Wacky Wrestling Theory 01.29.09: Wacky Fact or Fiction

Welcome to the first edition of Wacky Fact or Fiction.

– all the questions/statements were written by me, Jake Chambers.

– statements were sent to Aaron Hubbard by email… if you are not sure who he is exactly, he’s the regular writer of The Wrestling Bard in the wrestling zone, but has also raised a few eyebrows lately with his exceptional booking skills.

– one more bullet point should probably go here, but I can’t think of anything else.

Here we go!

1. If the WWE is Faarooq, TNA is Crush, and ROH is Savio Vega, you agree that ROH would win a hypothetical “critical” battle of the wrestling promotions, just like when Savio won the Triple Threat Match between the original Nation of Domination members at In Your House – Ground Zero in 1997.

Aaron Hubbard: FICTION. Let’s see. Faarooq, in his prime, was a solid powerhouse worker with great psychology, in the same vein as Sting. Crush never had a prime, but had a few moments worth remembering. Savio Vega, though talented, never amounted to anything. If Savio were to win this match, he would have to use his quickness and his smarts to fight off the two big bulls. That might work on Crush, but Faarooq is a former world champion, and would be too smart for that. Vega might be able to outwrestle Crush, but he wouldn’t be able to deal with the power and ring savvy of Mr. Simmons. Vega might turn out the best in-ring performance, but Faarooq would win.

Jake Chambers: FACT. I’m not sure Mr. Hubbard completely understood the question here, but he does make some valid metaphorical points about the ROH and Savio comparison. However, in my opinion, ROH wins the battle of promotions, just like the real Savio won that great match back in 1997. What is important to remember is that the Nation of Domination was a race based group, and Faarooq made that very clear when he transformed the NOD into a bigger, blacker version after ousting Savio and Crush. The DOA as led by Crush was a flashy faction that was more popular for their motorcycles than wrestling acumen. Parallels of these groups to current mainstream pro-wrestling promotions should be obvious, the WWE is focused on the grand achievement of a lofty goal (economic mastery over the wrestling industry), while TNA is just a few matches of passable wrestling moves hidden under flamboyant gimmicks. The key to why Savio won that match, and why ROH is better than all of the above, is about passion and camaraderie. Aaron’s insulting insinuation that Savio “never amounted to anything,” does not take into account the formation of Los Boricuas, an exquisite extension of the great Savio Vega and his passion for putting on the best show possible in the ring. To these Puerto Rican brothers, it wasn’t about titles, looking cool or ruling an industry, it was about quality and a love of wrestling, something that only Ring of Honor truly represents these days.

Score: 0 for 1!

2. Goldust is the wackiest wrestler of all time.

Aaron Hubbard: FICTION. Delirious, Colt Cabana, and half of the Chikara roster stick out to me as being wackier. Gobbleddy Gooker and Doink the Clown also come to mind. He is probably the most successful wacky wrestler of all time, but not the flat out wackiest.

Jake Chambers: FACT. Oh, Goldust is undoubtedly the wackiest wrestler of all time, of this we can all be certain. I promise that on this subject there can be no debate. The original Goldust gimmick alone (an Oscar statue brought to life that dramatically quoted classic/obscure movie lines in his promos) was already almost the wackiest idea ever for a wrestling character, and that was just in the first few months of one incredibly wacky career. Doink and the Gobbledy Gooker? You gotta be kidding me, if you’d said Mideon or Scott Steiner, maybe I could have handled it, but these choices are just ridiculous. Firstly, I think people need to stop remembering the Gobbledy Gooker as anything more than just a Thanksgiving sketch since no match was wrestled in that outfit, whereas Doink was a wrestling clown so being silly was his gimmick not his choice, and he was barely effective in the role. The legendary Goldust went on to break unfathomable ground with the ‘gay mind games’ character, that not only won him the Intercontinental title after sending his love to a homophobic Razor Ramon (who somehow coined the incredibly gay catch phrase “oozing machcismo”), and then eventually lost that title by enraging Ahmed Johnson after reviving him with some pseudo mouth-to-mouth mid match resuscitation. During that reign he even had one of the strangest title defenses of all time against the Ultimate Warrior that consisted of Goldust mostly trying to coax the Warrior to sit in a chair and a share a cigar together. The first 6 months of wackiness in Goldust’s early career trump most individual wacky achievements by Cabana, Delirious or any of the unnamed members of the CHIKARA roster Mr. Hubbard mentioned. And I haven’t even touched on the ‘Artist Formerly Known As Goldust’ era (which at one point even had Goldust come out in blackface), or the sure to be Hubbard favorite born again Dustin Rhunnels storyline, or the Goldust and Booker T movie review tag team run, or Tourettes Goldust, or…

