OO Column: Crashing the Boards (Pro Wrestling News, Analysis, and Commentary... WWE, WWF, WCW, ECW, The Rock, Brock Lesnar, Triple H, Rob Van Dam, Hulk Hogan, Undertaker, Trish Stratus, Lita, Stacy Keibler, Divas, RAW, SmackDown, WrestleMania

CRASHING THE BOARDS
ArcHHHie Bunker — Spongebob — I Eat Bugs — Fugu v.
Lesnar — KOTR: KEEP IT — We Should Redesign This
Site Double-Ugly, Because It'll Be Cooler That Way —
Obvious Wrestling Topics — Fake News — Ryneah! My
face! My hair! — Hurri-Capable — This is the "Milky"
Show! — Rattle the Bookers —GGW — Rock: Good —
Bjerk! — A Real Unadulterated Post of Deliberate Suck!
March 14, 2003

by YOU, The OO Readers
Compiled by Jeb Lund from the OO Message Boards

[This Crashing the Boards was much easier to compile because I got to ignore whole swathes of threads. Also, I'm going insane. "How should Angle Surrender the Belt?" was a nice, long and over-debated thread that I could ignore outright. I also ignored posts in which discussion hinged on what will happen with Angle out of WrestleMania, because, as yet, Angle isn't out of WrestleMania.

Maybe this was wrong of me, because I doubt as if many people will read archived Crashing the Boards. But, for those who do, the posts shown here ought to be a little less "dated." How readable or pertinent will a post called "Benoit v. Lesnar at WM" be if it winds up being Lesnar v. Angle after all? For similar reasons, I also opted not to print any of the posts about the Vertebreaker being banned, since days after the banning news was cut and pasted on Cut-and-Paste-a-Mania.com, Helms used the move in a match. Finally, anyone annoyed by the fact that "Milky" has about six posts in here ought to do two things: one, realize that I deleted about four of his posts that deserved to be put in here (so he didn't flood the piece); two, write like him and stop complaining — ed.]

Test and Stacy: Together in Real Life, Yet Both Still Empty
I heard Test on an interview a while back, where he said that he heard that Stacy liked him or whatever, but at first he wasn't interested because he was already involved with another girl. [Also] he thought Stacy was dumb, because he had heard a story that Stacy had asked Kane if he was really the Undertaker's brother.... But then he really got to know her, blah, blah, blah....
— skoehler23

As for what she sees in him, well, girls sometimes have weird taste in guys (which would explain how I'm currently dating). Besides, I don't think that Stacy finds a good workrate in the ring the attribute she's most looking for.
— Shastar

I'll do you one better. A while back, Stacy was on the Howard Stern show, right before her "new" music was debuted. She raved about the musical prowess of Kid Rock and that the song was a remake of ZZ Top classic. Stern asked her if she liked ZZ Top, and Stacy said something along the lines of, "I've met ZZ Top, and he is a really great guy, but I don't really care for his stuff. I like rock and roll, techno, dance music, that kind of stuff."
— SpinningToeHold

Great Booking, Meathead
I happen upon Brian Solomon's article, on WWE.com no less, talking about how great the [Triple H/Booker] racial angle is:

"His references to 'nappy hair' and to 'people like you' made it pretty obvious that the brewing Triple H/Booker T championship feud will be based, at least in part, around this dynamic. And I, for one, think it's a great idea."

Now, I wouldn't be one to jump all over this angle if it wasn't being discussed as such on their own site. However, WWE has moved so far from being a wrestling show to Vince's half-assed attempt at a "serious" television experience, that I think Vince is completely missing the point of why anyone watches. Seriously, are you watching WWE because you want to think that much?

According to Solomon, however: "Wrestling is a morality play." Outside of good guy v. bad guy, I don't really think it should be. Plus, didn't Vince come out with a big interview not that long back about blurring the lines between good and bad?

Solomon then goes on to talk about how Harley Race once used the N-word against then-WCW Champ Ron Simmons, as if that's a good point of reference to make his claim that this is a good idea. he goes on to link Triple H with the greatest sitcom character of all-time, Archie Bunker.

"Archie Bunker’s opinions on All in the Family certainly weren't presented as valid. If anything, the show's writers went out of their way to make him look like an idiot whenever he'd go on one of his misinformed verbal tirades."

