DBL does the asking and Eric S does the answering.
Tue, 3 January 2006
by: Darth Bin Laden
Email the Author
Sammy's Intro: Eric Szulczewski has long been one of my favourite internet columists, when it comes to wrestling. Or anything else really. When I discovered that our young menace known as DBL was also a fan of Eric's work, I suggested he do a Q&A with him for Buttonhole. Eric was kind enough to agree to it. Darth's done a fine job with the questions and Eric's answers are every bit as interesting as I'd expected. I will point out first up to those who've not read Eric's columns, he is known for speaking his mind, so if you're one of those easily upset types, you have been warned. Take it away DBL and Eric S!
Q. Hey, Eric, thanks for your time. Could you tell us a little about yourself, when/how you initially began writing about wrestling (or writing in general) and how you became involved with Inside Pulse?
ES: A little about myself first. I'm 41, which is rather old for a wrestling columnist. Born and raised in Chicago, which I still regard as my home, despite the fact that I'm now living in Kansas. I work in the meat and poultry industry as a quality specialist or as an inspector, depending on what's going on in my life at that moment. I'm a US Army veteran with four years' service. My university degree is in Physics. All in all, I've had a very unusual life.
As for writing about wrestling, it came about in a rather unorthodox manner. At the time I started doing a column in 2000, the majority of the respected writers at independent sites (and not-so-independent sites) cut their teeth on RSPW. When those writers outgrew Usenet, RSPW started going downhill and people started to move elsewhere. One place was the Delphi wrestling boards. In 1999, I found Delphi and started posting there. People seemed to like my postings, and Luke Johnston eventually offered me a slot at The Shooters. I was one of the first people who hadn't made their name on RSPW to be offered a high-profile slot on a major website, and that caused a lot of resentment from RSPW veterans who felt that they were the only ones who were "allowed" to take such a slot. In fact, some of them still resent me to this day. I started writing at The Shooters in February 2000. Within a few months, I was offered a features slot at Rantsylvania, Scott Keith's site. I moved my news column full-time to Rantsylvania early in 2001; the site soon became The Smarks soon afterward.
In October 2001, I was fired from The Smarks for saying certain things that people didn't appreciate about September 11th, specifically about the fact that I was happy that ultra-right-wing columnist Barbara Olsen was killed in the attack on the Pentagon (my readers now know this incident as "l'affaire Babs"). Well, a few months prior to this, The Smarks was about to go down due to an increase in server costs, and the infamous Chris Hyatte had recommended to Jonathan Widro, the head of 411, that 411 pick me up when The Smarks went down. At the time, I told Widro that I was happy to be at The Smarks, but I wouldn't say no if something happened there. Within a couple hours of me being fired, Widro wrote me again and reiterated his offer, and I said yes. I took a few weeks off of writing, then came to 411. When Widro decided to break from 411 and form Inside Pulse, I moved over there.
Q. For those unfamiliar with your work at Inside Pulse, how would you describe your columns?
ES: It's very tough to describe, really. I mean, my beat is wrestling, and I spend most of my columns discussing wrestling. However, anything else is fair game. I've talked about sports, politics, entertainment, science, my personal life...anything that crosses my mind. I was the first person in wrestling to talk about things other than wrestling in a column, and I really think I expanded the discourse and made it safe to discuss anything. I mean, I've discussed the fact that I'm a diagnosed bipolar and take medication when I can get it. That actually came in handy when Regal revealed what pills he'd abused during his career. I'd been on most of them myself.
In general, I'm opinionated and not afraid to express my opinions. I share my likes and (more frequently) dislikes of what's going on in wrestling and in the world at large. I'll do things like quote obscure Russian authors in combination with what's going on with a wrestling angle. It's a very eclectic mix, and I'm glad to say I've garnered a large and faithful audience. My one goal is to never be boring, and I think I've succeeded.
Q.How and when did you get interested Pro-Wrestling in the first place?
