Austin Vs. McMahon & Bryan/Punk Vs. The Authority

Wrestlers feuding against authority figures is nothing new. One of the biggest feuds of this type was "Stone Cold" Steve Austin feuding against Vince McMahon during the Attitude Era. In recent times, you have Daniel Bryan and CM Punk feuding with The Authority. Needless to say, what you have going on right now does not have the same feel to it as what you had over a decade ago. Why not compare the two situations?

When Austin feuded against Vince McMahon, the first thing you have to realize is that Austin was the centerpiece. They didn't just toy with the idea of whether he was or wasn't or should be or shouldn't be. He got very over, they gave him the title, and they ran with him. A lot has been said about that feud between Austin and McMahon. It was the common worker standing up to his boss and getting the better of him. Austin frequently got the better of Vince McMahon, and his family. There was even that segment where Austin laid out the whole family. It was fun and the fans enjoyed it.

What you have had recently is CM Punk and Daniel Bryan having issues with authority figures, and all of it does not seem to be just a pure storyline. While Austin became the top star of the company during his time, neither CM Punk nor Daniel Bryan have been pushed as the centerpiece. That has still been mostly John Cena. Both of these guys have gotten very over, have had some title reigns here and there, but the WWE has not been running with either one well enough to please the fans, especially in the case of Daniel Bryan. And are these two really owning the authority figures as much as Austin did Vince McMahon. Not really. Go back to when John Cena was the one that ended John Laurinaitis as GM. That should have been CM Punk's storyline. He fit better in that based on the big angle he had the summer prior to that. And what about The Authority? I am not going to say they are untouchable, but they are when compared to how much abuse Vince McMahon took back in the day. You have fans going crazy for Daniel Bryan and CM Punk, while John Cena, the centerpiece for all these years, and Randy Orton, the storyline "face" of the company, are not connecting with the fans like that. And while the fans are so hot over what is happening, it is not because they are so entertained. They are pissed off.

Let me just focus on Daniel Bryan for a moment. He has gotten extremely over. The WWE's mistreatment of him is what has really agitated these fans. If they had just given Daniel Bryan a legitimate run with the WWE title for 2 or 3 months at the end of last year, I don't think the fans would be so upset. Yes, a lot of these fans seem crazy and demanding, but if the WWE had not toyed with them as they have, I don't think they would be like this. The fans want to see Daniel Bryan succeed, the WWE screws him out of title reigns, they run this storyline where they say he is not good enough, they have him lose the feud to Randy Orton, send him down to a feud against The Wyatts, then have him lose even that feud, and how much are the fans supposed to put up with? Not only is the WWE not treating Daniel Bryan properly, they are pretty much telling those fans crazy for him that what they want doesn't matter. And this isn't a storyline about authority figures screwing someone over. This is the company actually mistreating an over worker. They can blend it into the storyline to make it seem more trivial, but they are playing with fire.

Back when Austin was the top guy, my favorite wrestlers were actually Kane and Mankind. Kane won the World title and held it for a day. Mankind also had a 1-day reign, as well as some other short reigns before he retired from the WWE. Did I get upset over this? No. I didn't cry. I didn't rage. It didn't bother me so much. Short title reigns are nothing unheard of. But could you imagine if Austin was struggling to connect properly with the fans and it was Kane or Mick Foley that were doing it? And what if the WWE continued to shove Austin down the fans' throats, while mistreating Kane and Mick Foley? That is pretty much what you have going on recently. The centerpiece is not working out. The fans are crazy about guys that the company wants to be stars, but doesn't want to push better. The company would rather rely on their own favorites. When the company's favorites matches the fans' favorites, things go smoothly. When they don't, you have the current failure of the status quo.

Actually Using LayCool To Make Stars

Last week, I mentioned that Michelle McCool was not working out as centerpiece and that the argument can be made that a heel is supposed to make other workers look good. McCool (LayCool) never led to any faces becoming major stars. Blame the WWE more than The Bride of Undertaker. They should have handled things better. I want to suggest a way they could have handled it.

Before I go into that, let me make a comparison. Go back to that epic feud between Stone Cold and Mr. McMahon. Some might argue that Vince McMahon was Austin's greatest foe during the Attitude Era, not The Rock. That feud put Austin at the top. Some people argue that the reason it worked out so well is because people enjoyed seeing Austin beating up and humiliating the boss. It connected with the audience. They loved seeing that. Now, change two things. First, after Austin had owned Vince once or twice, depush Austin back to the midcard, killing his momentum. Second, keep bringing back Vince McMahon to make life hell for another face, then have that face own Vince once or twice, and then depush him like you did Austin. Repeat until Vince gets tired and leaves. Or dies. How effective would that have been? For one thing, Austin definitely would not have gotten the great career he did get. Second, I don't think this cycle would be effective. Vince McMahon would be the constant more than any single worker who gets a chance to stick it to him. In the end, none of these workers would really be making it and Vince McMahon would be the one persevering through it all to keep coming. Are the fans really going to love that story? They may enjoy the moments Vince gets beaten up and looks bad, but they'll probably end up seeing moments of the boss making life hell for people more than anything else. After a while, they will see no individual is ever really overcoming the boss and it would be annoying.

