JHawk

Which match are you referring to, YNA? If it's the Rockers-Orient Express match, I'd say it's been pretty much forgotten except by those of us who go to message boards like this. Outside of reviews of that PPV, nobody ever talks about it. If you're referring to Bret-Piper, then calling it forgotten is rather silly since even the Aptermags bring it up nearly every WrestleMania issue.

I disagree with that list. Nobody is worse than Celine Dion! Not even ICP, and I fucking hate ICP.

I was going to list one of my favorites, Jimmy Buffett (despite his popularity, only "Come Monday" and "Margaritaville" even charted that I'm aware of), but technically the current duet with Alan Jackson hit number one on the country charts so he could be a three-hit wonder now. Still, he's only had two solo hits.

I am also Maven... ::shrugs shoulders::

A forgotten classic would be the Rockers-Orient Express match from Royal Rumble 1991. Easily the second or third best WWF match of the year (behind Hart-Perfect from SummerSlam and possibly Savage-Warrior from WrestleMania VII).

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.

The best bet would be to release the box sets but make them available individually for those who refuse to have two copies of the same show. Quite honestly, with so much potential for extras they'd be absolutely stupid not to release a complete DVD set. Especially for the earlier WrestleManias. I'd love to have the Hogan-Piper match from MSG that set up the main event for WMI, and you've got the Women's Title change from the same MSG card, the Studd/Patera-Andre haircut angle, possibly Santana regaining the IC Title from Valentine, and all of that just for WMI. If the extras were there, I'd definitely pick it up.

Is this worth ordering a replay?

If his numbers warrant his being in the Hall of Fame, then I don't give a shit how much cocaine he may or may not have done. Much like I don't give a shit how much money Pete Rose lost because he was a mediocre manager, because what he did on the field, which was before he ever bet on a baseball game, is supposed to override all of that. The thing that bothers me is that being on cocaine is illegal everywhere, not just in baseball, and baseball accepts that, but gambling is only illegal in certain places, but fuck that, that's a cardinal sin. Let's not forget that Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle are both in the Hall of Fame even though they worked in a casino after their playing days were done. The excuse for them still being in the Hall was "Well, we can't kick them out when they're already in." So basically, Pete Rose is only out of the Hall because he hadn't gotten elected to the Hall when he got caught. But since MLB has already violated the agreement on at least two occasions themselves, I think it's kind of stupid to force Pete Rose to keep to it.

Yes it does. Then I want anybody who's ever done something stupid taken out of the Hall of Fame. Oh wait, there wouldn't be a Hall of Fame. And I'm still waiting for someone to justify how the Yankees are allowed to sell advertising to casinos when their players can't gamble.

I'd heard two matches in Japan as well. I've never seen either of them though, so I don't know.

1. That doesn't seem to curtail the popularity of boxing more than a couple of years at a time, and there have been far more gambling scandals in boxing (at least publicly) than baseball has ever had. 2. Be that as it may, it was still done when Pete was a manager, after his playing days were done. And nobody's ever claimed that Pete Rose was a Hall of Fame manager. So doing something stupid three years after you've retired negates a 15-20 year career?

His last truly great match was the two match series with Steamboat in 1994 (I think Flair even admitted this once, saying that he hadn't had a good match in three years or however long it had been because that was the last time he worked with Steamboat)

So they make less than half the seats available for non-WWE employees, and they charge more than the PPV cost for a nosebleed seat? Hell, I'll stilll go if I can get them

Yeah, the Dowd Report. Essentially a prosecution document. Like I said, I'm admitting he bet on baseball and probably on his Reds, but I still fail to see how betting that you'll win affects the integrity of the game. He also signed that agreement because he would be eligible for reinstatement within a year. The rule was changed before that year was up, so the agreement was violated right there. Plus, there was also a stipulation that they'd make no mention of guilt or innocence, and yet the public excuse for his still being banned from the HOF is that he hasn't admitted to betting on baseball, which means they more or less say he's guilty and therefore can't be in. In effect, baseball has already violated their own agreement on more than one occasion already, so saying Pete made an agreement is like saying Kevin Nash lost a retirement match...technically it's true, but it's gotten to the point that it means nothing anymore. Again, I agree he should probably never set foot on a field again, but the man has more hits than anybody ever in baseball and a career .303 batting average. If Reggie Jackson's 500 home runs can override his shoddy defense and his career .265 batting average, then 4,256 hits should override losing money by betting he was a good enough manager to win a baseball game.

