wrestling / Columns
High Road/Low Road 03.06.09: Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels at Wrestlemaina
Welcome back to the High Road/Low Road!
A brief explanation of the column: Uncletrunx takes the Low Road (negative view) on angles, gimmicks, and other wrestling related “stuff” while Sat takes the High Road (positive view).
The Results for WWE going PG:
High Road: 38%
Low Road: 34%
Both Roads: 28%
Shawn Michaels versus The Undertaker at WrestleMania 25
High Road:
WrestleMania has become the pay per view where you expect to see some of those matches that you have wanted to see for years. Without Shawn Michaels versus the Undertaker at WrestleMania 25, I think that we would look at this pay per view and say that it does not seem that special. Thankfully, the WWE has decided to have this match and it could be the defining moment of WrestleMania.
Low Road:
I have to admit, I’m playing “Devil’s Advocate” this week, as this is a match with awesome potential. However, I have a job to do, so let’s get to it:
This could be the defining moment of Wrestlemaina but it does show a weakness with WWE at the moment; the defining moment has to come from 2 guys who are, to be polite, veterans and legends. Never has the need to build new stars been more obvious than with this as the defining moment of the Pay Per View; I know legends take decades to build but in order to build them they have to have the spotlight. With Undertaker vs HBK being the selling point, it just shows what a huge loss it will be when they go. Having them face the up and coming stars would help build those stars, especially if one of them were able to end the streak. Also, the obvious question arises; why job Taker to Kozlov if it’s not going to lead to a Wrestlemania payoff? That seems to me to be an odd decision at best.
High Road:
This match between the Undertaker and Shawn Michaels could probably be the reason that most people buy the pay per view. I think that most people are going to buy this pay per view for multiple reasons, but what is the thing that is going to force the fans to definitely buy the pay per view. It is not going to be the World title matches because we have seen those matches multiple times. It is not going to be celebrity involvement because most of the fans are not buying the show to see the celebrities make an appearance. The thing that is going to get the majority of the fans to buy the pay per view is a dream match that has been brewing since the Royal Rumble 2007 and that is the Undertaker versus Shawn Michaels.
Low Road:
It should be pointed out that this match has also been seen multiple times, even if they were a few years ago. My issue with this legendary match stems less from the match itself and more with the build; we have under a month to go to Wrestlemania and they’ve only just announced what we pretty much knew all along; HBK will face Undertaker. A match of this magnitude needs a long build in my opinion, to emphasise the legendary nature of the contest.
High Road:
I look at this match at WrestleMania and I see a guaranteed good match at WrestleMania. First, both the Undertaker and Shawn Michaels have delivered multiple times at WrestleMania. But, more importantly, we have seen Shawn Michaels and the Undertaker show that they can have a good match. We first saw these two compete in 1997 and also at the Royal Rumble match in 2007 and 2008. Both guys have always delivered at WrestleMania and they have shown some amazing chemistry to together. I expect the same at WrestleMania 25.
Low Road:
Both men are known for delivering great matches at Wrestlemaina, (with the understandable exception of some of Undertaker’s past matches, given his opponents.) However, looking at it with regard to the whole event, two different opponents would equal two great matches rather than one.
High Road:
One of the things that we all know about the Undertaker is that he is undefeated at WrestleMania. Now, this can create a problem because the fans are going to think that he is not going to lose. I think that we are all know thinking that he is either going to lose to a young up and comer or maybe John Cena. But, I’ll throw something else out there and say that there is a possibility that he could lose to Shawn Michaels. First, we all know that the WWE protects Shawn Michaels, but I think that the thing we need to remember is that this match is in Shawn’s home state of Texas. Now, I do not think that the Undertaker is going to lose to Shawn Michaels, but there a few things out there that can make you think that he could potentially lose to him.
