The Teacher's Lounge: Why WWE should NOT #FreeRey

First off, before you begin penning the hate tweets, let me start off with a disclaimer.

I love Rey Mysterio.  

Pound for pound, he might be one of the best wrestlers in history and is almost guaranteed to be a WWE Hall of Famer.  When I first saw him wrestle in WCW in the mid-90’s, I was flabbergasted.  I had never before seen anyone treat the ring as his personal playground; Rey bounced, spun and flew through the air in ways I only had seen before in the movies.  His battles with Psychosis, Dean Malenko and Chris Jericho are what dreams are made of, and its possible no feud in the modern era lasted as long or resulted in such amazing feats in the ring as the one he had with Eddie Guerrero.

I cheered when he won the Royal Rumble, jumped to my feet in delight when they made him World Champion and, like everybody else, absolutely hated the Filthy Animals.

I love Rey Mysterio.  When I first heard that Rey had stopped cashing his paychecks and was considering legal action against WWE for renewing his deal, I immediately took Mysterio’s side.

Then, as Doc Manson always advises, I looked at the data.

Lessons from the Network: No Way Out 2003

Historical Context

When WWE acquired both ECW and WCW in the early 2000’s, they were flush with talent from all 3 of the major companies, though in some cases, “talent” is a word I use relatively loosely.  As time went on, the invasion angle faded away and only a handful of stars from Atlanta or Philadelphia remained, having been fully incorporated into WWE storylines.
No Way Out 2003 was the table-setter leading up to Wrestlemania XIX, famous for McMahon vs. Hogan and infamous for the botched shooting star press from Brock Lesnar.

Rather than give you the traditional 5 lessons today, we will instead focus on a single one from this era, using No Way Out 2003 as an example.

Lesson: The Post-Invasion WWE had the greatest collection of wrestling talent ever.

Class is in Session: Ambrose's Roadblock to Superstardom

Over the last twenty years, no single archetype has been more beloved in wrestling than the anti-hero.  Whether it be an individual (CM Punk or Stone Cold) or a group (the early nWo or DX), anti-heroes are the living embodiment of what the vast majority of wrestling fans would like to be, if it wasn’t for those pesky laws, rules and regulations keeping us in line.  While we desperately want to give our boss the finger, crotch-chop the rude barista at Starbucks or knee the idiot yelling into his cell phone right in the head, we know we can’t, so we live vicariously through the anti-hero.

Dean Ambrose is poised to be the next great anti-hero in wrestling; in fact, one could argue that he’s already there.  Over the last few weeks, Ambrose has gone to whatever lengths necessary to exact his revenge on Seth Rollins for betraying The Shield and joining The Authority.  He’s attacked him before a match, during a match and after a match. No amount of security is seemingly enough to stop Ambrose; kick him out of the building and he’ll find his way back in.  If not, he’ll lie in wait for you in the trunk of your car, a moment that will likely been one of the more memorable of 2014.

When you listen to Dean Ambrose speak, you are drawn in by his charisma.  You can feel the vitriolic hate emanating from his every pore.  You can see, as my partner Doc Manson so eloquently calls it, the Portrait of Malice.  But you don’t always understand or remember exactly what he said, which is a problem, one that can be solved with today's lesson.

Lesson:  The biggest superstars always have a catch-phrase fans can latch onto.

Lessons from the Network: Degeneration X - In Your House

                                       Historical Context

When I began watching wrestling in the early 1990’s, there were four WWF Pay-Per-Views a year; Wrestlemania, SummerSlam, Survivor Series and Royal Rumble.  That’s it.  Now to some new wrestling fans that might seem insane.  To some, it might border on sacrilege.  To others, it might seem like a very good idea, considering the Battleground hate I’ve read on Twitter this last week, but I’ll save that for a separate column.