Fine and dandy. But notice that Archie was always made to look like an idiot. Did you really get the sense that Triple H was being made to look like an idiot when you were watching this? And what if he wins again? Archie never won on All In The Family. Trust me, I'm a huge fan.

This isn't Triple H's fault. I mean, he's doing as he's told, in my opinion. It's nearsightedness on the writing staff's [part]. And if the writing staff isn't going for the racial feel to this angle, then it's WWE.com's fault for running that article.
— MrJustinB

Does Jericho have to lose his match with HBK for us to know that he was wrong to beat up on Stacy? Nope, he's clearly displayed that he's the bad guy. The commentators and other wrestlers have indicated their disgust at his behavior. We know he's wrong. No problem. Same with HHH and Booker T. HHH is clearly the bad guy in this scenario, thus as things stand racism is being portrayed as something that the bad guys do. What's to object about that?

This seems so far to be an effective way of [giving Booker more face heat], and so far I see no harm to anyone at all in it. Lots of people said that Booker needed a big push to get his feud going with HHH, since he wasn't on the last PPV. On top of that, the writers lost the method they were going to use, which was Batista and Orton. So they had to come up with something that would really get the audience burning quickly. HHH's promo did exactly that. It's not often you hear HHH getting the asshole chant. It worked.
— eoghann

The way it was done, it can't really just be point-blank racism. I could be way off, but it seems to me that Triple H is using double entendre here and leaving it up to the fan to decipher what he means. Yes, it was racial what he said to a casual fan. To, the smarter fan it has double meaning. He is also talking about guys like RVD and Kane and his contenders.

When he fought RVD, he did say he wasn't championship material, straight up. When he faced Kane, it was relayed that people like him are freaks and didn't deserve to be champion (add in the fact he was a "murderer"). Then look at Big Poppa Pump. Triple H said he was a big fish in a little pond and wasn't at his level. Now Booker got the same vocal tirade, but he used the racial overtones to raise people's skin. Will they let Triple H finally get his come-uppance since being given the title? I think so.
— promoter2003

The fact that Triple H gets booed and called an asshole for his comments should be enough to show that his opinions are wrong in this case. I mean, Archie Bunker never had to die or get bloodied by an African American for the audience to understand the problems of racism. That said, I fully expect Hunter to lose at WrestleMania, so this is likely a moot point.

Also, I've softened my stance on racist angles somewhat over the last little while. Whoever it was who recently said that angles about racism are justifiable, because it is such a common problem in society, made a decent point. The problem is when writers try to simplify matters or perpetuate negative stereotypes. The Nation of Domination, for instance, or the recent "Down with the Brown" storylines do nothing to advance or expose racist issues.

The difference here is that matters aren't so simple. First of all, the fact that Triple H veiled his comments as he did is interesting and actually very thought provoking because this is the kind of way racism is actually hidden within society. Is Triple H a racist or just a real asshole who provokes people however he can? This ambiguity avoids over-simplification.

Also, Booker is an entertainer as Triple H said; however he is a more well-rounded and full character than Farrooq was with the NOD. I also think this is the spark that may move Booker away from the comedy sketches and into an even more legitimate main-event [role]. This is actually adding to his character.

Basically, as long as the WWE doesn't get too extreme or stereotypical with this angle, it could work. So far the writing has been as good as it is on most mainstream shows that touch on this subject. This stuff exists and can be discussed as long as it is done in an appropriate manner. So far the WWE hasn't crossed the line, in my opinion. And if they drop this direction entirely, well it won't leave the same bitter taste in my mouth as something like Lo-Down.
— Milky

Spongebob: The Most Electrifying and Absorbent Aspect of Mondays
Raw got beat by Spongebob Squarepants? I think Vince needs to think about hiring some of the writers away from that show. I mean, SMELL THE RATINGS! Next week on Raw, Triple H rips his pants, much to his great embarrassment. And in the main event, The Rock serves Stone Cold Steve Austin up some of his Exploding Pie. Start the petition NOW! Vince needs to offer these guys some major bucks!
— TheDemko

I know everyone's used to Raw being #1 because it was for so long, but really, can being #2 out of the millions of shows on cable really be considered failure? If I had a show on cable, and it was #4 , I'd fuckin' flip my lid.

