There could be an in ring confrontation between Lesnar and Nakamura the week of the show and the match is set up. Lesnar's MMA training and Nakamura using strong style offense could be an intriguing selling point for the show.
Regardless, Randy Orton is booked for the spot and if nothing else, it's an indication that Lesnar will win another match at a major show, but at least the part-timer isn't defeating the younger stars that aren't fully established this time. The WWE is paying Brock an amount of money that makes him one of the highest paid performers on the roster and while he always delivers quality matches, it seems counter productive to get a return on their investment if they don't use his appearances to help make new stars. For example, wouldn't Dean Ambrose have more steam as the WWE champion if he defeated Brock Lesnar at Wrestlemania? Orton plateaued in terms of how over he is with the audience and a loss at Summer Slam won't damage his value to the company. Obviously, Orton has name value, but his run as a top tier main event star mostly concluded after the lackluster main event at Wrestlemania 25. This scenario allows Lesnar, the bigger star in the contest, to get the win and stay strong on WWE programming without hindering the progress of any of the younger stars on the roster.
How the match goes and if the presentation is believable remains to be seen, but more important than that is if more fans are willing to pay to see Brock Lesnar compete for the sports entertainment environment. If the WWE/UFC deal translates to more money for both companies then not only is it a success, but it also proves the type of commodity that he is for sports. For Lesnar, it's a win-win situation because he was the highest paid fighter on the UFC card and he continues to be one of the highest paid performers on the WWE roster.
Thursday, July 7, 2016
The Jon Jones debacle
Jon Jones could've been one of the greatest practitioners in the history
of the sport, but he will probably be known as one of the biggest waste
of talent in any sport.
The former UFC Light Heavyweight champion was scheduled to get a chance to reclaim the title he was stripped of following the infamous hit-and-run incident in 2014, but his bout with Daniel Cormier was canceled after it was reported that he tested positive for a banned substance. This isn't the first time that the 28-year-old tested positive during an out-of-competition test, as he was flagged for cocaine metabolites prior to the original Jones/Cormier fight in 2014. Add that to his laundry list of legal problems including the previously mentioned hit-and-run, DUI arrest in 2012, a probation violation that resulted from a traffic incident earlier this year, and he was also cited for speeding and driving without a license the month prior.
The ability that "Bones" Jones brings to the octagon is tremendous, but his future in the sport certainly appears to be in jeopardy. With a record of 22-1, (his only loss on a technicality from a DQ for elbows) Jones proved to be one of the most talented and dominate competitors in UFC history. His combination of physical skill, striking, and grappling ability gave him the potential to become a legend in the sport, but he's done much damage to tarnish his legacy outside of the cage. The humble 23-year-old that defeated Shogun Rua in 2011 to become the youngest champion in the company's history became an elitist that thought the rules don't apply to him in the past five years. The arrogant champion using slurs towards fans on social media and his public brawl with Cormier during a press event to promote their initial contest hasn't garnered him much fan support in the past few years. In fact, the argument could be made that one of the reasons that Brock Lesnar was added to the card was to generate hype for the event since Jones isn't one of the more popular champions among fans, despite being one of the most dominate fighters on the roster.
As of this writing, Jon Jones hasn't commented on the subject and it should be noted that he can request for the "B sample" to get tested to possibly refute the positive results. If Jones is still found to have tested positive after this process, he could be banned for the sport for two years. Despite the championships and wins on his record, it might be time for the UFC to release Jon Jones. How many times is "Bones" going to bring negative press to the company? How many chances is he going to get to redeem himself when he continuously makes the same terrible decisions?
Aside from putting the UFC in the tough spot of reshuffling the card, in many ways, Jon Jones has tainted the biggest event in the history of the promotion. The discussion prior to the event won't be about the stacked card for the pay-per-view, but rather speculation about Jones' status as a fighter. During the main event, when Brock Lesnar competes in mixed martial arts for the first time in nearly five years, it will be noted that Jon Jones was supposed to fight in the main event. Even after what should be a spectacular fight card, you can bet that questions will be asked about Jon Jones at the post-fight press conference.
