wrestling / Columns
High Road/Low Road 02.22.08: The Angles Renew Their Vows
Welcome back to the High Road/Low Road!
A brief explanation of the column: Uncletrunx takes the Low Road (negative view) on angles, gimmicks, and other wrestling related “stuff” while Sat takes the High Road (positive view).
The Results for Two Chambers at No Way Out:
High Road: 8%
Low Road: 38%
Both Roads: 54%
Renewal of Vows for the Angles
High Road:
This is not that important of a High Road, but I think that it should be mentioned. I think that the fact that the renewal of vows happening on Valentine’s Day helped the angle. Now, I will say that it did not make the whole segment great, but it was a nice little touch.
Low Road:
Some weeks, I struggle to find a low road. Some weeks, I have to dig around a bit to find a negative, the Rumble win for Cena being a case in point. Other weeks, I feel all I have to do is mention what happened and the column virtually writes itself. This is one of those weeks. We get an angle (no pun intended) where the Angles renew their marriage vows? On a wrestling show? Taking up TV time which could, and should, have had wrestling in it? I’ve been against such things since I first saw Savage and Elizabeth get married at Summerslam, and I was a massive Savage fan as a kid. I hated it then and I hate it now.
High Road:
I have no problems with this angle because we really have no idea where this is going. One of the main problems that I have been having with TNA is that it is very easy to figure out where things are going. Well, with this I have no idea where it is going. Is Angle going to let go of AJ because he kissed his wife? Or will he forgive him? My gut would be that Angle will beat up AJ, but he needs AJ, so who knows.
Low Road:
I feel like adding “…or cares” to the end of that high road. Honestly, I know I’m old fashioned about these sorts of things and I know it’s now “sports entertainment” with all of the soap opera that goes with it, but why on earth can’t we just see two guys want to wrestle? I’ll acknowledge that the whole “you stole my girlfriend / woman I was after / wife” angle is a pretty good reason to want to fight someone, but my faith in TNA not to turn the whole thing into some overly complex character drama with little or no emphasis on wrestling, based on their recent record means that as soon as I heard about this, I just knew I’d hate it.
High Road:
One of the reasons that I had no problems with the renewal of the vows was that it did not take that much time. When I heard about this during Against All Odds, I was expecting the worst and I was thinking that it was going to be something that took a lot of time. But, I was pleasantly surprised when I saw the segment. The think that I noticed right away is that when the WWE does something like this, they really drag it out and it usually ends up hurting the segment. In this case, it was quick and it got right to the point.
Low Road:
The fact that it existed at all is what gets me. Taking the line that “it’s awful but at least it’s over quickly” doesn’t disguise the awfulness of it. Yes, it was quick, thank heavens for small mercies. However I still wish that they’d use Kurt Angle as a former Olympic Gold Medal winner, a legitimate athlete, a multi time world champ and not as a soap opera character.
High Road:
The renewal of the vows also helped to build towards the next two pay per views. First, it has helped to build towards Kurt Angle, Tomko, and AJ Styles versus Christian Cage, Samoa Joe, and Kevin Nash because Angle did not have a reason to be feuding with Joe and Nash, but now he does. Plus, Joe is the main man responsible for what happened during the renewal of the vows, so it also helps to build towards the next pay per view.
Low Road:
Joe vs Angle ought to write itself. It’s the next confrontation in an ongoing series to see who the better man is. This should be dream match territory, it could be a series like Rock vs Austin was; two of the greatest, battling to see who is the better man. Instead, we get fifteen other people involved and awful soap opera booking to detract from the wrestling ability of both men. To me, it just screams “missed opportunity”.
High Road:
I thought the renewal of the vows was pretty good because it got the point across and it was actually pretty funny. Jeremy Borash was pretty funny in his role. Kurt Angle telling the priest to add in the twelve time world champion and Olympic gold medalist to his intro was pretty funny and AJ Styles getting to plant a kiss on Karen Angle was hilarious. This was a well executed segment because it got the point across and it was pretty funny in the process.
Low Road:
It had some humour to it, I’ll give it that. However again, that to me is a waste. This could be their main money feud for years, it could be built with a focus and intensity to rival great feuds such as the aforementioned Rock vs Austin feud, or Savage vs Hogan (if you must get the whole “you stole my woman” angle in), or even Steamboat vs Flair. Instead, it gets watered down with comedy. Again, a waste of a brilliant opportunity in favour of soap opera booking.
