The Triumvirate of Truth 4.14.12 Brock Lesnar, Tito Ortiz, Blood in the WWE, WWE’s Developmental talent and more!

Things are getting real LEGIT in the WWE, aren’t they? With the return of Brock Lesnar and blood, as well as some fresh faces on Smackdown and RAW, we’re looking into a slightly new era of the WWE. Maybe Taker and Trips were on to something, then. Well, on Smackdown, we had a “Blast from the Past” that didn’t go as well as thought, and in TNA, we had a bit of showdown between Storm and James. Here’s the thing, I had a hell of a rough week, and we’ve got a person in our ranks who will be heading into a huge step in his educational career. With his Master’s examination in close proximity of this posting, Michael Uphoff has been a bit stressed to say the least. I offered to scrap the column this week because of it, but he didn’t want to do that and opted to just minize the questions. So, in the interest of the man’s future, as well as a thank you for the gratitude, both Josh and Michael have asked one question each, while I asked a dear friend of mine from www.mmainterviews.tv, Michael Jenkin. Mike and I have been friends for years, and he knows his shit. With the return of Brock and the rumors of Tito Ortiz’s interest, I figured now would be as good a time as any to talk a bit of MMA. So, give Mike a warm welcome as he joins the table this week.

Smackdown wasn’t the greatest show this week, but RAW seemed to up the ante on entertainment. All in all, there is enough intrigue to keep me interested as well as some new faces that make me wonder how they’ll fare in the company. While I was unable to catch TNA due to some injuries that I sustained, I’m hopin to make it up to you guys with a fresh voice in my buddy Mike. Anyways, let’s get to the first question, as Uphoff wanted to talk a bit about the developmental system of the WWE.

1.What talent (or talents) from the developmental system do you think has the best shot at becoming a WWE Superstar??

Michael Uphoff: There are certainly a few talents from the developmental system that I would like to see get added to the WWE roster, but out of the several promising stars that I see on that developmental roster, I think only two of them have the best chance to truly make it in the WWE. Those two are Seth Rollins and Dean Ambrose. Dean Ambrose has already taken to a war with Mick Foley on Twitter, and having already seen some of his work in FCW, I think that those two could put on a pretty good feud. Ambrose certainly has the ability to cut promos and the in-ring ability to put on good matches from what I have seen. Seth Rollins is the other talent that stands the best chance of making it in the WWE. When he was known as Tyler Black in ROH, I was impressed by his natural wrestling ability in his matches against Nigel McGuinness, especially his first match against him at Take No Prisoners 2009. While he has not shown the ability to cut promos consistently well, he is young enough and can do them well enough to succeed in the WWE. Seth Rollins could still probably cut promos better than half the WWE roster. The only problem with this is how the WWE creative team decides to utilize the talents that are brought up from the developmental roster. True, Zack Ryder managed to “make it” on his own, but as we all have seen, he has been buried the past few months, so no good deed goes unpunished in the WWE. The creative team has to come up with material for these two to succeed. If not, they will flounder around in the midcard with no end in sight. Dean Ambrose and Seth Rollins have the tools to make it in the WWE, but they will only truly succeed with the creative team helping them. Doesn’t look good for them, does it?

Tony Acero: Admittedly, I don’t know much about the undercarriage of the WWE, so I can’t fully answer this question. What I can say, however, is that if the recent crop of up and comers that we see on NXT are any depiction of what to expect, then I don’t have high hopes at all. I am the resident NXT reporter, and it becomes more of a chore every week as these guys are just so generic both in and out of the ring. With both Seth and Dean coming from different places other than the WWE, then I have a bit more of a positive outlook on their future, but unless things change, I don’t really see anyone worth noticing (and keep in mind, I am using the NXT roster of past and present as the pool in which I’m taking examples from). For whatever reason, the WWE has opted to give people like Damien Sandow and a chance. I can only hope that they have a better go, but judging by the squash matches that Ryback’s getting and the somewhat interesting video packages, I don’t see much promise.

