humanoid92

You're definitely on to something there. The psychology is a definitely a little backwards. I don't know that it will translate with the crowd though. As was mentioned, it's going to be a wrestling crowd in the arena, so I don't think there will be too much of a vocal backlash. Another issue I haven't heard anyone comment on: They're trying to do this mainstream angle to get mainstream buys to appeal to mainstream viewers and the guy they showcase is... Umaga?? I have nothing against Umaga, but that gimmick is straight out of the 70's. How exactly is the gimmick of savage samoan beast who can't speak a word of english supposed to change the media's and general public's perception of wrestling? Seems a little counter productive to me. In the WM 11 thread, someone mentioned that putting LT up against someone like Bigelow was a big mistake because it would do nothing to stop outsiders from thinking wrestling was a joke. Fine point. Well, now that it's 2007, and the post-Attitude era, isn't putting Umaga in a situation like this ten times worse from that standpoint?

Interesting point. Part of it was certainly his size. No one would have bought him going against someone like Owen. Maybe if Yoko hadn't been on hiatus before the show, they could have used him. But that would have killed him in the future and they may have been reluctant to put him over the guy that had just been WWF Champion for so long. I'd never considered the Luger thing before but that's actually pretty intriguing. Going off what we discussed on the first page, they could have gone with a card that looked more like this: LT vs. Luger World Title: Shawn vs. Diesel Submission: Bret vs. Owen IC Title: Razor vs. Jarrett Bulldog vs. Backlund (fallout from SS 94) Undertaker vs. Bigelow Tag Titles: Gunns vs. ...umm, anyone but the Blus. Maybe use another heel with Yoko as the mystery partner. Or two guys from the Million Dollar Corporation (IRS, Tatanka, Bundy, Kama, etc.) Probably an upgrade.

I can understand not liking WM 11, but I just want to add my two cents to a few of the points you made. And again, I don't exactly "like" WM 11; I just don't detest it like a lot of people seem to. As a fan, especially at the time, I don't see how the fact that it took place around the low-point of the business has anything to do with enjoying or not enjoying the show on its own merits (or lack thereof). Especially since a lot of those labels get thrown around after years of hindsight. And the show DID get hype because of the LT thing. Maybe not to the degree they enjoyed with Tyson a few years later, but there were a ton of mainstream stories about LT. If you really wanna go nuts, you could argue that this experience with LT was a precursor to the Tyson thing, except with Tyson the timing was right, the business was already getting hotter, Tyson was a lot more relevant than LT, and they knew how to use him effectively without putting him in an actual match. I agree that a non-wrestler in the main event is bogus- even as an 11 year old I couldn't get excited about it. Agreed about Backlund's heat. This was a disappointing blowoff- there's no way around it. The violence thing I can't understand. First of all, the SS 94 cage match made sense within the context of the feud, even if I would have rather seen them go with something like a marathon match or a submission match. Blood, more brawling, and foreign objects would have detracted from it, not added to it. Before Austin, the only time Bret had a feud that deserved a ton of violence was Lawler, and simple things like putting him in a sharpshooter for 5 minutes and getting disqualified are more effective than bladejobs and 10 minutes of chairshots. And the SS 95 match with Diesel was pretty violent for its day. Besides, until '97 with Bret and Austin and then the first two Hell in a Cell matches, the WWF never did a ton of "violent" stuff. And even then, that just brought on the terrible formulaic main event brawls in '98 and '99. Which were, for the most part, incredibly violent and incredibly boring. I'd rather see a heated match along the lines of Flair/Savage than Rock nailing Foley over the head with a chair 30 times. I'm just not big on the excessive violence in the first place. It has its place, like in Bret/Austin. But I don't think Bret/Owen deserved that treatment. Also, the precursor to the increase in violent main events can actually be partially attributed to Bret himself- he was the first one to take the announcer table bump (SS 95) and then Shawn started taking a few in '96 and his matches with Nash and Foley kind of moved it along. I'm with you on the Bulldog support but I've never understood your logic about the Shawn/Diesel match. I've heard this argument about that particular match a hundred times. I like that they did it backwards with Shawn as the small guy heel. You're telling me every time a small guy challenges a big guy, the small guy HAS to be the inspirational underdog? Every time? Even if the opposite fits right into the storyline? So every story is supposed to be exactly the same? I like that they went the other way here. Plus Shawn was always way better as a heel than a face. There are a ton of negatives about the Nash reign, but I've always thought this (along with Raw the next night) was one of the one bright spots (the other two being the Bret matches). I think you're underestimating the dynamic in this one. There seemed to be a real buzz that Shawn was walking away with the Title here. I think this one gets lost in the shuffle. Also, in my opinion, that IYH match with Diesel/Shawn is way overrated. I don't think it's all that much better than the WM 11 match. Different, yes, but not necessarily better. Agreed. Felt weird and out of place. Didn't help anyone in the long run. I loved '95 Jarrett and he absolutely had heat. Maybe not Honky Tonk Man heat, but the guy was over. And basically Jarrett was in there to give Razor someone to chase now that Shawn and Diesel were out of the IC scene. And since a face was carrying the WWF Title, it helped to have a heel IC Champ, which is actually something they did quite often. The finish was disappointing. Still a good match though. Other than Bret, Jarrett seemed to be the only guy not in the Clique that Razor consistently had good chemsitry with in the ring. I agree that they should've found something better to do with Bulldog. He and Luger weren't in the Title match because they had just started teaming and they were going to start building toward Luger and Bulldog vs. Owen and Yoko, which is actually a solid tag feud with a built-in history. Say what you will about the Owen & Yoko team but that they ended up being forgettable (after all, Owen had a billion tag partners afterwards) is another point that's pure hindsight. At the time, this match at least accomplished a few things: - Gave Owen a very logical place to go after the Bret feud. His storyline of trying to replicate Bret's achievements by starting with the Tag Titles was eventually forgotten but this could have been great long-term subtle booking if not for other circumstances. - Had a mystery partner that actually delivered for once. Also gave a new role to Yoko, who had run his course in singles competition. - Had a pretty good match. - Got the belts off the Gunns and gave the tag division a welcome breath of fresh air. The thing about it being boring and bland may be true. But the reason I defend this show (at least to some extent) is for this reason: WM 12 and 13 have the one big match, but if you're gonna make me sit down for three hours and watch a show, I would easily pick 11 over 13. (I'd only pick 12 over 11 because Bret/Shawn is so long and takes up such a large percentage of the show. Eliminate the final match on each show and I'm picking 11.) 13 is just an embarrasment outside of Bret/Austin and if I'm watching a show, I'd rather go with one that's at least solid across the board for the most part instead of a one-match show.

