humanoid92

Obviously inspired by the other recent IC Title threads. Just because it's fun to talk about the IC Title. They don't have to be title changes, just title matches. I guess you don't have to limit it to just five. Like all these types of threads, the criteria is up to you. Just make sure you list what your own criteria is. For instance, I have several different lists, including: Historical Signifigance 1. Bret vs. Bulldog 2. Savage vs. Steamboat 3. Michaels vs. Razor (WM 10) 4. Warrior vs. Hogan 5. Warrior vs. Honky Best Matches (Best Workrate) 1. Savage vs. Steamboat 2. Bret vs. Bulldog 3. Bret vs. Piper 4. Michaels vs. Jarrett (IYH) 5. Bret vs. Perfect Most Underrated 1. Michaels vs. Jarrett (IYH) 2. Razor vs. Jarrett (RR 95) 3. Warrior vs. Rude (SS 89) 4. Michaels vs. Bulldog (SNME) 5. Razor vs. Diesel (SS 94) Honorable mentions: Jericho vs. Benoit (RR 01), Michaels vs. Tatanka (WM 9), Edge vs. Storm (SS 01), Michaels vs. Jannetty (Raw 5/93), Jericho vs. Benoit vs. Angle (WM 2000), Edge vs. Jarrett (Fully Loaded) Most Overrated 1. Rock vs. Shamrock (WM 14) 2. HHH vs. Rock (SS 98) 3. Warrior vs. Rude (WM 5) 4. Warrior vs. Hogan (WM 6) 5. Perfect vs. Boss Man (WM 7) Most Disappointing 1. Perfect vs. Michaels (SS 93) 2. Owen vs. Austin (SS 97) 3. Perfect vs. Tornado (SS 90) 4. Edge vs. Regal (RR 02) 5. Savage vs. Steele (WM 2)

I have a qustion: How can a match be one of the five most signifigant matches of a title, yet be overrated at the same time? As far as IC title matches it was not even brought to question. I know it was title for title, but when they talk about it now a days its Hogan vs Warrior in the Ultimate Showdown with little talked about the IC title itself being on the line. I can agree with you that it was an overrated match. But as for as the IC title goes, it was completely not a signifigant moment. That's a fair question. The quick answer would be that it's because underrated and overrated are opposites. Historical significance and overrated aren't opposites, so it's possible for the same match to fall under both categories. As far as it being historically significant, I think that's already pretty well known. It was the main-event of WM 6, it was the two biggest stars in the world facing each other, it was Hogan supposedly passing the torch. You can argue that it wasn't significant in terms of just being an IC Title Match, but I think the fact that it's the only match I can remember that had the WWF Title against the IC Title with both belts on the line, and the fact that the IC Champ actually won does make it significant in that regard. IC Champs and World Champs have faced each other before, but I can't remember a time where both titles were actually on the line and it ended with one guy taking home both belts. And when else has the IC Title been on the line in the final match of a huge PPV, let alone a Wrestlemania with 60,000+ people there? (Other than Bret/Bulldog, I can't think of another.) It all depends on how you define historical significance. Going by your requirement that it has to be significant as it specifically relates to the IC Title, Bret vs. Bulldog wouldn't be all that significant either. After all, Bulldog's reign never amounted to anything. Two months later he jobbed the belt away for good and left the company. So when you look at it from that perspective, that match wasn't significant at all. But the reason I ranked it #1 in that category is because of its overall impact ont he company, not just what it meant for the IC Title itself. Bret vs. Bulldog was a tremendously important match. It was the first PPV that didn't end with Hogan, or have Hogan at all, and Vince trusted two midcarders to go out and close the show with a ***** wrestling match, rather than throw another invincible superhero like the Warrior out there to "hulk up" and end the show. In a lot of ways, this match and its position on the card paved the way for the "small guy era" that took over in the mid 90s. It made Bret Hart's career, and helped paved the way for guys like Michaels to be considered as legitimate main eventers and World Title contenders. Not to mention that it was Bulldog's career defining moment, the introduction of "Hart Family storylines" that they continued to milk for the better part of the next five years, and that the match made Bret a legend in Europe, where he continued to be such a huge draw over there the rest of his career. So as an IC Title match alone, maybe it wasn't too significant. But take the big picture into consideration and it certainly was. The same can be said for the WM 6 match. As far as Hogan vs. Warrior being an overrated match itself, you already said that you agree with me. It was a very significant and famous, memorable event, but the match itself was not that great and the actual action is remembered more fondly than it probably should be. It was a great effort from the two and it had plenty of drama, but when people walk around calling it ****1/2, well, it's just not. I'm glad you called me out on this, though, because it made me explain what I meant by historical significance and allowed me to give my views on how important Bret vs. Bulldog was. That's the problem with these list threads. People can just list things #1-5 and not back them up or give any explanation for their rankings, which of course does not lend itself to a lot of discussion. If I'd gone into detail from the beginning, maybe you wouldn't have had to ask me to justify it, so I'm as guilty as anyone.