Low Road:
Undertaker is also Texan. To be honest, there’s no benefit putting Shawn over whatsoever; he is already a legend and ending the streak will actually do him more harm than good in my opinion. HBK winning would open the floodgates of whining and complaining and it would take away a really great opportunity to put over a younger wrestler who needs the rub; once the streak is gone, you can’t get it back. I see this as an obvious Undertaker win, which sadly detracts from the match.
High Road:
Last year, the WWE attempted to give us a RAW versus SmackDown match. Now, I will admit that I was looking forward to the match, but it turned out to be a disaster. But, I think that it is fair to say that this year’s RAW versus SmackDown match is definitely going to be worthwhile. But, given the fact that it is the Undertaker versus Shawn Michaels, the WWE may not even mention that this a RAW versus SmackDown match. Still, I think that it is something that should be mentioned.
Low Road:
The thing with this being an inter-brand match is simply that they’re bigger than the brands. I’d not even noticed that it was a RAW vs Smackdown match, which shows how devalued the whole brand extension is; hyping this match based on brand vs brand will add nothing to it.
High Road:
I look at every WrestleMania and there is always one match that comes to mind as being the match of that pay per view. I look at this year’s card and that match does not seem like it is out there. Sure, one of the other matches could be surprising good, but these matches could also be average or even below average. I think that this match has the potential to be the match that we look at in a few years and say that this was the match of the night at WrestleMania 25. Without this match on the card who knows what match we might be calling the match of the night.
Low Road:
The problem with having such a legendary non title match on the show is that there’s a real risk it could devalue the title matches and therefore the titles themselves. This happened a few yers ago when Rock vs Hogan was the biggest match and overshadowed the title match; it could even be said it happened last year with the retirement of Ric Flair. WWE has always been good at making the main titles mean something and this match could work against it.
Are you taking the High Road or the Low Road?
Simply write “High Road”, “Low Road”, or “Both Roads” in the comment section.
E-Mails:
These are all of the e-mails that we received this week. We do not respond to the actual e-mail, but the reply to your e-mail will be below.
John Sherriff wrote:
I have been nothing but pleased with WWE’s decision to switch to PG rated programming. Check out any WWE Championship DVD set to get a glimpse at how wrestling has had to evolve and change with the times. Lewd humor and cheap stunts made the WWE huge in the late 90’s, just like Jerry Springer and Howard Stern did at the same time. The world is different in 2009, we’re finishing up the first decade of the 21st century and a lot has changed. Stern is only available by subscription now and Springer is gone, and the country’s appetite for edgy, raw material has died down. Since WWE has went PG, we’ve seen Jericho and HBK’s excellent feud, The rise of the Legacy on Raw and above all a huge emphasis on actual wrestling matches. Jericho made a point of mentioning in his book his disapproval of lewd booking ideas when he described Meat’s career highs in the WWF. Y2J has had some historic moments in the past year being a flawless heel, and no profanity or cheap stunts were necessary. Also, this is just another huge opportunity for TNA to step up and deliver the “attitude” on their program. I think it’s better for everyone when you have to work within certain limitations to please the masses… I’ve seen Vince use the rectal surgery gimmick far too many times and I’m relieved that I won’t have to see it any time soon.
Uncletrunx: I have to say, I’m not sorry to see the back of angles like the kiss my ass club and rectal surgery. If the emphasis is going to be on high quality in ring action then I’m all for it; it’s when cutting edge storylines are to be replaced with the mid 90s crap and endless Cena Superman pushes that I object.
Steel Phoenix wrote:
I have to go low road on this. Like Trunx, I remember the rampant success during the attitude era, and am longing to have another anti-hero tear up the business. I like the idea of only going PG on the broadcast network show, SmackDown, but I feel it’s a moot point anyway. Once Linda McMahon gets snubbed for the board of education job, they’ll go back to what made them popular in the first place. More stippers pretending to wrestle, and blood blood blood.
Uncletrunx: See, this is the downside; I really don’t want to see strippers pretend to wrestle nor an over abundance of gore. What I’d like to see is WWE being prepared to push things in an edgy direction if they need to.
