CALDWELL'S TAKE CORNER CUBE TUESDAY 4/15: Comparing WWE and TNA's Women's divisions Apr 15, 2008 - 12:26:04 PM

CLICK FOR BIO

Email This Article - Contact Us - VIP Sign-Up - Back to Home Page

|

Updated daily from the corner cubicle, Torch columnist James Caldwell's weekday blog focuses on hot topic current events and other items of interest from around wrestling.

Updated Tuesday, April 15, 2008

WWE's Women's division took a step forward last night when Mickie James captured the Women's Title. Well, at least, it appears to be a step forward. After all, WWE has started and re-started Mickie's push so many times that we don't know for certain whether the belt being around Mickie's waist will give the division any more credibility than when it was around Beth Phoenix's waist.

Looking at the top two women on Raw, Mickie and Beth haven't been featured acts in 2008. Your new Women's champion wasn't in the BunnyMania match, even after Candice Michelle pulled out with an injury. Then, there's Beth Phoenix, who lost to Maria a month ago and was a complete afterthought in the BunnyMania match.

The BunnyMania match, as the premiere divas match of the year, was a sign to the viewing audience of what WWE considers most important for their divas. WWE chose to feature the good-looking girls trying to be wrestlers (Maria, Ashley, Candice), not the good wrestlers who happen to be good-looking (Beth and Mickie). Yeah, and Melina just falls somewhere in the middle.

But on last night's Raw, WWE suddenly wanted the audience to care about the overlooked divas, Mickie and Beth. I believe it's the right move, as the law of diminishing returns says there's only so much T&A that can get over with today's audience when people can get their fill on the Internet or basic cable. WWE's task now is to re-educate the audience that solid-to-good women's wrestling is just as exciting as pillow fights and wet t-shirts.

TNA doesn't have to re-educate its audience because they established a credible women's division right off the bat. Sure, TNA has a host of interchangeable divas who found their way into the Queen of the Cage match at Lockdown, but at the end of the day, TNA has established a top tier of women's wrestlers.

There is never a question that Awesome Kong, Gail Kim, and ODB are the top knockouts. In a TNA mock draft, they'd be picked one, two, and three. (Excuse the analogy, I've read about 8,000 mock NFL drafts lately.)

Comparing Kong to Beth Phoenix, there is no question of credibility. TNA has protected Kong from Day One and she has carried her end as a believable, dominating force. Velvet Sky isn't going to score a fluke win on Kong like Maria did on Beth a month ago.

Then, the most important element is a babyface underdog taking on the monster heel. Gail Kim is a very credible wrestler and she's been protected as a top star, unlike Mickie James in the same role in WWE. Fans buy into Gail because she carries herself as a big deal, while WWE fans are still waiting for a consistent, five-to-six-week run for Mickie until they completely buy into her. There have been too many disappointments with Mickie's push to put faith in WWE to handle her new title run with care.

The variable in the mix is ODB, a credible tweener who became a fan-favorite with her off-the-wall persona that fits TNA. Raw doesn't have that x-factor like TNA. Smackdown has Victoria, who could fall into that category, but, again, WWE has limited Victoria's credibility by turning her into a comedy act complete with scuba gear.

The key is that fans have faith in how TNA will book the Knockouts division. They know what's important at the end of the day: solid wrestling. If WWE chooses to feature more credible female wrestling, they have to re-educate an audience that isn't sold on female wrestling because they've been hammered over the head with T&A as the most important factor for a decade. WWE has some catching up to do.

***

Updated Monday, April 14, 2008

I would like to think last night's main event at Lockdown was the start of a new era in TNA, with TNA presenting a more serious product in the form of Joe vs. Angle. But, we need to see more than one classic main event PPV match to get a firm read on TNA's philosophy going forward.

After all, TNA doesn't have a roster full of Angles and Joes. That's what made Joe vs. Angle special last night. That also means TNA has a dilemma on trying to present a more serious product when the majority of the roster isn't built to be serious.

If TNA desires to attract more MMA fans to the product, then TNA will struggle when the majority of their content revolves around cartoon characters, fake rockers, and comical monsters. It's an automatic turn-off for viewers who are used to 100 percent of the show being presented as serious competition.

Yet, for the pro wrestling audience, it's obvious that non-serious acts like Super Eric and Shark Boy are popular. Just ask the fans in Lowell, Mass. last night.

So, how does TNA solve this dilemma? Do they tone down the comic-relief characters? Do they re-train the wrestlers to work a more serious style like Joe vs. Angle? How does TNA try to present pro wrestling that's serious enough for MMA fans to tune in, yet doesn't turn away pro wrestling fans who seem to like the cartoon aspects to a certain degree?

I don't have an answer for this yet, as we don't have a large enough sample to draw a conclusion on how TNA is going to present the product going forward. We have one main event match from last night that followed cartoon matches, over-booked gimmick matches, and a bunch of highspots that would never take place in a pro wrestling/MMA hybrid match like Joe vs. Angle.

The follow-up question is whether a hybrid form of pro wrestling/MMA would be a ratings draw. Can TNA re-train their audience to take the action seriously when many viewers tune in expecting TNA's zany booking? Can they keep the current audience, while gaining new viewers with a more serious approach? Is there even an audience out there that will consistently tune in for TNA's version of a more serious product, which may or may not contain "worked MMA" matches?

I have a lot of unanswered questions on this. Joe vs. Angle was a special case of two of the best in the world putting together a worked match that looked and felt like a real competition. Unfortunately, there aren't too many people out there who can pull that off. TNA doesn't have the roster for it, and the key question is whether there is an audience that will tune in for "worked MMA" when the novelty of Joe vs. Angle wears off.

The compromise is simply presenting the product more seriously, yet not alienating the current audience that has loyally tuned in for TNA's often-times ridiculous product. It's difficult to find that balance, though, when TNA has cartoon characters up and down the roster who we've told aren't to be taken seriously.

Joe vs. Angle was a potential turning point, but we need to see more to evaluate the true direction of TNA's product going forward.

Comment on this Article Below

(CLICK FOR COMMENTS RULES OR TO REPORT ABUSE)

(CLICK FOR COMMENTS RULES OR TO REPORT ABUSE)

ALSO DISCUSS MORE SUBJECTS IN OUR PWTORCH FREE FORUM

For more BREAKING NEWS on WWE, TNA!
VISIT OUR AFFILIATE - PROWRESTLING.NET

For UFC NEWS & BLOGS:
VISIT OUR SISTER SITE - MMATORCH.COM

Upgrade to PWTORCH VIP: DETAILS & SIGN-UP INFO

(c) 1999-2009 TDH Communications Inc. - All rights reserved.