Wait a second… damn it Hubbard, you got me. You made me ramble on and on like that in an extreme ‘bard-esque rant! Well done, you snared me in your cunning trap. Curses!

Score: 0 for 2!

3. Eddie Guerrero died due to health complications after years of prolonged drug abuse. Along with this abuse, Eddie left his family and couldn’t keep his once-in-a-lifetime dream job. Vaguely referring to these problems as ‘demons’ is irresponsible historically. Therefore, just like Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrero’s career should not be glorified.

Aaron Hubbard: FACT-ION. First point is that “Vaguely referring to these problems as ‘demons’ is irresponsible historically” is completely true. Eddie had a history of substance abuse, and they were a major contributing factor to his premature passing. To sugarcoat or gloss over that fact is to do a disservice to his victory over those addictions. Eddie’s career does not need to be glorified, just told honestly. Eddie was a great in-ring performer, a man who overcame a history of substance abuse, and was by all accounts, a humble and loving human being. Eddie wasn’t a hero, but he tried his best.

However, the statement “Eddie left his family and couldn’t keep his once-in-a-lifetime dream job” gets the fiction here. Eddie’s family left HIM, not the other way around, and he fought to get them back, as well as that dream job. He had his biggest success after he overcame his addictions. And Chris Benoit committed a crime that, to the general public, is too horrific to be forgiven, so it’s almost not fair to compare the two. If you’re asking me to condemn either man, you’re asking the wrong guy. I’ve screwed up plenty of times in the last nineteen years of my life, and I’m sure I’ll screw up plenty more before my life ends. It’s not my place. When I find somebody who has no faults, I’ll ask Him whether or not we should condemn either man.

Jake Chambers: FI-CACT. I’d like to ask Him about all this too, but sadly ‘Wonder Show-zen’ was cancelled. But seriously folks (and I don’t mean the Phil Collins album… or tour) the truth is, Eddie was a dull mid card guy who’s biggest claims to fame were a very bold American flag jacket, the LwO and making Chyna cry when he broke off their engagement, and it wasn’t until they dragged Eddie’s abuse and personal life into the story of his on screen character, that he became interesting. So in that sense, from a business and narrative standpoint, he should be glorified. On the other hand, if you ever saw Guerrero live, then you may remember that he had an uncanny ability to pop a crowd for his entrance, and then make them sit on their hands and chant ‘boring’ ten minutes into most of his matches, in contrast to Chris Benoit who could take a crowd that groaned when they heard his name announced and make them scream with excitement by the end of the match. Wait, I’m lost, what was the question again?

Score: 0 for 3!

—SWITCH~!—

4. A wrestling character based on Jesus would be successful in the WWE.

Jake Chambers: FACT. I believe that a Jesus wrestler would be very successful. I’m not even going to rely on the overwhelming spending power of such a large majority of American consumers who love the guy, or the obvious connection to Jesus as a heroic, super powered character. I actually think that the masochistic nature of Christians has so well eroticized the observance of violence and torture towards a personified figure of their god you’d almost think they were all McMahons. Pro-wrestling would be the best outlet for seeing live torture and torment in order to experience the bloody and violent redemption so cherished by fans of Christianity.

