Mickie James Wins Knockouts Title; Turns Heel? | WrestleZone Forums

Mickie James Wins Knockouts Title; Turns Heel?

It's Damn Real!

The undisputed, undefeated TNA &
mickiechamp.jpg


Quick synopsis for those who have been living under a rock the last few months, Gail Kim and Velvet Sky have been at odds for a while now with Vel Vel getting the better of Gail in the ring. Gail, playing the heel, ended up applying the ring post figure four (channeling her inner Hart) on Sky a week or so back, so with an injured knee Mickie played up concern early on in the episode only to end up attacking the knee and taking full advantage of a known injury to regain Knockouts gold. She certainly looked to have turned, or is in the process of it, no? I mean, that certainly wasn't a nice and "gentlemanly" (gentle-womanly?) thing to do.

I'm not big on women's wrestling in general, but I've always found that James is capable of doing things in the ring in terms of telling a story that few others like her have been really able to do. She's sorta got the ol' nuance and psychology thing down pat and tends to play the long-term story thing well. This has the makings of one of those, I'd say, assuming the pigeon keeper is up to the task.

Thoughts?
 
It's Damn Real! said:
IMAGE#1

Quick synopsis for those who have been living under a rock the last few months, Gail Kim and Velvet Sky have been at odds for a while now with Vel Vel getting the better of Gail in the ring. Gail, playing the heel, ended up applying the ring post figure four (channeling her inner Hart) on Sky a week or so back, so with an injured knee Mickie played up concern early on in the episode only to end up attacking the knee and taking full advantage of a known injury to regain Knockouts gold. She certainly looked to have turned, or is in the of it, no? I mean, that certainly wasn't a nice and "gentlemanly" (gentle-womanly?) thing to process do.

I'm not big on women's wrestling in general, but I've always found that James is capable of doing things in the ring in terms of telling a story that few others like her have been really able to do. She's sorta got the ol' nuance and psychology thing down pat and tends to play the long-term story thing well. This has the makings of one of those, I'd say, assuming the pigeon keeper is up to the task.

Thoughts?

They had been teasing a heel turn before both her and velvet sky took hiatus. So yes I reckon she will turn heel and hopefully fo somrthing a bit differant aka be a bit insane again.


Posted from Wrestlezone.com App for Android
 
So, let me see if I understand this. And, please, bear with me. I understand that wrestling is staged, but I still want to apply real world logic to this.

If someone has a chance to become a champion in what is presented as a combat sport, and gain the prestige and money that comes with that championship, why wouldn't that person take advantage of a weakness in their opponent? No. Seriously. I would, and so would anyone else.

This would be a different story if Mickie had actually broken a rule, of any kind. It's not like she cracked a chair into her leg, while the ref was down. She did absolutely nothing wrong. She clipped Velvet's knee a grand total of once, when the opening was obvious, and ended the match. She didn't even torture Velvet during or after the match.

I really don't know exactly how this is supposed to turn Mickie heel? The only place I see this going is to have Gail Kim win against Taryn Terrell, and demand a shot against Mickie, since Gail caused the injury that got Mickie the championship, in the first place.

But, this is TNA, and logic has no place here. So, anything can happen, because "shocking swerve." Oh, well. At least they aren't introducing Instant Replay into their matches.
 
So, let me see if I understand this. And, please, bear with me. I understand that wrestling is staged, but I still want to apply real world logic to this.

If someone has a chance to become a champion in what is presented as a combat sport, and gain the prestige and money that comes with that championship, why wouldn't that person take advantage of a weakness in their opponent? No. Seriously. I would, and so would anyone else.

This would be a different story if Mickie had actually broken a rule, of any kind. It's not like she cracked a chair into her leg, while the ref was down. She did absolutely nothing wrong. She clipped Velvet's knee a grand total of once, when the opening was obvious, and ended the match. She didn't even torture Velvet during or after the match.

I really don't know exactly how this is supposed to turn Mickie heel? The only place I see this going is to have Gail Kim win against Taryn Terrell, and demand a shot against Mickie, since Gail caused the injury that got Mickie the championship, in the first place.

Yeah, here's the thing, homie... it's not a real combat sport. It's professional wrestling. It's designed on story lines, and more than often on classic heel/face story lines which says that good guys act good and bad guys act bad, so no, a face (good guy) would not look to take the fast route by clipping another face opponent with an injured knee. The fact she did is what has us questioning whether or not it's actually a heel turn or not because it's a heel-ish tactic, but she didn't really go full heel either by using a chair or beating her down after the match like you noted.

