Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest TSMAdmin

The Crossface: 2002 In Review

Recommended Posts

Guest TSMAdmin

For a wrestling fan, 2002 seemed to be the nadir of modern wrestling as we know it. This week, the Smart Marks examine the year that was and the year that never should have been. Before we get started, lets introduce the players...


Brandon Truitt: Brandon is a regular here on the Crossface and happens to own a heaping helping of shoot interviews. Check out his recap of the Missy Hyatt and Tammy "Sunny" Sytch Shoot Interview.


Byron Vester: Catch Byron when he drops in with the news. When the wrestling world really pisses him off, he'll drop in with his Anger Management column. If you want to know why he is always pissed off, THIS is your destination.


Danny Gregory: Better known as Kinetic (or Metal Ed), Danny is the Smart marks connoisseur of all things music and he happens to like wrestling also. Check out the latest edition of The Riot Act here!


Dr. Tom: Tom brings the content every week, providing the reader with his Smackdown recaps, The Mid-Week News, movie reviews and much more! Read up on Tom's feelings of the recently released The Two Towers.


Tony Jaymz: One of the newest members of the Smart Marks, Tony likes to frequent our pop sulture section. Check out his review of the latest Foo Fighters album and look for a future review of the Wrestlemania X8 videogame.


William Helmet: William is the moderator of the Crossface.



William: 2002 was the year of HHH. His return kicked off the year and he has been a huge flop for the fed. Sum up your thoughts on HHH and what the future holds for him.

Tony: Triple H? Easy: The one man fed wrecking, matching ruining machine. Its sad to see someone whom was such a good wrestler (in 2000) turn into...this!

Brandon: Triple H is exactly what's wrong with the federation. He was over when he came back but quickly lost the fan reactions and couldn't wrestle worth a crap due to his "upper body weight gain". Now he's a pathetic shell of his former self and won't last another year before injuries retire him. I'd say 6 months and he's gone.

Dr. Tom: I think he returned a few months too soon, a bunch of pounds too heavy, and with his top spot already assured. He did nothing in the ring or on the stick to deserve having the spotlight the whole freaking year. He got a nice pop when he came back, but once the fans saw he couldn't go anymore, they stopped caring about him. His politics, by all accounts, are ruining the morale on Raw. Basically, he's the lethal dose of poison the NWO was supposed to be.

Danny: HHH is, obviously, a locker room cancer, a bad wrestler, a terrible draw, and on and on. 2003 will be a year of reckoning for The Game. The fans, the talent, and the office are getting wise to him. I think he'll be ousted from current his current position of power before June. It can't last any longer than that.

Byron: At this point, I don't think Hunter will ever get back to what he was 2 years ago (although I didn't like him then either) and with all the injuries he's been racking up lately, I think it's safe to say that he'll get another career-threatening one this year.

Dr. Tom: He compounded the company's problem elevating new talent by losing to his good buddy Shawn Michaels. He was handed the Big Gold Belt, making it completely worthless, and he never did anything to raise its value since he got it.

Tony: Triple H's ego got bigger than his nose. He actually started believing he was this huge star...when in reality he was a current day Don Muraco. Wait! Muraco was entertaining...scratch that.

Brandon: Tony, he looks about as big as Muraco but can't pull off Fuji Vice.

Tony: Damn right! And he doesn't have Mr. Fuji...the best badass in a bowling hat this side of Odd Job


William: Do you think this feud with Steiner will help renew interest in HHH ?

Brandon: It will be his biggest embarrassment because BOTH are pretty bad in the ring. On top of that, Steiner doesn't take any shit and WILL let Triple H know if he's unhappy with something... and not in a pleasant way, either.

Dr. Tom: Their Rumble match will certainly be interesting. Steiner's having a lot of problems with his conditioning and body breaking down, and HHH isn't the guy who can protect him and drag a decent match out of him.