High Road:
Here’s the thing that really makes the renewal of the vows look good. On Thursday, we had the opportunity to see the renewal of the vows and the following night, we had the chance to see proposal by Edge. Honestly, I thought that the renewal of vows blew the WWE out of the water. The Vicky and Edge stuff lasted too long and I really feel that Rey Mysterio saved that whole segment. I really had no problems with anything that TNA did during their renewal of the vows.
Low Road:
So it’s good because it wasn’t as bad as what WWE did? To me it’s a double low road because I hated both of those! I know it’s old fashioned to have two guys who don’t like each other, who are both gifted athletes, one of whom the crowd loves and one whom it hates fighting for the right to be the best, but it works! All this soap opera stuff clogging up the feud at the top of the card doesn’t work, in my opinion.
Are you taking the High Road or the Low Road?
Simply write “High Road”, “Low Road”, or “Both Roads” in the comment section.
E-Mails:
These are all of the e-mails that we received this week. We do not respond to the actual e-mail, but the reply to your e-mail will be below.
Bill Bumgarner Writes:
Taking the Low Road on this one, as it is, indeed, overkill and devalues not only the Elimination Chamber, but the Royal Rumble as well. I have a hard enough time winning the Rumble in the WWE games – imagine what you’d have to go through in reality to win that sumbitch, Yeah; I know the ending is written well in advance, but suspension of disbelief is essential in wrestling and that’s what I’m going by here: the Rumble is supposed to make a #1 Contender for the title and then winning a match at No Way Out makes him look strong going into WrestleMania. But having the Rumble, then deciding the #1 Contenders via the matches at No Way Out? Smacks of WrestleCrap. Granted, Cena’s using his title shot early so that he can go off and film that movie “12 Rounds” (which sounds a hell of a lot like “The Marine” to me), but if they were going to do that anyway and have him take the belt later, why not let someone ELSE win the Rumble? I’d have marked out like crazy to see Rey Mysterio win again and go on to become Champion. Hell; Undertaker’s reign got cut short by injury, and Kane’s been due for a title shot for a LONG time. And what about Ric Flair? They could have let him participate in/win the Rumble, then go on to take the title at ‘Mania and have another title run on his already-impressive list to put another feather in his cap before retirement. But we all know Cena’s not going to win at No Way Out because the movie starts filming in ten days (on February 25th) and the PPV is in TWO days. He’ll be gone for at least a month for filming, and the WWE is NOT going to have a month without their biggest title on TV. I just do not see any point in anything they’re doing here. While they’re at it, why not add a third EC match for the #1 Contender’s spot for the ECW Title? It’d make about as much sense as anything ELSE on the PPV.
Sat: Seriously, I have no idea about the movie coming up, so I can’t comment on that. As for the Royal Rumble being devalued, it was originally devalued during the brand extension because there were two world titles matches. I really hope that they keep this format because the Rumble can be the first guaranteed shot and then the chambers can be a last chance shot. Plus, it makes sense because people will want to win the Rumble because while they know they have a second chance at getting a title shot, but that would mean that they would have to enter the dangerous structure. If the WWE gives this explanation, then it will help to eliminate some of this talk about the Rumble being devalued.
Uncletrunx: I still think it’s gimmick overkill. The more you see something, the less special it is. I won’t deny that both chamber matches were good but I still feel that it takes the “sting” out of the Rumble to have these matches for number one contendership so soon after and as part of the build to Wrestlemania. It makes the Rumble much less of a focus if you can still get to the Mania main event another way.
Tim Schmidt Writes:
This maybe both roads again. I think these matches will be good, but we will not be able to see the Chamber destroyed as in the past. As Larry says, this is gimmick over-kill as there was not one Chamber in 2007 and now there will be two? wtf? These matches kind of defeat the purpose of the Royal Rumble. But these matches may help ‘Mania seem more important as we will see a total of 12 men try to kill each other for the title shot. Yes, the Royal Rumble will be greatly devalued if the Chamber is a yearly event, but Vince has gotten us to spend our money on a usually low performing PPV, hasn’t he?
