Post by angryfan on Nov 3, 2006 6:15:59 GMT -5
Just posted a new column over at the site, so I figured I'd toss it up here as well.
In the past two weeks, I've seen a pair of interviews (well, one was in print, but you get the idea) from Sting that have me questioning why in the blue hell Panda Energy, TNA, and Dixie Carter would ever allow this man to speak on behalf of the company.
Some of you, I'm sure, are callling me crazy, no doubt. Some of you are saying "He's a legend in the business, he's wrestled all over the world, and been in the ring with many of the biggest names in the business."
Now, I'm not the type of guy that's going to say that you aren't entitiled to your opinion, but I am the kind of person that will say you're out of your mind.
It all started simply enough, with an interview posted at IGN.com. Questions were asked of Sting's opinion on TNA, and here are a few highlights.
First statement that caught my eye was in regards to a question about WCW. Sting had mentioned TNA reminding him of early WCW. When asked to elaborate on that, and what TNA needs to do to take the "next step" sto to speak.
We've made huge strides all year long. Our ratings continue to grow, our buy rates of our pay-per-views continue to improve, and now with the addition of Kurt Angle, and I know we'll add more talent along the way, that's a big piece of the puzzle right there.
OK, good openning. Yes, they've made strides, though saying ratings continue to rise (when they've hovered in the same area) and buyrates (which have also remained steady) as being on the rise may be a bit of a stretch, but I can give him that, as being a company guy. I'll also agree that Kurt Angle is a large piece of the puzzle.
We also have a new timeslot coming up in primetime, and I believe that will be a huge stepping stone.
Hang on, prime time timeslot, national television is a "stepping stone"? No, it should be THE step, not just another cog. However, once again, he's being a company guy, so a slight bit of hyperbole is forgivable.
I've been here before, I know what it's like to be a, I hate to say it, a second-class citizen, but I know what it's like to finally emerge and be the talk of the town, and I'm just glad that I can be a part of TNA and be associated with people who are moving the same direction. I just love this brand, it's a great brand.
OK, hang the hell on, Stinger. You've been there, and know what it's like to be a second class citizen? The hell did they put in your coffee this moring?
First off, you were "the franchise" in WCW for the last eleven years they were existed, and would have made HUGE cash to jump ship, that's hardly being "the underdog". You were put over by none other than Ric Flair for the NWA title after barely five years in the business, and were, more or less the top babyface from that day forward. Second-class citizen my ass.
However, let's assume he's talking the company in general. Was WCW a "second class citizen", as he so elloquently put it? Well, yeah, it was. However, that speaks more to bad business management decisions more than talent. Is THIS what Sting was going for?
If so, what does that say for TNA? It reminds him of early WCW, where bad managemetn decisions caused the company to lose several million over its first few years in existance, while spending big money on outside talent and refusing to truly establish "home grown stars". Wait, maybe that IS what he meant after all.
On to problem number two. This week, tonight in fact, TNA aired a promo from Sting about his newly won NWA title. Did he come out and cut a promo, as most babyfaces would, especially given that he's held it before, about how important the lineage and tradition of the belt is to uphold? Did he come out and say how much the belt energizes him, and makes him want to match up with the young stars TNA has to offer?
Well, not exactly.
What happened was a video package with the TNA voice over guy doing a Four Seasons impersonation, and Sting cutting a promo. What he said was that Jarrett, the top heel in the company as being a good guy who has some tough problems.
He said "I said Jarrett was a cancer that needed to be removed at TNA, well that cancer is this". The this he was referring to happened to be his newly one NWA title.
Wait, what now? The title is the cancer that needs to be removed? But isn't that, you know, kind of important in terms of a wrestling promotion? Just a little bit?
Moreover, how exactly can a material object, a non-living entity which has no will of its own be evil? Hell, I can't even stretch and make a TV or radio analogy, since those at least transmit images or sounds. The belt just sits there. What's the worst it can do, hide important papers?
Wait, maybe it'll get better, let's keep going
"The cancer is this world title, everything that our world calls success."
Uh oh, kids, that's not good. Title good, title make champion important, give people thing to go after. Simple enough? No title means that there is no reason for them to go out there and wrestle. Make sense, kids? I sure hope so, because I don't think Stinger and Russo are grasping that idea.
Moving on.
"In the past, this title has represented lust and greed, power, lying, cheating, stealing".
So, then, what you're saying is, everyone else that's held the title (including you on two occasions, eight if you count the WCW title runs which claimed lineage) was a greedy, lustful, lying power hungry individual, right?