ES: I'd watched wrestling growing up in Chicago, but the problem with that was that Chicago in the mid-to-late-70s was AWA country, and Verne Gagne's idea of what constituted good wrestling didn't mesh with mine. It was dull and stuck in the past. In 1982, I moved to Dallas to attend college. It was there that I discovered WCCW and the style I like to call anglo-lucha, a hybrid of Southern and Mexican wrestling. That really caught my eye, and I started watching on a regular basis. I've kept watching ever since, through the good times and bad.
Q.Who would your favourite wrestlers be, past and present? What are three of your all time favourite matches be and why?
.jpg) | | David Von Erich is one of Eric's old favourites |
ES: Favorite wrestlers of the past? David Von Erich, Chris Adams, the Hayes-Roberts-Gordy Freebirds, and Magnum T.A. Present? Chris Benoit, of course (I'd be drummed out of the IWC if I didn't say that). Booker T, A. J. Styles, Samoa Joe, Christopher Daniels. Pretty cliché list.
Now, as for matches...
Benoit versus Regal, Pillman 2000: This one's on the Benoit DVD set, but I was there live for it. At the time, Regal was recovering from injury and drug abuse and was working in Memphis. Rumor had it that he was going to be called back to WWE soon, but everyone was wondering if he still had it in him. The atmosphere was electric. You had over a thousand smarks in the audience and Benoit in the ring. I wouldn't have blamed Regal for packing it in. But he came out and gave Benoit everything that Our Lord and Savior could handle. Everyone was looking for flaws and couldn't find any. Regal gave the performance of a lifetime that night. On the DVD, you can hear the crowd chanting for Benoit throughout the match. Then, suddenly, we switched and started chanting for Regal. I think both of the guys were in shock over that. Benoit went over, but it really didn't matter. Regal was back in top form. I'll forgive Regal anything for that night. He was just magnificent. If you thought their match on Velocity in 2005 was something, this one was far, far better.
Misawa versus Kawada, June 1994: Yes, this one's called "the greatest match of all time" by a lot of people, and I'm one of them. If you ever wanted to see a technically perfect wrestling match, this is it. Every move flowed into the next, there were no missteps, no blown spots, nothing wrong at all. These guys had absolute confidence in each others' abilities, and they were both at the top of their form at the time. And once you find out about the backstory, you appreciate it even more. It's one of the few matches that everyone agrees is five snowflakes.
Trip versus Undertaker, Wrestlemania 17: Weird choice, I know, but it's one of WWE's hidden gems. It's an underestimated pure brawl, almost as good as the far-more-famous Benoit/Sullivan Falls Count Anywhere brawl from 1996. You wouldn't expect guys on the level of Trip and Undertaker to take the fighting everywhere in the arena like they did here. They both ended up beating the crap out of each other, and neither had any reason to go that far. You could tell that they were doing it because it was Wrestlemania and they wanted to make it something special. It was. Match of the Night as far as I was concerned.
Q.What would your dream match be, in terms guys you think could have a great match who, for whatever reason, never wrestled each other?
ES: Well, if you're allowing choices from different eras, I'd go with David Von Erich versus Kurt Angle. They would have meshed so well together. It would have been one incredible mat-based match. I would love to have seen Misawa at his peak versus Benoit at his as well.
Ironically, because of the situation today, with WWE's near-monopoly, you have more "dream matches that never happened" than ever before. I think everyone wants to see Benoit/Styles (and they might if rumors come to pass), for instance. And just for the sake of curiosity, to see how far they'd go, I wouldn't mind Foley/Abyss. That would be one bloody train wreck.
Q.You are a fan of cartoons and very knowledgeable about the history of animation. Are there any particular reasons that animation appeals to you?
ES: The appeal of animation to me mostly lies in its ability to display the absurd or impossible. It stretches the imagination while you watch, and does so to the ultimate extent. Animation tends to go beyond anything you can or would do in live action, and can take situations that would be impossible to handle in live action (or situations that would be impossible to cope with in live action) and present them as normal, everyday occurrences. It has a logic and physics all its own, and it's fun to try to figure out what the universal laws are and how the situations apply to them.