The way it turns her heel to me is pretty simple. This establishes a riff between the two. Mickie feels she did nothing wrong in taking advantage of an advantageous moment where her opponent, who she knew was injured, couldn't defend herself from what most would consider a "cheap shot". Velvet feels slighted and wants a re-match. She'll likely get one and lose for a second time, and again in a manner where Mickie takes the short route. This slowly but surely pushes Mickie heel, or at the very least to tweener-heel and escalates the story between the two.

But, this is TNA, and logic has no place here. So, anything can happen, because "shocking swerve." Oh, well. At least they aren't introducing Instant Replay into their matches.

Rhetoric and irrelevant. What do you say we keep the dumb ass pot shots away from actually having a debate, yeah?
 
Yeah, here's the thing, homie... it's not a real combat sport. It's professional wrestling. It's designed on story lines, and more than often on classic heel/face story lines which says that good guys act good and bad guys act bad, so no, a face (good guy) would not look to take the fast route by clipping another face opponent with an injured knee. The fact she did is what has us questioning whether or not it's actually a heel turn or not because it's a heel-ish tactic, but she didn't really go full heel either by using a chair or beating her down after the match like you noted.

The way it turns her heel to me is pretty simple. This establishes a riff between the two. Mickie feels she did nothing wrong in taking advantage of an advantageous moment where her opponent, who she knew was injured, couldn't defend herself from what most would consider a "cheap shot". Velvet feels slighted and wants a re-match. She'll likely get one and lose for a second time, and again in a manner where Mickie takes the short route. This slowly but surely pushes Mickie heel, or at the very least to tweener-heel and escalates the story between the two.



Rhetoric and irrelevant. What do you say we keep the dumb ass pot shots away from actually having a debate, yeah?

Good points. In truth, with wrestling you can read too much into the actual tactics leading to a turn. With Mickie, this has been teased for quite some time, going back to before Velvet left. Sometimes you have to leave logic out of the equation; right now Mickie is on the cusp, or walking the tweener line. Whenever the rematch takes place, I expect Mickie to take it a step further.
 
Yeah, here's the thing, homie... it's not a real combat sport. It's professional wrestling.

I'm well aware. But, even with that restriction, I do expect a bit of basic logic in my entertainment. Also, I even began my other post with that disclaimer.

It's designed on story lines, and more than often on classic heel/face story lines which says that good guys act good and bad guys act bad, so no, a face (good guy) would not look to take the fast route by clipping another face opponent with an injured knee.

Except that she didn't "look to take the fast route." If she had, she would have targeted Velvet's knee the entire match. But, she didn't. She took advantage of an opening. And, (with the complete understanding that professional wrestling is staged) given the fact that professional wrestling is presented, in-universe, as a combat sport, why shouldn't she?

Am I saying that wrestling is real? Of course not. However, it's presented as such, during the show. If it weren't, it would become a complete farce. I've often equated that with why we never see Daryl Dixon stop everything he's doing, look directly into the camera, and say something like "Don't worry. That's just a guy in make-up." Why? Because, in the context given in the show, it's supposed to be real. (I really can't believe that I have to explain this to a wrestling fan.)

The fact she did is what has us questioning whether or not it's actually a heel turn or not because it's a heel-ish tactic, but she didn't really go full heel either by using a chair or beating her down after the match like you noted.

No. It's simply not a "heel-ish tactic." It was a completely logical reaction to an opening in a fight. And, again, since it's being presented as real, in the context of the show, anyone who wouldn't have done the same, in a similar circumstance is just plain stupid. Exactly what was she supposed to do, in that situation: Lay down for Velvet?

The way it turns her heel to me is pretty simple. This establishes a riff between the two. Mickie feels she did nothing wrong in taking advantage of an advantageous moment where her opponent, who she knew was injured, couldn't defend herself from what most would consider a "cheap shot". Velvet feels slighted and wants a re-match. She'll likely get one and lose for a second time, and again in a manner where Mickie takes the short route. This slowly but surely pushes Mickie heel, or at the very least to tweener-heel and escalates the story between the two.

Or, it pushes Velvet heel, because she begins to do absolutely nothing but bitch and moan about how she "got screwed" out of her title, up to, and including, claiming that Mickie cheated in the match. She gets a re-match, and Mickie wins clean, causing Velvet to snap.

