411 Fact or Fiction 05.31.12: Jericho Suspended, Big Show, Brooke Hogan, More

1. WWE was correct to suspend Chris Jericho for his actions in Brazil.

Scott Rutherford: FACT. With wrestling being global like never before it’s incumbent that all the wrestlers know local customs and laws. JBL certainly caused a stir years ago when he goosestepped his way into German consternation and most commentators were calling for his head. Chris Jericho and his action of kicking the Brazilian flag was just as bad but since Jericho is a IWC fav the reaction was mild to say the least. The WWE for its part were swift to react which probably helped quell any backlash but it also meant little to Jericho in the long run…which is the point. Show they are doing something without it unduly effecting a wrestler who was only playing his character. I will point out however if a foreign wrestler was in the US and kicked an American flag to get heat, you just know news outlets and others would be extremely unimpressed.

Tim Livingston: FICTION. In having discussions about what WWE has turned into since going public, having a heel do what he does to try and get the crowd to go against him should be a top priority. And cheap heat has always been a staple of getting the crowd to boo a heel. Unfortunately, Chris did something that wouldn’t exactly be considered “kosher”, I guess you’d say, but if you saw that same feat happen in the 80’s or even the 90’s (I’m looking at you, Shawn Michaels), nobody would think twice about it. I think it was great that Jericho went that route, CM Punk obviously thought the same due to his reaction, and even though it was desecrating to the Brazilian colors, the heel got booed and Jericho was just trying to do his job.

Score: 0 for 1

2. Adding Kane to the CM Punk vs. Daniel Bryan feud is a good move.

Scott Rutherford: FICTION. Really, anyone that says fact to this is kidding themselves. Kane as a main eventer or at the very least a marketable main event draw stopped this side of 2000. The fact he’s been kept strong and near the top of the card is one of baffling mysterious of the world. Right now he has no heat and his in ring work is the absolute shits and he adds not one positive thing to the Punk/Bryan feud. But it does underline a problem right now in the WWE, you have a long reigning world champion and a challenger that is considered one of the best wrestlers in the world and creative feels the need to inject some star power into the equation. Two problems, who they see as having star power is mind boggling and creative are piss poor at building new main eventers. Both of which comes as no surprise to anyone reading this.

Tim Livingston: FICTION. I’m not really seeing it. Punk and Bryan can do enough on their own to make a feud seem worthwhile at this point, and Kane isn’t nearly as important as WWE wants you to think. After what Punk and Bryan did at Over The Limit, you’re not gonna see anything like that with Kane in the mix now, and that’s a shame considering how hard Punk and Bryan worked to do something fresh.

Score: 1 for 2

3. You dig Big Show’s new direction as a monster heel.

Scott Rutherford: FACT. Big Show is a talented wrestling performer and he has the ability to be a great heel or face. I have always liked when he’s been the vicious monster that his size has always meant he should be. Problem is that he was a heel less than a year ago then turned face and previous to all that he was a unstoppable heel and he was a great babyface before that, wouldn’t you know it, he was a monster heel before that he was a face….yadda yadda yadda. If this was the first time Show was a heel in 2-3 years then it would be worth more but the guy turns literally every six months depending on the booking needs of whatever brand needs him. He’s been devalued so much that no matter how great he is there’s no chance it’s going to make a difference to the product long term unless he’s actually installed in the main event and put over everyone for a year straight.

Tim Livingston: FACT. Show has always been someone who could run with the ball if he got the chance (Undertaker feud, JeriShow, the list goes on) and even though some people aren’t big fans of the Cena/Big Johnny feud, Show’s presence might be enough to make them care. He’s had some absolutely fantastic promos since making the turn and don’t be surprised if he keeps this up.

Score: 2 for 3

4. Brodus Clay’s Funkasaurus character doesn’t have a long shelf life.

Scott Rutherford: FICTION. It all comes down to booking. If he just stays the dancing fool and shows no growth then he will forever be a lower-mid card comedy act to help sell merchandise and make the crowd smile. If he’s given the Batista treatment and protected and given a string of great workers for the next couple of years to learn from and coupled with smart logical progression of his character into something more serious there is no reason he couldn’t have a long career. The trick will be to not just drop the Funkasaurus character but have it evolve. Think the difference between Rocky Miavia and The Rock or Hunter Hearst Helmsley to Triple H. These guys progressed their character from their initial gimmicks which were both doomed for mid-card failure until they were tweaked and allowed to grow into something better.