Damn, man, that's a bit harsh, don't you think? I mean, sure, there have been some major politicians over the years, but I can think of many who were, by all accounts, stand up people.
Wait, there's more, he needs to tell us where he's going with this burial of everything past.
"But now this belt is going to represent honor, respect, dignity, and truth"
So, ok, they brought Sting in, gave him the main event to feud with Jarrett. Now Jeff's a babyface, so Sting has a new mission. Truth, honor, respect, and dignity?
The hell is he going for here? The belt is supposed to be the ultimate prize in the industry, the symbol of the company in a tangible, unchanging sense. Title holders come and go, but the belt is what connects them. One would think it already stood for something other than, bascially, pure evil, unless that's some sort of indictment of management as a whole.
"Truth. Because the truth of the matter is, I'm going to give credit where credit is due. I'm gong to give credit to my maker. I'm going to give credit to God Allmighty, because without him, I'm nothing".
And then, that's it. The segment ends. So, what then? The belt is an evil, tangilbe object, and represents everything wrong with the world. String will change that because he's going to give credit to God. Nowhere does he say how acknowledging his well-publicized beliefs will somehow change this inanimate object. Nor does he explain how, if his personal beliefs are to do just that, the beliefs of every NWA champion before him has failed.
Stretching? Not hardly. Sting's going to change everything, he's going to bring God to the title, because, apparently, everyone before him has been a no good heathen bastard who is greedy and selfish.
So what are we left with from the segment? The feud, as it stands, is Sting versus, well, no one. Sting made it clear in the interview, far as I can tell, that it's not the opponents that are heels, it's the belt. The belt is evil, just like all the other evil inanimate objects running loose.
Did your toast burn? It's not your fault for leaving it in too long, it's the toaster for being infused with pure evil in its coils.
Vending machine rip you off? The devil is in the corn chips, my friends.
The only way to understand it, I suppose, it to understand the person behind it, Vince Russo.
I know I'm going into dangerous territory here, and will probably need some kind of therapy, but I'm willing to give this a shot.
Russo has, much like Sting, been very public in his conversion, and I'm happy for him in that regard. If he has made a change in his life for the better, then I can not be critical of his desire to do so.
Thing is, this has nothing whatsoever to do with his beliefs. What it has to do with is his melding of said faith with the wrestling industry. It can be done, as there are many people with very passionately held religious beliefs in the industry. Yet, none of them has been so out and out arrogant as to write a storyline wherein a man proclaims his faith will somehow alter the "hold" which a title belt has on an entire organization.
This is wrestling meets Lord of the Rings, and it makes no sense.
Perhaps the logic is to infuse the new "hot button" of religion with the wrestling/sports entertainment world in order to garner new viewwership? Perhaps it's to stir up some of the controversial atmosphere that Russo bathed himself in for years? Perhaps it's an idea which both performer and booker are comfortable with, because it allows them to attempt to reach out to viewers with their faith?
Folks, I'm not a mind reader, and I'm damn sure not a Vince Russo mind reader. It could be any one or combination of the above ideas, or I could just have no clue, but regardless, I don't see what the payoff for this could be.
As it stands right now, there is a tournament being held in TNA, the winner of which becomes the number one contender to the NWA championship. This is all well and good, so where does that stand?
Following the November 2 airing, the four remaining competitors in the tournament are AJ Styles, Ron Killings, Bobby Roode, and Abyss. Four men left to battle it out and see who will wrestle Sting for the title which the champion has called the symbol of everything that is wrong in the world.
One positive is that two of the men, Styles and Killings, are former NWA champions. I have to wonder how they will be portrayed, as both are babyfaces, yet have been paineted with the "tainted belt" speech from Sting. Do they go into matches as babyfaces, or do we get some weird "possession" bit? Knowing Russo's work, I'm not putting the second possibility to bed just yet.
One of the men, Styles, has been the face of TNA for a long time now, the never say die babyface, the franchise, and only Triple Crown winner in TNA history. This, while giving him credibility, but what storylines can come from this?
Second is Killings. The Truth is a former champion as well, though that is the distant past in TNA terms. He's floundered for some time, remaining over, but not in any sort of high profile situation. Once again, the credibility can be re-established (albeit it would be more difficult), but will they choose to do so?
Third, there's Bobby, er, Robert Roode. Permanent second, or sometimes third, banana in Team Canada, with newly found manager. Stereotypical heel, but would putting him in the main event make anyone, for lack of a better term, give one-tenth of a rat's left ass cheek about the match?
