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
Nathan Jones Kicky-Kick — ¡Viva Nowinski! — Make
Nash Pay Dues — RVD/Kane, Too Old for This Sh*t? —
Steiner Punished? — What did all this blood come
from? — Jackie Gayda: A Man Called Horse — The
World Title Prop — Booker's Opportunity — Backlash
Thoughts — Some Girl Has Something to Say — We
REDESIGNED this Site to Look EXACTLY the SAME —
And More!!!
November 25, 2002

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

[Crashing the Boards is back after a long hiatus, a short term upstate for B&E, and a small board... excuse the term... crash. Yet even with things returned to normal, several factors have conspired to keep board debate a little limited. Such as:

• Operation Indulgent Euphemism, which has produced arguments in the Current Events forum that most closely resemble shooting e-spitballs.
• WWE storylines are, let's face it, not terribly dynamic. Can you blame people for not having a lot to say about a product that isn't much to begin with?
• Someone might have started a thread about how The Cars were a good band, and the phalanx of board posters whose understanding of musical history begins with "And Justice For All..." and ends with "Meteora" may have rushed to the music section to say things like, "they suck," "who?" and "PhanTaZZtiK Rulez" and have forgotten that wrestling exists at all.

But who knows? Maybe it's none of those things. Maybe, just maybe, we can blame this on Triple H. Until then, enjoy a few nuggets culled from OO's messy Postopolis, its Babylon, its blessed plot... whatever. — ed.]

Is the WWE Better Off Now Than Ever Before?
Is the WWE's product really dramatically worse now than it was 3 years ago? For example, if you look at 1wrestling.com, they have polls for each show, and the results have been overwhelmingly positive for every show this year. Similarly even on the bastion of bashing that is PWTorch, the feedback has had almost as many positives as negatives.

The WWE's talent roster is the deepest it's ever been; it's arguably also the most talented it has ever had. During the course of the week, we get a wide mixture of wrestling styles, from relatively technical stuff (by modern standards), to basic punch and brawl. Cruiserweights are probably featured far more now than they were 3 years ago, and while there are a lot of "Big Men," there are also a lot of talented smaller guys like Edge, Jericho, Benoit, Angle, Booker T etc. getting time in pay-per-views and on free TV.

Vast quantities of new talent have been pushed over the course of the last year, including Brock Lesnar, John Cena, Batista and Randy Orton. The women's division is slowly building some credibility and may finally be showing some depth of talent over on Raw. Wrestling legends are being used to put over some of the newer talent, and in the course of the last year, we've seen some classic fantasy matches that we thought we'd never see.
— eoghann

I think the excessive depth of the WWE is a negative rather than a positive. With so many wrestlers worthy of time and spotlight, attention to character development and evolution has to be spread around; and if a certain wrestler doesn't grab the spotlight by the proverbial balls when he has it, he may not get it again for weeks, even months. I'm all for forwarding a kind of "make the most of it when you have your shot" attitude, but it's leading to an overabundance of upper mid-carders who have to wait their turn on the merry-go-round of attention while sputtering away in useless angles.
— markout

All Nathan Jones Has is a Boot to the Face?
I think something is seriously wrong when you have a guy with Jones' body (and the buildup they gave him, talking about ripping jail cell doors off), and his finisher is a kick to the face. If that's the only move the guy can pull off, why is he on TV?
— AriestheRam

[The Jones v. DeMott squash] was an insult to DeMott. To get beat by a boot to the face after little offense from Jones is embarrassing. He got hit with the exact same boot from Undertaker and got up. Was Jones's boot any more devastating? I admire the effort that Jones is trying to pull off, channeling RVD's "educated feet" while being a 7 foot monster, but it isn't working so far. His offense to date has been all kicks.
— Blown Spot

Of course Shawn Michaels, Test, Trish, Albert, Storm, and even Hogan use a few other moves before finishing their opponents off [with types of kicks]. And if a kick that lame can pin an opponent like Bill DeMott, then why the hell isn't Tajiri world champion?
— mr_mysterious2

