Philadelphia Daily News columnist Bill Conlin has a gimmick, where he spends a column talking about things he'd do if he were the King of the World. It's a neat gimmick, and it applies well in the world of wrestling. I wish it wouldn't, but the WWE and TNA (and to a lesser extent, ROH, but I hate bagging on ROH because their in-ring product is so good) give people so much ammo to want to change things if they were the totalitarian ruler of this planet.So indulge me here. I'm going to tell you what I'd do with wrestling if I were King of the World. Well, at least where I'd start. What I'd do is that I'd implement a set of rules, a code of law concerning booking, if you weeeell. For too long I've sat by and watched free TV wrestling just not make sense, and given that both the WWE and TNA have good rosters (the WWE having maybe the best roster of collected talent ever), it's shame that they'd both be put to misuse. So here's my list of the Rules of Booking:
1. The Champion Doesn't Get Pinned or Submitted in a Non-Title Match
The World Champion is the best wrestler in your fed. Similarly, if a wrestler holds another lesser or different title belt, he or she got there because of talent and the fact that in some way, he or she deserves that title. To regularly have people scoring decisive victories over a titleholder in non-title situations undermines the credibility of the Championship, and thus, the fed itself, mainly because you're implying that said Champion doesn't deserve the title. It's very hard to defend a guy who regularly loses matches as being the best when he's got a worse perceived win-loss record than most challengers.
Yes, there are built-in excuses. The Champion didn't give his all in the non-title matches, which makes sense for certain guys, but at the same time, if he's losing a lot in his non-title matches, then when he's magically defending the title successfully, then it takes away from the suspension of disbelief. I preach on this blog all the time that wrestling works in part that in the minds of fans, for at least a second if not longer, they forget the outcomes are predetermined. The big thing though is that there's no real parallel to other sports. In "real" combat sports, fighters often have to take three months at least off between bouts as the physical toll on the body is immense. They really don't have the luxury of having their Champions fight when the title's not on the line. In team sports, the Championship is a cumulative thing rather than a title that is defended each time the team plays a game. The non-title match is a necessary evil (for reasons that will be outlined later), but when it's used as a crutch to build contenders, then that's when things get all pear-shaped.
I don't think this is an ironclad rule. Occasionally, when building a story in very certain instances, I think it's okay for a Champion to drop a non-title match. There's no real magic formula for what situations are okay and what aren't. For example, my problem with Jack Swagger losing to Randy Orton clean on Monday was just another surge in my growing annoyance at the WWE's insistance upon using non-title matches as platforms for their Champions to job and set up contenders. Had that been the first time in a long time that a Champion had dropped a non-title affair, I'd have been okay with it, especially in the context of the story.
Also, there's also a big exception - when you have two singles title holders face off in a non-title match, I'd be okay with a clean finish as long as we're following the hierarchy of things (again, see later). Logically, the World Champion should be going over the US Champion, so it would be okay for the US Champion to eat a clean pinfall.
1a. Draws, Countouts and DQs Are Fine
Pinfalls and submissions are decisive victories. They're recognized as such because in a title match situation, they're the only way (most of the time) that you can win the title. There's way too much room for fudging and for second-guessing for the countout or the disqualification to mean anything about one guy being better than the second guy. Furthermore, a draw by its very definition means that the competitors in the match were on an even keel.
For that main, overarching reason, draws, countouts and DQs are not only acceptable ways for a Champion to not win his/her match, but they're preferred ways to build heat for a feud. I think it's self-explanatory.
2. Do Not Book the Exact Same Match Two Weeks in a Row
You know how it is on RAW or Smackdown for some stretches. You see a fresh matchup one week, and you get a clean finish. Nothing else happens after the match. Okay, issue over, right? Well no, they're wrestling again the next week. No post match beatdown, no promo to give insight on why the match would be booked again, no stakes raised. Nothing. The WWE seems to call this "building a feud" nowadays. I call it boring. Hell, the WWE even does it when the two guys in question aren't feuding. Evan Bourne seems to be a favorite target to go out there with a guy he's not feuding with two weeks in a row and building up a storyline that doesn't involve him.