We're still going to disagree, because unless he was throwing games I still don't see the gambling as relevant. As for the Black Sox scandal, Shoeless Joe Jackson led the Series in batting average and home runs, so if he threw that series (which is why he was banned, because the money was in exchange for throwing the Series) then I'd like to see what his numbers would have been. Exactly when was Pete Rose found guilty in court of anything? Or the 1919 Chicago White Sox, for that matter? Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? And for the record, there's no doubt in my mind Pete Rose bet on baseball and on his own team, but I still don't see where he threw games or did anything wrong except manage a mediocre team during the era of a commissioner he didn't get along with.

Is the phrase actually trademarked, or is this just a case of "We used it first so nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah"?

You and I are going to disagree on this point, Deep Thought, and there are two key reasons why. I'm not even arguing that he should be allowed back in baseball, but any agreement that gets him in the Hall of Fame is a good thing. First off, the Hall of Fame is supposed to be based on what you did on the field. You have known alcoholics and womanizers in the Hall already, and I've never heard anybody claim that Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb should be kicked out of the HOF for it. It's like with the NFL Hall of Fame. Some people wanted Lawrence Taylor banned from the Hall for something he did off the field, and the HOF said "So what?" because that didn't mean he was any less of a player. It's the same thing here. Secondly, even if he did bet on his own team, it's not as if he was throwing games, so I don't see how he's hurting the "integrity" of the game any more than it's already hurt. You've got known alcoholics and drug addicts and spousal abusers getting two (or three or four or eight) chances to play, why can't a gambler get a second chance? By the way, does anybody else find it hypocritical that the Yankees can have advertisements for Mohegan Sun behind home plate but a player can be banned from the HOF for betting he'd win? Is letting Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame but not letting him manage really that difficult a solution?

I'll admit to being odd, but that's the first time I've ever been called that on a wrestling board. Oh well.

ROH On-Site Report (8/9/2003) I just got home a few hours, so I've missed others' opinions and stuff over the last day, but click the link for my take on it.

Two things. 1. The stopwatch is actually part of the regular wristwatch, which is quite common on digital watches these days. 2. Actually, the only notes I write down are the winners, the finish, and the time of the fall, and I do that on the program. The rest of the recap comes from memory, which is why some reports are more detailed than others. I've done that since I started going to shows when I was 7, and old school fans will admit to doing that before I ever thought of it. Really, I do it just because I like having it for my records, and I couldn't care less whether anybody else cared how long it took Joe Blow to pin Jose Cuervo or not. It's a matter of curiousity with me.

I won't mock this (to each their own), but I would never be able to handle the no hugging thing. No sex, sure. No kissing, pushing it. No hugging? You'd have to tie my hands behind my back.

Raw sucked. I haven't been so happy to be done with reviewing that show since I took over SmackDown. The finish of the women's match did kick ass though

Stryker-Credible was somewhere in the 11-14 minute range, but I accidentally reset the stopwatch before I could write the exact time down. I want to say 13 minutes something, but I don't remember. As I said, I actually like Homicide, but with Homicide being face-in-peril, I got to see AJ Styles for about 4-6 minutes, and when I've already seen Homicide once, I'd rather at least get Styles as face-in-peril. understandable since they can't let the NWA Champion get hurt, but damn.

Well I cant say that what you said goes for me. Because in my accident, she hit me. But it was my fault. And no one was hurt. And I do dodge cops but who doesnt. I dont think there is one person in here who hasnt. I haven't. Then again, I don't drive a whole hell of a lot either.