Compare that to LayCool. Vince is obviously a much better heel than them, but what about the storyline and the actual way they were used? That's my point. LayCool were bullies who made life miserable for many divas. They frequently got owned here and there, but not one diva who did get a moment over them ever got developed after to become a major star. LayCool remained on top. This is exactly the same situation you would have had if the WWE had handled Austin-McMahon like I just said. After a while, the audience will just get the idea that the bullies are never really going away and no one who is getting these moments over them can ever really end them. Remember how that LayCool angle ended? McCool was leaving. Layla beat McCool. The group collapsed on itself. It didn't put over any face that went on to become successful off that momentum. The WWE did not even move on to developing Layla as centerpiece. They tried with Kelly Kelly.

What should the WWE have done? As I have said before, I'm sometimes a bit of a pushover. I would give the WWE a chance to see if it works, but when they see the experiment is not working, they should have used LayCool to put over someone they could eventually develop as a major star of the diva division. Do something along the lines of what you had between Austin and Vince. I would have developed Natalya consistently after she beat them for the Diva's Championship. Remember when she put McCool and Layla through a table? That was a big moment. If they had been consistent with Natalya after that, that could have been an iconic moment in Natalya's success story. I'm not saying she would have ended up as big as Austin, but it would have been better strategy than overpushing two annoying heels in an annoying fashion. The WWE could have also tried this kind of thing with Kelly Kelly, but I think Natalya would have been the better choice. That's not my bias towards female wrestlers getting better, fairer opportunities talking. I think it would be more believable if a female wrestler had crushed the two bullies.

I already said what I thought of the LayCool angle from the standpoint of an analyst. It was not productive and not handled smartly. Speaking as a fan, that angle was one of the most draining things I have ever seen in the 15 years I have been watching pro wrestling regularly. I found it annoying, lame, and stupid. In a word, it was draining. I don't even find Vickie Guerrero as bad as LayCool. I am a fan of great heels. When I started watching, my favorites happened to be heels at the time. Unlike so many others, I didn't like Austin during his feud with McMahon. I did not find LayCool to be great heels. They tried to be great heels, and the WWE certainly did more than they should have in pushing them, but it was just a painful overload from them. I'm not saying that I would have liked them if the fans started booing them regularly. I'm not that kind of fan. I am saying that they were not the type of heels that I am entertained by. They were not the kind of heels that make me want to see them get owned, as I was discussing before. They were the kind of heels that make me not want to be a WWE fan anymore. I sometimes hear people saying that Cena annoys them so much that they want to stop watching. Cena isn't even a heel, but that's the best way to put how I found LayCool.

You Say Your Favorite Match Is The One With Melina And Alicia Fox?

Who? Relax. Austin apologized about what he said on Tough Enough. Of all the divas to pick, and there is nothing wrong with picking the divas, why a match with these two? Matter of opinion. You look at it, both of these women are jobbers. That, to me, is more fact than opinion. Neither of them are centerpieces or are meant to be centerpieces. Since they are pushed consistently only in the diva division, their characters are not getting the chance to properly develop from storylines outside of the title picture. If you are not being developed as either a centerpiece or on the sidelines, what are you? Melina did a little self-righteous response to what went on. I respect her. I feel bad for her and most of the other divas in the WWE being held back. But should she really be proud of how far she's come? She's been featured on Superstars more in the last few weeks than Raw. She has been used by the WWE for the benefit of other women more often than not. End of the day, it is a dream job and she still has her fans. What can I possibly say about Alicia Fox? Her sister is on Tough Enough! She's still in afterthought heaven herself ever since Trish Stratus popped back up and Vickie is seeing more time in the ring on Raw than William Regal. I pointed out a few weeks ago that the divas with wrestling experience and true credibility were not getting used on Raw week after week. Even I have to admit that this is getting ridiculous now. Wrestlemania was on Sunday. On Raw this week, it is still Trish and Vickie. Eve defended the title against a Bella many weeks ago. Needless to say, not a worthy title match. Could have been. I don't think these women are that horrible. Just not given enough time and the story in the ring was weak. LayCool madness is still running wild on Smackdown, as you will see this week. Then again, there's no other heels to push there. How convenient? As far as I am concerned, the WWE is once again showing how they really value women like Melina, Gail Kim, Beth Phoenix, and so on. I'm not saying they whip them backstage and refuse to pay them. But I believe these women would like to be used more and better. Some must anyway. Or have they sacrificed that self-respect for the fame of being a credible jobber on Superstars?