In my opinion, Jon Jones shouldn't be anywhere near the octagon and he has more serious problems to deal with than his opponents in MMA. The continuous downward spiral of his career is extremely disappointing and it's a complete waste of talent. Quite simply, Jones shouldn't fight again until he can act like a professional inside and outside of the cage because this type of path has been taken by many athletes before. There's no upside to the direction that "Bones" is going and he should step away from the sport to avoid any chance of a tragedy. If/when Jones finally decides to make the right decisions, a return to MMA might be possible, but at this point, it's tough to give him the benefit of the doubt.
As an organization, why should Zuffa continue to promote Jon Jones? He has brought the company negative press and he ruined the main event of their biggest event. At some point, his value as a fighter won't justify the hassle of the problems he caused. Hypothetically, if Jones fought in Bellator he wouldn't have the same stage and it probably wouldn't really effect the UFC.
The bottom line is Jon Jones has the ability to become a legend, but he continues to make unwise decisions. He could've been mentioned aside names like Fedor, Liddel, Couture, Silva, GSP etc. but he might become known as another cautionary tale in sports. As I'd written when Jones had problems earlier this year, the quote from the classic film, "A Bronx Tale" could summarize the situation, "The saddest thing in life is wasted talent." Who knows where Jon Jones goes from here, but it will be interesting to see if he gets released from the UFC.
The former UFC Light Heavyweight champion was scheduled to get a chance to reclaim the title he was stripped of following the infamous hit-and-run incident in 2014, but his bout with Daniel Cormier was canceled after it was reported that he tested positive for a banned substance. This isn't the first time that the 28-year-old tested positive during an out-of-competition test, as he was flagged for cocaine metabolites prior to the original Jones/Cormier fight in 2014. Add that to his laundry list of legal problems including the previously mentioned hit-and-run, DUI arrest in 2012, a probation violation that resulted from a traffic incident earlier this year, and he was also cited for speeding and driving without a license the month prior.
The ability that "Bones" Jones brings to the octagon is tremendous, but his future in the sport certainly appears to be in jeopardy. With a record of 22-1, (his only loss on a technicality from a DQ for elbows) Jones proved to be one of the most talented and dominate competitors in UFC history. His combination of physical skill, striking, and grappling ability gave him the potential to become a legend in the sport, but he's done much damage to tarnish his legacy outside of the cage. The humble 23-year-old that defeated Shogun Rua in 2011 to become the youngest champion in the company's history became an elitist that thought the rules don't apply to him in the past five years. The arrogant champion using slurs towards fans on social media and his public brawl with Cormier during a press event to promote their initial contest hasn't garnered him much fan support in the past few years. In fact, the argument could be made that one of the reasons that Brock Lesnar was added to the card was to generate hype for the event since Jones isn't one of the more popular champions among fans, despite being one of the most dominate fighters on the roster.
As of this writing, Jon Jones hasn't commented on the subject and it should be noted that he can request for the "B sample" to get tested to possibly refute the positive results. If Jones is still found to have tested positive after this process, he could be banned for the sport for two years. Despite the championships and wins on his record, it might be time for the UFC to release Jon Jones. How many times is "Bones" going to bring negative press to the company? How many chances is he going to get to redeem himself when he continuously makes the same terrible decisions?
Aside from putting the UFC in the tough spot of reshuffling the card, in many ways, Jon Jones has tainted the biggest event in the history of the promotion. The discussion prior to the event won't be about the stacked card for the pay-per-view, but rather speculation about Jones' status as a fighter. During the main event, when Brock Lesnar competes in mixed martial arts for the first time in nearly five years, it will be noted that Jon Jones was supposed to fight in the main event. Even after what should be a spectacular fight card, you can bet that questions will be asked about Jon Jones at the post-fight press conference.
