RavishingRickRudo

Hmm... So theoretically, when Goldberg punches someone it should be lethal...

HHH will run away in the limo before Goldberg can get to him...

You think they'll do that?

Like Kurt gained it for Tapping out Hogan??? ....

Goldberg is the last credible guy that could go over HHH... and he already got beaten.

I really enjoy your writing style. Very easy to read. Thank you, that was enjoyable. ... though you didn't pimp Richards' Oscar Worthy performance enough.

www.sherdog.com it has a fight finder on the left side of the screen. www.pridefc.com also has one as well, but only w/ people who have participated in pride events (it's based on the sherdog stats)

It's funny... I'm not a HHH fan, but I keep giving him the benefit of the doubt. I thought he'd put over Booker, he didn't, I should have learned. I thought he'd put over Goldberg, he didn't... Good Lord, how bad is it when I get burned by HHH??? ME??? I'm a total half-empty kinda guy when it comes to the WWE.

Well considering *I'm* the one asking for SC to explain (or anyone else, for that matter... feel free), I don't have to... do I?? Besides, I already gave an explaination to how good the story of the match was, it's probably the deepest storyline the WWE has done (Hart/Piper had more layers, but Austin/Hart was pretty original). Shawns big matches basically consist of "can he get out alive"...

Um, you didn't really explain ANYTHING there. "Faster Paced and More Psychology" ?? Well Austin and Hart had a gajillion more workrate and loads of moveset... You made Hollow Points, fill them up. If you have to re-watch the matches, go ahead, this doesn't have to be settled in one night. SKeith isn't exactly the best authority when it comes to match ratings...

But that too could be expanded in to another match. Brock vs. Angle WM - First Match (Brock Challenger, can Brock beat Angle for the title? Is Angle too smart? Brock won, F-5) Angle vs. Brock SS - Rematch (Can Angle get past Brocks power and retain? Angle won, Tap out) Now, had Brock not tapped out they could have set up.. Brock vs. Angle No Mercy - Submissions match (Can Angle tap out Brock, can Brock submit Angle? Angle wins, tap out) Brock vs. Angle Survivor Series - I Quit Match (Brock can't submit Angle, Brock can be tapped out - but under I Quit all he has to do is beat Angle to death... can Brock avoid the Ankle lock long enough to beat Angle into Submission) Then you top it off with a 2/3 falls match since they have gotten multiple wins over each other. This is after Thanksgiving and we're trying to find the longest way possible to pick apart the turkey. The WWE took off most of the meat tonight.

But there isn't the question about Brock tapping now. We all know Angle will tap out because of his feud with Benoit, but Brock up-until-tonight still remained tapless.

Even if Kurt beat Brock by pin-fall, Brock can say "you can't make me tap", thus setting up a submissions match for a 3rd match. But they already wasted that tap-out tonight when a 1,2,3 would have done just fine. But now Brock has no reason for a re-match as he gave up.

While ultimately it comes down opinion, if you don't know what makes a match good and what makes a match bad - then your opinion is worthless. I'm sorry, Shawn gets "no credit" in carrying Sid and Nash? The Fuck? Where the fuck have you been for the past 6/7 years? I want to know how, structurally, psychologically, and technically, how HBK carried these matches. Cause any crusierweight can bump his ass off and make big men look good. Shawn bumped for them, but that isn't exactly anything special - TAKA could have bumped the same way (or even better). I don't get this notion of Shawn making them look like Gods as Nash and Sid are mocked on a daily basis and what is talked about in the match isn't their effort - it's Shawns'. The best carry-jobs are the ones you can't really see right away (Kawada/Albright, Hart/Bulldog). I'd like to hear how the Foley and Taker matches were superior to Austin/Hart.

They could have built a match around Brock tapping to the Ankle lock, but wasted it on the re-match... Not very smart.

'Stone Cold Steve Austin vs. Bret 'The Hitman' Hart, Wrestlemania 13. My thoughts on this match are funny. When I first saw it I liked it. The blood, the intensity, the pass-out finish... All great stuff. Then when I became a, ahem, smark I went around praising it like it was the second coming of Jesus. Then I despised it. Not despised it so much as picked holes in it. "The Psychology ISN'T THERE~!' I said. I figured the match was a 'Traditionalist' vs. 'Anarchist', or 'Old School' vs. 'New School' sort of thing and expected the match to be presented that way. But nowhere in the match did they distinguish this. It was a full out brawl with no distinguishable psychology. Bret wasn't cunning with his Old Dog Techniques to keep the young buck in Austin down. And Austin didn't whip out any 'new tricks'. Since the match didn't reflect the 'story' I assumed that it was not fully effective. Sure it was a great match, but it had nothing you could grasp and show another person what made it great. It took a conversation with another wrestling fan to put the match into focus. Bret Hart was a Traditionalist turned Anarchist... He became what he hated and it showed in that match. The match had no traditional 'New' vs. 'Old' psychology because Bret Hart lost his Tradition, it was an all out brawl. He lowered himself to the levels of Austin while still claiming to be the Excellence of Execution. It was his hypocrisy which turned him. This is the main focus, this match was about Bret Hart. Steve Austin's 'never say die' attitude would be the first choice people would make for 'the story of the match', yet it is Bret BECOMING Steve Austin which 'made' this match what it was. He was the foil to Austin’s Anti-Hero. There is no greater evil than a man giving up on his principles. Austin kept consistent, he raised hell and was proud of it. Bret spoke sweet in public, but behind closed doors was a different story. Stone Cold was absolutely gold in this match. From his head swaggering to his limping 'salutes' to referee Ken Shamrock when asked if he wanted to quit, Steve Austin played his role to perfection. The most memorable moment in the 'attitude' era is the bloody face crying out in pain yet never saying die. Even before the word 'Attitude' was muttered at Titan Towers, there was the face of a new generation waiting to change the industry. People always label this match as 'the double turn' match. Just as they label Andre vs. Hogan 'the torch passing' match. Yet, just like that match a decade before, all this did was solidify what was already known. Austin was quickly gaining a following and Bret was slowly losing his sheep. I am not saying that this match was not crucial, it's just that we should not romanticize it as being something that just sprung up over night. The fans cheered both upon their arrivals to the ring, and gave Bret a nice applause for winning the match, yet it was Austin's name whom they chanted on his limp out of the ring. By the end of the show Bret was a definite heel and Austin was a definite face. This match was one of the most important matches in Wwf history and its effects still ripple today, 5 years later. ****3/4