Q.What would you list as your favourite animations, film or TV series, and why?
ES: My love lies firmly with classic Warner Brothers cartoons. Everything just came together perfectly, with the right mix of characters, plots, directors, voice artists, writers, and artists. Top to bottom, it's the strongest stable ever assembled in animation, even stronger than Disney. Speaking of Disney, you have to admire the work they did on their 90s movies; it's lyrically beautiful and of the highest quality. I'll always have a soft spot for the work of Jay Ward; cartoonists today are still searching for the combination of popular appeal and intellectual stimulation that Ward made look easy back in the late 1950s and early 1960s. And Pixar hasn't made a wrong move yet. Except for "Finding Nemo". I hate that movie.
Unusually, most of the animated product today doesn't float my boat. I think Matt Groening is overrated, and the cult surrounding John Kricfalusi is nauseating. The popularity of Danny Antonucci is inexplicable. Genndy Tartakovsky and Craig McCracken gained enough cachet from their first efforts to go into vanity projects that were disappointing, to say the least. "Family Guy" isn't that great, certainly not enough to spark the revival that brought it back on the air. That being said, there have been a few projects of recent vintage that I do like. "Megas XLR" was a nice bit of quirkiness that didn't deserve a premature burial from Cartoon Network. "The Venture Brothers" is divinely absurd, with a great cast, and I can't wait for its second season. And I actually liked "Stroker and Hoop", but I can't really figure out why.
One final thing: I don't like anime. I had a number of friends who were otaku who tried to force-feed it to me, and I regurgitated (this goes back to my hatred of "Speed Racer" as a child, I believe). I can't watch any of it. And from reading what's been done to bring certain shows over to the US, I'm kinda glad.
Q.What other interests and/or hobbies do you have?
ES: I live a very quiet life. My favourite sport is golf, which demonstrates that quite nicely. I enjoy watching televised sports on occasion, but I mostly keep up with things online. I just don't want to devote the time it takes to sit down and watch an entire event (although I do make exceptions for things like the World Cup or Olympics, and I definitely made an exception for the World Series this year). My favourite activity is reading. I prefer history and biography. I have enough to deal with in my life than to indulge in sensory overload.
Q. Regulars of your IP column would be well aware that you dislike a substantial number of hugely-over wrestlers, such as "Stone Cold" Steve Austin, or "Wife-Beater" as you call him. Could you please explain, for those who might be unfamiliar with your writing, why it is you loathe Austin so much?
ES: First of all, let me state this: I was a fan of Austin's from the Dangerous Alliance through the early Stone Cold days. I thought he did a good job in the ring and a very good job on the mic. However, I started to seriously sour on him. His act grew stale, predictable, and dull; he was supposed to be Everyman, but he didn't connect with me. I didn't find his actions attractive or noteworthy, or worthy of representing me as an audience member. At the same time, he suffered his neck injury at Owen Hart's hands, and when he finally came back, he decided that it just wasn't worth trying to wrestle anymore at the level he was capable of performing at. So, by, oh, late 1998/early 1999, you had a guy who didn't interest me in the ring or on the mic, yet he was still being pushed and worshipped by the audience. I already knew the direction that he was going to head; it was at the same time that I became sick of Flex and started writing negative things about him.
.jpg) | | This guy is NOT one of Eric's favourites |
Then, Austin started being a mark for himself. Steve Williams started to believe that he was Stone Cold. He started boozing, and then he did something that I do not condone at all: he beat women. He beat Jeannie Clark. He beat Debra. He beat his girlfriend after he divorced Debra. On top of that, he has left Vince McMahon high and dry three times, walking away with the ball when something didn't suit him. You don't walk out on the guy signing the checks for no good reason, especially when you're making as much as he was (six million a year downside at his peak).
He is a reprehensible human being, period. He's out for himself at all costs, and his ego is out of control. He had a career in action TV series just waiting for him, yet he threw that away with his antics. And, yet, there are wrestling fans who still worship the ground he pukes on and want him back. It's my job to remind fans what a disgusting person he is, and I do it at every opportunity. As long as there's Wife-Beater Worship going on, I'll be there to provide the antidote.
