In my previous blog I concluded that the truth is separate from our opinions because we are all basically biased in one way or another. As a salve to that itch I will endeavour to prove that facts can be identified, using statistical analysis, and that a calculated comparison can be made without the need for favouritism. To that end, I will be analysing and comparing this week’s episode of WWE Raw (07/05/07) against one selected at random from WWE history (or ‘my tape collection’ as it’s otherwise known). I’m only concerned with matches/interviews/promos/angles that involve members of the active roster, mainly so I can comfortably avoid Steve Austin’s crappy film (which is coincidentally what I will be doing when it is shown at my local cinema). All timings and averages have been rounded up or down to the nearest integer and matches have been timed according to the segments in which they appear, not from bell to bell.
The episode selected at random was 19/05/03. In the show; the announcement was made for the Nash/HHH ‘Hell in a cell’ PPV match, Jericho admitted that he organised the attempted hit and run on Bill Goldberg, RVD/Kane defended their tag titles against Christian/Jericho and HHH/Flair fought for the World heavyweight championship. After the show went off the air a celebration was held for Ric Flair involving the entire roster ... but that doesn’t concern us at this time. From this point on I will be referring to the old episode as “2003” and the new one as “2007”, which should save me a lot of repetitive typing. Firstly, a few statistical basics relating to the segmentation of the show...
Number of matches = 6 (2003) 7 (2007)
Total duration of match segments = 49m (2003) 43m (2007)
Average length of match segments = 8m (2003) 6m (2007)
Number of non-wrestling segments = 9 (2003) 8 (2007)
Total duration of non-wrestling segments = 37m (2003) 34m (2007)
Average length of non-wrestling segments = 4m (2003) 4m (2007)
Okay, not exactly a massive difference so far. Though it should be noted that, at a time when the WWE should be hammering home the advantage it has of two unopposed hours of wrestling airtime on a weekly basis, the total and average time devoted to wrestling has dropped slightly. The differences relating to the non-wrestling segments are so small that they are inconsequential so I’ll skip over that, for now. Although I will just say that only TWO of the eight non-wrestling segments on this week’s show (Vince/Lashley and Edge/Kennedy) advanced the storyline to which they were attached. Compare that to EIGHT out of nine in 2003 and you’ll see why the WWE is struggling to form a meaningful connection between the audience and a lot of its new talent thesedays. My real concern is that the average segment duration for the show is FIVE minutes. Now that’s not a complaint about the number of commercial breaks during the show, which I haven’t taken into consideration here (even if they are annoying), but it is certainly an issue if the WWE wishes to develop characters that are more than just the cultural veneers they have been guilty of proffering recently.
Let’s turn our attention to the WWE superstars used on the shows...
Number of active roster members used = 28 (2003) 33 (2007)
Number of former/current WWE/WCW World champions = 9 (2003) 6 (2007)
Number of full-time tag teams = 4 (2003) 5 (2007)
Number of managers/valets = 3 (2003) 0 (2007)
Number of female performers = 3 (2003) 6 (2007)
The obvious realisation is that there were more people on this week’s show than in 2003 but they were given less time to shine. That’s a problem. And it’s an even bigger problem if Vince can’t recognise this fact two weeks after HBK/Cena put an entry into the top three best matches in Raw history just by utilising time and good, basic sports entertainment. Equally, if he thinks he can build a meaningful storyline gluing together all the passionless bits of blah he threw Carlito this week then he really doesn’t value our enthusiasm. The number of former/current WWE/WCW World champions is a bit of a concern too, especially when you take into account that TWO of the six from this week are virtually discountable (Vince McMahon, because he was and is a token champion, and Ron Simmons, because he did nothing on the show but say “Damn”). Whereas all NINE World champions from 2003 were legitimate brand-carrying title-holders and benefited the show in some way. The tag team statistic for this Monday’s Raw is also a little misleading seeing as one team was squashed by a singles wrestler, another team did a comedy sketch and the only hot team and current champs got a near-squash win while their main challengers did the same commentary schtick as last week. But at least it’s something I guess. I’ll accept that Torrie Wilson could be considered a ‘valet’ during this week’s show but she did lose that position after her segment was done and it is further suggestion that, as the intention of ring accompaniment is to facilitate storylines, the WWE seems to have lost the inclination to tell stories up and down the card. The one positive from this is the women’s division, at a time when most fans have written it off already. Granted, a week either way in 2003 and I could have selected episodes of Raw containing Trish, Lita, Molly, Victoria or Jazz. It was just bad luck that this one had Stacey Keibler, Moolah and Mae Young as the only female performers on the show. But the divas tag team match this week was competently performed, logically written and had a reason to be there, something that didn’t apply to all the men’s matches on the night.
Speaking of reasons to be there...