I think the biggest problem with Jones is that the WWE has totally dropped the ball here. He obviously would have benefited from a few months down on the farm before debuting. He has a tremendous physique and appears to have some athletic ability. He is just clueless when it comes to working the flow of a match and when it comes to ring psychology. He seems as though he is unsure of where he needs to be in the ring half the time. He just looks kind of lost and confused. But, I do think with the right training and seasoning he could become a decent performer in due time.
— doublee

The Amazing Nowinski! (Not appearing with him: his lovely assistant Rita. Also: no elephants. But you know who loves elephants? Pavarotti.)
Why didn't Nowinski win Tough Enough? He's obviously the best Tough Enough graduate they will ever get. He's not a great wrestler, but he is getting better. And as far as drawing heat goes, charisma, and working the stick, he's a gem! It's no wonder they signed him. Nowinski is good, he really is.
— Slade

Now That Poochie Has Returned from His Home Planet, Proving That He Didn't Die on the Way There, Does He Need to Be Reestablished?
I just want to say that I hope the WWE takes this return a little slower then they did Steiner's. Nash should not get a title shot right away, and that goes for Goldberg, too. Booker should get the title, and Triple H should feud with Nash without the gold. Nash can go over, if you want, and that will give him credibility.

Whatever the solution is, I am pleading to not give Nash a title shot without winning any actual big matches first. It was stupid for Steiner to have the shot. It will even be kinda stupid to give Goldberg the shot, even after the Rock. Build these guys up first. Booker, Triple H, Jericho can have some title matches meanwhile. I'm hoping that the WWE doesn't just throw Booker back into the tag-team scene now that they have added Goldberg and Nash. Here's hoping that the WWE does the right thing.
— metallikid

As an unabashed Nash mark, I agree that he shouldn't be put in the title picture right away. He needs to reestablish himself. He hasn't been an active wrestler since 2000 or so (pause for the inevitable joke that he hasn't been "active" for much longer than that). But it was good to see him the other night; he looks to be in much better shape than he has been in a looong time. Let's just hope his knees hold up.
— Laner

I used to be a huge Outsiders mark, but now realize that I was more of a Scott Hall mark. It's good to have Nash back, but I can't see him as a legit title contender. Particularly since he only has six moves. People complain about Steiner, but he is a far better in-ring performer than Nash or Goldberg. Suddenly, Raw is full of Dudzillas.
— Eli

Nash is homegrown WWE talent when it comes down to it, unlike Steiner or Goldberg. If you look at Vince's track record, that makes a difference. There are plenty of bad things to be said about Vince, but in many ways he's actually quite loyal to his talent. Otherwise I very much doubt that Nash would be getting yet another outing, after the last two disasters.

Steiner's demotion was basically due to his lack of ability. I suspect if he'd been an old WWE guy, they wouldn't have demoted him quite so blatantly, but he simply wasn't capable of working main-event matches. We won't know if that applies to Goldberg (well, we won't know for certain) until after his match with the Rock. But unless that match is a disaster, I'm expecting to see him go against HHH in the near future.
— eoghann

Am I the only person who thinks Nash is gonna go heel at Backlash and join HHH and Naitch? I mean look at it this way, once Rock leaves, WWE's down one main-event heel. We've seen HBK and HHH together, and we've seen HBK and Nash together. We've never really seen Nash and HHH together.

I think the WWE "showed their cards" by setting up the 6-man at Backlash before Nash could draw his alliances. Nash will play nice with HBK and Booker for now but at Backlash show his true colors and join HHH. There seem to be more main-event scenarios that can be explored by turning Nash heel rather than by pairing him with HBK.
— angstboy

RVD and Kane: Fighting Diplomatic Immunity and Shadow Company
They're not supposed to be friends; they're an unlikely tag team; heck, Kane can hardly stand his goofy partner. But somehow, their combined effort is paying off. It's like Lethal Weapon, starring RiggsVD and MurKane. In the future, say, in a month or two's time, they'll need a bigger division. But for now, it's cool. I also like how Morley is being used as the figurehead for the tag division, while Eric runs the singles stuff. It forces the two divisions to be slightly different, without directly saying so.
— MrJustinB

