WWE World Champion Knockout Game - Round 1

Hey there, welcome to my project! I did quite a lot of knockout games on the official Liverpool FC forums back in 2009 and 2010 and while the principle is the same, I've arranged this particular game differently.

I did a competition asking "Who is the Best" back in November 2009 on the LFC forums and the winner was Shawn Michaels. you can see that thread here. But that's not the same as this competition. For starters, that included WWE, World, ECW, WCW and TNA and AWA champions. This is only including the WWE and World Champions, while including the WWE versions of the ECW and WCW titles (which both had very few champions). So no TNA, no old WCW, old ECW or AWA champions.

Also this game is concentrating more on champions, rather than the wrestler or your favourites. As much as some of you may hate it, there's a reason why John Cena has won the title 12 times. And as good as Evan Bourne is, he probably overall, won't make as good a World Champion as Cena does, when you think about all the things that makes a good champion.

So what does make a good champion? A combination of things, and you can take away or add to these if you wish. To me, a good champion has to get a strong reaction from the crowd, has to earn the company money, has to be a good wrestler and has to be great on the microphone. There are more things that can be included, by all means include them if you value those things.

What's also different this time round is that it's not random. I've bracketed the competition so that the "strongest" goes against the "weakest" candidates, and slowly the favourites will eliminate the rest of the competition. How did I bracket it this way? Simple, in the total tally of titles. I had 57 champions, so to make a total of 64 I added the 7 wrestlers who last won the Intercontinental or United States title. The bracket in its entirety is in the image below, you'll need to click on it to see it properly.

If you look at that picture above you'll see who is pairing off against who, the bracket number they have and the total amount of titles they have won. Of course, this isn't always the best way of pairing off people, for instance Ric Flair actually only won 2 titles in the WWE, the same number as Vince McMahon of all people, so he's very low on the list. If you don't like how the competition has been decided don't blame me! Blame the WWE for favouring these people this way! Another example is Daniel Bryan won the US title yet hasn't won the big one yet so he's going against one of the elite title winners. But it's up to you to change that! If you genuinely think that Daniel Bryan or R-Truth or Ezekiel Jackson is as good a candidate for potentially being one of the best ever world champions then vote for them!

But the biggest change in this project is that I'm extending this competition to loads of things. I've included it on two different forums I'm a member of. They're getting involved. I also have this going on my Facebook and Twitter, so if everyone gets involved I could have loads and loads of votes. Also, you can get your friends involved! You can get other forums involved! Share this webpage to your forums or friends, and they can vote and comment! They can also comment on my Facebook page and my Twitter, as long as I get their vote it counts! The bigger this thing becomes the better it will be! So please help me with this! If it works it'd be pretty amazing!

To vote, comment below, or on my Facebook page, my Twitter, or email me.

Finally before I put the first round up, here are the bracket rules. These rounds will be going on for a week at a time. So that means that Round 2 will be posted on Friday 23rd December.

Bracket Rules

In Round 1, the person in each bracket that is ranked 1 goes against ranked 8, 2 against 7, 3 against 6 and 4 against 5.

In Round 2, the winner of 1vs8 goes against 4vs5, while 2vs7 goes against 3vs6.

In Round 3, the two remaining wrestlers in each bracket face each other.

In Round 4, the quarter finals, the 1st bracket winner (The Pedigree Bracket) takes on the 8th bracket winner (The Stone Cold Stunner Bracket). The 2nd bracket winner goes against the 7th bracket winner, 3rd against 6th, and 4th against 5th.

In Round 5, the semi finals, the winner of 1vs8 goes against 4vs5, while 2vs7 goes against 3vs6.

In Round 6, the final, the two remaining wrestlers go against each other.

If there is ever a tiebreaker, the seeded number (in blue font) will be the decider, with the higher ranked seed (1 being best, 8 being worst) will automatically go through.

If you're unsure of the rules, comment below or email me!

--

Now that mumbo jumbo is out of the way, here's the first Round! Round 2 will be posted on Friday 23rd December.