In order to support this theory, I need only call upon the overwhelming global success of Mel Gibson’s film, ‘The Passion of the Christ.’ Regardless of reviews on the quality of the film or ‘historical’ accuracy, it is undeniable that the movie was incredibly profitable. As well, the movie was super violent, particularly in detailing, through one extended movie length sequence, the excruciating punishment Jesus willingly endured for the salvation of human kind. This type of imagery obviously resonates with a large number of Christians, as they must believe that the more grotesque and realistic mutilating torture can be presented, the better they can feel the amount of real suffering Jesus went through for the sake of love. This kind of classic cathartic storytelling is not often repeated in modern drama. Except, of course, in professional wrestling.

The WWE likes to build up infallible heroes, guys like Hulk Hogan, Bret Hart and John Cena, and make them represent all of the comfortable aspects of society, like fair play, justice, healthy living and unconditional love. Then in order to exploit that connection between hero and loyal fan, the WWE shows those ‘good’ characters betrayed, ganged-up on, beaten mercilessly, humiliated and bloodied, in order to evoke an emotional reaction from the committed audience members. If a character would be introduced into this storytelling device that dressed and acted like the common image of Jesus, would it not fit in with the masochistic tendencies of Christians and their religious faith? I would have to say that it’s a match made in heaven!

Aaron Hubbard: FICTION. See Vince Russo’s indy fed based around Christianity that flopped horribly. The story of Jesus may be the greatest story ever told, but it has no place in the contexts of a wrestling storyline. The only Biblical story that could and would work would be a retelling of the life of King David. Overcoming giants, being persecuted by his former allies, conquering them and reclaiming his kingdom, going to war with the rest of the world, and eventually falling to a woman, which killed all his credibility, all while trying and struggling to be a righteous person. Tell me that wouldn’t make a great, Jimmy Jacobs-esque saga of a character arch? It would work.

While I do not know what faith, if any, Mr. Chambers has, I think he has clearly misunderstood how Christians would react to “Jesus” being a wrestler. Most of us are not masochistic. We’re all trying to AVOID Hell. Honestly, Christianity is the coward’s way to heaven, because they realize they can’t meet God’s standard of perfection, and rely on someone else to pay their debt. And because he brought it up, I would just like to say that horrible film created by Mel Gibson, which was only created to make a profit off of the death of Jesus, has no value to any true Christian. If you need a freaking movie to understand the cost that Jesus paid, you have NO IDEA why Jesus needed to die in the first place.

Jesus was a spectacular preacher, and he impacted more people than anyone in history, whether positively or negatively. Every educated person in the world has heard of Jesus, whether they choose to believe in him or not. But while he had a lot of good things to say, his life wasn’t that interesting. It’s his death and rebirth that make him special. Trying to make a storyline on the LIFE of Jesus would not only be offensive to Christians (if done as mockery) or non-Christians (if done as if it was a serious thing), but it would also be very BORING. If certain wrestlers want to be open about their faith or lack thereof, I’m cool with it. Shawn Michaels has proved that you can use faith as an interesting and powerful storytelling tool. But Jesus? No. Jesus was a small, but very important, part of a bigger story. The Lord of the Rings doesn’t work without Gandalf, but Gandalf isn’t very interesting without the rest of the story.

Score: 0 for 4!

5. Frank Gotch was a fraud.

Jake Chambers: FACT. If my sources are correct, then Gotch double-crossed his career rival, George Hackenschmidt, on two occasions in order to earn and hold onto his professional wrestling championship in the early 1900s. First of all, Hackenschmidt was a European gentleman and scholar whose groundbreaking strength training and lifetime of academic pursuits, created an honorable reputation for a man who dined with Presidents and wrestled with technical precision. His matches were notoriously short as he employed a deadly bear hug to conquer thousands of opponents worldwide. Frank Gotch, on the other hand, was a Midwestern Iowa farm hand that learned wrestling from carnies and spent years bilking hardworking miners out of their small allowances as he hustled from camp to camp in the Yukon. Gotch’s idea of a handshake was a slap in the face and he often lashed verbal barbs at his opponents during matches in order to break their concentration. A finer contrast you could not find.

