humanoid92

They would have thought he had a chance because in theory, the match would have built up properly, and a major part of the storyline and build up would have been "Whose side is Vince on?" (a la Flair at Summerslam '92). Not to mention the build up that Owen has beaten Austin before (Canadian Stampede), broken his neck, Austin was Bret's biggest rival and responsible for his downfall, and that Owen became a star in MSG, that he's trying to gain revenge for his brother after the screwjob, and there had been a sublte ongoing thing for years that he was trying to accomplish everything Bret did (KOTR, 2-time Tag Champ, 2-time IC Champ) and the WWF Title was the last piece of the puzzle. It's the culmination of the Bret/Owen, Harts/Austin, Harts/Vince, and Austin/Vince (well not the culmination, but a major part of it) stories all at once. You're assuming that in the real world, if things had happened the way they had except they'd thrown Owen into the main event of Summerslam, it would have seemed random and one-sided. You're right. But that's not what I'm proposing. In my scenario, there would have been a slow build up to this, and Owen would have been pushed into this position steadily and strongly after the screwjob. And he'd be coming off a high profile Title match with Michaels at the Rumble. He would have been accepted as a main eventer, not just some midcarder that walks into a Title match at Summerslam. If it had been promoted properly, it would not be hard to present it as an even match. If you read my posts, you'll see I admit that it's a matter of money and they weren't incorrect to do what they did. I'm not saying they never should have done Austin vs. Taker. But they could have done that at any point. Either during the spring when they were actually running Austin vs. Kane or in the fall after Summerslam. And in fact, they did do that at many points in time, since they had boring rehashes of that feud in 1999 and again in 2001. In a vacuum, Austin vs. Taker will always be the bigger money match. But given the timing and circumstances, you're not going to convince me they couldn't have run with the Owen thing at that point. Maybe not all the way until Summerslam, but for a few months after the screwjob it definitely would have worked. Read my comments about the show-within-a-show complex. If the WWE operated the way it did now back then, there's no way we wouldn't have seen it explored on TV more prominently. The Survivor Series '97 squash is a much better argument than your Summerslam one which is a major stretch for reasons I've already stated in my other post. But I still maintain that it could have worked. Again, it's not that they SHOULD have pushed Owen like this. But they COULD have. In the short term, it would have worked fine.

The reason I used Kerr is because I saw him in warm ups before a game a few years back and he drained like 30 shots in a row effortlessly. It was a thing of beauty. And I love that Nash is MVP, but you're right, we shouldn't get into any more of that stuff here. I didn't mean to imply that you or anyone who did like Stone Cold was a redneck. Just that I never personally related to or liked him any more than I did anyone else on the show. Sure, a lot of the Austin/Vince feud made for great TV but when it came to any of the actual matches I just couldn't get into them. I totally understand the reason he caught on and I'm fine with it. But I still didn't like most of his matches. I'm confused as to how this became a pro/anti Austin issue (I'm really somewhere in the middle) when the statement was about his match quality in '98 and '99. And since that was what my opinion was about, I stand behind it.

I saw that match on YouTube way back and was blown away. Just a really great match. I don't even think it had to go really long to be better. I thought it was awesome the way it was.

