lazorbeak

Morrison has been amazing for awhile now. I would love to see a Morrison/Punk or Morrison/Miz headlined pay per view in the next six months. Yes he has downsides, some of the same downsides that kept Jeff Hardy from reaching the top for so long (fortunately he doesn't have Hardy's personal issues), but I think Hardy in 2009 proved there's room for a new top guy every now and again, even one with limited promo skills. I think he'd be an awesome short-term champ in the summer.

Actually he's not really making many assumptions, he's making pretty decent counter-points. I think you both make good points. Love isn't a star and will never be successful if he's the #1 or even the #2 most talented guy on his team, but he is very good at one thing the Heat could use help in and stretches the floor. It doesn't solve their post woes completely, but I agree that at this point Love would be an upgrade. The Heat still need a Ben Wallace type (the real Ben is probably too run-down) that can lock down people in the half court game; I just don't think Joel Anthony is big enough or good enough to be that guy, and their losses to teams with half court low post games tend to bear that out. I mean right now I'd take the Bulls over the Heat in a 7 game series: they've got defensive stoppers like Deng and Brewer on the wing, plus Noah (eventually) and Boozer in the post. I mean I don't think there's a real question as to whether Wade and LeBron are more talented than Rose (they are), but the Bulls have a well-built squad with role players and some depth, while the Heat have two of the best players in the league and a bunch of 3 point shooters. And Chris Bosh.

Not sure if Behrens was just given the promoter side of this, but he comes off pretty idiotic with the old standby "nobody is forcing anyone to book TNA talent." TNA just sounds like an absolutely awful place to work. They don't pay the way WWE does and at the same time they insert themselves into any 3rd party contracts with their "independent contractors" (which is legally questionable and ethically repugnant), with the end result being that their talent is limited in what they can do and where they can go, while not being paid a real wage. It's no wonder their midcard champions end up being recognized at the Sunglasses Hut. As the situation stands, if I was an indy wrestler I'd be way more interested in getting onto ROH's roster. While you may not be as recognizable when working other indy dates, you can at least retain some control over your brand.

I've mentioned this at least once before, but Rock owns his name rights and has for some time. Vince stopped getting executive producer credits way back in 2005's Be Cool, despite Rock continuing to use that name and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson for several years. He started going by the hybrid and then the Dwayne Johnson name because while "The Rock" remains a somewhat viable action movie brand name (despite action movies no longer being the box office draws they once were), Dwayne Johnson could make family films or Get Smart or Witch Mountain without being solely associated with the negative stigma of being a wrassler. jbergey: I definitely agree with you that the 90's are not identical in all ways to the current situation. But my point is you have the advantage of hindsight over the 90's. While it was happening, the perception was that WWF was in trouble, because they had lost all their proven draws. And nobody could have predicted in 1996 that the Ringmaster would be one of the all-time greats or that Rocky Maivia would be going over Hogan at Wrestlemania within 6 years' time. The biggest problem though is that as you say, all of WWF's big stars (except the Rock), gained significant experience elsewhere. The industry in general was far healthier so you had a lot of guys who worked up the ranks by gaining experience in smaller promotions, including WCW in the early 90's when it was a distant #2. Now, even if Sheamus or Jack Swagger have the potential to be big names, they lack the years of experience that any midcarder in WWE would've possessed as recently as 12 years ago.

Exactly. It gets her over with the crowd so that they want to see her do something without exposing her limitations.

I just don't understand the mindset of anyone who can't think of a place for a giant woman on television. That has the potential to be so over that even if it's a failure that makes sense. I haven't seen her work, but if she can't wrestle, don't have her wrestle. The crowd resents people pushed beyond their ability, but they also love freaks. As Self said, once Khali stopped going after belts the crowds loved him. Just have her manage somebody important (read: no one in the x-division). Hell, put her with one of the Hardyz. Or Dinero. There's no shortage of heels in TNA that could use muscular back-up. She doesn't have to do anything but stand in the background with her arms crossed during promos and angles, and then have one to two spots per match, and assuming she's still training, by the time she's ready to go off on her own she will already be hugely over. It worked for Chyna, but it also worked for Diesel, Batista, and everybody else who got over as a silent bodyguard. But there's always a place for marginally talented folks when they look like they could genuinely hurt somebody.

