Ask 411 Wrestling: Is Roman Reigns’ Push Doomed?

…

Is it safe for me to come back yet?

OK.

Welcome to Ask 411 Wrestling. I am Mathew Sforcina, and the Feedback Loop will explain everything. Until then, hey, Sting! 2 Down, 4 To Go!

Oh, and I called Kane’s entry into the Rumble, didn’t I?

If you have a question you want answered, [email protected] is where you send it. And maybe you’ll be lucky enough to get it answered quickly if it’s an easy one and/or if I know it off the top of my head and/or it’s really interesting and/or I know you.

BANNER!

Zeldas!

Check out my Drabble blog, 1/10 of a Picture! It doesn’t suck as much as last week did!

Me On Twitter~!
http://www.twitter.com/411mania
http://www.twitter.com/411wrestling
http://www.twitter.com/411moviestv
http://www.twitter.com/411music
http://www.twitter.com/411games
http://www.twitter.com/411mma

Feedback Loop

Last Week: So.

Last week was not the result of drugs, either too many or not enough. Last week was the product of my knowing, a week in advance, that I had maybe half the usual time I’d have to do a column, and thus my needing of a way to extend and fill space with stuff that I didn’t have to do research on.

That, and I REALLY liked that Randy line.

In the old days, I’d have just done a Total Opinion Week, but that’s not an option now (see below). And I still had some time, so I didn’t rope in Byers or anything, which maybe I should have, but at the end of the day, it was an attempt at comedy/something different that didn’t work by most accounts. I’ve done a few of those in my time here, and I’ll probably end up doing a couple others down the line, so yeah.

And speaking of TOWs…

Where’s The Facts?: I’ll level with you, a major reason why I removed the distinction of fact and opinion was the problem that I don’t get enough fact questions to fill most of a column. Be it because I’ve done this too long, or people have found Google, or everyone’s gotten smarter, or some other reason, simple, clear fact questions are rare now. Most of the ‘fact’ questions are fact-in-theory (‘What was the original plan for Madusa’s WCW Career?’) or highly specific (‘How many times has Madusa won TV matches with German Suplexs?’) or almost impossible (‘How many people have won titles with German Suplexes?’). And any one of those sorts of questions takes time to research, and if I do several, I end up with a column that could be written over Twitter.

Which is not to say I don’t want those questions, far from it. I just have to moderate them. You understand.

The Trivia Crown

Who am I? I began my career with an animal themed name, although it didn’t last long. I once won a singles title in a tag match. I won my last match in the company I worked for before I joined WCW, I won my last match in WCW, and then I won my last match in the company I joined after I left WCW. I’ve beaten CM Punk, but not John Cena. I’ve had at least one title reign that shouldn’t really count, not so much because of what I did but what the ‘title’ was. One of four men to hold a specific Triple Crown, a man who broke his own gimmick multiple times in a company, and a guy whose wife has a gimmick name, I am who?

Nathan had the answer, but rk349097 had the explanation.

“Who am I? I began my career with an animal themed name, although it didn’t last long (the original name for the character was “Sabu the Elephant Boy”). I once won a singles title in a tag match (not sure about this one). I won my last match in the company I worked for before I joined WCW (vs. Mikey Whipwreck in his first run in ECW), I won my last match in WCW (vs. Disco Inferno), and then I won my last match in the company I joined after I left WCW (vs. Scott D’Amore in his 2nd ECW run). I’ve beaten CM Punk, but not John Cena (WWECW). I’ve had at least one title reign that shouldn’t really count, not so much because of what I did but what the ‘title’ was (the FTW Heavyweight Championship). One of four men to hold a specific Triple Crown (He is one of 4 ECW Triple Crown Champions; the others are Johnny Hotbody, Mikey Whipwreck, and Taz) a man who broke his own gimmick multiple times in a company (he was caught speaking in the ring numerous times even though he wasn’t supposed to be able to speak English), and a guy whose wife has a gimmick name (his wife was renamed Mibu to match his ring name), I am who?”

Sabu

And as Michael James Carlotta Jr. pointed out, the singles belt in a tag match was the ECW TV title from Funk. Now viewable on the WWE Network for just $9.99!

