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 Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Raw ended with a lights-out finish to the main event. ECW ended with the announcers walking off the set. I'm just going to assume Smackdown ends with Vickie Guerrero firing every referee and booking Batista vs. Undertaker in a match that simply never ends, or Mick Foley holding the show hostage with a Mr. Socko puppet show/reading hour. Those are the only logical conclusions for this week's pattern.

Looking at last night's ECW, apparently the equation that was on the other side of Matt Striker's blackboard was Mike Adamle angle > ECW brand. Week 1 was establishing the terribleness of Adamle. Week 2 reinforced Adamle's terribleness, while absolutely nothing happened on the show. Week 3 (last night) was about as uneventful and drab a show as I've seen as a long time, which concluded with the big worked shoot of Adamle clocking out 15 minutes early.

Look at this. WWE laid out a great three-week program to set up the next stage of Adamle's terribleness. Will Tazz call him on the air with Adamle refusing to answer the phone to come back to work? Will he show up for work, but refuse to walk out on camera? Maybe he'll even be talked into sitting at the broadcast position, but he won't utter one word, leaving Tazz to call the whole show.

The intrigue for whether ECW's new play-by-play guy shows up for work next week is amazing! Think of the possibilities. An entire show devoted to the conflicted Mike Adamle. He's frustrated by the screaming in his headset. He's tired of people writing about the terribleness. He's upset. He's torn. What will happen next?

Considering how little thought appears to have been devoted to the actual wrestling storylines on ECW's show last night, I'll take a reality show on Adamle's terribleness if this is the effort WWE is going to put into building up the wrestlers on this brand.

I'm still trying to figure out what in the world WWE was doing with C.M. Punk and Chuck Palumbo last night. Raise your hand if you want to see a Punk vs. Palumbo program. OK, not every one at once!

There was absolutely no reason to start this program with Palumbo punking out Punk (excuse the pun) one week after Punk had a great match against Edge on Smackdown that gave him tremendous momentum going forward. That was completely asinine. And if that's WWE's idea of featuring the top act on the brand, then screw it. Book an hour of the Adamle Reality Hour where it's Adamle vs. the English language applied to wrestling.

Right now, ECW has no identity. Chavo Guerrero is the default top heel, but no one takes him seriously as a threat to ECW champion Kane. The presentation of last night's main event wasn't even "different" enough to be intriguing, with the silence from the announce set overshadowing anything happening in the ring. You need a salesperson to sell a bad wrestling show. The product can't just sit there and sell itself because WWE hasn't put enough quality effort into the product lately.

The irony of the Adamle Angle is that WWE stumbled upon a great three-week formula to develop some personality for wrestlers on the roster. Here's a situation. Wrestler A keeps stumbling over himself Week 1. He loses, but wants to try it again. Week 2, he stumbles over himself again and loses. He wants to try it again Week 3, but he starts to suck again, so he walks out of the ring. Bam, fight or flight Week 4. Basic character development that's similar to what they were starting to do with Shelton Benjamin a few months ago when he couldn't beat Kane before they sent Shelton back to doing, well, nothing.

Right now, WWE is putting effort into building a program around a terrible announcer. Sure, it's intriguing to see what Week 4 brings, and sure, last night's angle is going to generate plenty of talk, just like the end of Raw.

But, unless there's a major payoff that swings the focus back to the actual wrestlers and building them up for future PPV matches, then it's a fruitless experiment when WWE should be focused on building up the wrestlers on the roster. I'm just hoping WWE finds a way to make this Adamle Angle benefit the wrestlers who have worked hard without anything to show for their efforts if this is where WWE has arrived 99 episodes into ECW on Sci-Fi.

***

Updated Tuesday, April 29, 2008

The end of last night's Raw has generated plenty of talk and debate, which is exactly what WWE wanted. At least it's talk that could lead to something tangible for business. We received plenty of reader feedback weighing in on both sides of the argument so I'll break down the general pros and cons of how WWE concluded last night's Raw.

- Pro: Even if people weren't tuned in for the conclusion of Raw, they certainly heard about it or will hear about it in time for Raw next week. WWE has a built-in audience for the first quarter-hour of Raw next week to see how WWE tells the story of the end of the match.

Because WWE will have the audience at least paying attention, they have an opportunity to regain some viewers if they have a fantastic idea in mind for the payoff. If the payoff is a disappointment, similar to the big reveal of Hornswoggle as Vince's son, then this trick will turn off viewers who might be willing to give WWE another chance to on a tricky angle.

The payoff will certainly involve William Regal, who has tremendous momentum after winning the King of the Ring tournament and showing toughness against Mr. Kennedy on last night's show. If WWE has a great idea in mind for Regal as one of the centerpieces of the show, with this representing the start of increased exposure for Regal, then the payoff could be worth one controversial finish. We know Regal is more than capable of pulling off solid performances each week, so it's up to WWE to win over viewers who disliked the finish.

