Rasslin' tangent

I don't know the timeline here, but recently there's been some hub-bub about Rob Van Dam that I'm reporting here in an effort to lure out some SiS reader commentary...if'n you dig the professional rasslin' stuff. First, an important quote from here (apologies in advance for the pop-ups):

Perry: Secondly, Rob Van Dam. Does he have what it takes to be the flag bearer for the Smackdown or Raw brand as world champion?

Heyman: Rob Van Dam should have been world champion already. If WWE listened to the audience in 2001, Rob Van Dam would have become world champion back then. Yes, he has everything it takes. He has the one thing that most superstars don’t have and that’s a connection with the audience. He has a legitimate, bonafide bond with the crowd.

If you look at the record executives who market today’s music, Doug Morris, a chairman with Universal Music, is not a young man. Clive Davis, not a young man. The only young guys are really David Dash and Sean Combs and even Sean Combs is not that young anymore. He’s certainly not 23 years old. Music is marketed toward 14-23 year old kids and you’ve got to keep your finger on the pulse. I think what happen to Van Dam, the people who market, put the TV shows together and make the final decisions don’t understand his connection with the audience because they don’t speak Van Dam’s language. Because they don’t speak his language, they just don’t get how big of a bond he has with the crowd and that’s a shame because Van Dam could be a flag bearer for WWE and do huge business.

Wade Keller from PW Torch recently chimed in (again...aplogies for ads) on the same topic.

None of this is really news to me. In fact I feel sorta vindicated hearing all of this going on right now. I think Heyman places it at 2001, but there was a point where I was actually watching Raw and SmackDown (as opposed to now), where I was actively participating on any number of wrestling message boards, and where I kept getting blasted for merely suggesting that a guy like RVD should be getting a better push. "He sucks on the mic!" they'd whine. "He only has a few moves he does over and over again" they'd bitch. And back then I just shrugged, but now I'm hearing it straight from the "mad scientist of professional wrestling" himself (Paul Heyman) which makes me ponder If a guy like Paul Heyman sees potential, if the crowd at live events see potential, then why don't the on-line critics see potential (past the whole mic issue...give the guy a manager like Fonzie, problem solved) and rally behind the Whole F'n Show in an effort to make the WWE show more interesting?