I just finished watching the ESPN 30 For 30 documentary on Ric Flair and….I have no idea where to start. The more I think about it, the more appropriate that seems. If there a one line that sums up the entire film, it’s Ric Flair doesn’t know who Ric Fliehr is. The crux of the film is about Flair’s Nature Boy persona, but the underlying theme throughout is Flair not knowing who he was because he spent so much time living his gimmick. There’s a lot to get through though.

The film goes through the life and career of Flair, looking at everything from his childhood to his training to the NWA to the WWF to WCW to TNA and most points in between. The thing is, it doesn’t really go into depth about a lot of what was going on. It’s understandable when he was an active or semi-active wrestler for forty years, but it always seems like he’s getting interested in talking about something and then cuts it off because we need to move on to something else.

Unfortunately this leaves you wanting more, which is one of the flaws of the movie: I wanted to see more. This easily could have gone on for another hour or more and it wouldn’t have gotten dull. If nothing else just more stories of Flair’s life and career with all of the insanity that came with it. That’s what a lot of the focus is on though, and it’s not always in the best way.

The main word for the film is excess. As you probably know, Flair lives every day of his life to the hardest degree and didn’t seem to look back a single day. While Flair talked about his life though, it seemed that he knew he missed a lot of things and it bothered him. However, that was just another day of drinking and partying to make his troubles go away. Flair talks about the worst days of his drinking, which saw him drink ten beers and five mixed drinks a day, every day, for SEVENTEEN YEARS. While that’s probably an exaggeration, you kind of have to wonder how much of one it really is.

Over the course of an hour and a half, we see that there are clearly two sides to Flair: the Nature Boy and the man himself. While Flair is an incredible performer and one of the biggest stars in wrestling history. However, at the same time, his personal life is often in shambles, including the gut wrenching story of the death of his son Reid. It’s a story that can’t be done justice but some of the details will make your head spin.

On a brighter front, the film also has interviews from a ton of people who have played a part in or been along for the ride for Flair’s career (though unless I missed him, there was no Vince McMahon for reasons unclear. Of all people, Hulk Hogan had some of the greatest praise for Flair, which is one of the last things you would have expected given some of their previous issues. As a bonus, you even get an ultra rare out of character interview from Undertaker, who seems to be a big fan as well. It’s worth seeing the whole thing just for the sake of hearing so many takes on Flair.

Overall, the film is definitely worth checking out. It might not offer anything hardcore fans haven’t heard before but it’s incredibly well put together (with some animations of a lot of Flair’s stories) with Flair front and center the whole time. There are a lot of lessons to be learned from Flair’s often tragic stories, but at the same time there is so much to celebrate about him that it almost makes you forget about a lot of the things he’s gone through (often brought onto himself). That’s what the whole thing comes down to in the end: there are two parts of Flair’s life. One of them is a lot of fun, but the other is a very dark and scary place.

Looking at the difference between real fake and fake real in wrestling.

http://www.wrestlingrumors.net/kbs-review-the-worldwide-leader-in-not-knowing-the-difference/42877/

http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/630053-espn-announces-weekly-wwe-recap-segment-details-highlights-of-seth-rollins-appearance-tonight

I can’t wait to hear all the purists whine about how this isn’t real but having to leave to go see who Matthew Berry says they should bench for their fantasy team this week.

Cool news for wrestling fans as this is going to be about five minutes a week and could lead to more coverage down the line.

I finally sat down and watched the E:60 documentary on WWE and I’m not entirely sure what I think of it. Therefore, it’s time to ramble until I find a conclusion.

First of all, I certainly liked it. They had an interesting take by going with people who weren’t the best known, but the more I thought about it, the more that makes sense. How would a Sami Zayn section have gone here? “My name is Sami Zayn and I was one of the top independent wrestlers in the world. Now I’m headlining NXT while I wait for the inevitable call up where I’ll blow the doors off the main roster.” That’s not exactly a thrilling piece.

This show was much more for people who haven’t seen NXT and aren’t familiar with it, as they don’t mention the fact that of the three guys, Woods is by far the biggest star and he’s really nothing special. That’s the right call though as you can only get so invested in people who are lower level talent.