Yes. He's not a danielson or anyone like that but I do find him entertaining. He's a freak show. He's like that whore at a frat party that's drunk as hell and you watch to see what she will do next. Cena as a worker is better than :Mysterio, Punk, Joe, and most everybody. Worker means more than Workrate. Cena is one of the best people to get a match over with the crowd. Just watch his matches compared to Punk's. Of course this all has to do with booking but WWE is booking him right. Mysterio, Punk, and Joe are three guys. 1) Rey has been hurt for a long time now, 2) I admitted I haven't seen much of Punk, and 3) I didn't mention Joe. The point remains- is Cena honestly #1 in the company? Really? Not one person is better? I'm not talking about a string of 3 PPV matches or Raw main events. I'm talking about ability. I understand what you mean when you say that worker means more than workrate, but then you have to consider the following: Is Cena up against everybody in this debate or just the other main eventers? The way things are booked, Cena's match is always going to be the most important on the card. He's always going to get a lot of time. It's usually going to have heat. It's going to have the machine behind it. So are Batista, Umaga, Lashley, Khali, and the McMahons the only other competition in this debate? If so, yeah, Cena craps on them. Or is it just about how good of a wrestler he is? If this was the '80s and there were MSG shows and Coliseum tapes and 15 minute draws on TV every so often, and the midcard got any sort of time whatsoever, a lot more guys would have the chance to be in the conversation. I mean if things were booked the way they are now when Hogan was on top, would you think Hogan was the best because he'd be the only one that got time and was pushed? Because then Savage, Perfect, Bret, etc. aren't even eligible for the conversation. There are only a few guys more important than Cena right now. They are The Mcmahons, HHH(who's injured) and probably Lashley. Cena is more important than Khali and Umaga. Since Batista is on the C show, Cena is bigger than him. That doesn't mean cena is better but is more important in the wwe's mind. I'm not the biggest Cena fan in the world. I liked him better when he was on Smackdown doing the Thuganomics gimmick. But i'm not going to deny the truth. Besides Vince, Shane and HHH, Cena is number 1 in that company. Just watch Judgment day 07. That crowd was dead for almost anything but when Cena came out, that crowd went crazy. They were hot for the whole match. If that doesn't prove he's a good wrestler, I don't know what does. That was pretty much my point. Cena is the #1 guy on the #1 show. Likewise, I'm really not the biggest Cena hater in the world. I'm not saying he isn't over or selling merch. He plays his role pretty well. I'm just talking about from an in-ring standpoint. Hulk Hogan played his role extremely well and made zillions of dollars. Doesn't mean he was a great wrestler. I'm not talking about success or money drawn or whatever. Just talking about the guy's matches and in-ring wrestling ability. He's not brutal by any stretch. But there's no way he's the best. As for the #1 wrestler issue, the only reason I mentioned that phrase was because he's clearly being pushed as the centerpiece of the show. He's the face of the company. Like Hogan once was, like Austin once was, etc. That's all I meant when I said he's the number one guy. He's the "main character." But best wrestler? In my opinion, he's not.

You can't compare Rey Jr. in his peak to Cena now. Rey was just a crusierweight when he was in his peak. Let's say his peak was 96-99. He was over and having great matches week in week out. But was he as over as Cena is now? No. Cena/HBK might be a better argument but again, it was a different time. Back in 95-96, the only good talents were Bret and HBK with a few exceptions here and there. Now with Cena, He can have good matches with guys like Edge, Orton, Umaga even Khali. With Cena, it's not about workrate, it's about Charisma. But that's not the point. I'm not saying they were in the same position on the card. I'm talking about who is a better wrestler. Has nothing to do with pushes or drawing or main eventing. In 1990 the Ultimate Warrior was the WWF Champion and was over. Bret Hart was in a tag team and Bret Hart was a better wrestler. Cena is pushed as #1. This isn't debatable. But is he the #1 wrestler there is? That is highly debatable. And in my opinion, he's not even really close.

Yes. He's not a danielson or anyone like that but I do find him entertaining. He's a freak show. He's like that whore at a frat party that's drunk as hell and you watch to see what she will do next. Cena as a worker is better than :Mysterio, Punk, Joe, and most everybody. Worker means more than Workrate. Cena is one of the best people to get a match over with the crowd. Just watch his matches compared to Punk's. Of course this all has to do with booking but WWE is booking him right. If you really do like Khali, more power to you. I personally have never enjoyed the big huge monsters. Like I said, guys like him have their place. I just wouldn't expect that from the typical smark (not you personally but generally speaking) that has spent years bashing the likes of other slow-moving big men, fat guys, and freak shows. Mysterio, Punk, and Joe are three guys. 1) Rey has been hurt for a long time now, 2) I admitted I haven't seen much of Punk, and 3) I didn't mention Joe. The point remains- is Cena honestly #1 in the company? Really? Not one person is better? I'm not talking about a string of 3 PPV matches or Raw main events. I'm talking about ability. I understand what you mean when you say that worker means more than workrate, but then you have to consider the following: Is Cena up against everybody in this debate or just the other main eventers? The way things are booked, Cena's match is always going to be the most important on the card. He's always going to get a lot of time. It's usually going to have heat. It's going to have the machine behind it. So are Batista, Umaga, Lashley, Khali, and the McMahons the only other competition in this debate? If so, yeah, Cena craps on them. Or is it just about how good of a wrestler he is? If this was the '80s and there were MSG shows and Coliseum tapes and 15 minute draws on TV every so often, and the midcard got any sort of time whatsoever, a lot more guys would have the chance to be in the conversation. I mean if things were booked the way they are now when Hogan was on top, would you think Hogan was the best because he'd be the only one that got time and was pushed? Because then Savage, Perfect, Bret, etc. aren't even eligible for the conversation.

