Column O' Nonsense: What If?

[Guest Dougie Nunny]

I would really love ti write on the main site, but don;t know how. Can someone help me out.

 

Here is the column:

 

Miss me? Well, if you did or didn't, it doesn't matter. After almost a month of being gone, I am back. Well, let's stop the introductions and go right into the "Nonsense Thoughts," as I have a perfect topic to touch down upon for you guys today.

 

First off, where was I? Well, I have been extremely busy for the past month. At this writing, I am now fully a journalist. I do it all. I review, report, editorialize, and interview. No, I am not talking about reviews passed off as columns, but rather real actual reviews at review sites. I have been so backed up with all of this that my first passion just seemed to get pushed back on my schedule. At this writing, I have done 5 interviews in the past month, and have about 15 left to go. They range from unknowns like Cade Cassidy and Twisted Youth to popular stars like Low Ki and Steve Corino. My reviews? Well, I just review Indy shows mostly. If you are an Indy fed looking for some exposure on a couple of major sites, just e-mail me in my info below, and I will hook you up. Because of all of this, I have actually come to realize something. Reporters suck. They get all the credit and all the prestige, but for what? They copy and paste news from 1wrestling.com and rajah.com or from the e-mails the fans sent in. There are about three reporters out there right now (besides 1wrestling.com and rajah.com) who actually post stories that they do the research on. Of course, the other reporters then copy and paste their stories and get the credit. Funny, huh? Why don't columnists get the prestige? Granted, a lot of us do cheap ass reviews. That is not a column, people. I know columnists like Jordon Wright who do columns 2-3 times a week, and it's not a review. They are actually innovative columns. Sure, I could do one every day on reviews and what not, but would it be half as good as other columns? No. Reviews aren't columns, and vice versa. Well, that was a pretty big rant, but about 75% of the columns world does reviews for their columns. It sucks. Honestly, it doesn't make for a good column, and I know for a fact that the other 25% do better than the 75%. Well, except for one, but she's uber-popular and always will be. Wow, what a rant. Moving on...

 

I have to give major props to a local Indy federation named "Richmond Lucha Libre." They had a show last Saturday, and man, what a show it was. Despite the on and off drizzle of rain, the wrestlers still went out there and delivered an amazing night full of innovative stuff and really high spots. These guys have a bad rep for being a spot fest, but that's only if you're paying attention to the spots. If you pay attention to the whole match, you can realize that the spots come at the right time and play to the crowd. That is ring psychology, and the guys who badmouth RLL wish they could get that in their matches. Also, when you can draw 250+ people in the rain in a cramped area, you are definitely doing something right.

 

As of right now, you are viewing this column on forty sites. The most ever. There are only a couple websites that you do not see "Column O' Nonsense" on. Prowrestling.com, Wrestlezone.com, ProWrestlingScoops.com, 3StrandWrestling.com, and Wrestledotcom.com. Well, I won't write for PWS because I do not like Clark. I did badmouth him in a past column, and I would like to apologize as it was not professional. WZ is a place I think I will write for eventually, but it might take a while due to the process they do there to hire columnists. 3SW is another place I will not write for, but I would rather not go into that. I would like to write for WDC, but I know it won't happen, and the same thing happens for PW. PW is the biggest site out there, and I can't get on there. Why? Politics mostly. It sucks. While I sit here applying and getting bullshit reasons from people of "they are busy," people with no experience and some with no talent make it on. Now, I'm sounding arrogant, but honestly, I did not accomplish all I did without some inkling of talent, now did I? Yes, they have good columnists there, and one of their new columnists is good. But when I have been replying since January, and haven't gotten one single reply to tell me yes or no, and people have applied once do, it makes me wonder. I really wanted to quit column writing over this. It really is bothering me. It's like if your goal in wrestling was to get to WWE, but you can't due to politics. It sucks, I know. Well, hopefully it will change, and if it doesn't, I will care, but I know I shouldn't.

 

I don't really have any beef with WWE lately, except for how they push Raw over Smackdown. I won't go into that much as it will be the focus of my next column. However, everything else seems to be going well. We have a huge cruiser push now, a Spike Dudley push, Kurt Angle out as GM, a transition champ (we always need these), a solid champ, good feuds, good controversy, and more. For those people still complaining, they just don't have anything better to do in life. Sad, isn't it?