Not really.
Lastly, there's Abyss.
Poor, poor Abyss.
The man has been the number one contender on approximately 2,048,492,208 and a half times, but I can honestly not recall the last timee he got his title shot.
He won the battle royal to get a bye to the finals, which puts him, booking-wise, as the odds on favorite. This would also give the devout Sting character someone "evil" to compete with, especially considering the gimmick of Abyss' manager, James Mitchell.
It has some possibilities, but I have two problems with the match itself. Sting isn't a young guy anymore, and Abyss is, well, huge. As such, it would have to be a brawling match. That's fine, in and of itself, but who goes over?
If they make Sting a transitional champion, which is the smart move, then Abyss is the big time heel, he's the "evil incarnate" with a demonic manager in tow. Not too bad, but what are the odds of that happening?
Sting has no history with Abyss. He's got history with Christian, who isn't even in the tournament, but is instead working, once again with Rhino. So where does that leave Sting and Abyss?
With the speech just a few weeks away from the pay-per-view, the babyface can technically loose and have many factors still in his corner. It can be a feud starter. But will they finally pull the trigger on an Abyss title run, and give him a chance, or will they have the babyface triumph over "evil"?
If Abyss is to win, he becomes a transitional champion of sorts, waiting on the Joe/Angle winner, as does Sting. Therefore, there is no time for a feud realistically. So either way, frankly, Abyss is screwed.
He wins, he loses to Joe/Angle, and his title reign goes the way of Ron Killings.
He loses, and he is buried, again.
As for Sting, he'll be on top while he's there, because he's a big name. Nothing will change. The question is, will Abyss (or one of the other three men in the tournament) be the guy Sting puts over, or will he remain 0-for in his TNA career?
Deeds and actions, that's what this is really about. Deeds speak for themselves, and the pay-per-view will speak for itself. Words, on the other hand, can speak volumes, and so far we've heard from the Stinger twice.
These two interviews, taken individually, show a company who has a guy speaking for them that is comparing them to a bad period in a failed company (and anyone that watched early WCW knows there weren't a ton of roses there), and on their own programming is making the title seem evil and, ultimately, less important than it should be.
This is not good, folks.
In the past two weeks, I've seen a pair of interviews (well, one was in print, but you get the idea) from Sting that have me questioning why in the blue hell Panda Energy, TNA, and Dixie Carter would ever allow this man to speak on behalf of the company.
Some of you, I'm sure, are callling me crazy, no doubt. Some of you are saying "He's a legend in the business, he's wrestled all over the world, and been in the ring with many of the biggest names in the business."
Now, I'm not the type of guy that's going to say that you aren't entitiled to your opinion, but I am the kind of person that will say you're out of your mind.
It all started simply enough, with an interview posted at IGN.com. Questions were asked of Sting's opinion on TNA, and here are a few highlights.
First statement that caught my eye was in regards to a question about WCW. Sting had mentioned TNA reminding him of early WCW. When asked to elaborate on that, and what TNA needs to do to take the "next step" sto to speak.
We've made huge strides all year long. Our ratings continue to grow, our buy rates of our pay-per-views continue to improve, and now with the addition of Kurt Angle, and I know we'll add more talent along the way, that's a big piece of the puzzle right there.
OK, good openning. Yes, they've made strides, though saying ratings continue to rise (when they've hovered in the same area) and buyrates (which have also remained steady) as being on the rise may be a bit of a stretch, but I can give him that, as being a company guy. I'll also agree that Kurt Angle is a large piece of the puzzle.
We also have a new timeslot coming up in primetime, and I believe that will be a huge stepping stone.
Hang on, prime time timeslot, national television is a "stepping stone"? No, it should be THE step, not just another cog. However, once again, he's being a company guy, so a slight bit of hyperbole is forgivable.
I've been here before, I know what it's like to be a, I hate to say it, a second-class citizen, but I know what it's like to finally emerge and be the talk of the town, and I'm just glad that I can be a part of TNA and be associated with people who are moving the same direction. I just love this brand, it's a great brand.
OK, hang the hell on, Stinger. You've been there, and know what it's like to be a second class citizen? The hell did they put in your coffee this moring?
First off, you were "the franchise" in WCW for the last eleven years they were existed, and would have made HUGE cash to jump ship, that's hardly being "the underdog". You were put over by none other than Ric Flair for the NWA title after barely five years in the business, and were, more or less the top babyface from that day forward. Second-class citizen my ass.
