RavishingRickRudo

Mmmm, continuitastic.

Next weeks episode could be an all timer baby!

They should just completely retool the show and call it "Hamilton", cause there's no other way they can get in their Baldwin-quota without making him the central focus of every episode. He was actually downplayed in the episode in relation to the spoilers; I was expecting more.

When Gunn opened the door and Spike/Angel bugged out was sweet. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! That was RIGHTEOUS~! RIGHTEEEEEEEEOUSSSSSSSS!! God that, and Spike holding the pose, was classic.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOH LORDY~! Did I like me some of that! They have really gotten in a groove as-of-late and you can really feel it when watching the show. They've set it all up and are now watching it fall into place. 1. JAAAAAAAAAAAAYNE! The man they call JAAAAAAAAAAAYNE! I mean... HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM, the man they call HAAAAAAAAAAAAM(ilton). Well he robs from the rich and he kicks down the door, he stood up to that Eve and he gave her what for. Our love for him now, ain't hard for a simpleton. He's their newfound liason, the man they call HAMILTON! Adam Baldwin + Angel = Happy World. That IS a nice suit! 2. Everybody with a machine gun! The white kid is Gunns son! YEAH! YOU LIVE WIT DOSE CRACKAS~! You MAKE those white boy jokes~! 3. "So what are we called?... not the scoobies"!!!! BIG POP! This episode was aaaaaaaaaaall about that. "Angel Avengers" is so hot. SO HOT. 4. Harmony in the main credits was fucking sweet cause she SO has earned her stripes this year as a fucking player. She is a fucking PLAYER. She should have been there immediately after "Lorney Tunes". PLAYER. A fucking PLAYER. 5. Illyria is so much more fuckable than Fred. "You called me a smurf", "Shrimp Dimension"... NUFF SAID. Illyria is such an oddity in the Whedonverse. I don't think they've ever done something like her before. Spike and Anya are the closest things, and even then this is different. 6. The punishment/hell thing was sweet and done really well. That was the one thing I was a lil bit worried about but they pulled it off. 7. I like how they've put Wes off to the side and yet have still focused on him. Some really great underplayed stuff. I soooo need to dl the whole season to get a better perspective. 8. Lindsays revelation (no pun) at the end fucking ROCKED. It would have been nice to show how the world has gone to hell, but hopefully they follow up on that in future episodes. I don't know whether to be pissed off or fucking stoked that the end came softly rather than with a big boom, as of right now I am fucking stoked. 9. Despite her decent from Foxdom, Eve was still very much stickable. 10. Hamilton punching the security guard in/through the chest and their reaction makes everything (EVERYTHING) about this season worth it. 11. I really need to see this episode again. There was so much in it that I feel that I am forgetting something big. Shit... did I mention "Scooby"?

THERE'S A PLACE CALLED "SMOCK"?!?! Oh... and... uh... Flair vs. Benjamin sucks. Hard. Ass. There is no need for it as Flair's status in the WWE is "Crazy Old Guy who says Whooo" and not as a competitive wrestler where fans will be in awe of anyone who beats him. Flair will lead, which means he'll give Benjamin a lot of offense which he won't take very well and the heat sections will probably bore the audience to tears. The best bet here is a squash. Benjamin in, Benjamin out. Time Elapsed: 60 seconds.

And when he comes out while Eddie is handcuffed, will Eddie have keys this time, get out of the cuffs and just embarrass Kurt for coming out for no reason? There are just so many ways of doing this angle. That is soooooooooooo going to happen. And Kurt will be completely oblivious until someone shows him the past 3 months and then he'll change his game plan, but then he'll hit his head again and it aaaalll starts over.

What's wrong with PITTSBURGH? The last two shows we got were the pre-Mania XIX SD and a non-eventful Raw. I thought the crowd was excellent for SD and rather good for the Raw Their reaction to Angles win at Unforgiven was disappointing to me. There have been better hometown responses. Plus, I hate "Pittsburgh" with a fiery passion, hence, my intentional misspelling of their name as to further insult their crappy city of crap.

That should sooooo be my official title. Actually, could someone change the "Group: Members" to "Group: Cancer in the WWE folder". You could throw a bunch of us in there. Cancer is sooooo hot right now. Actually, make "Cancer", "CAN.S.E.R." as to stand for "CANadian Sports Entertainment Rebels". And I can be much more classy than AS; I thought it said "Anal Cavity Surgery" at first... and oddly enough, it made a lot more sense.

