Inconsistencies in Top WWE Feuds Ruin Fans' Enjoyment

Consistency is the most important ingredient when creating the pseudo-reality of a wrestling world.

Small adjustments from the real world, such as people settling their differences inside a steel cage rather than sitting down and discussing the issue, are accepted by the audience as part of the viewing experience.

In the case of wrestling, these changes are the draw that attracts the audience to the product.

However, these changes become an issue if they are not applied consistently across the entire program.

It would be a flaw if one WWE character could jump three times higher than anyone else. People would ask why he is not bound by the same laws of gravity as every other wrestler in the show.

Once an audience member starts to doubt one aspect of the show, the rest of the proceedings are undermined.

Keeping the attention focused on the product is especially important to wrestling, due to the pre-determined nature of the matches. The fan enters into a social contract with the organization, agreeing that the product is genuine so long as nothing happens to take them out of the moment.

Unfortunately, the two main angles on Monday Night Raw conflicted, tarnishing both feuds.

The viewers of Raw were asked to accept that Brock Lesnar could sue Triple H for breach of contract— due to the agreement being live on television—and that John Laurinaitis could fire Big Show without just cause, humiliating him at the same time.

These two situations cause a logic gap in which one wrestler can use television for legal proceedings, whilst the other does not have the same power. The feuds have created a scenario in which fans are forced to accept two contradicting sets of rules in the same time-frame.

Following the rules of the Brock Lesnar feud, Big Show could make a legal claim for unfair dismissal and the WWE could fire Laurinaitis for gross mismanagement.

If the rules of the Laurinaitis feud were applied across the board instead, Lesnar would not have any grounds for a lawsuit and the situation would not escalate.

Some might make the counter-argument that the WWE board made John Cena vs. John Laurinaitis one-on-one with no interference at Over The Limit as punishment for his actions against Big Show.

The argument loses validity when the actual announcement is examined.

There is no mention of Big Show or worries about mismanaging talents, despite removing Triple H from his position as GM for that reason several months ago. So the WWE can introduce an outside force at Over the Limit, and the irregularity remains.

The inconsistency between the two angles widens due to the fact that there was a legal advisor in both situations. Paul Heyman did all the speaking on the behalf of Brock Lesnar, while David Otunga accompanied John Laurinaitis to the ring.

Heyman’s briefing would be considered standard managerial work in the WWE; however, he stuck to the legal wording and attitude. Otunga, on the other hand, did not say a word to his boss when Laurinaitis was clearly breaking several employment laws.

Having Heyman speak in such a careful manner only emphasized now nonsensical the Laurinaitis/Otunga situation became.

Consistent rules were not even applied to the segment involving Triple H and Paul Heyman.

After Heyman delivered the legal papers to "The Game," Triple H grabbed Heyman by the throat in anger. Heyman’s response was to announce a second lawsuit for assault and battery against Triple H.

Such an incident could be overlooked, but with so many other issues being flagged up, the mind of the audience becomes hyper-critical.

If Heyman can sue Triple H for assault, why is Triple H not counter-suing Lesnar for the same thing? If the argument is that Triple H is a WWE employee—who thus cannot complain about the attack—what is Heyman?

If Heyman is considered an outside participant, why was he in a WWE ring? Surely that is trespassing? If Heyman is part of the WWE, then the same rules apply to Heyman as they do Triple H, so there should be no lawsuit.

The whole situation becomes full of holes.

The worst part of all this inconsistency is that the two angles have great promise. Both could make fascinating television that headlines highly purchased pay-per-views.

The two feuds could have been presented consecutively, as WWE fans are amazingly susceptible to forgetting what came before if there is the promise of an interesting feud.

However, such blatant contradictions have the audience questioning what the rules are, which means it is not concentrating on the feuds at hand.

Small mistakes can be the difference between classic rivalries and missed opportunities.

If the WWE is to salvage these two feuds, it must find consistent rules to play by and observe them in all major rivalries moving forward.