Joshua Stangle: Ambrose and Rollins are certainly great talents, but I think that Mike is forgetting a few. Kassius Ohno, Ritchie Steamboat and Antonio Cesaro are also very capable as well. Ohno and Cesaro have every element needed to succeed in the WWE, other than political clout. Ambrose is damn talented in both the ring and as a speaker. Rollins is a great worker as well, but his mic skills have always left something to be desired. Maybe that’s changed since I last saw him though. I don’t think that anybody should expect any of the developmental talents to be really pushed when they arrive. The WWE has a loaded midcard as it is, with many more wrestlers who have much more name recognition and are really talented as well. Creative needs to give them some material to allow them to build that name recognition, but it’s absurd to make any long term forecasts right now.

2. How do you feel about the WWE using the term “legit” in the John Cena versus Brock Lesnar feud

Joshua Stangle: Kayfabe has always been a difficult thing to maintain. Suspension of disbelief is vital to any form of fictional storytelling. Last Monday Night RAW, Brock Lesnar described himself as being “legit” compared to John Cena. That word bothered me because it illuminates more than what Lesnar is, and Cena isn’t; it reflects on the WWE as well. Saying that Lesnar as “legit” throws off the illusion for the rest of the show. I realize that the term wasn’t used in that context, though. Lesnar is legitimately tough, and Cena is not much more than a marketing tool. This feud does need something that really makes it stand out. But my very first impression of when they said that word was that Lesnar is real, and that everything else is fake. This also fails from a storytelling perspective. Show, don’t tell. They could easily replay Brock Lesnar moments from the past, or go over his MMA career, to show how “legit” he is.

Tony Acero: I feel it’s just another term that they’ll use to the brink of oversaturation and we’ll soon get tired of it…if we are not already. I do get where Stangles comes from, but I think that’s only really going to piss us IWC people off as opposed to everyone else that is watching. I somewhat feared this when Brock was announced as coming in, because I assumed they were going to play off the UFC card and allow Brock to be more “real” than everyone else. I’m not sure how I feel about it just yet, though, as I think they’re focusing more on Brock > Cena moreso than Brock > WWE. All in all, I agree with Stangle’s plan of “show, don’t tell” as too many times it feels like the WWE thinks we are stupid and think everything needs explaining. It’s a bit of a slap in the face, really, as I love intrigue, and when Michael Cole is telling me what I am knowingly aware of, it’s kind of upsetting.

Michael Uphoff: I can see Josh’s point of view on this question, but I don’t really think Lesnar referring to himself as “legit” hurts the WWE overall. I realize that it might have negative connotations for the WWE, but I think Lesnar was just getting across the point that he was legitimately tough and that he felt that Cena was a pussy compared to him.

3. Tito Ortiz would make a good fit in the WWE.

Tony Acero: While I don’t know much about Tito Ortiz, I do know that he doesn’t have the wrestling acumen that Brock Lesnar had before coming into the WWE and later in UFC. Thanks to Mike, I’m aware he has a pretty good history, but I still don’t think it can compete with Brock’s. As much as people would like to assume that the sports are interchangeable, I just don’t see it. I think Tito is far past his athletic prime to be a part of the WWE for a couple of reasons. First, the schedule is grueling. He most likely would want a Brock deal, and I just don’t think that the WWE (or anyone else for that matter) sees him as a big deal anymore. Second, the sports are different enough to where it would matter. Really, the only time Tito has been a part of the wrestling world was in 2005 when he took the role of a special guest referee a couple of times. Other than that, he has no training. True, I’m sure it wouldn’t take long to transition, but given the man’s background and the motivation, I don’t think that’s what he wants from the WWE. Judging by his past, he’s not going to be wrestling circles around people. I’m not knockin the man, because I’ve seen him and he’s a beast, but judging by his comments it seems he wants to be more of a special attraction than an actual person on the roster, and even though Brock can pull that particular card, I don’t see Tito being able to do it.