In 1993, Vince McMahon expanded by adding King of the Ring, the 5th “major”, as it were.  In the years that followed, whether it was in response to the growing popularity of the competition in WCW or just as an experiment to try to earn more money, Vince added “In Your House”.  Originally designed as a shorter, cheaper PPV, the In Your House series would be the ‘minor’ spectacles to fill the monthly gaps                                                             between larger events.

For our next Lessons from the Network, we take a trip to the IYH event from December of 1997.  WCW has taken over the lead in the Monday Night Wars, and at this point, WWE is on the ropes.  This is also the first PPV after Survivor Series ‘97, also known as the Montreal Screwjob.  On the cusp of the Attitude Era, we now sit under the learning tree known as Degeneration X: In Your House.

Lesson 1:  Proper planning prevents poor performance.

The Mad Scientist: Ranting about Bo Dallas

Contrary to the opinion of my fellow number 2 contender, The Teacher, I don’t like Bo Dallas.

I don’t like Bo Dallas, and not in the way that I’m supposed to not like Bo Dallas.

I get it, I get the gimmick; Bo Dallas is the antithesis of what wrestling fans like. The attention to detail is there, from the smarmy look, the too-toothy grin, the constant state of wet – everything on this guy is hosed down before he heads to the ring, from hair to shirt. Someone probably should have told Bo that being constantly wet was the Shield’s gimmick, but with that group disbanded I guess the theft is acceptable.

The Teacher's Lounge: The Top Ten Talents of NXT

I’m the first to admit, I’ve been very lax with my NXT watching.  With the sheer enormity of content on the WWE Network, the developmental territory kept getting pushed back in my priorities.  However, now that Doc Manson and I are the Number Two Contenders, I had to step my game up.  So, for the last few days, I’ve caught up with NXT, beginning with the show post-Takeover to last week’s episode.

Based on this ‘extensive’ viewing, I now present my NXT Top 10.  Some quick disclaimers before we begin -  I did not consider any talent that had extensive WWE experience; so my apologies to Tyson Kidd, Justin Gabriel and Adam Rose.  This is also based on an admittedly small sample size.


I took the following factors into consideration when compiling my list:
-  In-Ring Talent
-  Current character / gimmick
-  Verbal skills / mic talent
-  “It” factor, the je ne sais quoi that draws attention to a superstar.

I’ll also make two comparisons for each talent, a “floor” of what they could be if they’re just an average talent and a “ceiling” if they win the lottery that is WWE superstardom.

These three came close, but didn’t crack my top 10, so Honorable Mentions go to CJ Parker, Kalisto and Sasha Banks

And here.  We.  Go.

State of the WWE: The Overly-Crowded Main Event Scene

Doc Manson: Glad to see you, Teach. I’ve asked you here today to discuss an ongoing problem in the WWE product. I’m not sure how to articulate this exactly, some people might say that some superstars, like John Cena or Randy Orton, are overexposed, but that’s not really the problem that I’ve having. I don’t really care if John Cena or Randy Orton are featured on television every week.

The issue is more that, by including this regular stable of recognized stars in the top-level feud, the upwards mobility of the mid-card talent is lessened. How can Cesaro or Ziggler go on to be main event players when they can’t even edge into the race for the heavyweight title?

The Teacher:  For the purposes of helping you articulate your point, one which I will freely admit to agreeing with on most levels, allow me to the play the Devil’s Advocate.

Isn’t it just Cena and Orton that you have problems with?  Are you against Kane getting a WHC push, even though it’s highly unlikely he’ll ever wind up with the strap?  Do you dislike Lesnar’s appearance last night on RAW?

DM: Honestly, no. Cena is a workhorse, and I appreciate his contributions to the program. Kane, well, the man is due for a lengthy title run. I’m even glad to see Lesnar back, this guy is a legitimate bad-ass that brings some serious credibility to whichever feud he is a part of.