Is Steiner Being Demoted, or Is Nowinski Being Elevated While the WWE Explores Discreet Ideational Interrelations, Irony and Face Masks -1 Against 'Roid Freaks?
I think it's a little of both. A meet in the middle, as it were. They are giving Chris the chance to shine on the stick (though better material would help), and they are getting Steiner on TV while shielding him from looking bad in the ring. I am not so sure why they are so intent on keeping [Steiner as a] face though. Nowinski has the potential to be a top-shelf heel, and letting him work with a big name is a good place to start.
— 2HoT

I have to agree that it is a bit of both. However, the thing is that the way it will largely be perceived is as a Steiner demotion, rather than a Nowinski promotion. Steiner being pushed down the card to feud with Nowinski is most likely the way it will be reported. That is the bigger news item. I don't think anybody is all that concerned with putting a positive spin on things for Nowinski.
— Slade

Maybe Vince is trying something high-concept with Steiner beating up Nowinski for using his freedom of speech. He could could slowly go all McCarthy and become paranoid, accusing people of not being "All American" and become a crazed heel. Or maybe the writers of Raw just have no concept of irony.
— Stormtrooper

What I'd love to see is Steiner and Nowinski having a match where the stipulation is that, if Nowinski wins, Steiner is forced to be his servant for 28 days. The Harvard grad could trick Steiner, somehow scoring the victory, and at the end of the period, when you think Freakzilla is going to get his revenge, he joins forces with Nowinski, completing the heel turn. In this way, I think Chris Harvard can truly be elevated.
— madiq

That angles' worth it, just for the crazy vignettes: Steiner picking up chicks for Harvard, carrying him around the university....
— Dwight D. Eisenhower

"That WWE can carry anything.... Even ~~disease~~ divas."
Three years ago, would anybody have thought that the WWE would have not one, but in fact an entire division of passable female wrestlers? Think about it, after seeing Sable on Confidential, the WWE doesn't have to pick up somebody out of nowhere to get a viable Diva match. Trish, Torrie, Lita and Jackie have the face side covered, and Victoria, Jazz and Nidia have the heel side looked after. Add Stacy, Molly, Dawn Marie, Sable and Ivory, and the WWE has more over female wrestlers than established tag teams.

Goes to show what the WWE can do if they have a motivated group (namely Lita, Trish, Molly, Victoria, and Jazz), patience, and proper marketing (the WWE makes people want to see the Divas). Now if only they could have patience with guys like Hurricane, who sell swag and are motivated....
— bigfatgoalie

"I think they should make Goldberg heel, then turn Jericho face. Also, if they say 'Onslaught' on TV enough, maybe people will think something's up and check this message board more. Then they'll see what I thought all along. Soon my posts in Book It Yourself will be like my favorite computer analog joystick, with a little touch, pushing the whole world. And I'll get the Golden Trowel award this year."
The general feeling that Goldberg should be turned heel probably has a lot to do with the fact that a great deal of IWC people don't like Goldberg and think that the "average" fan shouldn't like him either. So if he's turned heel, and the IWC can get the "average" fan to boo him, then at least the illusion that average fans hate him too is maintained.

Personally, I feel that turning Goldberg heel would probably seriously damage his future in WWE, and maybe that's another reason some folks in the IWC want to see him turned. The guy is a natural face. He beats the crap out of people in the ring, and the average fans eat it up. They like to cheer for his antics. Now I don't hate Goldberg at all, but I don't think the guy is dynamic enough to pull off that top-of-the-card heel thing that guys like Angle, Jericho, HHH and the Rock do so well.

I'm also seeing a lot of people calling for a Jericho face turn to coincide with Goldberg's heel turn. Why? Because Jericho is a proven face sensation? Because Goldberg's one heel run went over so well? Unfortunately I think it has a lot more to do with that backstage incident between those two guys than telling a good story for the fans.

In pretty much everyone's mind, Jericho was right in being a tad bitter about the lack of a serious program with Goldberg back in WCW, and justifiably so. So, because Jericho is the one who was done wrong backstage, because he's the one we should have sympathy for, he should be turned face in order to finally get his feud with Goldberg off the ground? I don't see it. The only thing that would do is force the "average" fan to unnaturally cheer and boo two guys because it reflects a backstage situation that may or may not have been blown way out of proportion.