Michael Jenkin: Tito Ortiz would be a phenomonal heel, that being said, once the buzz fades, so would Tito. This is a man that has a track record of causing trouble when things don’t go exactly how he would like, ala walking out on the UFC a few years back after a dispute with Dana White. Ortiz is still big on himself,while everyone else is luke warm at best. On top of that the so called “peoples champ” wouldn’t even be able to take his proclaimed nickname with him, seeing as the Rock owns the WWE community. Ortiz has some wresling credentials, winning a California state junior college title, as well as finishing third in the 2000 Abu Dhabhi Submission Wrestling tournament. While this all looks great, I haven’t seen Tito Ortiz pull off a ground move since 2004. I’d even go so far as to say that if you wanted to bring Tito back, why not bring Ken Shamrock back, too. We can have a Loser leaves the World match and everybody wins.

4. Will Brock Lesnar be a better wrestler now that he has had real MMA training?

Michael Jenkin: I think the fact that Brock Lesnar was a National champion wrestler in college showed in his early WWE days. Add in MMA training and you are going to see an entirely different monster in the ring! He will be able to be an all-around fighter now, instead of the brute man-beast he once was. I expect to see a lean mean fighting machine, more along the lines of a Kurt Angle…The WWE version, not the shell of a fighter that he is now!.

Tony Acero: I’m iffy about this. What I recall of the Brock Lesnar of yesteryear was that he was akin to a buff Kurt Angle. He had speed, he had agility, he had talent, and he had power. He looked great in the ring, and he was a heel I loved to hate. Truly the only time I didn’t like him in the ring was when he faced Zack Gowen…that was just bad, and it had nothing to do with Brock. I think that a lot of the MMA type grappling will come into play, and I think that it will add a lot to the match coming up. It’s no secret that I don’t like Cena, but there’s also no secret in his skills within the ring being of main event caliber. I expect the match to be good, and I think Lesnar will play a big part in that. One thing that many people are pointing out is his size, and how it looks a bit slimmer than his UFC days. I don’t see this to be an issue, unless he’s like immobile. I don’t see that to be true, though, and expect him to be just as good as before he left – if not better. I like the fact that Mike brings up his training, though, because he can only add to the intensity that he originally brought. I know it wasn’t that long ago that he was in the WWE, but a lot has changed – including the in ring style, and I honestly think that the recent way lends more to Brock’s style than previously, and I see him being a nice fit in the current product.

5. The inclusion of blood made the brawl between Brock and Cena all the more realistic and allowed for an additional invesmtent in the match.

Tony Acero: I think last week I said that the feud between Brock and Cena need be much different than Cena and Rock, and they have done so tremendously. I accentuated the fact that they needn’t be talking to one another and exchanging verbal jabs, but instead should be about as cuthroat as necessary to assure that we are interested. While the blood didn’t seem planned, it added so much to the particular pull apart brawl, and I was thoroughly entertained. Of course, Cena asking if he looked alright somewhat belittled the entirety of the segment, but for the most part I think it went over well and really added an air of intensity that was sorely missing from the Rock and Cena fued. These guys have tangled in the ring before, but both have grown into different men and I’m really interested to see where it goes from here on out. In terms of the blood, we have seen this less and less as the years go by, due to the PG Rating, and if there’s any positive aspect of this, it’s that when it does happen, it’s all the more intense and meaningful. I can see that sentiment fitting here to a T.

Michael Uphoff: I would agree with Tony on this one. The inclusion of blood in this feud does make it more interesting. They had to make it different from Rock/Cena somehow, and Cena getting bloodied makes it seem more intense. These two tangled for the WWE Championship at Backlash 2003, and both have come a long way since then. I think this match will be an intense, hard-hitting affair and I’m interested in seeing where the WWE goes with this.

Joshua Stangle: I agree with Tony that this feud needs something to really stand out from Cena versus The Rock. The physicality that Lesnar brings is an asset that they should utilize. Lesnar’s punch to Cena made it seem like there is actual animosity between the two (like many wrestling sites have reported). Tony has the right idea when it comes to how the WWE uses violence and blood. Less is more. Conditioning being ever vital in wrestling, the WWE has desensitized many of its audience to blood and swearing. This feud could really stand out as being special if done right.

Again, sorry for the shorter edition, but I think it’s well deserved considering Uphoff’s monumental accolade. I wish him tons of luck, and hope you do as well.