Kahran Ramsus

BEST: RPG WORST: First Person Shooter

Ross & Tazz did quite well at Royal Rumble. Best Ross has been since he was teaming with Heyman. I wonder what the problem is...

I mean No Mercy & WM2000 since they are a part of the same series and get more of the glory.

Down, and this is coming from someone who actually likes Wrestlemania IV. Once you get past the first round (which is just rediculous with stuff like Duane Gill & Bossman wrestling twice) and the filler (which is bloody awful), it is okay. But I can't ignore that that other stuff exists. I should probably explain why I like Wrestlemania IV, even though the match quality isn't great. 1) I like tournaments in general. If I don't like a tournament (like KOTR 95), you know it sucks. 2) Savage's performance. None of his matches were special, but combine the four of them and you get something greater than the sum of its parts. 3) Dibiase's performance. The height of his popularity, no doubt about it. 4) Historical impact. Savage winning the title for the first time, Bret's face turn & Demolition's first tag title win are three of the most memorable and important moments of the 80s. 5) Hogan lost. Always a plus. See KOTR 1993.

I is quite terrible, actually I have it as my second worst. The main event and tag title matches are about the quality of Rock/Hogan and X-Pac/Shane, but a couple of the jobber matches (Steamboat/Borne & Tito/Executioner) are decent which is better than the rest of XV and nothing is as bad as Taker/Bossman or Sable/Tori. Plus it is an hour shorter which makes the crap easier to stomach. I am rewatching them all before Mania this year and today I watched WM XV which was just a coincidence following my post in this thread. If anything, it is even worse now as Austin/Rock and X-Pac/Shane just doesn't hold up at all. They are still fun matches, but nothing I would put above ** and the crap on this show is just so bad. They also spend a lot of time just stalling with interviews and angles throughout the show. Much moreso than I or IX. It is not as brutal as King of the Ring 1999, but it is still quite a pain to get through.

I actually like this one much better than the WWF games because of the more balanced roster. It is real fun playing as the likes of Psychosis and kicking Hogan's ass.

http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb...4news&fext=.jsp

I agree here, but the media will never change.

If Murderer A kills some guy and gets off with a slap on the wrist, it doesn't mean Murderer B should. All it means is that the judicial system screwed up with Murderer A. Winning some battles (namely as many as we can) is better than losing all of them.

The defense really botched this case.

XV by far. I have more negative star matches on that show (HIAC, Gunn/Butterbean, Sable/Torrie) than positive star matches (Shane/X-Pac, Austin/Rock). Just terrible. Everything else is a big fat DUD. Even the booking didn't make sense (Billy Gunn in the HC match?, Road Dogg in the IC Match?, Test & D'Lo teaming as #1 Contenders?). Even Austin/Rock was only **ish (with a shitload of interference). Not near the level of their Wrestlemania XVII match or even XIX. Tatanka/Michaels & Perfect/Luger may have been disappointing, but they are still better than anything on XV. Even Gonzales/Taker isn't as bad as Bossman/Taker. Other than HHH's heel turn nothing much happens from a storyline standpoint either. The whole Austin/Corporation thing continues until Fully Loaded.

Yeah, I used to work at Wendy's too and our fries were tossed out after five minutes.

I want to see Electro before all is said and done with this series.

