JHawk

July 23, 2052 73 years old. Whatever.

The Crusher, after being disqualified before the bell vs. Johnny Valentine: "That's because of the lousy bells they have in this state. They ought to invest in a bell that I can hear!" Larry Zbyszko at Slamboree 93: "Time fears only the pyramids and the legends of professional wrestling."

August 1, 1994, actually. I remember being pissed off because that taping was like 30 minutes from home and I couldn't find anybody who was willing to go (I was 15 at the time). I remember that being pretty good but I only ever saw it on first airing.

I don't think even Russo's stupid enough to do that kind of work less than two years after the heart attack angle, particularly when Bischoff was still co-booker at the time. Wait, we're talking about Russo here... Eh, whatever.

Didn't Flair pass out the night after he beat Jarrett at the end of Thunder? I remember there being some real concern that Flair might have had a major health problem. I believe that's why they vacated the title, and when they realized Flair was healthy enough to wrestle, they gave it back to him. That's Russo's way of trying to keep the lineage of the title "credible". It doesn't work, but for once he tried.

I actually enjoyed the Hogan DVD having all those meaningless matches on it, as I hadn't seen a large portion of those. Although whoever came up with Hogan/Okerlund vs. Steele/Fuji ought to have been fired on the spot. The HBK DVD didn't focus on anything prior to the WMX ladder match outside of one AWA tag team match. It's like his first six years in the WWF mean nothing despite two IC Title runs and some awesome matches. The Rey DVD should have had more WCW stuff if only because there isn't enough good WWE stuff yet to justify leaving it off, but since they didn't have the ECW footage yet and only had the one match from AAA to work with, it was passable. No matter what they do with a Flair DVD, they're going to leave something out because there's so much great stuff that deserves to be there. Hopefully they go with stuff that isn't readily available, because using the stuff that's available elsewhere cheapens the DVD. The one exception: Flair vs. Steamboat from WrestleWar 89 because I refuse to buy a HHH DVD for it.

[On one of the Survivor Series Showdowns, Gorilla Monsoon and Bobby Heenan discuss Rick Martel turning on Tito Santana] Gorilla: "I suppose you think Benedict Arnold was right as well." Bobby: "He did what he had to do, I think." Randy Savage to Bret Hart on SNME: "You're entering the Danger Zone--east of the Pacific Ocean; west of London, England; south of Mars; and north of Hell, yeah!"

How much pull does Vince McMahon have with the DVD releases themselves? Because if it's mostly just production guys doing it we might get a chance at the good stuff. I'll accept them putting on more WWE/E stuff than NWA/WCW stuff provided there's at least one Steamboat match and they focus on Flair's first run with the company. But I doubt that very highly.

Remember that ESPN did that mock trial about putting him in the Hall. Eight out of 12 said to let him in the Hall, even though 11 out of 12 acknowledged that he probably bet on baseball. And this was after sitting there for nearly two hours and hearing all the evidence that we've discussed in depth over the last couple of days. The question of letting him back into baseball as a coach wasn't raised at all, but nobody in this thread who thinks he should be in the Hall wants him in actively, so I doubt fans outside of Cincinnati Reds fans would really want to see him back in the game as an active coach. I'll be the first one to admit that the mock trial is hardly scientific proof that Pete Rose should be let into the Hall of Fame. Neither is the SI phone poll. But neither would locking 100 people into a same room for the sheer logisitics of getting people from all areas of the country. You need something called a random sample, which means that everybody has an equal shot of getting picked for said poll, and even then you need somewhere between 1200-1500 people for there to be any chance of it being accurate.

Quick question (and if it's been answered, I'm sorry, but I have no time right now to read 23 pages). Is there a way you can declare war on other promotions? I figure with a good month I can start challenging WWE head-to-head, but I've never seen the option.

SmackDown from JHawk's Beak (8/14/2003) It's actually been up an hour, but with the blackout coverage... No need to feedback it, but I thought you'd like to know I tried.

While it isn't the only ***** match I've ever seen, the only one I ever reviewed and saw as ***** was the Owen Hart Tribute Match on Nitro

Cornette doesn't have a case legally, as has been mentioned, but if Keller was working for any major publication, he'd have likely been fired for violating their codes of ethics by now. Besides, how many people still read the Torch anyway? What would Cornette win, 50 bucks and a free subscription?

Bobby Heenan to Bob Uecker: "I understand you got 7,000 votes for the Hall of Fame. You'd have had a lot more, but you ran out of stamps." Jim Cornette: "Rick Steiner's so stupid he stayed up all night studying for a urine test." Ric Flair on Baby Doll: "She can wear her clothes, she can wear his clothes, she can Haystacks Calhoun's clothes, and she has the nerve to call herself a beautiful woman." Jim Cornette, training for a match with Baby Doll: "I've been working out. I've done push-ups, I've done sit ups, I've done chinups, I threw up twice but I'm OK now..."

As of right now, there are two matches on the card that interest me. 1. Kurt Angle vs. Brock Lesnar 2. Rhyno vs. Tajiri vs. Chris Benoit vs. Eddy Guerrero I have a rule that I won't buy a PPV unless there are at least three matches I want to see on the show. Sadly enough, the dream match aspect of Goldberg vs. HHH would have probably been enough to be that third match, but they pissed it away by making it the elimination chamber.

