Will 2010 Bring the Dawn of a New Era in Women's Wrestling?
2010-What will that year have in store for the women's wrestling world? Will it be good or bad? A year of achievements such as 2003, or a year of disappointments such as 2009?
The year could become amazing, but it could just end up a lackluster time. Let's see what can be done to make 2010 utterly great, or horribly sad.
No More Humor
Comedy is good up until a certain point. Look, I'm all for laughs and fun, but at some point it all has to end. Nowadays, every promo in WWE is supposed to be funny. At some point during any promo, there's a bad joke cracked for cheap laughs.
TNA, always following WWE's example, is now starting to try and do this themselves. A great example of this was last week's Impact in which Kevin Nash was running the show.
I mean, a pudding match? A hardcore rules match in which the competitors have to drink before wrestling? What the f' is that all about?
The reason WWE used to be so successful before it went PG was the simple fact that the feuds were brutal and no holds barred. The intensity between whoever was feuding translated perfectly on-screen. What about now? I say, dump the laughs and get back to serious competition!
Fire Creative and Hire Writers
One of the things both companies deeply lack in terms of not only women's wrestling but men's wrestling as well is good storylines. Feuds are now basically, "I don't like you and want your title so we'll fight." Where's the drama? Where's the emotion??
Fans all over the Internet can create better storylines than we are being fed in a matter of seconds. So why not the creative team? That's why I think both companies should fire their current "creative" team and hire some real Hollywood writers.
Sure they might create some cliche, fake, weird storylines, but hey, what about the Undertaker? Mr. Deadman is probably the fakest character in the history of characters, but he's also the most over. Think about that for a sec...
One thing WWE has lacked for the past three years is character development,as opposed to TNA who have a character for every girl who enters their company, such as the drunkard girl ,ODB, or the rampaging beast, Awesome Kong.
If you don't know why someone is wrestling, or why they don't like someone how are you supposed to choose if you support them or want them to go down?
Just because you smile and look pretty doesn't mean people will like you. Take a look at Gail Kim, for example.
She's the typical generic face diva. Ya' know,smiles all the time, smacks everyone's hands down the ramp, etc. She's also arguably the best female worker in North America.
Despite all of these traits, does anyone actually cheer for her? No.
That's why you need to give people characters, develop their identities. If you don't know who someone is, how are you supposed to care about them?
Push The Boundaries
WWE has obviously limited their women workers in the ring over the past few years. Certain moves can't be done in their matches because another certain top star uses that move as a signature of his.
This not only presents a problem for keeping a match lengthy, but it also brings up a problem of keeping fans interested. A single match can make or break a competitor, such as Trish Stratus' match on Sunday Night Heat with Ivory in which she introduced her infamous Stratusfaction.
This marked the beginning of Trish Stratus' rise to superstardom, as well as the rest of her career.
I'm not only talking about pushing the boundaries in matches, but I'm talking about pushing the boundaries story-wise as well.
Introduce something new, stop using the same old recycled storylines form generation to generation. We're about to enter 2010,what hasn't been done that's going on already? Come on,surprise us. (And go PG-13 again)
Use Real Talent
WWE is most definitely lacking in the talent department when it comes to women. Sure they have some great workers,but that doesn't mean they don't need more. WWE has been aiming to turn models into wrestlers since 2006 when really it should be the other way around.
Have good wrestlers emerged form this process? Yes. Should they keep doing it? Hell no. Having some good wrestlers come up is like the lottery.
There's a 99% chance that you'll lose and a 1% chance you'll win. Why do this when 100% of the time you can be sure to have great women wrestlers from the indies who can also look good?
Now back to the good talent,WWE and TNA both suffer in this department somewhat. They have good talent but instead choose to push only half, if that at all, of their good talent. They need to learn how to utilize their talent correctly, perhaps hire some new bookers?
Get Rid of DX...Forever
Now some of you might wonder how DX affects the women's division in WWE, and why they should leave. Well,not only does DX affect the Divas badly,but the mid-card wrestlers as well.
DX, on average, makes up 30-45 minutes of RAW. This time could be better utilized to push and get over the women and mid-card wrestlers on the show,thus boosting their ratings.
I suggest having an implosion within the group. Have them group together with more members until a power struggle arises between Triple H and Shawn Michaels, once again leading to a legendary feud and tag team break up.
Time Is Evident
Finally, time is the one key component in making all of my suggestions above work. It is the glue that will make everything stick together if you will. That is why the break up of DX is necessary. No more DX=more time (and fewer corny jokes).
So,a few suggestions later, I'm back into reality. WWE and TNA are heading into the right direction with what they are beginning to do, but I'm sure they'll find some way to f' it up.
WWE has begun a new storyline in which Beth Phoenix is seemingly turning face. This could go over very well, if done right.
TNA is holding a tournament for the TNA Knockouts Tag Team Titles. This could also go over well if done right, especially since they are reportedly bringing in people form the indies.
Thanks for reading, and remember to comment!
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?