Guest Midnight Express83 Posted August 27, 2002 Report Posted August 27, 2002 Ok, since it is tuesday and after RAW. That PPV shows how well Smackdown carries the WWE. Every good star in the promotion is on Smackdown, except Booker. My ratings still hold up. The PPV isn't the greatest ever. it isn't the greatest Summerslam ever either. 88, 92, 00, and 01 were all better. It was a soild card that will win PPV of the year at this current rate. But, it isn't saying much with the crap this year has had.
Guest BionicRedneck Posted August 27, 2002 Report Posted August 27, 2002 it isn't the greatest Summerslam ever either. 88, 92, 00, and 01 were all better. It was at least at the level of 00 and 01, IMO. Whats so good about 92? Its an entertaining show for sure, but it had two good matches
Guest HartFan86 Posted August 27, 2002 Report Posted August 27, 2002 it isn't the greatest Summerslam ever either. 88, 92, 00, and 01 were all better. It was at least at the level of 00 and 01, IMO. Whats so good about 92? Its an entertaining show for sure, but it had two good matches What's go good about 1992 AND 1988? Grant it, 1992 is one of my favorite PPVs ever, but not the greatest. Bret/Bulldog & The WWF title match is what makes it. Everything else is crap. What's good about 1988?
Guest godthedog Posted August 27, 2002 Report Posted August 27, 2002 it isn't the greatest Summerslam ever either. 88, 92, 00, and 01 were all better. It was at least at the level of 00 and 01, IMO. Whats so good about 92? Its an entertaining show for sure, but it had two good matches correction: it had 2 motherfucking balls out classic matches. i'd rather watch 2 classics scattered among a bunch of crap than a consistently really good card because, even if it is just for those 2 matches, that tape will be in my vcr more.
Guest Brian Posted August 27, 2002 Report Posted August 27, 2002 If you're going to utilize the fast forward button that much I don't see how that makes it a good show. Granted that, why not just put together a comp.
Guest HartFan86 Posted August 27, 2002 Report Posted August 27, 2002 I wouldn't call Savage/Warrior a "motherfucking balls out classic", but be that as it may.
Guest Midnight Express83 Posted August 27, 2002 Report Posted August 27, 2002 see, 02 had a great soild card. But is alot like nWo less Nitro from 1998. Soild midcard stuff with the supergreen machine going over the babyface. So it will be forgotten. 1988 had the megapowers angle, one of my favorite of all time. Soild card through out. And opened with Dynamite Kid kicking some ass to start the show. Plus one of my favorite mark out matches, Warrior vs Honky. Granted I haven't seen it in over 10 years, but I remember it being a great show. I can't barely remember the full card from two days ago.
Guest BionicRedneck Posted August 28, 2002 Report Posted August 28, 2002 it isn't the greatest Summerslam ever either. 88, 92, 00, and 01 were all better. It was at least at the level of 00 and 01, IMO. Whats so good about 92? Its an entertaining show for sure, but it had two good matches correction: it had 2 motherfucking balls out classic matches. i'd rather watch 2 classics scattered among a bunch of crap than a consistently really good card because, even if it is just for those 2 matches, that tape will be in my vcr more. Point me to these "motherfucking balls out classic" matches please. I assume your talking about the World title match and the IC match, right? Sure the World title match was fun but it wasn't a classic. Bret/Davey was great because of the emotion rather than the wrestling (as Bret basically carried a gassed Davey all the way), I thought that their IYH 5 match was just as good, if not better.
Guest HossSauce Posted August 28, 2002 Report Posted August 28, 2002 SummerSlam '88?! Are you kidding me?? Savage/Warrior was far from a classic. It wasn't even *****. It didn't even have a clean finish. Now HBK vs. HHH...that was a motherfuckin' balls out classic!