 

Well that's it for now and sorry for the length on some of those, but I felt like ranting, and it's my column. I'm not forcing you to read it, now am I? Anyway, let's head right into the focal point of the column:

 

You know, at the writing of this column, WWE has had the World Heavyweight Championship for a total of 700 days, roughly two years. 447 of those days have seen Triple H as champion, roughly 1.25 years. Now that we look back on his three title reigns, we wonder if it was spent wisely. He spent the majority of his time making everyone look bad and job to him, except Goldberg in two matches and his two friends (Kevin Nash & Shawn Michaels). But surely he had more opponents than that! When you look at the list of wrestlers that failed to usurp Triple H for the mighty prize of the business, Rob Van Dam, Kane, Chris Jericho, Booker T, Shawn Michaels, Scott Steiner, Kevin Nash, Goldberg, Randy Orton, Hurricane, Bubba Ray Dudley, and more, you start to wonder, "What if so-and-so had won the belt at that time?" Well, why don't we explore this thought?

 

Note: For length purposes, I will only discuss PPV title defenses and select Raw ones. Also, I will not do a superstar more than once. For example, Rob Van Dam had a title shot at Unforgiven 2002 and Survivor Series 2002. I will only do the most important title defense, none other than that. These rules are here to keep the column under ten pages, or twenty for that matter.

 

What if...

 

...Rob Van Dam had won at Unforgiven 2002?

Well for starters, that stupid curse of wrestlers who came over in the alliance would be gone. Out of all the members of the alliance, only two of them have received big title pushes, only to be squashed by Triple H. If RVD had won, we wouldn't be hearing this crap nowadays about Tommy Dreamer being a victim of the "curse." All you have to do is point to RVD and say, "He made it as champ. Tommy Dreamer just can't get over with the fans." Even more, look at all the feuds RVD could have had. Ric Flair (assuming he still turned at Unforgiven), Chris Jericho, Rock (when he came over), and more. One of those names really stands out. Chris Jericho. WWE really missed out on this feud and missed a lot of great matches they could have had. Don't believe me? Look at RVD-Jericho in the Elimination Chamber or look at their match at KOTR in 2002. These guys would have had an exciting feud. If you think about it more, WWE still could have had the IC-World Title unification at No Mercy, as at the time of Unforgiven, Jericho was IC Champ. See, it all makes sense in my warped little mind. Plus, RVD probably would have dropped the title to Jericho, which would have been my salvation in 2002. Even more, if RVD had won, it would show that Vince is branching off from the power house and/or technical style of the 90s and is actually experimenting with the cruiser and/or unorthodox style that has made its home in 2000. With this, WWE never would have had to worry about TNA's X Division as they could boast RVD as their champ. Just think of all the good it would have done. Honestly, what good was it to have Triple H make RVD look like crap just to turn Flair heel? Exactly.

 

...Bubba Ray Dudley had won at Raw, 2002?

This is one that doesn't require a lot of thought, but it is nice to think about it. Imagine it. Bubba Ray makes an impromptu challenge, and wins! Sure, Triple H would have won it back and it be marked as a fluke, but it would have been a masterful storyline and resulted in some good choice of words from Dudleyville's own. If he had won, Bubba Ray would have dropped the title back, but what if he hadn't? We could have had a transition champ to pass the belt to someone else who is a popular heel. Who? Flair or Jericho, for starters. We will go into why that would be good later.

 

...Kane had won at No Mercy 2002?

How many times has Kane been a world champ? Once. Not bad, huh? Wrong. He was champ for one day. That's freaking embarrassing. "I was once WWE Champion." "Oh really? How long?" "23 hours..." It's pathetic, guys. Plus, when Kane came back, he was hot. He was better in the ring than ever, his new style and new attitude gave fans something to cheer over. Basically, Kane was hot and he was literally next in line. If Kane never lost, we might not have had to put up with such a huge thing in 2003 with Kane de-masking. We never would have to "pretend" Kane actually crashed into a tractor trailer or fell into a pit of fire. We never would have had to listen to JR's fake screams. We wouldn't have had to deal with a lot of crap. If Kane had won, imagine if he held it till WM. Perhaps Deadman Taker would have come back earlier and come back to Raw and challenged for the belt. Get my drift? Things would have been better off is the main point.