Q.As far as popular wrestlers that you despise go, Bret "The Hitman" Hart is the one I find most intriguing. As you well know, many believe Bret to be one of the greatest ever. Tell us a little about your thoughts and feelings regarding Bret, why do you hate him?
ES: It's not Bret per se, it's the adoring fans that surround him and take his side at every opportunity, and I include people like Scott Keith in that; with Scott, it's explainable since they're both from Alberta and it's a hometown hero thing. I can understand that position; say anything bad about Walter Payton and I'll punch your lights out. But it's the people who don't have that excuse, the ones who blindly worship him and hang on his every word to this day, that get me upset.
Unconditional worship automatically sets off my alarm bells, as you can tell by my assertion regarding Wife-Beater. The Cult of Bret that has surrounded him for over a decade is a gigantic red flag. That kind of blind worship automatically has me looking for flaws. And I've found them in large numbers. To me, Bret Hart was a very good wrestler at his peak. But he was only very good. He wasn't "the best there was, the best there is, and the best there ever will be". He was simply above average.
But it pisses people off if you say that. How dare you express a truth like "Shawn Michaels has a better body of work in his career than Bret"? Well, any comparison to Shawn will set off the Bret Fanboys, which is why I enjoy using it. The fact is that when it comes to Bret, the memory cheats a little. Most fans today were kids when Bret was at his peak. You always tend to gloss on the side of hero worship and put the blinders on when it comes to your childhood heroes. I was an adult when Bret was at his peak, so I have no illusions about him. He wasn't godlike. He was formulaic in the ring (and isn't it ironic that the man who pointed this fact out and gave the name to his formula was his fanboy Scott Keith?). He got into a habit of half-assing it.
And then came the post-Montreal whining, which continues today. How exactly am I supposed to respect a man when he comes out week after week and displays the maturity of a five-year-old? Bret's intransigence was what caused Montreal in the first place. He bears the brunt of the blame. He was the one who didn't want to do the right thing and drop the strap on the way out. Vince had no choice but to make that happen. Bret forced his hand. But, again, the Bret Fanboys are in denial about this. Thanks to Montreal, Owen, and Goldberg ending his career by a stupid accident, Bret's now a martyr to them, which only makes the cult surrounding him larger and more ferocious. For me, that just makes it more of a challenge to get them to open their eyes a little and see the truth about Bret.
Q.Speaking of wrestlers you hate: if you could fire three guys from the WWE right now, who would they be and why?
ES: Why stop at three? I'll go for five guys right off the bat: John Cena, Randy Orton, Chris Masters, Carly Colon, and Ken Kennedy. And they'd all be for the same reason: they are the epitome of style over substance. These five have received some of the most inexplicable pushes I've ever seen. None of them can wrestle a damn lick (with Cena, it's even worse, because he did display some wrestling skills in OVW). There are far worthier young wrestlers who deserve the push these guys are getting. Plus, they're clogging up the upper-mid-card and upper card on both shows. Get rid of this deadwood.
Q. Vince McMahon has been known to claim that he can make anybody a main event star. What do you think about the current status of the main event scene on both shows, particularly that of Smackdown where the main event scene seems to be struggling (having an injured champ and the tragic loss of Eddie Guerrero certainly couldn't have helped)?
ES: The title situation on Raw isn't too bad per se. Obviously, they have Trip waiting in the wings for an eleventh go-around. If worse comes to worse, they have two very credible guys in Michaels and Angle as escape valves. They could also push Edge, although that'd be a little iffy right now (but if he keeps going the way he has the past few weeks, he should be fine with the audience within a couple of months). Even Kane or The Big Show might be acceptable for a short reign. There's no need to elevate an inferior wrestler like Masters or Colon, and there's no need to keep the strap on Cena. I've been waiting for months for him to lose that title, and I'm starting to lose patience.