In my opinion, Jon Jones shouldn't be anywhere near the octagon and he has more serious problems to deal with than his opponents in MMA. The continuous downward spiral of his career is extremely disappointing and it's a complete waste of talent. Quite simply, Jones shouldn't fight again until he can act like a professional inside and outside of the cage because this type of path has been taken by many athletes before. There's no upside to the direction that "Bones" is going and he should step away from the sport to avoid any chance of a tragedy. If/when Jones finally decides to make the right decisions, a return to MMA might be possible, but at this point, it's tough to give him the benefit of the doubt.
As an organization, why should Zuffa continue to promote Jon Jones? He has brought the company negative press and he ruined the main event of their biggest event. At some point, his value as a fighter won't justify the hassle of the problems he caused. Hypothetically, if Jones fought in Bellator he wouldn't have the same stage and it probably wouldn't really effect the UFC.
The bottom line is Jon Jones has the ability to become a legend, but he continues to make unwise decisions. He could've been mentioned aside names like Fedor, Liddel, Couture, Silva, GSP etc. but he might become known as another cautionary tale in sports. As I'd written when Jones had problems earlier this year, the quote from the classic film, "A Bronx Tale" could summarize the situation, "The saddest thing in life is wasted talent." Who knows where Jon Jones goes from here, but it will be interesting to see if he gets released from the UFC.
Tuesday, July 5, 2016
The WWE brand extension
In a matter of weeks, the WWE brand extension will take place and the
landscape of the product will change drastically. Some fans are
thrilled about the possibilities that differentiated rosters bring, but
should anyone be thrilled for exclusive rosters?
Forgive me for being pessimistic here, but does anyone remember the original brand split in 2002? For all intents and purposes, the initial concept flopped and unless the process is done very differently this time, the majority of fans could be in for a rude awakening for what the brand extension actually translates to on TV. On the most basic level, the first brand split wasn't successful because it spread the rosters too thin and there weren't enough credible stars to carry each show. Remember that legendary Renee Dupree/Kenzo Suzuki tag team title run on Smackdown? How about when Mordecai and Bob Holly worked a pay-per-view in 2004? Those are just a few of the numerous examples of sub par booking when filler talent were used in more prominent spots because a lack of depth on each roster. I have to be honest, I was very surprised that the WWE would split the brands in 2016, especially after Wrestlemania 32 really highlighted the lack of credible stars on the current roster. The diverse reasons for that are another column for another time, but the point being, right now might not be an opportune time to divide the shows.
The argument for split rosters is that it will allow more TV time for underutilized stars, which is true in theory, but the same could've been said for the Raw expansion to three hours, and the extra hour is rarely used to established overlooked talent. Will Dolph Ziggler or Zack Ryder suddenly get the chance they deserve on Smackdown? It's doubtful because WWE management will still attempt to develop the talent that they think has the potential to be stars regardless of the brand so basically a talent can be as overlooked on a split show as they are on a traditional show. While some fans look forward to the possibility of a main event Ziggler run, the reality of the situation could be more TV time for The Miz. The shows might be different, but the priorities of WWE brass could remain the same. Don't get me wrong, it would be great to see a successful brand extension because that puts a good product on TV for the fans, but it's important to be realistic about the potential pitfalls of the project.
Aside from depth, the perception of each show will be another key to a successful formula. For years, Smackdown was clearly the "B show" and sometimes it seemed as though the writing team didn't do much to hide that fact. Sadly, there were periods of time when SD was an inferior show with only a few redeeming qualities. There's no question that SD going live will provide a new dynamic and give it a fresh start. The bottom line is, Raw will always been the flagship show for the WWE because of the history behind it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that SD has to be perceived as secondary. The brand will move to Tuesday for production reasons and the live aspect on USA gives it the most equal platform in comparison to Raw in the history of the show. Basically, if SD is going to succeed as a stand alone product, this is the time to do it. The original concept behind the split in 2002 was "creating competition among themselves" after ECW and WCW folded. In my opinion, that whole ideology and the presentation of it was too convoluted. The fans didn't buy that Raw and Smackdown were in "competition" because the same company owns both shows. This time around, there should definitely be an attempt to make each brand different, but to bring variety to the overall product rather than an attempt at competition.