LONG-TERM FEUDS referenced = 7 (2003) 4 (2007)
LONG-TERM FEUDS advanced = 3 (2003) 1 (2007)
ONE-NIGHT FEUDS created = 3 (2003) 2 (2007)
OUT-OF-FEUD matches = 3 (2003) 3 (2007)
This is a bad section for 2007. Only FOUR long-term feuds referenced on the show (Cena/HBK, Vince/Lashley, Carlito/Flair, Hardy’s/Cade & Murdoch). And only the World title feud took a shift in direction (which unfortunately was to job both of them out to a big tree in dark trousers). Anyone who thinks Cena/Khali should be classed as a long-term feud should recall what happened the last time Khali was given any decent PPV responsibility, something that left us watching Big Show wheeze his way round a giant bamboo climbing frame for twenty minutes. And to only prepare TWO of seven matches with some on-the-night storyline colour (HBK/Khali and Edge/Kennedy) is bordering on the apathetic. Why didn’t Masters confront Marella backstage and accuse him of not being “WWE material”? Why didn’t The Highlanders accidentally annoy Vince again and then he could set Umaga on them. Why did the women’s tag match appear to be pre-empted by some pseudo-sapphic fumbling instead of giving Candice the ‘wrestler’ credibility she so desperately needs right now? Even the out-of-feud contests in 2003 had something added to them to spark some tiny flicker of interest during the matches (Test/Steiner arguing over Keibler, Rico quitting as 3MW’s manager and Rodney Mack’s ‘5-minute white-boy challenge’ against Spike Dudley). Certainly more consideration than Umaga’s squashing of Robbie/Rory, Marella beats Masters in four and Matt/Jeff win in five. At least the latter got an uncomfortable ‘friendly’ handshake at the end. The evidence that the WWE has been creatively accomplished at building new wrestlers and new stories over the years has been that they have achieved great success with some technically imperfect performers (Hogan, Yokozuna, JBL, Cena) but if they neglect the one constant in these successes (which is emotive, logical writing) then fan appeal will wane.
Maybe we’ll get more from isolating the main storyline of each show...
SEGMENTS devoted to main storyline = 5 (2003) 4 (2007)
TIME devoted to main storyline = 29m (2003) 21m (2007)
WRESTLERS involved in main storyline = 5 (2003) 4 (2007)
MATCHES involved in main storyline = 1 (2003) 2 (2007)
WWE/WCW CHAMPIONS in main storyline = 5 (2003) 3 (2007)
I suppose I could make a big deal about that last statistic but, on the whole, the numbers work out about equal. Except one. “MATCHES involved in main storyline”. In 2003, the show built slowly in distinct emotional stages. Austin telling HHH he had to pick a former World champion to face on that night, HHH picking Flair, Flair being honoured that HHH chose him, HHH explaining that he wants Ric to lie down, HBK telling Flair that he should fight and be the old ‘Nature Boy’, Ric telling HHH that he won’t lie down ... leading us to the main event where Flair and HHH have a good, solid TV match with psychology and energy. And even after those SEVEN stages, they still go one step further by having Austin congratulate HHH for retaining his title and he announces the ‘Hell in a cell’ match against Kevin Nash at the PPV. A show that uses the depth and diversity of the characterisations, the thoughtful progress of the storyline and then hands that on to the PPV main event that is to come. Just doesn’t get any better than that. And this week? We get less time, fewer segments, spread thinly across more wrestlers, of whom there are fewer former champions and it gets split in half to cover two matches so that the whole show doesn’t get drowned under the full weight of Khali’s useless ass. Just doesn’t get any worse than that.
Out of the 28 WWE superstars who appeared on the 19th May 2003 edition of Raw, only TWO also appeared on this week’s show. HBK and Umaga (then as Jamal of ‘3 minute warning’). Only NINE of those 28 are still with the WWE. Out of interest (though not intended to prove anything) SIX of those 28 are now in TNA. The primary disappointing statistic is that only Cena and Batista progressed from the WWE mid-card in 2003 and dominated the WWE main event scene in 2006/07. Edge, Orton and Jericho standout as the most frustrating losses to the franchise champion’s club (for differing reasons) but it is also a shame that performers like Matt and Jeff Hardy, RVD and Christian never got the big push, even if it was only to see them fail spectacularly. In fact, if it wasn’t for an injury and an untimely omission, some of the main protagonists on the two shows could have been much the same (HBK, HHH, Flair) and they were hardly in their prime FOUR YEARS ago. Not an indication that Vince has remembered that magic formula for “creating new stars and new concepts”. God let’s hope he finds it soon, before he puts the belt on Chris Masters or Mark Henry. If it’s a choice between that WWE and TNA ... I’d rather watch porn.
So there it is, proof that you can be statistically analytical without being biased. Kinda makes you feel good doesn’t it? That the world can be a nice, happy place and not everyone is trying to enforce their opinions onto you. Oh, one small problem. I lied. Again. I think I’ve got a problem. I did say in my previous blog that the truth is separate from our opinions because we are all basically biased in one way or another and that’s true even if someone tells you that they’re not. Even if someone presents facts to you in a concise, constructive way, they are still voicing their slanted, blinkered take on the wrestling world as much as the monosyllabic morons who post one-point blogs, usually calling someone a ‘fag’. I think it would be generous to conclude that 60% of pro-wrestling news is basically questionable whether it comes from corporate machinery or independent sources. Just remember to believe what you see more than what you read. And that applies if the name is Meltzer, Keller, Angle, Carter or McMahon. And yes, even Vox. And that’s the truth.
Lee
Copyright © 2005; TheWrestlingVoice.com & Douglas Nunnally.
All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer & Privacy Statement
| What Did You Think About WWE Backlash 2008? |
|
|