humanoid92

Booking 101 says they should've waited longer for this turn. Have them win a few tag matches so they earn a Tag Title shot, and then do the turn in the big title match. And when it happens, you've gotta have Carlito just destroy him, and not have Flair immediately fight back and look like he got the upper hand.

Yeah, it was bad timing and I slacked toward the end, but oh well. I think the PMs had something to do with it too. Since there was no reason to post in the thread it kept on falling farther and farther down the board. Plus, people probably don't like sending PMs. JT, I agree with you on Austin/Rock. I've always thought that match was ridiculously overrated.

If I was gonna be honest with myself instead of voting to include biases, which was part of the strategy (I wanted to knock Bret vs. Austin down a notch because I feel it's vastly overrated), and I was just going to straight-up list what I think are the best/my favorites, I'd have gone: Bret vs. Owen Bret vs. Piper Flair vs. Savage Warrior vs. Savage Bret vs. Austin TLC Christian vs. Jericho Austin vs. Rock So, pretty much what I actually voted for, with a few minor changes. I still think it would have been more interesting if A) matches like Steamboat/Savage and Bret/Shawn made it, and B) there was a larger sample size of votes (like 100 or so). If the final eight had been what I anticipated it to be before the sweet sixteen, I would have gone: Bret vs. Owen Bret vs. Shawn Savage vs. Steamboat Savage vs. Flair Warrior vs. Savage Bret vs. Austin TLC Austin vs. Rock

Here is what everyone voted for: Kahran Ramsus: #1 - Bret Hart vs. Steve Austin #2 - Owen Hart vs. Bret Hart #3 - Steve Austin vs. The Rock #4 - Ultimate Warrior vs. Randy Savage #5 - Rand Savage vs. Ric Flair #6 - Edge & Christian vs. The Hardy Boyz vs. The Dudley Boyz #7 - Bret Hart vs. Roddy Piper #8 - Christian vs. Chris Jericho Gosunkugi: 1. Owen Hart vs. Bret Hart 2. Bret Hart vs. Steve Austin 3. Christian vs. Chris Jericho 4. Edge & Christian vs. Hardy Boyz vs. Dudley Boyz (X-7) 5. Randy Savage vs. Ric Flair 6. Steve Austin vs. The Rock (X-7) 7. Ultimate Warrior vs. Randy Savage 8. Bret Hart vs. Roddy Piper Vern Gagne: - Ultimate Warrior vs. Randy Savage-3 - Bret Hart vs. Roddy Piper-7 - Randy Savage vs. Ric Flair-5 - Owen Hart vs. Bret Hart-2 - Bret Hart vs. Steve Austin-1 - Edge & Christian vs. Hardy Boyz vs. Dudley Boyz (X-7)-4 - Steve Austin vs. The Rock (X-7)-6 - Christian vs. Chris Jericho-8 alfdogg: 1. Bret Hart vs. Steve Austin 2. Steve Austin vs. The Rock (X-7) 3. Owen Hart vs. Bret Hart 4. Ultimate Warrior vs. Randy Savage 5. Randy Savage vs. Ric Flair 6. Bret Hart vs. Roddy Piper 7. Edge & Christian vs. Hardy Boyz vs. Dudley Boyz (X-7) 8. Christian vs. Chris Jericho Me: 1- Bret vs. Owen 2- Bret vs. Piper 3- Savage vs. Flair 4- Christian vs. Jericho 5- Savage vs. Warrior 6- TLC 7- Bret vs. Austin 8- Austin vs. Rock TheOriginalOrangeGoblin: 1. Randy Savage vs. Ric Flair 2. Owen Hart vs. Bret Hart 3. Ultimate Warrior vs. Randy Savage 4. Bret Hart vs. Steve Austin 5. Steve Austin vs. The Rock (X-7) 6. Bret Hart vs. Roddy Piper 7. Edge & Christian vs. Hardy Boyz vs. Dudley Boyz (X-7) 8. Christian vs. Chris Jericho CanadianChris: My list: 1. Savage/Warrior 2. Savage/Flair 3. Bret/Austin 4. Bret/Piper 5. Bret/Owen 6. Christian/Jericho 7. TLC II 8. Austin/Rock J.T. 1. Owen Hart vs. Bret Hart 2. Randy Savage vs. Ric Flair 3. Bret Hart vs. Roddy Piper 4. Edge & Christian vs. Hardy Boyz vs. Dudley Boyz (X-7) 5. Bret Hart vs. Steve Austin 6. Christian vs. Chris Jericho 7. Ultimate Warrior vs. Randy Savage 8. Steve Austin vs. The Rock (X-7) Chui: 1. Steve Austin vs. The Rock (X-7) 2. Randy Savage vs. Ric Flair 3. Bret Hart vs. Roddy Piper 4. Christian vs. Chris Jericho 5. Edge & Christian vs. Hardy Boyz vs. Dudley Boyz (X-7) 6. Owen Hart vs. Bret Hart 7. Bret Hart vs. Steve Austin 8. Ultimate Warrior vs. Randy Savage I've always felt those last 3 were really overrated. gWIL: 1. Christian vs. Chris Jericho 2. Bret Hart vs. Steve Austin 3. Owen Hart vs. Bret Hart 4. Steve Austin vs. The Rock (X-7) 5. Ultimate Warrior vs. Randy Savage 6. Edge & Christian vs. Hardy Boyz vs. Dudley Boyz (X-7) 7. Bret Hart vs. Roddy Piper 8. Randy Savage vs. Ric Flair