That being said, it’s a very entertaining look at some of what happens when the cameras aren’t on. I know we can recite what happens in every match, but a lot of the time we forget what happens when the cameras aren’t on. It’s a good look at what happens behind the curtain (I see what they did there), which isn’t something we get very often. I would have loved for this to be longer, but what we got was really fun. Check out the deleted scenes about Colin Cassady and Tyler Breeze too as they’re both entertaining.

It’s the standard level of awesome that WWE 24 has always been.  These thirty minute short form documentaries are awesome stuff (if not kayfabe destroying) as when else are you going to get to see something like this without waiting a few years for the three disc version?  Check this show out as it’s just over half an hour and lets you relate a bit more to Reigns.

As a side note, I recorded the E:60 documentary but haven’t watched it yet.  The extras on Colin Cassady and Tyler Breeze are great previews though and this has the potential to be amazing.

ESPN’s Pardon the Interruption has mentioned wrestling twice in a week.

On Billy Corgan signing with TNA (paraphrased): “Corgan has signed with TNA Wrestling……whatever that is.”

On the passing of Verne Gagne: A 45 second fond farewell to someone both hosts clearly knew and respected with name drops of various opponents.  Guest host Bob Ryan said that in a world of rasslers, Gagne was clearly the best wrestler.

Moral of the story: there’s a difference between being on TV and being known and respected.

Because it’s not real you see.

It’s another day and another story of a “mainstream” sports writer deciding that professional wrestling is “rasslin” and something not worthy of coverage on ESPN or CBS. In this case it’s Michael Bradley of the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana University.

The gist of the opening of his piece is basically saying that wrestling is being used to fill in space on a 24/7 sports station and how it’s the price we pay. This leads to saying it started with ESPN “breaking” (his quotation marks) the story that Brock Lesnar wasn’t returning to the UFC. This is the first red flag I see. Why is this not a breaking story? Mixed martial arts is certainly a mainstream sport, but for some reason a former World Champion opting not to return isn’t a story.

I wonder if say, Tom Crean not returning to coach the Hoosiers’ basketball team would be considered mainstream enough. As I’m writing this, the first four articles on their website are all about college basketball, followed by the article on the mainstream coverage of Wrestlemania. I don’t see anything about Major League Baseball or the upcoming NFL Draft, but it seems that college basketball is important enough to cover, in addition to the Indy Racing League. Mixed martial arts apparently isn’t worthy of a breaking news story though. Good to know.

Then the ESPN commentators talked about Wrestlemania and their Twitter and Facebook feeds were used to discuss the results of the show. So now it’s not ok to dedicate part of an unlimited space to talk about the results of a show that runs four hours of a year. By the way, on the group’s Facebook page: an article on football analyst Lee Corso, led by a discussion of how often he gargles to keep his throat strong. Back and forth, hand to hand combat with former collegiate athletes: not ok, but football analysts gargling: ok. Again, good to know.

Now we’ll get to the point of this: apparently Bradley doesn’t care for the idea of mixing fake results with real results, because it might confuse the fans. Apparently this could lead to breaking down sports films or discussing TV, which is totally different than airing dramatic films on ESPN (which they’ve done) or Harlem Globetrotters games (which they air from time to time and Bradley says would be the next horrible step) or anything besides hard hitting journalism at the Entertainment and Sports Programing Network.

Then we get to the big line at the end: “It’s fun to talk about Lesnar and his fellow rasslers, but it’s not journalism.” That word of “rasslers” tells me everything I need to know here. That one word makes Bradley come off as just another writer who seems to have no idea of how wrestling works and sees himself as a defender of REAL athletics who has no idea what wrestling is all about. Yes, the results are fake and it’s been a known factor for years. For some reason, this means it’s completely ridiculous to cover.

There was an excellent ad campaign from the WWF back in 1998 with a lot of the roster talking about their mainstream athletic backgrounds such as Ron Simmons, who has since gone into the College Football Hall of Fame and Ken Shamrock, who was a UFC Champion (oh wait that’s not worthy of a mention. I wasn’t sure if I was wrong about the site’s coverage of UFC but their last story involving them was posted over a year ago so it doesn’t seem to be a priority).

