RavishingRickRudo

Don't bother. Historically speaking, maybe a handful of people who were IC champions got a World Title shot - and more likely than not it wasn't because they were IC champions, but rather had another issue to deal with - while a significantly large amount of IC champions didn't. It doesn't add up or give support to "The IC Champion is technically #1 contender".

*Directs FS to every other show other than WM VI and maybe the Kane/HHH match in 02.* The IC belt was of circumstance in Hogan/Warrior; Warrior holding the belt did not mean he was #1 contender. Warrior, as #1 contender who happened to hold the belt, just put it on the line as "something to lose". Of course, I was 7 at the time, I could be wrong. But as big fan of the IC title and as one who has a particular soft-spot for WM 6, I don't think I am.

I don't recall the IC champ (status) ever being #1 contender in the WWE.

Did Goldberg face HHH after Armageddon? I would say Goldberg, as former World Champion, automatically gets a rematch vs. HHH since he would be #1 contender. Kane, in that match, wasn't so much #1 contender as he was a shit disturber. I would say that Kane is in the top 5 on RAW given his win/loss record over 'names' and performance in Armageddon, but I don't know about #1 contender.

But the crowd seemed really hot... and gradually died throughout the night.

I'd like to know how HBK was #1 contender for the title anyways... Foley just said "Hey Shawn, you and HHH 2 weeks from tonight" and there it was. Realistically, HBK hasn't done anything to warrant his #1 title position outside fighting HHH.

Benoit, supposedly, wants to face the best (despite having unresolved issues with Guerrero, Angle, and Lesnar on Smackdown), so he SHOULD care about who he faces. Of course, next week, he will fail to beat HBK and then will accept that he must beat HBK as well at Mania. And another thing 8) Paul Heyman. On RAW. And not a single segment with him and Benoit together. I guess Goldberg is more important.

HBK and HHH have been doing everything to put Benoit over since Royal Rumble, so quit bitching about one fucking promo. Big deal. Benoit didn't lose anything from this. Does "everything" require putting themselves over Benoit first? Benoit didn't lose anything from this? 1) HHH punked him out in-ring and he didn't respond. He didn't sign the contract, he didn't say anything to him. This makes Benoit look BAD. 2) HBK said him vs. Hunter is "beyond" any contract (aka, beyond Benoit and what Benoit has done since that contract represents his chance at vindication) and Benoit said "yeah, you're right". This makes Benoit look BAD 3) With HBK signing the contract and superkicking Benoit and Benoit *not responding at all 'cept for bitching at Bischoff* it makes Benoit look BAD. 4) They keep bringing up this loophole and never actually say what it exactly is or was. They say that Benoit has worked hard over the past 18 years all over the world, but they never show any of it. Why should the fans believe ANY of this? They are basically being told (rather than shown) why they should cheer Benoit which does him no favours. When they say something and don't deliver on it, it makes Benoit look bad. 5) Benoit's Royal Rumble win is now officially meaningless since HBK can get there at a motion of a pen. This makes Benoit look bad. 6) Benoit did not come out first thing on the show. He has yet to take a dominant role (or even a significant role) in ANYTHING HE HAS DONE ON RAW. His match and contract signing was in the middle of the show - between the "big event" of Heyman and RAW, Vince on RAW, Goldberg spearing Heyman and Austin. His promo was placed right after a 10+ minute match where he - as opposed to HHH and HBK - could be seen as vunerable. This makes Benoit look bad. 7) You could say that making Benoit look weak makes his win even more sweet, but as he continues to look like a 3rd party, as he continues to play outsider in HHH/HBK, it does nothing but plant in our minds that Benoit is second-string. All it does is enforce what HHH is saying and that won't come clean at Mania - especially now that HBK had to get involved. Infact, it will only make it worse. THIS MAKES BENOIT LOOK BAD.