Well it depends on how you interpret the discussion. Maybe Rey is run-down now but does Cena now approach what Rey did at his peak? And Michaels is obviously not as good as he used to be now either. But does Cena now approach Michaels at his peak? Ditto for Flair, Benoit, HHH, etc. Of course the only reason this even becomes an issue is because the business is so screwed up now and everyone stays around in the same role for 20 years, but that's a whole other thread. (Or, considering which thread we're in, it's at least a whole other page.)

I agree. Maybe Mark Henry has improved but he's still not very good. To see him so consistently praised like that is just weird. I think there's something to the whole smarkish attitudes collapsing on themselves and doing a 180. The original stereotypical smark pulled for the overlooked, talented workers and went against the popular opinion of the marks. Then when the business went downhill and undeserving guys were put on top it was initially cool to bash them as expected. But it's almost like the new stereotypical smark feels it necessary to rebel against general smark opinions, to the point where it's now cool to be an anti-smark and agree with marks all over again. This is why we get so much crap about how Henry, Khali, and to a lesser extent Cena are so great. Well, they're not. When I see people praise Khali, I don't get it. Do you really enjoy it when this guy comes on to your TV screen? You really say to yourself, man I hope Khali is wrestling next? You honestly want to see him in main events? You really want him to be the champ? He's Giant Gonzalez 2.0. Look, I'm not saying you're only allowed to like 220 pound guys or Chris Benoit technician types. There's always been a place for guys like Khali in wrestling and there always will be. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. I just don't understand how you could possibly take him seriously and want to see him anywhere near a main event. To me it reeks of going against the expected smark opinion just for the hell of it. I don't buy that many people on this board legitimately like the guy. Cena is a different beast because obviously he's way better than Khali or Henry, but I still think a similar principle applies. There was so much backlash against the guy initially (and for good reason) that now a lot of internet fans are swinging back the other way and agreeing with the mark fanbase just to be different online. This isn't a case of me hating Cena or bashing him just to bash him. I don't care about the guy. I'm completely indifferent. I just find it hard to believe that so many smarks are eating up his act. I think Cena's okay. The guy does a solid job in his role. It's just a terribly boring and uninteresting role. If you enjoy his matches, that's fine. I personally don't think they're anything special or that there's anything special about him. In any other era he'd be a midcarder. He's neither a guy that can get by solely on his character or charisma like Hogan or Rock, nor is he a guy that is good enough in the ring to get by on that alone like Bret or Shawn. He has his strong points from both sides; he's got a pretty good presence about him and he can have the occasional good match. But there's plenty of guys histrocially that have been a better combination of both those extremes. Everyone that's claiming Cena is some top-flight worker or the best wrestler in the company or the world or whatever is just fooling themselves. Believing that is not all that different than believing the Ultimate Warrior was the best guy in the company because he squashed everyone, except you should know better by now. (Not that he's actually as poor of a worker as Warrior.) Cena is given a ridiculous and constant push. Of course he's gonna look good. He's the only guy on Raw that consistently gets to have long matches. Also, I think people forget that he's part of the new breed of wrestler that is pre-packaged from day one, in an era where promos are scripted verbatim, none of the new guys hone their craft before getting thrown on TV, and nobody knows how to call a match in the ring anymore. This isn't his fault, but to say he's a better worker than the best of the old-school guys that have been around forever is just silly. How can anyone seriously claim that Cena is the hands-down best wrestler in the company? Off the top of my head, there's Michaels, Benoit, Edge, HHH, Mysterio, Jericho, and you could make strong arguments for guys like Booker, Matt Hardy, Regal, Finlay, etc. Probably Punk, though I admit I haven't seen enough of him. And I hesitate to say Flair since he's an old man now. But you get the point. I'm not saying all those guys should have Cena's spot, but really, you're telling me there's not one guy in the company that's better in the ring than John Cena? Okay.

Agreed on Savage vs. Honky. That actually did cross my mind but I didn't include it for some reason. I guess Rude vs. Warrior WM V isn't widely praised but I've seen it get its share of props. It's a noteable event because of the shocking upset, but the match itself is pretty bad. I also guess Boss Man vs. Perfect from WM VII isn't universally loved either, but whenever anyone does praise it I kind of scratch my head. Just to add in my five personal favorites, as you guys have done: 1. Bret vs. Piper 2. Bret vs. Bulldog 3. Shawn vs. Jarrett 4. Savage vs. Steamboat 5. Razor vs. Jarrett With a huge honorable mention to the two Shawn/Razor ladder matches.

