411 Fact or Fiction 10.15.09: Bound for Glory, WWE vs. UFC, World Title Changes and More!

1. The amount of title changes the WWE has had amongst the World Titles this year is devaluing the belts.

Mathew Sforcina: FACT. Although the title changes aren’t so much the cause as the symptom. The terrible, short sighted booking is the real culprit, although that’s not automatically apparent. What is apparent to anyone is that the belts are bouncing around a lot, which is supposed to allow everyone to look equal and create lots of stars is just making everyone look bad, and hence devaluing the belts.

Scott Slimmer: FACT. While it is true that World Championships are a tool that can be used to give credibility to wrestlers, it is also true that the wrestlers holding those championships must be able to give credibility back to the championships as well. When champions are made to look weak or unqualified, then their championships lose prestige by association. And when title changes occur as frequently as they have in WWE during the past year, then the impression can be created that the champions in question may not have deserved to hold those belts in the first place. If a champion loses a title only three weeks (or five minutes) after winning it, did he really deserve to win it in the first place? Or was his win just a fluke? And what kind of championship gets tossed about like a hot potato from one flash in the pan champion to another? Long title reigns make champions seem as though they really are the best there is at what they do, and that is what a championship is meant to signify. I’m not saying that we need the kind of multi-year title reigns enjoyed by Lou Thesz, Dory Funk Jr., Bruno Sammartino, Bob Backlund, and Hulk Hogan. In fact, those kind of epic title reigns would almost certainly become boring and tedious in the eyes of modern professional wrestling fans. But I would love to see the kind of lengthy reigns enjoyed by John “Bradshaw” Layfield, John Cena, and even our dearly departed Paul London & Brian Kendrick. Because longer championship reigns lead to credible champions and prestigious championships.

Score: 1 for 1

2. Booker T would be able to find more success in the WWE at this point in his career than he would in TNA.

Mathew Sforcina: FICTION. He’d achieve about the same, given how he left WWE and his current attitude. If the question was who needs him more, or who’d have more success using him, then TNA would win. But personal success? He’s going to be an upper-mid card vet in either company.

Scott Slimmer: FICTION. Booker T has had a remarkably successfully career in the professional wrestling / sports entertainment industry, but the simple fact of the matter is that he is now an aging veteran whose best days are behind him. While WWE and TNA both have their fair share of wrestlers in the twilight of their careers, I would argue that the two promotions approach the recruitment and use of such veterans in very different ways. The majority of WWE’s veterans have been with the company for at least a decade (with a few getting closer to two decades), and most of the veterans that remain on the roster are there because they can still entertain the fans, either in the ring or out of it (and in some cases, both). Yes, the Undertaker has lost a step (and maybe a hip), but you can’t deny the fact that the fans still blow the roof off the place when that gong tolls. On the other hand, TNA has a history of seeking out established veterans who made their name in other promotions, and it often seems as though TNA is using these proven commodities for their name rather than their current ability. Given that Booker T is past his prime and not a “WWE 4 Life” kind of guy such as the Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, and Triple H, I simply think that he stands a better chance of being featured prominently in TNA rather than in WWE. Is it possible that any success he finds in TNA would be for the wrong reasons? Absolutely. But I’m simply not sure he could find any real success in WWE, be it for the right or wrong reasons.

Score: 2 for 2

3. Renaming No Way Out “Elimination Chamber” is a silly move that won’t do the company any good.

Mathew Sforcina: FACT. Fact fact fact fact fact X Infinity. It’s a bloody stupid name, the old one worked, stupid stupid stupid. I don’t care if I sound childish, it’s bloody stupid!

Scott Slimmer: FACT. I appreciate the value of branding in marketing, so I understand the reasoning behind WWE’s decision to use the name “Elimination Chamber” in order to highlight the uniqueness of their February pay-per-view. However, my contention is that the use of the name “Elimination Chamber” for both a specific type of match and a specific pay-per-view featuring that type of match actually devalues the match and the pay-per-view by creating confusion about the meaning of the term. This is precisely what happened during the build to the “Hell in a Cell” pay-per-view when WWE’s commentators consistently tripped over the distinction between whether rival competitors would meet in Hell in a Cell (i.e., the match) or at Hell in a Cell (i.e., the pay-per-view). I’m sure that more than a few fans were puzzled when the Cell didn’t lower around John Morrison and Dolph Ziggler. The name “Hell in a Cell” used to bring to mind a singular vision of a monstrous steel behemoth, but now that image is obscured because the name also refers to one of the many pay-per-view events WWE produces during the course of the year. It’s just difficult for me to envision a scenario in which a wrestling fan wouldn’t pay to see two Elimination Chamber matches at No Way Out but would gladly pay to see two Elimination Chamber matches at Elimination Chamber. But on the other hand, it will be fun to watch the IWC explode when WWE holds a pay-per-view called “War Games” and then fails to feature an actual War Games match…

Score: 3 for 3

4. Putting the X-Division Championship on the Amazing Red due to interference from Bobby Lashley isn’t doing the title any favors.