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

I agree with a lot of what you said, but the only thing I can say to that first question is that tonight's match supposedly puts Cena and Shawn at a strong disadvantage at the PPV because they're supposed to be gassed from this match. So the heels have the advantage. And since Shawn beat Cena, Shawn has a leg up on him. So the faces are fighting the odds, and Cena is fighting the ultimate odds... I guess that's the story. JR kind of tried to put that over at the end, when he said "But what did they leave here in the ring tonight?" but it could have been emphasized more. Your second point is right on... where's the incentive to pay to see a lame four-way when you just saw a way better match for free? And even taking it a step beyond that, why order Wrestlemania? No one could have predicted they would have done this 45 minute (or whatever it was) rematch on Raw like this, but even so, it's become very common in recent years for there to be a lot of high-profile Wrestlemania rematches. I liked the fact that they did this match because it's nice to see something different, and it's refreshing to see such a long free-TV match that had a clean finish to boot. And no bladejob or brawling into the crowd or chair shots or ref bumps. No gimmicks and no bullshit. That's always nice. Good effort from both sides and it was a fun match with a simple (if not incredibly drawn-out) story and a really good finish. That said, by no means was this a classic match. The novelty of "wow, this match just keeps going and going" is cool and they worked hard, but it's not like this was some all-time classic. I like it when matches like this get undeserved amount of praise just because they're long and unexpected, but then a match like the WM 12 Iron Man gets ridiculed because it's the trendy thing to do and "it was low scoring" even though it's a far superior match. Just saying.

Just an update. 10 votes thus far, so I'd really like to get at least 10 more before it's over.

It wasn't who did the job as much as the manner in which it happened. I agree, but that's why I'm not sure if it belongs on the list. I'd put it as one of the top victories ever, but I don't know about one of the top jobs.

I stuck to the WWF for my list, and I don't know enough about 70's wrestling (I assumed "modern" wrestling began in 1984), but I'll take your word on some of those. I'm glad to see someone else include Yokozuna over Hogan. They turfed the Hulkster and really put Yoko over huge. I was going to include Hogan vs. Sheik as well, except that whole thing really didn't have much to do with the Sheik's job. It was undoubtedly a historic moment and the beggining of Hulkamania, but it could have been almost anyboy jobbing in that slot and wouldn't have detracted from the moment whatsoever. That match was about a lot of things, but the reason it was so big, in my opinion, wasn't primarily because the Sheik did the job.

