RavishingRickRudo

I missed the point of the match? Even though I said it was really good? When did you turn into a whiney fanboy? For a guy who nitpicks the shit out of indy wrestling, your criteria is pretty soft for other promotions. First, I don't have a set criteria. I tried to think of one a few years back and I simply couldn't, and then I realized that it's fruitless. Anyone who does doesn't know a whole heckuvalot about professional wrestling. Wrestling is not meant to fit any mold, there is no predetermined point of greatness or quality because wrestling's primary function isn't about quality. Wrestling is about making people believe, and selling an arm the whole way through isn't mutually exclusive with this principle. In theory it is, but in reality it simply isn't. You see a match, you like it. You wonder why you liked it. You don't have a check list and then evaluate it afterwards to see if you liked it. The reasons why you liked one match may not necessarily cross-over to other matches, and guess what? A match can give you new reasons to like something as well. There isn't an indy match that I've seen that did the same thing Taker and Angle did at NWO. It's a bit of a laugh that you think I play favourites, though, with the WWE in particular. Use your friggin head. If the gap-filler stuff doesn't matter, why even pay attention to the match? Disagreed. The majority of the match played into the overall storyline between the two. A lot of the match was built around the two fighting on the outside and which lead to the key moment of Angle telling the ref to stop the count. That moment was key in developing the finish. Other stuff that you write off as "filler", like I suppose you'd say Takers arm work was, was done as high spots to pop the crowd (the arm-lift spot and Old school), so even that served a purpose. I know, it's crazy, factoring the crowd in... Do you just phase out 5 minutes into the match and start paying attention during the stretch run? If I'm comparing two matches, both of which are relatively equal in terms of story/build/selling, I'm obviously going to say the match with the better body-work was better. Why would you compare two matches? Especially two that were trying to achieve two different objectives? And what does "relatively equal" mean? And are those three categories related or something? I just find this whole paragraph to have a lot of stupid things in it, which is ironic. "Well, X match was a 5.2 on the story scale, a 5.3 on the build scale, and a 5.1 on the selling scale, which was relatively equal to match Y, but match Y was a 5.5 on the bodywork scale whereas match X was a 2.3" Silly silly silly. You missed the point of the limb work and you are holding it against the match. The problem here is you only are looking at it from one perspective, which isn't very surprising. The limb work served a purpose. Period. Just because it didn't serve a purpose in the way you see things doesn't mean that it didn't. It helped in developing the overall story between the two and directly influenced the finish, in my eyes. That end stretch was not independent of the match, what they did before that helped in getting them there. It's a no-fucking-brainer. So if I say Angle-UT is great, then a match with more or less equal story and better body-work (Rey-Eddy from June for instance) becomes really great. And that pretty much ends up at the top of the scale, even though I've seen much better matches. Seems kind of pointless. And then terror breaks loose on the streets of London and chaos erupts because you said one was great and that meant the other was really great! AAAAHHH!! Silly, silly, silly. Angle/Taker was a story-driven match. It's hard to compare story-driven matches, and I can imagine especially hard for you, because there are two areas of concern - one is "which story did you prefer" and "which match told the story better". I seriously doubt that Guerrero/Reys story was better than Taker/Angles, partially because people tend to overrate both guys' stuff over the past year, and partially because Taker/Angles was so good and unusually complex for the WWE. So yea, to me Angle vs. UT was very good and not great because while it had great story and build, it wasn't rock-solid from start to finish, whereas great matches are. Great matches don't have to be "rock-solid", I don't even know what that means, even. I imagine it has something to do with technical matters which are rather irrelevant unless what made that match great was it's use of technique. The definition of great doesn't necessarily include the word "quality", which is something a lot of people tend to mistaken it for. Whine about criteria all you want. At least I apply the same criteria to all wrestling I see, rather than selectively deciding what to praise and what to bash based on which promotion is producing the wrestling. Which is just about the dumbest thing you can do with wrestling, not the promotions part which is you being a fucking retard, but the "using the same criteria to all wrestling I see". I understand your point about limbwork and continuity and all that, I've made that case before for several matches and in one way you are on point, but there is more than one way to skin a cat and in another way you couldn't be further from the point. In fact, you are on Mars when it comes to that point. After that, it's really just a matter of comparing a match to others to decide where I rank it. How do you rank a match that is great in one area against a match that is great in another? Do you weigh them? Do they then become equal? Does a great brawl score higher or lower than a great grappling match? If one match uses a cravate better than another match, but that other match uses a straight headlock better, which match is the better one? How about arm work vs. leg work... do they get even points? Where does the tie breaker go? "Decide where I rank it", fucking hell, go over and jerk off with the boys at Smarkschoice.

