The introduction of the "Super Show" concept, as well as the addition of the 3rd hour to Monday Night Raw, has made the "Four Relevant Face" rule seem overly simple and quite frankly, archaic. The amount of relevant babyfaces has been increased and broadened. No longer does the WWE favor a certain amount of babyfaces on a per-show basis. Due to the Super Show, it'd be more safe to call it an EIGHT Relevant Face rule. That'd be great, but it's also ignoring the addition of the third hour to Raw. In my opinion, the math works out brilliantly; rather than calling it an "X Number of Babyfaces Per Show" or "Y Number of Relevant Babyfaces" rule, it seems to be a tad bit more complicated. Let's call it the "Two Relevant Face Rule".
Hang on. How did we add time, but subtract amount of relevant babyfaces? Simply put, we didn't. I just didn't want to dilute the name of the rule. I know, I know, I'm being stubborn and contentious, but it's basically a marketing decision. This isn't a rule that reduces the number of relevant babyfaces from four to two. If you think about the big picture, there was never a mere four relevant babyfaces in the original rule in the first place. It was CALLED the Four Relevant Face Rule, sure, but it was four per show - four on Raw, four on Smackdown. I'm changing the amount because I'm changing the reference. Rather than four per show, I've come to realize that the true estimation is closer to two per HOUR. Back when both Raw and Smackdown were both two hour shows, there were four relevant babyfaces per show, over the course of two shows - or rather, two relevant babyfaces per hour, over the course of four hours. Now, however, there are TEN relevant babyfaces in the WWE.
Back when I originally came up with the FRFR, there was a bit of a pattern that I somewhat recognized, but never really mentioned for the sake of fluidity. The pattern in question was that out of the four relevant babyfaces on each show, there was a tendency for there to be two primary main event types, one secondary upper-midcard type, and one tertiary midcard-to-lower-midcard type. Now, this isn't to say that the tertiary babyface isn't allowed to have ever held a main event title, or even that one (or both) of the primary main eventers can never return to the midcard. This is merely an observation of where the babyfaces in question are booked to be; how they are presented to the viewer by the WWE.
That being said, obviously with the new version of the rule involving ten total relevant babyfaces rather than eight, the simple 2/1/1 split is a bit out of whack. Luckily, the WWE's extra hour on Raw has allowed them to give more time to the lower and midcard, making more babyfaces who never would've gotten TV time on a two hour Raw more and more relevant. So now, rather than a simple 2/1/1 split, or 4/2/2 taking both shows into account, we are working with a slightly more complicated 4/2/2/2 split, allowing for the inclusion of lower-midcard types to be separated from the true midcarders.
At the end of the day, when you come up with a rule, or a revision to a rule, it helps to test it. So, who would fill the 10 slots allotted by the revised version of the rule?
- PRIMARY -
John Cena
Daniel Bryan
Randy Orton
CM Punk
- SECONDARY -
Dolph Ziggler
Sheamus
- TERTIARY -
Christian
Chris Jericho (Rob Van Dam)
- QUATERNARY -
Cody Rhodes
Mark Henry
Now, let's really examine this. Where are the cracks in the ranking?
The first two sections are, at least in my opinion, rock solid. Cena/Bryan/Orton/Punk are the core of the WWE's programming these days. Cena/Bryan are now hooked into a main event WWE Title storyline leading into Summerslam. Randy Orton draws massive reactions from crowds and is booked like a true main eventer, in addition to being Mr. Money in the Bank. CM Punk is the king of the world at this point, having gone from working with The Rock, to the Undertaker, to Brock Lesnar. That is your main event scene right now. Ziggler and Sheamus are secondary because neither of them draw consistent reactions from the crowd, but both are being booked like stars. Ziggler is in contention for the World Heavyweight Championship, and has been booked as the clear cut better man than Del Rio. Ziggler draws massive pops from the more in-the-know crowds, like Philly and Brooklyn, but struggles to draw reactions from the more casual southern crowds. Sheamus is the polar opposite; he hasn't been anywhere near a major title in nearly nine months, but he never freaking loses. Sheamus' crowd reactions are also a vague opposite to Ziggler's, where the more casual crowds cheer for him and the more in-the-know crowds tend to boo him for being portrayed as unbeatable and tendency to act heelish despite being a technical babyface.
So, then you get to the Tertiary section. Christian is a lock here. He wins against guys like Dean Ambrose, Damien Sandow and Cody Rhodes, but any time he steps into the ring with anybody from the first two tiers, he gets beaten, and sometimes quite quickly. But what about Chris Jericho? This is where the fluidity of the theory comes into play. Chris Jericho is leaving. What's really amazing is that, almost as if the WWE knew Jericho would be leaving after Money in the Bank, they brought in a babyface that they knew could get over to the same level that Jericho was: RVD. Technically, this tier ranking is in flux for now, but only because I don't want to base it off of rumors, no matter how solid they are. Common sense says that Chris Jericho is gone, and RVD is going to take his place as midcard veteran who puts on great matches and puts over young talent. That's what's so great about this rule; it isn't as rigid as it seems. There are periods of flux in the WWE when somebody turns, returns, retires, gets suspended or just takes a break, when the ranking might be incomplete, or too full. That's fine by me, but I believe that it always comes back to the core 10 guys. Jericho leaves, RVD shows up. Kane gets recruited by the Wyatts, Cody Rhodes turns face. It's a fragile balance that the WWE seems to be maintaining even to this day, and it can be applied even to my last blog post that incorporates the FRFR.
Now finally, that Quaternary set. Cody Rhodes turned face during the Money in the Bank Ladder match. This is about as set in stone as it gets. He isn't what I'd consider to be a solid midcarder yet, though, because he has yet to prove himself as a babyface. However, you know he's going to continue getting TV time on every Raw, and on every Smackdown, which automatically makes him relevant. His combination of relevance and being unproven as a babyface makes him the perfect candidate for the Quaternary ranking of this list.
But what about Mark Henry? I'm jumping to a bit of a conclusion here, yes. Am I really, though? Mark Henry cut a humble, honest promo on Raw after Money in the Bank. He proceeded to get beaten down by the Shield. This, in my opinion, is the seed planted for Mark Henry to turn face. It could probably be interpreted some other way, like the Shield was beating him down to prevent him from getting an unfair rematch for the WWE title, but the way I see it, whether that is true or not, Mark Henry's actions during that beatdown - his attempts to fight off the Shield only to struggle and ultimately eat the Triple Powerbomb in the end - tells me that the WWE is trying the best they can to garner sympathy for the big man.
So, there you have it. The new "Two Relevant Face Rule", referring to two relevant faces per hour, and the current state of the rankings regarding said rule. It's been a while since I've touched this blog, but I came up with this at work last night and figured I'd get it out there so people can get a peek into my odd mind. Enjoy!
No comments:
Post a Comment