People do often talk about Raw needing to get it's ratings up, and it makes me think: why? There are a lot of successful shows on cable. A lot. And all but one of them gets worse ratings than Raw. People say wrestling is in a down-phase right now. Well, in the world of cable, it's still in an up-phase, and what it had from 1998-2000 was a magical fairy land phase.
— Operation Retard

The Lighter Side of Greenberg
Anyone else realize how brutal looking a [Goldberg/Brock] match would be? And I don't mean bad, I mean painful. Goldberg and Brock both work pretty damn stiff, and if Goldberg is also pretty sloppy, to boot.

Now, remember what happened to Hardcore Holly when he was overly stiff with Brock? (And no one is gonna convince me that was completely an accident, so don't even try.) Gotta say, as much as I don't wanna see the match, it would be fun to see Brock start manhandling Goldberg in the middle of the match.
— JJBRWESQ

You know what? You just tweaked my interest enough into wanting to see this feud. I never got to see Regal shoot on Billy-Boy; therefore I would absolutely love to see Lesnar use some of his amateur background to just HUMILIATE that goddamned prima donna.
— Milky

Can There Be Another Wrestling Boom Cycle?
I've said before that the reason wrestling had two booms was that Hogan was instrumental in [both]. People can deny it and say Hogan's this and that, but he is responsible for both lightning bolts. Hogan popularized wrestling in 1984 and 1985.

However, why do people ignore the Hogan heel turn in 1996? It was Hogan's mainstream icon status that made people care that he turned heel. Nash and Hall can also get ridiculed, but they are also apart of the reason for the second boom. Nitro was the show that got the sizzle going first. Nitro was getting the 4-plus ratings and not Raw in 1996 and 1997. They had attitude first. Austin is a big part of the return to glory, but it did start with Hogan and the nWo. Hogan has already used up his last career spark, which was returning to the WWE.

I think in the meantime Austin must be the one to reestablish himself, since he brought in the newer fans for WWE. He is the guy to re-boom the industry. That's why I say Austin/Brock is that storyline, but Austin has shown he blew his heel-turn angle. I think that was the angle to reestablish himself, but it was a box-office disaster. The Rock is very good and everything, but it was Austin that got fans to return to WWE.
— promoter2003

All Hail the King (of the Ring)
While the proposed splitting up of the secondary pay-per-views between the different WWE brands makes some sense, I do not support the idea of eradicating the King of the Ring PPV. The King of the Ring tourney is one of my personal highlights each and every year. I look forward to it with only slightly less zeal than I do WrestleMania, Summerslam and the Royal Rumble. If the WWE must rid itself of one of it's classic PPVs, why not finish off Survivor Series, a show that has lost all its original purpose and glory over the years?

Whilst I can agree that the crowning of a new King of the Ring every year doesn't always live up to the hype and has created some dubious stars (Billy Gunn and King Mabel for instance), it has also just as often, if not more so, backed winners like the Brothers Hart, Steve Austin and Kurt Angle. If you run down the list of past winners, more often than not the right choice was made each year. The "crown" of the King of the Ring has always also given a little more legitimacy to its winner. As much as the [kingship] is a prop of sorts, just like a secondary belt, it is tougher to deny that it can be a very effective prop when booked correctly. It can often be used as the cause of proceeding feuds, as it was for Edge and Christian, and Bret Hart and Jerry Lawler. At the very least, it usually adds some sizzle to the winner's feuds following his coronation. In fact, if the WWE were to continue with the precedent that they revived last year of granting the winner a world title shot at Summerslam, it suddenly becomes nearly as important an event on the yearly calendar as the Royal Rumble.

The King of the Ring also brings other exciting elements to the table. It is one of the few times every year that you can get face v. face, heel v. heel or teammate v. teammate matches without necessitating a full-blown feud or break-up. It also can be used as either an important step in on-going feuds (via interference) or the starting point of upcoming feuds. Even the simple concept behind such tourneys is an easy sell to wrestling fans, as it usually provides for compelling television. Finally, the winner is not the only guy that gets a rub from these tourneys, as the wrestlers who also go the distance are rewarded with exposure and legitimacy of their own. If nothing else, it's a rare thing to get to wrestle two to three times on a given PPV.