Tony: I think Steiner will outshine Triple H. The parallels between the two are too great: Both are big and strong, both have been returning from injury and both have past legacies.

Danny: The Steiner feud is fine, because both guys are big stars within the wrestling world. But what Vince wants and isn't going to get out of this is any sort of crossover appeal.

Byron: Nope. Both Hunter and Steiner are basically the walking crippled at this point in their careers and Steiner himself is nothing more than a short-term bandage on a long-term problem

Tony: But I still believe Steiner can, for all intents and purposes, still put on a decent to good match while Triple H is in DUDsville unless he is with HBK.

Dr. Tom: I think the buildup to their match has been pretty good so far, but I can't expect much out of the match, itself. They might as well put the belt on Steiner before he hurts himself again or has an episode of 'roid rage.

Brandon: Tony, you must not have been reading the reports lately because Steiner's supposedly getting blown up within the first 5 minutes of a match. What makes that bad is that the average main event level match in the WWE is about 20 minutes long these days.

Tony: True, I haven't seen Steiner since over a year ago, but I still have a glimmer of hope.

Danny: And who even cares? That belt is quite possibly the most irrelevant and meaningless piece of tin in the history of the company.

Dr. Tom: Sure it is, Kinetic, but they paid a lot to bring Steiner on board, and they might as well get something out of him before he blows up again.

Tony: The easy answer is to make the match 5 minutes long.

Byron: The RAW Title is still viewed as nothing more than a joke title like the old "WCW International" belt.


William: Kinetic brought up an interesting point. With HHH currently on top, the fed has nobody with crossover appeal. Do you see any of the current wrestlers possibly crossing over to the mainstream outside of The Rock and Steve Austin?

Tony: I think Booker T could, and should be a crossover star, alongside Angle

Brandon: Out of all the wrestlers in the WWE, the ones I see with crossover potential are Booker T, Edge, Angle, RVD and possibly Brock Lesnar. Those would require some serious work, though.

Byron: The closest would probably be Angle, but he doesn't have that "it" Rock and Austin had/have.

Danny: Not really, but you never know. I wouldn't have thought Steve Austin and Rocky Maivia had crossover appeal, either. It's all a matter of giving them the right character and the right opportunity.

Tony: Remember, there’s very few crossover stars in wrestling period: Piper, Hogan, Rock, Austin are the only four I can think of.

William: OK, fellas, you are throwing names out there but what about these guys makes you think they are special?

Dr. Tom: No one who would cross over as easily, no. I think Edge probably has the best look to do something in Hollywood, but guys like Jericho, Booker, and Angle have also shown they know what to do on camera. They have a presence to them. Edge not as much, but has that blond surfer movie-star look. They all have charisma, too, and with a little more training, could probably do some basic movie and TV roles.

Brandon: RVD, Booker T, and Angle have a lot of charisma. Edge has the right look to be a crossover success. Lesnar, like Angle, has the legitimate background to be taken seriously outside of wrestling.

Tony: Jericho might have crossover appeal with the Fozzy band, but until they get on TRL they will be for wrestling fans only.

Danny: I'd prefer that Fozzy was kept a secret of the wrestling business, not unlike Al Wilson's enormous package.

Brandon: Edge already has a movie role under his belt, as does RVD.

Tony: But who remembers those roles?

Byron: Well, as far as Angle goes, the Olympics got him some publicity long before he ever set foot in the WWF and with his emerging charisma, I think he'd become about as close to a crossover star as you can get out of the current roster.

Tony: I mean…yeah, it was the Higlander movie but come on...it wasn't anything special.

Brandon: Tony, it's a start. Piper didn't start out by starring in ‘They Live.’


William: Flair, Hogan, Nash, Steiner, HBK and a host of other "dinosaurs" have all found a home in WWE this year. Will the WWE continue to look to the past for revenue when they should look to the future?

Brandon: They really can't look to the past for too much longer, mostly because they're about to bring back the last remaining fossils and the ones they have are breaking down horribly.

