By Wade Keller, PWTorch editor

Bardre' Purnell asks: Hey Wade, I just wanted to ask you a question. In professional wrestling, the majority of us know what a "worked shoot" is. To be honest, I love when a storyline borders between what is real and what is fake. But when I saw the April 4th edition of Smackdown, I was a little bit unsettled by the Shawn Michaels and Batista promo. First of all it was obvious from the start that they would have some sort of encounter just because there was no other reason for Shawn to be there. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't that segment slated as Shawn Michaels coming to the ring to talk about his "mixed emotions" (how lame). I was kind of unsettled that Batista would come out and say "you couldn't lay down, huh? Cause Shawn Michaels doesn't job for anyone." I am 27 years old, and when I was a child I watched wrestling all the time. Unfortunately, I think that the majority of little kids grow up and cease to watch it. The main reason they cease to watch it is because it is staged turns them off the product. My point being is that when I watch wrestling now, I suspend disbelief and enjoy the action and appreciate the athletic ability of the performers. I occasionally like the storylines and the gimmicks that are presented (Festus is the truth). I had a problem when Shawn MIchaels lost to Hogan, and he hinted that Hogan did a lot of politicking in the back, and he doesn't do jobs. Everyone knows that wrestling is scripted, but don't throw it in my face. Not to mention, if you keep it in context with the storyline itself, Batista's position on this whole matter doesn't make any sense. In the weeks leading up to WM 24, Ric Flair seemed like a bitter old man fooling himself into thinking he could still hang with the big dogs. I love Ric and all he has done, but come on. He kept trying Shawn until he agreed to the match. Batista needs to respect the fact that Flair got beat, and just say to Shawn that it's his time to test the "Showstopper." Instead, Batista sounded like an upset little child. Shawn Michaels did what he had to do. Sorry! Let me know how you feel about my opinions and give some feedback on what you think.

I am generally dead-set against any insider references that would cause a break of the suspension of disbelief. I believe the suspension of disbelief is so important to any form of entertainment, whether it's reading a book, watching a movie or TV show, listening to a ghost story from a friend around a campfire, or watching pro wrestling. Getting absorbed into another world and buying into it emotionally is a big part of what makes any drama - serious, humorous, scary, or even absurd - effective.

I think Michaels-Batista on Smackdown probably crossed that line, but not as much as those who didn't like it are saying. Last night on ECW, G.M. Armando Estrada ordered Tommy Dreamer to wrestle Colin Delaney (an aspiring underdog runt character, in case you're not watching ECW these days). If Delaney won, he would finally get a long-term WWE contract. If Dreamer, his friend, "went soft on him," he'd be fired. Dreamer ended up winning. Had Batista presented his argument to Michaels a little more along those lines, it might have worked really well. The injection of "insider terms" that most people won't get is a waste of words because it confuses people; the use "insider terms" that break the suspension of disbelief is bad for business and, frankly, kind of stupid. There is no context on a wrestling show where a fan who understands an insider term is going to think they're seeing a "shoot." Especially on a pre-taped show where everything other than the words being used feels like a typical angle. All Batista had to say to Michaels is he's disappointed he took the match in the first place, and once he did, he wishes he had "sparred" with him for a while, but made sure when the figure-four was applied, he didn't fight quite so hard to get to the ropes. "What's one loss on your record compared to the end of the career of an all-time great?" Batista could have said.

It's not a lot different, but it's different enough in that it suggests Michaels not skate so hard to get to that loose puck, not jump so high to block that shot, not throw that perfect ball to first. I think fans would get what Batista was saying. But as I said, I think what they did on Smackdown wasn't all that far over the line.

The core problem no matter how this is handled is that fans think Flair was at the end of his career and it was probably best for him to retire. Fans are happy and satisfied with how Flair went out, and Flair seems content with it, too, despite all the shed tears. It was a perfect weekend. For Batista to somehow treat what happened WrestleMania weekend as this terrible thing is out of touch with how most fans feel, which is a sense that someone who had a great career went out on a high note in a great match against a respected opponent. If the goal wasn't to turn Batista heel, WWE will end up surprised as I just don't see a lot of fans siding with him.

I'm intrigued by the storyline because it gives both Michaels and Batista something new and off the beaten path to sink their teeth into on the mic. Their performances, although perhaps not their words, have been top notch so far. I'll take the bad with good at this point. I also am intrigued to see what Michaels can bring out in the ring against Batista. If the Flair disagreement is what it takes to get them in the ring against each other, I'm willing to endure a little unnecessary "insider" terminology.

If you have a subject you'd like me to address in a future "Ask the Editor" feature, send it to pwtorch@gmail.com.

Check out our NEW Torch Subscription Info and Sign-Up Page.

Background on Torch editor Wade Keller: Torch editor Wade Keller founded Pro Wrestling Torch in September 1987. He has been interviewed as a wrestling expert by dozens of TV and radio stations across the country; he has also been quoted in dozens of major newspapers and magazines across the world. Media entities that have featured Keller in stories covering wrestling include National Public Radio, Fox News Channel, ESPN Magazine, the New York Post, Entertainment Weekly, the All-News Channel, the Associated Press, and the Washington Post. He also hosted his own weekly two hour wrestling talk show on KFAN sport radio in the '90s. Over the past 20 years Keller has also interviewed, one-on-one, wrestling's top names for in-depth "Torch Talks" and feature articles including powerbrokers such as Vince McMahon, Eric Bischoff, Jerry Jarrett, Bill Watts, Jim Cornette, Jim Crockett, Jim Herd, Paul Heyman, Ed Ferrara, Terry Taylor, Kevin Sullivan, Jim Ross, and Vince Russo; top wrestling stars such as The Rock, Steve Austin, Kevin Nash, Mick Foley, Matt & Jeff Hardy, Rick Steamboat, Jerry Lawler, Bill Goldberg, British Bulldog, Road Warrior Hawk, Jesse Ventura, and Hulk Hogan; and legends such as Lou Thesz, Gordon Solie, Bruno Sammartino, Roy Shires, Terry Funk, and Verne Gagne. He is also host of the nationally distributed Ultimate Insiders DVD series.

We suggest these recent related articles...

ASK THE SPECIALISTS ROUNDTABLE: Who will be WWE's Next Top Star?

SATURDAY’S ASK PWTORCH STAFF for 4/11: How should WWE cater to Texas at WM32? Does WWE using Sting and Hogan add to chances more TNA wrestlers are hired? Do NXT gimmick wrestlers have a chance? Is El Generico really Sami Zayn?

THURSDAY’S ASK PWTORCH ALL-STARS 4/9: Are El Generico & Sami Zayn the same person? Next MITB cash-in for IC or U.S. belt? What match do you show non-fans so they get it? Why don’t heel teams cheat?