Round 1

*Voting Closed*

The Pedigree Bracket

(1) Triple H vs (8) Montel Vontavious Porter 
(4) Vince McMahon vs (5) Jack Swagger 
(2) Christian vs (7) John "Bradshaw" Layfield 
(3) Mankind vs (6) Chris Benoit 

The Sweet Chin Music Bracket

(1) John Cena vs (8) Drew McIntyre 
(4) Rob Van Dam vs (5) Mark Henry 
(2) Shawn Michaels vs (7) The Great Khali 
(3) Brock Lesnar vs (6) Eddie Guerrero 

The Jackhammer Bracket

(1) Edge vs (8) R-Truth 
(4) Alberto Del Rio vs (5) Bobby Lashley 
(2) Bob Backlund vs (7) The Miz 
(3) Jeff Hardy vs (6) Goldberg 

The Brogue Kick Bracket

(1) The Rock vs (8) Daniel Bryan 
(4) Sheamus vs (5) Buddy Rodgers 
(2) Bret Hart vs (7) Dolph Ziggler 
(3) Rey Mysterio vs (6) Diesel 

The Chokeslam Bracket

(1) Randy Orton vs (8) Wade Barrett 
(4) Booker T vs (5) Ivan Koloff 
(2) CM Punk vs (7) Ezekiel Jackson 
(3) Big Show vs (6) Sgt. Slaughter 

The Tombstone Piledriver Bracket

(1) The Undertaker vs (8) Kofi Kingston 
(4) Sycho Sid vs (5) Pedro Morales 
(2) Batista vs (7) Tommy Dreamer 
(3) Kane vs (6) The Ultimate Warrior 

The Codebreaker Bracket

(1) Hulk Hogan vs (8) Cody Rhodes
(4) Yokozuna vs (5) The Iron Shiek 
(2) Chris Jericho vs (7) Matt Hardy 
(3) Bruno Sammartino (6) Andre the Giant 

The Stone Cold Stunner Bracket

(1) Stone Cold Steve Austin vs (8) John Morrison 
(4) Ric Flair vs (5) Stan Stasiak 
(2) Kurt Angle vs (7) Chavo Guerrero 
(3) Randy Savage vs (6) Billy Graham

*Voting Closed*

To summarise, to vote, you can list your preferred champions or potential champions in the polls above. But I can also accept votes elsewhere, you can vote on my Facebook, my Twitter or via email. Votes will be tallied and Round 2 will be posted on Friday 23rd December. Happy voting!

For the latest updates on my work, 'like' me on Facebook here!

The Mercy Side: Crossface

On Saturday, it was revealed on many wrestling websites that a film was to be made about the disastrous events that happened in the Benoit household between Friday 22^nd and Monday 25^th June 2007, and the life and career of the murderer, Chris Benoit. Benoit was an absolutely fine wrestler, one of the best, and his actions between these two dates were out of character yet brutal and some could argue, evil. Very little before or since the murder and suicide story has evoke such strong and diverse reactions.

Before I divulge in the idea of a film about Chris Benoit, let me tell you of the two sides to the man who was almost set in stone in terms of being one of wrestling’s modern legends, before the horrible incident occurred. On one side of the coin, you had Chris Benoit, forty years old, a technical genius in the ring and well respected by both rookies and his peers for his aggression and passion for the business. He worked his way up the highly political wrestling ladder from his days on the indie scene, to Japan, to ECW, WCW and eventually, WWE. He always had one of, if not the best match on every card everywhere he went and was well liked by many wrestlers backstage. A lot of people not only respected him, but he was a friendly man, helped out a lot of people in their careers while developing his own the hard way. He also had a great level of dignity; when WCW’s roster was getting thin because of the decrease in ratings and talent leaving the company, he was given the WCW heavyweight title, but after demanding change, left the company and vacated the title due to a lack of faith in him and the wrestlers that were still being held back due to politics. This shows his courage and passion for the business as a wrestling company rather than as a business for profit and greed. He left for the WWF, and despite injuries and a slow build up, he eventually won the gold at Wrestlemania XX and celebrated with long term friend Eddie Guerrero, who also retained his world title at the same event. It was one of the most emotional and real scenes ever displayed in a wrestling ring, a place where characters and acts are central and personal lives are hidden.