The first time...the second time...or both I was thinking Wrestlemania, but if you wanted to you could add Surivor Series in too. Come to think of it, Mankind over Taker doesn't really belong on the list. Taker definitely put him over huge, but it was the series of matches and jobs that really accomplished that, not one particular match. Even the defining moment in the feud (Summerslam) was more about Paul Bearer turning on Taker than it was about Mankind getting a clean victory.

The criteria for this list needs more definition, but as far as meaningful jobs that come to my mind as far as being designed to really put one guy over strong, they are: Hogan over Andre Warrior over Hogan Yoko over Hogan Owen over Bret Shawn over Bret Mankind over Taker HHH over Foley And those that got over strongly in one way or another by actually doing the job: Austin, by losing to Bret Bret, by losing to Bulldog

I don't necessarily disagree with either side of the Lesnar vs. Rock/Undertaker debate. But one argument against the victory over the Rock meaning more is the fact that Rock jobbed pretty frequently (for someone in his position) anyway. Not that his selflessness wasn't a good quality, but the fact is he did a ton of jobs. Taker didn't, especially inside Hell in a Cell, so I could see where people would consider that to be the bigger victory. As for Summerslam being on a "bigger stage" than the others, I don't really buy that. PPVs have become so watered-down and there are so many of them that Summerslam might as well be Backlash or No Mercy these days. Before monthly three-hour, non-In Your House PPVs, yes, Summerslam was very special, but now it might as well be just another PPV. This is why it drove me nuts when they had 12-16 PPVs per year and they started doing away with the gimmicks for Survivor Series and the King of the Ring (8 guys down to 4) that actually made them stand out. Of course, that's one of the problems with today's wrestling scene as it is. There's too much over-exposure, too many PPVs, too much TV, and no jobbers. Wins and losses don't matter anymore. There's no such thing as a special match anymore. The top guys constantly wrestle each other on TV week after week after week and month after month on PPV. Because of that, it's not very special when a top guy jobs. Getting new people over is a group effort. Brock got over on a wide variety of factors. Sure, Taker and Rock both played a significant role, but really, the way shows have been booked this decade it makes it really hard for there to be one defining moment that launches a guy. If I was making this list, I don't think I'd have anything that's happened since Foley putting over HHH.

I've always been under the assumption Taker vs. Austin did the highest rating ever because I remember it was a semi-big deal on the internet at the time. I could be wrong, and I don't have any links or statistics to back it up, but when Rock/Foley was first mentioned in this thread, my initial thought was, "Wait, I thought it was Taker vs. Austin." Perhaps some of the confusion is stemming from the possibility that Taker vs. Austin is the highest rated actual match, whereas Rock and Foley "This is your life" is the highest rated promo or overall segment? Or perhaps Rock and Foley were the highest-rated quarter-hour and Taker vs. Austin was the highest-rated overrun? Or perhaps one of them had been the highest rated segment until the other came along and broke the record? I don't know, but these are possible reasons for the confusion. One thing is for sure though- they both got huge ratings. Taker vs. Austin definitely did way more than a 5.9, because I definitely remember it being a huge story that it did some gigantic rating. Of course as far as this thread is concerned, none of it really matters anyway. I don't think TV ratings are enough to judge how many viewers any certain individual is responsible for "drawing."

Well, thanks to the seven of you that voted thus far. The other rounds got a solid 25 votes, so I want to hold out. So if you voted in the other rounds and maybe didn't see this thread, here it is. I know the PM thing is annoying but it's the only way I know of to do a secret ballot, so I hope that doesn't discourage you from voting.

