Guest Judas14 Report post Posted February 26, 2002 Scotsman's was the funnier of the two rants. And Scott, you should just drop the poker rating system for good and just stick to using negative star ratings. Using it only on indy feds (who really don't know any better) and not when the WWF screws up defeats the whole purpose of having the poker rating system as it creates a double standard of what is bad in wrestling. After all, does Good Wrestling outway bad angles and bad production values and announcing? Or do they outway any 5 star match any two wrestlers put on? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest bob_barron Report post Posted February 26, 2002 I think the reason why we'll never see SK do HPUTAS is b/c with the WWF's roster its pretty much impossible for them to do a KOTR95 type of PPV. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest goodhelmet Report post Posted February 26, 2002 Actually, Wrestlemania is being booked so bad, the hot pokers could be used to send Steph a message. Hot pokers and star ratings are a perfect match. It gives us star junkies a fix but also dishes out the pain for the idiots who don't know how to book a decent wrestling show. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest EI Cubano Report post Posted February 26, 2002 No offense intended gh because this basically applies to 90% of wrestling fans... Why does every rube in the world seem to think that Wrestlemania and the WWF would be sooo much better if THEY booked it. It is already said to be the highest grossing live gate in WWF history, the buyrate should be huge and the mainstream is buzzing a little bit. People were RAVING about Hogan on Raw last week and all of the sudden they are back to the same "Who's booking this crap, Russo" schtik that the entire net loves so much. The WWF has about 50 guys that they need to put in "meaningful programs" for Wrestlemania and with only 4 hours of TV that people actually watch a week, they need to spend a LOT of time building the main event because that is the main draw, not the undercard. The remaining time to build every undercard fued in the promotion is unfortunately about 2 or 3 minutes a show for the guys lucky enough to even appear on Raw or Smackdown, so of course some of the matches aren't going to look epic on paper but that is what the WWF chose to accept when they went to 12 ppv's a year in the mid 90's. The booking is not the problem, the problem is that the WWF has far more wrestlers than they have airtime for, even after the split. The booking leading up to Wrestlemania isn't terrible, especially considering the highy transitional state of the WWF at the current time. I think we need to be more concerned about the WWF having direction after Wrestlemania rather than the mess and subsequent fall in business that occured within weeks of Wrestlemania's conclusion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest HybridNetwork Report post Posted February 26, 2002 I don't think the booking is bad at all. As Bower said, the WWF is in a transitional stage. I think the problem is more that the WWF has put out so much crap with the Invasion angle and post-Invasion angle that fans are really getting impatient and won't let anything, inlcuding the nWo angle, run it's proper course. BTW - Scotsman's WWV Recap was better than SK's. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SuicidalAfterBash91 Report post Posted February 26, 2002 The WWF should go for four, four hour PPVs a year, with Wrestlemania, Rumble, Summerslam and a Round Robin KOTR. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest goodhelmet Report post Posted February 26, 2002 sorry el cubano but you are wrong, the booking is horrible. Austin is the biggest star of the modern era and is fighting Hall, a career midcarder? Rock-Hogan is epic in theory but how do you think history will reflect on it when it is said and done. DUD Taker-Flair? two guys past their prime who have no reason to fight. wasn't Flair supposed to be preoccupied with the NWO? if you are gonna stick Flair with a wwf heel, why not Angle? speaking of... Angle-Kane. maybe it will be a good match but haven't we seen it before with little or no fanfare. Dude, there's four matches that should not be on the Mania card and that doesn't include the BillyChuck-APA fiasco. the booking sucks. Back on topic- SK bring on the hot pokers for the greatest event of modern wrestling. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest dreamer420 Report post Posted February 26, 2002 Scott Keith's review of the WWA Pay Per View was easily the worst piece of writing I have seen from him. The PPV wasn't the greatest but his whole review was just one big very unfunny joke that only he must have found funny. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RetroRob215 Report post Posted February 26, 2002 I don't know is this post has any real point, but I'll give it a shot anyway... Think back to 1987, WrestleMania III, the highest grossing event of it's time. Besides one great match, was there really any other noteworthy WRESTLING on the show? Not really, yet EVERY wrestling fan still regards it as an awesome show. If smart fans can love WrestleMania III which has one great wrestling match, why can't they love X-8 which has on great wrestling match. Some may say because III has Hogan-Andre which was historically significant. Well isn't Rock-Hogan similiar in theory to that match? A deteriorating heel wrestler passing the torch to a younger wrestler in a match that is most likely going to suck. The fact of the matter is that the marks don't like good wrestling matches, they like crazy angles with many turns and twists. The WWF caters towards marks and that is the reason why WrestleMania X-8 will be the highest grossing event of all-time. There will be one great wrestling match and a lot of bad wrestling with some exciting angles thrown in. Sounds like 1987 all over again. On the other hand, wasn't WrestleMania 2000 the highest grossing event for the WWF at that time? Seeing how most of you guys hate that show, it proves that the "highest grossing event" bullshit is meaningless when it comes to whether or not the smart fans will aprove of a show. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Darry Report post Posted February 27, 2002 See, this would be the place where I'd direct all the Wrestlemania naysayers to the WWF forum, so you may troll to your heart's content, as last I checked, this thread had nothing to do with Wrestlemania. As a side note, I'm guessing that completely outdrawing Steve Austin as the company's #1 babyface (early 99 buyrates and ratings vs. early 2000 buyrates and ratings), being the WWF's top merchandising draw consistently for the past three years, and actually transcending the business isn't enough to elevate The Rock into the "top star" spot in the minds of smart-assed little smark-wannabes. Oh, and we'll just overlook Scott Hall's main eventing as recently as 2000 with Bill Goldberg. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RetroRob215 Report post Posted February 27, 2002 Darry, Jay Leno, David Arquette, Dennis Rodman, and Karl Malone have all main evented WCW PPV's, so lets not go by their standards. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Mighty Damaramu Report post Posted February 27, 2002 I haven't read SK's review and I really don't care to but I have read Scotsman's review and I can say that I hated Scots review. I just don't find the guy funny. I find half the stuff he says immature and the other half gross. And none of it is funny. That's all I have to say about that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest J*ingus Report post Posted February 27, 2002 In my opinion, Scotsman easily won the put-down war between them, but Keith recapped and reviewed the matches better. Although I am saddened that he has become the latest victim to jump on the Low-Ki Bandwagon. Also, how does a show with two ***1/2 matches get a thumbs way down? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MRFTW Report post Posted February 27, 2002 "Also, how does a show with two ***1/2 matches get a thumbs way down?" 1. There was only 1 match he gave 3&1/2 to, he gave Jarrett vs Road Dogg ** and said it had "a ***1/2 ref fight" 2. I personally didn't see the show but how CAN you call a "major" show with 8 matches, only 1 or even 2 of which hitting 3*+ good? I'm usually happy with any match that hits 3* but unless it's on a tv show I wouldn't consider any card that doesn't have atleast 1 4* match good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