What should they do with Goldberg? Exactly what they are doing. He beats the Rock, Rock goes away, then he feuds with HHH. Then comes Jericho. Jericho has proven that he can be a dick in multiple angles at a time. I'd go with the slow burn on the Jericho/Goldberg thing. Maybe replicate the whole vibe from WCW, where Goldberg basically ignores Jericho. But instead of Jericho getting a spear on the entrance ramp for his troubles, maybe he can outsmart Goldberg in some capacity and really take things up a level. But by all means, Goldberg must stay the face, and Jericho must stay heel. You want to play to their strengths as characters, or the whole thing would fall to pieces.
— angstboy

"Jackie Gayda may not wrestle well, but keep in mind that she's also fairly unattractive and has a repellent personality."
Gayda kind of gives me the Chyna vibes, and I'm talking pre-surgery Chyna. The thing I don't get is how WWE is ending up with so many "meh" divas. Couldn't they have gotten some of the girls who were once Nitro Girls to come in and be valets, rather than what they ended up with? I was just watching Ready to Rumble last night on TBS, and I had forgotten how fucking hot the Nitro Girls really were. You put Jackie Gayda next to one of them, and you'll say, "Hey, that Nitro Girl brought her dad here."
— Bonestein

That's the thing that bugs me: why bring another "lady" that will not add to the quality of wrestling? Sunny is arguably the only women to truly draw people to shows, so unless the WWE is hiring somebody with the potential to be the Net's most downloaded female (Sunny was once, before the crack took over) why bother?
— bigfatgoalie

I just hope that she has improved in the ring, and that her character is well-practiced and honed. Personally, I blame the WWE for putting her on live TV two weeks after she won Tough Enough. Maven spent months in OVW tightening up his skills before wrestling on TV, and it was Smackdown at that (the taped show). We wouldn't have such a negative opinion of her if that match didn't happen.
— madiq

The World Title Is a Prop. But, in Some Respects, That's Good.
The belt is a prop. The belt has no lineage that isn't written for it, and that lineage can be undermined by putting it on a performer who doesn't have the talent to legitimize the belt.

It's a tool. It's a tool that can make a good performer great, or a great performer legendary, but only when applied properly. The belt is meaningless if the wrestlers don't make it mean something, if the writers don't make it mean something, and most importantly... if the fans don't believe any of it.

The belt is a symbol. It's signifies a wrestler that the company feels it can build on, the man that will "carry" the company. Every time the belt is written to fall to a wrestler that the company isn't behind, the belt loses some of that luster and shine.

When it comes right down to it, all the belt really does is tell people who the champion is. It's not the "belt" that does any of the things above, it truly is just a prop. It's the title of champion that has all the prestige and the lineage that people adore. Why do you think WWE is so cavalier about redesigning the belt so often? The "World Title" just underwent another redesign, more subtle this time.

Remember, this isn't a "real" sport we're talking about. There are no hard-fought victories, or insurmountable odds as in legitimate sports. They create every champion, and every situation that leads to someone becoming champion. It's all well and good to suspend disbelief and talk about the lineage as if it's really important, but don't kid yourselves that it has any more meaning than the average soap opera plot.

In fact, there's little worse that the wrestlers who start to believe that they truly are a "champion," like Bret Hart. Yes, the company is putting it's weight behind you, but they can take it away in a heartbeat as well. Quite frankly, it astounds me that the wrestlers themselves take as much pride in being champion as they do, knowing that it's a manufactured situation, something that they've only earned by being charismatic and athletic. (Yes, I understate that a bit, I know.)
— SuperRob

While I can't speak for the title holders or for a business that I have little knowledge of the inner workings of, I can speak as a fan. By watching WWE programming, I've already half-bought into the idea that what happens inside the ring is important. To allow any of the belts to become mere props lessens the point of show.

The Triple H/Stephanie/Jericho/Lucy fiasco illustrates this. The stupid, stupid, stupid skits those characters were involved in overwhelmed the basic point of their feud; each wanted to be champion. Had the belt remained the focus of that feud, rather than spiked lotion and bandaged doggies, I think the fans would have put a much greater stake in the outcome of their match at WrestleMania.

