I stand corrected...while I did not actually watch RAW last night, I have read that WWE paid tribute to Randy Savage last night on their weekly broadcast, which I did not expect, as I mentioned yesterday.

My brother did a nice blog about Savage at http://www.thoughtsofrs.blogspot.com/

I will be wrestling this sunday in Bruceton Mills,Wv at the Big Bear Lake Camplands as CPW kicks off its summer season at Noon....and on Sunday, June 5 at the KOA Campground in Harpers Ferry,Wv for the NWL with a 2pm belltime. If you're in the area, I hope you stop by...I always have pictures for sale...:)
*****************************************************************
Reading  my brothers blog earlier, & thinking so much about about the late Macho Man in recent days, has got me thinking about intensity, both on promos( interviews) & in the ring, and how important they are in the presentation of wrestling.

I will openly admit that, one of the things that turns me off so strongly to RAW & TNA tv ( as opposed to Smackdown, which isn't quite as bad) is the long, drawn out promos where :

A) nobody says anything important
B) babyfaces make jokes about the heels
C) heels mock babyface weaknesses,instead of telling lies

Let me explain: heels, by their very nature, are supposed to be dishonest,sneaky, & cowardly. However, when The Miz, for example, points out that John Cena, for example, only has three moves, what does he accomplish?  Well, he accomplishes two things- 1) hes not a liar & 2) Miz must not be much himself, if John Cena, with only 3 moves, can defeat him. Make sense?

I have a core belief that I use when I explain actions & reactions to wrestlers: people, generally speaking, are not inherently bad, nor do they always have the worst intentions. This is a valuable tool for me, as someone who promotes/books wrestling matches & angles, to help a heel understand that what he does is not as important in most cases than why.

As an example, if a heel has brass knucks or a chain in his boot, why wouldnt he just pull it out right away and use it, as opposed to waiting until he's at a disadvantage in the match? Because, deep down, he wants to win the right way- but ultimately, he isnt good enough.

In my opinion, a heel isnt a heel if he is outright telling you the truth about his advesary, no matter how good the delivery or the mannerisms.

The heels of old were an eclectic mishmash of different characters-some were mean, some where deranged, some were pretty boys,others wore flowered tights, more than a few were rallying against America- but they largely had one thing in common: they acted like asses, & told alot of lies.

In Mick Foley's first book ,"Have a Nice Day", he referenced a conversation he had with Michael "P.S" Hayes, of Fabulous Freebird ( and current head "writer" for Smackdown) fame, and Hayes pointed out that, in every case, the heel needs to be justified in his actions- which, I think, ties in with my belief that very few people commit heinous or reprehensible acts against others without self provocation.

The acts of a heel are brought on by his frustration,desperation, or insecurity-and theres no better reference point to this the legendary Larry Zbyszko vs. Bruno Sammartino feud of 1980.

For those unfamiliar with this story ( the younger readers get a pass,unless you're one of my kids lol; if you been watching for more than 20 years, shame on you :) Larry was the protege of the great Bruno,and although having had a decent amount of success in his career ( tag team champion), Larry felt stalled, and voiced this opinion in interviews on WWF tv shows.

Zbyszko felt that the only possible way he could break away from the long shadow of Sammartino was to wrestle, and ultimately, defeat him- this, he felt, was the only way. So the challenge was made for the match, and match that Bruno flatly refused.

Larry persisted- mind you, not in the kind of way that was insulting to his mentor,his idol, his hero- but in a matter of fact, almost desperate, "I need this more than anything" way. Back then, things like this didnt happen 5 times per week on tv- it was a rarity ( and was almost always a big boon to box office)

Bruno finally agreed, but only under the conditions that he would only wrestle "defensively"-in other words, because of his relationship to Larry Z, he didn't want to hurt him ( I liked the subtlety of this aspect) & that it would be a "exhibition"- not a full blown "contest". In other words, Bruno wasn't playing to win; however Larry was.

The tv match, in and of itself, completes painting a picture outlined by weeks of tv: Larry, try as he might, cannot get the advantage on Bruno; at one point, Bruno actually secures the bearhug, one of his patented moves, only to release Larry, much to Z's consternation; Larrys intensity grows, while Bruno remains relaxed to a certain degree- he absolutely wasn't trying to show Larry up.

During a hammerlock reversal, Bruno spins Larry out through the ropes to the arena floor- in an effort to show it wasnt intentional, Sammartino hold the ropes open for Larry to return; the water has finally boiled over for Zbyszko at at this point and, while Bruno is still holding the ropes, he nails him with a knee & a punch, then, as the ref admonishes him, he jumps outside and grabs a wooden chair. After disposing of the ref, Larry cracks his mentor with the chair , then again, & a third time as Bruno, as the magazine said at the time "drowned in a pool of blood".

Now that I've told the story, let make sure the point is clear: Larry Zbyszko did not intend to hurt, nor injure Bruno Sammartino-initially. He thought he could outwrestle the legend, and it didnt work; not only did it not work, it was the biggest error he made in his career-and he knew it. In his mind, when everything else failed, when his attempts to to it the right way failed, He made the decision to ambush,sucker, & maim his idol.

His justification is simple:" I will beat Bruno. I'm better than Bruno, and I will do ANYTHING to become bigger than Bruno. Bruno has held me back- its my turn!"  Therefore, everything he did was okay, in his mind- and if the fans don't understand,screw them,too.  All of these things, of course, are outright lies. But believing them to be truths are what made the actions justifiable.

This famous feud, after many bloody matches, finally culminated at Shea Stadium in New York ( former home of the Mets) where, without the benefit of national tv exposure, big budget tv commercials, or pay per view capability, drew in excess of 36,000 fans to the building that August afternoon, for a net live gate of almost $450,000. In 1980. Anyone want to prorate to current value?

Compare that to the weekly break ups, turns, & insincere interviews of today, with international tv exposure,big budget advertising, &  pay per view, where an average of 200,000 WORLDWIDE witnessed....what? A memorable spectacule? A match for the ages? Something to be remember for 30 plus years? It happens, but ALOT less frequently.

In their minds, heels aren't necessarily heels- they are rightous babyfaces, sometimes perhaps, fighting a battle only they understand.


Until next time
SSS