Danny: Who's left to sign? Goldberg, I guess. They're going to have to look towards the future, or at least the present, because they've run out of past.

Byron: I think they will during the first few months, but once it fails as usual, they will try and go with the young talent for real this time.

Dr. Tom: Don't they always? I'm not sure who else they could pull off the I-should-retire wire, but if there's someone left (Goldberg), you know they'll bring him in.

Tony: They will bring in "Legend" after "Legend" in to spike the ratings, with Goldberg first. As always though, it will be a short-term fix to a long-term problem.

Brandon: The only ones I can think of who are left are Goldberg, Sting, and Luger. Of those, Goldberg is the only true option.

William: It appears that Brock Lesnar is the only wrestler this year that they have successfully built up to be a viable contender who isn't over the age of 40. Why hasn't the fed been able to create new stars this year?

Byron: Three simple words: Vincent Kennedy McMahon

Tony: The Top Tier doesn't want it...and by Top Tier I mean Triple H

Brandon: They've been feeding all the up-and-coming stars to the "established" stars... RVD, Booker, Jericho, Matt Hardy, Chris Benoit, and Eddy Guerrero have all been sacrificed to get Flair, Taker, HBK, and Triple H over.

Byron: If Vince had actually placed some confidence in the younger, more over talent, then they wouldn't have needed to rely on washed up bums like Hogan to pop a buy-rate.

Dr. Tom: They haven't really tried. None of them have worked (except Brock), and they've all been self-fulfilling prophecies. They push someone so far, he gets squashed by HHH or Undertaker, loses some heat, then they say he's not over enough to be in the main event scene.

Tony: On the Smackdown side, this was a good year for young talent: Brock, Edge, Chavo Guerrero, etc. got over but who got over on the Raw side?

Brandon: RVD and Booker were RIGHT THERE to be top guys up until recently. Between Triple H and HBK, they killed both of them.

Danny: They haven't even really tried to get anyone over, with the exception of Brock. And, yes, on Smackdown a bunch of guys are finally getting there. Edge, Benoit, Eddy...all would be considered viable world title contenders with a serious push.

Byron: Edge, Chavo, Rey and some other got over, but then they hit the dreaded "Hoss Effect" and went spiraling back down the card.

Brandon: They've also had a problem with backing the wrong guys for a big push. Matt Hardy could have gotten a good push against Edge and Rey Misterio, but it went to a guy who was supposed to be Taker's opponent when he returns.

Tony: Yes, we all must fear the Hoss Effect. Note to Vince: Albert and Demott are NOT young, new talent! They are old and/or useless talent! Know the difference!

Brandon: Don't forget Bling Bling Buchanan, Tony.

Tony: Hey...I like Bling Bling.

Brandon: I like the gimmick but Buchanan is worthless.

Danny: Albert is the perfect example of what is wrong with WWE. A guy who's barely been on Smackdown for the two weeks and his push has seemingly evaporated. That's another problem: lack of consistency.

Byron: The switching of Albert for Matt in the whole Edge/Rey thing baffles me to this day. In what reality is that a GOOD idea?

Brandon: In the little world that Vince and Johnny Ace live in, Byron.


William: Personally, I believe Steve Austin's departure was the single event that defined the WWE this year. What do you think was the fed's defining moment?

Dr. Tom: I think it was HHH's return. It set in motion what would prove to be a lousy year in a lot of ways, particularly on the Raw side.

Tony: Austin situation was the only thing that made me take notice. I'm sorry, but this whole year, every angle they've tried has bored me because it hasn't changed anything, and if it has, it's been for the worse.

Brandon: It's been a year of rehashes, Tony. The only original things they've done were the Booker-Goldust stuff (which was an accident, I'm sure), the gay wedding stuff (ugh), and the necrophilia crap (double ugh). Of those, the only thing they did RIGHT was never supposed to succeed.

