Mallory Mahling
Mallory's Thoughts on What Makes A Good Feud--and What Doesn't
By Mallory Mahling
Apr 16, 2008 - 8:58 AM

When Shawn Michaels and Batista drew their proverbial line in the sand on Raw a couple of weeks back, I suddenly remembered what it was I used to enjoy so much about professional wrestling. The stories.

Pro wrestling is commonly touted as a soap opera for men, which leaves one whole gender of viewers not represented, but that's a rant for another day.  Be that as it may, it's that other gender--we women--who know what makes a good soap opera. The stories.

The WWE writers might do well to take a look at "General Hospital" or "Days of Our Lives" if they want to see how the pros write durable stories that keep viewers returning decade after decade.

But until HBK and Batista launched into their storyline revolving around the retirement of Ric Flair, feuds seemed to last no longer than the two-hour time span of a weekly show.

Is it any wonder that people are getting weary of the Randy Orton/Triple H/John Cena so-called feud?  It seems like they've been feuding for years and whatever point it may have had has been lost over time.  They need something to freshen it up, and throwing John Bradshaw Layfield into the Fatal Fourway didn't do it for me. 

What is their motivation, other than being perpetually pissed off about something? Give me a real reason to care because clearly, I don't. 

Give me a story. 

As far as the blossoming Michaels-Batista feud goes, I do care. I care that each of them has a point of view. When they cut the kind of solid promos they have so far, I care. And, ultimately, when they get in the ring for the match to settle the score, I will care. By that time I may have chosen sides and be rooting for one or the other, but I will care.

Just a thought. 

* * *

Thanks for reading and see ya next week.