Yes!! Finalmente!!! Mickie on Smackdown!!!!! To quote Stella McC, "About F-in' time!!". I've been saying MJ needed to go Blue since the last draft!!! She was totally out of competition on RAW. Oh happy days!!!!! And Beth going over too should make things interesting. My only residual question is: how long are things going to stay this way???

This is awesome for Smackdown, but not so great for RAW. All RAW got was Melina and that (like it or not) is the flagship show; it's almost always been kept as the stronger brand. All the top divas are now on SD, and most of the young divas are on RAW. Who is left for Melina to feud with? Other than Gail (face v. face? Can (W)we do that??? Quick: get a lawyer!), and Maryse, when she comes back? I wonder if this is the beginning of a storyline to get the Women's Championship back on RAW, where it really deserves to be. Having Michelle be the first Dual Champ was a nice, if dubiously deserved, honor. It brought some credibility to Smackdown and called out the athletic talent of its roster. But frankly, it always seemed to me that the Women's Championship had little business on the Blue brand, which got its own belt a scant year ago.

RAW has always held the top belt and the lion's share of the top talent. Smackdown has always been the training ground, the athletes and the up-and-comers. Part of that is due to its being the Avis to Raw's Hertz. Part of that is likely due to Taker's behind-the-scenes influence and vision. Still, the facts are incontrovertible. RAW is wrestling's yellow cab company and as of now, its a bit short of rentals. It makes me wonder if there are still a few moves left in the cat's bag.

I apologize in advance.  This is not really a blog; it is just what the title says it is. I need to the seethe and this is my place.  Gentlemen, start your engines...and get the hell out of my way.

I am beyond fed up w/ these McMinions who are so invested in McCopycat Taker being together.  If you dare to remind them that they have no control over it, they go ballistic.  Look children, T & M may not get married, make babies and live happily ever. They could break up any time.  They could have broken up yesterday and there's not a d**n thing you can do about it. There's no need to obsess over them like they're Brangelina (not that there's any need ot obsess over that couple either.)  I wonder if they'd still like McC if she was dating someone else or (gasp) was single. Do they even like McC's wrestling or do they just perceive her as a "star", one half of a "power couple"? Oh sure, they'll tell you: "I LOVE Michelle! She's a GREAT wrestler!".  But the sad thing is, they'd tell you the same thing if she walked out into the middle of the ring and spray painted a fungus purple. So what is their opinion worth?

I don't object to these people having their own delusional fantasies, but I do get annoyed when they berate the rest of us w/ belligerent and oft-repeated "Yes, they ARE still together - I KNOW it" IM's and comments and post cunningly spliced pics and vids to "prove" it. Let it freakin' go people. Can't you just like the wrestler for the wrestler and their ability?

Frankly, my dear Scarlet, McC would be better off if her name had never been coupled w/ Taker's.  Like an accusation of using steroids, it's put a taint on her achievements that can never be rectified. The unanswered question for wrestling fans (those that care about her) for all time will be: what would Michelle McCool have been had never been an Undertaker.  Now, the McMinions will jump all over me and say it would have been just the same, because she got it w/out his help.  But in the real world, just like the extent of their relationship, it can't be proven and we'll never really know.

Whew. OK. I'm done. I feel better.  ...'til I read the next IM :p

To belt, or not belt: that is the question, now that the man is back to wrestling (nice to see ya again, Big T).  It hovers in the air like Hamlet's dagger.  Is the time to act now or should WWE wait for a more opportune moment?  My judgment weighs in solidly for the former.

Its been rumored that Taker has been promised a long title reign and indeed, it is difficult to argue that there is anyone more deserving of one.  It would be poetic justice to see him get it before he retires.  Over the last three years, he's returned from injuries or surgery in the fall and chased the title through to spring, winning it twice at Wrestlemania.  All three years, he's ended up needing time off shortly thereafter, forcing his title runs to be cut short.  Its not surprising that the long, hard schedule for the fall takes its toll.  So why not give the title to him earlier, and let him keep it through Wrestlemania. For one thing, it would add a twist to the Streak question, since if Taker aready has the title, WM becomes about keeping it, instead of winning it, which we've now seen a few times in succession.  Secondly, it gives Taker a better chance to keep the title for a period of time. 