Comments:
Below are the comments for last week’s columns and our responses. The comments that will be included will be the ones that pertain to this week’s column. Also, your comment will not be included if you are commenting on another reader’s comment. The comments are as of March 4th.
Guest#9759 wrote:
All this “WWE going PG… waahh” crybaby bullshit is gay as fuck. If you hadn’t heard from the internet that WWE was/is becoming more kid-friendly, would you have even noticed that much of a difference in the product? Of course not, therefore, shut the hell up.
Uncletrunx: Nice to see you haven’t gone PG! To be honest it has been a long time evolving; however as it had hit the headlines, it seemed like a decent topic to run with.
Alan wrote:
Make note: At Wrestlemania, Christian loses vs Swagger, due to something out of Christian’s hands. He gets mad, and he’ll take out someone in the Money in the Bank match, win it, and hold the briefcase for a few months until Jeff wins the title from Edge. Then he’ll cash in, beat Jeff and taunt Edge for 4-6 months until Wrestlemania 26 where Edge will beat Christian to win the title back.
Oh, and I don’t like the shows airing at night being PG. Edit them into a weekly Saturday morning show as you mentioned, but leave some non-kid violence on tv. I don’t need the bra and panties matches brought back though, but I definitely don’t want to hear adult wrestlers calling each other names you’d hear 3rd graders do in the schoolyard. cough **CENA** cough. I like Cena’s new attitude in his chase for a rematch though. A lot less stupid.
Uncletrunx: I don’t see why it has to be an all or nothing deal. PPV events and late night shows could still have a few adult moments. I’m not advocating hardcore pornography and gallons of blood, I just want WWE to be able to do what it needs to creatively without some self imposed limitations.
Guest#9238 wrote:
Definite high road. There is no real argument that justifies all the whining on the web about this PG issue.
For one, Cena’s character has been dumbed down for at least 3-4 years now. The PG-rating has nothing to do with that besides renaming a couple of his moves.
And utilizing the brand extension to suit the ratings wouldn’t work either because either way you cut it, the entire product will be judged based on one brand. It’s all still WWE and that’s how the mainstream, and parents, will view it. Plus, from a business standpoint, brand-exclusive PPVs are a bad idea, especially now.
But like Guest#9759 said, would you really have noticed if this hadn’t been picked up by the sites? Quite frankly, besides the name changes of Cena’s moves, the product seems the same.
Uncletrunx: I don’t see why making the WWE into three distinctive brands won’t work; it’s not really been tried, we have three brands which are the same at the moment. WWE has bigger PR problems than brands being mistaken for one another; the fallout from the Benoit incident, wrestlers dying young and the portrayal of wrestling in “The Wrestler” are much bigger issues IMO. Broadcasters, publishers etc all seem able to make different products for different markets; why not WWE?
The Gold Standard wrote:
Both Roads.While the E’s expanding its horizon by doing PG its major fan base is blah to the idea I’d like to think.I know I am because I grew up watching the attitude era.I find myself often bored with WWE but I watch to see some of my favorite guys.I had thought TNA would be doing better but they have got me to the point where I’m starting to dislike them.Miss you Petey Pump.I wish I had HDNET to catch ROH.Seems I can get into it but yea while PG appeals to whole new crowd it takes away the edge that the attitude era gave especially when you go as far as changing the FU to the Attitude Adjustment.I no longer can take Cena seriously…
Uncletrunx: You could take Cena seriously before?
Never Acquiesce wrote:
High Road – We may not like it, but it’s the smart thing to do.
WWE going PG makes good business sense, and that’s what WWE is first and foremost, a business. Businesses are designed to make money, therefore they go where the money is.
If the Attitude Era were still going today that doesn’t mean the kids are still going to flock. Wrestling was The In Thing in the late-nineties, so much so that it was cool to wear wrestling shirts to high school (okay, less lame). But that’s been replaced today by Harry Potter, and vampires, and whatever else the youngin’s like these days. Plus, a return to late-nineties programming doesn’t equal guaranteed ratings and popularity. WWE was still running an Attitude-esque style from 2001-06, especially with Edge’s stuff, and nothing really changed.