I don't think that there has been a legitimate draw in the company in quite some time. It's the brand and name recognition that draws over anything else. I think guys like Cena, HHH, Batista, Hogan and Taker can draw when given an interesting angle to work with, but I don't think there are many fans who buy tickets just to see them regardless of what they are doing. I agree with these guys. Once you get past the elite, historic, no-doubt-about-it draws that were clearly responsible for making their company a ton of money (Bruno, Andre, Hogan, Austin, Rock, Vince, etc. and to a lesser extent Flair, Bret, Michaels, HHH, Taker, Cena, etc.) and the landscape-changing angles over the course of history (the rise of Hulkamania, the nWo, Austin vs. Vince, etc.), I really don't think there's any reliable way to quantify who exactly is bringing people to the arena and who is causing people to order the PPVs. Once you get past the very top at the most profitable times, everything else is really just baseless speculation. How many times have PPVs (and in the heyday, house shows) sold out within hours of tickets going on sale, months before the card is announced? Maybe it's been a little different since the brand extension, but the average ticket-buyer knows months ahead of time that all the main stars will be there. Who's to say people that bought tickets for Backlash 2000 six months before the event, did it just to see the Rock vs. HHH? Maybe Jericho and Big Show were their favorites to watch on TV and they didn't care much about The Rock. Who knows? Granted, that's just one hypothetical example. And yes, it's safe to say that MORE people cared about the Rock than the Big Show. But the point is, one guy is never responsible for selling EVERY ticket in the arena. Merchandise is one fairly effective method with which to judge someone's popularity. If you sell a lot of merchandise, you're clearly popular and making the company money. It may not tell the whole story; after all, a t-shirt may sell better (or worse) if it looks cool (or hideous), regardless of whose name is on it. But I think this is at least a better way to evaluate midcarders and semi-main eventers as "draws" over something like TV ratings, buyrates, or attendance. Even so, having extensive merchandise available for so many guys is a fairly recent phenomenon. There are certainly guys that have found a niche, in terms of drawing. For example, Rey and Eddie drew hispanic viewers. The Hardyz, the Rockers, Strike Force, or any other pretty boy tag team over the years have done their job of drawing kids and girls. The divas draw in teenage guys. RVD is an example of a guy that has a strong cult following. But when it comes to definitively ranking people other than the all-time greats, with dollar figures or any sort of meaningful statistics, it's impossible. If there were any way to do that and such numbers actually existed, you'd be able to definitively tell me who was the bigger draw at any given time between the following: Tito Santana or Greg Valentine? Jake The Snake or Big Boss Man? Razor Ramon or the British Bulldog? Rikishi or Kane? There's no way to answer any of those questions. Any answer anyone gives will just be speculation, opinion, and personal preference, and has nothing to do with any sort of factual evidence. For instance, I've seen someone like Kane jump onto a few top ten lists. Well, he's a fairly big name in the industry... possibly a top ten name I suppose. But how is it possible to even rank him as any sort of draw? I mean, have any of you actually ever bought a ticket, or bought a PPV, or even turned on Raw JUST to see Kane? I mean, really? When I was a kid (early 90's), my friends and I went to a couple house shows just because there was going to be a show. We didn't know the cards at first. We just wanted to go. So, which wrestler was responsible for "drawing" us into the arena for those shows? I'm not going to shortchange the success guys like Austin and Rock had, but I personally never bought a single PPV to see either of them. I've never liked Austin and I'm usually pretty indifferent to the Rock's matches. But when they were on top, I bought the PPV's mainly out of habit, the desire to see matches longer than three minutes, and the "what's gonna happen next" aspect. My main favorites at the time were Jericho, Angle, and Edge & Christian. And I knew I'd get quality matches from guys like Benoit, Eddie, Malenko, HHH, the Hardyz, etc. That's why I bought the shows, and watched the TV, and bought a ticket to Raw. I couldn't have been the ONLY one that felt this way. Or the only one that had been a fan of wrestling for a long time and found it exciting that it was suddenly popular again. A lot of times, a PPV buyrate is judged solely by its main event. Sometimes, that's a perfectly reasonable way to evaulate it. Say, for a show like Canadian Stampede. But for some shows, where there are multiple main events, an unusually strong undercard, or established name value (Wrestlemania, Royal Rumble), it really doesn't make a lot of sense to just take the main event into consideration. And even when it is acceptable to judge a show just on its main event, there can be problems. Like those shows that have the Elimination Chamber. There's six guys in there. Which one of them sold the show? Did the cage sell it? A lot of times, buyrates, attendance, and money drawn can be a group effort that's not easily assigned to one or two guys. And it really can be a group effort frequently. I'm not going to deny the success of Hogan, Austin and the Rock. The two "booms" were in the late 80s and late 90s, and they had everything to do with that. But it's interesting to note that during those two periods, the WWE's midcard and tag team division were deeper and better than they were at any other point in time. I don't think that's a coincidence. When Hogan was champion, there were legitimate semi-stars like Mr. Perfect, Jake the Snake, Boss Man, DiBiase, Beefcake, etc. The tag division was loaded with Demolition, the Hart Foundation, the Rockers, Legion of Doom, Brainbusters, etc. Austin and Rock had (not to mention each other), Angle, Jericho, Benoit, Guerrero, Kane, Big Show, DX, Edge & Christian, the Hardyz, the Dudleyz, the Acolytes, Too Cool & Rikishi, etc. I'm just saying, it's not like the boom periods happened with Hogan, Rock, and Austin on a show with a few other semi-talented guys and then a bunch of scrubs. Top to bottom, the roster was loaded more than ever at those points in time, and that definitely helped, because if there was a top guy you didn't like, you had plenty of worthy alternatives to follow. And remember, there were long periods of time where Rock was gone making movies, Austin was out with an injury, Taker was out with an injury, and Foley actively retired, and business never took a significant hit. Doesn't that say something about the balance they had going at that point? The point is, I think a lot of times the concept of "drawing" is misunderstood or misrepresented.