Roger Ebert, in his review of the movie "I Am Sam," wrote ""You can't have heroes and villains when the wrong side is making the best sense." Nothing about what Mickie James did violated a single rule, of any kind. Or, did I miss the "If your opponent has an obvious injury, go out of your way to completely ignore it" part of the rulebook?

Again, even in my escapism, I expect some logical progression. It doesn't have to make sense in everyday life. It does, however, have to make sense, within the world established in the medium. And, given how closely the world portrayed in professional wrestling is to the real world, in most cases, real world logic should prevail.

The thing is, though, that while turns, either face or heel, generally have a bit of build-up, there is always a single overt act that completes the turn. Mickie simply hasn't done anything to show a turn. Am I saying that she won't? Not at all. I am, however, saying that she hasn't done anything wrong yet.

Rhetoric and irrelevant. What do you say we keep the dumb ass pot shots away from actually having a debate, yeah?

Damn right, it was a dumb pot-shot. It was just me taking the piss on both companies. Thank you for noticing. :)


And, Lowdown, logic should never be "left out of the equation." "Leaving logic out of the equation" is exactly why people like Vince Russo are remembered as black marks on the history of professional wrestling.
 
I always liked Mickie James, and it has been a while since she has been champ. I like the heel turn or at least the star of it on Velvet. TNA actually puts some time into their women's division and it showed in this match. I think this feud will go on and Mickie James will make the full heel turn doing it. Right at this moment I think TNA is putting out the best wrestling product from week to week, and it even shows in its women's title scene.
 
Caitiff, while I hear what you're saying, sometimes it's alright to be outside of the box in how you build a character or their respective turn. If it doesn't work, that's the breaks. But you have to give it a shot. In this case, it's a slow heel turn, so to speak. In the end, it's still entertainment, and yes at times logic will go out the window in order to get a crowd reaction.
 
If someone has a chance to become a champion in what is presented as a combat sport, and gain the prestige and money that comes with that championship, why wouldn't that person take advantage of a weakness in their opponent? No. Seriously. I would, and so would anyone else.

I'm sure Mickie will use that exact defence next week in a promo. And of course it is justified. I expect they'll have her in another match in which she turns full heel to win. That's my guess. So she's not quite heel yet IMO but she will be soon.
 
Congratulations to Mickie James on her win.. But I don't really think that it matters much about who is heel and who is face and who is champion and who is challenger among the knockouts..
Mickie James was absent from TV for quite a while, came back and won the title now.. Velvet Sky too returned to win the title; Gail Kim too before that..
Its like a circle- lose, go away, come back, win.. And 9 out of 10 knockouts are shown to be very similar in terms of physical strength as well.. One of these days she will lose to a returning knockout, and then again it won't matter if she is a face or a heel.
 
So, let me see if I understand this. And, please, bear with me. I understand that wrestling is staged, but I still want to apply real world logic to this.

If someone has a chance to become a champion in what is presented as a combat sport, and gain the prestige and money that comes with that championship, why wouldn't that person take advantage of a weakness in their opponent? No. Seriously. I would, and so would anyone else.

This would be a different story if Mickie had actually broken a rule, of any kind. It's not like she cracked a chair into her leg, while the ref was down. She did absolutely nothing wrong. She clipped Velvet's knee a grand total of once, when the opening was obvious, and ended the match. She didn't even torture Velvet during or after the match.

I really don't know exactly how this is supposed to turn Mickie heel? The only place I see this going is to have Gail Kim win against Taryn Terrell, and demand a shot against Mickie, since Gail caused the injury that got Mickie the championship, in the first place.

In many instances, you would be completely correct. Had she warned Velvet in the back stage segment that going ahead with the match would make the leg fair game or had she even signalled her intent from the offset by going straight for the leg, then I would agree that this would just be standard procedure but it is in the build and the nuances that lead this towards describing a heel turn...

Firstly, Mickie has already been defeated by Mickie because she refused to target the injury. Secondly, a backstage segment with Brooke had Mickie stating her belief to being better than the other Knockouts. Thirdly, we have the fact that she didn't target the leg throughout the entirety of the match. Penultimately, she didn't go straight for the injury - she blindsided Velvet. Finally, she showed absolutely no concern for Velvet after the match - just looked delighted to be champion.