*loud crashing and muffled screams*

Let’s move on.

What Am I? I’m a thing. The opportunity I should have gotten the guy who won me, he didn’t get for a while (and even then he had to win something else to get that), due to a later revoking. Despite eight former/future world champions fighting for me, only one future world champ was in the final match of the tournament to win me. The guy who won me was replacing someone else who was injured before the tournament. Three tag teams broke apart to fight for me (four if you include the best buddies who weren’t really a tag team but did team often). A boot ended two of the matches in the tourney, one big, one regular sized. A one night PPV affair, the tournament to win me doesn’t technically have the same name as me, for I Am What?

Getting Down To All The Business

OK, you want facts? Let’s have some facts! Patrick! Let’s get all Facty Up in this thing!

I’ve got 2 opinion based questions I’d like to fling your way:

Bugger.

– Best DQ and/or countout finishes you’ve ever seen?

As far as DQ’s go, I have two answers, both of which are slight cheats. The main one, it’s a cheat because it technically wasn’t the finish. The Raw Saturday Night Gauntlet Match, Steve Austin V The Corporation, where each member got DQed as they broke up the Stunner pinfall of the last one. Thing is, it ended with a pinfall, but I still think it’s the best use of DQs in a match. And it’s surely a very historic moment at the end there.

As for the other one, it’s kind of a cheat in the sense that I don’t have a specific one, but the best DQs and COs, overall, were the Honky Tonk Man ones. Every time Honky ran away or got DQed, there was just more hatred, more anger, more people wanting, needing to see him lose. It was the best use of DQs and COs for a payoff in history, and something that far too many people have tried to replicate and failed.

A flat out DQ… Summerslam 2001, Austin/Angle, it certainly is the one that I recall the most vividly, so I guess it’s the best, but I prefer the Gauntlet.

– Best and worst aspects particular to the major promotions of the modern era (AWA, WCW, ECW, WWE, ROH etc). I don’t mean the best and worst angles or matches, but rather something more consistent and intangible. The little ways they chose to differentiate themselves from the competition in terms of presentation, booking etc

Hmm.

WWE: WWE’s best asset has historically been reinvention, coupled with risk taking. WWE was willing to strike out and carve new paths, to go out there and create a new way of doing business, maybe not in a fair or respectful way to other promoters, but at the end of the day WWE was able to look at syndication and then cable then PPV and reinvent itself, to go from Backlund to Hogan, and then when that system eventually failed to reboot into Attitude, and then to rework that into the media powerhouse where it stands today, WWE has always been able and willing, in the past, to do what it took to survive and thrive. Eventually.

But the flip side of that, is that when WWE does stick in its heels, it’s ugly. WWE has had periods where you, the consumer, have been wrong, according to them. You’re supposed to love All American Luger. You’re supposed to love Youngest World Champion Ever Randy Orton. You should be dying to see Batista V Orton at WMXXX dammit! But the thing is, WWE can get away with this because they’re the biggest dog in the yard, so what they say goes, it’s when they are challenged that they refind the ability to reinvent.

WCW: I’ll deal with the NWA later, this is Turner’s WCW, and this easy, in that WCW had awesome wrestlers who put on awesome matches. Often, and well. And they also had big names in hot angles. Whatever you wanted, WCW had it.

They just kept it compartmentalised, where the good wrestlers were over here in the first hour, and the big names were here in the main event, and they’d never meet, unless a main eventer needed to squash someone or something. They didn’t start bringing the awesome wrestlers into the hot stories, they never used a big name to make an awesome wrestler into a big star, they didn’t mix things up, so in the end it all got stale.

NWA: Professional Wrestling is a sport. You may well be a colorful character, but at the end of the day you’re an athlete, competing in a sport. That is what wrestling is, that is what the NWA will present you. At (almost) all times, wrestling was treated with respect, the show was built around wrestling, and with a base like that, simple, clear stories can be told and told well.

