This past week the UFC put on two strong shows and in the elevated two names. Tito Ortiz who was already a star in his own right became a legend as over 5 million people tuned in to see him destroy Ken Shamrock in less than 3 minutes.
Anderson Silva has now made himself into an overnight sensation with one win. He beat the champ Rich Franklin and it meant that a new era was entering the middleweight division.
When was the last time one win meant that much in wrestling? I don’t want to hear the arguments that because I am comparing a worked and shoot sport that it wouldn’t be fair to judge the significance of wins. Wins have far less meaning in wrestling because of this mentality that if wrestler A beats wrestler B than wrestler B needs to get his “win back.” This system is parity booking.
In the 80s and early 90s when a midcarder got a win over a star it meant that a new star was born. Shelton Benjamin is no bigger a star today than he was two years ago when he beat Triple H and Carlito isn’t a main guy because he beat Benjamin. This system of booking is justified because bookers and writers think that parity creates an unpredictable atmosphere where you don’t know who’s going to win a given match. The Monday Night Wars created a period where WWF(E) and WCW put pay per view quality matches on television. Because there was so much television time to fill, sometimes guys wrestled each over and over and thus created a situation where wrestlers would trade wins between one another. Job guys or “enhancement talent” was no longer used and the era of the squash match was over.
This system of booking does not create stars and worse creates an almost too level playing field where everyone is a midcarder. Don’t believe me? On RAW currently you have Shelton Benjamin, Carlito, Chris Masters, Jeff Hardy, Johnny Nitro, and Super Crazy all swapping wins with one another. When it comes time for one of these boys to become a main event star the push will not catch as well as it should. Proof of this can be seen with the current Smackdown champion King Booker who for years has been toiling in the midcard winning and losing to RVD and Benoit and now all of a sudden the WWE expects fans to buy into this guy as a world champion. Give me a break.
Now I can’t sit here and deny that while there are many guys who seem to be spinning their wheels there are others who are true main event stars. However, these guys became stars because they didn’t fall victim to parity booking. Samoa Joe. Joe was allowed to be a star because he was allowed to beat everyone in the X Division and not trade wins with them week after week. Joe was protected and is now a star. And the guy to pin Joe will also be a star.
Now I understand ones argument that Joe became a star while preventing others in the X division from becoming as big. Well, in order to make an omelet you need to break some eggs and if to make a star we need to see the return of job guy level talent like Tito Santana, “Iron” Mike Sharpe, and The Brooklyn Brawler than so be it. Not everyone can be a star or even a midcard guy. Losing for the sake of getting your “win back” next week needs to end because under this system guys get burn out and no one gets elevated.
Parity seems to be the new buzz word in sports. The new NHL is apparently so great because more teams have a chance to win the Stanley Cup and on any given night a weak team could beat a good team. True. Does it make hockey more exciting? Maybe. I’m not sold on parity in sports and I’m definitely sick of seeing it in wrestling. Parity prevents dynasties from happening in real sports and stars from being created in wrestling. It’s a shame that a worked sport like wrestling can’t make stars when they control who wins and loses and a company like UFC who has no control over the finishes of their matches are able to elevate talent. The meaning of wins and losses needs to be restored in wrestling.
2 comments: on "Win, lose or midcard; How parity booking is killing wrestling"
Really good points Frank...
But to answer one of your questions, I do think that it makes sports more interesting when "anyone can win". It's one of the main reasons I hate the New York Yankees so much. When it appears 'automatic' that someone is going to win, it takes away a lot of the allure and interest a contest can have. I think it's phenomenal that the Detroit Tigers lost 119 games in 2003 and now are headed to the World Series in 2006. You don't ALWAYS have to be a loser.
I used a baseball reference while you referred to hockey...but I think the same for all sports.
Pro wrestling, being a worked performance, I think is trying to utilize the element of surprise in much the same way legitimate contests like UFC, MLB and NHL have presented by fluke.
I agree with you that certain stars need to be elevated without necessarily "trading" wins, but I feel that it is actually more realistic that someone could win or lose at any given time depending on the circumstances.
Booker is no stranger to world titles. As well, as a heel, he will utilize more 'unsportsmanlike' and downright cheap ways to retain his title. It makes sense to me.
What WWE needs is to NOT forget what a wrestler has achieved (eg. Benjamin defeating HHH) so that he doesn't revert back to a state of near-nothingness while he SHOULD be main eventing.
Actually Ben...
Even during his prime, Tito was really just Vince's best little soldier.
New talent went through Tito in order to get over. He was a hell of a worker but really never had extended success as a singles.
His I-C title reign was a "thank you for being such a good employee".
Check his record at Wrestlemanias.
There are high profile guys that were basically jobbers. At the top of the list, Tito and Mick Foley.
Post a Comment