Due to the nature and subject of this article, this is the only picture I'm adding. It's a picture I personally want to remember, IF I have to think of Benoit.

And a personal life indeed was hidden. No one saw what Chris Benoit was to do coming. His work colleagues, friends, family, fans, and more importantly, his wife and son didn’t know what was coming. No one foresaw him as a person who could bound his wife, press a knee into her back and pull a chord around her neck and strangle her, as speculated. No one expected him to sedate his son and to suffocate him, as speculated. And then to kill himself by hanging himself with a chord attached to a weight machine. Who knows what went on in that house before Chris did these unforgivable things? Did he have issues with his wife? His kid? Was he just insane? It was certainly planned.

The most common and logical reason that is hypothesized is that brain damage and repeated trauma to Benoit’s head were major factors in this incident. It was discovered that Chris had damage to all four lobes of his brain. It is almost inevitable that so much strain to the brain gave him loads of concussions, and too many concussions can affect people’s behaviour. Because of Benoit’s actions the WWE have never mentioned his name on television again, and they have removed him from nearly all the archive footage in their history. Only his name, and his name only, is mentioned in the history books when he won titles. No descriptions on how he won, the feuds that lead to the wins are stated. Just his name. Also the WWE have made their product much safer, they have stopped chair shots directly to the head and removed the gore element of their matches. If blood is shed in matches now, it’s certainly not fake blood or cuttings, and the match is often paused so the officials can deal with the injury. Most importantly, the WWE have tried their best to make sure things like this never happen again by including a Wellness Policy that tries to eliminate illegal drug use, including steroids and abuse to prescriptions. The WWE Wellness Policy actually started with the death of Eddie Guerrero, two years prior, but activity was definitely revved up after the double murder and suicide of Chris Benoit. The WWE have acted very professionally in this situation, after all, they have to defend their company but they also needed to take certain measures so that these situations would hopefully never happen again.

It’s a horrible and scratchy subject to bring up, the wrestler once known as Chris Benoit. Why? Because one of two memories always crops up, for nearly everyone. The majority of people I’d say think of the horrible and disgusting ending to three people’s lives when they think of Chris Benoit. But there is a minority that like to celebrate the wrestler that was Chris Benoit, and try not to think about him as an evil man who committed unforgivable actions. I’m probably in the latter. Now, before you jump on me and tell me I’m terrible for having that view, as I’m sure there are many people who just can’t fathom to understand how that can be a possibility. But I don’t like to see the negative side of people if I can help it. Don’t misunderstand me, I don’t jump away from the subject, if people ask me for my thoughts on what Benoit did, I’m one of the first to say it’s disgusting, sick, inexcusable and reprehensible. But I like to think about his work in the ring before those actions. The reason is simply because I don’t want to think about those things, I mean who does? So that’s the reason. But I try not to think about Benoit at all, because of it beign such a sketchy subject.

The same by the way applies to other talented men who did committed malevolence, like Gary Glitter. I see them in the same boat. I grew up listening to Gary Glitter as a kid and loved his music. By the time I was entering my teens news was rife about his disgusting and filthy actions towards children. Those actions are equally as indefensible. But if a Glitter song comes on, I try my best to enjoy it, as it was good music from the seventies. So, that’s my attitude towards these things, and if you don’t’ agree with it I can completely respect that, just try to understand my logic is all I ask.

Anyway, back to the subject, a film is apparently going to be made about Chris Benoit, and most particularly, the acts he caused. Why? Well the film is to be made by SRG films, and the chief there had this to say:

“Chris Benoit has become a poster child for everything that’s wrong with professional wrestling and Sarah [Coulter]’s terrific script captures his struggles and the many factors that led to the deaths of three people.”

“People immediately point to steroids, never thinking about the brain trauma these wrestlers can, and do, incur in their profession, nor do they consider the rigorous schedule that keeps them working even when they shouldn’t be. The Benoit story is one that needs to be brought into the light.”

