WON Hall of Fame voting results

[Guest Ray]

But that's because Vince was a non-wrestler and couldn't do anything. They booked the match to hide the limitations- just like they did with Austin v. HHH- since both guys were injured.

Why would Vince do anything? Why would he need to do anything?

 

The whole storyline and character of Austin called for a brawl, an ass beating...not a mat wrestling masterpiece.

 

Austin was awful until he met up with Benoit. Do the math.

You are telling me Benoit is responsible for Austin's great work against everyone in 2001? Yeah, Austin sucked and Benoit magically turned him into a good wrestler in one 10 minute match. Yeah.

 

I don't know about Angle but I do know Benoit has been able to drag good matches out of people.

Yes, that's OBVIOUS....but the point is....IT'S NOT ALWAYS A DAMN CARRY.

 

You mean by wrestling in gimmicky matches, 8 man tags or 3 minute squashes v. Guerrero?

No. I was talking about the 11/20 Benoit match. In that match he was doing plenty.

[Guest Loss]

Mike, the criticisms I levied against HBK had nothing to do with his backstage demeanor. If he's actively affecting match quality or the company's bottom line through his actions, then there's a problem. Going off on a wrestler mid-match who misses a sequence is inexcusable and will drag a match down.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I disagree. Hart v Austin was a good match, but I thought their match at Survivor Series was better and the finish is the reason it is a classic.

 

Oh, well... MAN... with such insight into professional wrestling and these matches how can I argue? Thank god you took the time to stop by and explain your reasoning. Those few extra word REALLY turned me around... WOW... Thank you... I asked you to explain in-depth and you did so in fine fashion.

 

The finish may very well be the reason it's considered a classic, because that's the image people remember and that's what we all associate with the match. But the match itself is a work of art. The STORY these two men tell, one (Bret) BECOMING the other (Austin) and Austin staying true to what he believes is what MADE that finish so compelling and really was the basis for the attitude era. The stories for Michaels' matches are "How bad can Shawn get his ass whipped". Austin vs. Hart didn't contain any huge bumps or a lot of weapons - but the VIOLENCE in that match, the pure malice that both man had for eachother, makes that 'more hardcore' than the HIAC. Not because it was outlandish -because it wasn't- it was more violent because it was PRIMAL. Bret Hart using a cable cord to choke Steve Austin? The Hell? Bret's the exellence of execution, he's a good guy, he fights for everything that is right and pure in this world. He's a hero. Not anymore. That's what Austin did to him. His hatred for Austin -the guy who wants to take away tradition- has turned him away from the very thing he wanted to protect. And this match is the result of it. Bret tries to destroy Austin, and even though he wins, he never took away Austins will. Austin stayed true. He waved the middle finger in the eyes of authority even if he only had one leg to stand on. Austin never gave up and the fans respected him for it. So ask yourself who truly won? This is BRILLIANT storytelling. And that's what wrestling is all about.

 

Movesets are the most overrated things one can mention.

 

Psst, I was mocking you.

 

BTW, how is Keith's opinion less relevant than yours? If I should ignore his opinions --- which I do --- why on God's earth should I listen to your opinion?

-=Mike

 

I can explain how I arrive at my opinion rather than just state it and think that's enough to support an argument. And I'm not saying that Keiths opinion is irrelevant, it's just not the one I'd use to help pad my argument.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

In Austins matches, Austin does the psychological carrying and his opponent does the physical carrying.

[godthedog 0]

actually, austin was the one choking bret out with the cord. bret retaliated & hit him over the head with the ring bell.

[Fökai 0]

The finish may very well be the reason it's considered a classic, because that's the image people remember and that's what we all associate with the match. But the match itself is a work of art. The STORY these two men tell, one (Bret) BECOMING the other (Austin) and Austin staying true to what he believes is what MADE that finish so compelling and really was the basis for the attitude era. The stories for Michaels' matches are "How bad can Shawn get his ass whipped". Austin vs. Hart didn't contain any huge bumps or a lot of weapons - but the VIOLENCE in that match, the pure malice that both man had for eachother, makes that 'more hardcore' than the HIAC. Not because it was outlandish -because it wasn't- it was more violent because it was PRIMAL. Bret Hart using a cable cord to choke Steve Austin? The Hell? Bret's the exellence of execution, he's a good guy, he fights for everything that is right and pure in this world. He's a hero. Not anymore. That's what Austin did to him. His hatred for Austin -the guy who wants to take away tradition- has turned him away from the very thing he wanted to protect. And this match is the result of it. Bret tries to destroy Austin, and even though he wins, he never took away Austins will. Austin stayed true. He waved the middle finger in the eyes of authority even if he only had one leg to stand on. Austin never gave up and the fans respected him for it. So ask yourself who truly won? This is BRILLIANT storytelling. And that's what wrestling is all about.

