Moving on to wrestling matters, it is obvious that TNA may never run the kind of women's division that the WWE runs. They may never have a system that revolves around just one woman continuously. If that is the case, why talk about centerpieces, credible jobbers, and periphery divas for the KO division? With the way they rotate women, they will never have a true centerpiece. Women used to put over other women may eventually be the ones getting the spotlight, meaning that there are no true credible jobbers. And TNA does not do a great job with developing stars in the periphery. All that being said, I decided to try to come up with a way to talk about how TNA runs their KO division that actually matches how they run things, not comparing them to how the WWE runs things. I don't know how much I like this attempt at that. If I ever come up with something better, I'll talk about that. Don't know if I will. I prefer talking about the WWE more than TNA.
Hopefully, you are going to see why I made that aside about what my two majors were in college. TNA typically has 2 angles going on for their women. Sometimes more. One is usually given more focus than the other, typically the one for the KO title. Whichever feud is over the KO title, call that the primary focus. Whatever feud comes in second, call that secondary. Whomever Mickie James is feuding with over the KO title, most likely Velvet Sky, that is the primary focus. Gail Kim vs. ODB, that is the secondary focus. There is really no need to figure out who is the centerpiece in each feud and who is the one being used to put over the centerpiece. With the way TNA rotates everyone, it is useless in the end. I think it is more relevant to just pay attention to what feuds are getting focus. As I have mentioned in the past, you will often see someone involved in the secondary feud transition up to the primary feud, or vice versa.
What about minors? I didn't have any minors in college. Right now, TNA obviously does not have any minor angles going on. They have so few women, how could they? In times past, however, TNA did have minor focus on women getting angles that weren't getting major attention in the division. Remember Cookie? Toxxin? How about when Chyna came in briefly? Looking at how these women were utilized, if this was the WWE diva division, I would say they were periphery divas. Of course, this is TNA. They don't keep the ball rolling on anyone properly. Instead, I would say these women were given minor focus. None of them were really kept around long enough to make a bigger impact. You can talk about how much hype there was for Chyna, but in terms of how she was utilized by TNA in relation to the other women, she was not given primary or secondary focus within the division. She was given a minor angle.
Could you use primary/secondary/minor terminology when discussing the diva division? Sure, why not? When the diva division got started, Sable was given the primary focus. In the dark age you currently have, AJ Lee is given the primary focus. Back when Candice Michelle was getting injured so much, Mickie James was getting the primary focus. I think you can see why I don't like using this terminology for the diva division right away. It doesn't do a good job of explaining what type of career these women were/are getting. Sable was developed to be the centerpiece. AJ Lee is a periphery diva benefiting from there being no centerpiece right now. Mickie James was a credible jobber being pushed as interim centerpiece. You can also talk about "Total Divas" angles coming up in the division currently being in the secondary focus and Summer Rae just being used as Fandango's dancer being a minor focus, as far as what is going on right now is concerned. It is not as specific as it can be. But when it comes to talking about TNA's KO division, which is more about rotating who is in the spotlight and doesn't develop stars like the WWE does, this terminology might help to rank what matters most to TNA when they are pushing these women.
Just to make it clear, I still prefer the WWE's general system of doing things over TNA's. I like having a centerpiece, stars developed around her, and women with wrestling credibility rotating around to make the centerpiece look good and bring some respectability to the division. The problem is that the WWE does not give female wrestlers fair opportunities to be the centerpiece. And when the eye-candy divas can't get it done, the WWE will lose interest easily. TNA isn't like that. They will simply rotate who is getting the focus. That might sound like a nice way to run things, but it is not a good way to develop and feature stars and they could end up wasting talent that can deliver. You can call these "Flavor of the Month" pushes, but it usually lasts longer than a month and you will often have two sets of them going on at the same time. One is your primary focus, the other is your secondary focus. While the story of the diva division is about who is getting developed to be a star, the story of the KO division is who is getting focus at the moment.
And one last thing about that spiffy Social Science major. Sociology, obviously, was one of the disciplines that fell under that major. Sociology is the study of society. It is the study of the relationship between individuals and groups that make society what it is. What does that have to do with anything? When you are reading, or analyzing, the manner in which TNA and the WWE are running their women's divisions, you can view it as trying to understand the relationships between these women as by the manner those behind the scenes are having them pushed. It is like a mini-society. How am I able to say this woman is a centerpiece and that woman is a periphery diva in the diva division? I look at how they are pushed in relation to each other and against the overall division as a whole. How do I know TNA rotates the women getting major focus in the KO division? I look at what they have a history of doing with these women in relation to each other. History, that was another one of the disciplines that fell under that Social Science major. Point is, I just wanted to say that analyzing the divisions isn't something that cannot possibly be done. It can be grounded in whatever you may study in school. There is a basis for it. A little too academic? Should I stick to comparing things to ice cream?
No comments:
Post a Comment