Again, I don’t think the issue is that these are recognizable stars. I’m actually stand-offish about Roman Reigns and Seth Rollins at this point. It’s not that I don’t want to see these specific individuals succeed, I guess I’m just lamenting that storylines seem to be so predictable.

I don’t mean predictable on the short term, either. I got a lot wrong on the Battleground Predictions discussion we had. However, long term, we seem to know that Cena v. Lesnar is the feud right now. Smart money places Lesnar v. Reigns at Wrestlemania 31. Where does this leave Seth Rollins? Is he going to cash in on Lesnar? Seems unlikely. What about all the other guys waiting for their shot? If the Money in the Bank winner is being crowded out of the title picture for the next six months, where does this leave all the other guys that are ready to be elevated?

T:  Now I think we’ve stumbled onto the main problem.  We have a small top tier of wrestlers, as you just mentioned, and then we have a much larger second tier of talent who could easily make their way to the highest echelon if given the proper chance.  Yet there is only one Heavyweight title right now, and with the current state of the WWE, that’s not enough.

I’m a proponent of either doing another RAW / Smackdown brand extension or creating a new “company” entirely.  Call it ECW 3.0, call it NXT Plus, I don’t really care, but the only way you are going to maximize the potential of the talent in this company is if you have multiple titles for them to vie for.

DM: That’s certainly one solution, but honestly they ought to be able to do more with their talent on the existing television program. RAW is 3 hours long, and has a lot of replays and other filler. They have time to tell other stories or to feature other titles. Hell, just bring back a Television Title and call it a day.

T:  You have my undying support for the return of a TV title.  Truthfully, that is how the US or IC title should be used.  While I still support The Miz winning Sunday’s battle royal, I would also have had no qualms with them giving the belt to Cesaro and letting him have 15-20 minute matches with the likes of Ziggler, Kofi, Big E and Bray Wyatt for the next 3 months. 

You’re right in that the only way to get this group of talent over is to give them screen time.  But, to pick up my Devil’s Advocate hat once more, what about the people who have bought into the Authority storylines?  Those who absolutely adore Roman Reigns and want to see him in 2-3 segments a night?  The ones who are glad we had more Diva action on RAW than I think we may have ever had in WWE history?  Do those people have to lose what might be attracting them on Monday Night’s just so we can see Zack Ryder featured for the first time in months?

DM: Something for everyone, no doubt. It’s not just a matter of screen time, but doing something meaningful with that time. Take Dean Ambrose for instance. Months ago he held the US Championship for months on end - a great move to really help solidify his status as Championship material, right? Wrong. He never defended that belt. The US Championship itself was devalued and weak at the end of Ambrose’s run.

There’s no reason why Roman Reigns can’t be featured in the main event. There’s no reason why the divas can’t have their segments too. They are finally using Paige, the Stephanie arrest was no doubt designed to tickle the fancy of viewers everywhere. Good things are happening, but still there is continual stagnation. Cesaro losing to Kofi multiple weeks in a row, never capitalizing on his association with Paul Heyman is but one example.

No one wanted to see Cesaro as a Heyman guy after Wrestlemania, and while I don’t begrudge them for telling their own story, where is the long term vision? They took a guy on the cusp and deflated his momentum. Now, they need to rebuild Cesaro instead of utilizing what they had built before.

T:  In truth, you just want Cesaro to have Roman Reign’s spot.

DM: Tell me right now what happens to Seth Rollins over the course of the Lesnar v. Reigns feud.

T:  I can’t.  But then again, I doubt the WWE writers can either.

There is a lack of long-term planning right now, and to be honest, I’m not quite sure that’s not Daniel Bryan and CM Punk’s fault.   Both of them were supposed to be leading the company right now.  When Punk and Bryan were around, Cena was doing what Cena should be doing at this point in his career; he was building up stars like Bray Wyatt.  Randy Orton was part of Evolution fighting with The Shield. 

