You’re An Idiot And Here’s Why 8.02.07: The Great Khali

Suffice to say the reaction to this was quite…strong. Most of which came from my good friend and esteemed pro-wrestling mind E. E. Jacobsen. I’ve know Jacobsen for 8 years and our friendship has only ever consisted of one topic of conversation…professional wrestling. E. E. Jacobsen, like many of you, took exception to Khali not being name an Idiot Of The Week last time around.

And so a decision has been made here at Idiot Headquarters. For one week and one week only, E. E. Jacobsen will nominate The Great Khali as Idiot Of The Week…and I, Rob Halden, King Of Hate And Bile……will defend The Great Khali.

Welcome to The Great Idiot Debate 2007 – The Great Khali

E. E. Jacobsen: Ok Rob, here is why I have such a problem with The Great Khali as your World Heavyweight Champion…. They’ve ruined his gimmick. He is no longer unstoppable therefore he is just another untalented big man. John Cena defeated him two straight PPV’s (both pinfall and submission) and the Undertaker last year bloodied him up on Smackdown.

Rob Halden: Well first of all Cena only has one clean victory over Khali since the tap-out is controversial as Khali’s foot was under the ropes. Plus it’s impossible to lose credibility to the most over-of-over superhero champions. John Cena’s only weakness is K-Fed, who is made out of pure, pure Kryptonite. BUT I agree Khali has lost his heat off the back of those “two” loses….and what better way to regain it than by winning the World Heavyweight Title?

E. E. Jacobsen: Okay, let’s get your heat back by winning a battle royal? Please, the end of that thing had Kane and Batista fighting each other and Khali coming from behind and picking the bones. Not only was Khali not good enough to be the WWE Champion, he comes in a wins the World Title in a battle royal. Wouldn’t it have been better if he would have beat someone for the title?

Rob Halden: Would you say the same to Ric Flair in ’92? Or Kurt Angle on Smackdown last year? Battle Royals are a great tradition and are made even more exciting when a title is on the line. It especially makes sense when the title has been vacated, opening up the opportunity to the whole roster. And on top of that, The Great Khali and men of his ilk are supposed to be the favourites and have the advantage in these Battle Royals, because LEGITIMATELY that makes sense, their size does make them the “real-life” favourites. Yet when do they actually ever win them? Do I have to go back to Big John Studd winning the first Rumble to find an example of that? The Undertaker only ever won once. It’s always the plucky underdog that somehow overcomes the odds. Well that’s crap! Khali winning makes a hell of a lot more sense than anyone else in that Battle Royal.

E. E. Jacobsen: You have two previously established World Champions in the names of Ric Flair and Kurt Angle. The WWE didn’t need to build a champion with them, nor convince anyone they’d be credible. They could have been handed a title and would been accepted as champion. Khali is not in the same league as those two. Khali can’t go in and have the matches they can. Khali can’t control the mic like they can. You can’t book Khali like them. There is also another time honoured tradition in Battle Royals. Everybody teams up to eliminate the big man. That dates back to Andre the Giant. So it made sense that big men don’t win the Battle Royals.

Rob Halden: So Khali can’t win a World Title…..until he’s become a recognised World Champion? That’s insane Troll logic!

E. E. Jacobsen: Well you’re an insane troll so you should get it. To win a first title in a battle royal discredits the reign. You didn’t actually beat anyone, at least not one on one. It’s the equivalent to getting a lucky draw.

Rob Halden: hence the term….‘heel’.

E. E. Jacobsen: So Khali is a heel. Even heel champions need to carry the title well. They need to be able to draw. They need heat. I can’t count on one hand how many Khali fans I know… actually most don’t care enough about Khali to hate him. I know you love the big men Rob, and I know you think Mark Henry would have been a better choice, but since Khali is the champion lets do this. Khali can’t work. He is clumsy as hell in the ring and unless he’s wrestling someone great his matches become drawn out and boring. He can’t talk and his translator can’t hold a candle to Davari. The champion has to be able to carry the show. He usually gets the most airtime. I really want to turn the station when I see Khali. To me Khali is Giant Gonzeles 2007

Rob Halden: first of all, winning a battle royal for the title is no different from Edge’s little Money-In-The-Bank-Cash-In trick in terms of “earning” the belt, but I didn’t see you or the rest of the IWC up in arms when Edge was wearing the strap. I don’t seem to remember anyone crying about “discrediting the reign”. Secondly, as long as Khali’s arsenal is kept small and devastating, his matches are kept short or he’s in there with class-act wrestlers, I don’t see how it matters. Look at 911 in ECW. Look at older big-man wrestlers like Taker and Sid Vicious who’s matches can be just as unfortunate and boring.

E. E. Jacobsen: Well if you can book everybody the same way then I suppose I could put the title on Rob Conway. When Edge won the WWE title he had so much heel heat on him that he made sense. In essence he stole the title and the WWE pushed it that way. (Same with his second title reign) I think the folly of your argument is that you are putting Khali with the top tier guys in WWE. Khali has no heat. He doesn’t have the talent to gain quick heat. I am not saying Khali couldn’t be a World Champion. My gripe is the way WWE once again pushes things that no one really wants and then insults us with booking that makes no sense.