Wrestlemania XIV had two undercard matches that had interest, Kane/Taker and NAO/Hardcore Legends. HHH/Owen, the mixed tag, Taka/Aquilla, and the battle royal weren't anything and Rock/Shamrock was just an excuse to continue the feud. Summerslam 1996 had the Taker/Mankind Boiler Room brawl which was about on the same level of the Kane/Taker match. Main events are still far and away what draws in the most interest, with special attractions in rare instances (like Austin's return at Unforgiven 2000). Midcarders that meant anything 1996 - Steve Austin, Undertaker, Mankind, Goldust, Bulldog, Owen Midcarders that meant anything 1998 - HHH, Rock, Mankind, NAO, Shamrock, Owen Unless I missed all that great heat for Dan Severn and Kurrgan, you're overstating things. How low Diesel brought them down. It's Time was just given up on from the beginning. The ads all featured Vader and the PPV was named after him, but he wasn't even on the card. The WWF didn't promote this show at all. The 0.58 that Shawn/Sid drew for the heavily advertised MSG Survivor Series show is far more alarming. And counting these bad buyrates, Bret still outdrew Shawn on AVG which was the point of the whole thing anyways. If Steve Austin & The Rock each main event ten seperate PPVs and Austin draws 1.0 at them all, except 0.4 at one and Rock draws 0.5 for all of them, it doesn't mean Rock is the better draw because none of his buyrates were as low as that one 0.4. Because nobody was watching it. It was the Montreal audience that got people to tune in again. They then stayed for Austin, and once that happened the bandwagon started rolling. Austin's win was the thing everybody was talking about heading in Rumble 1998. It was a nothing 8 man match. They would pay to see Austin win the Rumble, and Austin win the title, but No Way Out was basically a long episode of RAW. Tyson wasn't there either. No, but his dying pops were such a concern that they were going to turn him heel in December before doing a complete 180 before the San Antonio show. Shawn wasn't big at all outside of Texas at that point. Undertaker was an okay draw, but he had the same problem as Shawn & Bret that he couldn't drag Sid to a good rating (Sid was probably the worst main event draw in WWF history). He did a better job holding the fort as champ in 1997 than Shawn did in 1996. As for Bret, you can see a noticeble upward trend following In Your House IV (Bret's first show as champ) and noticeable downward trend following Good Friends, Better Enemies (Shawn's first show as champ). Shawn also has the Austin-era and 2002 stuff inflating his buyrates. If you use those, you have to use 1992 for Bret. And if you do, Bret's ratings dwarf Shawn's. Do you honestly think Shawn Michaels is a better draw than Steve Austin (and yes, you have mentioned Austin lots)? Who else is he a better draw than? The Rock? Hulk Hogan?

Chavo needs wins if he is supposed to keep any sort of credibility at all. He should not job here.

And even more boring for the poor sap that took them in the mock draft that we are doing.

Demolition Road Warriors Steiner Brothers Money Inc Brainbusters Eliminators British Bulldogs Hart Foundation

Well, I only said the third one and they are down now. It was the 'Imperial Collection' that I thought looked the best.

Harrison is the best WR in the league.

A month ago, I would have said Angle, but Eddy is just on fire again right now and with No Way Out getting a better than expected buyrate, I don't think they will take it off of him.

Of course they want him back, even I see that he has his uses and I can't stand the guy. The question is whether he is willing to come back.

Big guys also aren't as exciting because Lesnar & Big Show can simply do so much more they can in terms of size and power. Especially on Smackdown, where all the big guys will end up looking weak compared to those two.

Licks' > Harvey's > Wendy's > McDonald's

Undercards don't sell PPVs, at least not to the marks and especially not before the smark revolution. 1998 had terrible undercards too, and 1999's were worse. And Bret fought great proven draws like his brother, Yokozuna & Bob Backlund. The December PPVs that drew Bret's lowest buyrates were all at the beginning of Bret Hart's ME runs. He has them raised considerably by the end of his runs. Compare that to Shawn in 1996 who got the ball from Bret and slowly dragged the ratings into the abyss by the fall. His 1998 run coincides with the rise of Austin (only the biggest draw in WWF history) and since he is such a great exception one has to take it into account. Also notice in the 4 PPVs of Shawn's third title run, the two good buyrates were the ones that Mike Tyson was advertised to be at and one certainly featured Austin's Royal Rumble win as the main attraction over the Casket Match. 1996 is the best example. That was the year of Shawn Michaels and after a promising start with Royal Rumble 1996 and In Your House 5, Shawn Michaels went from a decent buyrate at GFBE to main eventing four of the lowest buyrates the company has ever seen within six months. His big title defense against Sid of all people at MSG, featured mega-face Shawn getting booed out of the building. The guy was not a draw, and his lackluster performance in 2002 cements it. People will pay to see Shawn vs somebody like Austin or Undertaker who could draw reasonably well, but against most people he performed terribly. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that people pay to watch Shawn's opponents rather than him.

Mondale at least managed to get the nomination. He didn't bring in more money than Clinton then not win a single primary until after he dropped out. EDIT: And before Tyler blasts me, I mean biggest failure as a presidential candidate. Nothing personal, or on his career prior to this campaign. But there is no arguing that his campaign was nothing short of a monumental disaster.