411 Fact or Fiction 02.24.11: Undertaker/HHH, Hernandez, Cole/Lawler, More

Welcome one and all to 411’s Wrestling Fact or Fiction of the fourth week of February! I’m your mediator Jeremy Thomas, and after last week’s big Raw return of the Rock, WWE had a two-for-one deal with the Game and the Dead Man making their big returns! Meanwhile TNA is taking Impact on the road, Hernandez has returned as a member of Immortal, Michael Cole vs. Jerry Lawler is gearing up for Mania and more! Joining us on the panel this week we two of our Wrestling Zone stalwarts, as Aaron Hubbard who handled the Contentious Ten until recently goes head to head with the master of Instant Analysis, Scott Slimmer! Both men are ready and the questions are prepped, so let’s do it!

Questions were sent out Monday.

Participants were told to expect WWE & TNA-related questions.

1. Triple H putting his Career against The Undertaker’s Streak at WrestleMania is too much of a copy of last year to work.

Aaron Hubbard: FACT. Although, I would be interested in a Career vs. Career match, not just the Streak. Let me be positively frank here. Undertaker and Triple H are two of WWE’s most popular, longest serving, and best performing superstars of all time. I happen to be a huge fan of both men. However, at this point, it is time for them to start thinking about hanging up the boots and looking to face new, up and coming wrestlers who need to face these ring generals.

Personally, I think putting these two against each-other at ‘Mania is a huge gamble. You expect a certain level of quality and epicness from a match with WWE’s two top veterans at this point, and I don’t know if they can deliver. They have in the past, but can they this year? I’m not sure. I will say that of the matches being built up for ‘Mania, this one has the least amount of interest for me.

Scott Slimmer: FICTION. Having Triple H put his Career on the line against the Undertaker’s Streak at WrestleMania isn’t a copy of last year but rather the natural progression of a story that really began at WrestleMania XXIV. When Shawn Michaels defeated Ric Flair and ended his career (at least in terms of WWE continuity) at WrestleMania XXIV, Michaels set in motion a series of events that would see him feud with Batista, Chris Jericho, JBL, and finally the Undertaker. Michaels’ loss to the Undertaker at WrestleMania XXV haunted Michaels for a year and ultimately forced him into a Career vs. Streak Match at WrestleMania XXVI, and Michaels’ retirement at the hands of the Undertaker served as a poignant reflection of Flair’s retirement at the hands of Michaels two years earlier. Triple H tried to prevent his best friend from losing everything last year, but his efforts ultimately proved futile. And so now Triple H has lost his mentor and his best friend, and the only man left to blame is the Undertaker. After the Undertaker had defeated Michaels once at WrestleMania, the only way to coax him into a rematch was for Michaels to put his career on the line. The Undertaker has also defeated Triple H at WrestleMania, and so Triple H may be forced to make the same deal that he begged his best friend not to make a year ago. Too many storylines in the current professional wrestling landscape last only one or two months. Whether or not Triple H has to put his career on the line in order to have a shot at ending the Undertaker’s streak, I applaud WWE for telling a long-term story that spans years and has already seen the end of two legendary careers.

Score: 0 for 1

2. Making Hernandez a new member of Immortal upon his return was a good move for TNA.

Aaron Hubbard: FICTION. Or, you know, you could build a wrestler on his own merits instead of throwing him in a super group. Because, you know, the nWo created so many great singles stars.

Scott Slimmer: FACT. There are really two ways to analyze this statement. First, you can ask if making Hernandez a new member of Immortal was a good move for TNA because it will somehow improve the quality of the Immortal storyline, and my answer to that question is that I have absolutely no freaking idea. The Immortal saga has become yet another excessively drawn-out and tediously complex TNA storyline, and I’m not even sure what it would mean to help or hurt the angle at this point. However, on the other hand, you can also ask if making Hernandez a new member of Immortal was a good move for TNA because it will help Hernandez’ career, and my answer to that question is yes. I loved Hernandez’ character and his in-ring work back in his LAX days, but he’s often felt lost in the shuffle since then. He has an impressive look, and I still believe he can have high-quality matches under the right circumstances. However, that can only happen if he somehow manages to not get lost in the shuffle once again. You can argue about the value of the Immortal storyline, but it’s undoubtedly the focus of the major angles in TNA at the moment. Making Hernandez a new member of Immortal will ensure, at least for the moment, that he remains visible and have the opportunity to prove his value to the promotion. He could become the kind of “home grown star” that critics often say that TNA desperately needs, and the exposure that Hernandez gains as a member of Immortal could help him reach that level. I suppose the real question is whether or not Hernandez can maintain any momentum he gains as a member of Immortal once that particular storyline finally runs its course, but that’s a debate for another day.

