Brush with Greatness

Speaking of Mountain Dew, has anyone tried the Blue Mountain Dew slurpee flavour. (Or are slurpees not as popular everywhere else - Winnipeg is the proven Slurpee capital of the world. It's funny, we bitch about the -30C weather in the winter but chug those slurpees down in the summer. Maybe it's not so funny) Damn is that blue mountain Dew good. Is there actually a blue Mountain Dew drink or just the regular and Code Red?

Indeed it was.

Never mind. The girl's name is Noreen. I think the guys name is Dan. The episode was "The Pledge Drive".

And then on a later episode, Elaine caused the breakup of this girl with another guy by calling her and hanging up if he answered because he was a poor conversationalist and she didn't want to talk to him. Then Kramer consoled her to go back in the army and shit. For some reason I think her name is Irene. The squeaky voice may be Paul. I may be way off base on both these names though. Those were the first two that popped into my head.

Or Freddy v. Jason for that matter.

Interesting.

This might have to put my Chris Penn-Tom Sizemore cop buddy flick idea on hold.

Heatwave from August 2004 (possible card of the year drawing a 92% overall) Also had 2 **** matches and 2 ***3/4 matches. Shamrock v. Shamrock submission blowoff only hit **** which was dissapointing. The 2 ***3/4 were also dissapointing as I had them pegged for **** at least. On top of this, got my first graduates from training camp. A few alright talents, however nothing special. Perhaps if I upgraded to superb. I've been forced to open up a developmental teritory essentially just for these guys. Also, despite being only 80% National (while 88% now, but 80% at the time) and the WWE being 100% Global I decided to go head to head on Monday nights with them. The result: Two close to call. I drew a 5.86 while they drew a 6.06. Not bad for a difference of about 120% in public image. For some reason however, after two strong showings against them my rating dropped to about a 5.4 and I don't think because of the head to head, because my unopposed Friday show also featured a drastic drop from about the same ratings. Only explanation might be the industry is starting to wane. However, a drop of .5 with my public image actually growing higher throughout the time period? Any other explanations for this.

Frogger

We should actually set up a video game hall of fame here just for fun. With new nominations, voting and entries every few weeks. Maybe get it pinned. Of course we would have to set out some actual credentials then. Maybe we could even have categories. Like System, Game, Periphal, etc.

Playing on Rock Hard is a bitch without be able to see an individual worker's morale, what with now having to take into account relationships.

A 1994 article in Sports Illustrated reported a telephone poll of Americans in which 97% of respondents said that Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. Must have been a lot of uneducated people they got there. Those betting slips are very questionable. The betting slip for April 9, 1987, contains a reference to Philadelphia-Atlanta when the Phillies never played the Braves that day. On top of this, other hand writing analysts contradict the testimony of the expert who testified. The fact of the matter is that the case came down to the testimony of two drug dealers (among other things). Giamatti then gave a letter of recommendation to the judges ruling on sentencing for Janszen and Peters (the two men in question). Sweet deal for them. The Rose - Giamatti agreement read: On top of this there was no mention of the hall of fame in the agreement. Also at the time, there was no rule stating that players who were on baseball's ineligible list could not be considered as candidates. That rule was not put in place until late 1990 or early 1991. So basically, Rose agreed to the deal upon the basis that he did deserve a minimum one year suspension for various actions but not that those actions involved betting on baseball. However, ten minutes later in the press conference Giamatti turned around and said that Rose was guilty. On top of this, Rose had no idea that his hall of fame eligibility would be in question because there was no rule restricting anyone on baseball's ineligible list being in the hall.

So basically a guy's two careers are judged seperately. Then why is it his actions in the seperate careers are judged as one?

Yet games being decided by players that are high, corked bats, etc. is not worse than someone betting on a game, not against their team or anything, just on a game. And question, not that any of it was ever actually proven, but was their sufficient evidence to prove that he even bet on his own team? And on the integrity of the game, I think Pete Rose's hit record has a lot more integrity to it than any modern day home run record. These guys on the juice using corked bats tarnishes the integrity way worse than anything else. Also, out of curiosity, what other rules are explicitly written, and posted in every clubhouse? And one more thing. When judging a hall of fame career, does someone get in if they are a half decent player and then turn into a half decent manager? Or is each aspect of their career judged seperately?

Let me ask you another question: Let's say in 10 years, Marion Rivera has had a hall of fame career, etc, etc. However, he admits that he was a coke addict (or what have you) and was often high when he pitched. One such instance was the 2001 World Series. Does he deserve to be in the hall? I think doing that would compromise the game's integrity much more than betting on it. Who knows, maybe the Yanks would have won the Series, etc. And don't say that's really stretching it. I'm sure there are players in the hall that where either high or drunk when they played and their state of mind affected the outcomes of the game. I consider that a lot worse than anything Rose did.

So, please explain to me how the integrity of the game was so overwhelmingly tarnished to the point that baseball could no longer recover because of the Pete Rose incident. I mean, he never bet against his own team, so how is the integrity of any game tarnished? On top of this, MLB gives alcoholics and drug addicts chance after chance yet a gambler only gets one chance? Correct me if I'm wrong but these are all addicts who need help.