Guest BionicRedneck Posted August 28, 2002 Report Posted August 28, 2002 Savage/Warrior was far from a classic. It wasn't even *****. It didn't even have a clean finish. Now HBK vs. HHH...that was a motherfuckin' balls out classic! They were at about the same level, IMO
Guest godthedog Posted August 28, 2002 Report Posted August 28, 2002 general comment: oops, i was thinking the savage/warrior wrestlemania match, not the summerslam match. my bad. If you're going to utilize the fast forward button that much I don't see how that makes it a good show. Granted that, why not just put together a comp. i do put together a lot of comps. so i tend to be most grateful to the ppv's that make the best contributions. It wasn't even *****. It didn't even have a clean finish. i think a match needs neither ***** status nor a clean finish to be a motherfucking balls out classic. mankind/hbk had neither, & it's still one of my all-time favorite matches.
Guest CanadianHorseman Posted August 28, 2002 Report Posted August 28, 2002 Nope. Summerslam '02 is better. 2001: utlimately a solid card caught amidst a vacuous whirlwind of mediocrity known as the Invasion. 2000: SHITTY undercard. I compare this card a lot to Wrestlemania X (which isn't the best WWF PPV by the way), because it had two GREAT matches and 5 or 6 unbearable ones. Oddly enough, the two Summerslams that nobody is mentioning, '98 and '99, give this year's version of Summerslam its toughest competion for best of all time, IMO. HHH/HBK was a classic. I don't see how Savage/Warrior could have topped that.
Guest CanadianHorseman Posted August 28, 2002 Report Posted August 28, 2002 Who cares if Smackdown is carrying the WWF right now? Does it REALLY matter? They are all part of the same organization. In my opinion, the PPV shouldn't lose its luster just because it was followed up by a shitty Raw. Since Summerslam had all decisive finishes, WWE is now focused on Unforgiven. Hence, Monday's Raw=bad rudimentary buildup for Unforgiven.
Guest notJames Posted August 28, 2002 Report Posted August 28, 2002 Damn, it's getting cold with all the snowflakes being thrown around... (Yeah, I'm one of the few who couldn't care less about star ratings and such, so sue me...) Anyway, having missed the monthly PPV with my friend Kev on Sunday, I decided to shell out the 30+ bones for the Tuesday replay. And damn, I wasn't disappointed. Granted, like most people, I was perturbed that RVD disregarded the absolute clinic Benoit put on his arm. And that Edge was able to spear Eddy with his injured shoulder without any ill effects. And Jericho and Flair didn't really mesh well. And yes, I have a gripe about Shawn Michaels selling the back injury for only 10 minutes, then throwing it out the window to put on his little Kliq exhibition with Hunter. But all in all, it was well worth the ducats. Hardly any backstage skits, hot crowd, and OHMIGOD, they actually had their wrestlers wrestle, pretty much all across the board. Even the Test/UT match was palatable. And were those Lesnar chants I was hearing? Thanks, Long Island, for showing the world that the Champ indeed does have some fans. Well worth the ducats. Too bad RAW had to go and ruin the momentum...
Guest the pinjockey Posted August 28, 2002 Report Posted August 28, 2002 I like Summerslam 2000 more than this year. I am of the opinion that I want the PPV that will be in my VCR more often rather than everything being solid. My ratings (I know they mean shit to you as yours do to me it is just to see where I am coming from) SS 2000 Jericho/Benoit 2 out of 3 falls ***** I loved the match TLC ***** entertaining as hell Angle/HHH/Rock **** excellent match to further the love triangle that went nowhere SS 2002 Angle/Rey *** 1/2 too short for more Jericho/Flair **1/2 Eddy/Edge *** RVD/Benoit ***1/2 HBK/HHH **1/2 I didn't feel it Brock/Rock ***1/2 Give me three excellent-unbelievably great matches with a bunch of crap thrown in as opposed to six or seven good-very good matches.
Guest CanadianHorseman Posted August 28, 2002 Report Posted August 28, 2002 I hear what you're saying, man. I agree with your star ratings for Summerslam 2000, by the way (those are two of my favorite matches of all time). To me, a good match is a good match. For example, if Eddie/Edge is ***1/2 stars and TLC is *****, I'd watch both multiple times, regardless of how much better TLC happens to be. Using that logic, I see how we fundamentally differ. It's cool, though.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now