Why aren't they good workers? Because Taker doesn't execute moves perfectly? Yet is able to get the crowd up from simple gestures? What exactly is more important for a worker to do: Execute moves, or Get a crowd excited and believing in certain things (also known as working the crowd)? Because Angle didn't sell his arm? Go fuck yourself. You completely missed the point of that match. You are trying to use your own criteria for judging a match and since that match doesn't fall perfectly in-line with that criteria it has to be that match is seriously flawed, not that your criteria is. There are different ways to look at wrestling, this one went beyond the little details and involved something deeper. I'll gladly take a match like this which sacrifices bodywork for a greater story being told.

To be fair, the kind of music that Ruben and Fantastia make doesn't really lend itself well to big sales. Carrie is in a good genre for her. Kelly managed to switch genres successfully. Taylor Hicks (Grey haired dude) could go pretty far. I don't see him winning, but he could make plenty of money (relatively speaking, not 5 million albums sold, but certainly more than what he was making before). The rest of the guys are kinda same old same old.

Riggs/Lytle, Florian/Karalexis...and what else? Two competitive matches that ended due to legit strikes aren't a strong enough case to discount Loiseau or St. Pierre/anybody, Riggs/Doerksen, Trigg/Charuto, Tanner/Baroni I, Koscheck/Sanford, etc. So you took 2 matches that happened *this year* and compared them to matches that have happened in the past 3 years (while calling Tanner/Sinosic an "older" match)? One, Tanner/Baroni ended with the fans booing, two Kos/Sanford ended with a punch from the guard, three Loiseau/Tanner is a perfect example of what I was talking about with a guy dominating yet the opponent winning due to a technicality and the fans didn't seem to enjoy that finish either, St. Pierres vs. Sherk was entertaining so you have one, Trigg/Charuto wasn't entertaining because of the elbows and neither was Riggs/Doerkson. Florian/Leben is a good example of the cheapness of elbows. Sucks for the guy who agreed to fight under rules which utilized a technique he didn't avoid. How do you train to avoid lucky elbow strikes? This is completely unreasonable. And yes, it does suck. Matches would be more enjoyable without the elbows, as PRIDE has shown. The vast majority of cut stoppages from elbows have been rather fair, though of course older exceptions like Sinosic/Tanner still exist. It's hard to say it was fair because there hasn't been many fights that have gone on when there was a cut. Who is to say what would happen? It's all speculation. And Leben wanting to continue when his continued, untreated bleeding could've left him blinded, and possibly even lead to shock from blood loss is less dangerous than letting him fight with a broken arm? Those are pretty big "could ofs" especially when there isn't a lot of proof of blindness and shock in MMA due to cuts, yet the broken arm was still a broken arm.

SNME would be the perfect place (and also the worst place) for a time limit draw, because -since it's on NBC and they have to have strict guidelines for time- it would make more sense to have time limits then than it would be to have it on any old Smackdown!. It would be less obvious. The negative is that such a long match might turn off the viewer at home and a draw might be considered a waste of time and a let down (but then again, if done right, it could make people want to see the rematch even more). I don't think they should have a "submission" match, mainly because an I Quit match is too similar and it's more over, so why not just leave it at an I Quit? I also don't think either guy should tap out up to this point because of the way their last match went. It's been established the lengths these two would go at this point to not tap out, so the tap out should be the final point in their feud, not something along the way. Granted, each guy has tapped out before, but 2006 is a different year, different circumstances, more on the line and whatnot.

