NYU

Well, all hope is not lost. If Triple H is feeling generous, Edge could wind up pinning HHH in a tag-team match. Then, of course, meeting the Pedigree later when the match actually counts.

RVD always gets enormous pops in Madison Square Garden. When it comes to crowd support, he'd probably be near the top of the list at MSG.... ...... ......well, if he's on the card anyways. But the biggest pop of all at WM XX - Dead Man Undertaker. Guaranteed.

I thought Van Dam did a damn good job hanging with Eddie Guerrero at Backlash 2002 and Judgment Day 2002. And, of course, that Raw Memorial Day Ladder Match. I don't see why it would be much different less than 2 years later.

Well, even if his hair IS that short, I'm sure it wouldn't be too much of a problem for him to wear a long-haired wig while he wrestles. But personally, yeah, it looks like he's hiding some of it under his hat.

Ah, you never know when those nervous breakdowns on a message board are going to strike, do ya?

Yes yes I do. That's why I didn't have to take the ACT because my grades got me into college on their own. Hmm.........you're funny. You know absolutely nothing about me yet you think you can judge off of the message board about my life. Terriffic. I wish I could be as narrow minded as you. Why I'm just going to start walking up to people at school and go "Hey I know nothing about you but I think you're a fucking moron! Let's fight!" Man if only we could live life like we act on message boards........everyone would die out because of the sheer stupidity of what would occur. Is this you acting like a cunt or purposely trying to suck?

Well, of course you won. I surely got my ass kicked in that amazing Battle of Wits with you. Why, I was just unprepared. But please, for my ABSOLUTE SANITY, just drop my embarrassing loss. I wouldn't want my absolute sheer humiliation of losing a one-sided battle with you to spread to the other folders. So just keep it quiet, okay? Dama, you are genuinely funny.

I'd block Bring Back Charlie Ward and Damaramu. The first one is just painfully unfunny. The second one can't argue worth a shit. He regurgitates the same points, shuts his mind to other people's opinions, doesn't read people's posts but feels as if he's still able to comment on them, shows lack of knowledge in many of his posts, tells people they're wrong when he has nothing to back himself up, states opinions as if they're facts all the while whining when people either argue against him or GOD FORBID ask him to provide proof for his opinion, and acts like an immature dickweed at times that don't require it. I'm sure my list of potential blockees will grow when I start remembering more people that annoy the fuck out of me.

Definitely. And let's not forget this: It's well documented that various football players have played through one or more quarters with a broken foot. Why? Because their adrenaline was so high that they didn't even notice they had broken a bone in the first place. It's true - look it up. But I've given up trying to argue with Damaramu for now. He refuses to look at logic, refuses to accept that people may have different opinions than he has, and keeps regurgitating the same points over and over (I can't recall seeing someone type the word "kip-up" so many times). I'm finished with arguing those points in this topic - I'd like to think that SOMEBODY has opened up their mind to a viewpoint that contrasts from their own. But I'm getting nothing from Dama.

By this point, he MUST have signed a contract to Raw. .....well, unless Batista gave him a spinebuster right before the signing. Then it's all still up-for-grabs.

Oh, sweet heavens! Whoever leaked this information about Brock Lesnar to the *gasp* INTERNET better watch their backs. I heard Brock isn't a fan of those newfangled computer thingamajiggies.

I have difficulty believing that, considering both RVD and Kane were left off the show last year in favor of Nathan Jones. ..... .....yeah, that Nathan Jones.

Well, if we're sticking close to WWE history, then it hasn't exactly been building for ten years. But very close.... DX was formed in 1997 between Shawn Michaels, Triple H, and Chyna. If we're to take some of these HHH and HBK interviews lately literally, there were some ego problems in DX way back when. "Shawn thought he was better than HHH, when he wasn't", "Shawn had to carry the team", etc. This would give the feud a life of 7 years. But if you go back even further, by this point, even most marks know about the Clique. Shawn Michaels, Triple H, Scott Hall, Kevin Nash, Sean Waltman, and Justin Credible. They were all supposed to be relatively close friends when they were in the same federation. Triple H joined WWE in 1995, which is when we're to assume they became friends. That would give the feud a span of 9 years. And then it could have been extended because Shawn and Triple H were friends a year before Hunter came to WWE, or simply because a ten-year feud sounds more impressive than a nine-year feud. Yeah, looking at it at first glance, the number seems like bullshit. But actually, if you look it in both a storyline and a backstage sense, the duration of their "relationship to feud" isn't too far off at all.

Eh, I didn't even take the boos as "We don't want a triple threat", so I doubt Vince would. It wasn't really the whole crowd booing HBK. It was more like 50% - which is the perfect reaction. It showed that there is a good amount of support for Benoit, but that not everybody is turning against Shawn Michaels. They're pretty much both faces, and that is the reaction you want to get IF you're shooting for a "two faces fighting for the heel's gold, while having problems with one another as well" angle. Personally, I would like a 1-on-1 match as well (Benoit/HBK would have been a good Main Event match), but I haven't found any major faults with the way they've built up this Triple Threat. The people that booed Shawn Michaels booed him because he had to resort to a dirty trick to interject himself into the title picture. Considering the reactions Michaels has gotten the past few weeks, I doubt there would have been many boos if Austin had just put him in the title match. The boos seemed to be more for the action itself, rather than adding him into the match. You mean like providing high spots in the match? Giving the crowd something to cheer for? Keeping them even further enthralled in the match? I would say he's more like "trying to make the match better" rather than "stealing the show against Benoit." Besides, I doubt the fans would chant "Benoit sucks" just because Shawn Michaels pulled out a nice-looking move. Not everything is a conspiracy. Would it be okay for Benoit to pull out a super-duper twisting flying headbutt off the top rope in the Triple Threat match? Because if so, then Michaels can't be at fault for trying to impress the fans either. If not, then you're limiting the crowd response and participation the match can get - which shouldn't be the case in a title match at the Biggest Show of all Time.

It's possible. Booker T/Rob Van Dam vs. The World's Greatest Tag Team in a inter-promotional match could actually be VERY good. I still don't buy the rumors of Orton/???? vs. Foley/Rock. The Foley/Orton feud has been built up to such a degree that I can't see them blowing it off on a tag-team match. For Mania, I STILL see: Orton vs. Foley Batista/Ric Flair vs. RVD/Booker T .....and if the Rock DOES return to WrestleMania, perhaps against someone like Vince McMahon or even someone making a return (i.e. Edge, Hulk Hogan, etc.) They're beginning to book themselves into a corner with this card, as there are numerous relatively-high profile wrestlers that are starting to get left out in the cold. Yet there's still a chance some of these rumored matches could get switched (like Shawn taken out of the Triple Threat match and put against the Rock), especially if the 1wrestling rumors are true, and they're not too happy with the way the matches are shaping out.

Well, the whole concept is: Shawn Michaels never lost. In his first title match with HHH, there was a draw based on a technicality. In the second match, there was another draw. But through it all, Michaels didn't lose. In fact, he came extremely close to winning both times. But, if Benoit didn't jump to Raw, Michaels would have gotten a third title shot. Guaranteed. However, Benoit DID jump to Raw....and stopped Michaels from getting his "deserved" title shot in the process. Shawn told Benoit he should have stayed on Smackdown....he could have had his title shot peacefully, since there was no real contender standing in the way. But on Raw, Michaels is still rightfully the #1 contender considering he hasn't lost to the champion yet. So admittedly, Michaels knows Benoit earned the shot because he won the Royal Rumble. But he made a choice by jumping onto Raw and ruining Michaels's practically guaranteed title shot at WrestleMania. As a result, Michaels had no choice but to grab it back by superkicking Benoit and signing the contract himself. Not saying I agree with the storyline - but it does have some logic to it.

I thought they were a little off-key.....but still better than Avril Lavigne. And ah yes, the contract signing was okay too. Thinking about it, this storyline makes Benoit's quest look even better. Not only did he have to go through 30 men to get a title shot....not only does he have to deal with the legacy of Triple H.....now he had to deal with somebody stealing the title shot from right under his nose at the contract signing!! It painted Michaels as a tweener, and Benoit as the face, which is the way it should be. This only adds another obstacle for Benoit, which will make his win look all the more sweeter if he DOES win at WrestleMania.

Damaramu, please read. You keep ignoring this: Shawn Michaels Criteria If I have to repeat myself one more time, I'm probably going to wind up banging my head against the wall.

How can the matches all tell the same story? I just told you what the stories were. Several different ones - and I didn't even go through many of his matches since his comeback. The Randy Orton match consisted of him getting his ass beat by "the big guy"? The Ric Flair one? The Triple H one? The Rob Van Dam one? The other numerous matches he has wrestled? The Batista one is the only one that fits under your guideline right there - the rest of them don't. Well, that IS part of his style. To look on the brink of exhaustion, then bounce back with a jolt of adrenaline, a kip-up, and a last-ditch effort to beat his opponent. He's done it for years. Time to accept it. In what POSSIBLE way could you see Jericho carrying Shawn Michaels? In either one of their two matches? Please tell me, I'm quite interested. Because if there's no proof, then that was quite the idiotic statement to make. No need to scream. I'm sitting right here. Paul London having GOOD matches makes him a better worker than HBK? Shockingly, they have BOTH had good matches. So I don't think so.... Based on what? The Indies mentality is to go balls-to-the-wall everytime, in the hopes that they will be contacted by a major wrestling federation. Obviously, WWE has a different mentality. Most times, it's to put on a good match - but it's also to remain safe. HBK has been able to put on QUALITY Main-Events following that trend. I'm sure if he was promoted to go balls-to-the-wall like London had, he could handle that as well. But what makes you think London could handle a 26-minute Main Event WWE style? What proof have you seen that he could do that? Once again, stating things as if they are facts. And just for my own personal interest...give me any London match that has been 10X BETTER than a Shawn Michaels match. I'd love to have the chance to watch it and see the gold standard of professional wrestling. Understand what? What you're doing is a classic example of "The Big Lie." Say something loud enough, often enough, and eventually, people will believe you. Dama, you keep saying the same points.....ignoring other people's points.....going as far as to scream in this past post.....but you haven't convinced me of anything yet. I fail to see any proof behind your statements. You say "Shawn wrestles the same match all the time" and "PAUL LONDON HAS WRESTLED MATCHES 10X BETTER THAN SHAWN MICHAELS" but haven't backed it up. What is that supposed to solve?

Dama, you keep repeating this phrase over and over. Go back one or two pages where I went over all YOUR criteria and wrote a lengthy response to why I think Shawn Michaels fits those standards and thus, by your criteria, would be a good wrestler. Please don't keep stating that no one is justifying it to you when you're not even reading the posts of the people that ARE trying to justify it. I have never seen an HBK match where he sold well or told a good story. All of his matches have the same story as a matter of fact "I get beat up for about 25 mintues then make a miracle comeback and one kick from my skinny leg kills the monster." That is not a good story. The small-guy trying to use speed to get past the monster: (HBK vs. Batista at Armageddon) The wily veteran using different tactics to frustrate his opponent (HBK vs. Randy Orton at Unforgiven, HBK vs. Ric Flair at Bad Blood) The allegedly past-his-prime superstar trying to keep up with his opponent to prove he still has it (HBK vs. Chris Jericho at WrestleMania XIX, HBK vs. Rob Van Dam on that Raw in November 2002) A bloody, hate-filled, knock-down fight between two former best friends (HBK vs. HHH on Raw and at the Royal Rumble) Shawn Michaels has actually USED stories in his matches. Give me a Paul London WWE match that has told as well of a story.

Dama, you keep repeating this phrase over and over. Go back one or two pages where I went over all YOUR criteria and wrote a lengthy response to why I think Shawn Michaels fits those standards and thus, by your criteria, would be a good wrestler. Please don't keep stating that no one is justifying it to you when you're not even reading the posts of the people that ARE trying to justify it.

I'm all done with my comments. Something like that needed to be said though. Sorry to everyone else.

Have you been reading ANYTHING?! This thread has people saying that the definition of a good wrestler is subjective, some saying that certain criteria need to be filled, some including their top 5 list, some arguing why one wrestler may be better than another wrestler......and nearly all of them included VALID POINTS. You come in saying "BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH". Did that add anything to the topic? Nope. Did that make somebody laugh? I hope not. All I'm doing is giving you some simple advice....read the friggin thread before you comment.

I'm not about to have a flaming war with you. But seriously, open up your fucking eyes. There are people in "Site Feedback" arguing that the WWE folder is not in bad shape - that intelligent conversation IS going on. Then you go and make a stupid post like that, making all those things that everyone said look meaningless. "Tight-ass, little bitch?" Nope, I don't think so. I've been arguing for posts going off-topic as long as they are still intelligent, and don't make a complete mockery of the board. I'm all for making humorous, off-color remarks in topics. But then you go and make a comment in a topic that had GOOD CONVERSATION for absolutely no reason except to look funny and failing miserably at it. So once again, I say congratulations. Go pick up your award. But if you have nothing else intelligent to say, then just avoid pressing the Reply button.

You said HBK wasn't even a GOOD wrestler. Go back and read one of my previous posts. I went through all your criteria to show why he WAS a good wrestler - and why he probably would be Top 5. If not top 5, at least Top 10. It's unfair to include Ultimo Dragon or Paul London on your list because, WWE wise, they haven't had any memorable matches at ALL. Even Chavo Guerrero hasn't had many memorable or above-average singles matches, and I recall seeing him on one of your lists.