Then, Punk goes AWOL and Bryan gets hurt.  All of the long-term planning WWE might have done goes right out the window.  Suddenly, John Cena seems like the best option for the WWE title, and Roman Reigns is the homegrown star they can build as, excuse me Mr. Lesnar, but the Next Big Thing.   Would any of that have happened if Punk or Bryan were still around?  Not a chance.   The main event picture took a giant hit and they’re floundering around trying to put it back together.  I also imagine they are a little gun-shy on building long term around new talent, when who knows where they’ll be in a year.

DM: And that’s why we call you The Teacher. I feel like I was just taken back to school. You’re right, of course. This is the result of creative scrambling to restructure whatever long-term plans they previously had in place. As I sit here lamenting the fate of the mid-card, I should be taking solace in knowing that there is so much capable talent ready to take over should the need arise.

T:  That doesn’t mean there still can’t be improvements made in the overall product.  Last night’s RAW was the most enjoyable one I’ve seen since I resumed regular viewing and a lot of that had to do with the talent on screen.  Cesaro and Dean Ambrose was our main event match!  We didn’t need to see John Cena and the rest of the main event crowd for more than a minute or two at the end of the night; we knew what their stories were and what was going on, which let us sit back and enjoy actual wrestling.

So we’ve established that the next wave of WWE main event talent is ready and waiting, and it is the firm belief of the Number Two Contenders that they should be getting their chance to shine, ideally with one of the secondary belts being elevated to a higher standard.  Anything else you would recommend, Doc?

DM: Put some emphasis back on the titles. It lessens the need for strong supporting stories, because everyone understand the competitive aspects of sports entertainment. This has the benefit of freeing creative to cook up truly compelling stories that are NOT centered around the belts as well. That’s where the majority of attention needs to be focused, on those situations which don’t have the championship as a prop.

I’m a big proponent of the Jim Ross school of story-telling, I guess. There’s no reason to divorce sports entertainment from the sports aspects. Utilize time limits and count out finishes in smart ways.

T:  Would you be a fan of re-instituting a Top 10 rankings system for the title? 

DM: Yes, and no. I do think that emphasizing the worth of the titles is smart, easy story-telling, but an overly complicated ranking system can get in the way of the dumb fun I’ve come to appreciate from professional wrestling. I’m all about the storylines, I don’t want those to go away or else I’d be watching Ring of Honor exclusively.

T:  Fair enough.  The folks on Twitter tend to agree with you.  Too much thinking during a wrestling program is generally seen as a bad idea.

Well, Doc, I don’t know if we necessarily solved anything here today, but I at least hope you feel better getting a chance to express your feelings.

If there’s a lesson to be learned from all this, is it “If you don’t like the WWE main event scene right now, blame Punk and Bryan?”

DM: Finally, a lesson we can all agree upon.

The Mad Scientist - Ranting about Stephanie McMahon v. Brie Bella

The Mad Scientist – Ranting About Wrestling

A shoot-style column from Doc Manson

Edit: I wrote this column before the 7/21/14 edition of RAW, so I’m going to post it. I’m happy to see that some progress has been made on this storyline, alleviating some of the concerns voiced herein, but it doesn’t change the frustration I’ve felt these last few weeks.

---

Stephanie McMahon has been on a vindictive streak, her fury directed against one half of that magical twin duo, The Bella Twins. The storyline, if you go back, is really about a conflict between Stephanie and Brie Bella, stemming from Stephanie’s ongoing issues with Brie’s husband, Daniel Bryan. The last time we saw Brie Bella, she was slapping the crap out of Stephanie’s face during the final moments of her employment with the WWE. Brie would go on to quit the business that night, ending the use of Brie as leverage in the feud with Daniel Bryan – a noble sacrifice.

Class is in Session: RAW's Love Letter to the WWE Twitter-verse

Triple H was in rare form last night.