 

You darn tootin' it is.

 

::runs away to watch match once again::

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

*goes back and watches match*

 

*curses GTD*

[Guest MikeSC]

Shawn v Vader at SSlam blew ANYTHING Vader had done in his entire WWE stint out of the water.

 

Well -

 

...at Canadian Stampede against Taker for the title.

 

...at Final Four against Hart, Austin and Taker for the title.

 

..at ONO against Owen.

 

But I guess that's a difference of opinion.

Stampede v Vader was plodding.

 

The 4-way was the only thing that approached it.

 

O.N.O v Owen was hardly good. That whole show has been the beneficiary of over-rating.

 

But, yes, big difference in opinion.

-=Mike

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Wait

 

*realizes that Bret using the Bell is a reflection of the Bret/Piper match from WM 8 where Piper could have used the bell to finish off Hart -RODDY PIPER, the ORIGINAL anti-hero, Austin before Austin was Austin- but chose not to because he didn't want to win like that because he wanted to be a true champion - Yet Bret DID use the bell on Austin thus showing his further descent into immorality.*

 

BRILLLLIANT!

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

HBK as good as Flair.

 

...

 

HA...HAHA...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

Keep 'em coming man...it's getting hard to see the screen through the tears of laughing so hard.

Hey, I feel the same way when I read your columns.

-=Mike

Looking at your opinions and overrating...I'll take that as a compliment.

[Guest MikeSC]

HBK as good as Flair.

 

...

 

HA...HAHA...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

Keep 'em coming man...it's getting hard to see the screen through the tears of laughing so hard.

Hey, I feel the same way when I read your columns.

-=Mike

Looking at your opinions and overrating...I'll take that as a compliment.

Pot, meet kettle.

-=Mike

[KTID 0]

HBK as good as Flair.

 

...

 

HA...HAHA...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

Keep 'em coming man...it's getting hard to see the screen through the tears of laughing so hard.

 

Hey, I feel the same way when I read your columns.

-=Mike

 

Looking at your opinions and overrating...I'll take that as a compliment.

 

Pot, meet kettle.

-=Mike

 

 

Hey lads, enough of the gay banter.

[Guest MikeSC]

I disagree. Hart v Austin was a good match, but I thought their match at Survivor Series was better and the finish is the reason it is a classic.

 

Oh, well... MAN... with such insight into professional wrestling and these matches how can I argue? Thank god you took the time to stop by and explain your reasoning. Those few extra word REALLY turned me around... WOW... Thank you... I asked you to explain in-depth and you did so in fine fashion.

 

The finish may very well be the reason it's considered a classic, because that's the image people remember and that's what we all associate with the match. But the match itself is a work of art. The STORY these two men tell, one (Bret) BECOMING the other (Austin) and Austin staying true to what he believes is what MADE that finish so compelling and really was the basis for the attitude era. The stories for Michaels' matches are "How bad can Shawn get his ass whipped". Austin vs. Hart didn't contain any huge bumps or a lot of weapons - but the VIOLENCE in that match, the pure malice that both man had for eachother, makes that 'more hardcore' than the HIAC. Not because it was outlandish -because it wasn't- it was more violent because it was PRIMAL. Bret Hart using a cable cord to choke Steve Austin? The Hell? Bret's the exellence of execution, he's a good guy, he fights for everything that is right and pure in this world. He's a hero. Not anymore. That's what Austin did to him. His hatred for Austin -the guy who wants to take away tradition- has turned him away from the very thing he wanted to protect. And this match is the result of it. Bret tries to destroy Austin, and even though he wins, he never took away Austins will. Austin stayed true. He waved the middle finger in the eyes of authority even if he only had one leg to stand on. Austin never gave up and the fans respected him for it. So ask yourself who truly won? This is BRILLIANT storytelling. And that's what wrestling is all about.

 

Movesets are the most overrated things one can mention.

 

Psst, I was mocking you.

 

BTW, how is Keith's opinion less relevant than yours? If I should ignore his opinions --- which I do --- why on God's earth should I listen to your opinion?

-=Mike

 

I can explain how I arrive at my opinion rather than just state it and think that's enough to support an argument. And I'm not saying that Keiths opinion is irrelevant, it's just not the one I'd use to help pad my argument.

And some people think wrestling marks are dorks with too much trivia about it in their heads and they lack social skills. I wonder where they got the idea from? Shocking.

 

Shawn v UT was simply the unstoppable monster (UT) getting serious retribution against the man he blamed for costing him the World Title and who had proceeded to just annoy the crap out of him for months afterwards. That was the story --- it likely would have been an even more effective story had HBK been a face, but it worked very well. Shawn was given his and UT was defeated only because Bearer decided to screw him out of a match that was important to him and have his younger brother come in and defeat him. HIAC was ALL about UT's hatred of Shawn and HBK's desire to regain the World Title (if memory serves, a title shot was on the line in the match) no matter what.