I don't agree with this at all. With the right story and the right talent, you can make a CM Punk or The Miz into a "megastar" type guy. I mean WWF in 1996-97 had lost nearly every proven main event draw they had ever had, and were left with a couple of excellent workers the casual fans never showed any interest in. But in 1998, despite losing both of those workers to injury and screwjobs, WWF had a banner year and suddenly caught mainstream attention. But if you had told those casual fans in 1996 that they would pay to see Steve Austin or Rocky Maivia wrestle anybody, they would've looked at you like you were crazy. Those guys caught fire because there was a big power vacuum and they stepped in and filled it with their ability to connect with the crowd along with a compelling story. There's no reason to think that the casual fan will never be interested again or that no one will ever come along that connects with fans to the same extent. Just look at WCW: their main event was full of proven draws. But by 1998, there was enough fatigue with all of them that Goldberg became the hottest act they had. Granted they completely botched it, but they took a guy that nobody had ever heard of and made him a top draw in less than a year, and this was in an absolutely loaded roster. One of the biggest problems with WWE today is they can't/won't build babyfaces like that anymore. You take a guy like Ezekiel Jackson and put him on TV every week, just destroying people, and he'd get over. Would he be the next Goldberg or the next Glacier? I guess you wouldn't know until you actually tried to get him over.

Just re-read some of Hardy's commentaries from 2005. It really shows the incredible immaturity of wrestling fans that they cheered for this loser and wanted him back. He did whatever he can to stay in the wrestling media, generally talking a bunch of **** about his ex that betrayed him and how she "reported back" to Edge, while he "reported back" to absolutely anyone that would listen. Everyone betray him! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okaNIRTXvV0

It was rational to run to the media and get himself fired, then try to drum up sympathy for months only to go back into a slightly increased role six months down the road? We have very different definitions of "rational." He constantly fed the story and made himself into a victim if not a hero for "intercepting" secret text messages. AKA he went through her phone and found something, and his sense of betrayal was so strong that in his grief he started using his WWE-sponsored blog to talk about his real life personal issues until he got fired. I mean remember the time Savage and Elizabeth broke up and Savage responded by whining to every media outlet who would listen about how wronged he was? No? Yes, getting yourself fired because your "soul mate" cheated on you while you were not on the road together is a pretty immature thing to do. And Matt has shown multiple times since then how exactly in character that is for him.

Is that what he was trying to say? I guess I thought he was making some point about staleness. Also I hate that example because he framed it like WWE management cut Hardy loose because Lita slept with Edge, not because Hardy is an incredibly insecure crybaby who went to the wrestling media (such as it is) drawing attention to himself as someone who had been wronged. And it still didn't get him over as a solo star, it just made Edge a better heel.

Honestly I don't agree that he's stale. Now that he's not doing marine salutes and wrestling for the title every week, he's been able to demonstrate why he's the best and most valuable babyface the company has. He carried the majority of the Nexus feud in a storyline that only obliquely had anything to do with the belt, and it ended up being probably the biggest storyline of the year. But your point about people for heel Cena to feud with just re-enforces my position, namely: there is nobody worth seeing him feud with if he turned heel. There are no other strong babyfaces on Raw right now in a position to work with him, and he's worked with Edge and Orton a billion times. I mean do we finally get the return feud of Cena/Big Show that we've all been clamoring for? Also, how is the Lita situation similar at all? Lita wasn't stale, she cheated on her insecure, drama queen, marginally talented boyfriend, he got fired for being an insecure drama queen (the scar will become the symbol!), and she got heat for it. Which happened after a solid year of working with Trish where Trish was the heel. I guess I'm not sure what the two things have in common.