So in an nutshell, the idea is that this film is going to raise awareness of brain trauma and the hectic schedule that wrestlers have to deal with (which can be around 300 nights a year of wrestling) and its effect on them. Essentially, this film will focus on the negatives of wrestling and the toll it has on a human being. I’d say you’d expect to see lots of headshots and headbutts and a lack of focus on the wrestling side of things. It'll be more about Benoit's life than his career. It's going to be unsettling to watch and is being made to emphasise how dangerous the game is. So if you’re expecting a film paying homage to wrestling, or even more stupidly, to Benoit, then you’re wrong. This film is here to shed a dark light on wrestling. And not even in a way similar to The Wrestler.

Comparing this film to The Wrestler, the good thing that The Wrestler does is celebrate wrestling. Yes it deals with the hard and grubby situations that wrestlers have to deal with. It deals with a lot of negative aspects of wrestling, but it does it in a tasteful way, a realistic way and it does it educationally. The Wrestler got nearly everything inch perfect about how wrestling life is like. And the best thing is, it IS homage, as it shed great light on the spectacle, on the show, on the sportsmanship and the good and great. It had a balanced story of positive and negative.

This film won’t do that. There will probably be very little actual wrestling in the film. I’d expect most of this film to be out of the ring, and full of speculation on what happened backstage, in the Benoit household and the potential motives the man had. It’s going to be very dark and extremely unsettling.

Am I for or against this film? It’s hard to say, it’s not as black and white an answer of yes or no. I'm 'for' the idea of bringing focus on the dangers of brain trauma and the psychological strain these guys go through. I’m for the educational purpose of this film. But I'm against the idea of these people trying to take a negative spin on all the great things about wrestling, and the WWE in general, The Wrestler did this but also celebrated wrestling. Let's be honest, these people want wrestling to be banned or at least strong lines to be drawn on what can and cannot happen in a wrestling ring, which in a certain way you can admire them for their concern, but I think the WWE have things under control more now than they ever had. To expect miracles in four years is stupid.

The main problem with this film is simply that it’s a film in the first place. They describe the film as a “biological thriller”. Really? If it was a biological film it will deal with the life of Chris Benoit. It’s not about Benoit as a person; it’s about Benoit as a murderer. I very much doubt there will be no stories on Benoit as a child, or as Benoit as a teenager. There may be some parts of the film that deal with Benoit’s early career, but only as a referencing point of how early he was causing damage to himself. So that’s not a biography really is it? Of course, in the end I’m speculating what the film will be about and do I know really? No I don’t, but I think it’s obvious how this film will be made if you put the thought into it.

The worse part of the whole film will be the actual scenes of murder. Once again, reports are strong about what happened and the methods used, but in the end, no one knows what happened the night before the murder. Did Nancy provoke Chris? How much thought did Chris Benoit put into killing his family? The motives were there but did he plan it the day before, the morning of, or longer than that? No one knows this. And to further this being the worst part, watching a grown man sedate a young boy and then suffocate him is going to be absolutely distressing to watch. Benoit didn’t strangle his son; he suffocated him, probably with a pillow or a plastic bag or something. In the end, this is a film; you’re supposed to enjoy films. Even thrillers and horror films are to be enjoyed. How can you enjoy this? Yes it’s described as a “biological thriller”, and it is certainly ‘thrilling’, but for the wrong reasons. It’s unsettling, it’s upsetting and it’s uncomfortable to think about. Also, how does the film end? In the end of a film you should have some form of satisfaction. It doesn’t always have to be a happy ending, but how can you end a film like this? Where does it end? If it ends at the point where Chris commits suicide, that’s a hideous ending. It if ends with the police finding the bodies, it’s equally as horrible. How else can it end? It’s just not a story that has an ending where you can feel fulfilled and all you have at the end of watching such a film is discomfort and distress.

So on the whole, I'm against this film happening. There are pros, but the cons dramatically outweigh them. Yes this is a subject that has relevance and importance, but the WWE have already taken good steps to make sure these horrible stories don't happen again, with the ban of headshots, the turn into a PG product and the banning of fake blood and the graphic side to wrestling on the verge of obscurity. But the idea of making this scene into a film is also baffling due to it actually having to be a film anyway, and there’s no satisfaction to watching the events unfold, even for educational purposes. But if they are to make this film, I'm definitely interested to see to and I will watch it, with clenched fists and seething teeth. Thanks for reading.