Yeah, the championships are contrived and come from politics. But as a fan, who can put that aside long enough to cheer, boo and hold up a sign, I'd much rather cheer, boo and hold up a sign for a championship than for Japanese shampoo promoting, corpse dating, or Trish's hat being stolen.
— Lorraine

It's hard to have the show only about the title. The numbers are just against it. With one title, and a roster of around 40 people (per show), there are a large number of wrestlers who will never get a whiff of the big title. With title shots mainly given out at the PPVs, that means 11-12 title shots a year, not including the title shots on Raw or Smackdown. Of those 11-12 shots, 4 or 5 may be rematches. So that means that, of a roster of 40 people, about 6-8 people actually get a shot at the title in a year. The other 30 people fill out the undercard and compete for tag titles.

So while the title is important to the show, it is only a small portion of the show itself. The remaining 80 percent of the night deals with other things.
— cpdevine1

On the Great Sasuke's Refusal to Remove His Mask while Serving in the Japanese Parliament
Perhaps the Prime Minister should challenge him to a Hair v. Mask match.
— Dwight D. Eisenhower

Some Bright and Brooding Points on Backlash
Most of the card has me mildly interested but not pumped. (Then again, that was my opinion of WrestleMania.) But I personally think the Rey/Show match can be good. I enjoyed Rey's WCW "giant killer" run and felt that the main reasons it didn't do too well were because it was pretty low on a very heavy WCW card, and because Rey was squashed in the end. I get the feeling that Rey might get the win here, and I believe he can have a damn good match with Show. And I think Show can do well, showing frustration that he can't get his hands on Rey and being brutal when he finally does.

Secondly, this is a good break for Rikishi and O'Haire that neither has had for quite some time, and may not have again soon (although I doubt that, with the PPV split). That makes me feel good about the WWE and its structure. But the only blemish I'd say is that it's Benoit who seems to regularly be the guy who makes the "sacrifice" [to provide space on the card for others]. My personal fandom aside, what I realize is that since his return Benoit has constantly been right there. And unlike RVD, Kane or Booker T, he has not been reduced to some nonsensical or dull midcard story. Benoit has very regularly served as the de facto "challenger who will lose so that the real challenger can step up." I dunno... it just seems like the guy has been thrown into this role where we know he's not gonna have a legit challenge at that belt. He's just saving the place for Lesnar, Angle or Cena...
— LuckyLopez

A Screwy Raw Ending — the Start of Bigger Opportunity for Booker?
I must be the only one who isn't pissed at the finish. I think a non-finish is better than Triple H winning again. Booker can get a rematch down the line when he points to the fact that he never lost. This doesn't bury Booker: it makes him even stronger to contend with Triple H next time around. This builds up to what should be an eventual stipulation which neutralizes Flair and all other interference (a cage match or something that does the trick). It may be a few months down the line, but I think Booker will get another shot at the title, and I wouldn't mind if it was still on Triple H. I want Triple H to drop to Booker, not Nash or Goldberg. I will probably be sorely disappointed, but that is what I'd like to see.
— metallikid

Maybe I'm too much of an optimist here, but I like to think the fed is not trying to hold Booker back from the title, but give him a title chase on his way to the title.

Try to think of the events not in a smark point of view, but as a fan following the story. Booker loses his first title shot. Fine. That's believable. Then, after a few weeks of proving he's not letting the loss make him quit, he finally gets another title shot. Now this one, he doesn't lose, but he gets screwed out of winning. They're building more tension and putting more emotion behind Booker's title chase, and they left it wide open for him to get another shot.
— Operation Retard

This may be the true test of how good Booker is. Guys like Angle, Benoit, Jericho (and hell, even RVD and Kane) have all survived being dropped out of the title picture. It's very easy to say that Angle became better after losing the title back to Austin, and that Jericho has been more entertaining and in better feuds since dropping the belt.