Which does make the crappy attempts at showbiz look all the more out of place and horrible. But in the end, the NWA just wasn’t able to look good. It’s all fine to sell your product as a legit sport, but you still need to present it in an inviting, positive way, to present your personalities as larger than life, to market them positively. The NWA under Crockett… Yeah, not really…

ECW: Heyman. For both, Heyman is what made ECW what it was, and Heyman is what killed it. Heyman’s booking and talent at putting on a wrestling show, to be able to present a wrestling storyline is, while not flawless, still pretty awesome. ECW from 95 to 98 or so, I’d say that as an overall product, it’s probably in the running for the best booking run of anyone, ever. But that’s certainly debatable (although greatest year ever is still WWF 2000). But when Heyman began to crack as a booker, and the multitude of problems with Heyman as a businessman, that’s what killed ECW.

AWA: Simple, down to earth, logical, pure wrestling.

That’s boring as hell most of the time.

ROH: Fast paced, incredible skill and speed, just balls to the wall modern style wrestling, an ROH match is a unique style that combines a bunch of different genres into a product that is amazing to watch.

Assuming you can get past the uneven presentation, the questionable booking, and the overall issue that ROH, even on syndicated TV and owned by a decent sized media company, still feels small time, still feels like an indy. At least to me.

TNA: All of the above, at various times. And that’s the thing. TNA can be superb, or it can suck huge. And most of the time, you’re never sure what you’re getting ahead of time. It’ll suck for a while, then BAM, hot streak, then BAMBAM, cold streak. Kinda frustrating.

At least, that’s my take. Feel free to call me names below, and/or give your own intangibles for these or other companies.

OK, facts, thanks to Marco, writing in from Germany. He’s talking about finishers.

1. When did that “concept” start? I know Lou Thesz was famous for his Toe Hold, but what was the first “real” finisher in Wrestling?

Since before wrestling was wrestling. Much like in modern day MMA, although they weren’t established as gimmicks, catch as catch can fighters would have finishers, or at least have favored moves that they would often win with. Like Ronda Rousey;s Armbar or Cain Velasquez’s right hand, Frank Gotch had his Toe Hold, George Hackenschmidt had his Bear Hug. Fighters would have their preferred holds that they’d work towards, like any real fight.

Thus, when modern wrestling began in the early 20’s under the Gold Dust Trio, the idea of finishes and finishers was already established. Ed ‘Strangler’ Lewis had his Sleeper Hold, and Joseph “Toots” Mondt came up with a majority of finishes and, it is said, a lot of finishers as well.

But if you want real obscure, Mondt apparently based, in part, his idea of “Slam Bang Western Style Wrestling” on the life and style of James Figg, an English swordsman/athlete/fighter/grappler dating back to 1716, who would not rely solely on grappling but would lay in punches and blows where possible, before moving into more openly boxing, and would often beat more talented wrestlers by knocking them out with a punch then pinning their shoulders. So, if you want to go deep and obscure, you can argue the Figg Right Hand was the first ‘finisher’.

Well, that or his sword, which was often the first round in boxing matches back then.

2. Why aren’t there more strikes used as finishers in WWE? There’s the Bull Hammer and Luke Harpers Lariat, but why does nobody use, for example, a backfist or Palm thrust?

I can’t tell you for sure, it’s possible there was a memo put out after Vince went on a illegal drug My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic bender and decided he didn’t want any more strikes as finishers right now. But, for the most part, it’s a matter of having to do them night in, night out.

See, although a strike is a easy thing to do in terms of doing the move, to do a strike in such a way that it looks good, and doesn’t hurt the other guy, that’s actually hard to do consistently. At least with a Superkick, you know that you can make noise with your hand, so it doesn’t matter if it’s miles off, it’ll still seem ok. But using a strike as a finisher, there’s always a chance you can screw it up, and give your opponent a black eye, or a missing tooth or something.

Sure, moves can be screwed up worse, but you can control them, if you’re falling badly out of a slam, you can try to adjust. A strike, you’re just standing there hoping the other guy gets it right.

That’s the problem, a lack of control. But again, like anything, if you come in and show WWE that you can throw a backfist all day every day and get it right 99 times out of a 100? You got a finisher.