Sat: I am sure that people will buy this pay per view because of the two chambers. As I wrote above, the Rumble was devalued when the brand extension came, The two chambers are not hurting the Rumble, it is the brand extension.
Uncletrunx: I think the brand extension’s worst effect was that the Rumble winner is now often in the midcard at Wrestlemania. However, at least it still felt like THE way to get the belt match at the big show; now there are other ways, the Rumble being just one of three, it’s worth so much less. I’d rather see the chamber used in June to decide who gets to main event at Summerslam. That might provide some intrigue in an otherwise dead part of the year.
Joel Ross Writes:
I think Mania’s main event should be decided by the Rumble, why even have a rumble if it doesn’t serve this purpose, they may as well start calling it the “money in the bank Rumble” if you can just do like Cena and cash your shot in at any time.
Sat: The Cena title shot made sense because he wanted to get back at the person that “injured” him. Probably not the smartest business decision, but it does make sense.
Uncletrunx: It would make sense if he’d cashed it in right away on Raw, or if he’d been given a shot plus the Wrestlemania main event. I actually like the build they’re doing with HHH vs Orton vs Cena, as I’m not 100% sure which of Cena or HHH will win it. However, I stick to my guns that it’s devalued the Rumble too much.
Comments:
411 has added a new feature. Below are the comments for last week’s columns and our responses. The comments that will be included will be the ones that pertain to this week’s column. Also, your comment will not be included if you are commenting on another reader’s comment. The comments are as of Monday Afternoon.
Col Writes:
You can’t say that the main events are up in the air when they’re possibly the most predictable winners ever. Triple H and Undertaker. I will be (happily) stunned if that is not how it ends up. And that is why I have no interest in this PPV.
Sat: If you are on the Internet, then I agree, but there are still fans out there that do not get on the Internet to look up wrestling. We are most likely always going to know what is going to happen. But, if you are not a fan who would be the favorite in the SmackDown chamber. Most likely Batista and the Undertaker. What about the RAW chamber? Most likely everybody but Umaga.
Uncletrunx: Hindsight is wonderful, but I would also have bet on those winners. It’s probably just as well that betting can’t happen on pro wrestling, as the bookmakers could’ve lost out big time here!
The Goat Writes:
Both Roads. In concept, two Chambers isn’t bad.I don’t think it devalues the structure. (It may devalue the three world title matches, but we don’t really care about those, right?) The problem is in the talent involved. If there was only 1 Chamber, with the numbers divided evenly between all three brands, the match would be utterly unpredictable (HHH vs. Hardy vs. Taker vs. Batista vs.BDV (or a returning Big Show?) vs. Shelton) Okay, so that match leaves us void of any strong heels. But Taker and Batista hate each other anyway. That’s not the point. The point is there just isn’t enough star power to fill two Chambers with plausible talent.
As for the argument that Smackdown’s Chamber means the brand is equal to Raw’s, I don’t think so. It makes Smackdown look like the younger step-brother who tries to copy its bigger, better brother and comes off slightly retarded.
Let’s look at participants:
HHH: 2:1 odds (or better) to win
Hardy: 4:1 odds to win
Michaels: 8:1 odds to win
Y2J: 20:1 odds to win
JBL: 20:1 odds to win
Umaga: 20:1 odds to winSmackdown:
Taker: 1:2 odds to win
Batista: 3:1 odds to win
MVP: Are you kidding? 30:1, at best (and MVP is my favorite Smackdown
wrestler!)
BDV: Very funny
Khali: Even funnier
Finlay: Yeah, right (maybe 20:1)If it’s all about competition, Raw clearly has better competition. THAT is why
the two brands aren’t equal.Even so, watching 2 Chambers, and noting the differences between them, will be
loads of fun.
Sat: I will say that you make a good point because I am not that impressed with the SmackDown chamber. But, it is nice to SmackDown get its first chamber match, so it seems like the WWE does want to keep RAW and SmackDown at an equal playing field.
Uncletrunx: I agree that again, Smackdown ends up looking like the poor relation. Which chamber went last, ie: main event? I think the answer to that shows us exactly where WWE places the two shows..
Chris Writes:
I’m definitely going high road.
I think that sometimes things are over analyzed in wrestling on this website. This would be a great example.
Some of the points made are valid and good points, but those remarks like devaluing the chamber are nonsensical to me.