That being said, one of the major questions prior to the draft is, how will the shows be different than they are now? Sure, maybe John Cena will only appear on Raw, but fundamentally, what differences will there really be on each brand? There are some rumors about the possible return of the Cruiser Weight division, but even if it happens, the chances of it being properly promoted aren't ideal. Granted, the CWC is on the network, but that's specifically geared toward an internet audience, and main stream TV is a different demographic. Perhaps the most successful time for SD was the "Heyman era," when the former ECW boss booked the show and it was considered the "wrestling show" of the WWE, but NXT has that distinction now so again, questions remain about how Smackdown will potentially become it's own unique brand. The championships are still up in the air and how that situation is handled could directly impact if the extension is ultimately successful. If you add more championships, they become less important and that dilutes the product. You also have to taken into account that there aren't enough teams for two sets of tag titles, and the women's division is doing well at the moment so there's no reason to add another championship. But, how will the WWE book the logistics of those divisions? One would assume another "world title" will be added for SD, but doesn't the continuity of the product get murky if there are two heavyweight champions and only one set of tag champions?
The NXT aspect of all of this should be taken into account as well because just as that brand is being established on its own, it would be a fair guess that some of its talent will be used on the main roster during the extension. That brings another predicament of the whole scenario, it's difficult enough to establish NXT and it could become exponentially more difficult if the performers that are considered the foundation of that show get moved to the main roster to bulk up the shows for the extension. As much as the WWE promotes the network as their top propriety, the revenue generated from their TV contracts and advertisements are key to the company's successful so ultimately, if Finn Balor had to be used to boost SD, the main stream TV product has more importance than the NXT brand on the network. Since NXT needs its talent to remain strong, it's rumored that management has contacted some former stars about a return to the promotion to add depth to the rosters, which is a very smart business move.
So, is the brand extension "best for business?"
Obviously, it all depends on how it's booked and the presentation, but until there's some emphasis that SD is an equal priority and there's depth on each roster, I will remain skeptical. In theory, this will allow more TV time to develop more talent, but a concept in theory and a concept applied are sometimes two very different results. In my opinion, an extension in 2016 spreads the rosters too thin, especially when you consider that there are three brands and it's difficult enough to have the necessary star power for the product without divided rosters. The initial draft will generate some hype since fans will want to see who works each show, but the test of the brand extension will be where the shows are in a year. There are several questions ahead of the draft and it will be extremely interesting to see the direction of each brand.
Forgive me for being pessimistic here, but does anyone remember the original brand split in 2002? For all intents and purposes, the initial concept flopped and unless the process is done very differently this time, the majority of fans could be in for a rude awakening for what the brand extension actually translates to on TV. On the most basic level, the first brand split wasn't successful because it spread the rosters too thin and there weren't enough credible stars to carry each show. Remember that legendary Renee Dupree/Kenzo Suzuki tag team title run on Smackdown? How about when Mordecai and Bob Holly worked a pay-per-view in 2004? Those are just a few of the numerous examples of sub par booking when filler talent were used in more prominent spots because a lack of depth on each roster. I have to be honest, I was very surprised that the WWE would split the brands in 2016, especially after Wrestlemania 32 really highlighted the lack of credible stars on the current roster. The diverse reasons for that are another column for another time, but the point being, right now might not be an opportune time to divide the shows.
