wrestling / Columns

It Matters: Finding a Way to Make Feuds That Make Sense

December 13, 2014 | Posted by Dino Zee

To start, I wanted to address one of the comments I received last week: “Unless you’ve worked in WWE. You have no idea what you’re talking about.”

When I am recalling events as they happened on my television (as I did with Zack Ryder), then I don’t have to have worked for WWE to know what I saw. I watched as Ryder was slowly pushed up the card, and then immediately made to look like the most ineffectual ass on the roster. On TV. I never made up fake meetings where they decided to submarine him, I didn’t speculate as to which suit decided to pull the plug- I simply recounted what happened on my TV. Quit trying to be so damn contrarian with comments that do nothing but try to put yourself over. It’s so unbecoming.

And we move on.

Heading into TLC, I was thinking about the major matches headlining the show. Specifically, I was thinking about how we got to these matches. John Cena and Seth Rollins have beef because Rollins interfered in Cena’s match with Brock Lesnar, getting Lesnar disqualified, but allowing him to keep his belt. Bray Wyatt appeared out of nowhere to attack Dean Ambrose for some reason at Hell in a Cell, and Ambrose has been wanting to tear him apart ever since. Dolph Ziggler lost his IC title to Luke Harper, who was granted the match out of nowhere. Eric Rowan doesn’t like bullies, so he’s getting Big Show.

Don’t these feuds seem, at the very least, a bit flimsy? Cena didn’t even lose his match to Brock! Surely, in a purely kayfabe world, he’d be granted a rematch simply for the lack of an actual resolution to the contest? Sure, I can see him being a bit agitated with Rollins for the interference. Maybe even ask for a match against Rollins to teach him a lesson. But this drawn out feud, which was put on a quick hiatus for Hell in a Cell so Cena could win another title shot first? I just don’t get it.

Hell, Cena’s team won at Survivor Series, and got rid of The Authority, who had been coddling Rollins to this point. That’s still not good enough for Cena?

Bray Wyatt has tried to give a reasonable explanation for his attack on Ambrose, but this feud has felt like nothing more than an idea by the writers to reignite what was once a hot heel act by placing him against a hot face. Yes, in the business sense, this is a good move. While it could backfire and end up costing Ambrose his heat, it appears that both guys have stepped it up in recent weeks, with Wyatt finally becoming more than a smiling troubadour who likes to speak in odd riddles. Still, we were basically given a “I see myself in you” story from Bray, which culminated in him wanting to bring out the beast in Ambrose, or something along those lines. From a kayfabe standpoint, this feud is going on because Bray felt like it? Well all right, then. On top of that, Ambrose decides that he no longer has any problem with Seth Rollins, because Wyatt cost him a match? Again, okay. He got no retribution over Rollins, just a series of attacks and mind games, only to lose the final battle. And he just goes on with his life.

I can at the very least understand Dolph Ziggler wanting to get his belt back from Harper. Even if Harper did nothing to earn the shot in the first place (besides join Team Authority), the former champion wanting to get his belt back? Fine, that works. At the same time, I always wonder why the self-proclaimed “Show Off” is so preoccupied with secondary titles, instead of trying to recapture his spot as a World Champion.

It just appears that motives for feuds have really dwindled down to some lazy stuff recently. I don’t, for the life of me, understand why Ryback, for instance, would be any type of angry with Big Show following Show’s actions at Survivor Series. Ryback had been eliminated before Show turned. Show never turned on Ryback. On top of that, Team Cena still won, so Show’s turn was ineffectual. The same thing goes for Rowan. Still, Ryback attacked Show on Raw following Survivor Series, and Rowan has entered a feud with Show. Why? Because he didn’t turn on you guys personally and your team still won?