I was watching Foley vs. HHH from the 2000 Rumble, and got to thinking about how that whole feud really MADE Hunter. Before that feud, HHH was still trying to work his way into that upper echelon. Even though he was the champion, it still didn't feel like he was on the level of a Rock or Austin. Even though he had beat Austin at No Mercy, that match didn't really make him into what he became. The Foley feud did everything right in terms of solidifying Hunter as THE guy. That Rumble match was pivotal to his career, and when the program was done, HHH had been elevated to a level he hadn't previously been at, and he stayed there. This got me thinking about the art of putting people over. Winning a big match and really being put over huge are two entirely different things. Once upon a time, Randy Orton won the World Title but he was never really put over. There have been a lot of great matches and moments over the years, but it's not often that one guy goes out of his way and simply MAKES another guy and transforms his career forever. For instance, Benoit winning the Title at WM XX was a great match and moment but it didn't MAKE him. He was already established long before that, World Champ or not, and six months later he was back to being a midcarder. It was more like a lifetime achievement win than a career altering and defining win. He may have gone over, but the point is that Hunter and Shawn did not MAKE Chris Benoit with that program. Hulk Hogan going over Andre at WM III is one of the defining moments in wrestling history, but you can't really say Andre made the Hulkster. He was already the biggest star in the company and had held the Title for three years. Nobody really made the Rock either. He basically made himself, and his rise to the top was kind of a whirlwind phenomenon. Sure, he had help from the likes of Foley and Austin when he really took off, but nobody made him to solidify him in that spot. Shawn Michaels had kind of a gradual rise. Hall, Nash, and Bret all helped him there but there wasn't that one defining program that solidified him. It was more of a group effort over a long period of time. Anyway, the point is, it's very rare that a wrestler really makes another guy a star the way Foley did with HHH. So my question to you is, what other examples are there of programs in which a guy really made another wrestler to the extent Foley did with Hunter? Remember, it's not necessarily about winning titles or winning PPV main events, or even winning a series of matches. HHH has lost to plenty of guys in the last 5 years, but I don't believe he's made anybody the way Foley made him. It's not about wins and losses; it's about really solidifying the other guy with a program and elevating him into a completely different echelon for good, and not just on paper, but in the perception of the wrestling world. Plenty of guys have been successful, in main events, and even World Champions, but only a few of them can point to one program that clearly catapulted them to where they got. So what examples can you think of that fit this criteria? Two more that immediately spring to mind for me: 1) Bret made Austin I'm not denying that Austin would have found another way to get over. But the program with Bret is how he did it. Even though he had won King of the Ring, he was still just another midcard guy until the Bret program. By the time that program had ended, Austin was on fire and it was pretty clear he was the guy being groomed to be the next new Champion and carry the company. 2) Bret made Owen That program was huge for Owen. Before it he was just a jobber in neon pajamas, and within a couple months he won the greatest upset ever at Wrestlemania. As soon as he pinned Bret, he became a legitimate WWF Title contender. That program put him into main events, and from that point on Owen was always an upper-tier heel. Now this isn't on quite the same level as the others since Austin and HHH carried the company at points as the champions and Owen never made it to that level. But the point is that program with Bret completely transformed him and launched him to a new level for good. And then, as was mentioned, there's: 3) Foley made Hunter Foley made Hunter look like a million bucks. With Austin out of action and Rock as a face, the departure of the writing team that had been so successful (not that I'm a Russo fan), and Hunter as the new top heel with the belt, there was no guarantee that things were going to go smoothly. But everything about this program was perfect, with the way they built up Cactus Jack, only for Hunter to beat him at his own game in some brutally physical matches, culminating in Hunter retiring him. This thread isn't meant to take away from guys like Owen, Austin, and Hunter. This isn't to say they owe all their success to Bret or Foley; they're all legends in their own right. In wrestling, there's never going to be one event that does it ALL on its own. After all, Owen still won the King of the Ring, Austin still ended up with the whole McMahon storyline, and Hunter was still given other perks, like the Stephanie pairing and the Wrestlemania 2000 victory. But when it comes down to it, the three instances listed above are examples of one wrestler going out of his way and clearly making the other guy into something he hadn't been. With Bret Hart on the list twice already, it raises an interesting point about other legends. Hogan, Flair, Michaels, Undertaker, Rock, HHH, Austin, etc. -- did they ever completely make anybody the way Bret and Foley did? What other examples qualify and deserve to be added to this list? I'll leave it up to you guys to decide and debate.

Thanks Chris. Sounds like we agree on most of the issues. I guess all along we had similar viewpoints, but I never really stated that I didn't like the weak midcard and the PPV undercards until now. It's safe to say that most of the things that people do remember '97 for is great stuff. And you're right about Shawn screwing things up royally with his usual crap. And I agree with what everyone else says about the aura and feelings surrounding wrestling in '97. It was just a different time that can't be replicated. And Lushus makes a great point that it felt kind of like the Attitude era before Russo went out of control. I'll just never personally have the same attachment to '97 that I will to the period when I first got hooked on wrestling, as I describe in the "Best Time Period" thread. And to answer Ron, I never really seriously got into WCW at any point in time. Just never cared that much about them.