Score: 0 for 2

3. The Elimination Chamber PPV topped last year’s and provided a clear direction to WrestleMania 27.

Aaron Hubbard: FACT. I will preface by saying that I was not able to see this year’s show, and have only seen the Chamber matches from last year’s show. However, Morrison’s athleticism in the RAW Chamber, Edge and Mysterio’s back and forth in the Smackdown Chamber, the return of Christian, the surprise appearance of Trish Stratus, and the Lawler/Miz match all seem like big deals to me, while I didn’t really think that about anything last year.

Scott Slimmer: FACT. Okay, let’s break this statement down into two parts. First, I do think that Elimination Chamber 2011 topped Elimination Chamber 2010. All four of the actual Elimination Chamber Matches in question were quite entertaining and fairly high-quality, so let’s call that a tie. In addition to the Elimination Chamber matches, this year’s card featured Kofi Kingston vs. Alberto Del Rio, Santino Marella & Vladimir Kozlov vs. Justin Gabriel & Heath Slater, and The Miz vs. Jerry “The King” Lawler. On the other hand, last year’s card featured a short impromptu match between John Cena and Batista, Drew McIntyre vs. Kane, LayCool vs. Maryse & Gail Kim, and another impromptu match between the Miz and MVP. Kingston / Del Rio was better than McIntyre / Kane, the WWE Tag Team Championship Match was better than the Divas tag team match, and Miz / Lawler was better than Miz / MVP. So the bottom line is that I definitely believe that Elimination Chamber 2011 topped Elimination Chamber 2010. With that being said, I also agree that Elimination Chamber provided a clear direction to WrestleMania XXVII. We found out that John Cena will challenge the Miz for the WWE Championship, and the Raw Elimination Chamber Match also escalated the tension between Randy Orton and CM Punk. The Smackdown Elimination Chamber Match revealed that it will be Edge defending the World Heavyweight Championship against Alberto Del Rio and also gave us a hint that Christian may play a pivotal role in the development of that feud. Jerry Lawler’s torment at the hands of Michael Cole continued, and many assumed that they would meet at WrestleMania even before Lawler issued the challenge the following night on Raw. In retrospect, that only “big match” that looks likely for WrestleMania but that wasn’t clearly established by the Elimination Chamber PPV is Triple H vs. the Undertaker, but you really can’t fault a PPV for not establishing a match that was predicated by a big return that was designed to boost television ratings. And so in the end we have an enjoyable PPV that definitely propelled us down the Road to WrestleMania, and that’s more than enough to keep me happy.

Score: 1 for 3

4. TNA would be making a wise move by signing Isis the Amazon.

Aaron Hubbard: FICTION. Not that I care. I mean, they probably will anyway, in an attempt to create the next Chyna or Awesome Kong, but nothing about Isis is awesome. She’s a big woman. Okay, so was Sirelda, and that turned out fantastic, RIGHT?

Scott Slimmer: FACT. There was a time in the not-too-distant past when TNA’s Knockouts Division really did feel like an alternative to WWE’s Divas division. The Divas were the eye candy, and the Knockouts could put on a wrestling match. TNA has always tried (although not always succeeded) to function as an alternative to WWE, and the Knockouts Division was once used as an effective component of that distinction. Unfortunately, the line between Knockout and Diva has blurred over time, and thus TNA has lost yet another hallmark of its individuality. I’m certainly not saying that signing Isis the Amazon will cure all of TNA’s problems, and I’m not even saying that signing Isis will automatically distinguish the Knockouts Division from the Divas Division. What I am saying is that TNA has the chance to sign a talent that WWE clearly didn’t feel fit well with their vision of women’s wrestling. I actually agree with WWE’s decision; Isis the Amazon would have been an awkward fit in the current Divas Division (which sort of begs the question of how well KONG will fit in the Divas Division, but that’s a totally separate argument). If TNA can find a way for Isis to be a valuable member of their Knockouts Division, then they will have begun to reestablish the distinction between Knockouts and Divas.

Score: 1 for 4

SWITCH!