I love this idea of having two chambers, because it makes sense. Having a marquee gimmick match like this always brings in ratings, no matter how often it happens.
This whole No Way Out card is stacked on paper to me, you have two chamber matches, 3 world title matches and Flair’s career threatening match.
I think it’s good that they’re trying to give the fans who pay 40 bucks more “bang for their buck” regardless if it takes away some of the prestige of the Royal Rumble.
I think if the WWE resorts to having great pay per views EVERY month with new ideas and fresh matchups that it wouldn’t hurt anything to do something like this ever so often.
On a card like this one, there’s hardly no room for filler. So far, there’s only 6 matches announced and besides the ECW title match and Flair’s match, ANY of the other 4 could be main events on a WWE PPV (especially cena/orton, which could have been a WrestleMania headliner) so I love the idea.
More satisfied fans = better business for WWE. Don’t lay a egg in February on PPV just because you’re wanting to keep the prestige of the rumble and mania in tact.
Sat: You last sentence would have made an awesome High Road. The two chambers do make sense and they will make even more sense if the WWE does the chamber for the two world titles that were not chosen by the winner of the Rumble.
Uncletrunx: I don’t think it’s over analysed, I think it’s pretty simple: 2 chambers = gimmick overkill, extra ways to the Wrestlemania main event = devalued Rumble. I agree that they shouldn’t lay an egg here, but I do think that the Elimination Chamber would be better used to set up Summerslam; perhaps it could put a bit of a shine back on that event and help to build it. Wrestlemania will almost sell itself these days, Summerslam still needs the help.
WWEMAN88 Writes:
Both roads? While these matches should be good and set up Wrestlemania, it sort
of kills the point of the Royal Rumble.
Sat: As I wrote above, the brand extension is responsible for killing the Chamber.
Uncletrunx: I’ll repeat what I said above; using the chamber to build another of the major PPV events makes more sense to me; it keeps the Rumble special and provides build where it’s needed. Wreslemania doesn’t need it.
KanyonKreist Writes:
Low road: ONE interpromotional Chamber match would have been a thousand times better from a booking standpoint. I have a feeling that one of these two matches will be CLEARLY superior to the other, which will draw a lot of attention to the shortcomings of the other match and even moreso to the booking of both matches to begin with. This is cheap and easy WrestleMania booking, pure and simple. Can’t you think of another way to set up ‘Taker/Edge for the World Title? They seem to be dying to shove HHH into the WWE Title match at WM24, so have him win the Chamber, fine, but setting up ANOTHER ELIMINATION
CHAMBER match just to set up Undertaker with a match that we already see as a foregone conclusion? *Enormous* waste of time, energy and talent. Seriously, how much easier would it be to build up a buzz for a huge interpromotional Chamber match involving Triple H, Jeff Hardy, Umaga, Batista, Undertaker and *insert your choice of either Finlay, MVP or another monster who can’t possibly win, like Khali*? To me, what’s going on just seems like lazy booking.
Sat: The WWE wanting both HHH and Taker could be the reason that they are doing two chambers, but what I think that this has shown is that it makes sense for the two chambers to be at No Way Out for the other two world titles.
Uncletrunx: I’m sure there are ways to put HHH and Undertaker in prominent places for Wrestlemania without needing gimmick overload. Both men are already in such prominent positions within WWE, I don’t think anyone would consider it unrealistic to have them both at the top of their respective brands.
Save TNA 222 Writes:
Got to take both roads because although the Smackdown brand may have inferior
talent, in a kayfabe perspective, they have two monsters in Khali and BDV and they have two monster slayers in Batista and Undertaker. Throw in the tough veteran brawler and the cocky rising star and there you go, one unpredictable chamber.
Sat: The thing that hurt the SmackDown chamber is that the RAW chamber is loaded. The only weak link in that chamber is Umaga and a case could be made that he is not a weak link. On the other hand, SmackDown has completely buried Big Daddy V. He lost to a freaking DDT.
Uncletrunx: I remember when a DDT was a guaranteed win. Poor ol’ Jake. Smackdown’s chamber could almost have been changed to a one on one cage match between Undertaker and Batista for all the use they made of the other guys.
Your reasons for taking the High Road, Low Road, or Both Roads and suggestions for future High Road/Low Road are welcome at [email protected] or in the comment section. Your reply will be included in next week’s column.
