New vs Old - An Angle Inherently Flawed?

[IrishCanadian25]

Towards the end of WCW, we were treated to a facinating concept that truly broke down an already decimated kayfabe wall - the concept of the young, hungry kids eager to usurp booking power and championship gold from the established veterans. Men named Kidman, Mysterio, Jindrak, Kanyon, and Konnan battled men named Hogan, Nash, Sting, Flair, Luger, and Savage.

For many, this was the final flash of brilliance from a company well on its way down the toilet. Aging stars, outrageous contracts, poor management, and recycled characters had already doomed WCW, as a retooled WWF signed Jericho, Benoit, Guerrero, Malenko, and Saturn.

The angle was short lived, however, and despite Spring Stampede's card featuring all title matches between New Blood and Millionaire's Club members (Funk was the only Millionaire's club member who retained his belt, the WCW Hardcore title), WCW decided the idea was failing. A big reason why? Fans were backing the "heels" such as Hogan and Nash, which defeated the purpose.

Flash forward to 2008 - TNA is proud to bring you the second incarnation, also known as the Main Event Mafia vs Frontline. A seemingly simple concept has since become convoluted and confusing, with all of the build leading to - very little. The major feud in TNA right now is between the two leaders of the M.E.M. - Sting and Angle, as well as Angle vs Foley. Three guys, all over 40. Styles, Sabin, Joe, et als. aren't in the picture as they should be.

It seems to me that the concept of booking younger stars vs older stars is an angle with inherent flaws that cannot be overcome. In real life, we hear stories of younger guys feeling "held back" by cliques, McMahons, Hogans, etc. We hear veterans like JBL doing shoot interviews about how the younger generation needs to respect those who came first and set the ground work.

Some of the best angles in wrestling have been the result of real-life drama. Savage marries Elizabeth. WWF vs WCW vs ECW. Hardy vs Edge.

But is booking totally incapable of making an interesting and emotionally charged plotline like young vs old work? Or is it the egos inside that make it impossible?

 

[JerryvonKramer]

Interesting. This is one of the major ways that wrestling has changed over the past couple of decades.

What used to happen is that a guy would pay his dues working his way up through various territories before hitting the big time and "peaking".

"Peaking" would either mean a run in the Main Event/ World Title picture or, depending on the wrestler, an IC title reign. Then, after the Main Event/ title run, the wrestler would start to slide back down the card - first to upper mid-card, then maybe a run in the tag division, before ultimately becoming JTTS (Jobber to the Stars = someone who beats jobbers but puts any other stars over).

The career of someone like Greg Valentine or Tito Santana follows this trajectory pretty much perfectly:

Both guys peaked in 1984/5 with IC title runs, before a run or two with the Tag titles before ultimately becoming JTTS (which Valentine was during his totally forgettable face run after Rhythmn 'n' Blues and the feud with Ronnie Garvin, and Tito was virtually the moment he became "El Matador").

Even bigger names like Ted DiBiase followed that same path: peaked in 1988 with his World Title feud allied with Andre vs. Savage & Hogan, then a solid upper-mid carder for a year or two (when he had the Million Dollar Belt), before moving to the tag division (Money Inc.) ... then DiBiase retired but if he'd have continued wrestling into the mid-90s, he'd have probably started to do more JTTS type stuff (that loss to Razoe Ramon at SS93 indicates it anyway).

Almost any wrestler from that era follows the trend, we could do it all day - Iron Sheik: peak 1984 (World Title Run), moved to Tag Division (1985-7 with Nikolai Volkoff), ultimately became a JTTS (as Col. Mustafa in 1991-2).

What's changed now is two things:

1. You get guys in their 20s pushed to main event level, which just didn't happen back then, even someone who you thought of as "young" back then, like Curt Hennig, was 30 when he debuted properly for WWF.

2. Main Event stars are clinging on for longer than their natural shelf-life. Roughly speaking, wrestlers should start that slide down the roster when they hit, say, 40/ 41 -- you can probably add 4-5 years for exceptional cases like Hogan and Flair.