 

Your mockery, like the rest of your writing, is weak and flimsy.

-=Mike --- was unaware I used Keith's opinion to bolster mine, but I guess you read him more than I.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Yeah, so in other words..

 

"How bad can Shawn get his ass whipped"

 

Glad you cleared it up. How in gods name is that story better than Austin/Hart btw?

 

And pay attention Mike,

 

Shang: "I would think Scott Kieth would know what makes a good match (he's wrote a few books), and he ranked the ladder match over Bret/Owen. "

 

Me: SKeith isn't exactly the best authority when it comes to match ratings...

 

You: BTW, how is Keith's opinion less relevant than yours? If I should ignore his opinions --- which I do --- why on God's earth should I listen to your opinion?

 

Me: I can explain how I arrive at my opinion rather than just state it and think that's enough to support an argument. And I'm not saying that Keiths opinion is irrelevant, it's just not the one I'd use to help pad my argument.

 

...do ya want me to hold your hand some more? Is this going too fast? Slow it down? Want me to use colours? I'll colour code it if you want me to. Too weak and flimsy? I know with all that dorky trivia contained in my writing that it really takes rocket science to weed through it all... am I right?

[Guest MikeSC]

Yeah, so in other words..

 

"How bad can Shawn get his ass whipped"

 

Glad you cleared it up. How in gods name is that story better than Austin/Hart btw?

 

And pay attention Mike,

 

Shang: "I would think Scott Kieth would know what makes a good match (he's wrote a few books), and he ranked the ladder match over Bret/Owen. "

 

Me: SKeith isn't exactly the best authority when it comes to match ratings...

 

You: BTW, how is Keith's opinion less relevant than yours? If I should ignore his opinions --- which I do --- why on God's earth should I listen to your opinion?

 

Me: I can explain how I arrive at my opinion rather than just state it and think that's enough to support an argument. And I'm not saying that Keiths opinion is irrelevant, it's just not the one I'd use to help pad my argument.

 

...do ya want me to hold your hand some more? Is this going too fast? Slow it down? Want me to use colours? I'll colour code it if you want me to. Too weak and flimsy? I know with all that dorky trivia contained in my writing that it really takes rocket science to weed through it all... am I right?

No, not rocket science --- just a desire to weed through the epic amounts of BS, and I lack that. Big-time.

 

Your opinion is your opinion. If I disagree, no matter how much you explain or how much minutiae you unload --- I STILL won't agree.

-=Mike

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

ME? Bullshit???????????????? ME???????????

 

So in otherwords...

 

*plugs ears*

 

LALLALALALALALALA

 

LALALALALALALALAA

 

SHAWN ROOLZ!

 

LALALALALLALALALA

 

LALALALALLLALALLA

[Guest MikeSC]

ME? Bullshit???????????????? ME???????????

 

So in otherwords...

 

*plugs ears*

 

LALLALALALALALALA

 

LALALALALALALALAA

 

SHAWN ROOLZ!

 

LALALALALLALALALA

 

LALALALALLLALALLA

Shockingly good rendition of the thought process one goes through when reading your bilge.

 

Kudos.

-=Mike

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Well all can't speak with one-liners like you Mike...

[Lord of The Curry 0]

ME?  Bullshit???????????????? ME???????????

 

So in otherwords...

 

*plugs ears*

 

LALLALALALALALALA

 

LALALALALALALALAA

 

SHAWN ROOLZ!

 

LALALALALLALALALA

 

LALALALALLLALALLA

Shockingly good rendition of the thought process one goes through when reading your bilge.

 

Kudos.

-=Mike

How long have you been waiting to pull off that doozy of a line?

[bob_barron 0]

Why would Vince do anything? Why would he need to do anything?

 

The whole storyline and character of Austin called for a brawl, an ass beating...not a mat wrestling masterpiece.

 

That's because Vince wasn't a wrestler and Austin had limitations.

 

 

You are telling me Benoit is responsible for Austin's great work against everyone in 2001? Yeah, Austin sucked and Benoit magically turned him into a good wrestler in one 10 minute match. Yeah.

 

So working with great wrestlers doesn't make you a better one? Look at Edge. And in 2001- Austin was less rusty and had more experiences working matches.

 

 

Yes, that's OBVIOUS....but the point is....IT'S NOT ALWAYS A DAMN CARRY.

 

But sometimes Ray- it is.

 

 

No. I was talking about the 11/20 Benoit match. In that match he was doing plenty.