Yeah, the main event of WM14 was horrible, and that Over the Edge 98 match with Dude Love was one of the worst matches of all time. Let's not forget those horrible matches with The Rock at WM15 and Backlash 99, those guys don't know how to work at all. Oh and how can I forget that sloppy and dreadful Summerslam 98 main event with The Undertaker, why was Vince doing booking those 2 clowns in the main event! WM 14 I'll buy. Even with Shawn's messed up back they still managed to have a pretty good match. The Dude Love and and Undertaker matches were solid, but they were hardly great. And no, I don't care for either of those matches against the Rock. As far as the "punch-kick-brawl into the crowd-break the announce table-overdo finishers" style that oversaturated every main event for most of '98 and '99 (and into 2000) the Rock matches were okay, but given the formula, that's not saying much. That terrible brawling formula killed a lot of those matches for me. There was just nothing to it. The Dude Love match was more then just a wrestling match, it was the best booked wrestling match problay the WWE has ever done. The fued leading up to it and the match it self was amazing. It was more then just a wrestling match, it was why the WWF peaked. And the ending was just perfect. That was WWE at it's best. To me, WWF at its best was stuff like the Bret/Owen saga. I'm not going to argue that the Dude Love match was well booked and a good enough match. Best booked match ever is definitely stretching it. I might call it appropriate over-booking. I don't think it's necessarily WHY the WWF peaked, but it served its purpose. I'm not going to bash the match. But even you admit the best part about the match is the storyline and the booking. That's fine, but it doesn't exactly make me say, "Wow that Austin just had a killer match." I just don't have a whole lot of love for much of the in-ring product from that era. The main events were the only matches that ever got any time at all but 95% of them just didn't interest me. Mostly it's the brawling and predictable formula that I mentioned earlier. I'm sorry, Austin/Kane, Austin/Rock (in 99), Austin/Vince, Austin/Undertaker (though I will admit Summerslam is their best match against each other), Austin/HHH (in 99) just didn't do it for me at all. Every match felt exactly the same. It was like they were just stalling for the finish and the first 15 minutes meant nothing. It was just mindless brawling with the predictable and pointless crowd/aisle brawling and announce table spots thrown in. Austin certainly used it the most, but Rock and HHH fell back on this at times too after Austin got hurt. Main events were just very underwhelming to me for a long time in between Bret's departure and the hot HHH/Foley series. In hindsight, I should have said "After WM 14, Austin didn't have a good match until 2001." And from there, I'll give you this: the Dude Love match is good, and the Undertaker Summerslam match is pretty good. But other than that I can't think of another match I liked. My point is this: for the better part of three years (late 97-early 01... and I know he missed some time with injuries in there), I really think he had three matches that can be considered good- Michaels, Dude Love, and Undertaker. 3 good matches in 3 years isn't very impressive. So while I admit my original statement may have been a little inaccurate, I completely stand by its sentiment. Yeah but there is also arguement that the overall wrestling in that time period was horrible, but very entertaining and popular. When Vince Russo was in charge, his idea wasn't "We can build great ratings by great wrestling", he idea was more of making Pro Wrestling a normal "TV Show", granted it was entertaining, I grew up through that time period, and that was IMO as popular if not more then then Hulk Hogan era. Steve Austin was still a capable wrestler then, but he didn't have the chance to wrestle againest Benoit, Angle, Jericho, RVD, and improved wrestlers in Rock and HHH. That's what I'm trying to say. In your post you downside the legacy of Stone Cold, you're problay an older guy who grew up in the Hulkamania era who doesn't realize how popular wrestling was from 1998-2001. If he grew up during the Hulkamania era, he had even more sucky wrestling and even more underwhelming Main Events. Watching Hogan during the Hulkamania is way more boring than watching Austin beat the crap out of The Rock. The dude has a point in that during the Attitude era the wrestling wasn't good even though they were really popular. I guess he started watching wrestling during Bret Hart's time on top with HBK and Austin fighting for the belt, 'cause they did put on great matches (that's because of Hart ofcourse). I started watching sometime in 1990, and quickly caught up with the past via Coliseum Video so I was around for Hogan's days. I never liked Hogan either. Even as a kid I knew his matches were predictable and crappy. Was never a fan. I think Hogan influenced me to not care about main events (or at least not expect much from them) from early on. I just never cared about him. So my focus went to the rest of the card. And the main event was just kind of like an extra bonus attraction- not the main reason why I watched. That's probably why I remember the 92-94 era so fondly. It's the only time I truly cared about the main events. It's also why I hate it when people automatically state the champion is the ONE guy who draws the buyrate/audience. That's true at times, but there are many cases when it doesn't apply. Anyway.... Of course I realize how popular the Austin boom was. I'd been losing touch at points during '96 and '97 and the talk of all the screwjob fallout got me to watch again and Attitude and Crash TV were new and exciting. It sucked me right back in. Then I got the internet. By '98/'99 I was watching every week again. Believe me, I was there for the boom. I don't hate Austin; he was just never that special to me. I love his matches with Bret, Benoit, Angle, the Savio Vega strap match is incredible, some of his WCW stuff, etc. I never related to his character at all. I'm not a hillbilly, I've never been to Texas, I don't hunt, I don't drive large vehicles, I have a full head of hair, and at 15 or 16 I had never chugged beers or dealt with an egomaniacal boss that I hated. I just never cared for his matches after the neck injury (until 01). But it's interesting that Hogan's name comes up, because to me, Austin was booked like a modern-day Hogan. He was the clear cut #1 guy. He was super human, even if he wasn't cartoonish and didn't "hulk up." He still kicked everyone's ass and once he won the Title he was unbeatable unless he was getting completely screwed over. And that bugged me. When guys like Flair, Savage (circa 92), Bret, Shawn, etc. had been on top, they weren't Superman. They were just hard workers that were the best wrestlers and that fact was readily apparent by watching their matches. With Austin, you never got that vibe. You were always very aware that he had the belt "because the fans eat up his shtick" rather than "because he's the best wrestler out there." Which is fine for business purposes- that's what wrestling's all about. It just personally doesn't do anything for me. I'm not trying to argue Austin's legacy. That would be silly. I just didn't care for the matches. You're right that he had much better opponents to work with in '01, but that doesn't really change what I was saying: most of his matches from 98 and 99 were no good. Of course Russo had a major impact on the whole product. But my point remains. Of course there's also this: Generally speaking, I don't like main attractions. I like the midcard over the main event. I like good contact hitters over sluggers; I'd rather see a line drive in the gap over a home run, or a great control pitcher (Maddux) over a guy that throws 98 but has no control. I like pure shooters over flashy dunkers; I'd rather watch Steve Kerr make 20 3's in a row in warm ups than Vince Carter in the slam dunk contest. Almost always, my favorite part of a song will be the verse instead of the chorus... perhaps not coincidentally, my favorite time period in the WWF would probably be from 1992-1994/5... right in between the two boom periods. Bret doing his thing in the main event was glorious. Kind of like Steve Nash being acknowledged as the MVP right now. I guess I'm just weird like that. But anyway, all this is way off-topic. I'm sticking to my opinion that popular or not, the great majority of Austin's matches from 1998-2000 just weren't that good, with the few notable exceptions that we already discussed.