17. Jericho/Rock 32. Rock/Foley 24. Razor/Michaels 25. Mick Foley/Randy Orton 19. Flair-Perfect 20. HHH-Angle-Steph 21. HBK-Deisel 22. Angle/Benoit 37. HBK/Jericho 29. Bulldogs/Hart Foundation 27. Hardy's/Dudley's/E&C 30. Bret/Lawler 23. Jannetty/Michaels 26. Austin/Hart 34. Taker/Kane 18. Crush-Savage

Are we supposed to include repeats to add more support to those already mentioned or do they have to be ten new ones? British Bulldogs/Hart Foundation Steamboat/Savage Warrior/Rude Virgil/DiBiase Jake/Savage Jannetty/Michaels Bret/Lawler Razor/Michaels Bret/Owen Bret/Michaels

If you could meet and spend a day with anyone that's ever been prominently involved in the wrestling industry, who would be your top five choices? The day could be anything you want it to be: you could interview them, pick their brain, follow them around before a show, take a tour of their house, train with them, or just plain hang out with them. They can be active or retired, they can be wrestlers, managers, refs, promoters, announcers, ring announcers, bookers, road agents, etc. Only two rules: 1) No women. Not because I'm sexist, but because I don't want this to turn into a "who would you try to bang?" thread. 2) No dead people. Just because they're gone now and it wouldn't possible to spend any time with them under any circumstances. If you want to do a separate list for either forbidden category, then go for it. These are not necessarily my five favorite wrestling personalities of all time, just the ones I think it'd be most interesting to spend some time with... My list: 1) Bobby Heenan 2) Bret Hart 3) Howard Finkel 4) Chris Jericho 5) Jim Cornette Honorable mentions: Christian, Mick Foley, Shawn Michaels, Randy Savage, Shane McMahon Really my top three are the only definites. I think Heenan is one of the funniest people on the planet. Bret is my favorite wrestler of all-time. And Finkel must have a million stories from being around for so long. With my last two choices, I wanted at least one other actual wrestler so I went with Jericho for more of a modern name. He seems to be a legit good guy and is probably a lot of fun to hang out with. He barely edged out Christian in that regard. Cornette was a toss-up. On one hand, it'd be really interesting to pick his brain and hear him rant about various people, but on the other hand he's kind of an asshole and I'd probably never get a word in.

That's fair and I can see your point. With guys like Shamrock, Venis, Carlito, Nitro, etc., it's not like they tarnished the legacy of the belt or anything. But I do think they're beneficiaries of a certain era of booking. They were around during periods where you might see 6-10 different IC Champions per year where every other midcarder seems to get a turn with it. It's not that they're bad wrestlers, but with their place on the card, if they were around during a time when the belt actually meant something, could you really see them being serious contenders? Maybe, but I don't think so. It's not their fault, and once they got the belt they did no better or worse than anyone else. I just used them as an example of people that might not have ever gotten the title in the first place if not for bad booking. I just think when it comes down to it, their reigns were irrelevant.

I'm not going to count the one day guys (Mountie, Douglas) and the current Marella reign since it's only just begun, although that one surely has the potential to end up on here. Worst 5 in that they were pointless ideas to begin with: 1) Godfather 2) Albert 3) Road Dogg 4) Test 5) Billy Gunn Godfather and Road Dogg held it for two weeks and was pointless Russo crap when the title literally changed hands every couple weeks in the first half of 1999. Albert has since proven himself to be talented, yes, but at the time there was no reason whatsoever for his reign. The IC Title is usually not a "big guy" belt and with the ongoing Invasion angle, there are about twelve other guys that would have been better suited to be the champion during that time. Storm vs. Albert still ranks as one of the most random IC Title matches ever. Test and Billy Gunn both suck and were way past their point of relative usefulness when they won the Title. The Test vs. Edge US/IC unification was lame. Worst 5 as far as people that were over but their IC reigns didn't amount to crap: 1) Chyna 2) Umaga 3) Austin 4) Kane 5) Ahmed I don't think Chyna needs to be explained. Umaga's reign was the definition of pointless. Kane's reign was a product of a bad angle that went down because they had no idea what to do with the main event scene after WM X-7. Kane vs. HHH should not have been an IC Title program to begin with. So Kane beats him and then randomly drops it to Albert a few weeks later. Ahmed was over, but for those of you that knock Shawn, Ahmed didn't drop it in the ring either. Also, though not entirely his fault, I see this as the start of the decline of the title's worth. Goldust was the last good solid IC Champ from that era, and when he dropped the title to Ahmed he lost all the momentum he had been building and never came close to getting it back. People will probably bitch at me for Austin, but really, what the hell did he ever do as IC Champ? The Owen storyline leading up to Summerslam was fine, but even though it wasn't his fault, he still ended up winning the thing in an embarrasing way, and immediately having to forefit it. Then he predictably squashes Owen in a five minute match to regain it, and a few weeks later he throws the belt in a river. I'm not seeing the greatness there. His rise to the WWF Title would have been just fine if he had never become involved in the IC Title picture; in fact, it may have even been a lot smoother. When all is said and done, over the last decade, most IC Title reigns have either been bad or irrelevant. Even the typical traditional IC Title candidates like Owen, Benoit, Angle, Jericho, Edge, Christian, Regal, RVD, etc. never really got the great reigns they deserved because of the way things were booked. Taking away talented guys like that who were misused, here is what I believe to be the list of people that were bad, undeserving, or simply irrelevant IC Champions: Mountie, Douglas, Shamrock, Val Venis, Road Dogg, Godfather, D'Lo, Chyna, Rikishi, Billy Gunn, Kane, Albert, Test, Carlito, Nitro, Umaga, and most likely Marella. There are plenty of other guys whose reigns I'm not a big fan of, but I think these are the best picks as far as people who probably had no right to get their hands on the title in the first place.