It all depends on how people make the distinction between "best" and "favorite." Favorite is completely subjective and best has more to do with establishing a list of criteria. It seems like when people bring up "best" they want to talk about drawing money and PPV buys and TV ratings, etc. "Favorite" has nothing to do with any of that- no one can tell me my favorite isn't my favorite. I think everyone is always going to be partial to the time period when they really first got hooked by wrestling, whenever that may be. As for me, I had watched wrestling occasionally in the early 90's, but I really, really got hooked around '92 or so. This is undoubtedly why I go around writing wacky posts defending WM 9. I loved '93 because I loved Bret in the main events and Michaels put on great matches with the IC Title. Even as a little kid, I had never liked Hogan matches so I had always looked at main events as sort of a bonus match- it wasn't why I watched but it was there anyway. With Bret in the main events, it finally made me care about the main events because he always had great matches... Raw was new and fresh, Heenan was still around. There were some great commentary pairs around this time- Gorilla and Heenan, Vince and Heenan, Vince Lawler and Savage, Gorilla and JR, JR Savage and Heenan, etc. The first KOTR, I thought, was a great concept and pulled off perfectly. I just miss the little things about that time like the way things were presented. Superstars and Challenge still mattered.. once 95 came around those shows were done. There were still shows like Summerslam Spectacular and March to WM, and Survivor Series Showdown. I miss renting old PPVs and tapes and watching them at least twice before I had to return them. I miss getting excited for a PPV. I miss that there were only 5 per year and they were such a big deal. I liked PPVs starting at 4 PM sometimes. Survivor Series being held the day before Thanksgiving (for all you nitpickers, I'm aware that it used to be on Thanksgiving night, and while we're here, I also know there were previous untelevised KOTRs). Stuff like that. Plus, most importantly, I was a kid. It was fun. I get nostalgic for that time. This goes for '94 too, even though Heenan left. I loved the Bret/Owen saga. They'll always be my two favorites (and no, I'm not even Canadian). I can understand people getting excited for the boom period as well. It was really weird that wrestling was popular all of a sudden. I certainly was hooked again from 98-01 and loved it. It was a great time to be a fan, but the difference is now that it's over, I'm certainly not nostalgic for it. I can understand feeling that way if that's when you first got hooked on wrestling, or if you were 9 or 10 years old in 1998, or both. I mean, I thought 2000 was awesome (well, the first half certainly). But I was also 16. I just don't look back on it nearly as fondly as I do with the stuff from '92-'94 or the stuff before then that I got into during that time by watching old tapes, reading old magazines, etc. As far as the kids of today, I truly don't know that if I was born after 1993 that I ever would have gotten into it in the first place. I guess I wouldn't have had anything to compare it to, but nothing feels special anymore. I don't know. I just really hate the product since 2002/3 or so. Yes, there have been some great matches but I don't feel an attachment to any of them because it's so hard for them to stand out in the current homogenized environment. I really don't care for the hole obsession with history, show-within-a-show style of booking they've gone with the last couple years now. It's really an unprecedented philosophy- no wrestling show has ever succeeded with that mindset before, but then again up until Vince bought his competition, wrestling regularly re-wrote history, trained fans not to care about the past, and basically had them erase people and events from memory once those people left the company. I'm with you on this. Honestly, as a fan, why the hell do you care what Vince's bottom line is? As far using the term "drawn money" to form arguments against certain people for "not drawing", I think it's bullshit. Other than the OBVIOUS no-brainer major draws of all-time (Andre, Hogan, Austin, Rock, even Vince, etc.) it just doesn't matter. Other than a those select few (not saying those are the only select few), no one guy has ever been responsible for drawing the majority of the people to the show. This is really a whole other thread, but I've mentioned my thoughts on that before. That I'm gonna have to disagree on. Summerslam was a really good show. WM 14 was good and definitely did good business, but I think a lot of people overrate it. The 98 PPVs have two things going for them, aside from the obvious being that Austin vs. McMahon was red-hot and they did good business: 1) I don't like Russo, but one thing he did do was give people a reason to at the very least be interested in midcard guys. He paid attention to the midcard, and that's something McMahon hasn't always done historically, and 2) Because every match on Raw was no longer than 3 minutes and didn't have a finish, the PPV matches actually mattered because it was the only time you could see your favorite midcard guys wrestle for longer than 3 minutes and your main event guys go longer than 5. That's not necessarily the best way to do things, but it's true- in order to see actual matches, you really did have to order the PPV. The "best" year for PPV issue plays right back into best vs. favorite, though. Also, how do you compare an era of monthly PPVs and weekly live two hour TV shows to an era of month-long pre-tapes and 4-5 shows per year. It's apples and oranges. I always hated main events in '98 and '99 because they were mostly garbage formula matches. Brawl into the crowd, back into the aisle, do a gag with the set, back in the ring, then it's break the announce table, and go to the finish. And don't forget to mix in some chairshots. Plus, TV and PPV matches alike seemed to never end with anything other than a finisher or interference. And that's it. This really detracted from every match for me because set-up moves, pinning combinations, etc. never got a fall. The crowds never bought any near falls unless it was a finisher or interference. So there's just a lot of ugly things about the '98 shows that I've never liked. In the monthly PPV era, I'd have to say 2000 turned out my favorite shows. It definitely dipped downhill after Summerslam, but they were on a serious roll (other than KOTR) until then. There may not have been an overnight change but they really flushed out the crap once Russo left. With Austin gone, the main events felt a lot more fresh, and let's face it- HHH was the man at this point. The brawling style in main events was still around but not nearly as bad as it was before (talking about brawling in regular matches- not the likes of the HHH/Foley Street Fight and HIAC). And the undercards improved drastically with the Jericho, Angle, Benoit, Eddie, E & C, Hardyz, etc. all in the mix, as opposed to people like Road Dogg, Billy Gunn, Chyna, Shamrock, Test, etc. in those roles in '98 and '99. As always, just my opinion.

