As always, my inbox is stuffed to the brim like an overfilled vacuum cleaner bag, so let’s empty the dirt into the trash. Wait, that didn’t sound very appealing. Oh, well.
Letter No. 1
The blunder of putting Bryan in the Rumble if he wasn't going to win aside, what would you have done to "save" Reigns? His momentum was seriously stalled by his injury so was there really any other way to bring him back in December and get over enough that the fans would've bought it?
The problem was that they needed to be building his momentum well before that. By December it was already too late. The whole “sufferin’ succotash” era of terrible promos really derailed him. Basically, they had the endgame in mind for the story (Brock Lesnar runs roughshod over the promotion until underdog hero Roman Reigns beats him) but didn’t bother to tell any of the story leading up to it. They just kind of assumed that because everyone backstage loves Reigns, the fans would somehow know that and also love him.
As for what I would have done, first and foremost, keeping him out of the multiple-person matches where he was in a position to win the title but failed. He failed to win the belt at Payback and then failed to win it at Money in the Bank, and that’s death for someone you’re trying to make into the guy that fans want to see win. You need to keep him far away from the title scene and make fans demand that he get the title shot because he’s breakin’ necks and cashin’ checks, or whatever other catchphrase confers the maximum amount of coolness. That way, you give the fanbase the illusion of power while, in reality, doing exactly what you want. Just have him Goldberg his way up the card, destroying fools in short order and moving from jobber level up to winning the Royal Rumble by eliminating a bazillion people. There’s a reason classic approaches always work.
Letter No. 2:
Hi, Scott
A quickfire one for you if you get the time. Do you feel the below were at their best as a face or a heel? Some are obvious I guess, others debatable ...
Ric Flair: Flair always loved being a heel and he was perhaps the best ever.
Hulk Hogan: He defined the main-event babyface role for a decade after his departure.
Randy Savage: Equally great at both roles, but I only ever wanted to cheer him, so face for me.
The Rock: "Furious 7" nearing $1 billion at the box office seems to speak well of his babyface appeal.
Steve Austin: We all know how well his main-event heel run went.
The Undertaker: Heel Undertaker tended to devolve into cartoonish nonsense (i.e., the Ministry), so I’m going with babyface.
Roddy Piper: His destruction of the Flower Shop in 1986 is one of the defining moments of my childhood, but he had people wanting to stab him in the face with broken bottles as a heel, so I have to go with the people.
Jake Roberts: Anyone who can give a promo about how he’s a gold medalist in baby seal clubbing was born to be a heel.
Bret Hart: Although his 1997 heel run is personally important and dear to me, his fighting babyface act was always the money.
Shawn Michaels: His 2002-10 comeback run was spectacular, but nothing will ever touch his original 1997 D-X phase, where he changed the business forever.
Triple H: His 2000 heel run was incredible, so I’ll have to go with that.
Kevin Nash: I only ever liked him as a heel.
Randy Orton: He’s an awesome babyface but he hates doing it. I’d still vote babyface for him.
Batista: Not even a question. Hollywood Dave Bluetista was genius.
Edge: I always associate him as a babyface, but he was most effective as a heel.
CM Punk: He’s a great babyface, but he seems to prefer being a heel, in real life as well.
Big Show:
Kane: If you want the answer for either one, just wait two weeks.
Letter No. 3
Scott,
If Lex had indeed went over Flair at the Bash 91 and not been turned heel, would he have had a more successful run as champion in your opinion? To me, he was just as over at that time as Sting as a babyface. I have always felt the heel turn and of course not beating Flair for the title kind of hampered his reign at that time.
Oh, yeah, Flair walking out on them just killed Luger’s cred, no doubt. I don’t know how much more successful he would have been, however, given Luger’s lack of motivation and limited contractual dates at that point. Really, the problem is that either way, Luger didn’t have any strong challengers. In fact, if Flair was sticking around, the problem might have been worse because Luger would constantly be in his shadow. Just like Sting the year before.
Letter No. 4:
Scott-
After watching Mania again, I saw that someone kicked out of someone's finisher in every match. It's one thing if, say, Brock kicks out of a spear in the main event but when Paige is kicking out of one in a random divas match or Bray Wyatt kicks out of a flippin' tombstone, you're basically killing off the whole concept.
Is this Japanese influence or just writers removing a key idea to advance a story? I'm more surprised these days when finishers actually finish.
One solution from Virtual Pro Wrestling 2 on the N64: level-up finishers. Give a small handful guys an alternate finisher NO ONE kicks out of but they are rarely seen. Cena doing a top rope f-u fits the bill . . . Kurt Angle anklelock grapevine is good, too.
Thoughts?
Kurt Angle’s grapevine is badass. I always loved that Kurt had a way to take the anklelock up another notch for the situations where he just couldn’t get the job done. Ditto for Randy Orton’s punt, which is the uber-finisher when the RKO just isn’t enough.
Now, as for the trading finisher deal, that was kind of a holdover from the glory days of Rock and Austin on top, which indeed was heavily taken from Japan, and seemingly found its way into the indie scene. It became the way that guys learned the business, and now it’s just accepted. The other problem is that there are no squash matches these days, so there’s little opportunity for someone new like a Neville to just beat random geeks and get the big move over as a threat.
I think the term “finisher” is kind of a misnomer as well now, and it’s more appropriate to just call them “special moves,” like in a video game.
Letter No. 5
Hi Scott,
Why does the office not especially like Dolph Ziggler? I would think this guy would check all the necessary marks for a star wrestler: good looks, strong charisma, athletic, has wrestling ability. Is he just amazingly small and I can't see it? Do they just not like him personally, 'cause he constantly complains about not getting pushed more?
I think the office likes him just fine, but yes, when you go on Twitter and complain about your push while openly booking dates for stand-up comedy, it can be something of a career-limiting move. I think they really only see him at a certain level anyway, and he’s already peaked with the Money in the Bank cash-in a couple of years ago. Much like his victory at Survivor Series, they give him a big win and get excited by him for a couple of weeks, then move onto someone else for months. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Letter No. 6
Scott,
I've only just learned, through the "Meltzer In The 90s" Twitter feed, that Hogan was "in negotiations with Turner Broadcasting" as early as February 1993.
Is this true? If you were Vince at this point, wouldn't you have just let him go . . . especially as his big return run drew flies, ruined WM9, ended up with him disrespecting the WWF title in Japan, etc.?
It was true in the sense that Hogan was talking with Turner to jack up his deal with the WWF (a la Brock Lesnar talking with UFC leading up to his new deal this year), but no, there was never any serious thought on either side of bringing him into WCW at that point. It was bleeding money and trimming whatever salary it could in early 1993, and Hogan was an expense that no one would be able to justify.
Back on Thursday with more.