The fact of the matter is the Attitude Era fans are grown up. And by now they’ve either grown out of wrestling or will continue to watch forever regardless of the product’s quality. Plus, those that were teenagers in 1999 are adults in 2009, many with families, and many who want to introduce their passions to their children. And with WWEs “hook ’em young” philosophy, the 8-, 9-, and 10-year-olds watching now will be primed for edgy content in seven or eight years.
Finally (thank God, right?), for WWE ever to even think about differentiating the three “brands” to cater to different audiences they would first have to look at each show as being an individual and not parter of the greater WWE whole. And I truly believe that will never happen.
Okay, so one more thing.
It wasn’t so much the freedom to do and say what you wanted during the Attitude Era that made the WWF so enjoyable and, more importantly, memorable. It was the sheer creativity borne out of a need to be better than WCW. Lack of competition more than anything has led to a stagnant WWE product. Not the elimination of certain words and body parts.
Uncletrunx: I don’t think it will happen but I believe it could and might even make good business sense; those “Attitude era” fans still exist, as do people who watch ECW, Puro, Lucha Libre, etc. With the resources WWE has, they could quite easily grab all of those people with different products tailored to different audiences. I don’t think they will, but they could. I also agree that the lack of competition is stifling WWE creatively. I can’t see a way around that one, sadly.
Iron Knee wrote:
High Road:
The whole Russoific, Attitude Era, Smash TV, Bra-and-Panty, Necrophilia thing has become tired and cliched. We all know when a double swerve is coming becuase the WWE (and TNA) keep rehasing the same formulas. They erecycle dick and fart jokes ad nauseum. Characters change motivation for no discernable reason other than to shock the audience. Maybe a return to the more clearly defined good vs. evil dynamic will freshen up the product. Just becuase something is replete with boobs, blood, and profanity doesn’t mean it isn’t good storytelling.
Uncletrunx: I agree that good storytelling is important and I hope that we don’t end up with a dumbed down product “for kids”. I have to say, I’ve enjoyed recent episodes of RAW and I’m hopeful that the storytelling will continue to be good.
Bobby C wrote:
Low Road.
This is the equivalent to Nascar’s restrictor plate races. Those races used to be the most exciting because of the high speed and high danger. Now they are boring races because basically everyone goes about the same speed.
That’s what this is – everyone going at a slower pace with less danger. It gets boring very quickly. There has to be something else going on – and I don’t trust that WWE can produce enough compelling storylines to make up for the lack of action and danger.
Uncletrunx: I don’t think a self imposed restriction is going to help WWE at all, especially applied across the whole product..
Brad B Wrote:
Here’s the #1 sign of why WWE PG FOR KIDZ is going to create another steep downturn for WWE unrelated to the economy:
On WWE 24/7, they have The Monday Night Wars where they air an episode each from Raw and Nitro in a given week. Right now, they’re at the end of 1997 where WWF just launched the
“Attitude” campaign and Austin’s popularity was ready to explode. It’s also the time where there was a lot more saucy language and adult themes.In addition to the always annoying bleeping of “WWF” (even though they air full 900 numbers or Lee Marshall Road reports), they bleep out all uses of the word “ass.” Not a big deal, but when it’s used 50+ times a show, the beeps get very annoying.
But maybe I’m overreacting right? It’s not that big of a deal. They also bleep JACKASS. Let that set in. They air it as “jack(BLEEP)”. So a word for donkey that’s used in cartoons and all walks of life is now deemed too harsh for children’s ears.
From that alone, I have earned every right to bitch incessently about this fucking stupid initiative and will continue to do so.
Uncletrunx: I think that some of the self censorship is going too far. I find the most annoying thing is the blurring of the WWF logo in classic matches. That really winds me up.