In regards, to Speaker/Cobb/Wagner: I know Cobbs name has been mentioned in all that, but there had been enough knocking on him all ready. There is a third guy less often mentioned. Thought it was Wagner, might be wrong. Here's a question for you all then Should Sammy Sosa go in the Hall of Fame? What with his breaking the rules and all. What about a pitcher who sandpapers the ball? What about Brooks Robinson (believe it was him) managing the Giants (I believe) back in the 80's and doing all those cocaine references from the bench whenever Steve Howe would face them. Doesn't that make the game look bad? And Jose Canseco with the steriods?

*awaits Dr. Tom's anti-Rose response*

JHawk has it right. And I don't think Rose ever admitted to actually gambling on his team. A lot of the evidence was very circumstantial and I believe the basis for this deal between Rose-MLB at the time was to get the story out of the headlines, sweep everything under the rug, and then when things had blown over bring Rose back. However, the man that was commish at the time (forget who) keeled over about a week later. The guy that took over (it have have even been Selig back then) blamed the previous commish's poor health and heart attack or whatever on Rose for all the stress that Rose put him through. Here's a hypothetical question for those of you saying Rose shouldn't be in the hall of fame. What if it had not been MLB that Rose had bet on, but rather say, a college team, or little league team he had been managing? Should he still be banned? And in regards to Shoeless Joe, Bored had it right. Buck Weaver is the one that deserved reinstatement. He never took any money and played his ass off. Shoeless Joe took the money. Whether or not he changed his mind and decided not to throw the games is irrelevant after he took the money. And on top of this, there have been other players like Tris Speaker, Honus Wagner and others that gambled on the games they actually played in who still hold a place in the hall of fame.

Just out of curiosity RRR, who did you have winning: a) Busta v. Rampage b) Ricco v. Nog

It did have similar elements in the sense that Nog did not control the pace of the fight at all. Fedor has superior striking skills and striking strength to Ricco. Ricco tried to fight a similar fight (apart from not wanting to stand and strike at all) but just didn't have the skills to do it. So yes, in my opinion it did have similar elements. Ricco was by far the aggressor in their fight. And I think Ricco should be given some credit for throwing those knees. A 250 lb guy throwing knees is impressive. It's showing something. Ricco controlled the fight the same way Fedor did. He just doesn't have the skills of a Fedor. However, Nog came no closer to getting Ricco to submit than he did Fedor. If Nog has these new found striking skills, why not keep it standing? Because he couldn't. He had to go down with Ricco. And applying a few half assed submission attempts when you get taken down shouldn't constitute a decision victory.

It's always sad when someone dies and Herb Brooks will always have a place in history due to the Miracle on Ice but I lost a lot of respect for Brooks during the 2002 Olympics when he made his controversial comments towards Canadian hockey.

So is ground n' pounding a guy into submission not a viable means of ending a match? Ricco controlled the pace of that fight. Ricco put himself in a position (Nogueria's guard) because that's where he wanted to be. This gave Nog the opportunity to try those thousands of submissions he applied last night. Boy and he was oh so close many times. If Nog had attempted all the takedowns and such I think this would be a different story. However, Ricco dictated the fight. He shook off all of Nog's attempts with relative ease. And one more question then. If you use the "he attempted to finish the fight more often argument" then can't you justifiably say that Nog beat Fedor in their fight? Ricco v. Nog was like a pussy Fedor v. Nog fight. Ricco didn't hit as hard or as often but the fight has similar elements.

Before last nights fight with Ricco, did I think Nog deserved a rematch with Fedor? Yes. Now, I just can't justify giving Nog the title shot right after that Rico performance. I'm sure the plan was to feed someone to Nog so he could go over and then move onto a rematch with Fedor. Or even if they would have moved straight to a rematch I would have been happy with that. The fucked up by underestimating Ricco. Variably, you could scrap my plan and move straight to the Nog-Crocop match and feed a Coleman to Fedor. Whoever would win that Nog-Crocop match would be the defenitive #1 contender. In your scenario, your getting two to three matches. Nog v. Fedor, Crocop v. Nog/Fedor, and if Fedor loses one of those matches, a rematch v. Nog/Crocop. With this #1's match, you get Nog v. Crocop, Nog/Crocop v. Fedor, build the loser of Nog/Crocop back up next show and then you get Nog/Crocop (the loser) v. Fedor/Nog/Crocop (whomever wins that Nog/Crocop v. Fedor title match). And if Fedor happens to lose one of those you bounce back with Fedor v. Nog/Crocop. Possible five if Fedor loses and you have a number one contenders match. Basically 3 guys in a feud, with two matches (the match and the rematch) equals six matches. You've already had one match in the Nog v. Fedor I. Stretch out these other five.

But I still can't legitamately buy Nog getting a shot after that match with Rico. I still like my way better. At Final Conflict Fedor v. Coleman Rico v. Nog Crocop v. Henderson The two semis and the final and one other match. At the show after that If both Crocop and Nog win like they should, give us them for a #1 contenders. At the same show you could also throw in Jackson v. Silva for the belt. Assuming they don't do something like put the title on the line if both make the finals. Which they shouldn't because Jackson holding the #1 contender is an instant rematch right there no matter how the finals go. As for Fedor, I don't think anything was answered about his chin. Sure, he was smarter and more aggressive but how could he handle a big blow. Silva's knees held up okay for 5 minutes. Give him a real test. I think he is fine, but I would still like it confirmed. As for Chuck Liddell, I like the guy, but in my opinion he seemed a bit shackey tonight. He was once again very passive and seemed like he won on a lucky, albeit well timed punch. Now it could be argued that he was sitting back and waiting for the right moment, and that very well indeed could be true. But I don't think that one punch and those three minutes answered anything.