 

He was working with someone who could get him to 'go' and Benoit was able to work with Austin and get a good match out of him

[bob_barron 0]

Disagree big-time. The best Hart v Diesel match I ever saw was at SSeries '95 (their match at KOTR '94 was nothing and their cage match at IYH was horrid) and I'll take HBK v Diesel at IYH over those any day of the week.

 

Diesel v. HBK is overrated. The whole match is Diesel throws Shawn around until he gets hit with a wooden leg.

 

Bret didn't have to get put through tables to get a good match out of him. Instead he worked a smart mat based style and didn't made Diesel look good in the process.

 

Bret v. Diesel tells a much better story then Shawn v. Diesel

[bob_barron 0]

1) There should be other work CLOSE to the same ballpark. If a guy has ONE terrific match and a series of mediocre, at best, matches --- it's not a stretch to state that the MOTY was a fluke for him.

 

Bulldog was working his ass off in 1997 as he was motivated. He was involved in more then one terriifc match Mike. I don't think a 20 mat wrestling clinic is a "fluke". It shows he's a good worker.

 

2) I thought Bulldog & Owen v Furnas & LaFon was an OK series, but none of the matches really clicked for me. And the 10-man tag at Stampede was MADE by the crowd much moreso than the action.

 

Bulldog/Owen v. Furnas and LaFon was a great series of tag team wrestling. Bulldog and Owen were good enough to not let their dissension storyline overwhelm the match itself.

 

3) When his ONLY good matches are with guys who can flat-out go and when he's in the ring against less than an elite guy he sucks --- then yes, he is a slug.

 

I've explained this many times. Bulldog can have a great match with a good-great worker but you're probably not going to get anything good if you put him in there with a slug. That doesn't make you a slug.

 

4) Vader had UT and sucked against him (not a problem solely for Vader). Vader never clicked with anybody and I can BARELY remember ANY of his PPV matches from his WWE stint. Nothing approached what he did with Sting years earlier.

 

Bravesfan already covered that one.

 

5) Shawn changed his style --- one of the big criticisms of him around here. And, again, if Bulldog was good --- why did he only look decent in the ring when he was in there with superior talent? Is it that hard to look good when you're in there Michaels?

 

Shawn changed his style because Bulldog forced him to. Michaels didn't look good by getting murdered by Davey. Bulldog was able to get Michaels to change his style and a great match at KOTR 96 resulted.

[Guest BionicRedneck]

Diesel v. HBK is overrated. The whole match is Diesel throws Shawn around until he gets hit with a wooden leg.

 

Not to mention the table spot. The table spot in Bret/Diesel was much better. Bret sold it like death. In the HBK match, Shawn is up a minute later and making his superman comeback.

[bob_barron 0]

I love how Bret is trying with all his might to get back in the ring. So Diesel slingshots him into the Spanish Announce Table.

 

What a great spot

[Guest Rob Edwards]

I don't think you can draw parralells between Austin and Edge Bob, with Austin Benoit was just the first top notch guy he worked with on his comeback, Sure being with Benoit helped Austin work a great match (although since his comeback Austin has had to carry pretty much everything he's been in to protect the neck) but it wasn't like he made Austin as a worker or anything, It was all about Austin slowly getting back into his groove again

 

 

and whoever called Zidane the best soccer player ever REALLY needs to watch more matches

[Celtic Jobber 0]

Shawn Michaels was a wrestling god in his prime (1994-96) and none of you can ever take that away from him. For his PPV matches in 1996 alone, he deserves to be in the HoF.

 

I know that most of you hate him because of what a scumbag he was outside the ring (and I hate that part of him too), but putting all that bullshit aside, there's no doubt that he's one of the greatest of all time.

[Damaramu 0]

Have you not paid attention to this thread? There's plenty of doubt....

[Guest MikeSC]

Well all can't speak with one-liners like you Mike...

I don't expect much out of you.

 

And you seldom fail to disappoint.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Disagree big-time. The best Hart v Diesel match I ever saw was at SSeries '95 (their match at KOTR '94 was nothing and their cage match at IYH was horrid) and I'll take HBK v Diesel at IYH over those any day of the week.

 

Diesel v. HBK is overrated. The whole match is Diesel throws Shawn around until he gets hit with a wooden leg.

 

Bret didn't have to get put through tables to get a good match out of him. Instead he worked a smart mat based style and didn't made Diesel look good in the process.

 

Bret v. Diesel tells a much better story then Shawn v. Diesel

Um, wasn't Hart knocked through a table in that match?

 

HBK made Nash look like a monster by bumping like a madman. That is the best way to cover up for the deficiencies of a big guy.

-=Mike

[Guest BionicRedneck]

Bret worked a much smarter match with Diesel than Shawn did. The most elaborate match babyface HBK could work was "I'll bump my ass off and then make a superman comeback".

 

HBK was a "wrestling god"? Pah! In his prime there were still a dozen better wrestlers.