Why then would the WWE choose to dump the King of the Ring in favor of a PPV that has become as meaningless as Survivor Series, for instance? Survivor Series was once a very special PPV due to its build-up as well as its unique format. The format is long gone. No longer is the modern audience treated to those rare 4-on-4 elimination match-ups. We get a token one each year (if we're lucky) but it's never quite the same. Furthermore, even the build-up and the big money-matches are a thing of the past for Survivor Series — with the advent of the monthly "In Your House"-style PPV. Even the new twists such as the Vince McMahon screw-job are out of date and stale due to overuse. And don't give me the old "but think of the history…" line. This is, after all, the WWE we're talking about, the same fed that dropped the Intercontinental Title because they booked it into oblivion. History alone means nothing.
— Milky

Is Kane A Spoiler?
I've been noticing this for the past six weeks, maybe someone has been noticing it longer. Does Kane ever light the ring posts pre-match when he wins? I've been noticing he only does it when he (and lately RVD) is going to lose his match. This includes No Way Out. If he (they) are going to win, there's no pre-fight ringpost pyro. If he's going to lose, there is.
— Iron Claw

The Fake Newsbite That Everyone Bought (Including Me) — But Perhaps We All Expect the Absolute Worst from the WWE
>From k9wrestlelines:
Rumor has it that the locker room is up in arms at the recent decision to move Triple H to the Smackdown roster on the heels of the recent announcement that he (Hunter) would be facing Brock Lesnar at Wrestlemania in a title unification match. This obviously leaves a hole in the Raw roster, which will presumably be filled by the recently returned Steve Austin, who will reportedly feud with the newly signed Goldberg. WWE spokesman Bill Blair acknowleged that the Goldberg signing "might signifcantly bolster Raw's sagging ratings.

The announcement was said to have created a lot of heat with members of the Raw locker room, specifically Booker T, who has been dropped from the Wrestlemania card in favor of the returning Goldberg. Goldberg's role at Wrestlemania has not been announced, although it's been rumored that he will return to his "winning streak" angle from WCW by interfering in one of the other matches, perhaps in an angle with Taker/Jones.

One wrestler, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the Raw locker room sees this as a slap in the face, with Hunter jumping ship to further his own career. The feeling seems to be that the WWE is counting on Triple H to fill the Top Heel void created by Kurt Angle's recent injury.
— OOKyle

On the Possible Future of (Gregory) Hurricane "I Got to Look Good for Ten Minutes... Finally" (Helms)
If anyone starts showing potential on Raw, you do the only decent thing: make him HHH's new lackey. [Hurricane's] wearing green, so just get him to start crotch-chopping and you have DX2003. Just call him Greg-Pac. It'll draw huge money, huge I tells ya!
— d-rock

I'd definitely keep the Hurricane gimmick. Helms isn't going to win the title belt; we all know it. So the whole "main eventers don't use humor gimmicks" stuff isn't really relevant. The fact is that his gimmick is great; he's into and does it well. While he might have more opponents over on Smackdown, his gimmick is actually better suited to Raw and its sports-entertainment style.

What they need to do is set him up in either a solid mid-card feud or put him in an oddball tag team. Since Kane/RVD seem to be the current oddball tag-team, I'd say give him a mid-card feud. Nothing too ridiculous. Maybe against Christian. I figure he wouldn't look totally overmatched by Christian; and both of them do decently on the microphone, so they could build the feud well.
— eoghann

In all fairness, he didn't look that overmatched against the Rock. I think people put too much emphasis on size. Shawn Michaels can go over the Undertaker, and no one blinks an eye. Why the hell couldn't Shugga Shane be a viable main-event contender? If he has all the tools (which he does), it all comes down to booking and story as to whether it will get over. People already like the Hurricane. I agree the Intercontinental Title would be a perfect fit in this instance, but that is another matter entirely.
— 2HoT

By Definition, The "Real" Rattlesnake Isn't Stale at All
Austin is still as valuable a commodity as you can come across, but his character is just too prone to lazy booking.

The biggest letdown to me is that they were promising a return of Austin in his prime, in his "rawest" form. Now either they lied, or my view of Stone Cold differs from that of McMahon's. In my view, to see Stone Cold in his prime is to go back and watch his work between 1996 and 1998; between the birth of "Austin 3:16" and the period before Austin/McMahon got stale. He drew bigger ratings later in 1999 and 2000, but that was likely due to the fallout of that era and the development other stars. The Stone Cold I loved the most was the one that never backed down from anybody and didn't give a shit about anyone else. If a face was in the ring and Austin had something to say, he'd stunner him and invade the segment. Neither face nor heel was safe when the man was angry. The Steve Austin of those years would not have saved Stephanie from Taker during her sacrifice, because it wasn't his damn problem. He cheated to win long before Eddy coined the phrase. That was the Stone Cold I loved the most. That was the Stone Cold I was hoping for. That is also the Stone Cold that never grows stale, and that is the Stone Cold that could help bring back the golden years.