Yeah, the main event of WM14 was horrible, and that Over the Edge 98 match with Dude Love was one of the worst matches of all time. Let's not forget those horrible matches with The Rock at WM15 and Backlash 99, those guys don't know how to work at all. Oh and how can I forget that sloppy and dreadful Summerslam 98 main event with The Undertaker, why was Vince doing booking those 2 clowns in the main event! WM 14 I'll buy. Even with Shawn's messed up back they still managed to have a pretty good match. The Dude Love and and Undertaker matches were solid, but they were hardly great. And no, I don't care for either of those matches against the Rock. As far as the "punch-kick-brawl into the crowd-break the announce table-overdo finishers" style that oversaturated every main event for most of '98 and '99 (and into 2000) the Rock matches were okay, but given the formula, that's not saying much. That terrible brawling formula killed a lot of those matches for me. There was just nothing to it. The Dude Love match was more then just a wrestling match, it was the best booked wrestling match problay the WWE has ever done. The fued leading up to it and the match it self was amazing. It was more then just a wrestling match, it was why the WWF peaked. And the ending was just perfect. That was WWE at it's best. To me, WWF at its best was stuff like the Bret/Owen saga. I'm not going to argue that the Dude Love match was well booked and a good enough match. Best booked match ever is definitely stretching it. I might call it appropriate over-booking. I don't think it's necessarily WHY the WWF peaked, but it served its purpose. I'm not going to bash the match. But even you admit the best part about the match is the storyline and the booking. That's fine, but it doesn't exactly make me say, "Wow that Austin just had a killer match." I just don't have a whole lot of love for much of the in-ring product from that era. The main events were the only matches that ever got any time at all but 95% of them just didn't interest me. Mostly it's the brawling and predictable formula that I mentioned earlier. I'm sorry, Austin/Kane, Austin/Rock (in 99), Austin/Vince, Austin/Undertaker (though I will admit Summerslam is their best match against each other), Austin/HHH (in 99) just didn't do it for me at all. Every match felt exactly the same. It was like they were just stalling for the finish and the first 15 minutes meant nothing. It was just mindless brawling with the predictable and pointless crowd/aisle brawling and announce table spots thrown in. Austin certainly used it the most, but Rock and HHH fell back on this at times too after Austin got hurt. Main events were just very underwhelming to me for a long time in between Bret's departure and the hot HHH/Foley series. In hindsight, I should have said "After WM 14, Austin didn't have a good match until 2001." And from there, I'll give you this: the Dude Love match is good, and the Undertaker Summerslam match is pretty good. But other than that I can't think of another match I liked. My point is this: for the better part of three years (late 97-early 01... and I know he missed some time with injuries in there), I really think he had three matches that can be considered good- Michaels, Dude Love, and Undertaker. 3 good matches in 3 years isn't very impressive. So while I admit my original statement may have been a little inaccurate, I completely stand by its sentiment.

I never said they should have given him Rock's push or that he was the next big thing. The timeframe I'm talking about with Owen in main event matches was while Rock was still a midcarder. The Rock didn't become a main eventer until Survivor Series '98, which in my proposed storyline, was where Owen would have been phased out of main events. In fact, that would have been the perfect ending. Vince screws Owen over against the Rock at Survivor Series and Rock becomes the Corporate Champion instead of Owen. Would have been very appropriate since it was the first Survivor Series after Montreal and they went with a pseudo-screwjob ending anyway. Why not have Owen be the one getting screwed? Nothing about Rocky's history changes, other than his program with Foley may have had to come up in a slightly different way. No big deal. And then Owen becomes the loner-type, "Black Hart" guy that he became in early '98 except this time it makes sense. When he did this in reality it was just awkward and confusing because he needed to get fired up and kick Shawn's ass or Vince's ass, but instead he was a putz and just did nothing, which really killed his character. But in my scenario it makes sense because he's now a year removed from the initial incident and he's tried everything he could have tried, gotten some measure of revenge, but now has nowhere to go. Austin is the ultimate good guy and he's not about to start an alliance with him after all their history. He had sold out his family to align with Vince, but now Vince screwed him over, so that's done. He's got nothing left, so he becomes a loner. Rock has the Title, Austin is still on top, Foley's doing his thing, etc. This is when you phase Owen back down the card and have him put over HHH or whatever. By the way, just to recap, my only proposed "main-event" matches with Owen are as follows: - Rumble 98 vs. HBK: Hot off the screwjob, in real life this slot went to Undertaker, the Rumble is the selling point of this show anyway - Summerslam 98 vs. Austin: 1 year after the broken neck, trying to win the Title his brother never lost, against their biggest rival, at MSG where Owen broke out of the shadow and Bret first faced Austin... come on, that's a great story. In real life this slot went to Undertaker. - Sept. and Oct. 98: These slots went to Undertaker and Kane. Throwaway IYH-type PPVs anyway. - Survivor Series 98 vs. Rock: Owen passes the "Corporate Champion" torch to the Rock and is phased out of main events. So, I'm suggesting that he take a few PPV main events away from the Undertaker, and utilize built-in storylines that fall right into place, all without disturbing the rise of the Rock or fucking up Austin. I really don't think it's all that nuts. It wouldn't have been completely insane; that's all I'm saying.