I disagree w/ the idea that he's more engaging when he's chasing the belt. Frankly, my dear Polonius, he's da*n compelling whatever he's doing.  I think Creative has come up with more intense, polarizing storylines when he's chasing the belt, but maybe they should toddle over to Walmart, get some Inspiration (On sale this week! Come on, down!) and come up with an entertaining scenario for someone gunning after Taker.  Punk is a perfect candidate for that type of storyline: he's an up and comer, he has a style that's distincitve and more technical, as well as one Taker hasn't dealt with much recently.  The idea of a martial artist-type challenger to Taker is something WWE hasn't explored in  awhile, but with Taker's previous incorporation of MMA moves in his arsenal, the ground work is already in place for a chess-match type feud that focuses more on ability than mind games or politics.

I'm not necessarily thinking that Taker should win at Breaking Point. There hasn't been sufficient time to really build up any intensity to the rivalry yet. I'd like to see Punk retain without Taker submitting.  Despite my previous assertions that I hate DQ's, one would do nicely here.  I'd like to see Taker get belted by Armageddon at the latest, though. In a world where, as Hamlet notes, little is certain, the smart play (NPI!!) is to give Taker the belt now, while he's healthiest.  While his career would lose no gloss by not having a long title run at its culmination, to deny him that respect would certainly be a tradgedy.

(c) B.E. 2009

Through all the world, there is the dynamic tension of opposites: light and dark, good and evil, Batman and Bruce Wayne, water and whiskey.  Everything is, to an extent, a product of its equal opposite.  In pro wrestling, that conflict is at the heart of the industry's self-definition: is it a sport or is it entertainment? It has always vascillated, pendulum-like, between the two. The current trend of celebrity guest hosts on RAW dramatically illuminates that undulation.

 The glitteratti have always been a part of sports; the events of the day are where the 'it' crowd want to see and be seen. But primarily, they have been a sideshow, passsamenterie to the occassion's true raison d'tre.  With the guest host role, they move into the spotlight and clearly shift the pendlum towards the realm of entertainment.    The powers that rule the WWE cosmos have declared that they broaden the audience and raise ratings.  Doubtless, there are statistics to prove this.  But statistics, like lawyers, often curve the truth.  Perhaps they do indeed broaden the demographic WWE already dominates, but I'm a bit skeptical of the A-listers pulling in die-hard sports fans. 

 When you look at the popularity of MMA, it is hard to justify a hypothesis that WWE can go far wrong by emulating that genre to a degree. What MMA garners from all corners is respect.  And that is consistently upheld by the sports' trustees. WWE, in contrast, has the tendency to be treated as a circus due to the outcome being pre-determined, especially beyond its own core circle of performers and fans.  I don't think it deserves that lack of respect.  The talent works too hard for that to be their just reward.  Yet, by pulling in Hollywood, WWE invites that disprespect. So much in Hollywood is chimera and while success doesn't come easily, it is a different kind of success than that acheived by the kind of dedication a sport like MMA demands.  Bright-lighters who brush the edges of WWE and come away unscathed are just as likely to poke fun at the industry if it makes them appear in a better light to their audience.  I haven't often observed them being ambassadors for the industry.  While WWE offers Hollywood a fairly safe environment in which to appear bada$$, doing so is a slap in the face to those who try to communicate the heart of the sport - the balls, the blood, the sacrifice involved - to those who only access it peripherally.  It appears that one can walk in off the street, hop in the ring and survive.  It makes an art form appear kindergarten-simple.  It is the old Martha Stewart principle of "yes, you too, without any training or sweat, can do it as good as the pros."  Newsflash minions: you can't.  If it appears that way, its because you're watching someone good do it, or working with them.  While that principle may generate sales, it is also a backhanded stab at the industry because it undermines the respect that is so hard to generate.  And it slams the door in the face of the sports fans I think WWE could attract if it didn't play the very role of soap opera circus it is often seen as. 

