PWTorch.com - ASK PWTORCH STAFF for 10/19: Was Lesnar's beatdown of Cena at Summerslam really worth it? Does WWE's Wellness Policy cost them kids as fans? Was the real invasion angle in 1996 not 2001?

Ask PWTorch
ASK PWTORCH STAFF for 10/19: Was Lesnar's beatdown of Cena at Summerslam really worth it? Does WWE's Wellness Policy cost them kids as fans? Was the real invasion angle in 1996 not 2001?

Oct 19, 2014 - 9:08:43 PM

PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO BOOKMARK US & VISIT US DAILY

Pro Wrestling Torch was established in 1987 by Wade Keller. One of the primary traits PWTorch has been credited with over the years is assembling the best and most diverse staff of columnists with broad knowledge, but also areas of specialty where they have a particularly strong grasp of history. Every day PWTorch.com presents that team of writers answering your questions, some of which are fact-based and others of which are opinion-based. Either way, we've got you covered with Bruce Mitchell, Pat McNeill, Sean Radican, Greg Parks, James Caldwell, and Wade Keller. Collectively they have over 80 years working for the Torch, writing about wrestling and studying industry history and trends.

If you have a question you'd like us to respond to, send your question to askpwtorch@gmail.com. I, along with the Torch staff, will address you questions in this feature and also the “Ask PWTorch: All-Star Panel” edition which is also published most days here at PWTorch.

===

PWTorch reader Nathan M. asks: Is the "Reality Era" ill-conceived in the Wellness Policy Era? It seems that WWE's logic is that if they make a more kid-friendly show, they will pull in younger viewers and sell more merchandise sales like they did during the "Hogan Era." However, this doesn't appear to be working. The numbers show serious declines in viewership from the previous era. And during the "Hogan" era and no Wellness Policy, WWE was able to have bigger-than-life super-hero-built characters which translated well into toys and kid-friendly merchandise. Now, wrestlers are getting smaller and only a few genetic freaks (John Cena and Brock Lesnar) have that Super Hero toy-selling Look. I can't imagine that the stock holders who bought in on the "Attitude Era" are happy with the stumbles of the Reality Era.

PWTorch columnist Pat McNeill answers: The PG-rated product on WWE television has little to do with the young audience and merchandise sales. It has everything to do with attracting better advertisers. For some reason, big companies won't advertise on a program if they think the show is an affront to human decency.

The Wellness Policy is a different issue. If you haven't read the sports page in a while, professional athletes are under fire for everything from steroid abuse to spousal abuse to shoplifting, and the leagues governing pro sports are under fire for coddling a guy if he can run, jump or tackle. WWE doesn't want its wrestlers seen as a band of traveling felons, and that's understandable.

The idea that WWE can't sell merch because it's guys aren't roided up might play well with someone else, but I'm not buying it. Even if Mark Henry looks a little plump, it's not going to show up on the toy shelves. The reason WWE's characters aren't coming off as superheroes is because WWE doesn't treat most of its wrestlers like superheroes. Batman isn't out there trading wins with The Penguin every week.

As for the Reality Era, I can only echo a line from the great philosopher Michael Bluth: "Please don't call it that."

PWTorch editor Wade Keller answers: I don't even know where to begin with this one other than to say you might have irritated me more than anyone has with any single question in Ask PWTorch history.

I'll start with the term "Reality Era." This is not the reality era. As soon as Triple H uttered it, he was criticized for it by others and vowed not to use it again because, well, it just slipped out. It's a ridiculous dumb term for this era considering this era is, well, the exact opposite of reality. I don't even get the premise for how someone could consider this a reality era. I mean, yes, there was that one management-approved promo by C.M. Punk that a bunch of people thought ushered in some odd fantasyland where wrestlers would speak their minds and somehow we'd find pro wrestling shows based around wrestlers chewing out management for mismanaging their pushes would be entertaining. It's just asinine.

The term "reality era" would work under two circumstances: (a) Pro wrestling was "more real" than in the past or (b) Pro wrestling promoters presented it's product as being more real even if it wasn't any more real then in the past. Neither of these are true. Stephanie McMahon is needlessly advertising any chance she gets how "un-real" her on-air character is. We have as much cheesy juvenile comedy as we've had in years. Wrestler promos are more tightly scripted than ever. Matches are as tightly scripted as ever and are as choreographed as ever, with no "real blood" and less "real violence" than in any previous era. So the term "Reality Era" is asinine to begin with.

Second of all, the Wellness Policy doesn't exist to appeal to kids. It exists because dozens of wrestlers died. Do you understand that? Wrestlers - dozens and dozens - DIED because of a lack of testing and an industry that built in a lot of incentives to take incredibly dangerous drugs in order to keep up with their peers who were either younger than them with more energy or to get an edge on their contemporary peers and also satisfy the self-imposed "appearance standard" in the industry for main event top paid talent. The Wellness Policy exists because of media, advertiser, and government pressure to clean up an industry that for a while had more funerals than World Title changes - and that is really saying something. So let's not act like testing wrestlers for dangerous drugs is "on the table for negotiation" because it's hurting sales of wrestling t-shirts and dolls. How callous and selfish is that discussion?