Angles fall made him forget the past 3 months so Angle still thinks that Eddie is his friend. He goes up to Eddie to hang out and Eddie blows him off. This hurts Good Kurts feelings and we get a whole new feud that is _just_ like the old feud, with Angle cutting the _exact_ same promos and doing the exact same things. To Guerreros benefit, he has already lived through this, so he is able to anticipate Kurts every move.

I seriously wish Stephanie McMahon would die on the operating table. I'm a monster, you see.

So what do you call this, Coffey? Going completely off topic as to flame someone, what do you call that? I could do the exact same thing to you because what you posted IS a problem with this folder; condescending bitches like you who preach one thing and do another and just take up space bitching about bitchers. Don't go after the guy above me for unnecessarily calling everyone a moron and repeating something that was said more-than-once before, cause gee, that's ok, there's no problem with that. But making fun of Stephanie McMahon? Why, that's the downfall of society! Shame on me! The queen herself would be royally offended. As to keep on topic, "I hope Stephanie is ok, recovers well, and is back on smackdown in horrible angles that dominate television time as well as heading the creative team that produces such gems as "Al Wilson, corpse" and "Mr American and Peg Leg Z". Because she's not the devil, she is a human being just like you and I and you have no right (NO RIGHT) to say anything bad about her because all she has done is help produce some of the worst television in history."

So good to you doesn't have to be entertaining? Other way around, "Good" doesn't have to be entertaining to me. Objectivity is a wonderful thing. Then you haven't talked to people that like his type of matches. To those people, he is. There's lots of people that would call Hogan/Warrior, Hogan/Andre, and Hogan/Rock superb. Well, when you find these people we'll talk. I love Hogan matches, I'm a big Hogan mark, I think he is underrated by a lot of people; I wouldn't call any of his matches "superb". Raiders is a better adventure than Kane. Kane is a better drama than Raiders. They're different types of movies. No one watches Raiders of the Lost Ark wishing the movie was of the same quality as Citizen Kane. Because they don't relate to other. They watch it because they want to see an adventure and that's all that matters. If you think Kane is better, it's because you like dramas better than adventures. They're both movies, movies have common elements. If "Raiders" has a plot hole, it can't get away with it because it's an adventure movie. It can't get away with poorly developed characters, or a bad script, or a contrived ending. Movies are relatable because they all contain characters, performances, plot, dialogue, etc. which can be related. Wrestling matches are relatable because they too have characters, performances, plot/story, technique, build, pace, etc. these are characteristics that are found in all matches, which means you can compare them. Is Benoit/Malenko better than OTE Foley/Austin or TLC? If you like scientific wrestling better than brawlling or spotfests, then yeah. But you can't say Benoit/Malenko is a better quality match than the others. Sure you can. Wrestling has two parts - story and technique. This is a common thread for all 3 matches. Even brawls can have good technique, as can spotfests. It may not be as complex, but if the moves are executed well, then it cannot be faulted as a technical masterpiece between Austin and Foley would have been contrary to the story told. Which ever match tells the story best along with having proper technique is the better match, OR, if a match has the best technique along with a proper story, it can be the better match. Cases can be made for both Story and Technique in which is better, or maybe even a blend, as long as it _is_ there. The 8 man neither had the story or the technique, all it had was formula and atmosphere. You wouldn't go "Yeah, TLC was alright, but I've seen better technical wrestling". What the fuck is that? About all you could say was that it was a better scientific match than TLC was a spotfest. Wrestling is a collection of moves or "spots". What gives these moves meaning is how they are incorporated into the match; the "story" or "psychology", if you will. Moves can be built up to, they can be referred to repeatedly in a match, they can be used to convey the emotions or objectives of the wrestlers. The TLC, despite using "bigger" moves, did not incorporate them as smartly or "better" than Malenko and Benoit. The story of TLC was non-existent, it was just a collection of random spots. Benoit and Malenko strung together moves in a logical fashion and more efficiently used the ring to their advantage. Now, getting to your point, "This is a better _____ match" is different from "This is a better match". You change the focus off of "story and technique" and onto the style. Within that focus you can use "story and technique" in regards to the "style". When you change the perspective, you change the objective. However, you can _still_ look at both matches and compare them to each other, and you can compare them to their respective objectives and whether or not they fulfilled them.

I don't recall them ever being mentioned again. I think it was just to establish that WR&H's grip spanned dimensions.