5. Trish Stratus is as much of a enticement to watch Tough Enough as Steve Austin is.

Scott Slimmer: FICTION. Trish Stratus is definitely a valuable addition to Tough Enough, but there’s simply no way to say that she is as much of an enticement to watch Tough Enough as Steve Austin. Trish Stratus is the biggest female star in WWE history, and she was an incredibly popular part of the Attitude Era. The quality of both the storylines and in-ring action in the WWE Divas Division has dropped markedly in the five years since Trish retired, so having her back on WWE programming in any capacity is great news for the Divas division and the Divas on Tough Enough. However, with that being said, there is still no way to compare Trish Stratus to Steve Austin. I still maintain that Steve Austin is one of the five men that have defined eras in WWE history (the other four being Bruno Sammartino, Hulk Hogan, The Rock, and John Cena). He was the living, breathing embodiment of the Attitude Era, and he is the single biggest draw in the history of this industry. His rise to the top of the WWE roster was one of the pivotal factors in WWE’s victory in the Monday Night Wars, and his retirement left a gaping hole that forced WWE to create a new generation of stars. Having Steve Austin return to WWE programming would be a major event under any circumstances, but having him help to mold a new crop of stars in an extremely exciting prospect. The fact that Trish Stratus isn’t as much of an enticement to watch Tough Enough as Steve Austin is in no way a critique of Trish or an attempt to minimize her contribution to this industry. It’s simply an acknowledgment of the fact that Steven Austin may very well be the most popular professional wrestler of all time. And that’s the bottom line…

Aaron Hubbard: FICTION. Unless you are a fourteen year old boy who can’t hack your way through the security on your computer. I mean…seriously? I love Trish and consider her the greatest American woman’s wrestler of all time, but how has she ever been more entertaining or a bigger star than Stone Cold Steve Austin? You’re comparing the second biggest superstar in all of wrestling to Trish Stratus. Not even a choice.

Score: 2 for 5

6. Taping Impact outside of the Impact Zone will backfire on TNA.

Scott Slimmer: FICTION. Okay, let me be honest here. There is a chance that taping Impact outside of the Impact Zone could truly help TNA, but there is also a chance that it could be another embarrassing failed experiment for the company. There are a plethora of variables such as attendance, production value, booking, and in-ring quality that could easily swing the pendulum of success in one direction or another, and as such I’m not sure that we can really predict success or failure until we actually see the results of the experiment. I mean, look at WWE Raw and WWE Smackdown. Those shows tape in a different venue every week, and yet there are still good weeks and bad weeks. Time has proven that the travelling model works for WWE, but that would be a hard conclusion to reach by only evaluating a small handful of shows. However, the reason that I said FICTION here is that I’m glad to see that TNA is still actively trying to improve their product. They have certainly had more than their fair share of setbacks, but the last thing that they should do is simply stop trying. The only plan that I can guarantee would backfire on TNA is if they decided to become complacent and doggedly cling to the status quo. They need to grow. They need to evolve. Moving Impact to Monday nights wasn’t the right fit, but maybe taping Impact outside of the Impact Zone will be. And like I said, the important thing is that TNA keeps trying. We in the IWC love to use TNA as a punching bag, but I still don’t think the promotion is a lost cause. They have some incredibly talented performers on their roster, they have loyal fans, and there really is a hole to be filled by a national alternative to WWE. So yeah, I’m glad they’re still trying.

Aaron Hubbard: FICTION. In a literal sense, taking Impact on the road will not backfire for TNA. It is a necessary thing, because performing every week in front of a non-paying audience really just shows how third-rate of a promotion TNA is. Ring of Honor tours. Ring of Honor has a paying audience. So if TNA can’t do that outside of Orlando, what does that say about them? However, I do think that their usual shoddy TV shows will drive away any audience that actually has to pay to sit through their product. I wouldn’t even go if it was free.