Instead we get the Stone Cold that does nothing but stunner heels and give monotonous promos. The one that battles authority for no other reason than that it's easy booking. I'm sorry, but I've seen this angle with Bischoff played out before, twice. It got old then, and it's past its date of freshness now. I admit I'm not too bored with Austin yet, but once his feud with the Rock ends, I have a feeling so will my interest. I too immensely enjoyed his heel run, but I am unfortunately an exception. The WWE should go with what works best, and that is the Rattlesnake that would truly bite anybody whether he was provoked or not. Would it really be that hard to do?
— Milky

Will Operation "Endless Coverage" Preempt Operation "Booking on the Fly, Week After Week"?
While waiting for Raw, I was thinking about how the impending war could effect WWE programming. One thing I have heard was that, when conflict begins, CBS will go to pretty much 24-hour coverage of the war, and they would push the NCAA Tournament to fellow Viacom-owned TNN and MTV. Right there is somewhere WWE could be affected: they may be asked to tone down or have Raw pushed back to make way for NCAA coverage. And consider WrestleMania being right smack dab in the middle of possible war, how will that effect the atmosphere and the possible content?
— ArmyofOne

The WWE might have to change locations due to security reasons at WrestleMania. Saddam might want to bomb the event just as Vince thought he would at WrestleMania 7. Can the war also affect Kurt Angle, the sidelined American Hero? It's not beyond Vince to use this injury to milk [Angle's] return, if the war is long lasting.
— promoter2003

GGW: Geez, Guys, Whatever
Maybe I'm just being a prude about this, but watching the Girls Gone Wild segment on Raw last night embarrassed the hell out of me. Why does the WWE do stuff like this? I'm all for a couple of hot girls in small amounts of clothing, but they took it to a level that made the product look low class and crude.

Normally, when I watch wrestling I don't feel it comes across as low class. It's just a form of entertainment that most people don't understand or get. It's entertaining and fun. For the most part. If you are into Girls Gone Wild or not, you have to admit it's one step above porn. And porn isn't on basic cable for a reason. You get a pretty good Raw with a embarrassing spot right in the middle.

Why couldn't they have carted the girls out and — just before they got sprayed — had Chief Morley or some other heel come out to stop it? You get more heat for the heel, and you still get a bunch of T&A without actually having to stoop to the level that they did. Sometimes the tease is better then the reality.

So for all the good stuff, the good matches and good backstage stuff the WWE puts out there, you end up getting Katie Vick and quasi-porn to ruin it. It didn't even seem like the crowd was into it, didn't even seem like it was worth it. It's this kind of stuff that makes it so I can't justify being a wrestling fan to someone else. So sad.

Like I said, maybe I'm just being uptight; I don't know, but it's stuff like this that makes me watch the TV through my fingers or actually switch the channel and hope it's gone when I switch back.
— Super Grover

Finally, Someone Says Something Positive About The Rock
So during Raw it was brought up that the Rock has never defeated Steve Austin in a singles match [at WrestleMania]. Then, when the Hurricane pulled off his stunning — albeit with some help —upset of the Rock, I had a definite Foley Flashback. Foley's first title win came in a nearly identical manner to Helms' victory last night.

I started thinking about how many guys the Rock — one of the two or three, if not the biggest, damned star in the business — has put over. He lost to Foley for Mick's first title win, Angle for his first title win, and Brock for his first title win. He's also put Steve Austin over in two of the hottest WrestleMania main events of all time, without ever getting a true singles victory in return, although he did get the token pinfall in the tag match v. the Alliance.

He puts over guys like Booker T, when Booker T needs the rub to legitimize his title shot, then puts over the Hurricane to follow it up. In this day and age, when the IWC is rampant with discussions of guys who refuse to lose because they think that it will kill their characters, we have the Rock here who would seemingly put over the week-old shit you'd find in a porta-potty at the local state fairground (and he'd make it look like a million bucks while he's at it). Then, to top it all off, he'd come back the next week looking like ten-million bucks himself.

