|
commentaries
SOON TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE
EXACT SAME COMMENTARY...
I am writing this commentary just a few days away from
Backlash 2005. The main event will feature Batista/HHH II, the
rematch from last month's Wrestlemania event. Meanwhile,
as I type this, JBL just pinned Kurt Angle in a Fatal Four Way
to become the number one contender to John Cena's WWE Championship
at Judgment Day, another Wrestlemania rematch.
Ever notice how there is a very predictable formula in WWE these days?
Wrestler A fights Wrestler B at the PPV, regardless of the outcome, the two will
fight again at the very next PPV. You know what I hate about this? It makes both matches
feel less special to me, especially when it involves Wrestlemania rematches. You could call it a
"feud" all you want, but to me it's just lazy booking.
I just saw Batista/HHH, when I saw Batista win the title at WM21, I was looking forward to some new
title match possibilities. Batista/Edge, Batista/Benoit, Batista/Jericho? Talk about a breath of fresh air
for a really stale program! But no, instead we're forcefed HHH for the 3,247 time. And it's not all Hunter's fault
either, since JBL is being given the same treatment on Smackdown. In fact, didn't JBL win the title last summer in his second
consecutive pay per view match against Eddie?
Of course HHH always just gets the match handed to him though; we're told after every time he loses the belt
that he has chosen to enact the rematch clause in his contract. Seriously? Why doesn't every guy in WWE
have that clause? When Benoit lost to Orton last summer, did he get to enact some rematch clause? No, of course not.
It's BS. And how many rematch clauses does HHH get? I'd forgive it if it only happened once, maybe twice. But it's EVERY freakin' time
the guy loses his (and let's face it-he does pretty much own it) title.
I think WWE needs to institute a new rule: you cannot have a rematch for one full month. It makes sense anyway! Look at this way, using the current Backlash
card as an example. HHH is fighting Batista. Let's say Batista wins. That means that the champion has beat HHH, the so-called
number one contender twice in a row. Meanwhile, Edge beats Benoit in the Last Man Standing match. Wow, wait a second: Edge won the Money in the Bank
match at Wrestlemania 21 and now he wins another big match over, arguably, one of the top guys on Raw in Benoit. Two wins in a row vs. two losses in a row? Sounds to
me like HHH has lost his claim on the number one contendership, while Edge could certainly argue he's earned it. But of course that's not the way it works.
But if by chance it did, it wouldn't mean you have to stop the HHH/Batista feud. Good writers could keep that going, and it wouldn't even be hard. While Batista is feuding with Edge on Raw
leading up to the PPV, HHH could interfere and cost him a match here or there. Heck, while Batista is feuding with HHH, it would obviously mean that HHH will need a new opponent. So say he challenges
Kane to prove he's the number one contender. So how about a Batisa/Kane vs. HHH/Edge tag team match as the main event leading up to the PPV? See how easy this is? I'm not even a professional
writer and I can do it! Not only do you get some fresh matchups, which is always a plus, but (theoretically) the crowd will WANT to see HHH/Batista II after the two have been in each other's faces
for a whole month. And, in this scenario, it works for Edge's character too, so after he loses to Batista he could whine that HHH and Batista were holding him back, and that
he's bitter about not getting the full attention he deserved. Hey wow, that sounds consistent with his character!
Uh oh, characters? Storylines? Feuds? Fresh matchups? We can't have that, can we?
Apparently not, no.
Scott "I'm enacting my rematch clause" Hellings
April 28, 2005
 
BACK TO TOP
|