Ironically, I'd argue that declining numbers are in part because WWE is all-too-eager to advertise to their audience how fake they are, practically begging their fans not to take them seriously because they're just a weekly episodic variety show with "sports entertainers" who want to "entertain you" but aren't really anything like the people you see on TV. If WWE went back to the tried and proven formula of giving people an immersive sports-like experience that, from the opening to closing credits (euphemistically speaking), acted like everything happening was real and serious and important, they'd be making more money. The size of Dolph Ziggler's arms has nothing to do with the lack of merchandise sales. It's the context in which Ziggler is presented and the haphazard way he is pushed that has doomed him and others to being less of a draw and selling less merchandise.

===

PWTorch reader Aaron P. asks: Watching the Monday Night War clips on the WWE Network made me think the 1996 NWO vs. WCW was the real invasion rather than the WWE's 2001 version. WCW seemed to do it better without even realizing that their own fans thought WWE was superior to WCW. WCW didn't realize it while WWE didn't even want to acknowledge WCW was on the same level in 2001. What do you think?

PWTorch assistant editor James Caldwell answers: Well, let's start with the WWE version of an invasion angle in 2001. It was a complete flop and doomed to fail (a) without the main WCW roster members and (b) with a half-hearted commitment from WWE. Now, going back to the mid-'90s, I don't think it was a case of WCW fans seeing WWE as superior. Going back in my own mind to how I viewed both products, they were just different. Not better, not worse, just different. I saw WCW as being more physical and wrestling-based, while WWE was more big personalities and bright colors and flashiness. They both offered something different, but both had the common denominator of big stars (Ric Flair, Sting, etc. in WCW and a rising group of Bret Hart, Kevin Nash, Shawn Michaels, Scott Hall, etc. in WWF). So, when "WWF guys" came over to WCW, it was a huge deal because it hadn't been done before on that big of a scale. It wasn't WCW fans seeing WWF as superior, but the idea of WWF's big stars joining WCW's big stars to create almost a mega-roster that woke up pro wrestling coming out of the doldrums of 1993-to-1994. Going through the 1994 PWTorch Newsletter back issues, it is almost depressing to re-live mainstream U.S. wrestling at the time, but it set up for something big starting in 1995 and 1996.

PWTorch editor Wade Keller answers: Did anyone think the 2001 Invasion was better? One succeeded, the other flopped. One was original, the other was mismanaged and a few years too late to really work (WCW as a brand was badly badly damaged and Vince McMahon didn't have the ability or interest to rebuild it). Now, was 1996's invasion "real"? No, but neither was 2001's. The 1996 invasion consisted of wrestlers under WCW contract playing out a storyline that appeared to include wrestlers coming from the outside uninvited. The 2001 storyline involved all WWF contracted wrestlers appearing to represent a brand that, well, the WWF owned by then.

===

PWTorch reader Bobby M. asks: Looking back, did they have to seemingly bury their no. 1 star at Summerslam in order to get Brock Lesnar over? I know why he had to go over; but, like that? I'm asking from a booking standpoint... why did they make Cena look so weak? What is the payoff (other than, presumably, Roman Reigns getting the rub when he knocks off Brock)?

PWTorch columnist Greg Parks answers: If there's one person who could absolutely afford to take that beating, it was John Cena. I don't think one match (against the guy who ended the Undertaker's streak, by the way) is going to all of a sudden make fans think he's a jobber. We haven't seen Cena treated like that by any opponent. It was different. That's why it worked.

PWTorch editor Wade Keller answers: It was one of the most brilliant, ballsy booking decisions I can remember, followed up by one of the cowardly follow-ups in pro wrestling booking history. It didn't make sense in retrospect because they Cena didn't sell it eight days later nor did WWE as a company get behind Lesnar in a way that took advantage of what Cena sacrificed as Summerslam. Whatever rough business stretch WWE is in the midst of now is, more than anything else, a result of the complete cowardly follow-up to Summerslam's brilliant booking. Because they botched the follow-up so bad, historically it will be seen as a bad decision to have Cena sacrifice like he did. Had WWE followed up on in in a logical manner instead of cutting bait like they did, it'd be looked back on as one of the strongest, bravest booking decisions ever revolving around two top stars.

===

Catch up on past Ask PWTorch articles...

-ASK PWTORCH - FREE WEBSITE.
-CLICKING HERE - ASK PWTORCH - VIP VERSION

********

(Send your question for PWTorch editor Wade Keller and the PWTorch staff exclusively to pwtorch@gmail.com for consideration! You can hear expanded conversation on the above topics from Wade Keller by becoming a VIP member and gaining access to the daily Wade Keller Hotline, posted every day for VIP members for over 1,000 days straight. Sign up at www.PWTorch.com/govip)