RavishingRickRudo

I luv Hogan.

I don't think Hogan was _ever_ on a full-time schedule. So saying *he's* "retired" when he does 2 or 3 matches a year, is a bit off. Growing up, I'd see Hogan as much as I saw him this year. If that. The point is still the same with Michaels, the guy was once retired for a reason, meaning that his "best days" are long behind him. But let's continue to hold HBK at a different standard because um... err...

HBK's not retired, dumb fuck. So that whole period between 1998 and 2002 was what??

The argument is that HBK, based on "objective analysis" using "physical factors" (as used when saying Hogan shouldn't have beaten HBK - age, proximity to retirement, physical ability) can't believably beat Cena, period. Angle is pretty small too, and is a physical wreck.

Edited. You're a schmuck.

In professional wrestling, whether or not someone can compete is based on their look. The WWE has been based on this forever. Hulk Hogan was their champion for many years because he was big and strong. It was believable for this 6'6, 300 lbs. to beat anyone, because he was so big and strong. How can you say it's realistic, in 2005 with all the huge guys the WWE has, for someone who is as small as a cruiserweight and in his 40's, who was also once retired, to beat someone in his 20's, who is also much bigger and stronger? Not to mention Shawns shitty moveset. Randy Couture won the UFC lightheavyweight title in his 40s. Fighting and Wrestling are a lot closer than Baseball and Wrestling. But Randy Couture was (1)Big and Ripped, and (2)Had the moves and skills to get it done. And even then, going into his big fights, Randy was generally considered the underdog on the basis of his age. It was considered astonishing that -at his age- he could be so competative. Shawn Michaels does not look like Randy Couture, nor does he have the skill of Randy Couture, nor does he have the benefit of being in a shoot to prove he belongs in the ring with younger guys.

By George, I think he's got it. There are two ways to look at this: 1. Old Wrestlers can't beat younger Wrestlers because they are Old - and apply this to both Hogan vs. Michaels, with the thought that Michaels should have won, and with Michaels vs. Cena with the thought that Cena should win. or. 3. Any wrestler can beat any wrestler if the build and context is right. Trying to have it both ways doesn't work.

Baseball is a sport where merit is based on results. Wrestling is a form of entertainment, especially in the WWE, where merit is based on aesthetics. Roger Clemens striking someone out is "believable" because he actually strikes them out. Don't talk about a flawed argument when you can't even make the distinction between work and shoot, not to mention comparing baseball to wrestling as if it's even in the same realm. A 40-year-old Shawn Michaels, looking as he does, cannot believably beat a 20-something John Cena. Besides, my "argument" in all this is that you are not holding the same standard used to judge Hulk Hogan on Shawn Michaels. That you think -old- HBK can be champ, but not any more because he lost to -older- Hulk Hogan is silly, even for you.

You're right about pacing, but Michaels' storytelling and moveset were/are pretty poor. Especially in relation to his peers in the 90's (not really in the WWE, though Austin, Bret, and Foley were better at telling stories in the ring. Taker... hmm... that's a tough one. In the bottom part of the top 5 in the WWE for Michaels isn't a plus). Moveset-wise, I wouldn't call a few low-rent cruiserweight moves to be "one of the best in the business". His high spots were the elbow drop and the superkick. Variations of a cross-body (top rope, over the top rope, off the ropes) and a moonsault were the extent of his high flying. You have no idea what guys were doing at the time if you think that moveset is "one of the best in the business". Let's not even get into Japan, but Benoit, Guerrero, Mysterio, 2 Cold, Psicosis... you'd be hard-pressed to put Michaels in the top 20 in North America, let alone in the top 5. Benoit's pacing is excellent. Angle/Benoit RR03 was made on great pacing and is one of the best examples I can think of to show anyone how to pace. I'd put Benoit up with Michaels in terms of pacing, and I think very highly of Michaels' pacing.

Was my question so hard? Or was it so on-point that the HBK fans have to ignore it? Shawn Michaels, objectively and physically, isn't much better in relation to guys like Cena as Hogan is to him. Those who complain about Hogan beating Michaels, in theory, should react the same way to Michaels beating Cena. However, the problem is, those that *do* complain about Hogan beating Michaels are most-likely HBK-marks, and of course won't apply the same reasoning and standards. So, either the reasoning is flawed, or the person doing the reasoning is. The fact of the matter is this: - Michaels is old. He looks old. - Michaels is lanky, especially in relation to 99% of the roster. - Michaels offense is lacking, at best. - Michaels is in the last legs of his career, his prime having passed him a decade ago. Apparently, the only thing that differs between he and Hogan are 12 years and that Michaels moves faster.

It's gonna suck seein Gomi beat the shit out of Kawajiri.

Because there's a big difference between 40 and 52. Someone that wrestles a regular schedule and someone retired (with an artificial hip and knee) who just comes in once or twice a year. His back seems to be fine now. Was Flair described as a 40 year old, old guy that should never get close to the title again in 89? Will people say that about Batista when he turns 40 in a few months? There's also a big difference between 28 and 40. The 1980's were a different time where image wasn't as important as it is today, and Batista doesn't look like he's 40. HBK looks like he's 40, and it's 2005.

Completely irrelevant. Hogan has never gotten over on work. He's gotten over on the big boot, leg drop, and posing. That's what he got over with 20 years ago, that's what he got over with at Summerslam. The case being made isn't that Shawn lost to "a guy who can't work", it's that he lost to a "52 year old" with a "artificial hip". Looking at things like that, then Shawn is a "40 year old" with a "fused spine". And if you want to look at it more objectively, and at least Hogan was _big_. Shawn is one of the smallest guys on the roster. Why should Cena, a ripped guy in his 20's, lose to some -a lanky, balding, guy in his 40's- one like THAT?