Fedor - Coleman Solid match IMO. I love symbolic matches and this has it up the yin yang. We might see a side of Fedor that hasn't really been tested in the Pride ring, or we might see Coleman get KTFO. CroCop - Randleman Randleman shouldn't really be in this tournament, but it's a nice test for Cro Cop to see if he can (a)avoid the takedown and (b)get up after being taken down. Randleman will be forced to work on the ground because you know the refs will be standing the fight up the momment the fight gets inactive. Nog - Yokoi Nog squash! Always fun to watch the master in his craft do his thing. Whether or not Yokoi is really good or really bad won't matter, Nog brings it either way. Herring - Takahashi The one fight that I'm not really, really looking forward to. Hopefully Herring will bump up his game and put on a good fight to prove he belongs in the 2nd round. Ogawa - Leko Whooo Hooo!~ LeK-O baby! Make it happen! Silva - Sentoryu Freak show match, neither deserves to be in the second round, but they'll make it interesting, to say the least. It'll be a nice change of pace, which is the best I can say for it. Kharatonov - Ninja This is probably the match I am most looking forward to. I don't know this Kharatonov feller, but Ninja is always fun to watch and it should be a really good match.

Exactly Dangerous A. Steph isn't the devil. Vince is. She is just a hellspawn. Dumbasses! RRR: Crying that Steph didn't die on the operating table. Ooops, I meant "diet"... hmm, I should probably edit that and not put this correction so far down the page.

This head trauma SOOOO Fits in with my "Kurt Angle is insane" storyline.

The way the WWE view's both titles, the RAW title is the major title despite lack of lineage The way the WWE views it's wrestlers, Shane McMahon is better than RVD.

Because being in an entertainment medium, the enjoyment can be the principle goal of the performers. The entertainment value of the fans, while it can be manipulated, is not in the control of the wrestlers. What can entertain one set of fans may bore another. It is easier -and more effective- to concentrate on making the product 'good', than to make it 'entertaining', since while you cannot control the audience, you can control what the audience watches. So even if someone doesn't "dig" the match, they can't really speak out against it because it provided certain elements which made it "good". Sometimes wrestlers do indeed put more thought into providing a stylistic sport built around technical work (Dean Malenko for one seemed to 'wrestle for himself' a great deal) while other focus entirely on the entertainment such as Hogan. I don't see Hogan often called "superb" though. Its like looking at movies like Raiders of The Lost Ark and Citizen Kane, they both do an excellent job of doing what they set out to do but they aren't the same. The eight man on Monday followed the Raiders formula of trying to be fun in a mindless way. "Fun" however, is different from "superb". I have no objections with calling anything "fun", as it relates to personal feelings. I _do_ have a problem with people relating "fun" and "superb", as "superb" relates to quality. Also, I don't hear many people calling "Raiders.." -better- than "Kane..." Thinking about most things heavily causes a drastic decrease in the enjoyment factor of any wrestling match. Think about things too much and you start to wonder why Kawada's opponents didn't just keep him on the mat all fight long in order to avoid getting kicked a million times a match. Why didn't they do that? Because it would be boring. Realism in wreslting = yawns and less money as proven by the disasterous Inoki 'worked shoot' era in Japan. There is the possibility of "overthinking"; contrary to popular belief, I don't "look" for anything - it just is there and I see it. At least, with everyday matches. Matches that I've seen a couple of times I often "look" for stuff. There is a certain line you cross when analytical thought becomes nitpicking, where "that doesn't make sense" leads to "nothing make sense". You have to suspend part of your disbelief, part of your sense of reality, when watching a story -any story- unfold. However, leaving your brain at the door is just as damaging; you sell yourself out when you do that. "Thinking" in general, however, doesn't decrease the enjoyment factor unless the match can't support it. "Thinking" can open up something new to enjoy, it can increase your appreciation for the match, it offers a whole new level to look at. Hart vs. Piper WM 8, for example, when looked at on the surface isn't that great, however, if you look deeper and make all these connections, it isn't just "these two guys are friends", it becomes more than that. Hart vs. Austin WM 13 is another example, if you look at it like "Bret Hart hates Austin" it will appear as a regular brawl; if you look at it like "Bret Hart becomes Austin" the whole playing field changes. "Thinking" can be more rewarding than "feeling". Yes because Coey is a tremendous wonk whose jerkery always overshadowed how much wrestling knowledge he had. "Wonk"? I was thinking more in regards to his match reviews on his website, than his messageboard posting.