When these two men met for the first time it was a historic precursor to the dramatics of pro-wrestling that we love today. Still, it must be respected that what they were doing at the time, while not actual MMA, was not truly staged wrestling like we know now. Therefore, it becomes much more of an insult that Gotch resorted to illegally oiling up his body in order to avoid the bear hug of Hackenschmidt, and needed cheap shots and thug tactics to intimidate and defeat the foreign phenom. In this case, we’re not talking storyline backstabbing; we’re talking ‘Monteral’ screw job type cheating. Hubbard may argue that this real chicanery is what set the stage for wrestling ‘heels’ in the future, but I would argue that that is the same as saying Hitler or Mussolini were praiseworthy role models for the evil despotic Mr. McMahon character. Frank Gotch was not a brilliant actor portraying a convincing jerk; he was a legit cheater and unsportsmanlike wrestler who did not deserve the pro-wrestling championship that he won that night.

Even worse, in their eventual rematch, the traditionally super fit Hackenschmidt appeared out of shape and walked with a gimp leg. Hackenschmidt lost this match because of that leg, and at first Gotch seemed like he’d won in an early example of the pro-wrestling injury trope. Sadly, it was more like an early example of Tonya Harding figure skating thuggery. Reports following that night revealed (from the legendary Lou Thesz himself) that Gotch hired a man to legitimately take out Hackenschmidt’s knee in a training session prior to the bout. That’s pretty pathetic. This revelation literally stopped bookies from honoring bets on pro-wrestling from that point forward.

To use a modern comparison, Frank Gotch was a wrestling universe version of Bernie Madoff. Although personally he was a successful guy, Madoff allegedly defrauded many people out of their life savings and thus his theories for making money will obviously not be honored in the future. Gotch should be looked at in the same light. Sure he was considered a champion at the time, traveled the world with his wrestling stage show and undoubtedly made a ton of cash, but all of this success was based on false information. Now that we know how he cheated in order to ‘get over’ Frank Gotch shouldn’t be considered a wrestling legend.

Aaron Hubbard: FICTION. With a caveat. Everything Chambers said about Gotch’s cheating and character defaults have merit. However, while we’re pointing fingers, Ric Flair is an alcoholic and a womanizer, Bret Hart is a self-absorbed prick, Shawn Michaels was a spoiled brat for much of his career, Kurt Angle and Eddie Guerrero were drug addicts, Hulk Hogan and countless others did steroids, Austin beat his wife, Rob Van Dam indulges in an illegal drug, Misawa left his home promotion and made a new one because he didn’t agree with booking, the Dynamite Kid is hated by everyone, and Chris Benoit murdered his wife and child. The list of squeaky-clean wrestlers that can be considered legends is very, VERY thin. If we are to ignore Gotch’s contributions to wrestling, as we know it, because of some character defaults, then we need to ignore about 90% of the legends of this business. People aren’t perfect, shit happens. Get over it.

Gotch is a legend because he was a fantastic shooter who could beat everyone. Even though he cheated and bullied his way to winning matches, the fact of the matter is that he made Hackenschmidt look like an amateur whenever he wrestled him. Gotch’s skills were head and shoulders above everyone else at the time. He wasn’t called “The Peerless One” for nothing. Not to mention that Gotch was the first American to become the World Champion in wrestling, and without him, Wrestling in North America, and consequently Japan, would probably not exist.

It’s hard to explain just how much of an impact Gotch had. So let me use this. Where would music be had Hank Williams Sr. never existed? He wasn’t the most moral guy ever, but he almost single-handedly popularized a style of music that has influenced every brand of music heard on the radio. He wasn’t the first guy to play music on a national scale, but he was the most important of those innovators. The fact that both Hank Sr. and Gotch died at a very young age may be coincidence, because both men had an impact on their profession that only a few can even understand.

Score: 0 for 5!

6. The Royal Rumble concept is outdated and needs to be changed.

Jake Chambers: FACT. I believe that the Royal Rumble uses too many wrestlers. How many more years do we have to put up with pointless entries from guys like Shelton Benjamin, Carlito, and even Kane, when we know they have no chance of winning? As much as everyone ‘pretends’ to like the Royal Rumble match concept, the whole thing is incredibly contrived. Although the WWE likes to proclaim “anything can happen,” when have they ever proved this in a Royal Rumble match? There have been few, if any, really shocking Royal Rumble victories. Maybe the only time was the first ever Rumble when Big John Studd strangely pulled out a victory, but I think that had more to do with the fact that no one cared about the format at the time (and yes… I know, but the Hacksaw win doesn’t count because it was barely on TV, and Hacksaw was pretty popular back then). As far as I’m concerned, the days of needing thirty guys in a one hour Rumble are long gone.