They didn't mention _anything_ about their past. Nothing about Fully Loaded 00, or Survivor Series 00, or their Smackdown match, or the pin/tap, or the Vengeance 02 match, or the Armageddon 00, 6 way HIAC... they have a pretty deep history and it wasn't brought up at all. Doesn't really bother me, though, because the match was self-contained.

I think we could get a bunch of good matches out of them. A time limit draw. 2/3 falls (no gimmicks needed, just straight-up 2/3 falls). And an I Quit match. The I Quit match would draw, IMO, on the basis of seeing either guy say "I Quit" since it has been an integral part of their feud that neither guy has given up.

It kinda sucks they killed off Nathanson in the same episode he became relevant.

This Benjamin/Flair match is shit. Flair is very much wrestling like he's an old man. Mama is fucking awful.

WOW. Tonights House was so fucked up. Cuddy giving House a taste of his own medicine (literally) by giving him a placebo was fucking awesome. The chick diddling her daddy and then turning out to be a dude is just way out there.

The LAW guys are morons on every single level. They have blinders the size of mack trucks limiting their perspective. In their world "Taker sucks, Angle rules" so if the two have a tremendous match, you can guess what they'd say. Of course, when Dave started praising the match Dan started to like it a bit more

I think there are numerous wrestlers they would have wanted more than Tatanka.

I hate any cruiserweight match where 80% of the moves done in it are punches and kicks. So I didn't like this one. The Lashley/JBL match was so much better than it had any right to be. Nothing over ***, but it did a good job in getting Lashley over and including Finlay in it was a nice touch. Benoit/Booker was pretty crappy. They were just trading moves for the whole match with little tying them in, and they didn't flow very well. The tag match was crap and the crowd did not want Tatanka there.

Angle was OUT. They showed him out after the match. Taker was justified in thinking he had won because of this fact. "Yes, there was a three count, but he was out too". If he let go, he'd give Angle a chance to recover. He waited all match to sink the choke in, he couldn't finish him with any other of his moves because Angle kept reversing them into the anklelock. He celebrated because he saw that Angle was outcold.

As an MMA fan you realize this, but I'd venture to say that most WWE fans will end up thinking that Taker's an idiot for not letting go of the hold when he was getting pinned. I guess it's also a little bit unfair to compare a legit triangle choke against a worked one, but unless Taz or Cole put over the move in such a way, they didn't do enough to make the point clear. This is why I think promos are needed to explain the finish further. Tazz tried to put over the triangle choke, but since they can't directly say "UFC" or "PRIDE" and I guess "Brazilian Jiu Jitsu" too, he stumbled over his words a lot.

Matt Hughes vs. Carlos Newton, Newton held on to the triangle choke while put up against the cage in a powerbomb position. He should have let go because he risked getting slammed, he didn't. Why? Because the hold was sunk in. The triangle choke is deadly. I've been in one and I tapped immediately because you feel the pressure immediately. He kept the hold on and Hughes powerbomed him and knocked him out. Hughes was out too. It's pretty insidious because it's a blood choke rather than an air choke and many times with these kinds of chokes it takes a few seconds to figure out if your opponent is unconcious or not.

I don't think I've even ever talked about how awesome Takers triangle choke was. Which reminds me. That was a fucking AWESOME triangle choke. Most guys forget to bring the foot to the back of the knee, but Taker did. There wasn't much space between there, it looked GOOD. Minotaker~!

In regards to the promos: Angle didn't have to release the hold while he was getting kicked in the face. If he believed he had the hold locked -and this is his big move- he could have continued to take the punishment. For Taker to not know what was happening and continuing to keep the hold on, it doesn't really make sense. So he must've figured Angle would go out in the time the ref was making the pin count - he risked it. The theme is sacrifice. That theme, however, wouldn't become clear until they reinforced it with promos.

The UFC has incorporated rules and limits for not only the safety of the fighters but for entertainment purposes as well. I think more fights have been stopped because of cuts-due-to-elbow-strikes and then subsequently booed by the fans, than an entertaining fight being due to elbows. Elbows are like a buzzkill to a fight. These cuts do not establish who the better fighter is because then fighting becomes "who can land the best placed elbow -not for the ko- but for the cut" and it then becomes Fighter X vs. Fighter Y's skin. I think speculation on the effects the cut would have on the fighter is just that, speculation. I can see in some cases where a cut would end up working against a fighter, but I don't think that is necessarily applicable to everything. I also think a fighter wanting to go on with blood dripping down is different from a broken arm. ..Re...cock...u...lous??