- Con: The problem with the conclusion of the match is that the heel challenger was in jeopardy. WWE had the roles reversed when it should have been Triple H in jeopardy of not only losing, but also losing the WWE Title. Since the hero wasn't in peril and the belt wasn't in jeopardy of changing hands, the intrigue for finding out the result was reduced.

Also, for many people with a certain personality-type, the match was more frustrating than intriguing. I can speak to that because I have the mindset that I absolutely must see the conclusion of matches or sports games. I can't just turn off the TV during a 20-point blow-out in an NBA game. Maybe there will be a fight or something amazing that will happen even if the game is practically over with a lopsided score. So, I've spent many a late night watching NBA playoffs basketball because I simply cannot turn off the TV until the game has concluded.

This is the long-term damage department where viewers with similar personalities might tune out next time WWE advertises a PPV-quality match on free TV, because in the back of their minds they'll remember this match and doubt will creep in that WWE will provide a legit finish. Those viewers won't want to wrap themselves up in the emotions of the match again just in case WWE pulls the rug out from under them.

- Conclusion: WWE needs to be careful with the follow-up and deliver a good payoff for viewers who invested 22 minutes of their lives in a match that didn't end. Sure, most viewers have short-term memory and they'll slowly return even if the payoff sucks, but over time, the long-term damage will be felt next time WWE digs into the bag of tricks. People care about this because they're talking about it, but people will stop caring if WWE doesn't deliver. WWE can't afford to lose the viewers who are still tuning in these days.

***

Updated Monday, April 28, 2008

On the PPV where Triple H won the WWE Title after a lengthy quest to regain the belt, a serious tone was set for the Backlash PPV before the first match even started. I don't believe that's a coincidence.

That tone was the formal ring introductions for MVP vs. Matt Hardy for the U.S. Title. It seemed like no big deal at the time, but it added to the drama of the match and established the serious nature of the PPV, which was then carried out through the rest of the show.

The show followed the template established by TNA with their Joe vs. Angle build-up at Lockdown. I'm sure there are folks who were paying attention to that, or it could be that WWE simply decided to take a more serious approach to the PPV. Regardless, Triple H's title victory will be remembered hand-in-hand with that approach.

It started at the King of the Ring tournament on Monday when the majority of the matches featured clean finishes. William Regal captured the crown using his submission finisher after using a more aggressive mat-based attack that looked more realistic than what we're used to seeing on Raw.

It carried over to Smackdown when C.M. Punk and Edge wrestled a fantastic TV match that featured a clean finish, but gave Punk serious points for hanging with the #1 Contender to the World Title.

The KOTR tone carried over to the PPV where Shawn Michaels used a variety of submission holds and a mat-based attack on Batista. Randy Orton was determined to get people to buy into one of his three holds with the extended reverse chinlock on Hunter. Undertaker effectively incorporated his MMA-inspired attacks. Even Khali tried to bust out some submissions, but even if they put the audience to sleep, it fit the tone of the show.

It remains to be seen whether this was the start of a new approach to presenting the WWE product. WWE has the talent at the top of the card to pull it off, but it will take dedication from WWE management when ratings don't initially reflect a desire from some fans to see a more serious approach. WWE has shortened the attention span of their audience with the funny ha-hah stuff over the years that trying to get them to buy into serious TV wrestling will be a tough task.

Certainly, WWE doesn't need to do-away with the mid-card acts that add a lighter fare to the show. Balance is key, and filling in the gaps between the serious content creates a more watchable product for all fans.

But, the takeaway is that WWE can draw a more quality viewer than just accumulate a number of viewers who will tune in for the b.s. wrestling, but never spend a dime on a PPV. WWE taking a more serious approach means quality viewers over quantity of viewers. I believe that's the right approach, even if TV viewership takes a hit.

If WWE only draws 4.5 million TV viewers doing a majority of serious wrestling, but they get 300,000 buys for an off-brand PPV, that's better than drawing 5.0 million TV viewers for a majority of comedy ha-hah and only drawing 250,000 buys.

Doing serious wrestling will alienate a portion of the audience thanks to WWE's short-term thinking over the years with heavy reliance on comedy ha-hah (e.g. 2006 with DX vs. Spirit Squad) at the top of the card.

But, if there's ever a time to start fresh, now is the time, especially with Triple H as new champion after Regal set the course of action on Raw and Joe vs. Angle established the template earlier this month at Lockdown.

Send feedback on this article to pwtorch@gmail.com and we'll regularly publish reader feedback in the "Torch Feedback" category on the Main Listing.

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

For UFC & MMA 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.