Bears take advantage of UH mistakes, win 7-2

The Wrestling Report

Ed De La Garza

Society likes to tear things down before their popularity swells too drastically. We've seen this in all forms of popular culture. Now we've seen it in the world of professional wrestling.

USA Today and Inside Edition -- both bastions of the journalistic world -- took the opportunity that wrestling's resurgence has created to run pieces about its "violent" and "sexual" undertones. In the WWF's case, they aren't undertones. They're blatant.

In an effort to be as unbiased as I possibly can be, I'm going to take a moment to spill some criticism onto the WWF.

Vince McMahon does push the envelope, going so far as to offend nearly every conservative group imaginable. Most of these groups, however, exist for the sole purpose of looking for things that they find offensive, never actually watch entire programs.

Case in point: An angle leading up to the Survivor Series involved the Undertaker hoisting Steve Austin atop a 'Taker logo, which looked suspiciously like a crucifix. Another angle, again involving 'Taker, had a live ritual sacrifice (which by the way, took place Jan. 11 at Compaq Center). It was obviously fake. The crowd took to filling the arena with an expletive laced chant.

There were, of course, numerous "accidental" camera shots of seminude females. It's accidental when it's live, not when it's taped. This leads to perhaps the most troubling part of the WWF: its portrayal of women.

Name one female personality (other than Chyna) appearing on RAW, Heat or Shotgun Saturday that isn't referred to in a sexual manner. Sable only got her push as the Women's Champion because of her looks and silicone-enhanced frame. She's in this month's Playboy, for crying out loud.

She has no talent. She can't work a microphone. She can't wrestle. She won't even take a bump. What kind of wrestler is that?

Terri Runnels has made a habit of walking down the ramp wearing translucent clothing. A match involving Sable and Jacqueline had Jackie popping out of her top. A stipulation for a match at Survivor Series had Debra McMichael stripping down to her skivvies.

Are these bad things? Speaking from a male point of view, no. Do these things have anything to do with wrestling? Again, no.

Which takes us to what wrestling has become in the late '90s. Aside from the actual wrestling, the two big federations have taken to producing shows which are, for the most part, loaded with what Vince likes to call "sports entertainment." The WWF's commercial, which ran during the Super Bowl, asked the question "Get it?" It isn't just about the wrestling anymore. It's about giving fans an evening's worth of entertainment. The quality of it is up for debate.

RAW is often tasteless. It is often so cutting edge that it maims itself. It has created a cloud of anti-wrestling controversy with no hope of clearing up, unless it cleans up its act. That's not going to happen, unless the public outcry starts hitting Vince in the wallet. It hasn't yet. Given society's hunger for things controversial, i.e. The Jerry Springer Show, NYPD Blue and Marilyn Manson, it probably won't happen anytime soon.

Professional wrestling has always been a soap opera. Its story lines are supposed to be intriguing enough to capture your imagination and hold it, at least until the next pay-per-view. The federation with the best story lines is the one that ends up on top. Having big-name talent alone doesn't do it. Having old "big names" that never had any talent to begin with certainly doesn't do it.

WCW has taken the high road. It had begun adding edge to its shows until the WWF started getting criticism. The Turner boys decided that they would offer themselves as the safer alternative. It would be a place where families of 'rasslin fans could gather to watch their favorite pastime, sans moments of explaining adult situations to their kids.

This is all well and good, but it hasn't done anything to increase Nitro's ratings. In fact, WCW's ratings have taken a precipitous drop. They aren't even close. You can take the high road all you want, but if it isn't showing up in the ratings, something has to change.

The WWF's mass exodus of talent has turned around, and now WCW finds itself with the problem of holding onto its superstars. WCW's pockets are deep enough, but if the ratings are a sign of things to come, its revenue will diminish, along with its ability to pay for talent.

Going back to what Vince has said about "getting it", let's take a moment to give some pros and cons about both attitudes. Wrestling is not a sport. Yes, this column does appear in this section, but it is nonetheless, a sports/entertainment hybrid. Lately, it has become more entertainment than sport.

Wrestlers don't necessarily have to be "mat technicians." If they have the right look, the right build, the right attitude and the right charisma, chances are, they'll be made into stars. Because of this, story lines have become even more important. 

The company that is most able to keep up with the times is the company that will appeal to the highest number of fans. That's the bottom line. On the negative side, keeping up with the times has landed the WWF in a world of bad publicity. That's the drawback.

WCW plays it safe. It appeals to viewers who were fans of the WWF in the mid '80s. Now that wrestling is popular again, they've turned to the company that has the stars they remember. WCW can put on a good show (when it wants to), because aside from its dinosaurs, it also has some of the world's most talented wrestlers.

Playing it safe also means fans are left wanting something WCW refuses to give them. Playing it safe means bad ratings. It means bad story lines and misuse of talent. Bottom line, it means an inferior product.

Wrestling will never be for everybody. It's a violent theater production in which wrestlers suffer from legitimate injuries. Its content is often intended for mature audiences.

You have two choices. You can either watch WCW's Nitro, where you don't have to worry about any uncomfortable moments. There will be the occasional match that makes you wonder why the entire show can't be that good. Or you can watch the WWF's RAW, which will not fail to disappoint. It packs more into two hours than WCW packs into a month's worth of Nitro. If you don't like it, you have the power to change the channel. Get it?