Elmo “Low Road” Machete wrote:
Low road like a motherfucker. I had never actually thought of the possibility that SOME shows should go PG and some shouldn’t. Having had to review ECW, I feel I should kick myself for not thinking of that sooner (and myself). It would give them back things like “One Night Stand/Extreme Rules” or whatever it is today.
This column fills the need for a direct point/counterpoint, since Fact or Fiction seems to want three people all the time now.
Uncletrunx: It just seems logical to me that ECW should be used to appeal to adults; those fans who used to watch wrestling (and ECW) in 1999 can’t have vanished into thin air.
Ryder wrote:
High Road. I don’t think the WWE is going PG as it’s just really more about trying to gain more respect in the mainstream. I mean, punting your boss in the head isn’t a PG move. It’s just that as of right now the three most marketable wrestlers are John Cena, Jeff Hardy and CM Punk, and just because their gimmicks are kid-friendly doesn’t mean the rest of the promotion is PG. Edge didn’t change his name to the Rated PG Superstar, and HHH still has his trusty hammer with him wherever he goes.
The reason I suggest High Road is because if it’s true they are going the PG route then it will encourage TNA to possibly be the opposite, and in turn the booking for both promotions will get better, and the fans win.
Uncletrunx: I don’t trust TNA to do the opposite of WWE. I actually expect them to do exactly the same, just two or three years behind and on a smaller scale.
KanyonKreist wrote:
If I’m looking at this as strictly a business move, I’d have to go High (of course, that would make me one of those soulless, know-nothing chumps who support bland programming because it ‘helps the business’). If I was considering only my own entertainment tastes, being an adult and all, I’d be going Low. As it is… you got it; BOTH ROADS.
Uncletrunx: Bland programming won’t help the business long term, in my opinion. Luckily it’s been quite good lately.
Matt wrote:
WWE going PG is fucking wack. The golden era of wrestling, for the WWE at least, was during the attitude era obviously, and that shit was basically TV-MA. The product will drastically suffer. Before we know it shit is gonna be like 1991, with the only difference being we now have Cena instead of Hogan.
Uncletrunx: My major concern is dumbed down storylines and Cena steamrollering over everyone. They seem to be doing better at the moment creatively but I’m still concerned for the future.
Setobakura wrote:
when cena starts teaming with doink the clown to go against edge and the repo man, id first mark out, then cry…lets hope the WWE knows what they are doing before they bring back the early-mid 1990s
Uncletrunx: Repo Man! I’d rather they reformed Demolition, if Barry Darsow is coming back…
Guest#4162 wrote:
There’s no way the older audience will leave? lol That’s not true. the audience is already getting sick of the show and it’s PG crap. It’s only a matter of time before people give up on WWE. The Snowball effect.
Uncletrunx: I think WWE is relying on a core audience remaining and the kids watching today being the audience of tomorrow. Or something.
Jonberg wrote:
High Road. Wrestling ought to follow the money, not the fans that moan. It’ll come full circle in ten years
Uncletrunx: Following the money is good for business but not necessarily for the long term fans.
The Glide wrote:
Both roads — there is nothing wrong with losing the stripper segments and Vince’s Ass bullshit. However, if the focus is shifted to kids more, I DO fear that we lose a lot of shades of grey; I don’t want EVERY feud to look like Cena’s “somebody needs an attitude adjustment” feud with Jericho, a simple “Me good, you bad”. Edge, Jericho, and Orton are the best heels to hit the fan in many years, and if their characters get reduced to “evil villains”, that’s a disservice to them.
That hasn’t really happened yet, so for the moment I’m okay with the PG stuff. But if heels do lose shades of grey, it will be a travesty.
Uncletrunx: I agree with this entirely.
The Great Capt. Smooth wrote:
Both Roads. Low, because I want to see some of that edge that we used to see. High, because the country went NUTS after “nipplegate” during the Superbowl and they will have to be careful of “pro family” groups. I also think that it could hook some little kids for the long haul. If it lasts for a little while, it will be a major high road, but if it goes too long, it will turn into a low road very quickly.