The WWE has successfully put on shorter Rumbles in the past. The infamous ‘first’ TV Rumble match, the Attitude era ‘Corporate’ Rumble on RAW and the Smackdown Rumble following the defection of Chris Benoit, were all smaller sized events with mostly bigger, winnable stars. The drama throughout the Corporate Rumble was great and it was streamlined to only include Corporation members and their enemies so it flowed well. The end of the Smackdown Rumble had a one-on-one showdown between Kurt Angle and Eddie Guerrero that was easily more exciting and unpredictable than the HBK/’taker ending that came a few years later, mostly because you didn’t have to sit through fifty minutes of filler to get to the good part, and it wasn’t obvious that the loser was getting a title shot anyways.

These days, not only does one of a predictably select two to four guys win every Rumble, but the runner up eventually gets a title shot at Wrestlemania as well, and in most cases they end up with the real main event spot over the Rumble winner. So what kind of prize is winning the Rumble anyway? Well, competing in the Rumble is certainly no reward to up-and-coming wrestlers anymore. I don’t know how Dolph Ziggler, Santino Marella or Brian Kendrick benefited at all from their quick and humiliating eliminations this year. Aren’t “comedy” moments like these long played out? Considering these wrestlers can’t even get five minutes on PPV for a singles match, it’s hardly compensation to get 2 or 3 seconds in a Rumble match. As for Orton as the winner, I mean, after that opening video package could there be any doubt of the eventual outcome? Did we really need to go through the motions of the match at that point? If he was in a 10-15 person Rumble with Undertaker, HHH, and other top tier guys, at least it would be shorter and give the rest of the show more time for some better matches. I’m begging somebody to agree with me here!

Aaron Hubbard: FICTION. I say this with a caveat. Sometime in the next few years, a real shocker of a Royal Rumble win needs to happen. I’m not saying Carlito should win next year’s Rumble, but I want to see a win that is unpredictable. Even the victories of Rey Mysterio and Chris Benoit, which should have been shockers, were blatantly telegraphed. In days past, most of the participants of the Royal Rumble were allowed to give a promo to at least make you CARE that they were in it. And I never want to see the ring get as cluttered as the 1998 Royal Rumble again. Ever. There are major problems with the formula and it needs some tweaking.

However, the Royal Rumble has over twenty years of history, because it’s a great concept. Mixing the typical Battle Royal with Gauntlet rules, the Rumble is often an excellent showcase of great booking. Done right, the Rumble can promote almost every Wrestlemania storyline in the course of an hour. And I refuse to accept the comedy moments as “played”. Some of the most entertaining moments in Rumble history include such obscure characters as Ernest Miller and Al Snow. Rumbles are almost always fun, and as long as the concept is fun, then it deserves its yearly spot.

One other thing. I watch a lot of old shows, and one thing I’ve noticed about the Rumble is that it serves as a time capsule of sorts. You see random people you’ve never heard of, and you get a look at who the top players were and whom they were feuding with. And hindsight makes several Rumbles interesting. When I watch the 1992 Rumble and see Shawn Michaels and Ric Flair trade moves long before anybody cared, I think of sixteen years later when HBK retired Flair. When I see Austin and Rock become the final two men in the 1998 Rumble, before Rock was anything more than a midcard guy, I think of their match at Wrestlemania XVII. Being a reminder of the great (and not so great) moments in wrestling, the Rumble deserves its place. Right now, we may not appreciate this year’s Rumble all that much, but in ten years, we’ll be able to watch and be reminded of what WWE was like in 2009.

Score: 0 for 6!

Aaron Hubbard, you made some great points and I thank you for your fantastic effort and participation. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Since this is MY column though, I must declare myself the winner this week, with an overwhelming 6-0 score. What do you think wrestling fans: Fact or Fiction?