No doubt about it, Cornette is the fucking man. This man has such an incredible way with words that it amazes me every time. And he's so honest he refuses to ever be diplomatic in one of his tirades.

Probably the first round will be used as dark matches at the Aug. 20 taping and the semifinals/finals as dark matches on the 27th, if I had to guess. How will they justify different people in the front row during the "same show" though?

Rose and Commissioner Giamatti also had a highly publicized feud going on at the time, even before the betting allegations came up. Who's to say the proceedings were conducted fairly in the first place? They may very well have been, but even you have to admit there's a chance that they weren't. We've already established that Pete Rose isn't exactly Albert Einstein. Even if the Dowd Report is 100% accurate, a blind man could see that baseball breached the contract by A) changing the rule for applying for reinstatement and not grandfathering it for Rose and B) giving the "if you admit it, we'll reinstate you" clause (which is bullshit because if he ever admits to it, that will just be another excuse to keep him out of the Hall). So if Bob Eucker (sp?) bet on a Brewers game tomorrow, they'd have to kick him out of the Hall of Fame? He's still involved with the game, and he'd technically be betting on his own team. No offense, DrTom, but you're the last guy who should be throwing around a phrase like "cardinal sin". Neither do I. Didn't I already make the point that as far as I was concerned, they could tell him not to even show up to accept his HOF plaque? That way, the fans would get what a majority of them want (Pete in the Hall and this argument forever erased from their memories) and baseball would still be rid of Pete Rose. Or am I thinking with too much common sense?

Because baseball has always and lived and died on statistics. Why is Reggie Jackson in the Hall of Fame? He hit 500 home runs. He wasn't a good player aside from that stat, but that number by itself got him in. Cal Ripken Jr.'s a first ballot Hall of Famer, but I'd be willing to bet it's more for The Streak than his numbers on the field (even though they're still quite good). Some Cleveland radio guy (Bruce Drennan) actually tried to claim that because Nolan Ryan lost around 300 games (mostly for mediocre teams) he shouldn't be in the Hall. The rest of the writers said "7 no-hitters and over 5700 strikeouts overrule 300 losses". Rose's numbers are comparable or better than all three of those guys when you go position-by-position. The only difference is that agreement Rose signed, which I'd say should be enforced had MLB not already violated said agreement. I've contended for 14 years that Pete Rose should never set foot on a baseball field again because he probably broke a rule (remember, it still hasn't been proven). But that should not negate one of the best careers ever in baseball, and keeping him out of the Hall when his numbers are equal or better to just about everybody else's does just that.

Even as a Browns fan, they lost too many horses on defense to be a legitimate contender this season. Which, of course, will have Cleveland fans calling for his head. Sadly, since the only other team in the North I can even tolerate is the Bungles (because they're no threat), this is going to be a long season

You didn't say it means nothing, but if Pete Rose isn't in the Hall, it's kind of implied. That was directed more at MLB than you, and I apologize if you took it that way.

And Pete Rose was a law-abiding player, even according to the Dowd Report.

1. 4,256 hits 2. A .303 career batting average 3. Because MLB is the one who violated the agreement that is keeping Rose out of the Hall in the first place. What do his numbers have to do with anything? He has HOF numbers, no one is disputing this. It's a matter of Rose betting on games. The cardnial sin of baseball. Which was "proven" with largely circumstantial evidence in what was essentially a prosecution document. Basically, he's banned from the Hall of Fame based on part of the story. How large a part that is we'll probably never know. I'm not even disputing that he bet on baseball. I'm disputing the fact that he should be banned from the Hall of Fame for betting on baseball after his career was over. Can they take the hit record away from him because he bet on baseball? No. So how can you tell him the hit record doesn't mean anything?

Ah, but you see Deep Thought, a signed agreement is essentially a contract, right? And, legally speaking, when you break a signed agreement, then you're guilty of breach on contract, right? And, legally speaking, if you're guilty of breach of contract, that makes the contract null and void, doesn't it? I've yet to see one person say Pete Rose should be allowed back in the game, but to me and to many fans, the Hall of Fame isn't in the game. It's an honor reserved for those who were the best at the game. Pete Rose, simply put, was one of the best to ever set foot onto a baseball field. MLB has exploited Pete Rose by placing him on the All-Century Team (a fan vote, so it's "not part of the agreement" in Selig's eyes) and by allowing the HOF Museum in Cooperstown to display Pete Rose's uniform and glove, but they won't allow him to have his bust put into the Hall? Hell, for all I care, tell him he can't attend the ceremony to accept the bust and plaque, but what he did on the field is what makes him a HOF player. Not having him in the Hall is a disservice not to Pete Rose, but to baseball fans, which is supposedly who MLB is catering to.

Too many of these bands were too popular for too long a time to be on this list, even if I personally hate some of them. And when they refer to Starship, is it just as Starship or are we taking into account the Jefferson Airplane years as well? (I disagree with them being that high too, but this is why I don't do these lists myself.)