Uncletrunx: I think the difference is that the Superbowl is a huge prime time event; not all WWE programming is and a significant proportion of it could still have more edgy segments if they chose.
JLAJRC wrote:
High Road: Other than less cussing and a few minor changes here and there, I haven’t really noticed that big of a change lately. How is Orton kicking people in the head and Jericho punching women and attacking legends PG? If anything, I think it’s forcing them to be more creative, since it’s much harder to create entertaining PG programming than entertaining adult programming.
Uncletrunx: If it means greater creativity and more interesting storylines rather than relying on old formulae which have long since worn thin, I’m in favour. My concerns remain as stated above.
Michael L wrote:
The WWE has been headed in this direction for many years now. They’ve eliminated most hardcore matches, stopped brawling in the crowd and even brawling up the rampway. This is just taking things to the next level, and is probably smart overall, at least for television.
However, on PPV, the WWE should allow more leeway. One of the worst mistakes that WCW made in the mid 90’s was to essentially ban blading, and to have ridiculous camera angles and shaded footage whenever a wrestler did bleed, even on PPV. I’m not saying that every PPV has to have a bloodbath match (which is what happened from the late 90’s to about 2004 or so), but on occassion it can serve to ramp up the intensity in a match even further. For example, it made absolutely zero sense for the Unforgiven match between Jericho and Michaels to not have blood, given the intense hatred between the two. Fortunately, the two performers were so good it almost didn’t matter. But not every combination of performers is as awesome as Michaels and Jericho. Perhaps the WWE has listened, as Orton had a pretty solid blade job (or perhaps hardway) at No Way Out.
Uncletrunx: If it was a hardway, it shows no change in policy whatsoever. This is my gripe; Jericho vs Michaels would’ve been a great time for blood, but the self censorship forbade it. I feel that used sparingly, adult elements can work to enhance the product and placing a blanket ban is counterproductive.
Guest#7307 wrote:
as much as i hate saying this, high road
with the wwe going more pg, it can appeal to a wider audience and most importantly, brings in the $$$…sadly, this is a business about making money and with this whole pg shift, theyre making lots and lots of money
Uncletrunx: WWE making more cash isn’t an automatic high road, as I said above.
John wrote:
Both roads: For the most part I really haven’t minded the whole PG thing. Sure I miss the attitude era as much as the next guy but lets face facts…it’s gone.
The only reason I don’t like it is the fact that the blade jobs seem to be extinct. The only recent bloody wrestler I can remember is Orton and that only happened because of the way Shane hit him with a monitor…if the match at the pay-per-view is indeed a “blood feud” I want blood.
Uncletrunx: I agree. Sometimes, blood works and to rule it out entirely is too limiting.
Chief runs with beer wrote:
Both roads:
Overall, I think wrestling will benefit from PG, and I agree with SAT’s belief that this will lead to more wrestling and less filler.
HOWEVER, and this is the big one for me: PG is going to make it hard for blood feuds to be settled with blood. I’ve already seen a Hell in a Cell match sans epic blade job, and I don’t need to see another one.
I don’t need to see blood all the time (in fact, having it be a rare occurance makes it more special when it does happen), but I want to see it at least 3-4 times a year.
Uncletrunx: I’m not sure if even 3 or 4 times a year is necessary; just when it enhances the match. Once a year would be enough, if it really added to the match.
~K~ wrote:
High Road.
Don’t get me wrong I was tempted to go Both Roads but, when you have the kiddes watching, buying merchandise(well the parents), and buying tickets for the shows it doesn’t really matter. Money is money none the less. Sure the older fans the “hardcore” ones would complain but, if you are so hardcore about you most likely aren’t that hardcore about it.
Now I wasn’t watching wrestling when the Attitude era was around but, I watched alot of matches on youtube and dvds. Anyways, it’s not like they really changed much. If you listened sometimes they still curse, and do more inappropriate things as well.