Apparently talking about the post-career lives and activities of athletes such as Brock Lesnar or the Rock, or current mainstream athletes like Ronda Rousey, would just befuddle the average fan because I guess they’re not smart enough to figure out the difference. To paraphrase the end of that ad campaign, try watching their boots, because they’re probably working a lot harder than some of the “real” sports out there.

Overall, I’ve certainly seen far worse attacks on wrestling and other than implying that wrestling or other sports fans might not be bright enough to know the difference between scripted or unscripted results and using the antiquated term of “rasslers”, he doesn’t take any unnecessary shots at the sport.

As usual though, it seems that he heard the letters WWE and had already decided that it was just guys doing fake moves to each other because that’s what he heard it was growing up. It’s a shame that mainstream writers don’t give it a bigger chance, but with columns like this out there, it’s not surprising that they don’t as it basically shames them for trying to talk about it.  But hey, it’s fine to air poker, cheerleading, darts, spelling bees and specials on fantasy football or the NFL Draft right?

Here’s the original article:

http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/lets-hope-media-outlets-remember-what-e-in-wwe-means/

One of the biggest complaints you’ll see today is that wrestling is booked for kids or that so many fans think the product is stupid. How many times have you heard someone complain about John Cena targeting almost exclusively to children with his promos (ignoring that this isn’t correct)? I’ve tried to explain this over and over again, but if a short version doesn’t work, why not write a lot more about it? Today we’re going to look at how wrestling is marketed to certain audiences and why it’s a bad idea to cater to certain fans. Let’s get to it.

We start in a book instead of the 80s this time. There’s a very interesting (and highly recommended) book called Those Guys Have All The Fun which chronicles the history of ESPN. Back in the early days, ESPN was known for airing almost all college basketball. As in it was aired for over three quarters of the day at times. It was becoming more and more popular, so an executive suggested that ESPN aired nothing but basketball 24/7, but a fellow executive said no way. While it was fine to have a lot of basketball, it would be a much better idea to include stuff like skiing, tennis, running etc.

Now why did the other executive suggest this? His answer was very simple (paraphrased): “If we have 19 hours of basketball instead of 24, we’re not going to lose many basketball fans. But, if we have 24 hours of basketball instead of 5 hours of other stuff, we lose the skiing, tennis and running fans.” As is the case with almost anything else in life, this can be tied into the world of wrestling.

I’ve seen every single episode of Monday Night Raw ever. Whether it was watching live or taping it, I’ve never missed an episode in the twenty plus year history of Raw. In short, I’m a lifer. There is nothing I can imagine WWE doing that is going to make me stop watching the show and they have my full loyalty. I’m sure there are a lot of other fans who are in the same group that I am: loyal fans who are going to watch no matter what is presented.

That last line sums up the entire point of what I’m talking about: a large amount of fans are going to watch wrestling no matter what’s presented on the show. Fans that are intense in their devotion to the product, as in intense enough to go on the internet and check out sites like this one and read other peoples’ opinions on wrestling, aren’t going anywhere anytime son. Therefore, why in the world should WWE waste their time catering to them?

The obsessive fans, often called the IWC, stereotypically love people like CM Punk and Daniel Bryan while thinking guys like Orton and Cena are shoved down our throats. However, when guys like Cena and Orton are on top and guys like Punk and Bryan are clearly steps below those bigger names, the same fans keep coming back over and over again and can snap off histories and results like no one else can. In other words, they claim to hate the show yet they never miss an episode.

That’s why WWE doesn’t cater to the internet fans and why they shouldn’t: those people are going to watch almost every week and it would be a waste of potential revenue to appeal to such people. We may want to see Daniel Bryan vs. CM Punk for the world title at Wrestlemania, but the masses have little interest in seeing such a thing. While the fans that know Bryan and Punk know what they’re capable of, a lot of fans see them as just two small guys who don’t look all that interesting. How likely would you be to spend $50-$60 to see two guys who might be interesting fight?

Here’s the thing that the more obsessive fans can’t accept for whatever reason: most people that watch wrestling don’t care to see wrestling. Yeah it’s a part of the show, but much more of it is about the entertainment aspect. Companies like Ring of Honor talk about being all about the action and jazz like that, but look where Ring of Honor is: on a few television stations in less than major cities with a good PPV meaning the feed only cuts out a few times per match. Most fans likely have no idea what ROH is other than hearing it on a Punk DVD and there’s a reason for it: the masses do not care about all wrestling all the time.

