PWInsider - WWE News, Wrestling News, WWE

PWINSIDER Q&A: THE INVASION ANGLE A SUCCESS?, THE APPEAL OF TOMMY DREAMER, WHY THE WWE DRAFT IS A JOKE AND MORE

Answered on 6/8

I know the Invasion angle of 2001 with WWF/Alliance is widely considered a failure because it wasn't believable (due to the lack of stars such as Flair, Steiner and Sting coming to WWF at the time), but I find it a success. If you ask me, it opened a lot of new doors for WWE to explore, and led to some great matches in mid to late 2001. Austin and Kurt Angle had one of my personal favourite matches ever at SummerSlam because of it; Jericho and The Rock could show what they could do together; Rob Van Dam and Jeff Hardy could do what they did best together - kill themselves. Without the invasion angle, the stories behind the first two matches would have been less interesting and it made Jericho the star heel he was, as well as solidifying Kurt Angle as a permanent main eventer. With this in mind, isn't it fair to say the invasion angle was a success? I'd also like to add how good the events became (SummerSlam, Unforgiven, No Mercy and Survivor Series come to mind).

The Invasion wasn't a success because WWF took a storyline that should have lasted for, at worst, a year and, at best, five years, and flushed it all away in a few months.  They took a huge audience at the start of the storyline and alienated almost half of it away by the end.  Just look at the buyrates for that period.  At the start of the storyline, Invasion did a 1.43 buyrate.  Summerslam did a 1.05.  Unforgiven did a 0.82.  No Mercy did a 0.80.  It all ended at Survivor Series with a 1.13 buyrate. When you are losing your audience, it isn't a success.  Were there some good matches in there?  Absolutely, but WWE didn't even begin to scratch the surface of the potential that storyline had. 

Can you explain to me the appeal of Tommy Dreamer? From what I can see, the man isn't, and never has been, above average in the ring. It seems that his popularity began with the Sandman Singapore cane incident, which was a cool wrestling moment, but I've never seen a "great" Tommy Dreamer match. People see him as the "heart of ECW," but there are others who were more hardcore, more athletic, and more appealing overall than him. I just don't understand it.

I guess it is one of those "you had to be there" things.  I think what made Dreamer so popular is that he wasn't a "larger than life" character, or someone unique or strange.  It was the fact that Dreamer came across as a wrestling fan who was living his dream, because, believe it or not, he was.  Tommy Dreamer connected with ECW fans because Tommy Dreamer wasn't a "gimmick".  He was a wrestling fan who wanted to become a wrestler and wanted ECW to succeed.  Dreamer was one of the only people that "stuck with ECW" when he could have probably made a jump to WCW or WWF. He sacrificed his body for the entertainment of the fans, which won over a large portion of the crowd that once dismissed him as a "pretty boy".  Does Dreamer have a slew of "match of the year" candidates on his resume?  No.  But Dreamer connected with the ECW audience, and because the fans became emotionally invested in his character (which, as I mentioned was really him), they continued to care about him long after ECW was finished.

I was reading today’s QA and saw a question on the title histories, ragging on Triple H for having the world title “handed” to him. All of you on the site have torn him up for that as well (rightfully so, as titles should be won, not awarded). I question why, however, that you guys have never gone after RVD for the same thing. RVD won the WWE title, and Paul Heyman then handed him the ECW title belt for the re-launch. RVD did not win the ECW title, it was just given to him, and to me, that totally devalued the belt from the very beginning (though not as much as VKM holding it). So what gives? Have you just drank the RVD kool-aid? Thoughts please.

I don't see the two situations as being the same.  Triple H didn't beat anyone, he was just handed a top title because he was the "number one contender" on the brand after beating Kane the week before.  Rob Van Dam beat John Cena for the WWE Title, and then was given the ECW Title as well.  In essence, you could say that Van Dam vs. Cena at One Night Stand II was for the vacant ECW Title as much as it was the WWE Title. If RVD had lost to Cena, and then was given the title, I could see the situations being the same.  

Here's a question that I am sure you will answer with something like "Don't expect WWE to follow its own product", but is no one in that company paying attention? Last Monday on Raw, King made a comment that the Hardy's could get broken up by the draft. I thought he was joking, but then yesterday on WWE.com, there was an entire article up about the draft, and the picture on it from the home page was of the Hardy's and the entire article was about tag teams that could get broken up. Now I went and checked, and sure enough, Matt's profile is still on the Smackdown page, and Jeff's is still on the Raw page. Is this just them trying to put over the draft hoping no one is paying attention to the details or do you think they really forgot that the Hardy's are still separated by the draft. Also, in either situation, don't you think that by bringing attention to the Hardy's in regards to the draft really serves to DECREASE the importance of the draft, given they were split up but still wrestle together making the separation pretty meaningless?

I agree 100%.  As much as I have enjoyed seeing the Hardys back in action, there was no logic to it.  Cena & Michaels were defending the belts in battle royales that night against teams "from all brands", but there was never any explanation as to why the Hardys were allowed to form a "co-brand" team that night.  Matt was never traded to Raw, and most weeks he has competed on both shows.  We've also seen other wrestlers, like the Great Khali, switch brands with no explanation.  I definitely think it takes some of the effectiveness out of the draft when someone can just switch brands with no reason being given. 

The Chris Harris vs. James Storm match on Impact was awesome. I know that Storm has his thing with Wycheck, but why couldn't Harris win and qualify especially after that performance, or should I just wait and see if he'll get a second chance to qualify or something before Slammiversary?

TNA's storyline is that since neither man won, they are both out of the running for the King Of The Mountain match.  Now, the KOTM match will only have four participants, which I actually prefer.  As for Harris, I'm sure he will have some role on the PPV, and I would think that we have not seen the last of Harris vs. Storm at this point.

You can send us questions for the PWInsider.com Q&A by clicking here.

We also have a new Q and A up today on PWInsiderXtra.com. If you are an Elite member of the new site, you can read it by clicking here.

If you are not an Elite member, you can read it by clicking here.

If you would like to become an Elite member to one or both of the sites, you can do so by clicking here.

For PWInsider.com Elite members who are not members of PWInsiderXtra, all Q&A's are archived in the Elite Newsletter every Sunday.

If you enjoy PWInsider.com you can check out the AD-FREE PWInsider Elite section, which features exclusive audio updates, news, our critically acclaimed podcasts, interviews and more by clicking here!

• Tweet