 

...Scott Steiner had won at Royal Rumble 2003?

So technical masters like Benoit and crowd mentors like Guerrero can't have the belt, but Steiner can. The only good this would have done would have been to get the title off of Triple H for a little bit. Think the backlash on JBL winning the title was bad? Be glad this didn't happen.

 

...Booker T had won at Wrestlemania XIX?

How many times has a heel left Wrestlemania with the World belt? Thrice. How many times of those was it Triple H? Twice. How many times has a world champ retained at Wrestlemania (in the end)? Five times. How many times of those was it Triple H? Twice. How many world title matches has Triple H been in at Wrestlemania (at the time)? Three. How many times had he lost (at the time)? None. Get my drift. How big of an impact could Booker T make upending a man who has never lost in that situation before? A pretty big one. How much of a Cinderella story would it have been to have Booker T win the belt, a scenario WWE loves to play off? A huge one. Having Booker T as champion would set the tone for a new year. A new year of changes on Raw. Instead, we got the same old year. How could Booker T had made it different? HBK could have turned heel and challenged Booker T for animosity for the old nWo days. Kevin Nash could have done the same. Goldust could have become jealous and turned on him (or vice-versa). The list was endless. The possibilities were unlimited. But it didn't happen. After a match of pure desperation, Triple H proved he was the better man like he had done a million times before, and it helped nothing.

 

...Hurricane had won at Raw, 2003?

You talk about RVD breaking the curse and ushering in a new style? Hurricane would have done this, and better. If Rob Van Dam gets the biggest pop of the night, Hurricane is right there behind him. If Rob Van Dam sells the most merchandise, Hurricane is right behind him. The difference? Hurricane is not predictable in the ring and can deliver a solid promo like no other. His gimmick is second to none and the possibilities it had went on for miles. Had he won, there would have definitely signified a change in WWE. First, the belt can change hands on TV, giving people a reason to watch Raw more and to not tune out in title matches. Second, Hurricane would have made history by being the smallest person ever. Third, fourth, and fifth, does it really matter? If Hurricane had won, we could have seen Hurricane-Flair, the rematch; Hurricane-Jericho; Hurricane-Orton; Hurricane-Rosey (Supervillian); and more. We could have seen a champion who actually looked out for everyone on the roster and defended his championship as a superhero would. Yes, I am marking out, but if you are skeptical, ask yourself this: how much bad would it have done?

 

...Kevin Nash had won at Judgment Day 2003?

Well, Hogan gets one last run, why can't this has been? If he had won it, he would have lost it back. No impact, no significance. Nothing. Moving on...

 

...Ric Flair had won at Raw, 2003?

Wow. This would have been good. At this moment, Ric Flair was a tweener. He was still a heel, but against Triple H he was a face. Imagine the possibilities had he won. He could have had a feud with anyone! HBK, Jericho, Goldberg, Orton, Triple H, Nash, etc. ANYONE! Even more, imagine what life would have been like for whoever defeated Naitch. What kind of statement is it to say "I defeated Flair for the world title." Whoever would have beaten Flair would have looked like gold and would have been a main event player whether or not he was established or new. Plus, this would have given us one of the biggest mark-out moments of the year. Flair winning the title back in his first title match since 2002 (with Hogan) and years since his last title reign. You talk about the sixteen time champ, but doesn't seventeen sound better? To me it does.

 

...Goldberg had won at Summerslam 2003?

Honestly, I never wanted Goldberg as a champ, but if it was going to happen, it should have here. Here, WWE had the chance to make Goldberg the animal he once was, instead of the wimp he became in WWE. Sure, Goldberg took a sledgehammer to the shoulder, whoop-de-doo. The old Goldberg would have thrown Triple H through the chamber after that. With this, WWE could establish a new monster and new champ. After this, Triple H could have taken time off to heal and we could have had a World Title match at Unforgiven without Triple H. By this point, there had only been one World Title match without Triple H (with which he was still involved), and it could have changed. Plus, we all wouldn't have had to sit through the stink fest that was Goldberg-Triple H at Unforgiven if he had won at Summerslam. It was just better overall.

 

...Chris Jericho had won at Summerslam 2003?

Hallelujah! If Jericho had won, that's definitely what the wrestling world would have said. Perhaps one reason Triple H dropped the title was the absence of good heels at this point. Confused? Well, 99% of times you will never see a face drop to a face or a heel drop to a heel in WWE. So of course, if Triple H dropped the title, it would go to a face. Who would the face feud with? There was a huge absence of heels at this point. The list was basically: Orton (unprepared), Kane (involved with Shane), Flair (over the hill), and Jericho. That may be a reason WHY Triple H kept the belt for so long. So how do we quell those fears of having a face defend against only one good heel? Put the belt on another heel. How do we do that? Make Triple H be eliminated in the first part of the Chamber, and then leave Jericho to dominate. After this, we could have helped ourselves to any multitude of feuds. Shawn Michaels, Rob Van Dam, Kevin Nash, Goldberg, and more. Even more, because of Jericho's excellence in portraying both characters, we could have seen a couple of months as a heel, and then a face turn so he can deal with heels too. If Jericho had won, it would have quelled some fears that I will talk about in the next question.

 

...Randy Orton had won at Summerslam 2003?

What? Lesnar can win the title on his first main event, but Orton can't. Though I wouldn't have agreed with it, at this point anyone was better than Triple H. If he had won though, there would have been a lot of backlash. He is not established, too young, blah, blah blah, and blahibity blah. You can say the same about Lesnar, but honestly, I agree. I don't even think he should be in the title picture now, but obviously, I don't make the calls; Vince does. If Orton had won, there would have been a good storyline though. Remember how Flair drilled it into Orton's head that it was his job to make sure Triple H retained? Well obviously, he failed. Because of that, Evolution would have been over probably, and we would have gotten to see Triple H turn face, or get attacked by Orton and "recuperate." For those of you confused, if Orton had won the belt, there would have been a high chance that Triple H would have stayed off of WWE programming for a while. That's a good thing. Why? Because it helps WWE learn to survive without Triple H in case of emergency or when he's finally out of the title picture for good. How did WWF fail in the earlier 90s? They tried once to do things without Hogan. It failed, and they refused to try again. Good, huh? Wrong. That's why they were in a little dip when Hogan left. Luckily, they had such a good roster and team that they recovered quickly. I don't think we could recover if Triple H left unless we build up main eventers besides the regulars. If Orton had won, we would have recovered and would have had no reason to be scared. Though he wasn't ready, it would have helped to have him win the title.

 

...Shawn Michaels had won at Raw, 2003?

Talk about your success stories. Remember all the crap I fed you on if Bubba Ray won on an impromptu match, or if Hurricane won on Raw? Think about if Shawn Michaels, almost everyone's hero at this point, had won. First of all, it would have been the perfect end to 2003. Second, the perfect start to a new year. Third, it probably would have been one of the best Raw moments of the year, decade, and perhaps millennium. Think about this. If HBK would have won, we still would have gotten the Royal Rumble masterpiece of a match. Then after that, when Raw was supposed to do their PPV-style episode to match NWO, HBK drops it back to Triple H. Then we could have gotten into the whole storyline for the Triple Threat. Does it really matter if he would have won or not? Not really. We would have gotten the same outcome, except that HBK would have looked better going into Wrestlemania, giving Chris Benoit more credibility after his win. Get my drift?

 

Now that we are done with all of those, take time to absorb all that I said.

 

Need more time?

 

Done yet?

 

Eh, I'm tired of waiting. When you look back at Triple H's run as champ and all the people he made look like crap, does it really matter if someone would have usurped his title? Anyone on that list could have held it for at least a day while they shift it to someone else, preferably someone other than Triple H. Even if Triple H had gotten it back after a short title reign, it would have given us all hope that Triple H could lose the belt. Get my drift? Whether it had been Steiner holding it for a day or Jericho for 4 months, anything on this list could have helped, and at least one of these should have happened. However, they didn't, and we were stuck with Triple H for a good majority of the past 2 years. What was the point of me sharing this with you? Just realize that Triple H isn't gone, and he probably won't be for a long time. He will always be in the title picture and main event because that's what he needs. If you're depressed about this, just do what I do and think, "What if..."

 

Well that's it for this main topic. As always, we have the final stretch (QOTC, MOTC, Cheap Plug, and the IQ Quote) to go before I let you guys go and complain about the time I wasted. For those of you who are leaving now, just remember that you can contact me for feedback with the information at the bottom of the column. For those staying, let's start our sprint down the final stretch.

 

For this week's QOTC (quote of the column for the new readers), I decided I would pick something from one of the funniest wrestlers of all time. Even more, I thought I should pick a quote of him picking on someone we all love to as well. Well, here it is. Enjoy!

"Eeked? That's not even a word. You're a sportscaster. Read a thesaurus, damn it!"

Chris Jericho to Michael Cole, Smackdown January 24, 2002

 

Now that we have that done with, what should I pick for the MOTC (match of the column for the new readers)? Well, I have watched a heck of a lot of wrestling since we last saw each other, mostly WWE, but still. I have seen Angle-Benoit thrice (Backlash 2001, Unforgiven 2002, and Royal Rumble 2003), but should I name a match that everyone has seen and heard of? Nah, I'd rather choose a match that a lot of people have probably seen but never thought twice about. I am going to pick a match about the struggles that happen between bitter friends and the lengths some will go to get revenge. I pick...

Chris Benoit Vs. Eddie Guerrero, Armageddon 2002

 

Yes, it's cheap plug time, but hopefully, I can scale it down today so you can read it quickly! First of all, I would like to plug a new site owned by a friend of mine. [a href=http://www.entertainment-daily.com/]Entertainment-daily.com[/a] is a very good site and definitely deserves a look! Check it out! Also, Mike Steele's and my site is still open, and for those of you who don't know, it is a mostly columns site that also features cartoons, games, reviews, and interviews. As of right now, we have around 70 columnists writing for us, about 7 interviews ranging from Steve Corino to Arik Cannon, a wonderful team of reviewers, an excellent young cartoonist who will start soon, and an excellent forum. The Wrestling Voice is the voice of the public, however varied it may be. Well, to sweeten the deal even more, we are accepting applications for any job 24-7! If you think you can be a columnist, reviewer, game maker, cartoonist, or something else, just fill out an application at this address (http://thewrestlingvoice.com/application.shtml) or you can find out more about us by e-mailing [email protected].

The Wrestling Voice - Get Your Voice Heard![/a]

 

Well, that's it for this edition of "Column O' Nonsense." Join me next time as I delve into the topic of respect, and after that, I will reveal which show really is the "B Show." This is Dougie Nunny signing off and hoping I dropped your IQ lower than the number of opponents Triple H has actually made look good.

 

 

AIM - Dougie Nunny

E-mail - [email protected]

 

[Guest Contentious C]

Maybe if you didn't suck shit out of a dead dog's ass as a writer, you'd have a shot in Hell of getting that gig.

[Guest Dougie Nunny]

Eh...you're the first of 250 to say I'm a bad writer. So I don't really care.

 

This is just one site that my friend "thatdude" told me to come to.

 

Guess if people waste their time saying that and don't have the balls or intelligence to give constructive criticism, then it's pointless to be here.

 

Bye.

[Guest Real F'n Show]

Constructive Criticism

 

For one, I've never heard of you, nor read your style obviously, so I'm not going to read that entire column.

 

Some of the grammar is a little off.

 

Good idea with the "What if..." stuff, but I think you did too many.

 

Nice idea with the Quote of the Column and Match of the Column stuff, but you should actually talk about why you picked that match, instead of saying like "I pick {insert match here} and not saying anything about it or giving a brief review.

 

Column is a little long and boring in my opinion, but some of it was interesting.

[KingPK 0]

You want criticism?

 

- Don't brag about how many sites your column is on, and don't bash other sites. It doesn't come off well.

 

- Six paragraphs before you get to the main point of the article? WAYYYY too much. Just write an intro and then get to the point.

 

- The "Match of the Column" thing is pointless if you don't actually say WHY you picked it. That and the "Quote of the Column" should go at the beginning intro section of the piece since it isn't important to the main point.

 

- Above all, if you've had 250 people call you a bad writer, then you might have some problems. People may be offering constructive criticism (like I did), but if you won't listen to it, why should people bother to give it?

 

And if you just came here to post your column and ask for a gig, that's not how we do things here. PM or E-mail a sample to Dr. Tom.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I was lost at "Miss me?"

[KingPK 0]

So I guess since this guy isn't coming back since one person insulted him and we didn't fawn over his writing prowess? That's no fun.

[Guest Dougie Nunny]

Actually no, I was just gone all day sorry.

 

Thanks for the constructive criticism.

 

For one, I've never heard of you, nor read your style obviously, so I'm not going to read that entire column.

 

I don't expect everyone to read the entire column. Some people skip the main part and read the opening and conclusion. Some people read the end and last part.

 

One guy e-mailed and said he didn't like how I talked about how good the wrestling buisness (long story) and only read it for the IQ quote.

 

Some of the grammar is a little off.

 

Sorry. I try hard, but I am not perfect. 99% of columnists in the IWC have grammar problems. No one is perfect.

 

Where were these so I cna fix them?

 

Good idea with the "What if..." stuff, but I think you did too many.

Looking back, I agree, but the only 2 I would drop would be Hurricane and Dudley. Without that, it's still long.

 

Nice idea with the Quote of the Column and Match of the Column stuff, but you should actually talk about why you picked that match, instead of saying like "I pick {insert match here} and not saying anything about it or giving a brief review.

 

I was already writing too much and wanted to end it. I will keep that in mind though.

 

Column is a little long and boring in my opinion, but some of it was interesting.

 

Well, my "randon thoughts" section this time was really long because I was pissed about a lot of things and I needed to get it out in the open. Sorry. What else was boring?

 

Don't brag about how many sites your column is on, and don't bash other sites. It doesn't come off well.

 

At this point, I realize this is a REALLY bad column for new readers. I don't normally bad mouth sites or brag about my sites, but I hadn't written in 4 weeks, was VERY pissed abouit some things, and REALLY needed to get those things out in the open. This column is for me and is my vent and my output.

 

 

Six paragraphs before you get to the main point of the article? WAYYYY too much. Just write an intro and then get to the point.

 

I always do the "Random Thoughts" section before I start, but this time it was WAYY too long. I have explained why before. Usually, I do an opener, 2-3 quick paragraphs, and then then close to that section before I start. Why? A lot of fans like it so I talk about current events and plus it helps me flow better into writing.

 

The "Match of the Column" thing is pointless if you don't actually say WHY you picked it. That and the "Quote of the Column" should go at the beginning intro section of the piece since it isn't important to the main point.

 

They always go at the end. I won't budge on that. I should give more reasons though, and I will really try next time.

 

Above all, if you've had 250 people call you a bad writer, then you might have some problems. People may be offering constructive criticism (like I did), but if you won't listen to it, why should people bother to give it?

The guy above is the only guy to say I am truly bad. I have gotten 281 e-mails since it was posted, and about 70 IMs about it. 1 guy just bitched about my match sucking, and other than that, it was all good feedback. I love constructive criticsm, I just hate people who say it sucks and give no reason to back it up.

 

And if you just came here to post your column and ask for a gig, that's not how we do things here. PM or E-mail a sample to Dr. Tom.

 

Will do. Thanks.

 

So I guess since this guy isn't coming back since one person insulted him and we didn't fawn over his writing prowess? That's no fun.

 

I don't want people who fawn over me. I want people who will read it, maybe like it, and mostly get what I was planning to do. Constructive criticism is always good and was greatly appreciated. When I left the comp today, there was no more replies. Then I went to see The Village and went skating so it's not that I haven't come here, I just haven't been online.

 

Thanks a lot for the constructive criticism guys. Emphasis on constructive.

[UseTheSledgehammerUh 0]

Quote:

 

"What if Hurricane had won on Raw in 2003?"

 

That match with Triple H the night after WM 19 was a NON-TITLE MATCH...

[Guest Dougie Nunny]

No it wasn't.

 

Got the tape myself.