Score: 3 for 6

7. Hacksaw Jim Duggan undoubtedly deserves his spot in the WWE Hall of Fame.

Scott Slimmer: FACT. I suppose you could argue about whether or not “Hacksaw” Jim Duggan would deserve a spot in a more traditional Hall of Fame. You could argue about whether or not he is the kind of revolutionary icon, top-level star, or record-breaking performer than you normally think of when you think of “Hall of Fame” level talent. However, we’re not talking about just any Hall of Fame here; we’re talking about the WWE Hall of Fame. Ever since the Hall of Fame was relaunched at WrestleMania XX, it’s been clear that there is a certain hierarchy among the inductees. Every year there are A-list inductees such as Hulk Hogan, Bret Hart, Ric Flair, and “Stone Cold” Steve Austin, and there are B-list inductees such as the Junkyard Dog, Nikolai Volkoff, Tony Atlas, and Koko B. Ware. That’s not a knock against any of the “B-list” inductees; I simply mean that we all know that every class of inductees has its headliners and its mid-carders. That structure actually makes sense, because it allows a larger number of the stars that many fans still remember fondly to take one last bow while also ensuring that more than just one or two stars are inducted into the Hall every year. While “Hacksaw” Jim Duggan may not be in anyone’s list of the top five in-ring technicians of all time, I have to believe that he deserves to be inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame just as much as many of the B-list inductees we’ve seen over the past seven years. In fact, my only complaint about Jim Duggan’s induction is that he will be inducted by the “Million Dollar Man” Ted DiBiase instead his former tag team partner, dear sweet Eugene. But maybe that’s just the old Heat Reporter in me talking.

Aaron Hubbard: FACT. Without question. Hacksaw comes from the Golden Age of the World Wrestling Federation where at any given time there were about 20 genuine LEGENDS in the promotion. The late ’80’s/early ’90’s WWF roster will likely never be matched for star power, characters, and raw talent. Hacksaw was a great brawler in his Mid-South days and had a legendary feud with Ted DiBiase there. He is also one of wrestling’s most popular and enduring characters. This is a guy who was so over he could Canadian crowds to chant USA. I mean sure, I still want guys like Savage, the Road Warriors and Jake the Snake to go in, but Hacksaw’s spot is very well deserved. HOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Score: 4 for 7

8. Jerry Lawler vs. Michael Cole is not a match you want to see at WrestleMania.

Scott Slimmer: FICTION. Jerry Lawler vs. Michael Cole will be a good change-of-pace match on the WrestleMania card and has to potential to be quite entertaining. Over the course of the past year, Michael Cole has gradually transformed from a passable play-by-play commentator to the most over-the-top loud-mouth pain-in-the-ass mega-douche in the company. Cole has heat. And I don’t mean Jericho or Punk heat where you boo the heel because you respect their talent and their dedication to their craft. I mean people want to see Cole beaten to within an inch of his life. Few people have suffered Cole’s verbal wrath more than Jerry Lawler, and Lawler makes a perfect foil for Cole. He’s a respected legend who has actual in-ring credibility, and yet up to this point he’s had no recourse against the pencil neck geek by his side. Add in the fact that Jerry Lawler has never had his WrestleMania moment, and I can’t help but believe that this could be a hell of a good time. Will it be a technical masterpiece or a five star classic? Absolutely not. But like I said, that doesn’t mean the match won’t be entertaining. My advice would be for Lawler and Cole to follow the template sketched out by Beulah McGillicutty and Bill Alfonso back in ECW. Neither Beulah nor Fonzie were trained wrestlers, and yet they gave us one of the most memorable matches in ECW history by busting their asses and not letting their match degenerate into a joke. Jerry Lawler is certainly a better wrestler than Beulah McGillicutty, and I would argue that Cole has more heat at the moment than Fonzie did back in the day. Lawler vs. Cole probably won’t be as good as Michaels vs. McMahon, but it will almost certainly be better than Hart (et. al.) vs. McMahon. And like I said, who doesn’t want to see Cole get his ass kicked?

Aaron Hubbard: FICTION. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but YES, I want to see this match. And judging by Fresno’s reaction to the segment (especially in comparison to the supposed big-time stare down between Taker and Triple H), I’m not the only one. I LOATHE Michael Cole. I want to see him get his ass kicked and then I want to never see him again. While the latter is unlikely, if the former can happen, good thing. It needs to be about four moves: Punch, Scoop Slam, Fist Drop, Piledriver. And hopefully, it means I won’t have to listen to Michael Cole doing commentary. Bring back Jim Ross!

Final Score: 5 for 8

Man, I thought I had them at each other’s throats, but Aaron and Scott finish up strong and end out at 5 for 8! I’d like to thank both for their answers, and you the readers for seeing what they had to say! For Aaron Hubbard and Scott Slimmer, this is Jeremy Thomas saying join us next week for more Wrestling Fact or Fiction!

Follow 411 on Twitter!
Follow Jeremy!
411wrestling.com
The Wrestling Zone
The Movie Zone
The Music Zone
The Games
The MMA Zone
The Boxing Zone

Remember to go to TigerFlashGames.com and play addictive, free flash games when you’re bored at work, school, or whenever! If I had any time at my work, you’d find me there all the damn time!

And don’t forget 411 on Facebook!