The argument for split rosters is that it will allow more TV time for underutilized stars, which is true in theory, but the same could've been said for the Raw expansion to three hours, and the extra hour is rarely used to established overlooked talent. Will Dolph Ziggler or Zack Ryder suddenly get the chance they deserve on Smackdown? It's doubtful because WWE management will still attempt to develop the talent that they think has the potential to be stars regardless of the brand so basically a talent can be as overlooked on a split show as they are on a traditional show. While some fans look forward to the possibility of a main event Ziggler run, the reality of the situation could be more TV time for The Miz. The shows might be different, but the priorities of WWE brass could remain the same. Don't get me wrong, it would be great to see a successful brand extension because that puts a good product on TV for the fans, but it's important to be realistic about the potential pitfalls of the project.
Aside from depth, the perception of each show will be another key to a successful formula. For years, Smackdown was clearly the "B show" and sometimes it seemed as though the writing team didn't do much to hide that fact. Sadly, there were periods of time when SD was an inferior show with only a few redeeming qualities. There's no question that SD going live will provide a new dynamic and give it a fresh start. The bottom line is, Raw will always been the flagship show for the WWE because of the history behind it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that SD has to be perceived as secondary. The brand will move to Tuesday for production reasons and the live aspect on USA gives it the most equal platform in comparison to Raw in the history of the show. Basically, if SD is going to succeed as a stand alone product, this is the time to do it. The original concept behind the split in 2002 was "creating competition among themselves" after ECW and WCW folded. In my opinion, that whole ideology and the presentation of it was too convoluted. The fans didn't buy that Raw and Smackdown were in "competition" because the same company owns both shows. This time around, there should definitely be an attempt to make each brand different, but to bring variety to the overall product rather than an attempt at competition.
That being said, one of the major questions prior to the draft is, how will the shows be different than they are now? Sure, maybe John Cena will only appear on Raw, but fundamentally, what differences will there really be on each brand? There are some rumors about the possible return of the Cruiser Weight division, but even if it happens, the chances of it being properly promoted aren't ideal. Granted, the CWC is on the network, but that's specifically geared toward an internet audience, and main stream TV is a different demographic. Perhaps the most successful time for SD was the "Heyman era," when the former ECW boss booked the show and it was considered the "wrestling show" of the WWE, but NXT has that distinction now so again, questions remain about how Smackdown will potentially become it's own unique brand. The championships are still up in the air and how that situation is handled could directly impact if the extension is ultimately successful. If you add more championships, they become less important and that dilutes the product. You also have to taken into account that there aren't enough teams for two sets of tag titles, and the women's division is doing well at the moment so there's no reason to add another championship. But, how will the WWE book the logistics of those divisions? One would assume another "world title" will be added for SD, but doesn't the continuity of the product get murky if there are two heavyweight champions and only one set of tag champions?
The NXT aspect of all of this should be taken into account as well because just as that brand is being established on its own, it would be a fair guess that some of its talent will be used on the main roster during the extension. That brings another predicament of the whole scenario, it's difficult enough to establish NXT and it could become exponentially more difficult if the performers that are considered the foundation of that show get moved to the main roster to bulk up the shows for the extension. As much as the WWE promotes the network as their top propriety, the revenue generated from their TV contracts and advertisements are key to the company's successful so ultimately, if Finn Balor had to be used to boost SD, the main stream TV product has more importance than the NXT brand on the network. Since NXT needs its talent to remain strong, it's rumored that management has contacted some former stars about a return to the promotion to add depth to the rosters, which is a very smart business move.
So, is the brand extension "best for business?"
Obviously, it all depends on how it's booked and the presentation, but until there's some emphasis that SD is an equal priority and there's depth on each roster, I will remain skeptical. In theory, this will allow more TV time to develop more talent, but a concept in theory and a concept applied are sometimes two very different results. In my opinion, an extension in 2016 spreads the rosters too thin, especially when you consider that there are three brands and it's difficult enough to have the necessary star power for the product without divided rosters. The initial draft will generate some hype since fans will want to see who works each show, but the test of the brand extension will be where the shows are in a year. There are several questions ahead of the draft and it will be extremely interesting to see the direction of each brand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)