ISportsFan

Darn moving into college. Oh well. Jason

See, that's the problem. The Red Sox will never end the streak. Jason

OK, one more argument before bed. Undertaker can outpop all the faces very well. But remember that pops are not equal to money in any way. Hogan's outpoping everyone phase last year led to ratings dropping almost a full point and some crappy buyrates. Undertaker is not as over as Matt Hardy. He may be over, but he isn't scary over. Not saying that Matt Hardy will draw money, but he is scary over. Undertaker isn't. Most of his matches are met with silence. Hardy's aren't. The true test of being over is how well you can keep the audience with you during the match. All the guys I mentioned a couple posts ago can, and Undertaker can't. Of course UT should be on the PPV. We wouldn't be having this argument if Shane/Bischoff and Resistance/Dudleyz weren't booked. But they are, and now we have to have the best possible Smackdown side we can. UT/A-Train is not it. Period. Good night, see ya all in the morning. Jason

Out of those, I can see one thing that would make perfect sense here if UT has to be on the card. Undertaker v. John Cena the rematch. Why did they do it on Smackdown? Vince only knows. Cena wins the rematch at SummerSlam from Vengeance. There we go. Jason Edit: I'm going to bed, so I can't argue anymore (big move in day at college tomorrow). But I can argue in the morning if need be

Over? Yes. As over as Taker? Some of them maybe. More over? That's pushin' it. John Cena is more over (or at least tied) as a heel than the Undertaker as a face. Rey Misterio is more over as a face than the Undertaker as a face, even with the crap treatment he has gotten with the cruiserweight belt. Kidman isn't, but I said almost. World's Greatest Tag Team is not quite as over, but pretty close. Matt Hardy is so over it's scary. Undertaker is not. Jason

Best: U.S. barely over the WWE title match, because the WWE title match will have McMahon-a-mania in the interference column. Worst: I'll go with A-Train v. Undertaker just to be different, but both will suck very much. Oh, and so will the Raw title match. Jason

Yeah? So is Rey Misterio. So is Billy Kidman (at least in the feud he's currently in). So is the World's Greatest Tag Team. So is Matt Hardy. So is John Cena. Almost all of the above are more over as either a face or heel. And, A-Train is NOT over. Jason

Simple solution to the MFers winning and getting a title shot after the turn would be to make it a 3-way match with the WGTT. Not saying that I like multi-man matches or the fact that there would be 3 on this card alone if this were added, but it gets all 5 of the biggest people we want on the card. Make Shane/Bischoff and Taker/A-Train short and this 3-way, the 4-way, the Elim chamber, and the WWE title matches can all go long. Kane/RVD is semi-long, Raw tag title is really short too. Jason

I've heard MANY people say that Foley/Taker HIAC is one of the greatest matches of all time. They're all people in high school who seem to be complete marks, but they have said it. Jason

Edit. I did this thread the first time around and forgot about it. Jason

Me. Jason

SummerSlam card: Raw side (4 matches): Elimination Chamber (probably around 40 minutes or so) Tag title match (probably around 7 or 8 minutes) RVD v. Kane (probably around 10 minutes - underexaggeration) Shane v. Bischoff (best case around 5 minutes, likely at least 10) Smackdown side (3 matches): Angle v. Lesnar (20 minutes or so) 4 way US title (10-15 minutes) Undertaker v. A-Train (10 minutes, if we're lucky it'll be less) So, by my calculations (including longest case for Smackdown times and shortest case for Raw), Raw out-times Smackdown by 62 minutes to 45. Once again, that's with Raw matches getting least amount of probable anount of time and Smackdown getting the most. Why does this make no sense? Raw has the main event that's guaranteed to get about 40 minutes, AND it gets one more match than Smackdown. And what do they use it on? Two non-wrestlers. It frustrates me that the WGTT and Kidman/Rey and Matt Hardy are off the card when Raw gets 4 matches, including the longest one. It makes no sense. Jason

We'll find out when UK's Silvervision releases the info, I assume. Jason

The only thing about ESPN Classic that pisses me off is the fact that ESPN knows exactly how long each game they are going to play on the channel is. Yet they clip in order to follow the "normal" schedule (i.e. 8-10pm). You know how long everything lasts, so show the whole game. Jason

My favorite movie is JFK. It's not the best movie I've ever seen, but I just love it. Jason

Oh yeah, I'm so totally biased. Dipshit. I mean, for heaven sakes, I argued for Raw in this one single thread, I did it with logic, and I did it in an argument that wouldn't even EXIST had roles been reversed. You're right, the argument wouldn't exist if the roles were reversed. Because we'd most likely have better matches and better wrestlers getting PPV matches (and payoffs), so the argument would not exist on this board. But the main argument I have from a logic standpoint isn't the unevenness in number of matches. It's the unevenness in terms of probable time alloted. The Elimination Chamber cannot (according to the rules of the match) be less than 20 minutes, and it's likely to push 40 or 45. That's one match that will likely equal the time of the ENTIRE Smackdown side of the card. Throw in three more matches for Raw and they kill them in terms of time alloted. It's not fair to the other brand when one gets the huge gimmick match, about 3/5 to 2/3 of the time alloted for a PPV, and on top of that more matches than the other brand. And your argument of "Well, Raw has had 2 months between PPVs and Smackdown had one last month so Raw better have more matches" is ridiculous. Smackdown will have two months between this PPV and the next one, so is that fair to them to have less matches this month? How about at Survivor Series when the situation is the same. And at WrestleMania. Is it fair that Raw would get more matches and more time on 3 of the 4 joint PPVs? I don't think so, but maybe I'm wrong. It's absurd that Raw gets more time, the huge gimmick match, and more matches to top it off. Now how they promoted the show is absolutely horrible because they got all that and STILL put on one of the worst pre-PPV shows in recent memory just 3 days ago. Jason

No, Raw gets Unforgiven (which is next month). Jason

The first part would be great. I think the only reason they went through with the Gowan injury angle was to make the card back to 7 matches to give the EC more time. But, I think (despite popular opinion, probably) that if they're going to add a match I'd prefer Kidman/Rey v. Hardy/Moore v. WGTT in a 3-way (Rey/Kidman just started feuding with Hardy/Moore tonight) - it'll give a good match and Hardy something to do. Jason

Bret Hart doesn't get nearly enough credit for this at all. Jason

First of all, I don't think they'd ever do it. It reminds people of the old WCW (with 2 or 3 rings at one event, ala War Games or WWIII), and that's enough to make sure nobody gets it. But I don't think I'd like it anyway. Basically, it's just too cluttered. There's enough problem with watching one ring during a Royal Rumble when the ring gets semi-crowded, how about now trying to film two rings? Would they do the retardedly-stupid split screen like WCW did for their first World War III in 1995? Because unless you have a 60" TV, that would be ridiculous. And you'd miss half the action with rotating between rings. You know who would commentate, too, don't you? That's right, JR and the King. Bad idea all around. Not to say that the idea wouldn't wet many wrestlers' pants (a lot of guys would get PPV payoffs that normally don't), but it's just too bad for viewers. Jason