How would that be "smart"? Cena is the #1 babyface on the main roster. If Cena turned and feuded with the Rock, what does he do after Wrestlemania? Does he feud with Orton or Edge, the current #2 and #3 babyfaces? The guys he's worked hundreds of matches with over the past five years? The Undertaker is the only name I can think of he could work with that he doesn't already have extensive history with. But even if you do Cena vs. Triple H, Cena vs. Undertaker, Cena vs. the Attitude era as a program that lasts until, say, Summerslam, you still have a pretty major problem: WWE doesn't have any babyfaces as good as John Cena. Orton isn't a great talker, so as the #2 face he doesn't have to come out and cut 10 minute live promos: does anyone see him being particularly successful at it if he was made the de facto top babyface? Who carries the brand as the top face if Cena is heel? Triple H? Edge? Some other 40 year old who works better as a heel? And if it's a new guy, who? John Morrison's a great athlete but WWE doesn't trust him with a live mic, Daniel Bryan is an amazing wrestler but he isn't a natural on the mic and doesn't have the look WWE crowds expect out of their top names. Do you turn Miz babyface or something? That's about the only option I can think of, and it doesn't make much sense, as his heel run is one of the freshest things WWE has right now. I just don't see how turning your franchise babyface is suddenly a good idea because a guy that hasn't been part of the main roster in more than 5 years trash-talked him. I mean there's already a shortage of good babyfaces on WWE right now, so I don't see why turning your best babyface is a particularly good idea.

Yeah his offense is significantly better than Garnett's or Duncan's, but those guys anchor their team in the 4th quarter and allow their guards to be more aggressive because they know they've got somebody altering shots if their man gets past them. For a guy with Bosh's athleticism and length, it's pathetic how bad a defensive player he is. I mean he's two inches longer and 20 pounds heavier than Tayshaun Prince, and two inches taller and 10 pounds heavier than Andrei Kirilenko, but those guys actually play defense on the wing and in the post far better than Bosh. I mean as a #3 scoring option he is great, and it's a luxury to have a 4 who can take the 18 footer or the 3-pointer in addition to the low post shot, but a championship team needs somebody willing to bang in the middle, and Bosh is not that guy, and neither is LeBron. Both of them should be significantly better interior defenders than they are. LeBron needs to wake up and realize that at 6'8, 250 pounds he can play 4-5 on defense. Ben Wallace is listed as one inch taller and 10 pounds lighter. There's no excuse except he doesn't like doing it, so he doesn't.

Bosh?!? The guy averaging less than 20 pounds and 10 rebounds? The guy who has less blocks this season than his guard teammate Dwayne Wade? If anything, playing with two true superstars has shown how far from being a true superstar Bosh still is. He's an effective offensive player, a decent rebounder, and... that's it. Compare that to KG, who has a huge impact on the defensive end, Love, who is a far better rebounder, Amare, who is a far more aggressive scorer. I'd say Rose is ahead of 'Melo, too, although it's close. I'd say both are definitely top 15 and probably top 10 players, but going beyond that is pushing it.

Well, he's at least in the conversation as the #3 point guard in the league, along with Paul, Westbrook, Nash, Rondo (when healthy), and Williams. Unfortunately that doesn't take into account guys like LeBron and Wade, Dwight Howard, Kevin Durant, Kobe, and more. Rose is definitely improving every year, but the only category he leads all point guards in is points. He's 10th in assists per game, 37th in assists to turnover, and 52nd in steals per game. If he shored up on defense and limited his turnovers, he could be a top 3 player, but I don't see it right now.

You mean you wouldn't apply it to Nintendo's Wii campaign, Raiders owner Al Davis, Lakers role player Luke Walton, or Wesley Crusher? Aren't these textbook examples? I guess you don't write for TVtropes. Also, I agree with you.

Hey guys, anybody else notice WWE's product stinks now? They should go back to the way it was when I was a kid!

