RavishingRickRudo

There SO is a competition between the guys to see who can get in that first.

Yeah, totally. I was like "She's SIXTEEN?" My god, the eyebrow movement and the head goin from side to side... fightening. The "taking the mic spot" would have been great if she followed it up better. She needs to pick it up to another level if she's going to do that style. This was more like yelling into the mic than anything.

The top is horrible, but she fills those jeans out nicely. The voice sounded like Joss Stone or something. I hate Joss Stone.

Oh my, she should jump around more with loose fitting, low cut, tops. Infact, that should be her "thing". "Yeah, jump around some more" - Randy Jackson to some juggy blonde in another season.

Melissa better be really good cause her personality screams, well, "beauty pageant contestant"

Paula makes it out like she's telling someone they have cancer. "You just got it wrong"

How the fuck did Cox making it that far... Hmm... Cox... Sucks... I think I figured out why.

Brenna was an example of someone saving herself in defending criticism. It wasn't the bestest job ever, but she was able to take the focus off her being a bad singer and on to something else. The thoughts after that performance wasn't "Oh god that was awful" it was somethin else (either "oh god shes annoying" or "oh god shes wonderful"). I was hoping she'd mimic giving the mic a blow job when she was pandering and Ryan would totally lose track of his whoring. Hahahha "Cox".

Man, Randy is ON POINT tonight. Brenna should have totally slutted it up and did something like En Vogue.

Ok, I <3 Brenna, because she doesn't even hide it. Shes a bitch, shes a drama queen, shes a camera hog, she's all this and more. But she aint fake and she aint hiding it, so I dig that. Ah gawd, Stevie Wonder.

She does this annoying pouty thing with her lips. Tall, pale, skinny, and the hair. Tiny face too. Needs a nose job, freckles, blue eyes and maybe a wider face and less greasy hair for the total Rory look, though. Her inability to handle the criticism (not that she bombed, but she didn't deflect them in a way that could have turned it into a positive). Her stuff with Ryan at the end didn't help her either. I agree that it was boring, but it certainly wasn't bad or poorly performed. I thought she hit the notes very well for the most part, it's just she didn't put much emotion into it. This is American Idol where the big note is king.

Oh she is going to get SHIT ON for not doing the power notes. The crowd doesn't know how to respond.

I will say right now that I hope this next chick does well cause she reminds me of Rory. Paris was the best, by far, so far.

Are you purposely spelling their names wrong? I don't think I ever seen Beck-IE over the standard Beck-Y. Kellys? Is this a canadian thing? I think it's a RRR thing. I mean, fuck you. Mama Benjamin? Oh... that's racist. I don't think Paris is a tenth of what Fantastia was, and really, they're the same person... Man, I don't know whether or not to find Paris annoying or endearing.

WOW, tall girl does a good Christina on the high notes, not so much on the regular notes. Yeah, what Randy is saying right now. Not liking the smile though. Kinda creepy. And she doesn't seem to have much upstairs, in the mind... nice titties...

The Heavy-set Black Chick (HSBC) was good but had it turned up WAAAAAAAY too much. Turn it down. Though, having too much energy is better than not having enough. She just needs to calm the fuck down.

I think Beckie needs to listen to more Pat Benetar and Annie Lennox records. Worse than Kellys (Kellie?) stuff and she doesn't have nearly the personality to make up for it.

OH MY GOD, Kelly is an awful singer but MY GOD is she so fucking likable. I almost think it's an act because its just so perfect. Her grandpa, her daddy problems, bustin out the "I don't have a boyfriend", the "get this" banter with Seacrest, and the fact that she's hot and all these things surround her makes her totally likable/fuckable.

I haven't read your reply yet, but I have something to say first. You are not an idiot MisawaGQ. You are one of the smarter posters here. I am not saying this to patronize or talk down to you or anything like that, it's honest. I just strongly disagree with the whole criteria and ranking thing, because the way I see wrestling is much different from that and IMO is closer to what wrestling really is. Smart people can say stupid things, so that should explain my mini troll job The idea that there is a fixed, constant, criteria in professional wrestling, to me, is absurd. Because in the past 5 years, I have probably looked at wrestling a dozen different ways and I wouldn't have it any other way. I just got done reading a thread that went on and on and on and on, on why people disagree with each other and the motivations behind the disagreement. And 99% of it I rolled my eyes at. I think a problem with a lot of people is they look at a wrestler or a wrestling match and they ignore what is happening and they focus on what isn't, and if it doesn't have this and this and this, then it's a bad match. To me, a great story is sufficient enough to be great match. Because great stories are rare. Other things are sufficient enough to be a great match, to me, as well. We probably look at Hogan/Andre totally different. I know we look at Angle/Benoit differently. I think half of our disagreements comes in our language and how we define certain things like "greatness" and "worker" and even "wrestler". I think the other half, which relates to the first half, comes in on how we look at wrestling. A wrestler can do a move and we see two totally different things. And we have our reasons for thinking that way. And, to me, the real discussion lies in our different perspectives and sharing them, rather than the minute details and grand lists. Anyways, don't expect a response from your post above any time today. I felt kinda crabby after I wrote my first reply and I find it kinda lame that a messageboard post made me feel that way. Gimmie a day or so to get removed from it and I'll look at it with a different attitude. Respond to this post and I'll chatter back.

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.