On the first point, the finish could have been more creative than Owen straight-up jobbing. You don't always have to win the match to be put over. Owen could have come up just short, gotten screwed over, won by DQ, lost because of DX interference, a Vince screwjob (maybe with a fishy time limit draw), an unrelated questionable submission decision, whatever. As for Shawn not beating anyone with the credibility of UT, Shawn was already plenty credible and had already beaten him. Besides that, it was a Casket Match. It's not like that match made Shawn or anything. He was well established. That match did not need to take place. Point #2: I agree with you. Shawn getting hurt was a blessing in disguise and that the roster was so drastically different definitely helped in the rise of popularity. But Shawn's injury also wasn't something they planned. If he had been 100% healthy, they weren't about to kick him out. #3: It's all in how they push someone and the perception they create. I mean, I still don't think John Cena is a credible main eventer, but apparently he is because that's how he's treated. And don't forget, this was a really unique situation. Since the story was tied to Bret, and Owen now had direct storyline and real-life ties to Austin, Shawn, and Vince, I don't buy that a pro like Owen could not have been considered a legitimate title contender. As for the point about jobbing to Austin after the broken neck, that's a stretch. That Summerslam match was an abberation. Unique circumstances. It wasn't supposed to go down that way. By that logic, sure, how could he be taken seriously against anyone after that? He layed down for a guy with a broken neck in the most awkward, embarrassing looking rollup in wrestling history. If I was going to consider that every time he came on TV after that, I wouldn't buy him beating Reno Riggins. But this is wrestling and that was a goof and we're not supposed to remember that. So I don't buy that reasoning at all. #4: Well, I'm not saying it "should" have happened but something along those lines certainly "could" have happened. Obviously things turned out fine for the company- they did make a boatload of cash during that time period. I won't argue that. But I question the assertion that Kane and Undertaker really had that much of an impact. Austin would have drawn against anybody in the ring at that point. The real sell was Austin vs. Vince. In my scenario, Vince is conflicted because he doesn't want the belt on either guy for different reasons, and Owen eventually aligns with Vince which would have made him exactly the type of heel he was perfect at playing. The only difference between a program with Vince and Owen against Austin and one with Taker/Kane against Austin is that the former would have actually provided some great matches and already had a killer backstory. I'm not saying Owen should have had a 2 year run on top or anything. But in the short-term after Montreal, it always bothered me how he was handled. Not even just because I'm an Owen fan, just because it came across so sloppily on TV. Here they've got this huge built-in program handed to them on a silver platter and they never did a damn thing with it... all of a sudden Owen is just inexplicably booted down the card to put over Shawn's lackey (HHH). It made no sense from a storyline perspective. I will say this: if the WWE operated then like it was today, with what I call a "show-within-a-show" mentality then there's no way they wouldn't have run with the Owen thing. Look at the Matt Hardy/Edge situation. They felt like they had to bring Matt back just so they could run a worked-shoot storyline. Look at the fact that they're bringing back ECW. Look at all the random past stars that appear on TV (Hacksaw Jim Duggan, Kamala, Doink, anyone?). Look at all the re-hashes of the screwjob in the past couple of years. Look at the Ultimate Warrior DVD. Look at the Gimmick Battle Royale. Look at the Hulk Hogan comebacks. Look at the HHH/Cena storyline where supposed "backstage politics" made it on to TV. Look at the Shawn/Vince feud. Look at the Hall of Fame ceremony. Look at the Foley/Edge feud about "Wrestlemania moments" and "transitional champions." This company is obsessed with history, and nostalgia, and status, and behind-the-scenes dirt. The WWE is no longer a show. It's a show about a show. And if that mindset had been in place in 1998, we would have seen Owen doing something major, whether it was feuding with Vince or Shawn or Austin. He wouldn't have been farting around with X-Pac and Shamrock, that's for sure. Like I said, to me this type of scenario is just one of those things I've always thought "could" have easily happened. I know that realistically at the time, Vince didn't want to push Owen because of how the Bret stuff went down and he didn't want to let him out of his contract either. He was content to let him flounder. And I know that Austin never forgave Owen for the broken neck and wouldn't have wanted to work with him. And I know they didn't exactly miss the boat because the direction they went in was very successful. But I still think it could have happened, and I personally would have loved to see it a lot more than Austin vs. Taker and Kane.

Yeah, the main event of WM14 was horrible, and that Over the Edge 98 match with Dude Love was one of the worst matches of all time. Let's not forget those horrible matches with The Rock at WM15 and Backlash 99, those guys don't know how to work at all. Oh and how can I forget that sloppy and dreadful Summerslam 98 main event with The Undertaker, why was Vince doing booking those 2 clowns in the main event! WM 14 I'll buy. Even with Shawn's messed up back they still managed to have a pretty good match. The Dude Love and and Undertaker matches were solid, but they were hardly great. And no, I don't care for either of those matches against the Rock. As far as the "punch-kick-brawl into the crowd-break the announce table-overdo finishers" style that oversaturated every main event for most of '98 and '99 (and into 2000) the Rock matches were okay, but given the formula, that's not saying much. That terrible brawling formula killed a lot of those matches for me. There was just nothing to it.

- #1 Contender matches are lame and always have been. - Bobby Heenan is one of the funniest comedians that has ever lived. - The #1 guy they should have made huge from day one but completely dropped the ball on is not RVD: It's Chris Jericho. - Christian is better than Edge on the mic. - Authority figures post-Jack Tunney/Gorilla Monsoon have always sucked; it's nothing new. - They should get rid of the standard sets for every TV show to give each week/arena more of an individual identity. - Jeff Jarrett circa 1995 is one of my favorite wrestlers ever. - Michael Cole and Tazz are TERRIBLE and use the word "hell" FAR too often and casually. Let this set in and watch any episode of Smackdown and you'll see what I mean. You'll never be able to take them seriously again. - There should always be a classic heel announcer. At all times. Jerry Lawler should be this. He was great at it from '93-'96... then he gradually lost his balls. He should get them back. Even if Coach isn't that great, at least he provided a heel voice in the booth. This is part of what made Heyman such a breath of fresh air when he replaced Lawler for most of '01. - The Bret Hart/HBK Iron Man was amazing, with much better work than Rock/HHH, which was good in its own right but is looked upon favorably because of all the bells and whistles. - I totally agree with whoever said that Austin is given far too much credit for being such a "draw." Sure, he drew a shitload, but the success of that era was about the drastic change in the product and crash TV. Austin was the top guy on the team, but it was still a group effort. He was Larry Bird. A Hall of Famer, no doubt, but those Celtics teams were legendary because he was also playing with McHale, Parrish, etc. So let's not forget that those surrounding Austin (Bret, Vince, Rock, Foley, etc.) had a lot to do with the success of the company as a whole. It's really no comparison to what Hogan did in the mid 80's when people cared about the WWF JUST because of Hulk Hogan. Hogan was Michael Jordan... which I guess makes Savage Scottie Pippen. - Austin/Rock from X-7 is WAAAAY overrated. - After Summerslam '97, Steve Austin didn't have a good match until 2001. - Pretty much every WWF main event from 1998-1999 sucked. - The 1999/2000 tag division was awesome, and that's not just limited to the TLCers. - Events seem a thousand times more important when Howard Finkel is doing the ring announcing. - Funny Kurt Angle > Pissed off Kurt Angle. - Brock Lesnar was nothing special. - Wrestling is not cyclical. It had two boom periods. It may go on an upswing at some point but it will never approach the heights of the two booms again. - 60% of the relevant people on the roster should have been phased out long ago and have been around way too long (Kane, Big Show, Flair, Taker, etc.). There's nowhere left to go with them. - All this nostalgia stuff and fascination with living in the past is ridiculous and counter-productive. (ECW, DX, Hogan, etc.) - Cookie cutter pushes are boring (Lashley, Masters, etc.) - Christian was the most underrated worker/bumper in the TLC matches. - The Edge vs. Christian feud was one of the most botched feuds ever. - Every ladder match after TLC has been completely pointless... although I did enjoy Jericho/Benoit. To me, that was the last great 1 on 1 ladder match. - Stiff does not equal good. - ECW sucked. - The new ECW will suck. - Constant talk on TV about "Wrestlemania moments" and "transitional champions" is silly. - Anyone that thinks "Bret screwed Bret" is ignorant. - Orton, Cena, JBL, etc. were/are not legitimate World Champs. - Finlay does nothing for me. - Ken Kennedy, Ken Doane, Ken Patera, Ken Stabler, Kenny from South Park or anyone named Ken will never headline Wrestlemania. - Of course, predicting future Wrestlemania matches is pointless. - Squash matches and jobbers should slowly be phased back in, within reason. - There should be no more than 6 PPV's a year total. - MMA stuff is boring and unappealing and I don't understand why it has a place in wrestling news/discussion outlets. I mean, you could say boxing is similar too, but I don't see Meltzer covering that. - I hate it when people end sentences that start with "I wonder" or "I think" with question marks. If you're wondering or thinking about something, you're conveying that thought in the form of a statement, even if the content of the statement has you pondering or questioning something. - The only reason Bush hasn't been assassinated yet is because the only people with guns are the ones who voted for him.