Bret Heenan Gorilla Blassie

Absolutely. That's the downside to a tournament format. If we were all just doing straight up top 10 or top 20 lists of our favorite WM matches I'd like to think Savage/Steamboat would crack the overall top eight. The final eight remaining are clearly not the top eight. As much as I love both guys, I think we can all agree Christian/Jericho still being around is pretty surprising. Most glaring omissions from the finalists, in my opinion: Savage/Steamboat Michaels/Ramon Hart/Michaels

Just bumping this because I've only gotten two responses so far (thanks guys). Maybe in order to keep this thread going, everyone can just make a token post in this thread after they send me their votes. Or maybe just post your thoughts on some of the matches you're suprised didn't make the final eight, since I think it's safe to say there are some major matches missing.

Sorry about the delay between rounds. For the final eight, I want to try something different. In keeping with the theme of voting strongly for and against certain biases you may have, I want to give everyone the opportunity to really help the matches you love, and really hurt the ones you may hate. There are eight matches remaining. I want everyone who votes to rank their favorite remaining matches from 1 through 8. So your favorite match is #1, your second favorite is #2, etc. After adding up everyone's votes, the match with the lowest point total (remember one point is a good thing, eight points is a bad thing) will be declared the winner, the second lowest score will be second, etc. So this is really the last round and it's to determine the champion. (Note to Bluestang: Please vote on all 8 matches this time around.) What's the point of this, you ask? Well, in a one-on-one scenario, your one vote counts exactly as much as someone else's. If you vote for choice A and the next guy votes for choice B, your vote has pretty much become worthless. But this adds an element of strategy to it. If you don't think a match that you love will get enough respect from the masses, instead of voting it #3 or #4 like you normally would, you can bump it up to #1 and help it out more than you would have been able to otherwise. Same thing if you think there's a certain match left that's ridiculously overrated and you hate it. Vote it as your #8 and maybe you can knock it down a notch. Just to use a hypothetical example, with Summerslam matches as to not influence the WM voting, say the final 8 matches are: Bret vs. Bulldog, Bret vs. Owen, Razor vs. Shawn, Bret vs. Perfect, Harts vs. Demolition, Austin vs. Angle, Austin vs. Taker, and Hogan vs. Michaels. Now maybe if I was going to be honest with myself I'd rank Austin vs. Angle #6 on that list. But since that match has always kind of irked me because I feel it's overrated, maybe I vote it #8 just out of spite. Similarly, maybe I like Bret vs. Bulldog a shade more than Bret vs. Owen, but I feel Bret vs. Owen is more likely to be slighted. I'd vote Bret vs. Owen #1 to give it the extra help I think it needs, and I'd settle with Bret vs. Bulldog at #2. Or you can just straight up vote for your favorites, 1 through 8, without considering any of this. Either way is fine. It wouldn't be fair for everyone to see each other's votes because after a few people have voted, others could sit back and rank their choices accordingly based on how things are shaping up. For that reason, I ask that everyone PM me their votes, so that it's a secret ballot. At the end of the voting, I'll post what everyone voted so you can all rest assured that everything's on the level and we can justify, debate, discuss, complain, etc. All that said, the elite eight matches in the WrestleMania tournament, in chronological order, are: - Ultimate Warrior vs. Randy Savage - Bret Hart vs. Roddy Piper - Randy Savage vs. Ric Flair - Owen Hart vs. Bret Hart - Bret Hart vs. Steve Austin - Edge & Christian vs. Hardy Boyz vs. Dudley Boyz (X-7) - Steve Austin vs. The Rock (X-7) - Christian vs. Chris Jericho Bret/Piper and Christian/Jericho each won by a single vote. In my opinion, this would have been a lot more interesting had Savage/Steamboat and Bret/Michaels made it, but this is the way it turned out. Let the voting begin. And as usual, I'll be back at some point with some analysis from the previous round. Thanks for voting.