This one is respectfully dedicated to Lushus, Chris, and Venkman. By the way, I want to make it clear that my recent statements against some popular opinions is done in good fun. I believe what I say, and I'm not trying to be disruptive just by going against the grain, but I also have nothing against any of you guys just because we disagree. And again, there really aren't many issues that we actually disagree on; for the most part I agree with a lot of what is said. Anyway, I'm not here to crap on 1997 as a whole because truth be told I like a lot of stuff from that year. What's "best" is always going to be a personal preference and no matter how much hype it gets '97 will never be my favorite year. But I'm posting this because I think I finally found out one of the major things that keeps me from singing endless praises of '97 like everyone else does. The PPVs. There is so much brutal stuff on PPV in 1997. I can understand everyone remembering Raw fondly because it was quite a transition year and there was some legitimately good stuff on TV every week. The Owen vs. Bulldog match is an all-time favorite of mine, for one, and there are lots of good matches. A lot of the storylines were cutting edge at the time, before Russo went completely overboard in '98. So I can understand all the love for Raw. But the PPVs just didn't do much for me. I'll try to keep this reasonable, but honestly, look at the PPVs: - The Royal Rumble was pretty awful. I have nothing against the storyline with Austin and Bret, but the match itself was a snoozer, as was the rest of the card. The '95 and '96 Rumble matches aren't anything great either, but at least '95 had a really solid undercard, and '96 gave us a 30 minute Bret Hart Title match. I just don't like the '97 Rumble. - Wrestlemania 13 was brutal in my opinion. Bret/Austin is great, even if I still think that match itself is overrated. That's not to say it isn't great; I just don't think it's the clear-cut, hands-down, untouchable #1 match everyone else swears by. But honestly, as a show as a whole, this is terrible. Until WM 15 came along, this immediately became my least favorite Wrestlemania of all-time (well, maybe not worse than 2, but that show was ancient anyway). - King of the Ring. KOTR 95 will always stand out as the worst, and for good reason. But KOTR '97 was pretty bad in its own right. The four man tourney on PPV was always a stupid idea, but at least '96 had some redeeming value with the really good Austin/Mero match and the whole Austin 3:16 thing. This just had no redeeming value whatsoever. The Title match was pointless. No one believed Faarooq had any sort of chance whatsoever. And Austin vs. Michaels was just awkward. There was no reason (storyline or otherwise) for that match to take place. Other than '95 this had been the worst KOTR to date, but then KOTR as a whole became pretty horrible rather quickly. - Summerslam. Easily the best big 5 show of the year, but still not a great show by any means. Bret and Taker had better matches but there was nothing wrong with this one. There's this misconception that Owen vs. Austin was headed in the direction of being some sort of classic before the piledriver, but go re-watch it and I'm confident you'll be disappointed. Other than the Hunter/Foley match, there's nothing else worth mentioning here. Definitely better than SS 96 but also definitely not one of the better Summerslams. - Survivor Series. Infamous night, indeed. But other than the whole controversy this was a dreadful, worthless, show. Definitely one of the worst SS of all-time. So right there, the big 5 only produced: one classic (Bret vs. Austin), one pretty good show (Summerslam), and outside of the classic, maybe two or three other matches that were worth anything. That's just not a very impressive record as far as I'm concerned. - As for the In Your Houses, I love Candaian Stampede to death. One of my favorite PPVs. I'd never knock this show. Revenge of the Taker was actually a really solid card too. I like the Taker/Mankind and Bret/Austin matches. And the opener is good too. So that's a definite thumbs up. Final Four I think is overrated. It was just a mess. Bad concept, bad idea, and terrible direction- they had no idea where they were going with the belt or for WM. It's always amazed me that people love this concept/match/PPV because it just seems like the type of thing that would have people crapping on it if it A) didn't happen in 1997 and B) didn't involve Bret and Austin. The DX PPV was just bad and utterly pointless. I don't expect even the staunchest '97 supporter to defend that one. Cold Day In Hell wasn't all that great. And Ground Zero- bleh. That brings us to Badd Blood, which had a really good main event and not much else. I also think HIAC is overrated. Again, not that it isn't a great match, but the fact that it made it into the finals of the ongoing tournament here is a bit much. But just going off what had already happened at the time- compare these IYHs to the ones from '96. Not that I like '96 or anything, but the fact is those IYHs produced some killer matches. Rarely was there a show that was just completely worthless- even with a bad card, there was usually a Shawn vs. Mankind type match to save the show. '97 threw out 3 or 4 IYHs that had nothing to them whatsoever. So I guess what I've been saying all this time when I find '97 to be overrated is that while I can understand considering Raw to be awesome during that time, most of the PPVs certainly were not. You've got Canadian Stampede, Revenge of the Taker, one match at Bad Blood, one match at Wrestlemania, and a few matches at Summerslam. Out of 12 shows. And the majority of everything else on PPV sucked. Just my opinion, as unpopular as it may be. Surely there's someone that can see where I'm coming from.

Haha, I know I don't always agree with the masses but in a lot of instances I actually do. I just feel the need to speak out when I don't agree with the consensus. There are just certain things that bug me about the whole "historically perceived" notion. I like what I like. Also, I think people go to the extreme too much when it's not warranted. Everything has to be the best ever or the worst ever when it usually really falls somewhere in the middle. It seems like the stuff that's remembered as good has to be considered legendary, and the stuff that's remembered as bad as to be considered as awful. I'm not saying WM 11 was a great show by any means but do I think most people are too hard on it? Yes. Is it one of the better WMs? No. But that doesn't make it brutal. (Although I must admit, even as an 11 year old football fan from Jersey where LT was a legend I still thought the celebrity match was pointless and had very little interest in it at the time.) Take a lot of shows from 1998 and 1999. Obviously, the company was making boatloads of cash at the time, which is their goal. Mission accomplished. I don't fault them for it. And because they were making so much money and they were successful at that time, that period is "historically perceived" as a favorable one. But as far as I'm concerned, a lot of the matches were garbage. There were lively characters and for the most part good storylines, and say what you will about Russo (I hate him) but he was never boring. But most of the matches were brutal in my opinion. So as a fan, I didn't really like that time period that much as a whole. Even though it was a profitable time for the company. Well, just because the company is making money at the time, why should I have to like everything about the product? I just don't understand why there has to be a correlation. Why fans automatically equate "successful" with "good." In any other form of entertainment, these are the same people that defend sitcoms that get low ratings and albums that don't sell well. Why is wrestling different? Why do you have to like the so-called popular stuff and not the underappreciated stuff? It seems like if enough people online say something is "the best" then it automatically becomes the best and everyone who doesn't agree is an idiot. It goes the other way too. In 1994, business was down. But I liked a lot of the shows and the matches. So "history" and the WWF remembers this time period negatively since they weren't making that much money. But I remember it fondly because I liked the product and the matches. What's so wrong with that? And I'm not just going against the grain for the hell of it. Business is down now too but I can't stand the current product. And I loved 2000 and the beginning of 2001, which was still a very successful time period.