Suffice it to say that I recognize the fact that there have been problems in the folder for a while, and that I want to see it improve for the better enjoyment and benefit of the people who contribute to it. THANK YOU! That's all I wanted to hear in the first place. Nice, smooth, political answer. None of this "other boards make fun of us" and "this place sucks". It only leads to alienation which this thread should prove. Whenever the rules are fully implemented, just give the reasoning Dr. Tom gave.

It's nice how HBK and HHH have to get their piece across and leave Benoit with DICK ALL to say at the end except "ME WANT TITLE SHOT!".

My point was that if people don't think the staff is doing a good job with the board, they should find a place they enjoy more, a place that makes them happier to post. My point is that there apparently is a problem with the WWE Folder because people leave, but if people leave because of the mod-ing then nothing is wrong. Double Standard. A sub-point in that was because you don't participate in WWE discussions yet are a mod (or super mod), that a certain bias exists which creates that double standard.

Me posting something early based on bad information in no way relates to the problems in the folder, most of which are caused by idiots being idiots. Still, glass house... stones... For someone in your position, which I think is done well 99% of the time - this 1% being discussed here, I'd think better selection of words, especially when implementing a somewhat "controversial" measure, is in order... And certainly when the words you use insult those with whom have to "live with" the measures. Whether those words were intended for a specific group or not, they were used in referencing the whole. I like the WWE Folder; it's my favourite MB to post at. I know there are better ones; hell, I lurk at better ones. It's not the best, but it's the one that suits me the best. And it suits DH and AS and NY Untouchable the best. It suits *a lot* of people just fine; so when you call something a piece of shit, think of what you're calling our choice to post there as well.

And, great worker IS subjective. I, personally, did not like the Japanese heavyweight scene ever. Misawa v Kawada et al didn't cause me to blow loads in my pants. They just didn't click for me. For ME, they are decent matches. Not great --- and not terribly realistic, either. All Japan is not terribly realistic, but HIAC 1 is? I know this is a generalization about All Japan, but have you seen Kawada vs. Albright? Kobashi/Hansen? Hell, I wrote an essay on Akiyama/Hase on this very topic of "what is good" and broke it down into definable elements which made it good... and that's not even regarded as a top 100 match in AJPW history. You are using all these words to relate a personal experience, are you not able to jump "outside" yourself and recognize certain elements on their own; despite not "clicking" for you? And not to play the word game, but "Great" "Worker" is different from "Good" "Wrestller". Does that mean that the fans who feel that those are some of the greatest matches of all time are WRONG? Not to the fans, they aren't. Great is different from Good and Good is different from Favourite. Favourite is personal, Good is objective, Great has surrounding factors (influence, for example). I'm not going to sit down and say that there is anything resembling concrete proof of what makes a wrestler great or not or proof that makes a match great or not. That requires analysis and thought... I know. It's wrestling, you can't actually *do* that with Wrestling... I guess. I know people who think Jeff Jarrett is the greatest worker out there. Are they wrong simply because they disagree with you? No, they are wrong because Jeff Jarrett has done nothing to support that claim. I don't get the love, either, but they have it and think it's terrific. Love is personal, Good is not.

It requires you to have a level of trust in them, yes, but if you can't trust the board to be moderated fairly, then maybe you should find another board. Right now I don't have a whole lot of trust in them for this situation (in general, I have no problem with it). And it's funny how it's not ok for the WWE Folder to drive people away or prevent them from posting here, but Dr. Tom doesn't mind if people leave because something that HE represents is causing a problem (as opposed to the WWE folder which he has relatively nothing to do with).

No, because the Mods here are working on a case-by-case basis. There is no *set* rule, as of right now, in determining what is and what isn't allowed (and it should be that way). What I may think is a bad thread could be one that is favoured by the majority here and vice versa. Hell, this very issue of rules for the WWE folder is based on one group thinking the folder is fine and another group thinking it isn't. Should only the "worst of the worst" be deleted or can we upgrade to "bad". The higher ups seem to think "pointless" threads fit the bill. What counts and what doesn't should be open for discussion - hence, providing a *good* explanation why a thread was closed/delete. The mods should be accountable for their actions.

