You are here /wrestling
/guests
/Lloyd
Guest Columns

Tim Lloyd

Main

BLAH

THE DEATH OF GOOD ANGLES

First let me make a comment about Russo getting demoted/fired from WCW, assuming of course that its not a work. Lets see, we now have Benoit as champ, a renewed commitment to actually have (gasp) wrestling on a wrestling show, Terry Taylor back on the booking committee (bring back real cruiserweights), Nash is NOT head booker or even on the committee despite what some are assuming (reliable reporters are describing his position as 'liaison between bookers and workers'). Now if only they would get rid of Sullivan (bring on the mutiny), give Flair more input and make Taylor head booker I might actually be enthusiastic. I am now actually interested in WCW for the first time since Russo's first couple of weeks. Stay tuned.

Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

The story is ludicrous.
Maude Lebowski describing the plot of a porno film in the movie The Big Lebowski.

Anatomy of a great angle
One thing that has largely gone unnoticed since the onset of the ratings wars is that long, well planned angles have largely become a thing of the past. Please indulge me as I get all nostalgic for a moment.

Two angles stand out specifically in my mind from the past - Owen vs. Bret and Hogan vs. Savage. Apologies to WCW/NWA fans but I didn't get to see any of their stuff until the last 3 or so years during which time I have caught up on most of the major events of the past fifteen years but unfortunately out of order and already knowing the outcomes which makes it hard to really get into any feud 100%.

Hogan/Savage Lets start with Hogan/Savage. Now, I was a 10-year old mark at the time and believing whatever Vince wanted me to believe so I may be looking at this through rose-colored glasses but I have re-watched most of the key points of the feud through the eyes of a smart and I think most of it holds up.

This was a great feud regardless of what everyone (including myself) thinks of these two guys now this was a very well built feud. For those out there to young to have seen it let me give a basic run down of the deal. Savage and Hogan were friends who tagged together. Increasing suspicions and jealousies between the two occur over a stretch of time. Things like miscommunication during tag matches and Savage eliminating Hogan from the Rumble would happen but be quickly patched up to build tension and expectation of a break up. Throw in uncertainty over the allegiances of Elizabeth and you have yourself all the ingredients of a great feud. Savage won the title at Wrestlemania 4 in the big tournament and the problems between the two finally came to a head just in time for Wrestlemania 5 and the main event. Hogan wins and Savage pretty much spends the rest of his career in Hogan's shadow but that is getting sidetracked. The point of the story is that the angle was a very well designed one and even though it was far from ground breaking or revolutionary in its content it was so well planned and executed that it has set the blueprint for every other breakup of a babyface partnership - from Shawn & Diesel to the Rockers to Harlem Heat - since.

Owen/Bret Which brings me to Bret and Owen. This was another great feud which was equally as good in its design as Hogan/Savage but probably better overall because it gave us better matches (WM10 and Cage Match - both of which rate at ***** without hesitation). The set up again was fantastic. Owen was jealous of Bret's success and a series of questionable incidents fuel this jealousy. Bret causing Owen to get eliminated in the Survivor Series, Bret costing the pair the tag titles at the Rumble. All of this was combined with great interviews establishing side issues like who had the family support and who invented the sharpshooter etc. An initially reluctant Bret finally agreed to take on Owen and the results were the two classic matches I referred to earlier.

Just in case you think I am exaggerating how great these feuds were I encourage you to get hold of the tapes of the blowoff matches and listen to the heat that the MATCHES produce. Every counter and reversal in the WM10 match receives great reactions and just listen to the high pitched wail of anticipation followed by thunderous cheering as Bret and Owen go down the outside of the cage together at Summerslam or the incredible heat Savage gets when he drops the double ax-handle on Hogan into the guard rail or the sheer joy of the fans when Hogan drops the leg on Savage. This my friends is all the result of an excellently booked angle. It is very rare in today's wrestling for that type of heat to run through an entire match and feud. Today you get a huge pop for the glass breaking, the stunner, the eyebrow or the spear but that sort of sustained heat throughout a 20 minute match is now very rare. Probably the best recent example of a match maintaining insane crowd heat throughout would be Austin/Dude Love at Over the Edge 98.

The problems with most current angles There are two main causes for this lack of great, well thought out angles - the ratings battle and 12 PPV's a year and you could maybe throw in the desire to swerve the internet as a contributing factor too. The result is that the bookers must do two things:-

a) book for the short term - feuds rarely last much longer than the space between two PPV's, three at the most.
b) bookers are forced to 'hotshot' angles and divert from plans to pop a good one time rating to keep pace with the competition.

The result is a major dive in quality of angles in my opinion. Now its not like today's wrestling has a mortgage on stupid and inconsistent angles but it does seem to be getting worse. There have been some glaring examples lately. Does anyone have any real insight on why the Outlaws split up in the first place or why they got back together. Why is Sid all upset about being 'forced' to fight his 'good friend' Chris Benoit when a month ago they were enemies and fighting every week? What was the deal with X-Pac and Kane's on-again off-again friendship? Why was Asya seemingly dumped from the Revolution only to then come out with the group a week later as if nothing had happened? Who raised the briefcase? Who is Savage's 'future superstar'? And probably the worst angle of all time - Who drove the hummer?

It seems to be getting worse as fewer and fewer angles make sense and increasingly fewer ever reach a logical conclusion. The biggest reason is the pressure of ratings. Blowoffs for feuds are rushed to and PPV main events are given away on free TV both of which short circuit angle development. Also there seems to be a scramble to get from one feud to the next - the main event for the Royal Rumble PPV was not announced until only a couple of weeks before the event and HHH will more than likely move on to his next feud with the Rock at the Raw straight after the Rumble. Having to come up with 12 different and marketable main events a year can make bookers go crazy it seems.

Unfortunately these trends are making it very rare for wrestling angles to be able to tell a good story. Wrestling fans have been trained to expect the swerve - its like watching Jerry Springer now, all you can think about is when the parties are going to turn on each other and start swinging the chairs. Take DX for example, the group has been reformed for only a few weeks and already they appear to be on the verge of splitting again. There is no building up of the tension over weeks and months like there was in the Owen/Bret or Hogan/Savage feuds. But what about the Austin/McMahon or the Hogan/Sting feuds that lasted for a year plus I can hear you say? These were great angles without a doubt but my response would be that these feuds were never intended to extend as long as they did. It was only due to their box office success that they were extended and I think most will agree that by the end they had become stale and contradictory. There may have been some plans in the beginning but these were scrapped because the angles were extended and this is when holes began to appear. Who raised the briefcase? Why did Bret Hart get involved in Hogan/Sting? The inconsistencies in the ownership transfer of the WWF. Why did Sting go Wolfpac? etc etc.

So what is the answer - well as financially unpalatable as it would be for the federations the answer is to focus less on the ratings and reduce the number of PPV's. Since anyone who thinks that might happen is living in a fantasy world I guess that leaves us with nostalgia trips into our old wrestling tape libraries. At least with Russo gone I hopefully won't have to see the epic Oklahoma/Madusa feud anymore.

Tim Lloyd
[slash] wrestling

Mail the Author

BLAH

Main

Design copyright (C) 1999, 2000 Christopher Robin Zimmerman & KZiM Communications
Guest column text copyright (C) 2000 by the individual author and used with permission