This is why I asked for criteria. I can think of a million different ways to look at it. There's: Top 5 guys who did the most for the belt Top 5 guys who the belt did most for Top 5 guys for whom the belt was their crowning moment Top 5 guys who had the best matches with it Top 5 favorite workers that ever held it Top 5 best workers that ever held it even if their reigns weren't the greatest etc. As for the bottom-five lists, there's no way Marty belongs on there. I mean, yeah, his reign wasn't much, but it did result in two legit great matches, one of the first "Holy crap" moments on Raw, and the debut of Diesel (which was at least a significant debut). There's no way he belongs on a bottom five list instead of, say, Road Dogg. I'll agree with the Umaga selection. Totally pointless. Shawn Michaels: It all depends on your criteria, but I don't know how anyone could honestly try to claim he's in the bottom five. I'm a huge Bret Hart fan and I've always hated Shawn's bullshit too. He definitely deserves to be knocked for all the crap he did, but bottom five just doesn't make sense to me.

You obviously haven't lived amongst Yankee fans for the past ten years.

Al, where do you stand on the Pettitte is overrated issue?

I enjoyed it while watching it live. It's never been a match I ever went out of my way to see again, though. I watch Savage-Steamboat and Savage-Warrior on nearly a monthly basis. Very well put, Chris. I'm not gonna knock anyone for liking Rock/Austin but I really just don't get how it's that great of a match. I was going to ask people what they see about it that supposedly makes it so special. But you pretty much summed it up right there.

Well, I expected more of a turnout for the final round (inlcuding me, only ten people voted), but it's been a couple weeks and I gave the final thread several bumps, so I guess this is all I'm gonna get. Thanks to those who voted in any round, and especially the final. The results of the final eight are as follows (in countdown fashion): 8) Christian vs. Chris Jericho, WM XX (56 points) Lowest vote: 8th (four) Highest vote: 1st Christian vs. Jericho had the most last place votes with four. 7) Edge & Christian vs. Dudley Boyz vs. Hardy Boyz, WM X-7 (56 points) Lowest vote: 7th (three) Highest vote: 4th (three) Although they tied in points, the TLC match gets 7th place because it didn't receive a single last place vote, whereas Christian vs. Jericho got four of them. 6) Bret Hart vs. Rowdy Roddy Piper, WM VIII (53 points) Lowest vote: 8th Highest vote: 2nd Only four of the ten votes had this one at fourth or above. 5) Steve Austin vs. The Rock, WM X-7 (51 points) Lowest vote: 8th (three) Highest vote: 1st Austin vs. The Rock was ranked in every position from one through eight at least once (other than seventh). It was all over the map, and so not surprisingly, it finished in the middle of the pack. 4) Ultimate Warrior vs. Randy Savage, WM VII (47 points) Lowest vote: 8th Highest vote: 1st This match got one first place vote and one last place vote. And now the top three... 3) Randy Savage vs. Ric Flair, WM VIII (38 points) Lowest vote: 8th Highest vote: 1st One first place vote and one last place vote, and every one else besides me had it at either #2 or #5. I had it at #3. 2) Bret Hart vs. Steve Austin, WM XIII (32 points) Lowest vote: 7th (two) Highest vote: 1st (three) Six of the ten voters had this in their top three. 1) Bret Hart vs. Owen Hart, WM X (26 points) Lowest vote: 6th Highest vote: 1st (three) Eight of the ten voters had this in their top three. So there it is, your champion: Bret Hart vs. Owen Hart, WrestleMania X, winner of the ultimate WrestleMania tournament. Well, I can comment more on the results later, and post everyone's ballot, but these are the results. Discuss.

