You know, something different from the status quo, that broke out of the regular annual rotations and interested the masses because they were about to see something unique that they couldn't judge against history. Wrestling fans are often creatures of nostalgia, and comparisons to the past rarely reflect well on the present. So why not give them something uncomparable?
Between 1994-2004, they introduced the Ladder Match, the Hell In A Cell, the Last Man Standing Match, the TLC Match, the Elimination Chamber, Lion's Den Match, Buried Alive, Three Stages Of Hell, as well as bringing back older concepts like the I Quit Match and Empty Arena match to the WWE for the first time, to name just a few. Granted, you also had your Hog Pen matches, so not everything is going to be a slam dunk.
But between 2004-2014, what do we have? They introduced the godawful Punjabi Prison that lasted two matches, and the mess that was the Championship Scramble, which lasted three. Isn't it funny, they've got more people on the creative team than ever before, and there has been less innovation and progression in the product itself than any other point in history. The crown jewel of creativity for the last ten years, easily, is Money In The Bank.
But Money In The Bank has completely outlived it's usefulness. Somewhere between Jack Swagger and Damien Sandow winning the briefcase, or the fact that most of the midcard has held one of the two World titles and ended up back where they started after cashing in Money In The Bank, it's no longer got the potential star making ability it had for the first three years of its existence. It helped push Edge over the top. But that's really all it ever did.
This Sunday, Brock Lesnar should absolutely, without a doubt, beat John Cena for the WWE Title. There is no justifiable reason for Lesnar to lose this match. It was bad enough he lost to Cena at Extreme Rules. But this, this would be horrific. The guy that broke the Undertaker's Streak after twenty three years loses his next match? To the one guy who doesn't need it? Please, no. Of course this does beg the question of what to do with the WWE Championship. After all, Lesnar has limited dates, and only a handful of matches on his deal. Do you keep the WWE Championship off television?
I've battled with this idea, and it might turn out to be a nice, creative idea that doesn't work out logistically. The idea of a new concept taking centre stage while Paul Heyman shows up stroking the championship belt every week is pretty enticing, but a weekly product and house show circuit, as well as Pay-Per-Views to sell, all without a World Title, may well flounder.
But to go with this line of thinking, if they did put the belt on Brock, the upside is that every Lesnar match now becomes even more important than it ever has been. Triple H begins to regret his decision to give Lesnar the chance to win the title, because it shifts the power to Paul Heyman, and Brock only has to defend when he's contracted to fight. Lesnar's future title defenses can be announced well ahead of time, and television can be built around who gets the shot. Around who gets to be the guy to try and break Brock's grip on the title, bringing the belt back to the company because they're disgusted that Lesnar chooses the UFC model of "the superfight" over being there every week.
The Royal Rumble in January is a no brainer. Winner gets Brock at Mania.
But if you have Brock for the Rumble as well (as they did this year), then do something different. Remember the King Of The Ring? A former staple of the WWE's PPV calendar, this one night tournament culminated with one man standing tall, being put over for his major accomplishment. The company shied away from this idea, because historically, tournaments on Pay-Per-View aren't successful. Understandable.
So update it. Modify it. Tweak it.
You may have read on websites or heard via word of mouth over the last few weeks of the G-1 Climax, New Japan Pro Wrestling's annual tournament to determine the number one contender to the IWGP World Title. Without question the last two tournaments have been amongst the all-time best, due to the quality of the matches. But as a booking mechanism, it's perfect for the WWE, especially in a world without the WWE Champion on every show.
Two blocks of wrestlers (lets say ten per block, for argument's sake), in a round robin tournament where everybody faces everybody else in their block in one-on-one matches. 2 points per win, 1 for a draw, 0 for a loss. The two block winners face each other in the climactic final (ideally on Pay-Per-View), with the winner taking the entire tournament.
Why I think this could work is because, quite honestly, these three hour Raws are brutal. They're long, they drag, they're tedious, and while there is sometimes some good wrestling, there is VERY little consequence to any of it. Random pairings, there solely to fill time in between Network plugs and the Stephanie McMahon angles that are more important.
If you hold the tournament over ten episodes of Raw, and it becomes the focus of the promotion, every match has meaning. Every match has consequences. The chase to lead the group grows more and more tense week by week. Add the WWE element of promos from the guys talking about the importance of each match, with budding rivalries sprinkled throughout the tournament, and you've got a unique element to the product you've never had before.
The downside to the idea is the idea of repetition for ten shows, and the "pure sports" element that might turn off some who enjoy their whacky angles. And that's valid. But to me, the idea on paper of a "top babyface versus authority" angle in 2014 is brutal, and more repetitious than anything else. A guy with a Money In The Bank briefcase being foiled from cashing in has been done for years now. There is absolutely nothing fresh about Raw at all in its current form, so you really have nothing to lose, and with the production tools and storytelling capabilities WWE has at their disposal, it could make for a really fun experience.
The use of the "analysts" could become a regular part of Raw, as Renee Young breaks down the matches with the panel. And it isn't like the show has to be exclusive straight matches and no "WWE-ish" traits - you could weave an angle like the current Ambrose/Rollins feud throughout the tournament perfectly, and it would actually mean more because Ambrose would actually be costing Rollins something important when he loses.
With this idea, Raw has a meaning, it's fresh, you can elevate certain guys a little bit, and at the end, you have a fantastic challenger for Brock Lesnar and a big time title match. If the company puts all of its promotional might into making this tournament important, the finals themselves would be a big deal, let alone the winner Vs. WWE Champion Brock Lesnar, the guy that ended the streak.
Maybe it wouldn't work. But as John McClane once said, "At least I'm thinking, Goddammit!"
Hell, even if they don't do a G-1, do SOMETHING. I'm sure it's not an easy job at all, especially with the whims of Vince McMahon, the fact he drives the car no matter what, and the need to produce so much first-run content. But on the surface right now, calling them a creative team is rather magnanimous.
No comments:
Post a Comment