That's true. I do love The Office so I hope they can keep it up. Even though I really didn't care for the skating rink and the karate thing, they have used most of the other settings very well. I guess the Jim/Pam stuff will become more of an issue than the different settings. When that situation finally explodes (if it does... I think it would kind of be cool if it never did) the way they handle that will go a long way in determining the direction the show takes.

I love Scrubs, but whenever I watch it now I can't help but notice how much they've strayed from J.D.'s original character. They've made him way more over the top than he used to be. It's too much. Go back and watch a couple of the Season One episodes and then watch something from this year right afterwards. The differences are startling. In Season One J.D. explained to Elliot what a no-hitter was and how it's baseball superstition to not say a word to the pitcher when he has a good game going. And there was another episode where he played basketball with Turk and even though he got his ass handed to him, you could tell he still had some idea about what he was doing- he was a regular guy. Now fast forward to this year and he doesn't know who Barry Bonds is, has no idea who Arnold Palmer is and mistakes Turk's Latreel Spreewell reference for a hockey player. It's more than just the sports knowledge though. In the beginning there was a balance with his character. Yeah, he was always paranoid and daydreaming, but he also usually had his shit together. But now he's this effeminate aloof goofball 95% of the time. It's especially apparent in his relationship with Turk; they've taken one aspect of their original relationship and cranked it up about 100x to the point where that's the only way they interact anymore. The J.D. stuff really bugs me because I loved his original character and a lot of the stuff they're doing with him now is overkill and better in small doses. And since he's the narrator, and the show is through his eyes, it really takes its toll on the show as a whole. My question is: when exactly did this happen. I've only seen Seasons One, Two and Five so I'm in the dark. I prefer One to Two, but Two is still pretty true to its original form. Was there one specific turning point in Season Three or Four where they started to ruin his character or was it more of a gradual shift? I mean.. what's with the scooter? That said, I still love the show. Now that Arrested Development is gone I'd probably rank my current favorites like this: 1. The Office, 2. Scrubs, 3. My Name Is Earl, 4. Family Guy As was said, there have been some great episodes this year like the Wizard of Oz one and the recent Dr. Cox storyline. But as a whole I just prefer Season One to everything. So for those of you that were saying you can't get into it and don't understand the love, I'd suggest checking out Season One, before J.D. turned into a complete goofball. It's a strange trend- with a lot of newer shows, it seems like they start out at their peak and then fizzle out as time goes on. It used to be the opposite. Look at Seinfeld, The Simpsons, Everybody Loves Raymond, etc. Those shows definitely got funnier from than they were in the beginning. Seinfeld: The first two years of this show are such a contrast to what it became later. This show just kept constantly improving and finally found its audience around season four. They really found out how to maximize their style as they went along- it's almost like the first few years were a learning process. Even though the stories in some of the later years became a little wacky and less realistic, it still maintained a really high level until they went out. Simpsons: When you catch an episode from those first two seasons, you definitely know you're watching one of the "early ones". It wasn't until Season Three that they started getting really good, and Season Four until they consistently started spitting out some of the greatest shows of all-time. They more or less kept up this quality up until around Season Eight (in my opinion). But still, there was a learning curve. It kept improving and improving. Now look at all the current shows... Scrubs: Season One was damn near perfect and Season Two was really solid as well. Now it's to the point where things feel a bit off. Arrested Development: I love AD as much as anyone. It's not that the quality slipped much in Season Two or Three (though Three got really goofy at times and I didn't really love the Rita story)... it's just that Season One started off SO strongly that I don't know how they could ever evolve to the point where they could possibly top that. I'm just speculating here but I think shows like the Office and Earl are going to go through a similar decline. With a show like the Office where they're so locked in to one setting, I worry about longevity. It's only Season Two (since Season One was six episodes, it might as well still be Season One) and already they've left the office a bunch of times, sometimes in contrived situations. They've already gone to Chili's, the karate place, Michael's new pad, wherever Dwight's speech was, the booze cruise, the hockey rink, etc. It's been funny, but how long can they keep sending everyone to random places? I thought the ice skating, karate, and even Dwight's speech episodes felt out of place. And besides that, the obvious question is how long can they possibly keep up the Jim and Pam stuff and where do they eventually go with it? I love the gimmick Earl uses with his list. It's pretty innovative. But again, I wonder how long they can go with it, especially when it seems like the first 5-10 minutes of each episode recently seems to be an extended flashback. Going back a little, I think Malcolm in the Middle is another example of this. I remember the first couple seasons of that show being awesome but then it went to hell pretty fast. So why do shows these days start off so strongly and then decline, whereas in the past they would start off kind of slow and then improve over time to realize their full potential? I think a lot of it has to do with the pressure to be a breakout hit right off the bat since the networks are so quick to ax every new show that doesn't succeed right away. Makes you wonder how many shows we've lost too quickly in recent years that never got a proper chance to evolve.