As such, this is the storyline - Mickie wants to be champion and regards herself as far superior to Velvet Sky. Because of her perceived superiority, she feels she doesn't have to resort to attacking Velvet's weakness (perhaps jeopardising her stature in the fans eyes). However, when she discovers that she can't take down the one legged champion by fair means, she shows her true colours and takes the sneak attack short cut to gain the quick tainted win. She cements her true feelings by celebrating her victory while ignoring the fallen injured champion and then leaving the ring, showing that her 'friendship' with Miss Sky was a sham all along.

But, this is TNA, and logic has no place here. So, anything can happen, because "shocking swerve." Oh, well. At least they aren't introducing Instant Replay into their matches.

Check the progression again amigo, I believe that you'll find this to have been impeccably storied and actually carries roots back to the British tapings two years ago.
 
Very happy for Mickie because I am a huge fan.
I don't view her as a heel yet, more like a tweener. There is a heelish vibe with her in both attitude and actions but she hasn't actually done anything heelish yet. She can still be portrayed either way IMO. I will say a full heel turn is coming again IMO, If the heel turn comes I can already see how the inevitable face turn comes about
 
Sure is nice that Mickie got the belt. She's a terrific all-around wrestler and has a sex-appeal many other girls could never have. Yes, it was fairly obvious that what happened was indeed about to happen. Maybe not this week, but it was rather ominous. Velvet, by insisting on wrestling on an injury and not letting herself heal, was basically asking for it. It had to happen. The way Mickie played it was great.

Now, as for the heel turn... It would be the logical follow-up to recent events but I'm not trying to read too much into it or anticipate it. I'm just curious to see exactly how Velvet and Mickie will play it next week. That should be the answer we are looking for (and in many cases, expecting) and I'm fine with it. I'm just hoping that Mickie can give us a better run with the belt than the others have given us recently. But what can really be expected of a 5 or 6-girl division?
 
I really hope TNA pushes for a solid heel run. She does not have to be the stalker Mickie James as she was portrayed in the WWE, but with lack of Knockout heels she could be that tweener that would be put over the edge since "everyone" (from fans to management) has overlooked since she arrived in the company. Personally I think the hardcore country gimmick is blah, we know TNA supports their country stars. We'll see how this play out in the next few weeks.
 
So, after last night's Impact, Mickie's slow turn appears to continue unabated.

Mickie did a great job first feigning indignation that her actions the previous week were anything other than honorable, then heaping what was obviously very unheartfelt praise on Velvet, then trying to avoid a rematch without losing face before making absolutely no attempt to save her 'friend' Velvet from a Gail Kim attempted assault on Sky's injured knee and slipping off with a shrug as if to say "What do you do?" as Taryn Terrell had to make the save instead (which will probably be the initial baby step towards a James / Terrell title bout somewhere down the line).

Yet again, I feel that TNA is working this beautifully with Mickie's comments being ostensibly face while her tone and actions are more and more heelish.
 
I really am liking the direction Mickie's going which I perceive as the coward's way. With even a bit of ditziness. The girl's who's absolutely delighted with herself and refuses to do the right thing but trying to sound like a good sport regardless. "Your knee just gave out!" is what sold it to me. Anybody who saw that match knows otherwise. That's obvious heel denial right there. I'm just hoping she's not going to turn into a COMPLETELY weak champion. She's talented, might as well show it.

Now, the addition of the badass, take no prisoners Gail Kim to that segment and the banter that ensued just made me realize how fake and pointless Velvet Sky is as the division's top face. Mickie and Gail sold it like champs and Velvet just tried to keep up. The heavy layers of makeup don't help in my opinion.

I like the Mickie we are seeing right now but in the end, the division's lost so much steam that most of it doesn't quite matter.
 
First I think it's a shame that once again Velvet Sky's title reign was cut short. Yeah this one was a bit better than her last one but they gave her nothing to do at all. No direction or storylines and even worse Gail Kim and her feud with Taryn Terrell was pretty much the focus the entire time instead of Velvet being the Knockout champion. What kills me about it is that TNA more or less harassed Velvet into coming back only to give her another short title reign.:wtf:

IMO Velvet should think about leaving TNA for good. Because it's obvious TNA creative more specifically Bruce Prichard is not behind her at all.

So I don't really like that Mickie James is Knockouts champion again. It seems to me she only won it back because she complained about how she was being used in a recent interview.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,846
Messages
3,300,837
Members
21,727
Latest member
alvarosamaniego
Back
Top