However, let's assume he's talking the company in general. Was WCW a "second class citizen", as he so elloquently put it? Well, yeah, it was. However, that speaks more to bad business management decisions more than talent. Is THIS what Sting was going for?
If so, what does that say for TNA? It reminds him of early WCW, where bad managemetn decisions caused the company to lose several million over its first few years in existance, while spending big money on outside talent and refusing to truly establish "home grown stars". Wait, maybe that IS what he meant after all.
On to problem number two. This week, tonight in fact, TNA aired a promo from Sting about his newly won NWA title. Did he come out and cut a promo, as most babyfaces would, especially given that he's held it before, about how important the lineage and tradition of the belt is to uphold? Did he come out and say how much the belt energizes him, and makes him want to match up with the young stars TNA has to offer?
Well, not exactly.
What happened was a video package with the TNA voice over guy doing a Four Seasons impersonation, and Sting cutting a promo. What he said was that Jarrett, the top heel in the company as being a good guy who has some tough problems.
He said "I said Jarrett was a cancer that needed to be removed at TNA, well that cancer is this". The this he was referring to happened to be his newly one NWA title.
Wait, what now? The title is the cancer that needs to be removed? But isn't that, you know, kind of important in terms of a wrestling promotion? Just a little bit?
Moreover, how exactly can a material object, a non-living entity which has no will of its own be evil? Hell, I can't even stretch and make a TV or radio analogy, since those at least transmit images or sounds. The belt just sits there. What's the worst it can do, hide important papers?
Wait, maybe it'll get better, let's keep going
"The cancer is this world title, everything that our world calls success."
Uh oh, kids, that's not good. Title good, title make champion important, give people thing to go after. Simple enough? No title means that there is no reason for them to go out there and wrestle. Make sense, kids? I sure hope so, because I don't think Stinger and Russo are grasping that idea.
Moving on.
"In the past, this title has represented lust and greed, power, lying, cheating, stealing".
So, then, what you're saying is, everyone else that's held the title (including you on two occasions, eight if you count the WCW title runs which claimed lineage) was a greedy, lustful, lying power hungry individual, right?
Damn, man, that's a bit harsh, don't you think? I mean, sure, there have been some major politicians over the years, but I can think of many who were, by all accounts, stand up people.
Wait, there's more, he needs to tell us where he's going with this burial of everything past.
"But now this belt is going to represent honor, respect, dignity, and truth"
So, ok, they brought Sting in, gave him the main event to feud with Jarrett. Now Jeff's a babyface, so Sting has a new mission. Truth, honor, respect, and dignity?
The hell is he going for here? The belt is supposed to be the ultimate prize in the industry, the symbol of the company in a tangible, unchanging sense. Title holders come and go, but the belt is what connects them. One would think it already stood for something other than, bascially, pure evil, unless that's some sort of indictment of management as a whole.
"Truth. Because the truth of the matter is, I'm going to give credit where credit is due. I'm gong to give credit to my maker. I'm going to give credit to God Allmighty, because without him, I'm nothing".
And then, that's it. The segment ends. So, what then? The belt is an evil, tangilbe object, and represents everything wrong with the world. String will change that because he's going to give credit to God. Nowhere does he say how acknowledging his well-publicized beliefs will somehow change this inanimate object. Nor does he explain how, if his personal beliefs are to do just that, the beliefs of every NWA champion before him has failed.
Stretching? Not hardly. Sting's going to change everything, he's going to bring God to the title, because, apparently, everyone before him has been a no good heathen bastard who is greedy and selfish.
So what are we left with from the segment? The feud, as it stands, is Sting versus, well, no one. Sting made it clear in the interview, far as I can tell, that it's not the opponents that are heels, it's the belt. The belt is evil, just like all the other evil inanimate objects running loose.
Did your toast burn? It's not your fault for leaving it in too long, it's the toaster for being infused with pure evil in its coils.
Vending machine rip you off? The devil is in the corn chips, my friends.
The only way to understand it, I suppose, it to understand the person behind it, Vince Russo.
I know I'm going into dangerous territory here, and will probably need some kind of therapy, but I'm willing to give this a shot.
Russo has, much like Sting, been very public in his conversion, and I'm happy for him in that regard. If he has made a change in his life for the better, then I can not be critical of his desire to do so.