The crowd can be affected by a match, this is true, and they do play a role. But it's limited. In the end, you don't rate the crowd, you rate the match. The match is the only thing the wrestlers really can control. You use the word "experience", expand on that. Do you limit the "experience" to *just* the wrestlers and the crowd in the arena? Do you add in the announcers, who play a role in conveying the story and emotion of the match? Does the "experience" include what you watch it on? I bet a Big Movie Screen would provide a different "experience" than a handheld screen. And how do you define "the crowd"? I say you count as "the crowd".

Yeah it does. Enjoyment can be independent of the actual product, so how can that = quality? No, I don't need guys who are just looking for something to complain about. No, you're better with your head in the sand. Yeah, I will. Thank you. It's better than counting chops... No it's not. It's not "better" than something substantive. "Counting Chops" provides proof of repetition. Repetition -when not part of the story- shows lack of imagination by the wrestlers, an inability to convey a message in a different way, and is simply not realistic in any way, shape or form. Nothing says "We're working together" than sticking your chest out for another guy to hit half a dozen times in a row and not doing a thing about it. So how can you say that "That was fun" is better than what I just wrote? Well, an idiot can and will look like an idiot for doing so. I'm not saying that's you, but one could make the connection. I'd rather be someone "looking to complain" that someone who isn't looking to or at anything at all. I'll say whatever I want to say. Fun = superb, says Ray. This match, was fun. I'm not going to rate it lower because someone else found a "flaw" in it. You say what you want to say. What you say is full of shit, but that comes with the territory of abandoning the thought process. Calling a match that had botched spots, repetitive action, and very little substance "superb" because it gave you the warm fuzzies is something I'd expect out of someone living in a cave. It wasn't a "bad" match, as it has certain elements that gave it quality, but I'd say it was closer to "bad" than it was to "superb". Oh no! It's Ravishing Rick Coey! Is that an insult? Chris Coey is someone whose opinion on wrestling I respect, though do not always agree with. He writes about wrestling in a manner that makes me feel that being a wrestling fan is "worth it". By that I mean, he writes about it intelligently; he writes with a critical eye. He doesn't just say "I enjoyed this", he tries to find out what made him enjoy it. This is a better way of viewing wrestling if you are a hardcore watcher because if you know what you specifically like in a match or a wrestler, then you can look up, buy, and watch things that are similar - you'd have a better chance at finding more stuff to enjoy. If you work from a purely emotional standpoint, fulfillment will be limited; both in terms of quantity and quality. But apparently, this is a "bad" thing, and being compared to someone with such an approach is an insult.

But...but... you shouldn't be happy, the RAW Title doesn't count, right guys? Exactly. You're catching on.

That's a ridiculously stupid analogy. I hope you weren't bothered by it... Enjoyment doesn't always equal quality; there are external factors influencing enjoyment that are not determined by the match itself; if you no longer enjoy a match after multiple viewings, and the match hasn't changed, what has? blah blah blah blah blah, it's a silly criteria in judging a match which was my point which you ignored. Who needs bitchy smarks who base their internet existance around finding things to bitch about? So what you're saying is by this response (or lack thereof) "I don't need objectivity". Ok, that's all you needed to say. That's cool. Keep judging matches by emotional reaction, that's fine. Just don't make statements like "superb" when you can't back it up by anything but "oooh it was fun!". Oh no! Too many chops! Minus 10 stars! Oh no! Story doesn't reach Shakespearean levels! Minus 400 stars! Oh no! A formula! Minus a billion stars! Oh no! Actual thought! Minus a billion brain cells!

Ok, so if you were watching a match that had a super hot crowd while getting your foot chopped off, the match would - in your eyes - suck because of the experience you had (which was completely independant of the match itself) wasn't "fun". Right? Who needs objectivity?

The difference is that not all of Yoshida's MMA fights prior to the Middleweight tournament were worked, while all of Ogawa's fights (to my knowledge) have been works. There were A LOT of people saying that Yoshida's fight against Frye was worked, that his fight vs. Gracie was a sham because of the ending, and even his fight against Tamura had a worked finish. Many were suspecting that Yoshida would drop out of the tournament even if he won - I am hearing the exact same stuff about Ogawa. The Yoshida stuff only sounds silly after the Silva match where he proved himself to the majority of the naysayers. I'm not defending Ogawa or his matches, I am just saying that they are similar in that regard. I guess it'll provide for an entertaining match, but it kind of hurts the entertainment value for me when I'm watching an MMA fight to know that it's worked. PRIDE hasn't had a work in a long while, I don't think they'd work any of the matches in this tournament. Give Ogawa a really easy opponent? Yes. Work it? No. Ultimately, you can't work a tournament that Nogueira, Cro Cop, and Fedor are in.