I totally agree on Bret vs. Owen. They never really put the finishing touches on the rivalry. I know they did the deal on Raw where Owen would get his last chance ever at Bret, or something like that, but a show like this definitely could have used a match like that. Bret vs. Backlund had to be blown off but that easily could have easily been done on Raw or at the first IYH. And why put it on the show in the first place only to give it nine minutes? They had just gone 40 at Survivor Series. Now it's down to 10? Aggreed on delaying Yoko's return and putting the belts on the Allied Powers as well. I disagree with the horrendous undercard stuff though. The Tag Title match was short but good, as was Bret/Backlund, even if it was completely underwhelming. And I really like Razor vs. Jarrett even though their Rumble match was better. Taker/Bundy was bad, but that was typical Undertaker stuff at the time. The only thing that just had no point was the Blus match, which was really weak but was at least kept short. I do like your suggestion though because it essentially subs Bret vs. Owen for Bret vs. Backlund (huge upgrade), Powers vs. Gunns for Owen & Yoko vs. Gunns (could have been an upgrade), and Backlund vs. a different opponent (no idea who though... not a lot of strong faces at the time) for The Blus vs. Powers (upgrade by default).

As has been touched on, I think it gets the reputation it does because they took a different approach to the show that year. Look at the previous WM venues to that point. Since WM 3, the only time WM had been held in a "normal" arena was the year before with MSG and WM 7 in LA. Now obviously, MSG is the exception to the rule since it's not exactly a typical no-name arena, and WM 7 had different plans originally. So Hartford didn't exactly feel like a huge venue at the time even though they were held in such "normal" venues again for the next five years until X-7 came to the Astrodome. Then there's the LT/Bigelow hype and issue. I can understand what they were trying to do. For better or worse, look at what they'd done for the past few Wrestlemanias. They were constantly trying to top themselves. 8- double main event, Hogan's "last match", Warrior surprise return; 9- first time the Title changed hands twice, huge surprise twist ending; 10- two previously announced Title matches, the possibility of the belt changing hands twice, and the two mystery guest refs. For 11, there was really nowhere else to go on that front, especially with Nash as Champion (not exactly a guy to carry the workrate). They'd exhausted all their possibilites with wacky endings, big surprises, and multiple Title matches. So they went the LT route with a celebrity match to try to appeal to the mainstream and spark interest. As a marketing strategy? That's fine. But for wrestling fans? Not a whole lot of appeal there. Finally, there were only seven matches. WM 3-7 were the cookie-cutter Wrestlemanias... jam 14 matches onto the show so that nothing besides the major matches can even have a chance to stand out. 8-10 took a logical step back to more normal cards, with 9-10 matches. But by 1995 the WWF talent pool wasn't exactly deep. The New Generation was in full force; everyone from the turn of the decade had either retired, bolted to WCW, or had been put out to pasture. With the likes of Bret, Shawn, Nash, Razor, Owen, Jarrett, Taker, Bulldog, etc. they were fine, but they certainly weren't deep. So they made it a seven match card. Which is fine, (I like small cards over bloated ones) except that people like the Blu Brothers, King Kong Bundy, and LT were part of this seven match card. Right there, that's three matches that aren't exactly going to blow away the big-time wrestling fan. Where you rank the show against the other WMs depends on your philosophy. Do you care more about "one-match" shows if that one match is really good? Or do you care about a card that for the most part doesn't have much crap and is pretty solid across the board but nothing really stands out? Bret vs. Shawn from WM 12, and Bret vs. Austin from WM 13 are miles better than any one match from WM 11, but WM 11 has what I consider to be four ***-***1/2ish matches (IC Title, Tag Title, I Quit, WWF Title). Other than the matches I mentioned, WM 12 and WM 13 don't really have much quality... maybe you can sa Taker vs. Diesel from 12 was pretty good but that's about it. When it comes down to it, I'd put 11 ahead of 13 but slightly behind 12. My reason being that generally I'll go with a stronger overall card with no real standout over a one-match show. I throw 12 ahead here because the one match in question was an hour long, so it took up a large percentage of the show. Also Taker/Diesel was pretty good. And those two matches took up something like 50-60% of the show. WM 13, however, I think very lowly of because it was just an awful show despite having one great match. To those that say WM 11 didn't "feel" like a WM, I say WM 13 felt even less like a WM. WM 11 had a ton of celebrities (Lawrence Taylor, Pam Anderson, Jenny McCarthy, etc.), some mainstream attention from the LT thing, the photographers at ringside, etc. Even small stuff like having a mystery partner that actually paid off for once (Yoko) made it feel like more than a regular show. There were little things to make it seem like more of a big event. WM 13 had none of that. And WM 13 was firmly planted in the monthly PPV era, so it didn't even standout. So anyway, for the most part, WM 11 is okay with me. I like the Razor/Jarrett match despite the non-finish (those two always had great chemistry), I'm a mark for the Owen storyline, and I love the way they handled Shawn Michaels on the way up. I was convinced he was going to win the Title here; one of the few times I ever bought a heel walking out of WM as the Champion. So I think it's a pretty good show. I just think the reasons above are why it has the reputation it does. As far as I'm concerned it's certainly better than the likes of 13 and 15, and not much worse than 12. Comparing it to any of the really old ones or really recent ones is hard though because then you're just comparing completely different eras. That's why I can't really rank "the best" from top to bottom.

I don't know about your next top 50 list, but this thread got me thinking about what everyone considers to be the best Raw matches. I don't know what type of list would best suit that- a top 10, top 25, or maybe the top 2 or 3 of each year. Off the top of my head, I've got to believe that the following are definite top 10 contenders: Perfect vs. Flair Michaels vs. Jannetty Bret vs. 1-2-3 Kid Bulldog vs. Owen Bulldog & Owen vs. Michaels & Austin Benoit & Jericho vs. Austin & HHH* I love a lot of '93-'94 stuff and '97 has some solid matches. '98 and '99 probably get ZERO because nothing ever went more than 5 minutes, stayed in the ring, or had a finish. I'm sure there are a bunch of good ones from 2000 and 2001 but I'm drawing a huge blank right now. As for 2002 and beyond, well, that's where I lost a lot of interest, so I'm not really the best person to comment on that era. *Upon re-watching this it's really not as great of an actual match as I remember- still a terrific atmosphere though