The thing is, I think Taker and Angle could do a pretty decent brawl around the arena with a full course of blood. It would elevate the heat and competition between the two. I mean, shit, both guys bloody and Taker wiping Angles blood on himself for war paint and Angle doing the same in a payback spot would be *fantastic*. The finish of this match said that Angle is willing to risk going unconscious to win the title, and Taker is willing to lose a match to knock Angle out. Taker could come out next week and say "I tried to out grapple the grappler, and I held my own, but it didn't work. Next time, it's gonna be in my world. I'm not going to play that game. Next time, it's gonna be a fist fight." So you get get that aspect in and still incorporate some of the stuff tonight to make their next match different, but still contain some of the stuff that made this match so good.

I have this and Benoit/Angle around the same at ****1/2. The RR03 match gets huge points for bringing that audience back to life, so it gets ranked sorta differently. On a storytelling level, Taker/Angle was superior. But then again, Taker/Angle wouldn't be as impactful without Benoit/Angle, IMO, because when Angle put on Anklelock 03, I was convinced it was over because NO ONE gets out of that. Taker booting Angle in the face while the hold was still on is probably in the top 5 moments in that match, and really indicative of the story, because Angle let go. His big move, the one that slays dragons, and he let go because he maybe had a lil more confidence in himself than Taker did. He was willing to let go because he figured he could get it on again, or something. I hope they give this match some good promo spots to help the finish become more clear. Someone needs to ask Taker "why didn't you let go" and someone needs to ask Angle "why did you let go".

I think Taker/Angle tonight was the best laid-out, storytelling, match since Eddie/Lesnar. When you think about how Angle tried *everything* to finish Taker, including AL03, and Taker tried to get Angle in every one of his moves and Angle had a reversal for it. It explains the finish so well, because the Triangle choke was working for Taker, so why would he let go? Angle couldn't finish Taker with any of his conventional moves, so instead he uses Takers own stubborness against him and jackknifes the hold for the pin. I am hearin people say how they killed Angles moves and how they repeated the spots and how it was the usual "everyone hits their signature moves for the big dramatic pops" but this WASN'T the usual stuff because it was building towards something. They had meaning. It wasn't JUST there to get the crowd to go nuts (which it did effectively), it served a purpose in building to that finish. Angles failures were a part of the finish, the reversals were a part of the finish... besides, the whole purpose of professional wrestling is to manipulate that audience into believing and getting emotionally involved in what you are doing, and they so fucking did that especially in the last 10 minutes of that match. There were several points in that match where I was like "what are they gonna do next??". When he first put on that triangle choke, only LOTC and I were marking out. By the third one, more people were into it. Angle not getting the countout was also pretty cool. I wouldn't mind seeing him bring that up and them getting the rematch to be a No Countout so they don't have to keep moving in and out of the ring just to break up the count.

I think JBL could put together a stable of shitkickers and elevate them by proxy. JBL already is associated with Finlay. JBL is sick and tired of fighting for midcard titles and its been too long since he's been out of the main event and he needs some tough fuckers to help him reclaim his top spot. Brings in Regal and Henry along with Finlay and they fuck up Taker and Angle up top. Taker and Angle decide to team up to eliminate them, Angle says they need more guys and recruits Benoit and Rey. Rotate all those guys with each other. Never would happen, but they could do that whole thing in just a few weeks and it would work, IMO.

How good was the spot when Angle pulled down the straps and Taker zombied up? So good. I think they could add dramatic effects such as blood and they could tighten up some things where there could be improvement, I just think they can't do the same match they did tonight on any other night because tonight they went all out on that finish.

It's a shame they have Regal, Finlay, and Benoit (and JBL somewhat) below the main event line, because those guys with Taker on top, mix in Henry and Angle and Rey, and that's a SOLID mix of EIGHT guys and some phenomenal combinations that you rotate and sustain for the entire year. I see no reason to not elevate those guys when you can have such fun matches on top.