I nominate: The end of WM X with Bret regaining the Title, and being congratulated by Piper, Savage, Gorilla, Vince, etc. while Owen looks on in the aisle. The chaotic ending to Savage/Flair at WM 8 followed by the post-match interviews. Savage and Liz reuniting at WM 7. The last five minutes of Savage/Steamboat. The last five minutes of Bret/Bulldog. The last five minutes of Canadian Stampede.

I'm not sure it made the most sense. It would have been fine, but I think midcard 8 and 10 man tag matches like that are better suited to break up the monotony of a bunch of singles matches. Kind of like the 8 man tag at WM 8 that was wedged between the IC Title match and WWF Title match. So I don't know that I would have put it first where it couldn't split up anything. I think they had the right idea by using it as a buffer between the ladder match and Bret/Yoko. It's too bad they ran out of time; I was really looking forward to that match at the time.

The thing about WM X is that Bret/Owen wasn't the typical opener- not because it turned out to be such a great match, but because of the storyline going in. It's not like these were two random guys that went in with the idea to "steal the show" from the two guys in the main event... because Bret was in BOTH the first and last match. The match doesn't stand alone. You can't just look at it on paper and see the first match is considered to be ***** therefore it was the wrong choice for an opener. It doesn't work that way because the storyline is perfect. Simply put, WM X is about one guy: Bret. He loses in the opener and wins the main event. Owen beats Bret on his best day and jumps out of the shadow only to fall right back beneath it two hours later when Bret wins the big one. Perfect. And the same effect would not have been had if they'd "dumbed down the match" or given it 8-10 minutes just to keep with this bizarre notion that the opener doesn't have the right to exceed a certain level of expectations. The fact that Owen beat Bret cleanly in such a classic, a legitimate back and forth 20 minute battle where Bret was clearly on his A-game, is what makes the storyline so great. And let's not look at this in hindsight. This was one of those unexpected classics. Today this show is remembered for two matches but it's not like those are the two matches that primarily sold the show in the first place. Sure, there was a buzz because of the whole brother vs. brother thing, but Bret and Owen weren't yet in an all out blood feud. Bret was reluctant to upset the match in the first place, and other than Owen's heel turn (a simple kick to the leg) there had been no physical contact between the two. I remember watching live when it became apparent this match was up first and being excited- it just slapped you in the face from the get go and got you pumped. But there was enough time between this and the ladder match that they certainly didn't detract from one another. There are two solid arguments that can be made against the card placement of WM X: 1) That Bret/Owen was the first match in and of itself is no big deal, but the fact that Luger/Yoko didn't go on until sixth is a little troubling. In storyline terms, the Bret/Owen match was booked to offset the Luger/Yoko match, thus forcing both participants in the final Title match to have already wrestled once prior. (Had Bret won the coin toss and received the first title shot of the night, Luger would have had to wrestle Crush.) The fact that four or five matches and over an hour passed between the time Bret first wrestled and the time Yoko/Luger first wrestled is kind of cheap in storyline terms. In a truly "fair" situation, they should have been held back to back, whether it was first/second or fourth/fifth. (Of course they didn't do that because having the matches back to back would have stolen some of the thunder from the second one.) 2) IF anything stole heat from the last match (and I don't think it really did), it wasn't Bret/Owen, which had happened 2 and a half hours earlier. It's the Ladder match, which happened directly before it. THAT's the worst timing issue on this show. I know the 10 man tag was supposed to be added as a buffer afterwards and they ran out of time, but the fact is they had this show-stealing unique type of gimmick match that most people had never seen before and they ran it directly before the main event. Do you really think the crowd was burned out from Bret/Owen hours before? No... they had just seen Michaels doing all this innovative crazy stuff with a freaking ladder ten minutes earlier. If the main event was cheapened in any way, that's what did it. Savage/Crush is an underrated match in terms of easing the crowd out of a lull that might be experienced after such a great match like Bret/Owen. It was such a different style of match and stuff like the brawling to the back and the falls count anywhere stipulations hadn't been seen before that. Plus it was a hot feud and the crowd was into Savage. Any concerns about Bret/Owen upstaging the rest of the card were put to rest here because after Savage's big win and face pop, it was no longer a "one-match show" and it set the tone for a series of important moments. There has to be some degree of filler to offset the truly great stuff on a card and make it stand out. You have to consider what's surrounding these matches. Bret/Owen had plenty of filler to pad it. The mixed tag, women's title match, tag title match, Earthquake squash, etc. all took place in between Bret/Owen and the Ladder match and second main event. It's not like it overshadowed everything that followed. I disagree with whoever said that the card must consistently build from start to finish. Yes, in most situations, ideally, the final match should be the most important and I have no problem with that. The conclusion to the show should be the best. But as far as getting to that point, I believe more in a system of peaks and valleys. For as good as the WWF got in the 1998-2001 era, one of the things I hated was that they eventually started booking PPVs that way. For awhile, it seemed like if there were 9 matches, their philosophy was to put the 9th most important first, 8th most important second, 7th most important 3rd, etc. To me, that's so irritating. Each match is a seaparate entity- it's NOT like reading a novel or watching a movie where everything has to progress and build perfectly. The idea should be to split up the good stuff and put the crap around around it. Don't go from crap, crap, kinda crappy, average, pretty good, good, really good, great. It's those kind of structures that upstage main events. It's not about progression; it's about balance. I hated how in 1999-2000ish, they'd just fire off main event after main event after main event (see: Fully Loaded 2000, where the triple main event are the final three matches). I remember when they smartened up at No Way Out '01 and put the HHH/Austin match in the middle of the card instead of directly before Rock/Angle. That's smart booking, because it gives you some breathing room between the two major matches. Yet a bunch of people online afterwards were talking about how OMG I can't believe that match got booted down the card. Same thing at Wrestlemania XIX (and I think X-8) when the women's title match went on so late. People were confused at how it could be so "high" on the card. The location on the card had nothing to do with importance; it was just a buffer, "bathroom break" match. I don't understand how some people didn't see this. There is no perfect "formula" to follow in organizing a great card. Yes, some things should hold true: the most important match usually goes last, the opener should fire up the crowd, try to split up gimmick matches, try to split up tag matches. But balance is definitely the most important thing. At the end of the night, you're going to have a favorite match. Who cares if it was the first match, third match, or tenth match? As long as the bookers do a good job in balancing the card so that one match doesn't upstage another, which I believe they did at WM X, what's the difference? I was surprised when they opened with Bret/Owen right off the bat. They tore down the house- it was a very pleasant surprise. It didn't ruin the rest of the show for me. If anything, it hooked me in even more and got me more pumped because I hadn't expected it to lead off or be that good. So my attention was hooked in. It doesn't matter that Luger/Yoko or Savage/Crush weren't ***** matches. I was drawn into the show- I wanted to see if Bret could recover from the loss and the knee injury, I still wanted to see the falls count anywhere stipulation, I still wanted to see the ladder match, I was still going to cheer against Luger as much as I always did, and I still wanted to see who the mystery special guest referees were going to be. None of these things would have changed if Bret/Owen had gone on second instead of first.

