The maxim in wrestling is that before you become a star, you need to pay your dues. In my rage last night over the way RAW was booked, I said here and at A1 that paying dues is overrated and implied it was an antiquated practice. I still somewhat feel that way, but in retrospect, it's something that I advocate on here all the time. A guy pays his dues when he's in the midcard or in the tag division. He pays his dues by appearing in classic hierarchical matches against established main eventers, like the ones you used to see on Superstars and Wrestling Challenge back in the day, when Rad Radford would take on Shawn Michaels, or even recently, when Primo Colon wrestled Randy Orton. A wrestler needs to go through that growth period where he loses from time to time in order to become centered and grounded. The two biggest examples of guys who forewent the growth process were Goldberg and Brock Lesnar. Goldberg became a pain in the ass backstage with a huge ego, and Lesnar thought he should have had the world handed to him and eventually left the business.So when you talk about a guy who debuts as a low-carder, gets wins over jobbers, bursts into the midcard and has success, but then starts losing matches, either in hierarchical matches against main eventers or against guys his equal in the midcard, before getting his big push into the main event (should that guy be a main event talent in the first place... not everyone is cut to move past the midcard and is perfectly fine as an entertaining midcarder for life a la Goldust) as paying dues, okay, yeah, I can see that argument and even agree with it.
However, when you talk about a guy getting a rocket up his ass into the main event and having to lose match after match once he gets there, or a guy who wins a title unexpectedly and then is made to look like a buffoon at every turn until he anti-climactically loses the title a month later, or when you're talking about the guy who doesn't need protection getting protection and the guy who absolutely needs protection not getting it as paying dues, then that's where I tell you to shut the fuck up because you're on crack. What happened last night was not Jack Swagger paying dues. It was Jack Swagger being buried.
Of course, it's hard to fault the WWE writers. No, wait, it isn't hard to fault them because it's their fault that they have to resort to this kind of ham-handed, backwards-thinking, Hogan-cutting-a-shoot-promo-on-the-New-Blood-for-not-drawing-minded booking because over the last decade, they've systematically eliminated the midcard and the tag team division as we know them and as they have worked for decades because they don't know how to budget time or prioritize what needs to get over. If there's no midcard for Jack Swagger to learn how to lose without losing the elasticity on his heat, then how is he supposed to deal with losing when he reaches the main event? If there's no midcard for the audience to really start taking Jack Swagger seriously by seeing him win matches against other people who get exposure, then how the hell are they going to take him seriously when he's jobbing to everyone who's worth a damn in the main event?
While the smark maxim of "fuck the old guys, push the new guys" is a deeply flawed one, it really does ring true when they unexpectedly put the World Championship on one of the new guys. While there are people in the business and in the stands that see the title belts as trinkets, I'm going to bet that the majority of the fanbase at least wants to view the Championship as something important. That's why it's a terrible idea to start making a guy "pay dues" after he's won the title, especially a guy who's done nothing BUT "pay dues" since coming over to RAW. The belt and the holder of the belt NEED to look strong, or else there's no reason to watch. We all know the sport is staged, but the suspension of disbelief, that magic that makes us believe for just one second that maybe what they're doing is real, needs to be there, and when the best wrestlers in the company aren't competing for the Championship and it's treated as just a prop to try and get a guy over whom they're clearly not treating as the equal, then you start to make the fanbase wonder why the fuck they're fighting, or more accurately, pretending to fight anyway.
The point is, Champions don't pay dues. Champions compete, Champions set the standard, Champions win. If the WWE was not prepared to let Jack Swagger run with the title as a true Champion, then the WWE should not have strapped him. It's as simple as that.
Photo Credit: WWE.com
Remember you can contact TH and ask him questions about wrestling, life or anything else. Please refer to this post for contact information. He always takes questions!
Dude, I gotta jump in here. How are you so sure that this is even about "paying dues?"
ReplyDeleteSwagger won the belt on a fluke and hasn't had any track record, save for ECW, where he ever looked strong. It would make so little sense if when he won the belt he was magically the best guy on the roster. I love Swagger and would mark out for a run with the WHC like he did with the ECW Title, but the story is that he got completely lucky with his win.
If anything we should be proud of how evenly matched he was with Orton until the finish.
The Money In The Bank angle is built around the idea that whoever cashes it in doesn't actually deserve to be champion.
Just my two cents!
Again, that's not saying that he should go over strong over Orton on his first non-title match. There are other ways to book guys other than chicken shit wimpy guy heel and Triple H/John Cena. The point is that it's tiresome seeing guys who aren't named Trips, Cena, Batista or Taker get treated like garbage when they're Champion. It's not like this is the first time they've done an angle like this either.
ReplyDeleteI like nuance to my booking, and I like to see guys who are getting elevated to be elevated. I really have no faith that they're going to follow through on Swagger's elevation in a meaningful way in the near future. That's just me though.
If the title run takes a turn for the interesting though, you know I'll be the first person to cheerlead it.
Uh, if Swagger loses a bunch, are we supposed to see a heel battle against adversity? If they're going to face turn him, sure. But generally heels are the guys who exist to get beaten. If Swagger is always getting punked, yeah, you still want to see him lose, but it's not a big event.
ReplyDeleteI don't like the Money in the Bank because it implies that the winner doesn't deserve the championship, but that's rectified by simply having a main event level guy win it, or by treating it like another title, the way it was before. Swagger simply shouldn't have cashed in his shot so soon, that way we could have more moments like the post-Wrestlemania RAW, see him get his feet among the big dogs.
I don't have an issue with him not beating Orton on RAW, but I just don't see why they didn't have Swagger bail on the match or something heelish as opposed to taking a clean pinfall. He did look good in there and as I said before I hope this WHC reign is a sign that he's going to be around a long time. Hopefully he'll get a better run down the line like Orton did.
ReplyDeleteIt's worth noting that they did him a solid on SmackDown! by giving him a clean victory over John Morrison. That's a guy that before Money in the Bank I would think is higher up the ladder than Swagger. Now that they've given him the gold he needs wins over guys like Morrison/MVP/Kofi at least if not over an Edge/Orton/Jericho. At the very least they need to establish that he's at the top of the midcard heap and ready to make a move to the main event. I think clean wins over guys like Morrison will help accomplish that. Plus it was a good match.
ReplyDelete