Blasphemy! Haha, I know, I know. I can understand why everyone loves '97. I like '97 a lot, and it's really the last year I fully enjoyed the product (was a huge Bret fan as a kid) but when I see everyone call it the best year ever I just don't like it. I still prefer the '92-'94ish period although I know a lot of people don't think much of that time. Just a personal preference. Anyway, I just want to add that I recently watched the Bulldog vs. Owen tournament final on YouTube and wow. I hadn't seen it since it originally aired- I remembered it being good and all but I was blown away. It's now instantly become one of my favorite matches ever. There's something really unique about it. I mean, I was always a big Owen fan and I hate it when people say he only ever had good matches with Bret. Well, here's one match that shoots that theory down. I think Davey Boy was an underrated worker. It's true that a lot of times he "played down to his competition" so to speak and never really had a great singles match with anyone that wasn't awesome in their own right. But in the great matches he did have with the legendary workers, he definitely pulled his weight and made those matches unique. Just look at some of the athleticism he shows in that Owen match- and that was toward the end of his career, after years and years of steroid abuse. The guy could go. He and Shawn Michaels had great chemistry together (I've always wondered what a Bulldogs/Rockers match would have been like). I think in Shawn's shoot interview he said that he felt he and Davey didn't get enough credit for their matches, and I agree. The '92 IC title match, the '95 mini-program, the '96 feud and the One Night Only match were all quite different and stood out from one another but were all really good. Even with the two Bret matches- just look at how different the Summerslam and In Your House matches really are. Combine those great singles matches with his proven tag team track record and he's got a pretty impressive resume.... I have no idea why I started talking about this but here we are.

Do you mean why did he put it on last or why did he put it on at all? If you mean why did LT/Bigelow go on last, it's pretty obvious. That was the big match that they tried to get national exposure with. It made sense to put it on last. I always liked that Shawn vs. Diesel wasn't last because it really teased the Shawn win. Heels never walked out with the Title back then. By not putting Diesel and Shawn in the last match I think a lot more people bought the idea that Shawn could go over.

... I vote for Bret/Owen. But given the choices, I guess I'll say Bret/Austin. Even though I still think this 1997 stuff is waaaay overrated by everyone.

Eaxctly! This is the kind of booking I love. Everything did gel perfectly and the whole thing was a brilliant storyline. Not everything is going to work as well as this did, but booking like this, in my opinion, sure beats the type that relies on #1 contender matches and "push the guy by putting him over everyone and shove him to the top right away." While this is a minor problem (especially since it still happens to this day with the Rumble), the scenario of booking someone to look strong and tying it to a major win as a story point - not a #1 contender guarantee - leads to predictability. Almost everyone who was old enough to 'know the deal' about wrestling knew Owen was winning the KOTR, where a random "#1 contender battle royal" or MITB match with no pre-made storyline behind it can yield unpredictable results. The flip side of this is long term storytelling with some given predictability is a great way to build interest in the product. I see what you're saying. Although it doesn't always have to be like that. At this point I think going to more subtle booking like that would actually create some surprises for people who now think they 'know the deal' about wrestling, just because it would be operating differently than they do today. I mean, you say that wacky matches like MITB create unpredictable environments but for those people that are in the know already, how much is there that they don't already know anyway? Everyone on this board knew Taker was winning the Rumble, and that Rey was winning the year before that. Most people figured RVD was winning MITB last year. When Smackdown had that battle royale, everyone knew Angle was winning. There's no unpredictability anyway. And don't forget, just because there was a different approach back then didn't always make it predictable. Owen winning the KOTR was logical but not overly predictable. A lot of people were convinced Shawn was going over Diesel at WM 11, and then he didn't even get the Title until a year later. So I don't really equate the issue of lazy vs. subtle booking with predictable vs. unpredictable booking.

Eaxctly! This is the kind of booking I love. Everything did gel perfectly and the whole thing was a brilliant storyline. Not everything is going to work as well as this did, but booking like this, in my opinion, sure beats the type that relies on #1 contender matches and "push the guy by putting him over everyone and shove him to the top right away."

Number one contender matches are a hallmark of wrestling, and a perfectly acceptable way of choosing a challenger. I think everyone can agree that it is a logical move. That said, is it a lazy move to have an annual match to choose a contender? I don't see how it would rank much different from the Royal Rumble or the King of the Ring tournament. We're not talking about a common match that continually propels undeserving wrestlers to title matches. Both times it has been used to create title matches that would otherwise be nearly impossible to book under normal conditions. The concept itself is fine. The only danger is that there are only so many times you can book a six-man ladder match on an annual show before they start to run together in the fans' minds. It's not a match that lends itself to storytelling. That said, is it just a lazy way to throw a bunch of wrestlers on the undercard? Perhaps. But would it be better to book 2-4 of them in less meaningful matches and leave the others off the card? Others might prefer it that way. I honestly think the match is more exciting than traditional matches, so I like the concept. You might not, and that is valid. At what point did they become a hallmark? Even with the King of the Ring, they didn't beat you over the head with it. It wasn't an automatic ticket. Mabel was the only guy at first to go on and get a big Title shot because of it. With Bret and Owen and Austin etc. it just put them over and reinforced their credibility. I like that kind of more subtle booking better. The bolded part is one of the things I really dislike about the match. I'm glad you brought that up. As far as the less meaningful matches, that's the thing- with strong booking, those other matches would not have to be less meaningful. Just because they're not #1 contenders matches doesn't mean they can't have any meaning. I'm not talking Edge/Booker shampoo feud matches here, I'm talking about well-planned, long-term, logical storylines for the guys that deserve it. And of course your thoughts are just as valid.

I think Maniavent can work well in small doses. Anyway, as long as they're going ahead with MITB, I'm not opposed to something similar to the proposed Edge/Shawn scenario, but I really think if they do something like that, it should be a babyface. We've already seen Edge cash in at the end of a PPV, which was fine, but if they do it again, I'd like to see it with a face. Yeah, you can say it's a sneaky move, fitting of a heel, but if a face did it, it would really pop the crowd. Especially if the guy doing it won the title from a freshly crowned heel. Like in the Flair scenario from last year. Not saying Flair would have been the perfect guy to do it with, but just looking at the template. Flair goes over in MITB, huge heel HHH beats babyface Cena for the Title, and right away, Flair comes out and steals the Title from Hunter. I like the concept of heel going over the face for the title and being usurped by a different face, because it seems like a more complex scenario. If you do it with a heel going over, then you've got two heels and one face. I just like the dynamic better. Of course in this instances I guess Cena and Shawn are both faces anyway, so whatever.

It would play out perfectly though. It would establish Edge as an even bigger heel than he already is. Seriously, the heel heat on him would be insane. It would give a new ending to the MITB concept. It would add 2 more wins to Edge's WM streak and Taker could win the WHT at the end of the night to leave the crowd with a good ending. Then you can do Edge vs Taker at WM24. If I was booking, I wouldn't think twice about this option. I actually pushed for this last year if they were going to have Flair go over in MITB. Since everyone was convinced HHH was going over Cena, this would have been worked to give the fans the happy ending. And it would have made sense for Flair to cash in right away since he's an old man and has never closed out WM and whatnot. I think there's something to this idea, because like I said, and like Al said, the concept will eventually run it's course. There's really only a few directions to go. A) Guy waits and cashes in after a champ has just won a hard fought match B) Guy challenges champion for major match ahead of time (which is really no different than how a typical PPV or Raw match is built up) C) Guy challenges champion same night he wins (yet to be done). Outside of another idea I read on here about two guys coming down with the briefcase and both getting a shot (which is an interesting twist but sounds a bit contrived and hard to pull off) what else is there to really be done? Still, I don't think the cards are stacking up correctly for that to happen this year. Simply because something like that would have to go on last, and I think Taker will go over Batista last, and I can't see them using this scenario with him.

Not necessarily Edge's. That last post wasn't specifically about MITB, just the way they seem to handle elevating guys and their general booking philosophies. I probably shouldn't have opened my mouth about that in this thread. Anyway, the real point of the thread was just that I don't see the point in matches like MITB and to me it's uninspired booking. Earlier, you said it's a good way to get top tier guys on the card- my whole argument is that it's just a way to jam them on there- not necessarily a good way. Going back to what I was saying about the fundamental problem with #1 contender matches in general, once those exist every so often, why then should anybody care about other matches? If a #1 contender match is just a shortcut to hijacking your way into a title shot, then why do other major matches exist. I guess I don't like the whole aspect of having it spelled out. With good booking, you can establish a guy as a top contender by having him evolve and progress over time to the point where he's a legitimate top contender. There's some underlying progression there. They don't have to spell it out for you by creating the status of having a #1 contender. Russo used that crap all the time because he had no idea how to actually build someone up. Of course titles changed hands every two weeks anyway, so it's not like it mattered much. I know it's only once a year, so MITB isn't really *that* bad in the grand scheme of things. It's just the notion behind it that I don't like. If they are going to do this though, I do like that there's actually a briefcase as a symbol of their status (which also provides a logical reason to make it a ladder match in the first place) but I still think the concept behind the idea is lazy.

Generally speaking, I always preferred how guys like Bret and Shawn just simply rose to the top over time. It all unfolded in a very logical way and really meant something once they finally got there. I love how Shawn ended up getting to the top, even though I was always a huge Bret guy. The way they handled him was perfect. Today, everything is paint-by-numbers and rushed. If things were handled then the way are today, Shawn would have been the champion by the summer of '94. Wouldn't have had nearly the same effect as it did with the slow (and logical) build. Even guys that took the world by storm all of a sudden, like Diesel, got their spot without the use of cheap booking tricks that are all over the place today. It seems like today every push is cookie cutter and the trigger has to be pulled right away, and to me, MITB comes across as an extension of that booking philosophy.

Interesting take. Although I think that really speaks to a whole other problem they have as far as the logjam at the top. I mean, look at the first match two years ago, with guys like Jericho, Benoit, Kane, etc.- all of them were already well past their run as main eventers, so with the structure the way it is today, they just get stuck in a holding pattern in the upper midcard. Jericho's career was a perfect example. But the thing is, if guys like Edge and Orton shouldn't be in it, why in the world should guys that have been portrayed on the level of Nitro, Kenny, Chavo, MVP, etc. ever have the chance to skip over them and have a crack at becoming the #1 contender? Anyway, just to elaborate on my original post, this is kind of why I find the notion of #1 contender matches to be ridiculous in the first place. There are no standings or organized tiers in wrestling, so how can there be #1 contender matches? How do you qualify for the right to be in a #1 contender match? Why not have matches to qualify for the contenders matches? And then how do you qualify for those? How far does it go back? For years and years, the top challengers always filtered their way to the top. It worked itself out because of strong booking. To me, #1 contender matches started as an excuse for lazy booking (it's no coincidence that they really became prevelant during the Russo era, by the way). It allows for lazy booking because instead of just logically piecing things together to establish a credible top contender, you can just say "ok, here are two (or in this case, eight) guys- just throw them together and we'll get our contender." I think the notion of this type of match kind of cheapens the Rumble too. Granted, the Rumble is the Rumble and it will always sell, but to me the Rumble was always the one event that supposedly allowed underdogs, and those that wouldn't otherwise have a shot, to have a chance. And the prize was legitimate- a title shot at Wrestlemania. But now if you're just going to have another big contenders match at Wrestlemania, where does it end? Why not have contenders matches at every PPV for the following PPV? So that's what I mean when I say in my opinion it's lazy booking.

While I will certainly agree that the Bret/Bulldog program made Davey Boy Smith, and he pretty much lived off that one match for the rest of his career, Bret was already a star by that point. Even if you disagree that the Perfect/Hart program made him a star, then he was certainly made after the Piper program for Wrestlemania VIII. The Perfect match made Bret into a legitimate singles star and credible IC Champion, which was no doubt very crucial to his career. I think people underestimate the impact of that Bulldog match though. It was their first PPV without Hogan. It was the first time Bret went on last to close a PPV. Yeah, there were a few other circumstances that led to Bret getting the Title six weeks later, but that match had a lot to do with giving them the confidence to make him the WWF Champion, and really, change the whole direction of the company by putting a guy like Bret into main events after Superman Hogan had run the show for so long. To me, Wembley symbolizes the transition from the Hogan/Warrior superhero (read: steroids) era into the mid 90's Bret/Shawn more workrate oriented era. Anyway, the Perfect match helped Bret onto one level, and the Bulldog match helped him take it to another, even higher level. (And I love the Piper match too; I've always thought it was criminally underrated.) But all that doesn't really mean much within this thread. The whole point I was trying to get across was that not every star that comes along has something like my original examples happen to them. Not everyone that got to the top will have an example like that to show for it. That's not a knock on anybody or a way to say they were lesser stars. It's just an observation. If you want to say that Perfect played a huge role in first establishing Bret as a singles wrestler, then I agree. But I don't think he really "made" him in the way I was talking about.