Which, of course, means that now is the only time you could feasibly have this generational conflict thing, where supposedly either guy could legitimately win. With all those guys in their 20s against the guys who are around that 40 mark.

The trouble is though: lots of wrestling fans KNOW that wrestling has changed.

Imagine back then putting a 25 year old Curt Hennig against a 40 year old Ric Flair or a 25 year old Randy Orton against a 40 year old Hogan -- there's NO WAY IN HELL the young guys are going to win those matches. It's not feasible.

Now change Flair and Hogan for HHH and Angle -- is really all that different? Is it really any more believable or feasible? Or do you just think the older men would kick the younger guys' heads in?

The only time this sort of thing could have worked would have been say mid-90s when HBK/ Austin/ HHH etc. were all coming through as Main Eventers (in their early 30s) and the older generation were still around (in their early 40s). Obviously, all the older generation were in WCW and the younger guys were in WWF -- but just imagine they were all in the same fed: it would have been entirely feasible for Austin/ HBK/ HHH to beat Savage/ Hogan/ Flair/ whoever and vice versa.

I think Cena and co will have to wait another 5-6 years for that to work, by which time the older guys will be a bit too old wont they?

 

[Uncle Sam]

I think it can work. How, I'm not entirely certain. I think there must be a way. The concept is simple and effective. I think it's just bad booking that has ruined the attempts we've had so far.

Essentially, they're just variations on the "One big faction vs. another big faction" template, brought to us most successfully by the nWo vs. WCW storyline. Y'know, before that all went tits up too. It was there again with the Alliance angle. Coincidentally, that was shit too. They're all related.

I think the trick is to keep them short. I don't think anybody has attempted it before. When people start these things, I think they automatically imagine them lasting many months, or even years. No idea why. Three pay-per-views. Kick it off on the first, have the heels win the second and the faces win the third, then wrap it up.

TNA has made the mistake of having the storyline apparently still running, but with really confusing boundaries. Is Sting still in the Mafia? Why did him and Angle suddenly stop feuding? Why are older stars fighting on the side of the Frontline, keeping the younger stars down in the undercard? Does that not defeat the entire purpose? Well, of course it does. A perfectly good opportunity to put over some younger talent pissed away. Well, at least they seized the opportunity to make Joe seem ridiculous to his remaining fanbase - i.e. me.

In short, TNA did what it does best. It completely missed the point.

 

[The Bearded One]

I completely agree with Sam. You gotta keep something like this short and sweet. No more than 4 PPV's. First PPV kind of sets the stage for what is going to happen. PPV 2 will have many of the heels (if we are going the faction route) win. A few of the faces would have to win to keep up hope. PPV 3 have the faces go over, although not all necesarrily cleanly. They can have stable-mates come down and help them. Then at PPV 4, have the heels get there re-match, which of course is won by the faces.

This is a good program to run for about 4 months, which is the length most good fueds go anyway (I'm honestly not sure about that, it just sounded good to help me make my arguement). It will then establish the younger guys, presumably the faces, as main eventers. The older guys could still hang around and win the occasional championship, but have them lose to a younger guy.

I am completely confused by the Main Event Mafia vs The Frontline story. I have no idea who exactly is part of the Frontline. I would say AJ Styles is definately a member. But Samoa Joe? He started out as a co-leader, but is now doing his Nation of Violence thing if I'm not mistaken. Eric Young? Could be. He's been in some matches against the MEM. Rhyno? I have no idea. Who is in the Main Event Mafia is also a small issue. Is Sting still a member, or did he get kicked out?

 

[Slyfox696]

The problem with young vs. old is that the old are usually much more compelling characters than the young. To do the storyline right, your group of Young Guns have to be main-eventers as well, not guys you want to push into the main-event. And your older guys need to be guys who are no longer worthy of the main-event.

At then end of the day, the overall purpose should be to put the younger guys on the same level as the older guys, to move your promotion into the next generation. But when the older guys aren't ready to be done, and your younger guys aren't ready to step up, then it's not going to work.