I don't think that HBK is a bad worker. And I *hate* HBK. I think, however, that HBK as elements of a bad worker and has formed some very bad habits over the years and since returning. I also don't think he's one of the greatest wrestlers ever.

I think that there maybe should be a sort of tribunal that decides whether or not a thread gets deleted (Loss, Goodear, CC); where at least 2 of the three have to vote for it and then address why they closed it in-full afterwards. Because, as of right now, I am not seeing a lot of unity and consistency here amongst the higher-ups in their reasons for the rules and their implementation of them. It's been less than a week and there are clear cracks in the foundation. Giving decision-making authority to singular people -especially in the WWE folder- has already posed some problems; with 3 people backing that decision and able to defend the postiion, it would make it easier to accept.

I hope L4W's "departure" from this thread doesn't mean that our complaints/issues will go ignored. This is a relevant, open-dialogue that should be happening. If you (Admin here at TSM) want to improve the WWE folder at the expense of its members for the benefit of non-members and non-contributors, then maybe you should re-evaluate your goals.

The thread was deleted because of the COMPLAINTS related to the multiple post box-es. I think. I don't know for sure as I didn't read the thread in question.

That's the thing...it's YOUR criteria. You judge a wrestler based on that criteria. Doesn't mean everyone else has to do the same. You're acting like this criteria is a very personal thing; it's not. It's based on objective things. Story and Technique are the two "big" factors and they both have subfactors. If you want me to get into the details of what constitutes each, I will. One can effectively rate each of these (Figure Skating, for example, has a set of standards to properly judge a performance; so this concept is not exactly foreign.) Like someone mentioned earlier, if there's a universal criteria you won't find anyone with a better grasp on it then guys like Meltzer, Keller, etc. And they all are pretty much in the opinion that Shawn is one of the greatest. I can most certainly find people better than guys like Meltzer and Keller. Meltzer, while a good source for news, isn't exactly the first person I would go to for objective analysis on matches or wrestlers (I believe he praised the Angle/Lesnar feud) and Keller gave Angle/Lesnar *****.

I just don't think they will allow him to do that. It's nothing big. A piledriver through a table, a barbed wire bat, jumping off the ring apron, etc. I'm not talking about HIAC-level stuff. I think foley hitting himself until he bled and allowing Orton to spit in his face shows his commitment to this storyline.

Dr. Tom, especially after your own fuck-up in the WWE folder, could you please stop with comments such as "the sheer level of rampant idiocy" relating to the WWE folder. That means you are calling all those whom post in the WWE folder - and many of whom are currently posting in this thread - idiots. I don't consider myself a great intellectual, but I don't see myself as an idiot. Seeing who has "left" the WWE folder, I can honestly say, it's not a huge loss. Oh no, not the Hardcore Discussion guys! And how can you draw in new members when no new members can be signed in?

Sure. It's just a matter of referencing history and living up to it in the present. Foley bloodying himself was particularly effective as it reestablished his self destructive more psychotic side - which also marked the change from the well-spoken, mild-mannered, Foley. Now they have to build on that, have Foley regress more into Cactus and perhaps relive some of his more infamous incidences.

But... The Stupids IS the best movie ever. "I'm my own grandpa..." Ultimately, when you're comparing say - Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit - it comes down to personal taste. But that's a rare occasion where the "Personal Pref" rule comes into effect. Most of the time you can effectively judge and compare the quality of wrestlers or wrestling matches. It's pretty hard to have an opinion on who is the best wrestler in the WWE when no one can prove their point. By "prove" do you mean that you can't prove who the best wrestler is like you can, say, the fastest person in the world is (time) since there is no exact, scientific, way of measuring who the "best" is? Or do you mean that no one here can present an objective viewpoint with credible "proofs"??

LOL @ Preemptive Bitch. That goes into the Smarxicon. I, personally, don't like the quote/quote/quote/quote system. Takes up too much needless space on the page just for "LOL".