Can someone explain how Shawn vs. Slug would be any different than say TAKA vs. Slug or any cruiserweight at the time... cept for, you know, the fact that the slug might sell for shawn and that the match would be over 3 minutes and wouldn't be a squash... In other words, HOW did Shawn -besides bumping his ass off- make these matches good?

I recommend going over to WrestlingClassics and giving the WONHOF section a look as there was a big HBK thread going there about a month ago.

While I respect Meltzers journalism on wrestling, he'd be one of the last 'experts' I would go to for an opinion on a match. Metlzer is subject to bias as well and his writings influence many HOF voters (who aren't necessarily "experts" or have a grasp on international wrestling or certain matches as others - even here - have.) and the way he goes on about Michaels being a supreme worker and over-rating his matches would certianly have an effect on how people view HBK's career. Plus, no one is saying that Michaels was a bad wrestler or in-ring performer, so why would any wrestler bash his work ?? What I, and others, are saying is that Michaels' work is not THAT great and on not good enough to warrant a HOF placement. Mark McGuire has statistics to back up his game and his homerun race with Sosa was nationally followed and probably drew significant numbers to watch them swing - Michaels can't compare to that.

Benoit had a MOTYC in 93 (vs. El Samurai) and 2003 ( vs. Angle) - two totally different matches with two totally different guys a decade apart. If that doesn't prove his quality as a worker I don't know what does... Michaels had MAYBE 3 years as a "top" worker (94/95/96 - I'm being generous here) while Benoit has been going on +10. I don't even think Michaels as an asshole factors-in simply because Michaels body of work has holes in it. His legendary carry-jobs mainly consist of him flopping around, his "best" work(s) are all gimmick matches, and his period of a "top" worker is incredibly short and he isn't even the top worker in North America, let alone the world for those periods in time. You get into the observer HOF by incredibly strong body of work, incredibly strong drawing, or incredibly strong influence (I believe they are the 3 criteria) or a strong combination of all 3. Michaels is going in, much like Benoit, strictly on work as his drawing is horrible and while his influence is there on young workers it will remain up-in-the-air to see if that materializes into anything significant (much like Benoit - I believe Benoits influence on tomorrows wrestler will be great, much like Dynamite to him, Lyger, Kikuchi, etc). I personally don't think Michaels' peak ring-work is a)good enough and b)held for a long period of time to be considered HOF-worthy.

Ok, so WHY are you telling us?

Tyson is supposedly HUGE in Japan and we all know Sapp is right now, so it would be smart to run a Tokyo Dome match between the two - you wouldn't be able to draw a 1/3'd of that in the States. I don't think you'd have to work it as Tyson would destroy Sapp legit and wouldn't take a dive anyways. So have Tyson beat Sapp and then match him up against someone like Hoost or McDonald - you know, someone good - and have Tyson get beaten (most likely in K-1 rules). That fight can be in Las Vegas as Tysons name is an attention getter and whomever beats him becomes a name not only in Japan, but the states. Right there you'd get a new cross-over star and you use him to focus your promotional efforts on. If Tyson wins you keep throwing your best guys at him, eventually he'd have to lose. I think you got those two names mixed up Raza, Frye beat Abbott.

I think you OVERRATED the Smackdown Tag Titles. Is there even a Tag Division?? Are there anyone else who wants the Belts besides Kidman and Mysterio?

Yes. Takada gave up after 2 losses to Rickson... Sak, do yourself a favour and follow his lead cause the last time you didn't you got royally fucked.

RIP Bob Sapp. I'd say Cro Cop would be fucked too. Tyson, even now, is in a different league standing up. The best thing would be to chop away at his legs and block a lot, and then finally go upstairs with a high kick for a knockout. Cro Cop would maybe have problems with Tyson if Tyson advanced quickly and got in close. Sapp has no chance at all if it's a standing fight only. He thought Cro Cop hit hard? Tyson probably hits 10x's harder. It's a totally different league that of a class professional boxer and that of a kickboxer or MMA fighter.