Both sides have used evidence to make their cases; it's constructing an argument. Anyway, I feel like my point has been made and expanded on to the point where I'd be pretty happy if we could move on with using this thread to complain about WWE's horrible mis-use of talent or how their product stinks now because it's not the same as it was when you were a kid. In conclusion, even if you believe one of the myriad definitions of the term "X-Pac heat," I'm not sure that it's a particularly useful distinction, and I'm not exactly the only one. Some other cogent points:

But that's not X-Pac heat. I mean, that wasn't even heat, as it's usually defined, more like "dead heat." Instead of reacting to Buff Bagwell the heel, the crowd just chanted "boring" whenever he was in control. And since Booker at that time had attacked WWF guys, he was a heel too, so the crowd didn't pop when he fought back. Plus it went on for way, way too long. That is totally different from X-Pac getting loud, negative reactions when he hit his signature moves, or getting "X-Pac sucks" chants directed at him when he was on-screen. Even if you believe the "crowd genuinely hated him, he was so stale" arguments, they were still booing Sean Waltman, not just complaining that what they were watching sucked. This is what I mean by the expression being useless. Batista/Big Show on ECW, Lesnar/Goldberg at Wrestlemania, Trump/Rosie on Raw, these aren't "X-Pac heat" as it's generally defined, they're just train-wrecks that didn't go over with the crowd. But if people use the term interchangeably, does it have any meaning or usefulness?

I read some wrestling vet's commentaries (Lance Storm maybe), who talked about getting heat post-kayfabe, and they talked about JBL. The guy had never been anything other than a decent midcarder, but he lets out aspects of his personality fans are sure to hate and are publicly available (he's a financial consultant, he is conservative), combined with the fair or not impression that behind the scenes that he was a "bully" or difficult to work with, and he went from being an afterthought to being an extremely over heel. I hated when he beat Eddie Guerrero, but he was a heel, and being hated was his job. So even if some of the fans were booing JBL because they didn't like the person, that's still real heat, in fact, I'd argue that's better heat than the standard post-kayfabe heat, where somebody like Jericho gets booed but a fraction of the crowd loves him and thinks he's the best ever. I mean before kayfabe, every heel had what you could now describe as "X-Pac heat," because the fans hated the person, not the gimmick, as they rarely saw a difference between them. The Lance Storm article, which also singles out Edge and the Mr. McMahon character, as well as Jericho's last heel run: http://www.stormwrestling.com/010111.html