The word "carrying" is definitely thrown around way too much. Why does everyone automatically assume that if a match is good, the better worker must have "carried" it? Sure, there are lots of examples of that, but some people seem to think the act of "carrying" can be applied to every match. It can't. I'm not even talking about the ongoing Cena argument, just the general notion that nearly every match is supposedly a "carry-job" one way or the other. Take the Wembley stadium match with Bret and Bulldog. Bret was a way better worker. By all accounts, Bulldog blew up early in the match, forgot every spot they planned, and Bret considers the match such an accomplishment because he literally had to walk Davey through the whole match. In fact, if you go back and watch the match, there are a lot of points where you can just tell Bret is guiding him and setting up the whole flow of the match by himself. Now I think Bulldog was a really good worker in his own right. But in this particular match, he was clearly carried by Bret. Now consider Bret against Piper at Wrestlemania. Again, everyone knows Bret was a much better worker. Piper may be a legendary name, but he didn't exactly have a ton of mat classics to his credit. They went out and had a classic match. And yet, I would never try to claim Bret carried Piper, because he didn't. Piper clearly more than held up his end of the match. Bret gave his usual great performance, but he didn't have to walk Piper through anything. When you think about it, the situations are similar. Bret was by far a better worker than each of his opponents. In fact, most would say Bulldog was a much better worker than Piper. But one of those matches was a carry-job. And one wasn't even close. Seems like most people would have you believe that the better worker carries every single match they're in, when that's really not the case.

If you didn't vote in this round yet, do it now. A lot of close matchups at this point. Some Round 3 info: - There were only four upsets out of 16 matchups. They were: Savage/Flair over Razor/Shawn, Christian/Jericho over Taker/Flair, TLC at X-7 over Rock/Hogan, and Angle/Lesnar over Austin/Michaels. - The closest battles were: Savage/Flair over Razor/Shawn (14-12) and Brock/Angle over Shawn/Austin (13-12). (There's always one fewer total vote for matches on the 1996-2006 side of the bracket because one of the voters only votes in the top half.) - The upsets with the most votes were Jericho/Christian and TLC, with 15 out of 25 votes. - Owen/Bret and Savage/Steamboat were the only unanimous choices. - Warrior/Savage and Warrior/Hogan only had one vote go against them. Personal thoughts: - Razor/HBK vs. Savage/Flair is a tough matchup. Both of them deserve to be in the final eight in my opinion, but that's the way the seeding ended up. - I like Jericho vs. Christian, but I didn't expect it to roll like this. - I love Bret vs. Piper but unfortunately it gets Savage vs. Steamboat in the regional final. That's another tough one. - A little surprised Austin vs. Rock (X-7) only got two votes against it. Granted it didn't have a lot of competition but in my opinion it's the weakest #1 seed behind Rock/Hogan and Hogan/Andre. - I'm glad Jericho vs. Michaels beat the WM 2000 "TLC 0" match. But as it turns out, the X-7 TLC match advanced and the 2000 match didn't... I actually prefer the 2000 match. - Brock vs. Angle edged out Austin vs. Michaels by one vote. I'm pretty indifferent to both matches, but who knew it'd be so close.

