EVIL~! alkeiper

I liked MitB. Action-wise you may not have the best match, but there was a ton of stuff going on. You've got the Jeff/Matt/Edge ladder spot. Before that you had the Hardys attempting to repeat the same spot that injured Joey Mercury. You had Booker choosing the briefcase or Sharmel. Finlay almost sobbing post-match. I think storywise it's the strongest of the three.

It's already on Bret Hart's dvd so it's available.

In their clubhouse from what I heard.

Agree 100%. You can be outlandish, controversial, even childish. You can run a character like the Boogeyman if you want. But it needs to have well-defined, consistent rules. If there is one thing that bothers me in wrestling, it's when the rules of a match are changed to benefit the storyline.

Not arguing here, just making a general point. Are these cards that are legitimately good on video, or just look good on paper? Wrestlemania I looks good if you just see the match list and don't watch the show, for the most part.

Consider that given her roots she probably resides somewhere in the vicinity of Oklahoma. Except the 'old geezers' based their belief on the fact the Eddie and company were 'too small', which had nothing to do with why those three, at least, didn't 'make it'. With Eddie, WWE were happy with his performance but he couldn't take handle the pressure at that time in his life. Jericho was never given a chance to 'make it'; he was only ever given the Unified title so he could lose it to HHH. Rey was mishandled from day one of his 'run at the top', and was always going to be, because of the size bias in WWE, regardless of how well he kept getting over with the fans. Yes, those three didn't 'make it', but in the case of Jericho and Rey, WWE were never going to allow them to because it either didn't fit their plans or because of size bias. Had Jericho and Rey actually been given the ball and not been handled the way they were, we might have found out for sure if they had had what it takes to be accepted on top by the fans. One thing that I can't help but note is that it was only severe amounts of steroids that allowed Eddy, Benoit and Mysterio to grow to the size needed to be credible main event wrestlers. I think Jericho's an exception but his extended layoff is going to be taken as a sign that he doesn't exhibit the necessary passion for the wrestling industry. Rey Mysterio honestly I feel IS to small naturally to main-event. I'm going to get flamed for that I'm sure. Watching Eddy/Rey from Halloween Havoc '97 though, it looks like Mysterio isn't heavy enough to realistically keep Eddy's shoulders to the mat without a KO. In the same way no one would buy Oscar De La Hoya beating Mike Tyson (not the greatest, but I needed a name heavyweight), size does matter to a limited extent in a wrestling ring. That's not to say you can't sell Mysterio. You can put him in big programs and make a ton of money. I just don't think you can credibly continuously book him against your 6'4" heavyweights on an extended basis.

I think the Cena hate has reached ridiculous levels. It gets to the point where people micro-analyze everything to find faults with his work. Are Cena's matches repetitive? I don't know, but except for a situation like HHH/Steiner where a guy goes back to the same move over and over, most fans don't care. Your casual fan knows wrestling is fixed but doesn't know the hows. Cena doing the same things every match, or making the superhuman comeback too much, most fans don't give a damn about it. I've been a fan of wrestling since 1990. I've seen a 9 month Ultimate Warrior title reign. Nine months of Yokozuna. A YEAR of Kevin Nash. Six months of Justin Credible. 15 months of Hulk Hogan (WCW). If Cena is average, he is hardly the worst wrestler to hold a championship for an extended period of time. Back in the Attitude era, you'd have Austin drop the belt, Rock pick it up two months later, four changes between him and Foley, Austin getting the big win at Wrestlemania only to lose the belt two months later, regain it in another two months and drop it again next month. That SUCKED, and ultimately served to devalue the championship. I'd rather see guys keep the title too long, because it means more when they finally lose it. If Cena lost and regained the title three times, no one would care when he did it. If you don't like how WWE keeps Cena on top, find something else to watch. Seriously. I get the perception that most people hate Cena because it's oh-so-cool to do it, in spite of the fact that most of WWE's fanbase loves Cena, including the big merchandise buyers. If that doesn't suit you, quit watching WWE and support some local promotion instead. Because why should WWE cater to you? All this has led me to one key realization about the business as a whole. Wrestling needs not fear the loss of kayfabe. It doesn't matter if fans know it is fixed or not. Fans still CARE about who wins and loses, and that is the most important factor in selling a wrestling card.

I am not in the habit of analyzing wrestling matches. I will say that Cena/Michaels had my friend and I on the edge of our seats for the last 5-10 minutes. I can't see how a match can be that exciting at first viewing and then not good at all. It's silly. I give Wrestlemania I a pass because it occurred in an era before the concept of the PPV supershow was truly established. The show was bigger than your standard MSG card at the time and it had several memorable moments, if not great matches. The main event tag was nice spectacle. Andre/Studd was a memorable match (I didn't say good). You had King Kong Bundy's quick squash of S.D. Jones, and Wendi Richter regaining the womens' title. And to ask an honest question, what was the greatest wrestling card before Wrestlemania? Can anyone recall one offhand? Maybe Starrcade '83 but that's entirely off the strength of the three title matches.

History is in the making! With their latest loss, the Phillies now have 9,999 career losses. One more will make them the first team in professional sports to lose 10,000 games.