Every match on the card needs to have a reason for being on there. The default reason is simple - two guys are wrestling to get ahead. But if wrestler A beats wrestler B one week, then wrestler A gets ahead of wrestler B. There's no reason for the two to rematch without some other spark. If the match happens again the next week, then it's redundant, because A already defeated B, and there's no reason why a booker would logically pit the two against each other. Now, if A defeated B and B attacked A afterwards, or if A pulled the tights to defeat B, then you've got something. No longer is it A vs. B to get ahead, there's now a personal stake involved. You see, a wrestling match isn't just wrestler vs. wrestler. It's wrestler vs. wrestler with something at stake. Simple reasoning, right?
2a. Do Not Book a Repeat Match in the Exact Same Manner... Ever
Back before SummerSlam, Evan Bourne beat Jack Swagger in a Beat the Clock match in what was sold as a monumental upset. The next week, Swagger, with something to prove, squashed Bourne in minutes. Fine, that's alright storytelling right there, even if Swagger and Bourne were not to be involved in the short-term. Well, it would have been alright if they didn't repeat the same exact sequence of matches a month later. And poor Bourne seems to have that sense of deja vu, because he's been used as squash fodder for Sheamus, what, like three times now? Having the same matchup several times over the course of the year is fine, it's what feuds are made of. But booking the exact same match with the exact same feel and the exact same finish? That's just called being a lazy road agent.
2b. When All Else Fails, Book a Tag Match
Seriously, why don't people do this more often? I mean, not only does it help to further feuds by having guys on the opposite side of the ring from each other, but it helps further along multiple feuds at the same time while giving an air of freshness to the whole matchup.
2b-I. If Your Champion Takes a Fall Clean in a Tag Match, You Had Better Have a Good Reason
If your World Champion takes a fall in the match because his feud partner or even his ne'er-do-well partner distracts him or botches a move, then that would constitute a good reason. If it's a clean pinfall out of nowhere, then yeah, refer to Rule 1.
3. Define Your Rules and Stick to the Definitions
While I'm sure the TNA booking staff has clearly forgotten about all events that happened on their January 4th super special, I haven't. The match that opened the show was a steel cage match where the only way you could win was by climbing out of an impossible-to-reach-looking orifice at the top. Well, at least that was how the match was supposed to end. Instead, the refs stopped the match when Homicide decided to go apeshit with a steel chair on everyone in a match that wasn't supposed to have barred that sort of thing. Attention to detail, it's a killer. The best way to go is to keep the rules simple and to have referees, wrestlers and bookers that know what the stipulations of the match are and to make sure the finish they planned out for that match fits and doesn't insult the intelligence of the fans. Yes, even the Impact Zone mutants are somewhat intelligent. Maybe.
4. The Dusty Finish Protects No One and Should Be Used Sparingly
Again, something I've railed against in the past is the "Dusty Finish", or really, to coin a more current term to tarnish someone who isn't nearly as likeable as De Dweem, the "Russo Finish". If it happens excessively, then all you're going to get are fans who become desensitized to real matches. No one wins clean so no one becomes stronger. No one loses, so there's no real consequence for having lost a match. It just creates a giant vortex of parity-suck that gets no one over and doesn't even recognize the "sports" aspect of sports entertainment.
5. Treat Gimmick Matches Like Special Events
Remember back when steel cage matches were a special thing? Yeah, me too. Now, you're more apt to see a cage match used as a bullshit way to further bury a guy like Cody Rhodes in a glorified squash against Triple H rather than see it as a huge feud ender like it was back in the days of Slaughter, Snuka and the rest of the gang. The extra stipulations of matches should be meant to mean something extra. It would have made no sense for The Rock and Mick Foley to have an I Quit match in their first two meetings, but at the Rumble, when Rocky was the Corporate crown jewel looking for new challenges, and Foley was the blue-assed fly who wouldn't leave Rock alone? Yeah, that's where it's effective. Odd that I cited a time when Vince Russo was in charge of booking the WWE when he's the biggest offender of misusing gimmick matches. Judy Bagwell on a Pole match, anyone?