Danny: I would say the split, because it further accentuated the gaping void between the good and bad talent in the company, and how talent often has little to do with anything.

William: Well, it appears that most of the major moments of the year affected the company negatively. What was the worst moment of the year?

Byron: I think the necrophilia angle is the defining moment of the year because it showcased everything that was wrong with the WWE with lame ass skits, fucked up logic, and horrendously BAD wrestling

Tony: Every Raw fan in the world wanted RVD to get the title this year...and he didn't

Brandon: Necrophilia is the worst moment of the year. It broke boundaries that didn't need to be broken and chased away about 10% of RAW's core audience. RAW's weekly ratings have been down about 0.3 or 0.4 points to a 3.3 average since the incident.

Danny: I'll go with a dark horse candidate and say Triple H beating Jericho in that Hell In A Cell match. For me, it set the tone for the rest of the year and was the point at which I realized that HHH wasn't going to play fair. That or the dog shit incident.

Byron: One thing that always baffled me about the entire crapfest was how Triple H was supposed to be the "bad guy" when he just exposed the whole mess.

Dr. Tom: I'd have to say the necrophilia angle. It insulted the intelligence of a lot of fans by being monumentally stupid, unnecessary, and very unfunny. Things like that drive off the casual fans, and it's hard to get a casual fan to watch your show again once you've chased him away by flinging shit at his head.

Tony: I Think the whole Jericho/Triple main event over Rock/Hogan set the tone for the rest of the year. It illustrated that what Hunter wants, Hunter gets.


William: Did WWE do anything right this year?

Brandon: They made Brock Lesnar into a main eventer and Summerslam was a great show. That's about it.

Tony: They let the Smackdown 6 wrestle...thus helping them get over

Danny: They quite successfully made a star of Brock Lesnar, something that no one thought they could do when he first came on to the scene. They briefly made Smackdown into a tremendous show. Other than that, not really.

Byron: I agree with Brandon. Through all the crap that was his first title reign, the WWE actually managed to get Brock over bigtime!

Tony: Actually, I give WWE no props for Brock Lesnar getting over. I apply that to The Rock and Paul Heyman, and Brock himself, for that matter.

Dr. Tom: They did a few things right. They built Brock up well, they put a lot of the more talented workers on Smackdown and let them go at it every week, and they managed to bring Eric Bischoff in and use him in an effective on-camera role.

William: I agree with Tom. Despite the obstacles Bischoff has faced, he has done a decent 'acting' job as the RAW GM.

Danny: They re-hired Eddy Guerrero, also. And they gave us the Kevin Nash quad tearing footage to cherish forever.

Brandon: I fondly reminisce about Nash's quad tearing while Chariots of Fire plays!

Tony: Kevin Nash= Triple H's father? You be the judge.


William: The split was mentioned earlier as a defining moment this year. How long do you think this obviously failing project will last?

Dr. Tom: I think they'll keep it this way at least thru this year. They've already invested a lot in it, and changed a lot (like taping crews, house shows, etc) to accommodate it. Besides, with some better execution, they could pull it off really well, a lot better than they are.

Tony: I believe the split will last longer than we expect. Vince McMahon can be a stubborn person, and after the failures of XFL and The Invasion, it will take a lot for the split to end.

Danny: Maybe forever. If they would actually work at making both shows watch-able, then the split would not be a failure. They have more than enough good talent to put on four hours of television a week.

Brandon: They'll go with it until the house shows drop to the point where it become unfeasible to run two crews to empty houses instead of one big crew. That will probably be about 4 months from now, after the Wrestlemania business spurt slows down.

William: I have to agree with Brandon. I don't think it will last very long or was a good idea to begin with. In a dismal business climate, why handicap yourself with half crews?

Byron: Like mentioned before, Vince is a stubborn man, so I really doubt he'll cave in after a year with something he's invested so much time in.

