Over at Deadspin, Luis Paez-Pumar has a really well written piece up on the issue with Ronda Rousey and the way her story is currently playing out on WWE television. The long and short of it is that, yes, it’s very bad for her to be calling wrestling a bunch of fake bullshit, because her doing so is going against the very foundation of what pro wrestling is built upon.
I, too, have gone over this.
Reading that piece, though, got me wondering if maybe I’m looking at it in the wrong way, or at least not in the way WWE, or Rousey, is intending.
One of the biggest issues with Rousey claiming Becky Lynch’s armbar is applied incorrectly and therefore wouldn’t actually serve its intended function is that she’s going to have to sell for that same armbar. The same goes for the idea that she’s going to turn their match into a shoot fight and if she does so, she’ll destroy Lynch because she has that ability because, again, she’s not fake like wrestling (and therefore the wrestlers within it). But what if the entire point of that is not to bury the business, necessarily, but to, in a way, legitimize it. Because, following this logic, if they do go to WrestleMania 35 and Rousey follows through on her promise to turn it into a shoot fight so she can beat the shit out of everyone, script be damned, what happens when she loses? Wouldn’t that put Lynch over that much more?
I don’t know that it would, or that this is even the intended idea, or that it would be a good idea even if it were, but it would make everything they’ve done with Rousey in the past couple weeks make a lot more sense. The alternative is hugely undesirable.
This way isn’t all that desirable either, really, I’m just bending over backwards to find a way to make it palatable.