And a gimmick.

3. Why is everybody hating the Canadian destroyer so much? There are many other unrealistic moves, why does that move get so much hate on the Internet?

Thanks for your time

I don’t hate it. But, as I understand it, it’s the most obviously fake move out there. Stuff like the Worm, the People’s Elbow, and the Cobra, they’re stupid, but they’re strikes, they just happen. Spiral Taps and 630’s, flips and such, you’re on the ground and thus just don’t notice in time to move.

But the Destroyer is different, because, the argument goes, it’s the move that most obviously needs the person taking it to do something. The people who tend to do it are smaller, and thus don’t have the body weight to pull it off ‘legit’, so you’re left with the person taking it basically doing a backflip for no reason beyond that being the move.

Or maybe it’s just because Buff Bagwell did it once.

But I believe that’s the problem people have, it’s just too blatantly fake as a move, apparently. But you know, grabbing a guy by the arm and irish whipping him so he’ll run indefinitely, that’s cool…

Maffew Has A List!

Craig talks tag teams and authority figures.

I swear, no gimmicks. Apart from maybe Chandler. But he’s not a gimmick, he’s an institution!

First an old school tag-team question. Back in the day lots of tag teams used the moniker “express” (R&R Express, Midnight Express, Orient Express being the three most well-known). Where did this come from? Why do you think it fell out of style in the 90’s (not complaining but had the Hardys come around a few years earlier Team Extreme would have likely been The Extreme Express).

There’s been a few more since then, Rainbow Express, Ring Crew Express, so on.

That said, The Midnight Express were the first team, to my knowledge, with Express in the name, the Original Midnight Express being a stable of Dennis Condrey, Randy Rose and Norvell Austin, formed in mid 1981. The name did not come from the film of the same name, according to Condrey, who claims the name came from, quote,

” At once (sic) time, we all dressed in black. We had black Lincolns, black automobiles and everything else, and we were all out until midnight, so we went as the Midnight Express.”

The Rock n Roll Express developed from Jerry Lawler and Jimmy Hart brainstorming, originally the team would be RnR Express, with the R’s standing for Ricky and Robert, but then it became Rock n Roll. So that one came from Jimmy Hart.

The US Express rhymes.

And the Orient Express is just an obvious pun.

And it seems that after Midnight and Rock n Roll, it just became standard/accepted that you can name a team ‘Blank Express’ and it does sound exciting and fast and what have you. But in the 90’s, it was too connected to the 80’s, I guess, and/or Expresses just weren’t in fashion? I dunno, Wrestling has trends like anything else, and they don’t always make sense, like in fashion.

*1/8 of a Chandler*

Second, with the return of the authority and the less than enthusiastic reaction around the internet I started thinking about the role of the Evil authority figure. From a writing point I understand that its an easy way to setup matches and gives the faces a common enemy. BUT….from a logical standpoint WHY THE HELL IS EVERY AUTHORITY FIGURE EVIL?? I mean shouldn’t the authority figure’s goals be to drive revenue through booking good matches and merchandise sales? Wouldn’t you do that buy giving the fans the things they want? The McMahon/Austin saga worked because Austin was anti-establishment and didn’t fit the corporate mold that McMahon felt a champion representing the WWE should fit. I can live with that reasoning. But the hundreds of individuals to fill the GM/Owner role post McMahon-Austin have had pretty much zero actual motivation for being evil other than “this makes creatives job easier.” Teddy Long was the longest tenured exception to the rule and when he wasn’t busy booking “tag team match player” he served little purpose other than to feud with the Raw GM. In the real world, Authority figures are typically impartial. Roger Goodell may not be the most popular guy with NFL fans but he doesn’t intentionally want to screw over the most popular team/players. Authority figures are the people who are forced to make unpopular decisions, but they are often doing so for the good of the sport/company.
It just seemed like Jack Tunney may have been the best representation of a true authority figure. He showed up only on occasion and when he did you knew it would be for something big. Sometimes it was to announce something good for the face sometimes not, either way it was much more effective than the stale trope that doesn’t even make a whole lot of sense in the first place (in my opinion). Curious to hear your thoughts about why this trope continues to exist despite its totally illogical premise.