I agree with a lot of the choices so far, especially Bret/Owen, of course. I also especially echo Midnights/Southern Boys, Rockers/Orients, Too Cool/Team ECK, Rockers/Barbarian & Haku, Shawn/Tatanka, and Jericho/Storm. All really solid openers, some in different ways than others. A few that I'll throw out there for discussion: Bret Hart vs. Razor Ramon, KOTR 93 Action packed ten minutes that's a completely different style of match from their Rumble World Title match and really sets the tone for the tournament. Really hot finishing sequence with an amazing false finish that the crowd totally bought. Bret counters Razor's pattened moves to pick up the win. This match A) got over the idea of the 15 minute first round time limit, B) includes Razor stepping on Bret's fingers, which Bret sold in his next to matches and whether this is important or not: C) while it was easily the best match of the first round, it wasn't the best of the show (Bret vs. Perfect) and wasn't the main focus or climactic moment of the show (Bret vs. Bam Bam, Hogan vs. Yoko). Just a great table-setter. Chris Jericho vs. William Regal, WM X-7 This match never gets any love. I know it was a disappointment at the time- a lot of people expected it to get 15 minutes and be kind of a classic WM clinic in the Bret/Owen or Savage/Steamboat sense. Well it's only about 8 minutes and obviously doesn't touch either of those, but for what it is, it's a great little match. Solid action, the right guy goes over, and it kind of set the stage. It felt like an important enough match to justify the big dome atmosphere and acclamate the fans to it, but didn't detract from the major matches that were to follow. Razor Ramon vs. Jeff Jarrett, Royal Rumble 95 Just a really smartly worked match. Nothing too fancy, but sound psychology and a good story. This is pro wrestling 101. You just don't see enough stuff like this anymore. The Roadie clips Razor's knee while he's on the floor and he gets counted out, but then Jarrett refuses to take the lame countout victory because he wants the IC Title. So he demands that Razor show some balls and continue the match... Razor's pride makes him accept, but it proves to be stupid since his knee is shot and keeps collapsing on him. Jarrett finally capitalizes to win the gold. Hart Foundation vs. Brainbusters, Summerslam 89 One of my favorite tag matches. It really eases the crowd into the action nicely. Completely non-formulaic tag match with the babyface Harts controlling the majority with some sweet double teams. The Busters steal the win at the end with some chicanery after hanging on by a thread the whole time. The coolest part about this was that the Busters had recently won the Tag Titles on SNME but since this match had been signed beforehand, the Titles weren't on the line. Again, logical stuff like that just doesn't happen anymore... especially when half the card isn't booked until a week before the PPV these days. And on top of that, it would seem the babyface challengers would win a non-Title match to set up the rematch for the Title... but no. The Champs prevailed anyway. Other solid openers that came to mind when I was thinking about this (though I don't think anyone would call them "Best ever"): Survivor Series 91, 93, and 94, Edge/Storm (SS 01), Owen/Edge (one of the '98 IYH's), Jarrett/Edge (Fully Loaded 99), Jericho/Angle (NWO '00), Dudleys/E & C (RR 01)

My favorite WWF/E women's match is still the ladies match from Survivor Series 1987. The work of everyone in that match was great (save Marie and Christianello since they were the designated jobbers for their team). Plus, it featured the nicest giant swing I've ever seen. Definitely... it's all about the Jumpin Bomb Angels. The stuff they were doing during that period was insane... it practically showed up 90% of the guys on the roster. Also, I'm sure that in the days before PPVs and live weekly TV, women like Moolah and Sherri had some great matches. So if you want to say Mickie/Trish is the best women's match of the "Divas era" then fine, but to automatically declare it the best women's match in company history may be a little short sighted.

Best of the Intercontinental Title would be cool. I know they had a Coliseum tape like that back in the day, and there's a really crappy short DVD with a similar name (that has like 4 or 5 Shawn Michaels TV/Coliseum matches from '93) but I think a comprehensive look at the history of the IC Title would be cool. Doesn't have to be only Title changes, although a lot of ones on my list are. I put a * next to widely available matches- they wouldn't have to be included since they're easily found elsewhere, although they are great IC Title matches: Tito vs. Savage Savage vs. Steamboat* Steamboat vs. Honky Warrior vs. Honky Warrior vs. Rude (Slam 89) Tito vs. Perfect Perfect vs. Bret* Bret vs. Piper* Bret vs. Bulldog* Bulldog vs. Shawn Shawn vs. Marty Razor vs. Martel Razor vs. Shawn* Razor vs. Diesel Razor vs. Jarrett Shawn vs. Jarrett Razor vs. Goldust Rock vs. HHH Owen vs. Rock Austin vs. Owen Jarrett vs. Edge Jericho vs. Angle Jericho vs. Benoit Jericho vs. Regal Jeff Hardy vs. HHH Edge vs. Christian etc. And lots I haven't mentioned.... I'm just saying... there's lots of cool IC Title matches to choose from.