Mathew Sforcina: FICTION. While a clean win would have been nice, the belt had no business being caught up in the Joe/Lashley thing, so it had to be moved. Now that Red has it, the belt can be seen as a prize to be fought for, not a sidenote. The method was bad, but the move was good.

Scott Slimmer: FACT. I’ve said it before, and I’ll probably have to say it again, but TNA’s bastardization of the X-Division Championship is a shame considering that there was a time not so long ago when the X-Division Championship was the most important title in North America. Yes, you read that correctly, and yes, I absolutely meant it. When AJ Styles, Christopher Daniels, and Samoa Joe were feuding over the X-Division Championship in late 2005 and early 2006, that belt came to symbolize both the potential of the next generation of wrestlers to be major stars in the industry and the potential of TNA to actually showcase rising stars in a way that clearly made them unique from WWE. But now the X-Division Championship is being held by a jobber because it was used as nothing more than a prop to set up a feud that doesn’t have anything to do with the title in question. The way to rebuild the prestige of the X-Division is to consistently allow the phenomenal stars of the X-Division to put on the kind of matches that only they can. Don’t make the X-Division Championship a joke, don’t make it an afterthought, and don’t make it a consolation prize. Just make is a symbol of excellence for the incredibly talented wrestlers who are still proud to call themselves part of the X-Division. In the era of sports entertainment, just let us have one championship that’s actually rewards a wrestler’s ability to consistently give us the kind of high quality, high flying, high octane spectacles that we all know the stars of the X-Division can produce.

Score: 3 for 4

SWITCH!

5. Vince McMahon is absolutely right when he says the WWE can’t compete with the UFC and should therefore be producing a “more sophisticated” product.

Scott Slimmer: FICTION. I completely agree with Vince McMahon when he says that WWE can’t compete with UFC. In fact, I’d go even further and say that WWE shouldn’t compete with UFC, because they are two completely different forms of entertainment. One is sport, and one is theatre. There are some people, myself included, who enjoy both WWE and UFC, but there are many others who may only enjoy one or the other. Was Field of Dreams competing with Major League Baseball, or were they both just presenting two different sides of the same coin in very different ways? So yes, up to a point I agree with Mr. McMahon. But when he suggests that WWE is therefore producing a “more sophisticated” product than UFC, I have to question not only his vocabulary, but also his sanity. Sophisticated? Really? Monday night on Raw, I saw a joke about a small man pitching and a large man catching, a midget dressed like a leprechaun dressed like a born-again Christian boy toy, and a TV host saying “That was nutty!” after watching another TV host kick a man in the groin. Sophisticated? Seriously? Or is Mr. McMahon simply referring to the fact that this year no one has had sexual relations with a corpse, had a hand pulled out of a body cavity, or had human excrement sprayed all over them? I think we’d all be in favor of WWE producing a “more sophisticated” product, but that has nothing to do with WWE differentiating itself from UFC.

Mathew Sforcina: FACT. And I for one think that WWE becoming a more sophisticated product would be a great idea. When will it start?

Score: 3 for 5

6. Bound for Glory will truly be the last match of Sting’s career.

Scott Slimmer: FICTION. More than anything else, this answer is simply based on probability. I mean, we’re talking about professional wrestling / sports entertainment here, and for better or worse, there is no such thing as a “last match” in this industry. Ric Flair had the grandest retirement weekend that we’ve ever seen, and now he’s preparing to get back in the ring. Trish Stratus was given possibly the classiest farewell in WWE history, but she returned to action (if only for one night) just a few weeks ago on Raw. Shawn Michaels broke his back, passed the torch to the man who would define the Attitude Era, and quietly retired… only to unretire four years later and then spend the next seven years stealing the show time and time again. So do I think that Sting intends for Bound for Glory to be the last match of his career? Yes. Do I have any idea when or where his next match might be? No. But it’s hard for me to believe that Sting will never wrestle again, because the odds just aren’t on his side. I mean, I’d mark like a little girl to see him face either Shawn Michaels or the Undertaker at WrestleMania 26. Or maybe, if he has a spare $75,000 sitting around, he could even buy Flair’s NWA Championship and show up on Raw claiming to be the REAL world champion…