Now Smackdown, that's a different story. Oh, boy, are they in trouble, and it's all of their own making. Smackdown got the ass end of the Draft this year, big-time. Everyone that was getting built up got moved over to Raw. Yes, Smackdown got Batista, but the moment he came aboard, all elevation stopped. Nobody was being pushed properly. Everyone seemed to be stuck in a pigeonhole and doing their own thing, and only when it was deemed that Batista needed a challenger was someone put into some short, shoddy program with him. Now, they're paying the price for being short-sighted. Who's the top heel on Smackdown? It's High-Quality Speaker Boy by default now that Christian's gone. And he's not in a program with Batista; he's dicking around with Matt Hardy. In fact, in order to get a title match for No Way Out for Batista, they're going to be importing Kane from Raw.
They dug themselves into a major hole. You can't blame Eddy's death for it, either; they would have been in the same boat even with him. They have a face champion and no credible heels on the roster to put against him (and don't you dare tell me that Randy Orton is credible). If they hadn't buried High-Quality Speaker Boy the way they did, maybe, just maybe, they'd have a bolthole. But they don't. "Creative" can't find its own ass with two hands, a mirror, and written directions. They have no choice now but to keep the belt on Batista for as long as possible and hope the audience doesn't turn against him like they have with Cena.
Q. Of the wrestlers currently on the WWE roster, which would you consider the standouts and why?
ES: I'm going to skip the big names, because it would go into total cliché if I started mentioning them. I'd like to mention some of the lesser guys. I'd like to see Bobby Lashley put into a match with a real wrestler, just to see what he's got, instead of those squash matches that they're using to build him up. Paul London and Brian Kendrick are always impressive, but they get less visibility than the end of a mine shaft. Now that Kid Kash seems to have his ego under control, he may prove to be a positive addition, but he forgot how to cut a promo. I love what they've done with the Mexicools, and my only wish for them would be to start channelling their Inner ECW a little bit more.
You notice that I left out anyone from Raw. That's where Raw's biggest problem is right now: they're stable at the top, but they're doing a piss-poor job in elevating people. Not as bad as Smackdown, but still bad. What did Shelton Benjamin do to deserve the treatment he's getting? Do they really think that Shelton's Mamma is going to change our view of him in a positive fashion? The guy had the Free TV Match Of The Year with Michaels. Give him a break.
Q.What are some of the biggest problems with WWE and wrestling at the moment, as you see it? And what are some things you think should be done to improve the product?
ES: Well, I've already discussed one of them, namely the lack of elevation. That comes from the fact that Vince is innately conservative. He's afraid to try something different, so he keeps falling back on old archetypes to get guys over. Look at the Boogeyman; every time they've tried something like this, it's fallen flat. The two great exceptions, of course, are the Undertaker and Kane, and their success is mostly due to Mark Calloway and Glen Jacobs and their ability to pull those roles off.
"Vince Loves Big Guys" is one of the most common clichés you hear around the IWC. When we see a Gene Snitsky or a Tyson Tomko, all we have to do is pull out that phrase. The problem is that Vince constantly looks for justification to back that view up, and he keeps finding it. Benoit and Eddy didn't draw crowds as champions, but Batista is? No reason to change his view, then. And, obviously, cruisers can't draw an audience, so let's minimize their on-air time and stick them on wwe.com. This is, of course, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Vince will suck on a tit until it stops giving milk, never mind the fact that it's only dripping rarely at the end. That's why he keeps bringing back Wife-Beater, because he knows the sheep will pop for him and buy more merchandise. Ditto Hogan. That's why he'll continue pushes long after everyone else has figured out that it's just not working (look at what's happening with Cena right now). He'll keep trotting guys out there even though they're getting X-Pac Heat. Chris Masters is proof of that. Despite being a good businessman, he never knows when to cut bait, and he harms the product in the long run.