I'd like to see sets on the following three guys: Owen Savage Perfect But especially Owen. Also, I don't know how it would work but if they could release some sort of compilation with all the Gorilla/Heenan skits and interactions, and maybe throw some of their commentary on there... well, that would be amazing. I wouldn't want to watch a million ladder matches in a row (kind of desensitizes the viewer to the whole concept) but I'm surprised they haven't released something along the lines of "Best Ladder Matches" yet.

They've been doing stuff like that for awhile now. In addition to what CC mentioned: Brock and Angle kept feuding throughout '03 after WM 19. HHH and Jericho had a PPV rematch two months after WM 18. Rock and HHH feuded forever after WM 2000. Rock and Austin had a big rematch after WM 15. Even after WM 14, Taker/Kane and Rock/Shamrock kept on feuding for months. I don't like it either but it's hardly anything new. Ever since the demise of IYH, it's been pretty common. The instances in which they don't continue with a lot of the top feuds have been due more to injuries or guys leaving than anything else.

What I don't understand is that one of the onging arguments seems to be: People who think Cena should turn heel vs. People who think he should have dropped the belt because he's getting booed Well, why does it have to be one or the other? He doesn't HAVE to drop the title in order to turn heel. I think they should just turn him while he's still the champ. I've never liked the guy and I don't like him as the champion but I also don't want to see yet another HHH reign. They seem hell bent on keeping the belt on him, so why not just turn him while he's still the champ. We haven't seen that dynamic in quite awhile. What I'm not looking forward to is the endless string of rematches. The post WM formula has been so stale for years now, with main event rematches at the next two PPVs. Give me Cena/RVD or Cena/Edge or Cena/HBK or Cena/Flair or Cena/Benjamin or Cena/Carlito or Cena/anybody... just not two more Cena/HHH matches.

Just remember that the PPVs always end like 15min early. Oh, OK, didn't realize that. I haven't actually watched a live PPV since... I don't even know... possibly Summerslam '01.

I'm not watching, but let me get this straight. There's 45 minutes left? For the pillow fight and HHH/Cena? Is it at all *possible* that RVD gets involved during/after the Title match to cash in? After all MITB was on second... that was ages ago. I wouldn't normally consider this a possibility, but I just can't see HHH/Cena going more than 15 or so minutes. The way you guys are describing this a lot of the matches seem rushed, especially the last one... almost like they want to make sure they have plenty of time for the ending. And unless they had something really cool planned for the end of Cena/HHH why wouldn't Rey's victory go on last? Makes me think something is up. Or maybe HHH will just get a 20 minute entrance- whatever.

SSlam 02...though they don't mention that... "You must be THIS TALL to talk to Kurt Angle." Yeah, but you know as well as I that stuff from 3-4 years ago has no bearing on this current angle. Which is strange, considering they have no problem mentioning the Undertaker going over Giant Gonzalez 13 years ago, but they won't mention the history between two of the guys in their main event.

The booking actually makes sense when you think about it. If they weren't gonna do a schmozz finish, or a cheap DQ, what would you have prefered? From a storyline perspective it makes sense for Rey to tap out so quickly. Why would he risk severe damage by trying to hang on to win this meaningless match, when he could just tap out, end it, and make sure his ankle isn't screwed up going into the actual important match. Of course, announcers suck these days, so something like that isn't expressed to the viewer, but that's the logical implication. Now when Rey goes over Sunday, Angle has a built in re-match. Yeah, as the former Champ he would have had that anyway, but it's reinforced now since Angle has beaten Rey one on one, but Rey hasn't done the same to him. Standard booking. For example, Jericho jobbed clean to Austin on Raw the week before he won the Undisputed Championship on PPV. Tonight they were making the Champion look strong going into the PPV, which makes perfect sense because due to the triple threat rules, the odds are stacked against him. This is just putting heat on Rey to add to his underdog role. If he beats Angle clean a couple days before the show, he's not really the underdog anymore, is he?

I'm sure most of you have seen this before. I'm not sure where it started or who came up with it, but I can remember seeing it online as far back as around Wrestlemania 2000. I haven't tried it in a few years so I figured I'm due. The game is as follows: Using WM 1-21, you select one match from each year's card. The goal is to make a Wrestlemania supercard of sorts, with as many classic and memorable matches as possible while trying to keep the crap to a minimum. The rules make this challenging because A) You're not allowed to use anybody more than once and B) You're not allowed to use the same Title more than once. For example, if you use Savage/Steamboat from Wrestlemania III, you can't use HBK/Razor from Wrestlemania X since they're both for the Intercontinental Title. If you use, Bret/Owen from WM X, Bret/Austin from WM 13 is out of the question since you've already used Bret. This makes for quite a difficult task. Some guys like Savage, Bret, HBK, Angle, etc. have a ton of great matches to pick from. And some have been in so many like Hogan and Undertaker that it really gets tricky. This was hard enough to do back in 2000 but now that the last 5 or 6 years have featured pretty much all the same guys in high profile matches (Austin, Rock, HHH, Angle, Benoit, Jericho, Undertaker, Michaels, Hogan, etc.) it's even harder. Give it a shot and you'll see what I mean. So, using these rules, what's your ultimate WrestleMania card? I'll post mine in a bit. I: II: III: IV: V: VI: VII: VIII: IX: X: XI: XII: 13: XIV: XV: 2000: X-7: X-8: XIX: XX: 21: