Betty Houle

They had roughly 600 matches. Not a real lot available. I think there are two Best of the WWF's that have them and the Coliseum tapes for the Harts and Bulldogs do as well.

Not that Luger's all that great either way but who think's he was better as a heel??? That guy was soooo much better as a babyface. He was only good as a heel if some awesome babyface was with him. Steamboat.

I never finished my list... 1) Ric Flair- heel 2) Shawn Michaels- babyface 3) Bob Backlund- babyface 4) Roddy Piper- heel 5) Jake Roberts- Heel 6) Mick Foley- babyface 7) Bret Hart- babyface 8) Lex Luger- babyface 9) The Rock- babyface 10) Undertaker- babyface 11) Randy Savage- tctc 12) Big Show/Giant- who cares.

The Rockers had damn good matches against almost everyone. I was watching their match with the Powers of Pain the other day (from one of the Supertapes I think) and it's so good. The Rockers make the PoP look like a million dollars and the PoP need to do so little outside of standing in the right space at the right time. Surprisingly good match. They went on to have a good match with Barbarian and Haku at WM7, too. Their best matches? The series with the Brainbusters in 88-89 (including a good 2-of-3 falls match on SNME from the fall of 1989), their match with the Orient Express at the 1991 Royal Rumble, and their matches with the Hart Foundation. The Hart Foundation's best matches were with the Bulldogs (pre-Dynamite's injury). They also had some really good matches with the Rockers, Demolition, and even the Nasty Boys.

Not quite. Yes, I am a HBK mark. I’m also a Y2J mark. Yes, while watching that match I was rooting for HBK to win. He did win, which seemed like the proper ending to the angle (arrogant younger heel taunts more experienced babyface who needs to prove that he’s not a shell of his former shelf. Sounds like the plot from about twenty movies that I can think of off the top of my head). I can also remove myself from my feelings and examine this match from the viewpoint of not being a fan (and, really, what more fun can be found in life?) and declare that Jericho losing that one match was not a bad business decision. Like I said, it pays off the angle and leaves the fans happy. You’re supposed to do this at times on PPV. Besides it helps HBK stay established so he can go on to main event PPVs like WWE wants him to (Survivor Series 2003, Royal Rumble 2004, Taboo Tuesday, etc.). I happen to think that he did a better job in those matches than Jericho could have (not that Jericho winning at WM19 would have put him in those main events but…). I think Michaels is a better worker and bigger draw than Jericho. I also don’t think that EVERY older, “part-time” worker like Michaels (although Michaels was pretty much a full-time worker in the 18 months after WM19 on TV and PPV where WWE’s revenue comes from) needs to lose to a younger. “full-time” wrestler EVERY time. And we are arguing the virtues of losing or winning one single match; I’m really not here to examine the entirety of Jericho’s WWE career. But if I was, I would point out that Jericho himself has said that his character is bullet-proof. He can lose matches and still come back and be believable. Why? Because he’s so darn talented and entertaining that people are going to pay attention to him no matter what. If WWE wanted to, they could take Jericho tomorrow and make him a main eventer -- people would buy it (as a bayface anyway. I’m not entirely sure it would work as well with him as a heel but that’s just me)! It’s not entirely different that when they did it with Benoit. They did nothing with Benoit for a long while but turned him into a main event wrestler overnight. People bought it because WWE presented it awesomely and because Benoit is great at what he does. Talent shines through. Maybe the preceding paragraphs ramble a bit. I’m posting in a forum not writing a dissertation. Hopefully my points come across. Again: I’m sorry that I don’t agree with everyone else. I don’t think Jericho losing that one match was necessarily a bad business decision. Period. I’d love that to be my last comment on the matter but I’ll probably be back at lunchtime tomorrow to say something else…

Most of mine aren't about match quality but about cool angles and the like. Savage injuring Steamboat from Superstars. The Islanders turning heel at the end of their match with the Can-Ams. Hulk Hogan-Bob Orton from the Memorial Day edition of Superstars (86?) Hulk Hogan-Rusty Brooks (beginning the first Hogan-Savage program). The episode of Superstars from the fall of 87 when Rude, Bundy, and Hercules take on Chris Basset, Toney Leone, and M.L. Something. Awesome commentary which I can still recite to this day.

Isn't Raven's career marked by a few things like that? The Tori-Ninja, the Piper picture, etc. Of course, it will never be explained: Why do wrestlers keep running when they're irish whipped? How come I ever thought wrestling wasn't a work? Oh yeah, I was 10 when I started watching it.

Favorites from my childhood: Harts-Demolition (SS 90). Harts-Bulldogs (SNME). Rockers-Brainbusters (SNME). Flair-Steamboat (Clash). JumpingBombAngles-Glamour Girls (RR 88).

I think you're wrong. Nothing personal! I don't have any comment on Cena-Undertaker. I haven't seen the match, followed the feud, or anything. I doubt it's exactly the same situation. I don't like absolutes.

Michaels is great as a heel but even greater as a babyface. Flair is a better heel but has often been too loved to be a heel.

Now immortalized on the Anthology CD.

Actually, the main problem with this thread is people who are unable or, like you, unwilling to see that their favorite winning was wrong for business. And of course you won't change your opinion, because that would involve you having to admit that Michaels winning, while great for sentimentality, was bad for business, for all the reasons that have been explained. The only reason for Michaels to win was purely for a feel-good ending to the feud, when the best thing for business was Jericho winning, and leaving Michaels to get his win at a Raw, or even building it up for a 'B' level Raw PPV where it could even have been used to draw some buys. Jericho winning being the best thing for business is obvious to anyone with a clue, which seems to be why such a fact is beyond you. As for who thought Jericho would be one of, if not the biggest star by 2005, that would be people who are in favor of change and progression, which sees new top stars made, and guys whose time has a main eventer has passed, like Shawn, to do what is best for business and step aside, to let someone new draw money. Listen: we disagree. I don't think Michaels beating Jericho was bad for business. You do. Period. Let's not get a crummy attitude and tell me I have no clue because I don't agree with you. Don't get mad because I won't change my opinion (which I don't hold just because I like Michaels better than Jericho). I could say the same thing about your opinion being influenced by your love for Jericho. You call Michaels a guy whose time as a main eventer has passed and he should do what is best for business and step aside, to let someone new draw money. WWE sees it differently as they obviously see him as a main event guy that can put on great matches and draw money. I agree with them. And I think that Michaels is a better overall performer than Jericho and a better draw than him anyway! Nothing against Jericho because I'm a fan of his, too. Heck, if Jericho were her, he'd probably agree with me. If he cared about such silliness at all which is doubtful. What were talking about? Oh yeah, tha match at Wrestlemania. I don't think the loss hurt Jericho. And I liked it. Oh well. Next up: Betty argues that Hogan shouldn't have put over anybody from 1996 to 2000!

About Booker T, I thought we were talking about the people we thought were going to be the biggest stars in wrestling (not just the WWE) in 2000. I reread his post and realize my error. My list stands as the 4 guys that I thought would be the biggest stars in American wrestling by the year 2005.

The problem with a thread like this (discounting the obvious arrogant nature of it) is that people just end up talking in circles and going back and forth. I'm not going to change my opinion and others won't change theirs. I wanted to see Michaels win and was happy when he did. I don't think it was a bad business decision either. I do wonder who all these people are who thought Jericho would be the biggest star in the company by 2005. If you asked me I would have said the Rock (I didn't forsee him all but leaving for Hollywood), HHH, Kurt Angle, and maybe Booker T. Jericho was...Jericho.

Silly me! I thought the picture was posted because of her hilariously sagging fake tits!

Michaels was on the road as well - for TV & PPVs and television ratings & buyrates are a much bigger concern for the WWE. Since then, Michaels has headlined significantly more PPVs than Jericho so him winning makes perfect sense to me. Build up for a returned star that had more main events to come. Jericho has only been in 2 PPV main events since then (2 Elimination Chambers) that I can think of. Granted, you could argue that if Jericho had won that match (and others), he might have been in more main events but that's just a matter of opinion. Too subjective to call. Either way, clearly the WWE sees Jericho as a high-mid-card guy that can main event but probably won't win. They probably see Michaels differently. The storyline was set up for the fans to really want to see the veteran babyface beat the younger heel. And that's what they delivered. And I loved it.

First and foremost: I love Michaels and I wanted to see him win. That's my fan reason. BUT if you want to examine it, it seemed liked the logical finish. Michaels was the babyface that won with just enough experience-over-youth. And it's not like he jobbed out Jericho with an easy superkick. That was countered so it took a surprise roll-up (a finish that I didn't see coming) for Michaels to win. Plus both guys looked strong during the match and Jericho got insane heat after the match. If someone esle wanted to see Jericho win, that's fine though. I think people tend to overthink things when they say that Michaels didn't "need" the win and Jericho did but whatever. To each their own!

He did! You get to keep your foot!

I'm sure no one would agree with me but I liked the Jericho-Michaels finish as is. I'll argue that with my last breath!

I think this was the last time I was rooting for Undertaker to win. Me, too! I used to like the UT and really bought into the storyline of UT's Wrestlemania streak. Fun match, actually! I've since stopped caring about UT.

Hardly "last minute" if you meant that literally.

Can't agree. I sensed where THE VANISHING was headed but it filled me with enoug dread that it worked. It was a well-made piece of work. Night's "surprise" movies (which rarely surprise) don't work too well either way; I liked UNBREAKABLE for the most part though. After Brad Pitt was on screen for 2 minutes, I knew what the reveal of FIGHT CLUB was going to be so I put the "surprise" out of my mind and just took in the movie. It was compelling on it's own for me to watch it from beginning to end although I don't think it adds up too much and I didn't care for the final scene. Just rambling...

How is someone going to "sell you" on someone you don't like (or probably won't like if you loathed on of his books)? Granted, I haven't read MAXIMUM BOB so it may be his worst book. Most likely though you're better off staying away from his work.

Just curious...

I like the original THE VANISHING a lot. The remake is an abomination. I may never see the American version of THE GRUDGE because I'm afraid of a similar outcome.