The biggest problem, though, is personified by the overinflated breasts of one Stephanie McMahon. She's been head of "creative" for five years now, ever since Survivor Series 2000. I was one of the first people to publish a column about what a disaster this was going to be. I wrote back then that Steph's main influence was early-90s WWF, and she's proven me right so many times over the last five years that it's pathetic. It's on her watch that the Invasion happened, among other disasters. She has refused to learn any lesson that might have remotely informed her. She still brings in ex-soap opera people to write shows. She still has the same guys heading up the writing department, like Brian Gewirtz and Dave Lagana. Anyone who dares go against her will in "creative", like Paul Heyman, is stripped of power. There will be no force for change and improvement unless she's removed, and Vince won't do that. Steph is the Heir Designate over Shane, who's perfectly happy in his niche at the company and does TV if and when he wants to, which is rare because Shane, God bless him, has his priorities straight, with one toddler and another on the way. This situation has led directly to things like lack of elevation, inexplicable pushes of the wrong people, etc.
Between Vince's conservativism and old carny mentality and Steph's desire to make Daddy happy, you have a self-perpetuating cycle of suck. And there's no end to it.
In fact, the only time Vince changes is when he's pushed because his back is against the wall. The Attitude Era only happened because WWF was about a month from bankruptcy and getting the shit kicked out of them by WCW. Vince was in a frame of mind to listen to Shane and Vince Russo and try something different. Now, there isn't competition (TNA isn't there yet), and WWE's sitting there fat and happy getting revenues from recycling their tape library into DVDs, so there's no need for change. As long as the shareholders are happy, everything's fine.
And that's what's stopping WWE from improving. The only thing that can do it is a judicious application of Newton's Third Law of Motion: an outside force to change direction. In fact, we've talked about this at Inside Pulse and actually came up with a plan. Get three wrestling writers with good reputations as writers and as independent people; the three we eventually settled on were me, Scott Keith, and Dan Hevia. Team those three up with two wrestling veterans, guys who've either held the book or been through the wars enough to know right from wrong; WWE has enough people signed under the Legends program to pick and choose. Give the five of them complete control over both shows, with no interference from Steph and Vince. The five should be able to regulate each others' potentially harmful impulses. We figure that we would have both shows up to snuff within two months and on the right track within four months. We would get rid of the soap opera bullshit. We'd depush guys who aren't over and have no discernable talent. We'd put angles on a more realistic track, something that isn't force-fed to the audience like they're a bunch of retards. We'd put out a product that people would be proud to admit they watched, which would grow the fan base.
If they're going to refer to wrestling as "sports entertainment", it had better be entertaining. Right now, it isn't.
Q.Many people are hoping that NWA: TNA is on the up-and-coming list as a true threat to the WWE's position as top dog in the wrestling business. Jay "Christian" Reso recently made the jump to TNA, and rumours continue to fly around that guys like Jericho and Benoit may find their way to the promotion themselves sometime soon. Jumps such as these could really give the company some momentum. What do you think of TNA's product and do you believe they have any serious potential to ever take on the position of top dog?
ES: First of all, I like TNA's product. It's a lot less mentally straining to watch an hour of Impact than it is an hour of Raw or Smackdown right now, because they're doing their audience right by their broadcasts. Lots of wrestling, very little mind-numbing angle bullshit, and the angles they do have are reasonably well-developed. Well, the ones that don't involve Jarrett are.
But they're walking a tightrope. Yes, for everyone who loved WCW's cruiserweight scene and NJPW's juniors and wanted something like that again, we've got the X Division, which alone justifies TNA's existence. But they've recently developed a severe addiction. Someone, whether it be Jarrett or Dixie Carter or whoever, firmly believes that they have to whore themselves for the sake of gaining an audience, something that's become noticeable since they premiered on Spike. They're now on a constant cycle of "Who's The New Guy Coming In?" First it was Rhiyno. Then the ex-Dudleys. Then Christian. Now they're paying Sting a half million. Next it'll be Benoit if WWE decides to shoot itself in the foot again. They've focused so much on this that their homegrown guys, or guys who really made their name in TNA, are being left on the vine when it comes to stuff outside the X Division. I've written a lot recently about the treatment TNA is giving Monty Brown. Now, he's not the greatest wrestler in the world, and his finisher is...well, silly, but he's done everything they've asked and more. What's his reward? Constantly getting his time in the spotlight pushed back for the next guy in the door, and constantly getting pushed into an angle as Jarrett's ally. The moment that Christian went over him and Sting's contract was announced, I was certain that he would call his agent, find out if he could get out of his contract, and call Vince. He could fill a big gap on Smackdown right now. And Monty's not alone. Ron Killings has sure come a long way from K-Kwik, and now he's being pushed aside just so that they can reunite the New Age Outlaws (something that we all expected, but was done in a clumsy, teasy-weasy fashion that made people give up on it immediately). Sonny Siaki already gave up; he just signed a developmental with WWE.