How many true superstars does he have winning records against? Hulk Hogan is the only one who comes to mind. Without going into statistical research mode, I'd say he's about 50/50 against the Undertaker and Triple H, along with Angle and Foley, while he's never scored a [big] win over Austin or Brock. And still today he's hotter than ever, throwing crowds into manic frenzies whenever his music hits. Guys who are worried about their "heat" should be taking notes: if you keep your character fresh and bust ass out there, it won't matter who beats you. So whether he's staying or going, here's to hoping that he gets that mark over Steve Austin at WrestleMania this year. I'd say he deserves it.
— markout

I will restate what I've said zillions of times before: I am, and I will forever be, a mark for the Rock. He is a true professional. I'm very happy to see him shut up those who were criticizing him months ago. I too hope he wins at WrestleMania. If Bischoff or Vince can interfere and cost Austin the match, there is no reason not to give Rocky the win. In the spirit of this topic, Austin doesn't need to win to stay over, as long as he has another feud when Rocky leaves. Rocky deserves it, and it will keep his heat for the next time he returns (as well as for his movie career).

I just wanted to add that losing does matter; it just depends on how it's done. If Rocky were to flat-out job to Hurricane, it would affect his reputation. If you job to someone above you on the card, it's okay. But if you job to someone below you, either make sure that it's an up-and-comer, or do it in such a fashion that you keep your heat (i.e. screwjob).

It's all in the booking. Foley is an exception, and Hell in a Cell is an example of that exception. Simply put, no one else has ever shown the willingness to do all but commit suicide for the fans. Look at a guy like Booker T or Jericho for an example of how losing can matter, if the booking and the forethought aren't there. That's not to say that Rocky is the creation of good booking. Far from it, but it did help him along.
— Milky

In the beginning there was the rub, and the rub was with Rock, and the rub was Rock.

What's great about Rock putting over Hurricane, even in a cheap win, is that from now on, whenever Hurricane is getting the crap kicked out of him, JR can say shit like, "But don't count out the Hurricane, he'll sneak one in on you — he proved that against THE ROCK!" Instant drama.

That's one of the great things about wrestling — the winning really doesn't matter, it is how you play the game.

At the risk of nerding out, I'll add that I wish that wrestling video games didn't play as if they were a competitive sport. I was playing one of the Smackdown! games with Hell in a Cell, and Austin stunnered my player on top of the cage, collapsing through to the ring. And I thought, "Pin me, Steve — I 'm not wasting that bump for a two count!"
— abdullah

A Full (and Intentional) Anatomy of the Substance-Free but Smartass-Remark-Heavy "Smark" Post — Featuring "Inside" Jokes, Fantasy Booking, Bald Unjustifiable Declarations, and Benoit! Benoit! Benoit!
I think keeping the brand split going brings up an exciting possibility- we can see more different matches. Plus, MORE PEOPLE GET PUSHED!!! Remember before the split, when both shows were two hour commercials for the McMahon-Helsmley relationship?

However, now we don't get to see our favorite performers, like the Rock, twice a week. Having the Rock not on Smackdown has to piss off the UPN people, wouldn't you think??? And having Benoit on only one show can't look great to the TNN people.

As for ratings, they can be a tricky thing. For instance, look at this week's Raw. They are down to a 4.0. They were at 4.5 last week. What does this tell us??? I think it is a sign that people DID NOT LIKE the PREVIOUS WEEK'S show!!! But it is all strange too, because they promoted the Booker/Rock match lots on TNN ads... So it could be a sign that people DON'T BUY BOOKER as a legit threat to the Rock. Because if you think about it, the whole Booker push has been somewhat hasty. I mean, really, with all the racist stuff coming out of HHHitler's mouth, and then they expect the fans to buy the Book as a threat to him??? It's all so stupid. I know that it's not the GaHHHme's fault, as he is probably just following orders from Vinnie Mac though. But regardless, he does sleep with Stephanie.

But therein lies the real question- what about Jericho??? We know he's in the HBK feud now, but what's next??? I think he should be kept as a heel, for surely. His smarmy demeanor lends itself well to people hating him. But then he can't challenge for the title. Plus, he wears lifts in his boots. And he'll neeever, and I mean evvvver, not so much. So basically, that leaves him with this- he turns face, but hear me out...