If you want a more historical example, look back at the two most successful eras in modern wrestling history: the Golden Age and the Attitude Era. The Golden Age of the 1980s was all about the over the top and colorful antics of guys like Hulk Hogan. Hulk was never what would be considered a ring general, but he had a formula that worked out as well as anything else ever has. Look at Wrestlemania III. There’s a match with incredible action that changed the way wrestling worked, and on the other hand we have the biggest match ever. Which do you think drew more people to the show?

There’s also the Attitude Era, where wrestling was a rare luxury. I can’t count how many times I’ve watched a Raw from 1999 where a match ran about two minutes before someone came in for a DQ to set up more story elements. Again though, look at how much money the Attitude Era produced by comparison to times like the mid-90s or the Ruthless Aggression Era when wrestling was the focal point of the show. It’s two different worlds and the story driven shows, as in the shows booked for the masses instead of the loyal fans, are far more successful.

Let’s move on now to a more modern idea which continues to make me shake my head: the John Cena issue. One of the most common complaints you hear about Cena is that he’s booked for children and makes really stupid jokes. This is very true and I don’t argue any point of it. I also don’t argue that it’s the smartest thing the WWE can do for a variety of reasons.

First and foremost, there’s the obvious one: merchandising. John Cena appeals to children and every few months he has a new t-shirt out and it’s only $24.99 to make your kid smile because he gets to look like his hero. The NWO did it, Austin did it, Rock did it, but now Cena doing it is stupid because the shirt is red or blue?

Side note about the shirts: look at the lessons/morals the shirts are teaching kids. Austin: “Screw authority and beat up people who disagree with you.” Rock: “Be as big of a jerk as you can and insult anyone you don’t like.” Hogan: “Exercise, pray and believe in yourself.” Cena: “Work hard, be loyal and respect people.” Why do people complain about Hogan and Cena’s catchphrases? Austin, Rock and the NWO basically tell people to cause as much trouble as possible while Cena and Hogan say be good and work hard to get what you want. Those are bad things to teach kids?

Second, yeah Cena caters to kids and the jokes he makes are usually really corny. I hear all of his promos and I don’t get why people complain about them so much. At the end of the day, they’re not made for me and I’d be ridiculous to expect everything was trying to appeal to my demographic. Cena is there for kids (other than that whole year long feud with Rock where the promos were mostly for adults, as was the entire feud. The same was true with Lesnar. Cena only caters to kids though and there’s an army of fans who will tell you so) and guys like Punk, Heyman, Orton, the Wyatts, Shield and Bryan are there for older fans.

Finally, yeah Cena does a lot of the same stuff over and over again. This would be totally different than:

Right hands, middle finger, Thesz Press, Stunner

Samoan drop, spinebuster, Rock Bottom, People’s Elbow

Big boot, chokeslam, Last Ride, Tombston

Knee crusher, knee drop, cannonball down onto the leg, Figure Four

Atomic drop, backbreaker, middle rope elbow, Russian legsweep, Sharpshooter

Hulk Up, right hands, big boot, legdrop

And I could go on and on. EVERYONE has sequences they use and Cena is no different than anyone else. He uses the Five Knuckle Shuffle, but for some reason that’s stupid where as a 20 second build to a standard elbow drop is fine? You can call most of Daniel Bryan’s spots ten seconds before he does most of them. Again, it would be ridiculous to try to mix things up simply because some fans are bored by what they see in Cena’s matches.

Overall, the rabid fans that watch every week have one general problem: they watch every week. If you watch wrestling, or anything for that matter, long enough you’re going to see a few of the same things come up over and over. Here’s the thing though: there are a lot of fans who either A, don’t care that things happen again and again or B, don’t watch every single episode and don’t notice it over and over again. Wresting should never be catered to the people that watch weekly, for that very simple reason: why try to get people to watch when they’re already watching and you could bring in more fans with other stuff?

According to both ESPN and WWE.com.  This is a BIG surprise as Bruno has long since distanced himself from WWE and hates the current product.  He’s definitely the new headliner for the class.