Big Show's involvement in the John Cena vs. John Laurinaitis match at Over the Limit didn't make much sense, but how much does that matter? (via WWE.com)
Certain parts of wrestling are completely unrealistic.
Punches to the face that don't bruise. Entrance music in a surprise debut. The physics of an Irish whip. Winding a fist to give a punch added oomph. Referees prone to death at the slightest contact.
I haven't given the realism of any of these things a second thought in a long time. I doubt you have either. Most of us accept them, even if they wouldn't happen in real life.
Other unrealistic parts of wrestling do bother me, from time to time.
Revealing secret plans obliviously in front of a camera. Suffering a horrible injury one night and being fine the next. Suddenly shrugging off an injured body part after the opponent spent 15 minutes attacking it. Referees not being able to see an illegal act despite being 3 feet away from it.
Why? What's the difference between the unrealistic things that bother me and the unrealistic things that don't? I'm not sure I can define it. Not to get all Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart on you guys, but I know it when I see it.
Much attention was paid to a continuity error made on Raw when general manager John Laurinaitis explained to fans that he'd re-hired Big Show to take out John Cena at Over the Limit on Sunday (May 20, 2012), despite the stipulation of the match forbidding any superstar from interfering or they'd be fired.
The story made sense if Big Show was not a WWE employee when he got involved at the end of the match (though you wonder why security didn't prevent this non-employee from coming in contact with the wrestlers). But if Show was an employee again, then the WWE Board of Directors should have fired him post-haste. WWE later had Michael Cole correct Laurinaitis's error.
What I have not seen a complaint about, though, is the idea that Laurinaitis' master plan of having Show help him against Cena could have easily failed because Show waited more than 15 minutes to come out. Show and Laurinaitis were extremely lucky Cena chose to prolong Laurinaitis' suffering with an excessive and lengthy beating, despite having dozens of chances to pin or submit him sooner, and then randomly chose not to chase after Laurinaitis as he escaped to the back.
Not a brilliant master plan, was it?
Of course, the reason for this elaborate setup wasn't because it was meant to make sense. It was to give us the illusion as long as possible that Big Show was there to help Cena mete out justice to Laurinaitis, rather than to betray Cena. It was a convoluted way to craft a swerve that a good many of us saw coming that set up a feud that WWE has presented twice before.
So does this bother me? I guess a bit. Lazy and predictable is not my favorite kind of wrestling story, especially when it's an effort to craft a surprise. (It would have been fairly easy to write around, too. All Laurinaitis needed to say was that he offered to give Big Show his job back in the ring right before Show threw Laurinaitis to Cena.)
In the end, I'm not in a rage over it or anything (no one older than 14 should care enough about wrestling to get in a rage over it, in my opinion). I'm pretty used to this lack of attention to detail and lack of logic with WWE in 2012. Even the unrealistic, illogical stuff that bugs me doesn't bother me as much as it used to.
I still love the great matches and performances enough that the other problematic stuff is unlikely to keep me away from WWE. I'm not an advocate of turning my brain off while watching WWE, but maybe I've lowered my expectations just a tad.
Does that make me, and others like me, the problem?