The Chief Formerly Known as PornMan runs into one of Jericho's matches. He attempts to help Jericho, but instead, when he goes to swing a chair, the chairshot misses Jericho's opponent (Goldust?), and instead, Jericho receives the brunt of the chairshot. This brews trouble. In the following 5 shows, they BUILD IT UP by having Val Venis (I will never call him the Chief, it sounds too gay) constantly screwing Jericho out of matches, but the catch is, IT'S ALWAYS BY ACCIDENT!!!

Eventually, Jericho cuts the ultimate promo on the Chief, calling him Jenna Jameson's hand puppet. The crowd loves it, and Jericho becomes uber-face. He is then almost assured of sliding into a feud with Booker (who will PRAY TO GOD have the belt by then) for a kickass series of matches. Plus, then you get to turn Booker into a heel (definitely teaming him with Kane).

I was just watching some PPVs I got from the Invasion period, and Booker is soooooo much better as a bad ass heel.
— Bonestein

This Week's Stats
Most Frequent Subject: WrestleMania, Angle, angles about Angle; Angle. Angle! Angle? ¡Angle! ¿Angle?
Most Spammer-Like Poster: Everyone trying to jack-up their post count.
Most Encouraging News: "The Amazing Chucko" has no sense of shame. Other people tone down the "epic" posts, and their ideas are still just as good.
Most Discouraging News: "The Amazing Chucko" has no sense of shame. Board anemia. More fantasy booking. Bigfatgoalie didn't get the Lifetime Achievement Post. Satire falls on deaf ears. People post about the same things again, yet are too interested in seeing their own words to ever process the arguments presented by others. "Pistol Pez" is still allowed near the Current Events forum.
Person Most in Need of Banishing, an E-Mail Bomb or Repeated Kickings in the Ass: Ashish/Widro.
Estimated Number of Weeks Before I Stop Doing This Crap: Ten.

E-MAIL THE EDITOR
SEE MORE OF THE SAME IN THE OO FORUMS

RAW SATIRE: Nunzio, the Female Body Inspector

RAW RECAP: R-Truth is One Angry Black Man

SMACKDOWN RECAP: The Terrorists Win

RAW SATIRE: Wrestling's Most Wanted

RAW RECAP: T-Minus 48 Weeks, and Counting

PPV RECAP: WWE Extreme Rules 2011

OOTRR: WWE Unforgiven 2004 Re-Revued

RAW SATIRE: WHAMMY'D~!

NEWSFLASH: 2011 WWE Draft Results

RAW RECAP: Now You See Him, Now You Still See Him

SMACKDOWN RECAP: Edge's Busy Retirement

RAW SATIRE: England is Flavor Country

RAW RECAP: Changing Plans

SMACKDOWN RECAP: Bittersweet Victory

RAW SATIRE: Who is Sin Cara?

RAW RECAP: Other Stuff Happened, Too

NEWSFLASH: Edge Retires

SMACKDOWN RECAP: Third Time's the Charm

RAW SATIRE: Think of the Children!

RAW RECAP: Cena and Rock Ask You to Save the Date

PPV RECAP: WWE WrestleMania 27

ONLINE ONSLAUGHT: A Throwback WrestleMania?

PYRO'S PPV CORNER: WrestleMania 27

RAW SATIRE: Big Red Tromboner

RAW RECAP: Finally...

RAW SATIRE: Thrown Under the Bus

NXT RECAP: Like a Cow Chewing its Own Cud...

RAW RECAP: Sweet Sweet Vengeance

RAW SATIRE: Jersey Wisdom?

NXT RECAP: The Case for William Regal

RAW RECAP: Miz = Winning

SMACKDOWN RECAP: Who Won NXT, Again?

RAW SATIRE: G-Rilla is Here!

NXT RECAP: Is This Really Necessary?

RAW RECAP: The Soul Crushing Finale

SMACKDOWN RECAP: Christian to the Rescue (Again)

RAW SATIRE: Miz's Addition by Subtraction Theatre

NXT RECAP: Johnny Curtis?!? Really?!?

RAW RECAP: Phoning it In

SMACKDOWN RECAP: Hasta la Vista, Vickie

RAW SATIRE: Scandal in the Tag Ranks

NXT RECAP: What the What?!?

RAW RECAP: Silence is Golden

OO: What I'll Remember About Chris Benoit

NEWS CENTRAL: All Updates About Benoit Tragedy