 WWE will never be purely either sport or entertainment; it will always intrinsically be the unity of both. And that unity will always be achieved by the vascillation of the pendulum.  The question is to what extent will it do so. I prefer my wrestling a little balder.  I prefer the floor a little dustier, gum stuck under the seats and a few broken tiles to the gloss and glare.  I prefer wrestling as sport, to shine over wrestling as entertainment. Not to say that entertainment has to be eradicated; I want it there.  I just like it as subtext, rather than the main theme.  I'm happier when the pendulum swings back the other way just a bit more than it is now. I'm happier when WWE showcases the ample athleticism of their talent, asks its fans to appreciate the more subtle shadings, the physical diffculty of the performance, combined with the story told in the ring.  I'm happier when this thing  I love reaches for a little respect. What say you, WWE? Can we shoot whiskey for a change? This round's on me.

(c) 2009 B.E.

Listen, Sparky, here's the deal, see? You wanna get the big numbers -you gotta play the big race, see?   Here we are at Night of Champions, see? It's everything a PPV should be: good storylines, decent characters, a fair number of questions  to be answered, some tempting matches on the card.  Makes you wanna plunk down the dough, see?

So, it makes me wonder: why can't WWE pull this off all the time?  Technically, the PPV's should be the main events, the featured race, the ones you know you just can't miss.  Yet, a fair number of them turn out to be forgettable.  Even the ones that everyone knows are the A-listers.  Take this year's Wrestlemania, for example.  It came very close to being a squander, when it ought to have been the night that outshone all others.  One match, and you can thank two guys for it, delivered absolutely everything that a headliner match at a PPV anniversary should be, delivered so much that people are still talking about it now and will be for years to come, delivered so much that people who aren't fans started to see what the guts and the glory of pro wrestling are all about.  The good part of this story is the Tip of Stetson those two guys get for making the PPV price worthwhile (and so much more).  The sad theme is that there should be more chapters to this story. And not just at Wrestlemania.  There should be a chapter, or at least a few solid paragraphs, at every PPV. That is the point of them, right?

Why, then, are they lacking? My theory is there's just too dang many of them.  What are we up to - nineteen? Twenty? Alright, its about fourteen...but the same premise applies.  Its a lot to ask of Creative to keep putting out winners twelve times a year, to stay scintillating that often, on top of what they have to do every week.  Its an easy bet that they're going to fall off the pace a bit (NPI) and start recycling material or using cheesy schmaltz to get by.  A lot of times, the weekly stuff doesn't have enough time to advance, titles aren't ready to change hands, so you end up w/  lightly raced storylines that are still weaving around the track being paraded out in front of the viewing public.  Its not always pretty.  Often the company gets trashed for it and rightly so.  In addition, its a lot to ask of the talent to keep delivering that often.  Its like coming to the top of the stretch two or three times in a race.  How often can these guys and gals keep on firing? Their performance suffers and that's not fair to them or to the fans.

On the flip side of the equation, one must suppose the buy rates are still decent. Granted, there has to be a core of die hards that never leave the track and never will.  They sleep in a box on the backstretch and will buy every PPV there is until Belmont closes.  But there has to also be a number of swing voters, who'll only buy if the PPV looks promising.  I'd love to see their race stats! And I wonder if their numbers couldn't be increased by doing two or three fewer PPV's (Goodness! Can we really go SIX whole weeks between PPV's without the world stopping in its tracks? Quick - run outside and make sure the sun's still circling Earth! Oh, the withdrawal!) and focusing on quality over quantity.  Who knows - there might just be a few more Mine that Bird's out there who, with the proper handling, can bring in the big money. I'd be willing to plunk down a Jackson or two on it. See?

(c) 2009 B.E.