Thing is, this has nothing whatsoever to do with his beliefs. What it has to do with is his melding of said faith with the wrestling industry. It can be done, as there are many people with very passionately held religious beliefs in the industry. Yet, none of them has been so out and out arrogant as to write a storyline wherein a man proclaims his faith will somehow alter the "hold" which a title belt has on an entire organization.
This is wrestling meets Lord of the Rings, and it makes no sense.
Perhaps the logic is to infuse the new "hot button" of religion with the wrestling/sports entertainment world in order to garner new viewwership? Perhaps it's to stir up some of the controversial atmosphere that Russo bathed himself in for years? Perhaps it's an idea which both performer and booker are comfortable with, because it allows them to attempt to reach out to viewers with their faith?
Folks, I'm not a mind reader, and I'm damn sure not a Vince Russo mind reader. It could be any one or combination of the above ideas, or I could just have no clue, but regardless, I don't see what the payoff for this could be.
As it stands right now, there is a tournament being held in TNA, the winner of which becomes the number one contender to the NWA championship. This is all well and good, so where does that stand?
Following the November 2 airing, the four remaining competitors in the tournament are AJ Styles, Ron Killings, Bobby Roode, and Abyss. Four men left to battle it out and see who will wrestle Sting for the title which the champion has called the symbol of everything that is wrong in the world.
One positive is that two of the men, Styles and Killings, are former NWA champions. I have to wonder how they will be portrayed, as both are babyfaces, yet have been paineted with the "tainted belt" speech from Sting. Do they go into matches as babyfaces, or do we get some weird "possession" bit? Knowing Russo's work, I'm not putting the second possibility to bed just yet.
One of the men, Styles, has been the face of TNA for a long time now, the never say die babyface, the franchise, and only Triple Crown winner in TNA history. This, while giving him credibility, but what storylines can come from this?
Second is Killings. The Truth is a former champion as well, though that is the distant past in TNA terms. He's floundered for some time, remaining over, but not in any sort of high profile situation. Once again, the credibility can be re-established (albeit it would be more difficult), but will they choose to do so?
Third, there's Bobby, er, Robert Roode. Permanent second, or sometimes third, banana in Team Canada, with newly found manager. Stereotypical heel, but would putting him in the main event make anyone, for lack of a better term, give one-tenth of a rat's left ass cheek about the match?
Not really.
Lastly, there's Abyss.
Poor, poor Abyss.
The man has been the number one contender on approximately 2,048,492,208 and a half times, but I can honestly not recall the last timee he got his title shot.
He won the battle royal to get a bye to the finals, which puts him, booking-wise, as the odds on favorite. This would also give the devout Sting character someone "evil" to compete with, especially considering the gimmick of Abyss' manager, James Mitchell.
It has some possibilities, but I have two problems with the match itself. Sting isn't a young guy anymore, and Abyss is, well, huge. As such, it would have to be a brawling match. That's fine, in and of itself, but who goes over?
If they make Sting a transitional champion, which is the smart move, then Abyss is the big time heel, he's the "evil incarnate" with a demonic manager in tow. Not too bad, but what are the odds of that happening?
Sting has no history with Abyss. He's got history with Christian, who isn't even in the tournament, but is instead working, once again with Rhino. So where does that leave Sting and Abyss?
With the speech just a few weeks away from the pay-per-view, the babyface can technically loose and have many factors still in his corner. It can be a feud starter. But will they finally pull the trigger on an Abyss title run, and give him a chance, or will they have the babyface triumph over "evil"?
If Abyss is to win, he becomes a transitional champion of sorts, waiting on the Joe/Angle winner, as does Sting. Therefore, there is no time for a feud realistically. So either way, frankly, Abyss is screwed.
He wins, he loses to Joe/Angle, and his title reign goes the way of Ron Killings.
He loses, and he is buried, again.
As for Sting, he'll be on top while he's there, because he's a big name. Nothing will change. The question is, will Abyss (or one of the other three men in the tournament) be the guy Sting puts over, or will he remain 0-for in his TNA career?
Deeds and actions, that's what this is really about. Deeds speak for themselves, and the pay-per-view will speak for itself. Words, on the other hand, can speak volumes, and so far we've heard from the Stinger twice.
These two interviews, taken individually, show a company who has a guy speaking for them that is comparing them to a bad period in a failed company (and anyone that watched early WCW knows there weren't a ton of roses there), and on their own programming is making the title seem evil and, ultimately, less important than it should be.
This is not good, folks.
A corrupting influence? I'm not liking this "I won, but I'm above this nasty belt" thing.