The COO of WWE and leader of The Authority reminded us all why, when he wants to be, he can be one of the more entertaining promo-men in the business.  Last night’s RAW opened with a heavily sarcastic shot at the WWE’s Internet community, specifically the multitude of fans on Twitter.

Now, as someone who has spent far more time than is healthy on Twitter in the last week (the benefits of an actual teacher’s schedule), I can say he was right on the money.  While there are some absolutely stellar wrestling fans out there dedicated to intelligent conversation and articulate, respectful debate (Head over to @The2Contenders and you’ll easily find who I’m talking about), the vast majority of Internet wrestling fans do nothing but whine, complain, and threaten to take their friend Mark and stop watching if WWE doesn’t listen to their demands.

So Triple H started out the show by giving us “smart” fans a verbal shellacking, condemning us for our constant complaining.

The next 3 hours showed that they were listening, however, as last night’s RAW could have been subtitled “A Love Letter to our Twitter fans”.

The Teacher's Lounge: 'Stable'-izing the WWE

For my money, there’s nothing like a good wrestling stable.  If you were a wrestling fan in the 1980’s, it was the Four Horsemen or the Heenan Family.  During the Monday Night Wars, it was the nWo or the Corporate Ministry.  Raven’s Flock, Los Boricuas, Right to Censor, the Filthy Animals. . . The list goes on and on.

A well-put together stable allows you to showcase multiple talents in a single segment.  Most importantly, it allows young talents to have a chance to grow and shine (Randy Orton in the early days of Evolution) while veteran talent who are getting on in years but can still bring it on the mic get to continue being a relevant force (Arn Anderson during the final days of the WCW Horsemen).  In addition, a stable can help elevate a single superstar by having him be the focus of the group.  (Straight Edge Society is one example, another one that failed dramatically was The Brood.)  Also, stables can sometimes serve as a metaphor for broader issues, be it inside or outside of the wrestling world.

Here are 6 stables (4 re-iterations of a group from the past as well as 2 brand new ones) that I believe could exist in the WWE.  Many of these also provide opportunities for many of the next wave of NXT stars to make their way onto the main roster, while also giving a current Superstar a leadership role.

Battleground 2014 - Reaction and Discussion

WWE’s prelude to SummerSlam, Battleground, is in the books, and the Number Two Contenders are here to talk all about it.  Whose star shone brightest?  How does this lead into “The Biggest Party of the Summer”?  Doc Manson and The Teacher discuss. . . Next!

 

---

The Teacher:  Alright, Doc, before we go into great detail, give me your overall thoughts on Battleground in ten words or less.

Doc Manson: Solid matches, with few surprises. I want Ambrose v. Rollins.

T:  I think the vast majority of WWE fans echo your sentiments completely.  Continuing to tease the Ambrose and Rollins match is causing us to salivate with anticipation.  Their sequences throughout the night had a very “Attitude Era” feel to them, especially Rollins searching for Dean in the parking lot only to have him emerge from the trunk.  Good stuff.

The Teacher's Lounge: Fantasy Booking the Battleground Main Event

Tonight is Battleground, the PPV lead-in to August’s Summerslam extravaganza.  Our main event this evening is a Fatal Four Way for the WWE title, as John Cena defends against Randy Orton, Kane and Roman Reigns.  If you asked 100 average wrestling fans who they thought was going to win this match, I’d wager at least 85-90% of them would say that John Cena will defend his title.  Between the leaked promotional material for SummerSlam as well as Paul Heyman’s cryptic “Plan C”, all signs are pointing to John Cena and Brock Lesnar for the title next month.

But what if that’s just what WWE wants you to believe?

Perhaps. . . Actually, it’s almost a certainty that I am venturing much too far down the conspiracy theorist road, but let’s go down that road anyway.  Consider it a thought experiment.  Putting on my fantasy booker hat, here are the ways I can see six other wrestlers walking out of Battleground with the WWE title.  As an extra challenge, I’ll even include how I’d follow tonight’s match up at SummerSlam.