I think there’s a whole lot of factors at work here, which makes it hard to determine just which are mostly responsible, and which are just coincidental.

Most everyone outside of WWE who uses heel authority figures tends to do it because they’re taking a page from WWE/WCW, and the fact that two of the biggest money making angles in history had heel authority figures at or near their heart, Austin/McMahon and the nWo.

As for WWE right now, it might just be as simple a case as WWE knowing that Austin/McMahon worked, so thus Face Wrestler/Heel Boss must work because reasons. It well could be that the problem is that the people in charge off camera are the ones in charge on camera, and being a bad guy is cool and fun. It might just be lazy writing, since ‘A Heel Authority Figure Says This’ is the wrestling equivalent of ‘A Wizard Did It’. It’s possible that the majority of people WWE has used as Authority figures are better suited to being evil. Or some combination of the above, or maybe they have figures that show that fans like the bosses being dicks, I don’t know.

WWE has toyed with non-evil bosses, Foley was Commish, Co-Commish and then GM of Saturday Morning Slam, Regal is face down in NXT, and Johnny Ace began as a Goodell style neutral middle management suit before they turned him evil.

At the end of the day, having the boss be a jerk just allows you freedom to make any match you like, or to change the rules whenever you want, it’s lazy and boring, yes, but easy and effective. I would like a Tunney style rarely there boss, but it ain’t gonna happen any time soon.

But, if you need an internal justification, just remember: Every Authority Figure, at the end of the day, has to answer to Vince McMahon. Vince still pulls the strings, no matter what the board thinks. So, they have to appeal to Vince. And thus, eventually, they find themselves being the bad guy because Vince is a bad guy, and they want to keep their job and power. You do not own the throne, the throne owns you. You don’t change the throne, the throne changes you.

Jon wants an update.

I asked this a few weeks ago, but with Daniel Bryan returning it would seem a lot of dynamics have changed. So here goes:

First, if WWE still intends to go forward with the “Roman Reigns is your new hero” plan, aren’t they doomed to the same outcome as last year? Isn’t it virtually guaranteed that the fans will make Reigns Batista 2.0? And previously, I had suggested fans would make either Ambrose or Ziggler into Bryan Version 2, but now that the actual Bryan is back, that part takes care of itself. Which is even worse for the Reigns forced push.

And secondly, last time I asked if this was possibly a devious plan by Vince and company hoping that would be how it played out. I’ll amend that question to this: so maybe this wasn’t a devious plan from day one, but now- with Bryan back- they HAVE TO know what’s going to happen. Right? Right????

The issue is not so much ‘Bryan has to be Champ’ as it is ‘Bryan has to be focused on’.

See, the IWC tends to, in my view, mistake what it wants with what it should be getting. The IWC demands Cena turns heel, that Rollins cashes in, that Cole be fired. In reality, they should be getting a Cena that is interesting, storylines that make sense, and a commentary team allowed to call matches and tell stories, not spout catchphrases and plug social media.

When Reigns wins the Rumble, there will be a backlash, sure. However, it shouldn’t be that overwhelming, provided WWE shows us that Bryan has a clear, positive storyline ahead of him.

If Bryan comes out at #14, lasts 30 minutes, taking out Goldust and an Uso, and is eliminated by Kane to leave a final four of Kane, Big Show, Rusev and Roman Reigns, that will lead to many a profane chant, I’d wager.

However, if he doesn’t make it into the Rumble because Brock murders him backstage and takes his number, or he’s the last one tossed because of Rollins interference, or he is #1 and gets Iron Man and Most Eliminations, as long there’s something there to indicate he’s getting a push/story, there shouldn’t be too much of a backlash. Less so if Reigns suddenly becomes as good as WWE thinks he is, which is certainly possible, his performance last year was good.

But I think WWE has a good idea how the fans will react, they dropped the ECW guys because of it, and I don’t think they’re stupid enough to try a Deal With It 2.0 this time around.

Bryan won’t win the Rumble, but he will, hopefully, set up a decent program for WM. Brock, I would guess.