Changing minor things and it going more PG – ish well go unnoticed.
Uncletrunx: I hope it is unnoticed for the most part.
David Burcham wrote:
High Road
Just because a the show is now rated TV-PG does NOT mean that the WWE is catering strictly to kids, nor does it mean only kids will watch the programming.
During the era of Hulk Hogan, Roddy Piper, Randy Savage, Ricky Steamboat, British Bulldogs, Hart Foundation, Curt Henning, Jake Roberts, Honky Tonk Man, Paul Orndorff, Bob Orton, Terry Funk, Demolition, Brain Busters, Rockers and Rougeaus the shows were suitable for youngsters to watch, yet there was plenty of violence and adult storylines to cater to the ENTIRE family. Moms and Dads were just as emotionally invested in the drama of Hogan/Savage/Elizabeth as Junior was for entirely different reasons.
Uncletrunx: The problem I had with that era, even as a kid, was Hogan (or Warrior) doing the same heel burying match each and every time. I truly hope those days are over even if WWE is going to cater for children more and more, but with the recent Cena burial of Jericho, I fear it’s still lurking in the background.
Banz wrote:
Both Roads.
A product aimed towards kids means that they will support the product long-term if they associate some kind of connection with it. That’s what happened to me; I’ve been watching since I saw World War 3 on WCW PPV and Goldberg’s undefeated streak. That gimmick match and the hype of Goldberg is what got me hooked on wrestling. A PG rating would not have affected that experience for me in the slightest. If my parents heard profanity or saw nakedness, I probably wouldn’t be a fan today. In that respect it is appealing to be PG.
On the flipside, this might mean you’ve alienated teenagers (somehow) by removing things like swear words and tits n ass. I don’t think this is even an issue: I never watched wrestling as a teenager to hear people blatantly curse at people, I cared about people beating each other up and the good guy winning. Besides, great promo guys like Jericho in his cruiserweight days never had to rely on swear words to get over, he relied on belittling trash talk and backing his words up with a great moveset. People who think that it’s the swear words and partially naked segments that attract fans are, quite frankly, deluded. They are the equivalent of a cheap pop: case in point, Edge and Lita.
As far as I’m concerned, the only thing a PG move changes is moves like Cena’s being renamed, no more stripping contests (which were pretty awful anyway, goto google if you want that), and my only biggest concern which is the removal of blood from matches. Bleeding in a match helps to put over the brutality and personal rivalry of a fued, and I feel this is the only aspect that will affect the in-ring product.
As long as it delivers in the ring, viewers won’t be lost… because that’s what wrestling is: in-ring action.
Uncletrunx: I sometimes wish that wrestling was still mostly about the in ring action; to be fair, the recent episodes and PPV events have been pretty good with some decent wrestling so I can’t complain. Ultimately, that’s what I’ll judge it on; whether or not I’m entertained by what goes on in the ring.
nash wrote:
i really don’t mind the pg rating, as long as they don’t dumb down the angles in the process, and recently with the hhh/orton angle and a lot of other good stuff they haven’t been doing that at all…
Uncletrunx: HHH vs Orton has been a really good intense angle. I hope they can keep this up through Wrestlemania and beyond; they might just give HBK vs Undertaker a run as the most anticipated match, for me at least.
GOLDUST-MANIA wrote:
Low Road
I watch all three brands
Seeing things go PG is quite a downside
Watching EC at NWO with no blood, was painful to watch.Seeing less crazy things is lame.
I will miss suck it skits,
kick ass, 2X4, bloody cage match etcbut i have no objection cena renaming his finisher
Uncletrunx: I don’t think anyone really minds the renaming of Cena’s finisher.
Your reasons for taking the High Road, Low Road, or Both Roads and suggestions for future High Road/Low Road are welcome at [email protected] or in the comment section. Your reply will be included in next week’s column.