Until that problem is solved, you can't take TNA seriously as competition. They also need a better timeslot on Spike (rumor has it that Spike is considering moving them to Thursday nights in order to enhance their UFC programming). Plus, they need a more modern view of wrestling. Jarrett is attempting to run an 80s-style territory in his booking. It works in some ways, but it gives off a bit of an old-fashioned odor in others. This isn't the territorial days, this isn't Memphis, and you're not Jerry Lawler, Jeff; you can't keep the strap on yourself with some charity reigns to your best performers. You're not going to be able to pull that shit with modern audiences.
Their advantage right now is simple: they're the only people other than Vince with a national cable deal. Thus, they're the place to go for wrestlers who feel that they're going to be trampled by the WWE machinery and lose what unique attributes they've developed, but still want exposure and career advancement. They've seen how guys like Samoa Joe have come in and been able to keep their individuality and still become successful. That's where they need to concentrate, the pipeline to the indies and ROH, not blowing a half million on fucking Sting.
And, Dear God, do something about the tag scene. It's the same four teams over and over, and the ex-Dudleys have to be catered to, so they hog the spotlight. Remember the Naturals? They're still on your roster, you know.
Q. Which TNA wrestlers would you pick as the standouts of the company and why?
.jpg) | | Samoa Joe: probably not as well known here in Australia as he should be. |
ES: Do you really want another totally cliché list? Of course, since TNA doesn't have as much exposure, readers may never have seen A.J.Styles, Christopher Daniels, or Samoa Joe. You have to, especially when all three are in the ring together. Consensus Match of the Year is their three-way at whatever PPV it was on (really, no one can remember the names of TNA PPVs because they're so uninspiring, and I don't feel like looking it up).
Out of the other guys, I love Sonjay Dutt. No human should be able to do some of the stuff he does. Elix Skipper is currently buried in the Diamonds In The Rough, but I've enjoyed his work since his WCW days. Roderick Strong made a great impression in ROH, and it's disappointing that TNA is using him for jobber duty. And Chris Sabin is currently stuck in the Chris Benoit position in the X Division, both booking-wise and skill-wise.
Q.And again, same as before, if you could pick three guys from TNA to fire right now, who would they be and why?
ES: He isn't even there yet, but I would have never signed Sting. I don't need the nostalgia trip. They're talking about bringing Sean Waltman back. Why? He left them high and dry on a PPV. And they better not even think of bringing back Jeff Fucking Hardy after what he's done to them; I'd personally drive the truck that turns Hardy into a multicoloured smear on a road.
Three active guys? Apolo is someone I'd drop. His tag partner Sonny Siaki is gone, and he's been shuffled off into the nether regions. I'd send Alastair Rouse right back to Canada with a one-way ticket; he's proven to be a poor replacement for Johnny Devine. And it's goodbye to Lance Hoyt; the last thing TNA needs right now is a big lug who can't do jack shit in the ring. Unless he's willing to join the Grievous Bodily Harm Division and bleed, he's of no use.
Q. Wrestlemania 22 is coming up very soon, and the Royal Rumble isn't that far off either. Who would your picks be for the winner of the Rumble, and the champs at WM22?