If Booker can continue to grow, and to continue to be at the main-event level without feuding with Triple H, then he will get another PPV title match and may get the belt. But if Booker needs the belt to be considered a main-eventer, is he any more valuable in than Big Show?
— bigfatgoalie

The only person getting the belt from HHH is Nash, and it's time we all just accept it. Personally, I'm worried for the career of anyone on Raw who isn't Clique after Rock leaves. Booker and Jericho have already feuded; Jericho and RVD have already feuded; Kane and Jericho have already feuded. They could turn Steiner, but really, with the response he's getting, it's probably best to make him do a big job to the next Ohio guy and cut their losses. For my money, if they lost Nash, HHH, HBK, Steiner and all their baggage, backstage crap and stuff, they could elevate Morley, Christian, Hurricane, RVD, etc., which would give us a whole new set of feuds.

If the Smackdown title match at Backlash can be two guys who were in Ohio this time last year, why the fuck can't someone under 30 who hasn't been around for over 10 years get a shot on Raw?
— Stormtrooper

Who is Mr. America?
Seeing as how Kurt Angle has taken this operation with a short recovery time... I'd half expect 'em to hype it for weeks, get the announcers talking and then bring Angle out insisting that he is Mr. America. I think that would please the mark and smart alike....

Or it could be Chip Minton... The REAL FIRST PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER with a GOLD MEDAL! YEAH, CHIP!
— LuckyLopez

A Positive (and Female) Perspective on Why Wrestling is Interesting
Well, my joke response to questioning co-workers has always been, "It's two good-looking guys covered in baby oil touching each other."

But I like to think my appreciation goes a little deeper than that.

Watching pro-wrestling is fun. On a lot of levels. Due to the arena-based settings and the perceived intelligence of most of the audience, the comedy is broad, the emotions are gut-level, and the storylines are sometimes satisfying reenactments of very basic storytelling.

Most people compare pro-wrestling to a soap opera, but I think a better comparison is a circus. To go a bit more cerebral, knowing it's fake provides an intellectual challenge. Each match is an opportunity to outguess the booker.

I don't know how far this veers off the subject but I think a lot of what attracts people to pro-wrestling is it's very fan-involving. Yeah, an argument can be made that most of the involvement is simple call and response. But there are very few other entertainments where the audience is expected to yell, banter or cat-call the performers.
— Lorraine

THIS WEEK'S STATS
Most Spammer-Like Poster: Blown Spot.
Poster I'd Most Like to Strangle: Blown Spot.
Funniest Name That Isn't Really Funny at All: Dwight D. Eisenhower. (Do you get it? See, Dwight Eisenhower was a President of the United States. But he's DEAD! And he came back to post on OO! Isn't that the funniest, coolest thing ever? And what's cooler is that he signs each one of his posts, "Ike," which was his nickname. Now, ordinarily, I would think this was the work of some incredibly insecure recliner-pilot who had to draw attention to his own joke by essentially reprising it at the bottom of his post. But, no! This isn't the case. No one really used that nickname except the man himself and a few close friends who are also dead. So it really is him! Isn't that amazing!)
Poster I want to kick in the crotch until he keels over and says, "ike": Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Someone Whose Posting Frequency Far Exceeds His "Idea Frequency": doublee.
Deranged Crank Who Does the Most to Make Me Seem Patient and Reasonable: OOKyle.
Poster Who Still Doesn't Understand Brevity: Promoter2003.
Biggest Right-Wing Lunatic: Michrome.
Troglodyte with 460 Posts Who's Never Written More Than One Sentence at a Time: Zinzi
Poster Whose Name Most Aptly Describes His Command of English, But Whose Posts I Still Like for Some Reason: Operation Retard.
Posters Who Need to STOP Hitting on Erin/Alana: everyone.
Winner of the "Teh is Not a Word" and "I can't distinguish between THAN and THEN" Awards: everyone.
Winner of the "Build these guys up" award, as opposed to the "Build these guys down" Award: Damn near everybody.
Most Encouraging News: The board problems erase all traces of countless idiots.
Most Discouraging News: The board problems also seem to stifle discussion; bigfatgoalie still needs triple punctuation on everything (why???); everyone grossly unfamiliar with diplomatic and military history spends a lot of time belching forth on the conflict in Iraq, proving once again that knowledge is no prerequisite for shrieking at others about "how wrong they are."

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

OO: What I'll Remember About Chris Benoit

NEWS CENTRAL: All Updates About Benoit Tragedy