For the latest updates on my work, 'like' me on Facebook here!

The Mercy Side: Triple H – COO or No?

On Monday we found out who CM Punk’s opponent was going to be. All the build up so far pointed towards it being Kevin Nash, who Jackknife Powerbombed the ex champion into the mat at Summerslam. Two weeks of decent promos and altercations between the two seemed to solidify this belief amongst most fans. However in CM Punk’s ever so not discrete way, he has been making digs at Triple H week after week after week. It was inevitable that Punk and Hunter would face each other - it was never in doubt. But I don’t think many people expected them to face each other so soon, at Night of Champions, in just under three weeks.

Now feelings on this matter are mixed but edging towards unsatisfied with the change of opponent. Why? Well let’s look at the pros and cons of the situation. Being the optimist I am, I’ll start with the pros. The change of opponent is good in the respect that Triple H is a much better wrestler and worker than Kevin Nash is. Hell, Triple H has always been a better worker than Nash. Another positive is that a lot of the new generation of wrestling fans haven’t the foggiest who Kevin Nash is, where as Triple H is a huge name is wrestling, and has been for a good 12 years consistently. This on its own brings a bigger market, the PPV will sell more for having Hunter’s name on the card than Nash’s. Another? The two guys haven’t wrestled a hectic schedule for a good eighteen months, both guys that is. Nash was with TNA eighteen months ago, where as Hunter was on tour with WWE around that time. In the eighteen months that have passed, Nash left TNA and barely wrestled, where as Hunter had a few injuries and pretty much did the build up to Wrestlemania but nothing before or since. What’s my point? Well neither have wrestled a great deal, yet Triple H proved at Wrestlemania that despite not being on the road for long periods of time wrestling, he can fucking go in an instant of notice. His match against The Undertaker was a classic. It’s my personal favourite Triple H match, and he was 41, slightly passed his prime. Nash? Well he hasn’t had many great matches in his entire career, and he was 41 back in 2000, at the demise of WCW.

So in brief, the pros are Triple H is a better worker than Nash, a better wrestler than Nash, gets ‘more asses in seats’ than Nash, can work a great match despite long term absence in the ring than Nash and is 10 years younger. The cons? Well, a big con is that despite all those pros, we were lead into a storyline where Kevin Nash came back to the squared circle and laid out CM Punk at Summerslam. He made a big impact. For two weeks, there has been bickering between Punk and Nash. And yes, while Triple H has been part of the storyline, his bickering with Punk has been part of the scenery, the background. The main hook, in the fore, was Punk/Nash. Nash for two weeks managed to get his hands on Punk, while Punk has so far tried and failed to get his revenge. It was a nice little story going on. And while Hunter/Punk had their problems, they seemed to be only niggling issues at present, not issues that were blown into proportion. So from a storyline perspective, what happens to Nash now that Triple H basically knocked him off the card and took his place? It’s bad booking to build something for two weeks only for it to be completely irrelevant. You can make an argument that next week on Raw we’ll find out that Nash is actually relevant but he’s not the main man anymore. He’s now been pushed back and regardless of his input, seems pretty useless now. So that’s one con. Another? CM Punk and Triple H was bound to happen. It was never in doubt. It felt like it was going to be dragged on for months before Hunter would have enough of Punk’s pipebomb bullshit and just take his anger out on him. It was a scene I’d love to have seen done in around half a year’s time, maybe in time for Wrestlemania. All in time, Hunter would try to ignore and block CM Punk’s provocations and try to maintain his professionalism. It was being written for itself and would make fantastic television over the next few months, seeing CM Punk slowly chip through Triple H’s armour before The Game just rips him to pieces, turning heel at the same time. So now that Triple H has decided to put himself in the match only five weeks after Punk was starting to bug him. A potential feud of the year candidate has now disintegrated, as it will all come to a premature head in just over two weeks time.