How come when Hogan is spoke-of, he's described as a "50 year old, bald, retired, old guy with a broken hip" but Michaels isn't described as a "40 year old, balding, once-retired, lanky, old guy with a broken back"??

I bought Season 3 on DVD today after having purchased Season 2 a few weeks ago. As such, I am OFFICIALLY addicted to the show. The first DVD I could justify as a "try-out" or "experimentation", but now I have a collection which means a certain amount of dedication and admiration so I guess it can be declared as a fixation. Station. Creation. Imagination. Obliteration. Party People all across the Nation rise up in Celebration. Anyways, I love this show. Like, Jesus Christ this show is good. The feeling that I had with Firefly I have with this (the HAPPY~! Yelling Outloud For No Reason Other Than To Express Your Emotions kinda feeling) but now I can enjoy the show beyond 13 episodes! This show keeps me up at night. And I tend to work early. So I wake up grumpy. But I can't stop watching. I need the fix before I go to bed, and I have been known (like today) to watch 3 or 4 episodes in one sitting. I looked at the clock at it said 10:00pm and I was like "What the fuck happened to the day?". But did I REALLY care? NO~! Cause, to me, there was nothing in this world I could have done more productive than watch this show. I have a problem. This thread is where I share it with the world. Hopefully, there are more fans of the show who will post up (down?) and where we can have some sort of group therapy and perhaps rid ourselves of this awful, beautiful, wicked, evil, wonderful thing from the bastards at the WB. As of right now: Poor Bunny = greatest two words ever.

Bizarro-Lane is so much hotter than Actual Lane. "DIRTY, FILTHY SCHEMES!" Mrs. Kim is BACK~!! Lauren Graham in a French Maid outfit. Lauren Graham in a French Maid outfit. Lauren Graham in a French Maid outfit. ...and I'm spent. "Oh Rory, look at you, look at you. WILL YOU LOOK AT HER?!?" They need to make a 2006 version of the Golden Girls, and Emily Gilmore needs to be on that show. As any of them, really. I think she'd make a good Dorothy. I love the running gags on this show. The rich guys talking about cars is particularly funny. That's it. I can't take it any more. Logan is too damn charming. I'm going to buy a turtle neck sweater now. Actually, I take that back. I want to be like Finn (?). He's exotic. I'm going to buy an Australian accent now. ("I'll re-inact the passion of the christ") "What am I doing here, Rory?" "You're pickin me up" "I don't belong here, not any more... do I?" "...Dean..." Lorelai is watching The Daily Show. This... ... and I'm spent.

Well. That just settled that. I dunno if they could pull it off physically, but shit, that's definitely the finish.

I imagine we'll see a very political finish that will not hurt or benefit either Michaels or Masters - wherein the real benefit comes from the _feud_ in Masters getting a "rub" from Micheals and HBK having "something to do" post-Hogan. So something like a DQ-finish, or Masters getting his "heat" back after the loss. I can't see HBK taking the pin fall, but I can't see them jobbing Masters either. Best case scenario would be a heel running in to take out Michaels and a face running in to take out Masters, resulting in a no contest, and branching those two off into different feuds (with a tag match to "settle the score" and conclude the feud.)

I think I may lose sleep over this. A candle will be lit, a prayer will be said. Let's hope everyone gets through this in one piece.

I wonder if Ross will ever say anything good about WWE fans. I'm sorry, scratch that WWE fans. Internet Fans. Cause, clearly, they are not the same. I am thinking about sending JR a hard-hitting letter. Dear JR. Have you ever considered wearing a white cowboy hat? - JM

WWE pays to use licensed music, so I don't imagine they would cut around corners on stuff like that. I believe parodies don't infringe on copyrights and trademarks anyways. However, something like Jillian Hall and her mole and other derivative bullshit like that could be worth investigating. So, I guess the message is, if a former WWE wrestler wants to parody the WWE, go right the fuck ahead. That, or trademark your own name before anyone else does. Or pull a Warrior and change your name. RRR: Friend to the Indy Worker.

I can't even take 2 hours. Like, the longest I can go watching Raw is about 1 hour and 15 minutes including commercials. I imagine they'll put on one 20 minute match, two 10 minute match, and three or four under 5 minute matches. In total, about an hour of wrestling. Then about 1 1/2 hours of talk. And 30 minutes for commercials. The first and second hours will open with McMahon and Austin respectively. At 11pm HHH will catch the peak rating time.

Trademark protection isn't that hard to come by, smart wrestlers would apply for it before they establish their name on the indy scene.

..it always makes me smile. The WWE does this every few years, nothing new. Companies that are able to control most of the message being sent out on their behalf are most likely to be successful, so keeping stuff like trademarks tight is important in business, but so is goodwill. When the WWE goes after fansites for using their name, photos, etc. I think that was a pretty poor move on their part because they are only hurting the ones who support their product and industry. Strategically, it's not a good move. Then again, the WWE isn't and doesn't want to be a fan-friendly company.

The premise of "everyone should be treated equally" is flawed in that everyones role in the company is different. Women, in this case, are not supposed to be tough and weathered, they are supposed to be perky and smiley and bouncy. If Management wants them to stay perky, smiley, bouncy, then they can't be traditionally tough on them, because, well, everything we've been saying -no matter how far our tongues were implanted in our cheeks- about them is true...-ish. Most of these girls have come from a modelling and acting background, and are used to be treated a certain way. Their options are also more open than the guys, so they can afford to leave the WWE if they want to. If it were me in that position, I wouldn't necessarily coddle them and say that a shitty match was "ok" (though if it were me in that position, it would never happen in the first place), but I wouldn't treat them "like the guys" either.