Can you show me anything even approaching evidence of this though, or is it just that you didn't like it, and five friends didn't like it, and that meant that ratings were dropping like they were hot? As Self said, he had real heat in the Rumble, more than the majority of the roster. Shocking that somebody did the exact same thing I did and came to the same conclusions! The more I looked at the term, the less useful it appears to be.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="ampulator" data-cite="ampulator" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> You think it's a made up term when it's applied to anyone other than X-Pac. In that case, you are correct. But applied to X-Pac himself, it was true. He had "change-the-channel" or "go-away" heat. He was getitng stale (and when you thought Cena was stale...). he had been "X-Pac" since his Syxx days. He hadn't had a gimmick change. He was always doing the same things. Almost every match was the same thing. That wasn't the worst part, though. They tried to push him beyond his abilities. And it clearly, clearly, did not work. X-Pac was boring, but in aggravating way. He wasn't improving. I know he had neck issues, which is why he abandoned his high-flying style, but he never, ever made up for it through improving in other areas. Jushin Liger slowly went from being a high flyer to having a more solid technical base. Steve Austin went from an athletic blonde to a being a bad ass trash talker. X-Pac did change, but he regressed, and never made up for it. </p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> If it's just one guy then I'm still not sure how it's in any way a meaningful distinction, and while I definitely agree he was pushed beyond his abilities, he had heat his whole run. Maybe some fans did want him to just go but do you think the live crowd wouldn't react if a babyface took him down? </p><p> </p><p> I do remember raising an eyebrow during the McMahon/Helmsley era when Triple H was reluctant to face X-Pac, saying that Pac was "just as good" as him. Of course, it was all a ruse to fake dissension so DX could win an 8 man tag later in the night, and all was right with the world.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="ampulator" data-cite="ampulator" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>You don't get my full point. I like Vickie. But I also, unlike you, recgonize that her mic skills aren't up to par, even if she's one most effective heels, right now, (I would say ever). She's actually a more effective heel than Eric is... before she even opens her mouth, the crowd boos as loud as they can because they can't stand hear her voice and dreads hearing her talk. And she speaks, they boo louder. But she doesn't have a lot of mic skill. And it doesn't matter, because she's already so effective as a heel. But the fact she's a good heel DESPITE not having a lot of mic skill is true, whether you like to admit that or not.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> What par? The crowd boos her because she's over, that's what matters. And how did she get so over? It wasn't her dominant winning streak. </p><p> </p><p> It's just hilarious to me that on the one hand so-called "smart marks" can lament that everything is too cookie cutter, everything is the same, I am le bored by all of it, and then when something is different and gets over, it's over <em>in spite</em> of its difference, not because of it. Vickie can't be over because she's good at what she does. She's over even though she's bad at what she does. How does that make sense?</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="ampulator" data-cite="ampulator" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>And X-Pac heat is not made up. It's real. People hated seeing him after while. But that's another story altogether... </div></blockquote><p> </p><p> No, it's not. Can you show me any evidence of its existence other than its presence in smart mark lexicons? Has anyone in the industry ever talked about it, or even acknowledged it? I've read it explained in different terms and none of them have ever been satisfactory. WWE has access to ratings breakdowns and has for years: do you really think they'd push someone with "change the channel" heat? And if it's the definition where they don't like the person, isn't that exactly what Edge used to finally pull himself into the main event? Under either definition it's a completely unnecessary distinction. Basically "X-Pac heat" is when a small percentage of ultra smart marks decide they don't like somebody so they can't possibly actually be over.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="ampulator" data-cite="ampulator" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Actually, I disagree, but only in half. She's a better heel... but her mic skills are terrible, and she lacks charisma. <p> </p><p> It's not the same as "Vince-hate" or "eric-hate". You want to see Vince get his ass kicked. Heck, you'll pay to see Vince to get his ass kicked as much as you would want to pay to see Austin vs the Rock. </p><p> </p><p> For some people, (not me, actually), people don't want to see Vickie, period. And in that, she's actually a much more effective heel. But she makes people change the channel or turn the TV off, that's the kind of heat she gets. I actually don't have much her problem with her (except she's too screechy... tone it down, sheesh), but vince and Eric have that "it" she doesn't has, the "it" where you would want to pay $2000 for 4 minutes of them getting their kicked in or their face smashed in by a baseball bat. That's the kind of heat they generated. Vickie just wants to make some people turn the TV off. that's a no-no. </p><p> </p><p> I don't have a problem with her, but I can understand why some people will. Maybe it's similar to how I feel about X-Pac?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> This is completely false. Vickie is one of the most hated heels on the roster, and has been for some time. Talking about her "mic skills" and "charisma" ignore the fact that she was able to use said skills to get ginormously hated as a heel. So she must be doing something right.</p><p> </p><p> I mean look at any time she appears in front of a live crowd and gets bigger heat than anyone else on the roster. And yes, that is the same type of heat Bischoff had.</p><p> </p><p> X-Pac heat is a completely made up term. If somebody actually dropped ratings or hurt attendance, WWE wouldn't push them. And they wouldn't get huge reactions from crowds the way Vickie does on a weekly basis.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Self" data-cite="Self" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I don't think he's as bulletproof as he used to be. For a time he was a hot heel on the verge of a super-hot babyface turn. "Next Stone Cold" they said, and when you've got Steve Austin 2.0 you can easily overlook the dude taking a dump in a bag or three. However, he turned and... He's not that level. He's popular, but he didn't become mainstream-massive, and most importantly, he didn't overtake John Cena. I figure his value to the company has gone down because of that. From invaluable to merely important. <p> </p><p> Still, people like his work, so I'm not expecting him to be fired for a looooong time. The Punk thing was an accident, probably an isolated incident.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> But there hasn't been an Orton behavior story in over 4 years, far, <em>far</em> before he became the #2 babyface in the company. And I don't believe anybody in the business has said Orton is the next Austin ever, let alone way back in 2004 when he was being accused of harassing diva search contestants. </p><p> </p><p> He's still valuable and I think anybody that thought he'd be the top guy in the company hasn't heard him much on the mic, but my earlier point stands: that WWE has let go of plenty of name guys because their attitudes weren't good, while they have kept Randy Orton continuously on the roster for a decade.</p>