But the main con with this change of direction for WWE in terms of CM Punk’s opponent at Night of Champions is actually its affect on Triple H’s role going forward. Don’t get me wrong, I completely understand and in certain ways agree with the opponent change. You can see why above. But if Triple H is the on-screen successor to Vince McMahon, the CEO of old, he needs to step away from in ring action. Yes, Triple H was, ahem, is, a wrestler and Vince wasn’t. But it doesn’t matter. Triple H, the COO of the WWE, needs to act like the man in charge. The man in charge does not take part in matches, he books them. He fires people. He sets the record straight. Yes he has an ego, but he tries to control it, for ‘the good of the business’. It doesn’t matter if it’s a storyline or kayfabe, he is the boss.

One of the main reasons Vince McMahon’s character worked so well for so long was because he rarely got involved in the ring. When Vince McMahon, le grande fromage, got in the ring shit was about to go down. Stone Cold’s feuds with Vince McMahon are legendary. But that’s because of the bickering, the bitching, and the excellent mic work. It wasn’t because of five star classics. And yes, Triple H can wrestle while Vince couldn’t, but that it doesn’t matter.

Okay, let’s look at it from a different angle. Forget wrestling is worked for a second. YOU, yes you there with the half eaten pastry in your mouth looking at my site, YOU are now the COO of the WWE. As I said forget wrestling is worked, you are in control. You’re the boss. You book the matches and sort out feuding wrestling angles. You fire the people who ‘deserve’ to get fired. What would you do if you were also a wrestler? You’d put yourself in world title matches of course! You wouldn’t go after Punk, you’d go after Alberto Del Rio who has the title. You’d book the match so it would be difficult for Del Rio to win, and take the title. Hell you’d strip him from the title and give it to yourself and then never defend it. Okay maybe this idea is a little farfetched, I mean it is YOU that would be champion. If it was me it’d make a little more sense after all, I am an incredible (yet humble and discreet) wrestler.

Okay all jokes aside; if Triple H is a wrestler AND the COO, it just doesn’t work. You can’t be both. You can’t be an active wrestler and book matches. It just doesn’t make sense. It was only four weeks ago when we were looking at a promo with CM Punk and Triple H and HHH said that he took the COO job for the fans, and with that job comes certain rules and responsibilities. He never factually said he would not compete again but he most certainly insinuated that he wouldn’t. Being a guy that can still go at a more than acceptable rate it was inevitable that Hunter would wrestle again. But as I said, it needs to be impactful. It needs to have a purpose. And with the direction it was heading in, say in six months, if Triple H was to patiently wait until that amount of pressure was built and tensions with Punk would increase on a weekly basis for that long, it would have had just that. Impact. It would have meant something. “Triple H returns! For one night only to stand up for his wife against the man with the pipebomb CM Punk!” It’s a money maker. Or it was. Now that Triple H is returning to the ring, only two months after being announced as the new COO, it’s meaningless. It lacks the edge it would have had around six months from now.

So to conclude, there are pros and cons for this change of opponent for CM Punk. The pros are Hunter is a better wrestler, worker, is better business for the company, younger and more capable of wrestling at a hands notice than Nash. The cons are it potentially makes the Nash/Punk storyline completely insignificant, it was a storyline rushed forward incredibly prematurely and the main reason, it devalues Triple H as the COO of the company. Where do I stand in this situation? I’m sure you’ve figured it out, I’m against this idea. Sure Nash won’t be able to wrestle a great match with Punk, but it’s not about a five star classic. It’s about putting CM Punk over, and believe it or not, Nash does have a certain value for Punk. Nash is a six time world heavyweight champion, and is 6’11. The match would have simply been booked for long periods of a beatdown for Punk while he overcomes the odds and bullishly defeats Nash clean with the Go to Sleep. It would have boosted Punk’s credibility amongst the marks (although the smarks are more than aware that Punk is gold at the moment and has been for sometime, some of the marks are still not convinced). It makes Punk look stronger. So there would have been value in that match.

As for Triple H, I say he can’t be an active wrestler too often (rare matches are fine, as long as they are that, rare) and be the COO of the company. So it has to be one or the other. COO or no? I say COO. Thanks for reading.