Interesting results so far. One with '94 across the board, one with '97 across the board, and then one of each '94/'97 combination. My guess is that most people will stick with the same year, with '97 winning fairly easily. We'll see.

I appreciate the responses but some of them don't really fall under the umbrella of what I was going for. Everybody gets help on the way up. Plenty of guys have a standout match or a feud that elevates them in some way, especially in hindsight. But not everybody went through what I was asking about. It seems like a lot of these suggestions are forced- like you can take anybody and pull out a feud from their past that helped them along the way and make it fit into this question. Well yeah, you can do that with almost anyone. But it has nothing to do with what I was talking about. When I said there are fewer than you think, I meant it. You can't just go around to every guy who ever got a push and apply this to them. With the examples I mentioned, the guy at or near the top was used to throw a previous unestablished main eventer into a whole different stratosphere. And not just with one match. WM 10 and WM 13 were the defining moments of the respective Bret/Owen and Bret/Austin feuds, but it was the programs as a whole that accomplished the goal of elevating them. Bret was a top guy and took Owen and lifted him into stardom. He did a similar thing with Austin. And even though HHH was already the champion, the Foley program made him a legit champ (I consider the WM win, which involved Foley as well by the way, to be the exclamation point on this). Flair and Sting? Great example of what I was asking for. Definitely belongs on the list. Sting was pretty much a nobody and by working with Flair, he was all of a sudden a legitimate equal to the World Champion. Undertaker and Mankind is an interesting one. I was actually considering putting that in the original post. Taker had been wrestling a bunch of stiffs and beating them easily for four years and then all of a sudden some newcomer out of nowhere had his number. Taker did put Foley over huge. It's hard to judge the impact since Foley went through so much else and changed his character so much before he turned into what he eventually became, but this is definitely a worthwhile one to debate. Bret and Backlund is another tough one. Backlund as a whole was a weird situation. I mean it's hard to say he wasn't established since the guy had been the champion for years, but you're right that he was completely out of his element and nobody cared about him when he came back in '93. In a way, Bret did make Backlund in his second stint- the guy was nothing when he wasn't working with Bret, and in fact that was really his only major program. Still, so much of his (very short-lived) success also tied into the whole past storyline with Skaaland throwing in the towel and the psycho heel persona which wasn't solely about Bret. I don't really know how to classify this one. Seems like a different beast. Hogan and Warrior probably qualifies. It's hard to judge because Warrior was insanely over on his own before Hogan ever came into the picture. But it's true- beating Hogan clean in the Skydome was HUGE and *should* have thrown him onto a whole new level. Hindsight hurts this one because of what happened with the aftermath, but this still may count. Of course, you could also argue that in order for this to really count, because of how it was designed, Warrior had to really follow through and replace Hogan as THE guy. I could go either way here. HHH and Batista is another borderline one. I'll be honest- I wasn't watching the programming a ton during this time, so I'll admit I'm not the best person to judge. I'll leave this up to you guys now that I hopefully made the question a little more clear. Although, I've gotta stress that just because HHH jobbed to him on PPV a few times doesn't *necessarily* mean that he put him over. It's not just about wins and losses- after all Austin never beat Bret cleanly during their feud, but Bret still made the guy. And finally, Perfect and Bret. This one's really hard for me to say. As a huge Bret fan, I'm well aware of the impact this had on his career but I'm not positive it can be considered the way the others are. For starters, they never really had all that much of a program. It was basically just the Summerslam match. And while it was huge in his development to that point, I don't know that it was bigger than the Bulldog match ended up ultimately being. Also, in my original examples, there was another common thread- Bret lifted Owen up right into his peak status. Bret lifted Austin up to the brink of his peak. Same as Foley with HHH. As far as Bret goes, I'd say the Bulldog match helped him right up into that peak level. And even that wouldn't qualify for the list, because Bulldog never reached down and pulled Bret over the hump. It was more a matter of a culmination of work, success and circumstances. So while Perfect definitely lifted Bret up onto a certain level, I'm not sure how much this one fits. As for other suggestions I've seen mentioned: - Razor/Shawn Ladder match, and Shawn winning the Royal Rumble There's no doubt these both helped Shawn's career a lot, but that alone has nothing to do with what I was talking about. First of all the Rumble had nothing to do with one guy putting him over, or a program that elevated him. He just won the Rumble. Fine way to push someone and it definitely worked, but not what I meant. The Ladder match may have been a defining match, but there was nothing going on in that program that specifically fit the criteria of the question. First of all, Shawn spent the next six months as Nash's lacky, didn't wrestle again until July, and was tagging with Nash until the end of the year. He did absolutely nothing of note until the Rumble, nearly a year later. Also, Razor was not on any level higher than Shawn. So working with Razor did not elevate him. Razor did not reach down and grab Shawn Michaels and catapult him up. Of course WM X helped his career. It helped out both of them. And today it's symbolic of Shawn's rise toward the top. But it has nothing to do with the topic in question. - Matt Hardy/Edge This was an interesting angle, some would even say revolutionary with the way that Matt got hired back because of popular demand. But it was ultimately forgotten a few months later. And again, the fundamental problem here is that Edge was already on a higher level than Matt. So feuding with Matt Hardy did nothing to elevate Edge in terms of the question. - Vader/Shamrock Vader, especially after mid 96 became pretty much a joke in the WWF. Maybe this helped Shamrock out but it was hardly what I was talking about. - The Luger & Bagwell stuff in WCW I didn't follow WCW around the time period of the Luger & Bagwell stuff, but I have a hard time believing this one fits in. One I was going to throw out there was Razor and the Kid, but I'm not sure it should count. This one is kind of like Bret and Owen on a much smaller scale. Bret was a main eventer while Razor was a midcarder. Owen was a low card guy and Waltman was a complete jobber. Owen's big win came at Wrestlemania. Waltman's came on Raw. It's definitely not the same, but it is an upset that did establish Waltman. I guess it's not really high profile enough to count, but I thought I'd throw it out there because it is an example of an established guy (in this case, Razor) going out of his way to work with a guy that's accomplished much less than him (Waltman) and reaching down and making him his equal at the very least. But all in all, I'd have to say it's a no.