Bracket One (b. 1949-) Hulk Hogan (bye) Eddie Guerrero Tito Santana "Rowdy" Roddy Piper Jim Ross Mr. Perfect Bob Orton Jr. Bret "The Hitman" Hart Bracket Two (b. 1943-49) Andre the Giant (bye) Bobby "The Brain" Heenan Sgt. Slaughter Jimmy Hart Harley Race Superfly Jimmy Snuka Magnificent Muraco Dusty Rhodes Bracket Three (b. 1934-42) Nick Bockwinkel (bye) Mr. Fuji Gorilla Monsoon "Big Cat" Ernie Ladd Pedro Morales Mean Gene Okerlund Afa Pat Patterson Bracket Four (b. 1911-33) Buddy Rogers (bye) Vince J. McMahon Bobo Brazil Argentina Rocca Classy Fred Blassie The Grand Wizard Killer Kowalski Verne Gagne

I think the thread you might be thinking of is the Old School questions thread (page 116 or so), or possibly even the opinions that changed thread. I'm glad to hear your opinions on WM 9... that's pretty much what I've been saying for years. I also would have changed some of the booking around and I agree that Hogan belonged on the card in some capacity. The unpopular booking and the Hogan stuff definitely has a lot to do with the show's reputation, but I think a few other reasons are: - There was no blow-away **** match or huge main event. No Savage/Flair, Bret/Piper, Warrior/Savage, Savage/Steamboat, Hogan/Savage, Hogan/Warrior, etc. No Bret/Owen or Razor/Shawn like the year after. I don't think this is much of a negative because I think 4 or 5 of the 8 matches on the card are legitimate *** matches. And I personally would rather see a card with mostly good matches like this one than a card with one great match and seven or eight glorified squashes like pretty much every WM before 8. But right or wrong, I think that lack of "Wrestlemania match" hurts this in the eyes of most smarks. - If you repeat something enough and enough people start to buy in and it gets repeated over and over and over again, pretty soon it becomes accepted as fact. It's funny how everyone says, "Before I came on the internet I didn't realize how horrible this show was." You know why that is? Because it's NOT a horrible show. Look, before I got on the internet, I knew Savage vs. Steamboat was awesome. I knew Bret fighting a pirate and a dentist was stupid. I knew the Ultimate Warrior was terrible and could only have good matches with Rude and Savage. I didn't need the internet to tell me those things. And before I got the internet I knew WM 9 was a pretty good show. Well, just because the internet says otherwise, doesn't mean they're right. This just happens to be a show that got a bad reputation because of all the Hogan stuff and the factors we've mentioned and people took it to an extreme. Now it's been repeated to the point where if you don't think it's a terrible show, you're a moron. It can't be challenged. Even though if you actually go back and watch the show, the four longest matches are all pretty good and aside from that there's one average match (Perfect), one squash (Razor), one lackluster match (Crush), and one legitimately bad match (Taker). Which brings me to... - Undertaker vs. Giant Gonzalez. This has become something of an internet joke, what with the popularity of Wrestlecrap. Is it a bad match? Of course. Is it the worst match of all-time? Hardly. Taker didn't have a good feud for three or four years and this is the accepted symbol of that long run of crap, but this feud was no worse than his stuff with Kamala or the bogus Undertaker. And much like it's become a symbol of all the Undertaker's bad storylines from '92-'95, it's also become a symbol for how bad WM 9 supposedly is. You know, even though the whole segment takes up about 10 minutes of the show.