No, that's the thing, he can't. This isn't about "making up ground". Like with hitters, if Player A is three years older than Player B, and has 100 more homers, you could argue that if Player B hits 35 homers a year for the next three years, he could "make up the ground." Fine. But everything I wrote about had nothing to do with racking up career totals. It was based on averages and the ceiling of their performances. The point is Pettitte never has a very good ERA, always walks a lot more guys, never strikes out that many, always allows more hits than innings pitched, etc. In some cases, Mussina's worst performances are better than Pettitte's best. Mussina already has ten or twelve years that have been better than all but a few of Pettitte's. That was the point. So yeah, if Pettitte, at age 35, suddenly has the best three or four years of his career from now until 2010, yeah, he could "catch up". But there's no reason to believe that will happen. Yeah, if he throws up 200+ strikeouts each of the next four years, he'll catch up in that area, but he's never had more than 180 to this point. If he has four straight years with a sub-3.20 ERA, he'll catch up in that area, but again, he's only had two seasons like that his entire career to this point, so that's not very likely. There is overwhelming evidence, over the span of the last twelve years that Mussina is constantly more durable, goes deeper into games, is more unhittable, walks significantly fewer guys, and strikes out significantly more guys. There's no way to "catch up" to all that. Not that WHIP is the end-all, be-all, but just to illustrate an example: The bulk of their careers, and certainly the prime of their careers is over (put it this way: neither one will get better from here on out) and every other year Pettitte's WHIP has been worse than Mussina's single-worst year. How exactly is Pettitte going to "make up ground" in that area?

I agree with you on all counts. Pitchers today won't have a shot at 300 wins. After Glavine and maybe Randy Johnson get to #300, we should really start considering 250 as "the new 300." Guys simply don't start as many games as they used to and don't go as deep into games as they used to with all the focus on pitch counts, stricter rotations, and situational middle relievers. In a similar vein, winning 20 games in a season is more impressive now than it's ever been. But no one in the media will realize this. As for Pettitte, for those that believe wins are an overrated statistic and not truly indicative of a pitcher's performance (which it pretty much is), well, Pettitte has pretty much been the ultimate beneficiary of the wins statistic. He's the textbook example. He's a good pitcher that has played on a lot of great teams and benefited because of it by racking up a lot of W's. I don't think he's a Hall of Famer. But if he gets to 250, I'm sure they'll put him in, deserving or not. In Pettitte's first nine years as a Yankee (1995-2003) that he's remembered so fondly for, how many seasons do you think he got his ERA under 4? The answer is four, and two of those seasons he checked in at 3.99 and 3.87. He's had three 19+ win seasons; his ERA in those seasons were 3.87, 4.35, and 4.02. Would he have won 60 games over those three years playing for a different team? Probably not. In the four years from 1998-2001, supposedly his prime and the height of the Yankees success, his ERA was 4.32. In '98 he lost 11 games for a 108 win team. I'm not saying Pettitte is a scrub or anything; just that in my opinion, his place in history by virtue of being on those great Yankee teams has always been highly overvalued. And for those that argue that he's "clutch," that can be disspelled without even debating the fact that it's stupid to account for "clutch games" and "rings." Because for almost every big game that he's pitched well in, there are a lot where he's pitched terribly. Off the top of my head, there's the Cleveland series in '97 and the Angels in '02- both short series in which he was bad and the Yanks were sent home early. There's Atlanta in '99. He had that great game in Atlanta in '96, but people forget he was terrible in Game One of that series. And of course, the big one- Game Six in Arizona in '01. The Yanks have a chance to clinch after all that momentum they built up in the Bronx and Pettitte didn't show up. He was brutal and the Yanks got blown out. People always blame Rivera for blowing it in the 9th inning of Game 7. Well, they could have won it all in Game 6, but Pettitte didn't even give them the chance to be competitive. And I don't think All-Star teams should have a huge bearing on Hall of Fame selections, but it's interesting to note that Pettitte has only made the All-Star game twice ('96 and '01). And that was with the benefit of having his own manager select the reserves five or six times. And nothing against Torre, but it's not like he shied away from picking his own guys. Mussina is an interesting case. Some will throw out the argument that, "if they were never one of the top two or three pitchers in the league at any point, they can't be Hall of Famers because they were never dominant and their numbers can just be attributed to longevity." I can see the reason some people say that, but I think you have to consider the big picture. If that was true and only the dominant guys like Pedro, Clemens, and Maddux got in, then you'd have a pretty strong case against both Mussina and Pettitte. But I believe Mussina is a Hall of Famer. The "almost" stuff is ridiculous. Yeah, he was one out away from being on a world champion, he was one out away from a perfect game, he was one win away from 20. Big deal. Just because Luis Gonzalez and Carl Everett dunked one into the outfield and he's only topped out at 19 wins doesn't detract from an awesome career. You can say what you want about Mussina's credentials, but anyone that argues for Pettitte AND against Mussina at the same time, just because of the rings, is simply wrong. Mussina, hands down, has been a far better pitcher than Pettitte his entire career. If you compare the two, Mussina literally dominates in every imaginable way you want to look at it. Consider the following: Allowing Baserunners: - In 16 years, Mussina's highest WHIP any given year was 1.369 a couple years ago. Pettitte has had a higher WHIP than that five times in his 12 seasons, including last year in Houston. So, pretty much every other year, Pettitte has a higher WHIP than Mussina has EVER had. - Pettitte has gotten his WHIP under 1.20 exactly once in his career (and it was in Houston). Mussina? Eleven times. Allowing Runs: - Mussina's career ERA is 3.64. Pettitte has only had three seasons in which he's posted a lower ERA than that, and one of those was in Houston. - Mussina has had five seasons with an ERA of 3.20 or under. Pettitte has had two, one of which was in Houston. - In six of Pettitte's 12 seasons, his ERA has been 3.99 or over. In only five of Mussina's 16 seasons has his ERA been that high. Control: - Despite starting over 100 more games and logging 900 more innings in his career, Mussina has walked fewer total batters than Pettitte. - Mussina's career high in walks for any season is 69, and that was way above his next high which is only 52. Pettitte has walked more than 69 batters in a season five times. Unhittable: - Mussina has allowed fewer hits than innings pitched twelve times. Pettitte has accomplished this just three times, and two of those were when he was in Houston, and one of them was in a season in which he started only 15 games. Strikeouts: - Pettitte's single-season career high in strikeouts is 180. Mussina has surpassed that six times, including four 200+ strikeout seasons. Durability: - Mussina goes deeper into games on average, with 6.75 IP per start over his career. Pettitte avergaes 6.4 IP per start. - Mussina has nine back-to-back 200+ inning seasons. Pettitte's longest such streak is three. - Mussina has 57 career complete games to Pettitte's 25. - Mussina has 23 career shutouts to Pettitte's four. Wins: - Just to show how much wins are reflected by actual pitching ability, despite all of the above evidence, Mussina and Pettitte have identical winning percentages at .640. - The 2000 season is an example of how misleading wins can be. In that season, Mussina started two more games and logged 33 more innings than Pettitte. Mussina gave up one fewer hit than inning pitched, whereas Pettitte surrendered 14 more hits than innings. Pettitte walked almost twice as many batters. Mussina had 85 more strikeouts. Mussina's WHIP was 1.18 to Pettitte's 1.46. Mussina's ERA was 3.79 to Pettitte's 4.35. Who had the better year? Clearly Mussina. Well, Mussina's record was 11-15 for the 88-loss Orioles, and Pettitte went 19-9 for the first-place Yankees. The Cy Young voting? Pettitte ended up finishing fourth, while Mussina was sixth. The Yankees of course won the World Series that year. And that's a pretty fitting microcosm of their careers. The perception was that Pettitte was a better pitcher, when it simply wasn't true, just as some might perceive now that Pettitte has had a better career, when he simply hasn't. Playoff performance: I don't believe playoff performance should really factor in to this debate because such a small amount of players have the benefit of getting to the playoffs frequently, the way guys like Pettitte and Jeter have. And the current playoff system is still relatively new. Players from the past weren't able to play in 16 playoff games every year. That's why it would drive me nuts when they'd attribute "playoff records" to guys like David Justice and Bernie Williams and act like it meant something. Anyway, if you must compare Mussina and Pettitte in the postseason, you'll find the numbers stay pretty true to their regular season performances. For some reason Mussina gets a raw deal for his "playoff failures" but really, Mussina has been far more consistent than Pettitte in that area. Pettitte has had some great playoff outings, but Mussina has had his share as well. And while Pettitte imploded in quite a few playoff games, Mussina has generally avoided getting lit up. - Career playoff numbers: Pettitte's WHIP is 1.35 and Mussina's is 1.08. Pettitte's ERA is 4.08 and Mussina's is 3.40. Pettitte has given up more hits than innings pitched and Mussina has given up fewer. Mussina averages more innings per start. Mussina has 142 strikeouts in 135 innings (by the way, he's never had more strikeouts than innings in any regular season ever, so you could argue that he has "stepped up" his game for the playoffs) and Pettitte only has 134 strikeouts in 212 innings. But instead, the only numbers some people see is: Pettitte 14-9 to Mussina's 7-8 and Pettitte's four rings to Mussina's zero, which is a stupid way to look at it. I don't want to get too obsessed with statistics here, but in this case they really do tell the whole story. The perception is that Andy Pettitte is a great pitcher and Mike Mussina has never won anything. In reality, Pettitte's a good pitcher but Mike Mussina has been a far superior pitcher his whole career. So if Pettitte is even considered for the Hall of Fame, there's no way you can deny Mussina.

Yeah, I've never been a Honky fan, but I've gotta defend him here. Sure, he's not the "greatest Intercontinental Champion of all time." That was just a catch-phrase that was repeated enough that some people actually believed it's true. But he definitely served his purpose, played his role well, and should be remembered as one of the more successful IC Champions. I'm gonna throw out another name that I haven't seen mentioned yet: Jeff Jarrett. I know he's not well liked around here but I really enjoyed his '95 work. I wouldn't put him in the top five but he was kind of the classic prototypical heel IC Champion. He didn't take it to another level or have it for an extended period of time like Savage, Perfect, or Michaels did but he was always solid, and I'd put him on the next tier below those guys. He had some really underrated matches with Razor and of course the classic with Michaels. As I said earlier, the treatment of the IC Title really went downhill in the late 90's, but when Jarrett won the thing in '99, with the right booking I thought his status as a former champ from the better days of the belt could have really elevated it again after the crap Russo had been doing with it. But even if he'd never come back and won it again in '99 I'd still consider Jarrett one of the better IC Champs just based on his reigns in '95.