Rob Halden: Well don’t forget Khali wasn’t exactly their number one program for the summer. They suffered yet another crippling loss when Edge got taken out, so in that situation what do you do? Ruin Batista’s return-to-the-gold story in 15 minutes on free TV with no build up? Put the title on Kane, who’s only been back in the title picture for half an hour? Or do you go with the most dominantly booked wrestler on the entire Smackdown roster? Who’s just come off a main-event run on Raw where he was shown to be in the same category as Cena, HBK and Orton?

E. E. Jacobsen: Well, they do have Ric Flair who could have a legitimate 18th title run. Turn him heel and have him give it back to Batista. I think you’re giving WWE creative to much credit in thinking this out. He is big. The WWE thinks big is everything and that the audience is dumb enough to not look at his talent.

Rob Halden: Wrestling is still a carnival spectacle. Always has been and always will be, and great, big, huge guys like Khali will always have a place. Why? Because they look legitimately dangerous. It’s the Samoa Joe effect, only older and it has the opposite effect on the IWC.

E. E. Jacobsen: I don’t agree with that at all. I believe that is 1980’s thinking. You cannot book in 2007 like you could book in 1988. We live in a smarter world. Wrestling shouldn’t be freak shows and monsters anymore because it insults even the casual fan. You need more. You need to be engaged with the characters. We’ve seen countless amounts of big men in wrestling. Who are the successful ones? The ones who transcend their size. Kevin Nash, Big Show, Undertaker, Kane, etc. The days of the chop, kick, grunting has long past. This Khali thing is bigger even than this discussion. It proves a regression in booking philosophies that is ruining wrestling. That’s why Raw just got a 2.5 rating…

Rob Halden: Oh bullshit man, Raw dropped a 2.5 because wrestling just doesn’t pull with the big markets unless it’s got a Diva Search of a Death Of Mr. McMahon angle, and the smartest booking in the world tells you to run in the opposite direction of that. Raw’s big ratings come from K-Fed, Limo Explosions and the Benoit Controversy, not from a smartly booked feud between two great workers. The rest of the audience doesn’t give a crap about that and they never will. And you can’t call it 1980’s booking when the majority of successful and entertaining wrestling booking has existed since the Carny days and thrived with just some subtle changes and slight updates. Wrestling is about monsters, cowards, heroes and evil men. Sure, you have to dress them up with MTV music videos, or have them drive a NASCAR motor but it’s all the same basic principles as day-one in the wrestling world.

E. E. Jacobsen: I guess the attitude era didn’t happen? When Raw got over 6 in the ratings. When technical wrestlers like Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels were champion. When Steve Austin was neither hero nor villain. When the Rock rose to fame? Where were your celebs? There were none. People were drawn in because wrestling because accessible to them. Wrestling wasn’t above them anymore. The main story was a guy kicking the shit out of his boss. A time where the WWE gave the fans what they wanted. Not what the bubble bookers who have been thinking the same way for God knows how long thought would work.

Rob Halden: The attitude era did happen but like I said, it was alterations on a theme, and updating of the basic playbook and philosophies. But that audience isn’t there anymore, just like it isn’t there anymore for MTV. That wasn’t a wrestling audience that was a passing fad audience and it’s time we stopped trying to chase people who are never going to tune in for the wrestling. And also I’m sick of this “give the fans what they want / tell the fans what they want” crap. The fans are not unified and they change their minds and turn on a dial as quick as a hiccup. How can anyone book a program within the confines of a narrative when you have to flip-flop every month and bow to the crowd. The best booking decision WWE have made in recent years was resisting turning Cena heel.

E. E. Jacobsen: The attitude audience isn’t there anymore because the WWE kicked them out. They stopped developing actual characters and hot feuds and went simply for cheap and easy disposal BS. Which brings us back to The Great Khali, Umaga, Snitsky, all of those jackasses who are one-dimensional. Now that Khali is world champion they’ll keep rolling this people in for us. That’s why Khali shouldn’t be champion.

You’re An Idiot Because – You’re Clumsy, Talentless, And Indicative Of A Booking Attitude That Goes For The Quick/Cheap Fix

Rob Halden: Khali has the look, the physicality and the win-loss record to be a champion. Is he my all-time favourite wrestler? No. But he is being used 100% correctly and you can’t fault the WWE for doing so. The Big Show was a joke until the WWE recommitted to him during the Lesnar program and that lasted him all the way through his great stint in ECW up to the end of WWE career. He never had incredible heat, but he was believable and legit and good-god do I crave those things in this pro-wrestling world.

You’re NOT An Idiot Because – You Combine A Monstrous Look With A Great Booking History And Capitalised On A Unique And Believable Title Situation

But don’t let us have the final say! The Great Idiot Debate is all about trying to convince you of our side of the story. It’s all down to you Idiot Readers! Cast your vote at the e-mail below and make the biggest democratic decision of the year!