Danny: But they have an enormous roster. If they weren't dead-set on accommodating their previously established main eventers, the split could absolutely work and work well.

Brandon: True enough, Kinetic. The problem is that they've lost a whole generation of stars because they've been jobbed out too much to be taken seriously anymore and there's no sign that Vince will start correcting things now.

Tony: I wouldn't mind seeing the split gone on. It does give more time to the midcarders, albeit not necessarily the right midcarders or enough time, but the thought is there.

Danny: But my point is that things could conceivably be corrected. And, if you take away the split, it'll be the guys like Chavo and Benoit who'll get the short end of the stick.

Tony: And it would mean double the amount of time for Big Show, Hunter, Undertaker, etc.

Byron: Brandon, at this point, I think Vince is getting to where he may eventually start trying to correct things in order to save his company.

Brandon: Vince will only start doing that when he realizes that Triple H and Undertaker are NOT the answers and he hasn't shown that yet.


William: NWA:TNA began this year as an alternative to WWE. No one felt they would have lasted until the end of the year. Do you think this promotion will continue to grow or will it be the next casualty in the wrestling war?

Brandon: If they can reign in Russo and his stupid bullshit, they've got a shot. If they keep having midgets jerk off into trashcans and Russo making himself the focus of the show, they're screwed.

Tony: I think it's going to be a while, but if NWA:TNA gets a TV deal, then they will be on the fast track.

Byron: That's a pretty big "if", Tony.

William: With wrestling seen as an eyesore to TV executives, do you honestly see them getting a TV deal?

Tony: Unlike the other "alternatives" to the WWE that's popped up in the last couple years (WWA, MECW, etc.) they actually do something alternative to the WWE.

Dr. Tom: I've never watched TNA but I'd like to see them succeed and provide a viable alternative. Vince needs an alternative on the market. He needs the threat that his viewers might like something else better than his product. Maybe then, he'll be motivated to do what's right for the company.

Tony: I actually do see a TV deal in the future, not a good primetime one, but one will come, maybe a syndicated deal.

Byron: Personally, although I really did enjoy TNA at one point in time, the reemergence of Russo made me stop watching cold turkey.

Brandon: It depends on who is actually looking for cheap programming. Turner isn't biting, WGN wants wrestling to be paid programming, Viacom has the WWE locked up, etc. The only channel I can see is USA if they want to stick it to the WWE for abandoning them.

Danny: Well, I think you're right on about them not getting a TV deal. Wrestling is on a major down cycle right now, so there's little chance of a fringe product that most TV executives detest getting a shot right now.

Tony: What the NWA:TNA is doing right now is what helped get the WCW into the spotlight: You've got the good (actual wrestling) and the controversy(the Piper shoot, Russo) which is always needed. NWA:TNA has all the pieces set in place, all they need is that match to light the fire.

Byron: That Piper shoot was in really BAD taste

Brandon: The Piper shoot is probably biting them in the ass. It killed the arena crowd and turned off a lot of people watching the show and reading reports about it.

Byron: And as far as the wrestling goes, most their good workers (the X-Division) just seem to work damn near the same match every time.

Tony: The Piper shoot was in bad taste, but it got people talking. Not the "that was some sick shit" talking like after the Nechro/TripleH/Kane incident, but a "Wow, who will show up/do this/what the fuck's gonna happen next" talk.

William: Well, if nothing else, NWA's emergence meant that people in the industry recognized Dames and his writing.


William: Well, this year has seen some great wrestling matches, and most of them came from outside of the WWE (ROH). Personally, what is the best match you have seen this year and why? Feel free to rate it as well.

Tony: Best match? Well the best match is always my favorite match of the year and that would have to be Rock vs. Chris Jericho, Royal Rumble. The build up to the match was great, the match itself was great, and it had my favorite wrestler in it (Jericho) so it made me happy, but bittersweet, as that was the pinnacle of Jericho's title reign. It all went down hill after that.