I agree with you on the likes of Jericho and RVD. Same goes for Benoit. This is obviously up for debate, but I can't put anyone from after the mid-90's on this list. And whether they realized it or not, I think some would agree with me since Rock and Orton are the only guys I've seen mentioned from the last decade (and I'd have to agree those were the best two reigns of the last ten years). I love a ton of guys that have held the belt in the last decade (Owen, Jericho, Angle, Benoit, Edge, Christian, etc.) but as soon as '97 and '98 started rolling around, the belt just became meaningless. There was a brief revival in the early 2000s with Jericho, Benoit, etc. where it meant something again, but it just wasn't the same. There's been so much goofy stuff, from Chyna's reign, the "co-reign" with Chyna and Jericho, too many title-holders every year, frequent title-changes, various former World Champs going back to it for no reason because of how the business has changed (Jericho, HHH, Kane, Benoit), random guys that never deserved it (Godfather, Road Dogg, Albert), the unification with other belts, the retirement and resurrection, the fact that there are now about 50 other midcard titles, the general perception of midcard titles not meaning all that much anymore, etc. Too much has happened to cheapen it, to the point where you can't convince me that anyone who first held the belt after 1996 had any sort of worthwhile reign that's comparable to the reigns of most of the guys mentioned in this thread. As for Michaels, it bothered me too that he's a jerk and would never drop titles in the ring, but I still think he deserves to be on the list. He used the IC Belt in the traditional way that a lot of the greats did. Great wrestler, regular-sized guy that had a bunch of great matches as IC Champ en route to catapulting himself up to the WWF Title. He had a lot of great matches involving the IC Title: the two ladder matches, the three Jannetty matches, the Jarrett match, even the Bulldog match when he first won it. I just think if you're going to put guys like Warrior and Razor on there, Shawn definitely deserves to be there too.

What's the criteria supposed to be? I don't know about the order, but I suppose my top five would be some combination of Savage, Perfect, Bret, Shawn, and Razor.

I'm all for a tournament, especially instead of a lame battle royal, but a one night 16 man tourney? You realize that's 15 matches, right? No thanks. I'd like to see a little more KOTR 93 and a little less SS 98. Eight is the perfect number for a one-night wrestling tournament. Traditionally, 16 man one nighters have a bye involved and a couple quick but hot brawls. You can have 7-8 regular timed matches with a couple brief matches in that scenario and you can save on time by leading into the next match instantly. It just takes a bit of precise timing. You can still have intrigue of a larger tournament and provide quality. It doesn't really matter because I don't think we'll see a tournament at all. Agreed that it doesn't matter, but I've still got to disagree with you on the 16 man tourney. I'll even give you two byes to get rid of two matches, and only one other non-tournament match, like a Cena defense as you suggested, and you've still got 14 matches. Considering you're lucky to get 95-100 minutes of actual in-ring time on a PPV, the best case scenario is an average of six or seven minutes per match. Just look at it like this- there would be eight first round matches alone, which is enough for an entire show. How much of the show would you like to devote to those eight matches? Why throw eight five-minute matches out there? It's pointless. Plus, with so many tourney matches, it's best to include a separate title match, a tag team match, and/or maybe even a women's match just to break up the monotony of the one-on-one matches. With a sixteen man tourney, it's even more necessary to have those breaks, and even more difficult to do. Whenever they've tried bloated tournaments, they've failed. Survivor Series 98 was brutal and Wrestlemania IV was about twelve hours long and still featured a bunch of pointless matches. I still think KOTR 93 is the smoothest example of a PPV tournament. Not to mention that I don't think there's 16 even semi-justifiable "contenders" on Smackdown to throw into this thing. Batista, Kennedy (and in storyline terms why would Kennedy even want to go through three or four opponents in one night to win the title when he can have an automatic shot anyway?), Kane, Benoit... you could throw guys like MVP, Matt Hardy, and Finlay in there, which is fine, but if you expand to 16, you'd have to include straight-up filler like Boogeyman, Yang, and seven other guys on that level. Anyway, I'm not a typical Benoit fanboy, but I really don't think it'd be a terrible idea to give him the belt. Batista's last reign was brutal, there are no fresh matchups for him on top, and it's better to go back to someone reliable like Benoit instead of hotshotting it onto someone like Kennedy too early. I've never been a big Kane fan, but I guess that wouldn't be too terrible either, and as was mentioned, I could definitely see Vince's mentality of "relying on the big guys in a time of crisis" coming into play here.

I was thinking that, but I decided to go with the other logic- that four dead-last place votes outweigh one first place vote. Still, I see what you're saying.