Tim Livngston: FACT. The problem with the character is that Brodus shouldn’t be just doing mid card comedy matches at this point. It’s going to sound strange, but with Ryback doing what he’s doing, Brodus actually should be doing something very similar on the RAW side of things. In fact, his character should guarantee him a longer shelf life than someone like Ryback. At some point, he’ll ditch the gimmick, keep a nickname that sounds like Funkasaurus and get a little bit of a run, but I don’t see it lasting for too much longer.

Score: 2 for 4

SWITCH!

5. TNA has a very good chance of winning their lawsuit accusing WWE & Brian Wittenstein of trying to poach talent from their company.

Tim Livingston: FICTION. When has a lawsuit about talent acquisition even gotten to the point where a decision was merited? This will be settled out of court for an undisclosed amount and both parties will move on. TNA crying foul over this is a waste of time.

Scott Rutherford: FICTION. Common sense says no. The main issue seems to be Wittenstein giving up contract end dates to the WWE as if they are some closely guarded secret. That to me is a crock of shit since most guys when they sign or resign have a press release sent out saying something like “such and such wrestler singed a 3 year deal with TNA!!!” Now you don’t have to be a genius to know when the dude is off contract. Secondly, if the WWE is interested in someone they can just approach them with an offer and the wrestler themselves will likely say when they are off contract. Lastly, TNA will have a hard time making its case when they knew Ric Flair was no longer going to resign with them just before the start of May and TNA still continued to advertise him for house shows knowing full well he was not going to front up. Supposedly the WWE actually acted correctly in the case and informed TNA what Wittenstein was up to in a stunning show of business co-operation. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some greater intent in the move but maybe we’re all just a bit paranoid of the WWE machine.

Score: 3 for 5

6. Brooke Hogan appearing on Impact Wrestling is a total waste of time.

Tim Livingston: FACT. Speaking of, do I really have to go in to this? Really? Nepotism at it’s worst. If Hulk Hogan is sitting back there and thinking, “My daughter is a big enough star where she’ll boost the ratings!” then I want to enjoy whatever herbal supplement he is enjoying inside of a wrapped up piece of paper that just happens to be lit on fire.

Scott Rutherford: FICTION. Really, what harm does it cause? The other consideration is that you never know where the next good woman’s performer is going to come from and much like Vickie Guerrero has turned herself into one of the better female performers in wrestling over the last 5 years, Brooke may have enough about her to do the same. The simple fact of the matter is that she cannot tank the division any more than others already have and she brings a heavy hitting name to the division. Will she fail? Most likely because the law of averages says most women do. Is it a waste of time? Not at all. Because if she manages to gain traction with the fans she may bring in renewed interest.

Score: 3 for 6

7. Impact Wrestling’s TV viewership will be higher this week than it usually is.

Tim Livingston: FACT. But it won’t be a major bump up. TNA has shown that due to SPIKE advertising heavily for major shows that they will get a slight ratings increase, but it’s never sustainable. That model just doesn’t have the legs and TNA continues to use it. And you wonder why most people don’t take them seriously.

Scott Rutherford: FACT. If TNA as a company has proven one thing it’s that fans really want them to succeed and will continually give them another chance when something new comes along. Going live has created a renewed interest and people will tune in to see if things are going to be different. And that is the key…will things be different? When TNA went to Monday nights they pulled a huge initial rating but when people saw that they were like Nitro from 1996 they left in droves and didn’t return. They recently changed names to Impact Wrestling and gave us the slogan “Wrestling Matters”, and when people tuned in it was still calling itself TNA, they barely had 5 minutes wrestling in the first hour and the same non-logical Vince Russo booking. So I do think they’ll spike a rating but it depends on them if they manage to keep it long term.

Score: 4 for 7

8. You’re intrigued by the news that TNA is no longer scripting their promos.

Tim Livingston: FICTION. It would be intriguing if TNA actually had wrestlers who were good on the mike, but unfortunately, even their “good” promo guys are a long away from being as good as they once were. Guys like Austin Aries and Bully Ray (who I doubt went on script in the first place) might shine due to it, but I don’t need to hear Kurt Angle spout off anything unscripted, for example. Or Hogan. Or Roode. And so on.

Scott Rutherford: FACT. Really, it’s a well-established fact that when a wrestler goes out to promo without a net more of their character has a chance to shine through and this can only be a good thing. The bad thing is that there are barely any wrestlers that have even really been put in the position to do this. We’ll see a marked drop in promo quality for a while but if TNA shows patience then it will definitely have a long-term benefit.

Final Score: 4 for 8

Tim & Scott agree half of the time and disagree the other half. Who do you think made the better points, and what are your takes on these topics? Feel free to go down to the comment section and give us your take! Thanks so much to Scott & Tim for participating, and we’ll be back next week with more 411 Fact or Fiction!