ES: Unlike in past years, right now, the situation regarding the Rumble and WM is wide open. Last year, for instance, they booked themselves into a corner. Everyone knew going into Royal Rumble that either Batista or Cena would win the Rumble match. This year, it's different. If there's any sense of sanity, Cena will drop the title at New Years' Revolution, preferably to Angle. If that's the case, Cena's the odds-on favourite for the Rumble match (and there goes my vomit reflex). High-Quality Speaker Boy has to be in the mix for the Rumble match as well, depending on what day of the week it is. They're going to push those losers on Raw as contenders. And then there's Randy Fucking Orton. Oh, joy. Things should be a lot clearer after New Years' Revolution.
As for WM, it's in my hometown this year. The two times it's been in Chicago, they've been pretty piss-poor. I don't see that changing this year. They'll probably foist Batista/Orton on us along with some combination of Trip, Angle, and/or Cena. All in all, it'll not only be a show that I wouldn't want to order, but one that makes me want to lose my will to live as each match on the card is revealed. Thank God I dissuaded myself from paying a visit back home for this one.
Winners? Must I? Oh, well...as I said, if Cena drops the title at New Years' Revolution, he wins the Rumble. If not, it'll be Trip, because fuck knows that it wouldn't be Wrestlemania if he's not in the main event. After WM, it'll be Trip and Batista as champions.
I learned that if you're a discerning wrestling fan, optimism must be banished, because Vince will dash your hopes. I've become quite convinced that this became personal between us a long time ago.
Q. What do you see happening in wrestling's immediate future, will it remain pretty much as it is for the time being?
ES: WWE will, because they see no reason to change. There will be a consensus about Batista after he goes out of Wrestlemania the champion, having held the belt for a year. The smarks will start praising WWE for allowing a champion to have such a long reign, and the marks will keep cheering for him. They'll try to salvage the situation on Smackdown with the draft, with Kurt Angle being the key switch.
TNA will continue on their path and proceed to alienate some of their key guys, who will get offers from Vince. Monty Brown will be on Smackdown by July and get the US title at SummerSlam. The whole Sting thing will backfire on them tremendously, but Spike will be satisfied with their ratings. And the X Division will constantly kick ass.
ROH will be happy in their little niche, buoyed by the Internet fanboys who love them so. As such, Gabe Sapolsky will not kiss my ass, so they won't get mentioned in my column.
In order to make room for Monty and some of the other people TNA has alienated, as well as some of the guys in developmental like CM Punk, WWE will have another Independence Day Massacre. We're already making up the list of who's going to get cut in 2006.
They'll have another Diva Search, and no one will care.
Lucha will gain some ground this year among Anglo audiences, but not very much. It'll be enough to keep WWE on its path of trying to appeal to a Hispanic audience, though.
Puro will keep going on its merry way as well. Yukes will start driving NJPW into the ground, but the shit won't hit the fan there until 2007. AJPW will bring in more gaijins once they're cut by WWE and do far better by them than Vince ever did. NOAH will go as Misawa's vision dictates; now if he can only figure out what he wants to do…
And everything I said here will be wrong, because whenever I put something in print, it never happens.
Q. In closing, is there anything we might have missed asking you about that you'd like to express your opinions about for our readers (or yours for that matter)?
ES: Well, not really. I'm a pretty opinionated guy, as I said, so I usually get it out in my columns. I'd like to thank everyone at Buttonhole for the chance to do this, and I'd like to thank my colleagues at Inside Pulse, who are a great bunch of people. If you're not interested in wrestling (and why are you reading this if you aren't?), definitely head to Inside Pulse. We're a general pop culture website with a terrific group of writers, and you're bound to be entertained by something there.
Other than that, conservatives are evil and must be exterminated, LASIK is worth every cent you pay for it, use a condom, respect the men and women who serve or served in the military, and download PPVs instead of paying for them. That's what I do.
Thanks again for your time Eric.
by: Darth Bin Laden
Email the Author
More articles by Darth Bin Laden
|
Latest Game
Latest DVD
Latest Music
Latest Wrestling
By Australian Ninja