My votes: Pontiac- 2 AC- 3 Toronto- 2 NYC- 6 Houston- 6 Seattle- 1 Chicago- 2 Anaheim- 5 Comments: Pontiac- I've never been a fan of Hogan or Andre and every time I watch Wrestlemania III, I find myself wanting to stop watching before the main event. I know what it did for the business, I just don't ever want to watch it again. Warrior vs. Savage, on the other hand, is an awesome match with legitimately touching aftermath. And I love how the finish came out of nowhere- they really put over the idea that a career could end just like that. Five elbows wasn't enough to do it to Warrior, but Savage was both demoralized when his elbows didn't work and gassed by the end after the press slam and splash, that all it took was the shoulder tackles to end it for him. They don't do intra-match storylines like this anymore. AC- Savage vs. Flair has always been one of my all time favorites. Hogan vs. Savage was a great storyline, but the outcome was painfully obvious. Also, they didn't really do anything special with it- it just devolved into the typical Hogan formula match. With the midcard booking at WM 8, and Hogan still around to save the day in the main event, I think a lot of people thought Flair was going over. The fact that they built the issue after they booked the match never bothered me because the whole thing was just a psych game Flair used to get into Randy's head. He was trying to gain every advantage he could for the match by making up this ridiculous backstory.... I dare say it wouldn't have made as much sense if they'd done the angle first and then booked the match. The match itself is a perfect example of creating a chaotic environment without using weapons or vehicles or police officers or any nonsense gimmicks. As for the pre and post-match promos, and the mid-match commentary, everyone was ON. Savage, Flair, Perfect, Heenan, and Gorilla all at their best. And the fact that they never paid off Liz with the centerfold is a non-issue because they were full shit the whole time and after Savage won the Title, Flair's head games became irrelevant. I've always considered this a ***** match. Toronto- Bret vs. Owen is my favorite match/feud/angle ever. NYC- Piper vs. Bret is another of my all-time favorites. Perfect example of doing more with less. This match is so unique from every other match Bret ever had. They just told a great in-ring story (and again, a brilliant promo before the match to set the whole thing up). I would never knock Savage vs. Steamboat. I think it's everything everybody says it is and I know the impact it had and its standing as "greatest match ever." I wouldn't argue it. But this is about favorites, not best, and Bret/Piper is one of my all-time favorites. Houston- Rock vs. Austin has got to be one of the most overrated WM matches ever, while HBK/Jericho gets a raw deal just because of who went over. There's this myth that Austin/Rock is some great match or something but I don't see it. It's a good, typical main-event style match that was indicative of the time period and that's it. It's way better than their crapfest at WM XV but it's also in no way a classic. I think Austin/Rock as a match is overrated because of the names involved and the show it took place on. If you look at the match itself it's really nothing special. My vote goes to Jericho/HBK, which I believe is just a superior worked match, and a lot more fun to watch. Seattle- I love Christian vs. Jericho and I'm glad (and surprised) it got this far, but there's no way I can vote for it over Bret vs. Shawn. A few weeks back when I made the comment about "mass opinions that are accepted as fact on the internet when they're really bullshit" the sentiment about the Iron Man is at the top of the list. Say what you will about the first half being slow, but it's a great, great wrestling match. The perception against the Iron Man has always irked me. Chicago- I think both these matches are tremendously overrated, but I'll go with WM XX because I think Bret vs. Austin is so overrated it's not funny. It is not "the best match of all-time." Bret alone had almost a dozen famous matches that are better. And that's coming from a huge Bret mark. I've gone into this at length before, so there's no sense in revisiting it. Anaheim- I actually like the WM 2000 E & C match more than the TLC at X-7. But I'll vote for it over Brock vs. Angle because I never really could stand Brock, and X-7 was the last time I was actually excited for a ladder match before the fact. To me, it's the last great spotfest of a ladder match before the whole concept jumped the shark.

When did Bret act like a prick as a face before, say, 1996? Unless you consider sticking up for your parents or refusing to fight your own brother as acting like a prick, I'm not seeing it.