The Piledriver Report 4.30.08: The Backlash of Backlash

Posted by Ronny Sarnecky on 04.30.2008

While many fans cheered (or booed) after Triple H won the WWE World title, Ronny Sarnecky wasn’t one of them. He didn’t even watch the show. This week’s “Piledriver Report” examines why Ronny didn’t have any interest in the show. He also takes a look at what on this week’s RAW bothered him.

This week, World Wrestling Entertainment presented "Backlash" live on pay per view. For the first time in awhile, I did not order the show. Not only did I not order the telecast, but also I had no interest in watching the program. This is the first time in a long time where I didn't get a post-WrestleMania buzz. Instead, I felt like I had a post-WrestleMania hangover.

I usually love the "Backlash" pay per view. The show contains matches that are WrestleMania rematches, mixed with new feuds that will take us into the summer. If WrestleMania is the climax to the WWE's wrestling season, then Backlash is the beginning of the WWE's new year.

While this year's show featured a WrestleMania rematch in the Undertaker vs. Edge, as well as new feuds like Batista vs. Shawn Michaels, this pay per view lacked the spark of previous "Backlash" telecasts. One look at the card, and you can see why I had a lack of excitement going into the event.

Big Show vs. Great Khali: Sure, the Big Show helped carry Floyd Mayweather to a better then expected match at WrestleMania XXIV. Even though the Great Khali began his career in October 2000, Floyd Mayweather is hundred times the better performer after only a couple of months of training then Khali has been in more then seven years. Khali is horrible. I can't even watch him wrestle. Whenever he comes to the ring, my remote changes the channel on it's own. Even if the Big Show were a cross between Ric Flair, Shawn Michaels, and Chris Benoit in their primes, he wouldn't be able to carry Khali to a good match. If I can't stomach watching Khali on RAW, SmackDown!, or ECW, why would I even think about paying $50 for the "privilege" of seeing Khali stink up the joint on pay per view. From all of the reviews that I have read, it sounds like I was right. According to reviews, the Big Show/Khali was not good at all.

Chavo Guerrero faced Kane for the ECW World title. I predicted that Kane would win the pre-Mania battle royal, and face Chavo for the title later in the evening. I was pleasantly surprised to see their match last only seconds at WrestleMania. I wasn't interested in seeing them fight then, and wasn't interested in a rematch. When I think of Chavo Guerrero, I do not think of a World Championship level wrestler, even if it is the ECW World title. On top of that, Kane vs. Chavo doesn't have the chemistry or believability that Kane/Undertaker, or even CM Punk would have against Kane.

Beth Phoenix, Jillian Hall, Melina, Layla, Victoria, and Natalya vs. Michelle McCool, Mickie James, Kelly Kelly, Maria, Ashley, and Cherry: While there is some talent in the match with Beth Phoenix, Melina, Victoria, Natalya, and Mickie James, the WWE has killed off the Women's division so badly that any women's match is just an excuse to leave the room. The days of Trish vs. Lita have fallen by the waist side. Instead, we get the usual T&A fest. It's a shame, because they do have some good workers, and others who are trying to learn. However, the WWE insists on treating its Women's division as a reason for prepubescent wrestling fans to drool all over themselves, because they just saw a panty shot of Maria. Maybe if the WWE would treat its Women's division like TNA does, I may actually care enough about the division to watch it. Admittedly, I did not watch the pay per view, so I don't know what kind of match they had. According to some reviews, the match was better then most WWE Women's matches. While I am glad to hear that, the WWE is going to have to present more serious women's matches on a regular basis before I get interested.

The main event featured a Four Way Elimination Match for the WWE World title. Randy Orton defended the title against JBL, John Cena, and Triple H. I thought this was an awful main event for a pay per view. First off, JBL should be nowhere near a pay per view main event. Since he came back to wrestle full time, JBL has not been able to shake off the ring rust. Then you have Triple H, John Cena, and Randy Orton, the three participants in the WWE World title match at WrestleMania. The problem with those participants is that we have seen them all fight each other too many times recently. Another problem is that most people hate the John Cena character. They don't want to see him win the title yet again. The Cena hatred isn't the type of great "heat" that most hated characters hear. Think of Roddy Piper circa 1984-85. The Cena "heat" is the Hogan type heat from the early 1990s WWF. It's the "Oh God, not again!" type of boos. Triple H, while he gets cheered, many people, myself included, do not want to see the belt around his waist. To be perfectly honest with you, having Triple H as the champion isn't the worst thing in the world. After all, except for one night in September 2007, it's been quite some time since the "King of Kings" had a gold belt around his waist. That being said, I don't think that HHH should hold the title. He doesn't need the belt to be over. Plus, even without the title, Triple H is still the center of RAW. Every time Trips doesn't have the title, it just feels like the belt is on loan until he gets the strap back. To me, Randy Orton is still a fresh champion, like Edge was in 2006. To have to watch Triple H or John Cena's same old tired act on top isn't worth me blowing $50 on.

Don't get me wrong, "Backlash" did offer a couple of attractive match-ups. There was MVP vs. Matt Hardy: Their rivalry was one of the best storylines on SmackDown! before Matt was injured. Unfortunately, their feud lost a lot of steam during Hardy's recovery time. As interested as I was in the match, I was also realistic in knowing that the two would only be given about 10 minutes.

Another match was I was somewhat interested in was the Undertaker defending the World Heavyweight Championship against Edge. Their WrestleMania match was really good. Even though the result of this match was obvious, an Undertaker victory, Edge and the "Deadman" have an unbelievable amount of chemistry together. Some reviewers have determined that this match was better then their WrestleMania contest. While that may be true, is it worth $50 to for the enjoyment of just one match.

Well, one match may be stretching it. There was another match that I had major interest in. Batista vs. Shawn Michaels. I thought the build up was really good. This was probably the true main event in my eyes. This was definitely the freshest match-up on the docket. Despite the build-up, when Chris Jericho was inserted as a special guest referee, I lost interest in the match. Not that I don't like Chris Jericho. I do. However, what was his motivation to get in between Shawn and Batista. He acted like more of an instigator then someone that had a problem with one or both parties. I expected some sort of a screw job ending involving Jericho. I find out that I was wrong regarding the ending. However, when I read that this match came across as a house show match, I was glad that I skipped the show.

After reading review after review, it sounds like some people liked the show, some people hated the show, while others thought is was an average show. To me, those responses have justified me in not buying the pay per view. I will eventually see the show once it comes on WWE 24/7 in a couple of months for free. If the WWE continues to build up lackluster pay per views, I will be saving a lot of money off of my cable bill, and will be having a lot more Sunday nights free. If I happen to miss an unexpectedly good show, well at least there's always WWE 24/7 for me to catch up.

PILEDRIVER EXTRA: This article was written Monday before RAW. No that RAW is over I feel I need to comment. First off, the WWE decided to give us a rematch of the Women's match from the pay per view on RAW. Plus, we were going to see Triple H defend the title against Randy Orton as well. While I am all for the WWE showing higher caliber matches, they should not give away rematches from the prior night's PPV show. It cheapens the experience for the fans that paid money to watch the show. Why should they pay $50 for a pay per view when the WWE will just give have the same match for free on RAW the very next night.

I am also against having wrestlers like Triple H and Randy Orton fight each other on RAW when they will be asked to carry the buy rate for in three weeks for the next pay per view. Hasn't the WWE learned that the fans will be more willing to spend their money to watch a match between two guys that had very limited physical contact with each other. Just look at the Internet over the last few months. What matches were the fans most excited about seeing? There was Michaels vs. Flair, Samoa Joe against Kurt Angle, and Batista vs. Michaels. What did all three matches have in common? The build for each match did not include these wrestlers locking up with each other. The only physical involvement consisted of either a handshake, or a cheap shot here and there. Nothing more. The fans couldn't wait for these guys to lock up. However, if they had a match during the build up, the fans wouldn't have been as excited for these matches. Been there, seen that. What is the incentive to see Randy Orton and Triple H fight next month? Oh, that's right, they will be in a steel cage. However, is a steel cage enough of a reason to see the pay per view after already watching these guys square off several times already?

While we are on the subject of Randy Orton vs. Triple H, what the hell was that on Monday Night? Steve Regal demands that the production truck cut off RAW during the middle of a really good match! That was totally WCW "Sorry, we're out of time." Nitro B.S. during the Monday night wars era. I'm already starting to find reasons why I shouldn't order their pay per views. Now, they are giving me reasons why I shouldn't watch their TV shows! Absolutely ludicrous! Why should I invest two hours of my life watching the WWE when they will pull the plug on the ending. It's a good thing that "24" isn't back until 2009. I wonder how many complaints the WWE will be getting today over at Titan Towers.

One final point that has been annoying me. What's up with the new "quiet" Shawn Michaels? He's a great promo guy, but all of a sudden, he's become a mime. I understand when he initially did it after beating Ric Flair. If felt bad, and was depressed about retiring the legend. He finally started cutting promos against Batista. Then, this past Monday, he was back to the "zipped lipped" Michaels when Jericho called him out. Jericho was really funny. I forgot about "Fuji General." Classic stuff. However, who cares if Michaels played "possum" or not. Bret used to do that all the time, most notably against Roddy Piper at WrestleMania VIII. Who cares? As in the words of Jesse Ventura, "win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat." BTW, the limp by Michaels was really overacting. With a hobble like he was sporting, he should have came to the ring on crutches. At least, that would have made it a little more realistic.

Till next week, I'm out.