Danny: I haven't seen anything outside of the WWE this year, so I'd have to go with Angle/Benoit v. Edge/Mysterio. I'd have it at about ****1/4.

Brandon: As for the best match of the year, I'll have to go with RVD vs. Eddy in a ladder match from RAW in May. The WWE was very down at the time between dog shit being in a main event feud at Wrestlemania, a match over shampoo, and the nostalgia reigns as champion. That was the match that started turning things around a bit this year.

Dr. Tom: I'll go with Team God vs. Edge/Rey Mysterio, too. ****1/2

William: I guess you guys haven’t seen any of the Ring of honor shows. The best match I have seen was American Dragon vs. Low-Ki from the 2nd Ring of Honor show. The buildup, psychology, storyline, and execution was nearly flawless. The only match I personally believe has been even close to *****. Not quite, but close.

Byron: The best match I've seen this year would probably be Edge/Eddy from the Smackdown after Unforgiven and I had it at ****1/4 with Rock/Jericho from the Rumble as the runner-up.


William: OK, on the flipside, there have been some horrendous matches. What was the worst match of the year?

Tony: Triple H vs. HBK, Summerslam, but let me explain myself. Triple H was pulling stinkers left and right with good talent like RVD, Booker T, Jericho, etc. and yet a crippled wrestler comes in and suddenly he can pull off a **** Match? May not be the worst in terms of workrate, but I sure was disgusted.

Brandon: Triple H vs. Undertaker at King of the Ring. Not only was it pathetic, but they actually charged people $35 for that as a main event.

Byron: I agree with Brandon. Worst match had to be Triple H/Undertaker from King of the Ring. The entire show wasn't even worth $10 at the most.

Brandon: It was a slow, horrible, plodding match between two people who shouldn't be in the ring anymore and it was for the Undisputed Title. That's bad enough, but this was coming off of losing Austin and they needed something to get things going again. This wasn't it.

Dr. Tom: I don't think anyone expected HHH/Taker to be good, Brandon. I certainly didn't.

Byron: Taker/Triple H was just horrible. 20 minutes of punching and screwy selling until that bullshit ending and Rock desperately trying to save the crowd from walking the fuck out

Danny: Either Austin v. Undertaker or Bradshaw/Stratus v. Nowinski/Gayda. Both were just unbelievably awful matches.

Dr. Tom: Taker/HHH was wretched, but I think it ties the Jackie Gayda abortion from Raw. They were both just god awful and almost impossible to suffer thru.

Brandon: Jackie Gayda was pathetic, but she was just a rookie in the business. Taker and HHH are SUPPOSED to be leading the WWE. If they can't have a good match, and are supposed to be leading the company, then something is seriously wrong.

Tony: Well, they are leading it...to the ground.


William: Finally, to sum up 2002, who was the Wrestler of the Year?

Danny: Kurt Angle. Hands down.

Byron: Eddy FUCKING Guerrero

Tony: Oh...tough question. I have a tie between Chris Jericho and Brock Lesnar. Jericho managed to carry HOGAN to a good match, and made almost all of his matches bearable, even good to great. Brock Lesnar simply had a streak of wins (KOTR, World Title, etc.) After Summerslam, he became the uber-worker we all wanted.

Brandon: Kurt Angle is the wrestler of the year because he came back from serious character damage in late 2001 to lead the WWE. He's been the one guy with upward momentum all year long no matter what happened. He even lost his hair in a PPV match and came out better for it. On top of that, he's been able to pull watch-able matches out of Hogan and Big Show.

Danny: Kurt Angle had more excellent matches than anyone else this year. He was always a beacon of light in an otherwise dreary year. Others have had landmark years, but none have gotten the job done as consistently as Kurt.

Dr. Tom: Kurt Angle. He brought it all to the table: excellent matches, good mic work, and an uncanny ability to rebound from putting rookies over and losing in general. He also worked against a variety of opponents, having a damn good match with Rey Mysterio despite never working the lucha style before, and even dragging something watchable out of the Big Slow. EDDY~! would be my second choice. Brock would be third.