5a. The First Match in a Series of Matches Should NEVER Be a Gimmick Match
This goes without saying. The obvious exception to the rule is a match like Money in the Bank.
6. Define a Hierarchy among Your Wrestlers and Stick with It
Dylan Hales popularized the term "nonsensical parity booking" at A1, and folks like myself and loyal blogster David McKinney among others have adopted it as the label put on the biggest thing killing wrestling booking today. Back in the day, even in the Russo era, main eventers were main eventers, midcarders were midcarders, new talent was new talent and jobbers were jobbers. There were roles, and while it did make for booking predictable finishes, well, for one, it was a big thing in helping keep kayfabe alive and two, it actually meant something when you decided you were going to elevate someone. If Mr. Perfect were to get a clean pinfall over Kerry Von Erich, it wouldn't mean much other than it being part of a midcard feud because both guys were midcarders. However, if Perfect were to get a clean pinfall win over Randy Savage or the Ultimate Warrior? That meant something. Savage and Warrior were both entrenched as main eventers. Perfect would have been a career midcarder getting his first signature win in that hypothetical situation (as we know now, Perfect would be the archetypical career midcarder until his untimely death).
Today though? Well, it's better in the WWE, but it's still a problem, especially since everyone in the main event trades wins and really no one builds momentum unless they're facing a midcarder. In TNA though, you can argue that there are no main eventers anymore except Kurt Angle. Everyone loses to everyone else on a regular basis, and people trade wins to the point where everyone is on an even keel, from vets like Samoa Joe to newbs like Ken Anderson. You want to know why the TNA title isn't a big deal? Because I could theoretically walk into the company tomorrow, win a match, get a title shot and win, and no one would bat an eyelash because the Champion, AJ Styles, hasn't been booked to be on a higher level than anyone he's faced, and vice versa.
There needs to be a hierarchy. There needs to be a certain expectation of who is going to win a match, so that when that expectation is not met, the decision means something for the guy who wins. I don't tune into Superstars to see Primo Colon score a win over Randy Orton. I tune in to see a good match, but to see Orton get a win that gives him a bit of momentum, or if I were a mark, I'd be tuning in for the same reason I would watch a Baylor/Oklahoma football game... hoping for a game underdog to at least put up a fight if not score the emotional upset win.
6a. If Both Wrestlers in the Match Need Protection, Then the Match Probably Shouldn't Be Happening
Duh. But to expound, there's no need to put yourself in a corner booking two guys who both need wins and having to come up with something super creative to keep both guys' heat going. I guess this should probably be an addendum to Rule 1. The thing is, there is an ongoing, constantly morphing identity to card position and momentum. This Rule is worded vaguely for a reason I guess, because there are going to be times when you have to put two guys who need protection against each other to build heat for a PPV blowoff. Again, tag matches and such can be your friend here.
6b. And If It Does Happen Anyway, the Finish Had Better Not Be a Clean Pin or Submission
This is where the time limit draw or a countout is your best friend. It's also the spot where the Russo Finish might be best utilized.
7. Title Shots Are Earned
Few things piss me off as much as when a TNA wrestler makes his first appearance ever or in a long time and it's in a title match or a contenders' match. Seriously? This goes back to Rule 1 again in that the Champion is the best wrestler in your company or at least subdivision. If you just hand them out like candy, then you devalue the title because the guy getting the chance to prove he's best is being decided arbitrarily. Hell, even the fuckin' BCS isn't as shady in the way they choose the finalists for their Championship game, or else we'd be seeing Miami (FL) against USC every year for the hell of it. Then again, there is no hierarchy in TNA, so maybe arbitrary is the way to since everyone's on an equal plane *wanking motion*
I keep coming back to the way Chikara decides who gets a shot at their Campeonatos de Parejas, but it really is the best way. You get a shot by winning matches. Simple as that. So simple that it's no surprise that the WWE and especially TNA haven't picked up on it.
I hope that wasn't too sanctimonious for your tastes, but this is something I feel very strongly about. If you have something that you think needs to be added, feel free to supply in the comments. Really, good booking is the one thing in wrestling that can't have enough care put into making it come out good.
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!