Rahil actually has one of those rare, simple, clear fact questions I’ve heard so much about.

In WCW 2001 there was a group called the Magnificient Seven who were the members ?????

The Seven of the name were: Ric Flair, Jeff Jarrett, Scott Steiner, Rick Steiner, Lex Luger, Buff Bagwell and Road Warrior Animal. Associated with them were Midajah and Miss Elizabeth as valets, and then Chris Kanyon and Chavo Guerrero were associate members.

… Yeah.

Nightwolf asks a loaded question.

Daniel Bryan finally won the big one after months of him fighting the authority. My question is, when was the last time the WWE truly build up a good storyline feud. And I don’t mean thrown together in 2 weeks or a month?

Building up and paying off are different things, in that a feud can be built to wonderfully and then the payoff can totally suck, and vice versa. And what one person considers captivating and awesome, someone else thinks is boring and predictable. There’s very much personal opinion.

And to be honest, I still don’t give WWE credit for Bryan V Authority. They lucked into it, and while I will give them all the credit for biting the bullet and adjusting their plans in February, that doesn’t retroactively mean all the booking mistakes they made with him before that point are magically fixed because they muddled their way through to a good ending that they didn’t want to do. Bryan at WMXXX was a great hail mary pass that paid off. But that doesn’t mean being that far down with seconds left to play was suddenly good tactics.

So, before that point, in terms of a storyline feud, one that was built well? Summer of Punk 2011.

And even that had issues, and the immediate aftermath was disastrous, but for the most part, that was pretty good.

Unless you’re letting me include NXT, then the Rise of Sami Zayn is made of win.

But hey, Miz/Mizdow is pretty solid so far…

Neal asks about the Thanksgiving Tradition.

Quick question for your Ask411 column. About Survivor Series, when did they go away from the Thanksgiving Eve pay per view tradition? They did it in 1993 I know, but not sure if they did it after that. Did they just decide that Sunday’s were better? If I’m not mistaken I think they did Summerslam 1993 on a Monday night too. I’ve been watching PPVs since 1992 and I don’t remember that being a Monday night PPV, but the PPV report was saying it was. Can you confirm or any ideas?

Well I can go down the list and see where they broke off.

Survivor Series 1987, November 26, Thanksgiving.
Survivor Series 1988, November 24, Thanksgiving.
Survivor Series 1989, November 23, Thanksgiving.
Survivor Series 1990, November 22, Thanksgiving.
Survivor Series 1991, November 27, Not Thanksgiving. (Thanksgiving Nov 28)
Survivor Series 1992, November 25, Not Thanksgiving. (Thanksgiving Nov 26)
Survivor Series 1993, November 24, Not Thanksgiving. (Thanksgiving Nov 25)
Survivor Series 1994, November 23, Not Thanksgiving. (Thanksgiving Nov 24)
Survivor Series 1995, November 19, Not Thanksgiving. (Thanksgiving Nov 23)

The first four years were on Thanksgiving itself, and then 4 more years took place on Thanksgiving Eve, and then starting in 1995, it went to the now traditional Sunday PPV slot.

As for the logic, the show began as a way to stick it to Crockett, and screw over PPV companies, forcing them to show WWF and only WWF unless they wanted to lose WM4. The PPV companies had been looking forward to a day of wrestling fans sitting down and watching Starrcade and then Survivor Series, all day watching wrestling! But Vince made sure that didn’t happen.

Obviously they felt in 90/91 that they might be able to sell more buys if they moved it back a day, since most people were probably in turkey comas by that the evening of Thanksgiving, and then after a few years of that they decided to just go to Sunday.

As for Summerslam 1993, a check of the date, August 30, 1993, in Google brings up that it was indeed a Monday. Going backwards, all the Summerslams were on Mondays. 1994 was as well, 1995 was when it went to Sunday, and lookee here, there’s a pattern!

So clearly in 1995, that was when WWE switched to Sunday Only PPVs, although why then, I don’t know. Have to research it further.

But that brings us to the end of a gimmick-free Ask 411. Tune in next week for a distinct lack of gimmick!