Byron: I say Eddy because people thought that he wasn't as good as he used to be(and while that may be true), but he proved them all wrong by not only having one BUT two MOTYCs with a below average guy like RVD(Judgment Day and the ladder match).

Brandon: Byron, RVD's not a below average worker... that would be someone like Bling Bling or, in my opinion, William Regal.

Tony: Regal is a below average, yet overrated worker.

Byron: Either way, Eddie managed to get a kick ass feud out of Edge (another two MOTYCs) and become one of the most hated guys on Smackdown.

William: I have to agree with Byron. Eddie Guerrero carried RVD and Edge to the BEST matches of their careers. He overcame personal demons, wrestled in great matches in WWE, Japan and the Indys. He is the living embodiment of a true wrestler, in every sense of the word. Plus, his shoot interview was one of the best I have ever seen!

Byron: While I can see why Angle gets the love, I really can't agree with him being Wrestler of the Year because he had a pretty bad first half and didn't even pick up steam until the Benoit feud/team up 4 months ago.

Tony: Eddy has a shoot interview? I have to check it out!

Brandon: Watch for the review of the Eddy shoot on Monday!


William: Before we wrap things up, what does 2003 hold for the wrestling industry?

Danny: More of the same.

Brandon: 2003 will hold the retirements of Kevin Nash, Undertaker, Hulk Hogan, and Triple H if we're lucky. Once the old guys are gone, Vince will have no choice but to push new people... and eventually he'll get around to pushing people we want to see.

Tony: 2003 equals the make it or break it year for wrestling. It all depends on the WWE. If WWE doesn't shape up, they won't see Wrestlemania XX.

Dr. Tom: I think the ratings will pick up after Mania. Austin and The Rock will be back, Goldberg might be on board, and interest will be higher. It also looks like Undertaker's going to revive the Dead Man character for his last go-round. It's up to WWE to do something with the added interest and maintain it, and I'm skeptical they can do that.

Byron: I think 2003 will be the deciding factor in whether the WWE survives longer than 2 years. If Vince finally gets his head out of his ass and shows why he became number one in the first place after WCW started stomping them in the ground, then 2003 will be the Renaissance.

William: Well, rest assured after this week's Smackdown , we already have a candidate for worst angle of the year!

Danny: I look forward to 2004, which will no doubt see the end to the Dawn Marie/Torrie angle.

Tony: …And the beginning of the Dawn/Trish/Torrie angle! I mean, what’s better than 2 lesbians? 3 Lesbians!

William: The Crossface is now….


Danny: Hold up!!! I want to talk about this Dames business. You mean to tell me that Dames is in touch with people from NWA:TNA? Damian Gonzales?

William: What rock have you been living under?

Byron: Don West, Jerry Jarrett and Jeremy Borash have commented on Dames' recaps of the shows through columns and e-mails.

Danny: No shit? I had no clue

Tony: While I have Gillberg reading my stuff...yeah baby!

Danny: Man. I've yet to have any record execs contact me about The Riot Act.

Dr. Tom: I exchanged emails with Tom Prichard, and Tom Zenk gave Brandon a shout-out.

Danny: Do you think Dames could get a Metal Ed character into TNA? That'd be so great.

William: HAHAHAH!!! That would fucking rule but I think Van Hammer already exists.

Brandon: Not only does Van Hammer already exist, they also have wrestling race-car drivers. I think that's another piece of Ed right there.

William: I would pay to see Metal Ed.

Danny: Damnation! Metal Ed would be the biggest crossover success in the history of the business. The guy is charisma personified.

Brandon: Metal Ed wouldn't be as big a pussy magnet as Al Wilson.

Danny: Metal Ed is not as well-hung as Al Wilson, so far as I can tell.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this