It always seems that we’ll get half of building a feud correctly. Going back to Bray and Ambrose, for instance, the idea that a feud starts because someone interfered in your match and attacked you makes total sense. Same thing with Cena and Rollins, though to a lesser degree since Cena didn’t actually lose anything. I can absolutely get behind wanting to beat up the guy that attacks you. The problem is that the attacker never has a damn good reason for what he did. Now, if Bray had referenced never really dropping his hate for Ambrose after the Wyatt Family/Shield feud ended, that’d be one thing. Instead, we’re given a story where a guy sits out for a few months, frees his stablemates, and returns to attack someone he had no beef with at all?
On the opposite side, we’ll have decent enough reasons, but no real spark to start the feud off. Rollins interfering in the Cena/Brock match, for instance, made perfect sense. Both men were incredibly tired after a long match, and Rollins figured that if he could pounce and take Cena out of the equation, that he could then cash in on Brock and get a HUGE victory for himself. Of course, this was never said, but just reading the actions, you can see it. However, we instead got Cena getting back to his feet after a whole minute of being knocked out by a briefcase shot, and Lesnar was never pinned. And so, the big moment of Rollins ruining Cena’s night gets diluted as simply being another example of a heel that thinks he’s smart actually accomplishing nothing at all.

What happened to the guy who comes out and declares that he wants the belt, and that means he’s going after the champion? Hell, we just saw this done fantastically on the NXT show with Kevin Owens and Sami Zayn. Owens wants to be the best in NXT, so how does he go about this goal? Does he feud with CJ Parker and Mojo Rawley in hopes of earning a better opponent? Nope. He attacks the new champion and beats the hell out of him. Sensical rationale, sensical attack.

The lack of real feuds that we can get behind is a problem only because wrestling, as it is right now, relies so much on them to get people interested in watching the matches. What if wrestling were to take an MMA approach, leaning more towards sport than spectacle, only as far as matchmaking is concerned?

We see feuds spring up in MMA constantly, and usually only once a fight is made. Some attribute that to guys trying to “sell their fight,” and that’s absolutely a valid point. I’d also imagine that when one knows his next opponent, it’s pretty easy to talk one’s self into hating that opponent. If, for instance, the Raw GM were to announce that Brock Lesnar would be defending the WWE World Heavyweight Championship against Luke Harper, who earns the shot based on his status as Intercontinental Champion, would it really be that much of a stretch if Lesnar suddenly appeared and attacked the bearded lunatic? Or if Harper cornered Paul Heyman? Just like that, any and all interactions between the parties involved would make instant sense, because they have a future match with each other.

I do tend to think that announcing matches first, and then having that be why the guys are now feuding can be a beneficial tool for pro wrestling. No, not every single feud needs to be born this way. Jon Jones and Daniel Cormier, for example, have some long standing beef over an introduction that went wrong. Chael Sonnen and Wanderlei Silva is another example of guys having beef before any fight is made. It can go either way. However, if you’re starting a new feud between two guys who have literally never interacted before, giving them a simple jumping off point like “This guy is trying to take money off my table, and title shots out of my future” seems, to me, like a pretty easy fix.

This could also have an indirect effect of suddenly making the secondary championships matter again. Let’s say two guys are feuding, and one of them ends up becoming Intercontinental Champion along the way in an unrelated match. Now, along with the former champion wanting his belt back, the new champion’s rival is still looking to win the feud. Now we have two guys gunning for the Intercontinental Champion, with one doing it strictly for business reasons, while the other is doing it for personal reasons that will also benefit him professionally. Beat your rival and take his belt, and then earn a status as a top contender for the World Championship.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Not everyone is going to like this. I’m sure I’ll hear about it below. I just don’t care to see forced feuds with no real purpose, no real point where you say “Oh man, NOW it’s on!” between the rivals, and no real payoff. Seth Rollins and Dean Ambrose feuded the entire summer. Rollins nearly ended Ambrose’s career. When he finally gets him locked in Hell in a Cell, after weeks of attacks and mind games, he simply drops the issue because Bray Wyatt attacked him. Boy, were we ever stupid to follow that feud!

We need reasons. Reasons to care. Reasons to get invested. But it’s not just the fans. Wrestlers need reasons, too. Reasons to attack. Reasons to want to fight. Reasons to dislike others. Every single guy on the roster can’t just be some “lone wolf” type that just randomly attacks for no reason. It doesn’t give us anything as fans to leech onto. In this world of “stories” and “entertainment,” we need to be given entertaining stories. We’re not. We’re given stories to attempt to at least partially fill in gaping holes of logic.

Perhaps, then, using logic to determine feuds wouldn’t be the worst approach.


PUT SLICK IN THE HALL OF FAME!!


It’s All Wrestling. It’s All Stupid. We All Love It