Tuesday, December 6, 2011

References and Street Credit....

At the beginning of my day yesterday, I had an idea in mind of what to bring to the table today, but a conversation has swayed my decision. I have come to a topic for the day and THAT means that what I WAS going to bring up will have to wait until another time. I would like to take a walk with you all back in time to 1996 and the formation of the nWo.

If you'll bear with me, I will set the stage for the shifting of the balance of power. WWF/E was thrown off kilter by the nWo. Why? Because no one saw it coming. Not only that, but people wanted to see something that hadn't been done for a great long while; since the Four Horsemen, in fact. A stable showed up to run the asylum, so to speak. Hogan became the the spokesman for the New World Order and solidified his heel status after having been a face character for many years prior to that point.

The end of the nWo is well chronicled and I won't go into much depth except to say that the sheer size of the stable killed the nWo as well as the booking of the nWo platform, which by 1999, was being done by Kevin Nash, who is an entire column unto himself. Suffice it to say that the faction was killed from within.

NOW, fast forward to 2002. Seeds of a new faction rising up were being planted that would come to fruition in the following year. A brand new power, this time in WWE. Evolution. Ric Flair, Triple H, Randy Orton, and Batista. With each member having a part to play much like the Four Horsemen and the nWo before them, Evolution worked VERY well for WWE. Why? I would refer back to another column entitled "Invasion of Privacy". They started small and stayed small; they built the story slowly; and were VERY dominant in every division save for the Women's Division, at the time. It all worked because of veteran leadership.

The Nexus and The Corre, respectively had a decent spokesman, but bad booking led to a disbanding and reformation of The Nexus stable under a new leader. The problem with Nexus AND The Corre was that they separated. They lost members to injury, failing of the wellness policy, and then lost their leaders to other feuds, ultimately creating their own demise. WWE allowed the stables to fail. I don't know why. BOTH stables had merits and BOTH factions had a strong character taking the lead (CM Punk and Wade Barrett, respectively).

I hope you'll forgive the length, but I do have a point in all of this. WWE had the opportunity to recreate history by allying THE top face in the company with THE top heel tag team in the company to form a brand new power; a strong power. If Cena had turned on The Rock, it would have meant a water-tight reason for The Rock to be away for the 3 month time span leading up to Wrestlemania. John Cena, when allowed to play heel, does an AMAZING job. This is coming from a guy who is NOT a fan of the character at all. SO.....you've turned Cena heel, now what?

Truth dropped the ball by failing a drug test. NEVERTHELESS, even with that happening, the stable could have kept moving, with Cena and Miz running rampant on RAW, tearing through opponent after opponent, leading The Rock to make either an appearance via satellite or live. He'd state that he already killed an organization in his first run with WWE and it seems only fitting a decade later to do it ONE MORE TIME. WWE could run the finish to the Cena vs. The Rock match however they felt like it and either break up the stable shortly thereafter or keep them all together. By that time, it really wouldn't matter because what brought them to the big dance had already run its course.

Hogan, Nash, Barrett, Punk; they all ran a successful faction because of their presence. Without that presence, the head of their stable, the groups all failed. There is too much history backing this stuff up to dispute. Cena turning heel would be MORE than newsworthy and may have created WWE a machine by which they could have printed their own currency if they so chose.....and, mark my words, the people of the WWE Universe would have bought it...... hook, line, and sinker.

No comments:

Post a Comment