Wrestlemania 2000 had good wrestling but only one 1-on-1 match, and that was Kat/Terri. Multi-man matches have their place but it is difficult to craft memorable angles out of them.

It wasn't the strike. The offensive spike occurred in 1993/94, before the strike. I maintain the greatest change in baseball at that point were the new ballparks, nearly all of which benefit offense more than defense.

It's silly to look at a batting line like Deshields' in 1993 and say he wasn't worth acquiring. The move wasn't about getting a leadoff hitter, by the way. The Dodgers already had one of the game's great leadoff batters in Brett Butler. The Dodgers had Jody Reed who was a good defensive player but not very good with the bat. The Dodgers in '93 were a poor offensive team with Mike Piazza and Butler being their only above-average offensive players. It was a bad trade but defensible at the time. Pedro Martinez easily could have gotten injured and never reached greatness.

Wrestlemania XV was the worst. Russo's booking does not hold up at ALL, and there isn't a good match except maybe Austin/Rock. Even that came off as an overbooked piece of crap last time I saw it. Wrestlemania 23 was a good show with two very good title matches and my favorite Money In the Bank match.

He was a fairly good name back in the regional days. I know he had some NWA title shots, including some against Lou Thesz. Probably similar in stature to someone like Larry Hennig.

Hey gang. Here is something I would like to compile but can't do on my own. A win/loss sheet of the WWE cards at Madison Square Garden, particularly from the 1960s and '70s. What I would need is for each person to run a year, and then the records would get compiled from there. Is anyone interested in helping out?

What the hell is Mesa doing in the big leagues?

There are two things I remember about April Hunter.

In reference to Satchel Paige, Josh Gibson, etc., nothing really changes. It's not a matter of what if. They WERE great players. They just happened to play outside of Major League Baseball. Umm, what? Deshields' career OBP at the time of the trade was .373.

The Twins beat the Sox 20-14 today. Seeing the scoreboard at the minor league park for that was amusing. It wasn't so amusing when our own game ended 20-11.

I think this will shed some light on the subject. I watched the inning off dvd, using the time stamps. There are no breaks in the action. This comes from the Phillies' broadcast with Harry Kalas and Richie Ashburn announcing. The video feed is the same as the ABC national broadcast. 2:13:57 -Rafael Landestoy comes in on defense at second, Dave Bergman comes in at third. Harry Kalas mentions Nolan Ryan's "phenominal" record with a lead after eight. Ball Low Called Strike Bowa singles, line drive above the shortstop into center field 2:15:30 Harry Kalas: "Quickly that Houston bullpen is gonna jump into activity." Richie Ashburn: "Joe Sambito and Dave Smith probably." Kalas: "Looks like Ken Forsch along with Sambito." 2:15:53 Bob Boone singles, ground ball off the glove of Nolan Ryan. Bowa to 2nd. Shot of Sambito and Forsch warming up 2:16:46 Greg Gross singles, bunt grounder to Nolan Ryan about eight field right of the foul line. Bases loaded. Catcher Alan Ashby meets with Ryan on mound. 2:17:50 Fouled off Ball High Ball High Fouled Off Ball Low in dirt, Rose checks his swing Fouled off (Clocked at 99 mph) Ball Outside Rose walks, run scores, bases still loaded 2:20:43 Bill Virdon comes out to relieve Ryan Two and a half minutes between Bowa's single and Ryan's first pitch to Pete Rose. Quite simply, the Phillies got their second and third hits off Ryan with one pitch and the Astros could not have gotten their relievers warmed up in time if they wanted to.

Give me some time, I'll cover the inning in more detail.

Gwynn only hit .394 that year. Still too high based on the short season, but not the sacred .400. I'm answering the question of "would he have done it?" There's a bit of an idea that Gwynn lost the opportunity to chase .400 because of the strike. Gwynn would have hit .400, by the way, if he collected just four more hits.

I'll bite. It is worth pointing out that the Phillies were not hitting Nolan Ryan particularly hard. Boone and Greg Gross's singles were infield hits. Rose worked the walk on a full count. When you look at the innings before that, Nolan Ryan had faced the minimum 15 batters in the last five innings, giving up three hits, all singles. Those runners were erased via two double plays and a caught stealing. There was no reason on earth to pull Ryan out before the inning started, except for clairvoyant visions into the future. And the Phillies hit the succeeding relievers harder. That game more than anything is baseball's equivalent of "shit happens," nothing more.

It's not a PED by the traditional terms. It's a stimulant.

As for the Phillies, three suggestions in chronological order. 1. Don't trade Grover Alexander. The Phils went to shit after that trade and only once had a winning season the next thirty years. 2. Be more aggressive in breaking the color barrier. A great young core in 1950 was negated when Ernie Banks, Hank Aaron, Roy Campanella, Don Newcombe, Roberto Clemente, Willie Mays, etc. entered the league en mass. 3. Don't trade Ryne Sandberg. Hall of Famer lost for an aging Ivan Dejesus. Possible 4. Don't trade Scott Rolen. The parade of third basemen since has been comical.