Mathew Sforcina: FACT. Well, Russo is booking, so you can’t predict anything with him (The Rematch, Double Or Nothing! Sting’s World Title and Career vs. AJ’s Career and Video Game Collection), I think Sting knows what he’s doing and has enough clout to demand to lose here cleanly and put AJ over. He may end up appearing in the WWE HOF, and get a DVD, but it will be his last match. I think. But then again, it is Russo…

Score: 3 for 6

7. The WWE would be wise to let Umaga come back, even if he hasn’t completed the rehab they wanted him to.

Scott Slimmer: FICTION. I like Umaga. I really do. He has a great look, and more importantly, he is remarkably talented in the ring, especially for a man of his size. Some critics have said that his Last Man Standing Match against John Cena at Royal Rumble 2007 was overrated, but I still maintain that it was the best match of the year. So yes, I do believe that Umaga would be a welcome addition to any of the three WWE rosters. However, if Umaga truly has not completed rehab, and if he truly still has some kind of substance abuse problem, then it would be incredibly short sighted of WWE to rehire him and simply hope for the best. WWE dodged a major bullet when Jeff Hardy was arrested just weeks after his contract had expired. He easily could have still been the World Heavyweight Champion at the time, and it would have been disasterous for WWE to have one of their champions face such charges. But since WWE did dodge that bullett, they shouldn’t press their luck, even if Umaga isn’t destined for as prominent a position as Jeff Hardy’s. What would happen if something happened to Umaga due to substance abuse while he is under contract with WWE? And what would happen if it was then revealed that WWE rehired him and once again subjected him to the rigors of life as a WWE Superstar even though they knew of his unresolved substance abuse problems? If WWE had any sense, they would do whatever is possible to avoid ever discovering the answers to those questions.

Mathew Sforcina: FICTION. WWE dodged a bullet with Jeff Hardy. Not that I believe he is guilty, mind you, fair trial and innocent until proven and such, but having him on the roster and being arrested would have been terrible. Right now WWE should not be hiring ANYONE with a drug problem. If Umaga refuses to do rehab (or, at the cynical worst, can’t take drugs while pretending to be clean), then WWE shouldn’t be touching him right now.

Score: 4 for 7

8. TNA has done a good job of building fan excitement for Bound for Glory.

Scott Slimmer: FICTION. In the interest of full disclosure, I should probably admit that I don’t follow TNA as closely as WWE. I try to know who the champions are at any given time, and I usually know who main events their pay-per-views. But when I first read this question, I was a bit confused… because I had no idea that Bound for Glory was this weekend. And that’s a big part of the reason that I went with fiction. But as I researched the card and read about the build to the show, I began to wonder if even loyal TNA fans were going to be excited this time around. Sting is making his annual Bound for Glory main event appearance, and in theory his match against AJ Styles could be quite good. However, after years of squandering Styles’ talent, how can TNA expect the fans to get excited about this title defense, especially since he won the belt less than a month ago? Addionally, while I applaud the idea of having Matt Morgan work with Kurt Angle in order to give Morgan both experience and credibility, that match just doesn’t have the kind of “big match” appeal that I would hope for on such an important show. I have complete faith that Mick Foley and Abyss will do everything in their power to entertain the fans, but I just don’t see how those two men can possibly live up to the standard of insanity set in previous Monster’s Ball matches. And I’m sorry, with all due respect to the talented wrestlers involved, that tag team Full Metal Mayhem match looks like a clusterfuck waiting to happen. So I guess the bottom line is that this card and this build might be passable for a normal TNA pay-per-view. But this isn’t a normal pay-per-view. This is the biggest show of the year. This is Bound for Glory. And I’m just not as excited as I wish I was.

Mathew Sforcina: FICTION. I can’t speak for the non-IWC, but here online I’ve heard little if anything about BFG. Most people just want to talk about WWE’s stupid PPV name changes and/or Maffew being banned from Youtube yet again. BFG is hardly being seen as a great show, at least from where I sit.

Score: 5 for 8

A less harmonious set of answers than the last couple near-perfect weeks, but Slimmer and Sforcina still agree more often than not. Thanks to both of them for their answers, and you our readers for checking out what they had to say. Come back then for more 411 Wrestling Fact or Fiction!

Follow 411 on Twitter!
411wrestling.com
The Wrestling Zone
The Movie Zone
The Music Zone
The Games
The MMA Zone
The Boxing Zone
Follow Me, Too!