AndrewTS Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 I just wanted to point out that tapping to moves like an anklelock, even early into a Iron Man match, is good psychology. Think about it - Angle wouldn't tap when Benoit did it, because if he had, he would've lost, period. But when Brock did it, Angle would've been thinking - "I can sit here, let him ruin my ankle and thus be fucked for the rest of this match, or I can give him a fall, then still have a good ankle to finish the match." I think it's damned good psychology, myself.. I thought that was quite obvious, myself. The exception would be late in a match when the guy in the lead applies one and you can't afford to tap, natch.
Guest Retro Rob Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 The guys over at CRZ's board all seemed to love it. http://wienerboard.com/thread.php/id=14765
iliketurtles Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 A-Train's also had good matches with the Undertaker on Smackdown and Brock Lesnar as well. I also enjoyed his matches with Mysterio , Edge, and Funaki on Velocity. (from what I remember of it) Okay, here's what I don't get. He can have (according to you) an enjoyable match with Edge on Velocity, but a shitty one at Armageddon? And he's wrestled Funaki 230948234 times that none of their matches me anything. Even they wrestled one match, it wouldn't mean anything. I just think A-Train is a waste. He'll have a watchable match when he's with someone who can make him look good pretty much. He's been in the WWF for what? 4 years? And he's only had decent/enjoyable matches in the past year...and one notable one (at least to TSM) in 2001 with Kane. I still say he sucks.
Papacita Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 'Wow. Can’t say that I was disappointed. If for no other reason then the fact that Vince decided to let the ATHELETES get the match over instead of him. What a novel concept. I hope the ratings back it up. And we’re out.' Cant say he was disappointed ? Christ. Makes me wonder about the SK rating Good for him if he wasn't disappointed...I wish I could say the same.
Guest Retro Rob Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 It's been nice bitching with all of you, but I need some sleep.
Guest Mulatto Heat Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 'Wow. Can’t say that I was disappointed. If for no other reason then the fact that Vince decided to let the ATHELETES get the match over instead of him. What a novel concept. I hope the ratings back it up. And we’re out.' Not being dissapointed and it being a blowaway match which it ought to have been are two different things. But he is right about the Vince thing. And his sentiments over the ratings are the same as mine. And Rob, I counted five people praising the match and SD has been over for an hour and a half. That one dude's wrong about the "clean except for the ref bump thing" anyway.
Guest Dmann2000 Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 I'm just curious why anyone cares what Keith thought?, or the 411 guy, or the CRZ board, or Keller, or Meltzer, or Kurt's momma, or me? Some liked it, more don't, eat a donut, go to bed.
Jack_Bauer Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 Dmann .................................. no I CARE
iliketurtles Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 It's been nice bitching with all of you, but I need some sleep. Ditto. I'm sure we'll have more to bitch about tommorow when K(FC)eith posts his rant. Night guys.
Jack_Bauer Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 Join us tomorrow for part 2. I can actually see SK COMPLETELY downgrading this match. I just have this little gut feeling.
Guest Dmann2000 Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 Dmann .................................. no I CARE I told you to go EAT A DONUT Whatsamatter you no likea the donut?!?
Jack_Bauer Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 *eats a donut* That didnt help Thanks
Guest Boo_Bradley Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 Funaki has had as many **** matches as Albert
Art Sandusky Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 I feel really bad giving a match that required so much physical effort a low rating, but I really can't go any higher than ***1/2. I wasn't feeling this at all, and whoever said this was better than Rock/HHH is on something.
Papacita Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 I'm just curious why anyone cares what Keith thought?, or the 411 guy, or the CRZ board, or Keller, or Meltzer, or Kurt's momma, or me? Some liked it, more don't, eat a donut, go to bed. Generally I don't, because my opinions aren't likely to change, but it's always interesting to look at a match from someone else's perspective.
Guest Dmann2000 Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 *eats a donut* That didnt help Thanks You didn't eat that Krispy Kreme Krap did you? Go to Dunkin and get ye some munchkins, and a quart of milk
Guest The Winter Of My Discontent Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 Keller's on crack. 5 stars? Subtract three or four, then I'll take his funky ass seriously.
Guest Boo_Bradley Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 So has anyone thought of any other 300 pounders going broadway yet?
Jack_Bauer Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 Take away 4 ? ONE STAR ! It was disappointing, but GOOD LORD never a measely star.
Jack_Bauer Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 So has anyone thought of any other 300 pounders going broadway yet? Erm, Japan guys are over 300 arent they ?
Guest Anglesault Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 Boring match that did alot to rebuild Lesnar's cred, but thanks to that "If Lesnar and Angle feud, one has to suck" rule, Angle looked really, really weak and never struck me as being anywhere near Brock's league in this match. The last thing Kurt needs is a Cena feud right now.
RavishingRickRudo Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 1) Albert right now is Albert 2003, not Vader 2003. Albert in 2001 was Vader 2001 because he was clearly lifting his style from Vader (and someone, cough, was diggin it) - but now Alberts moveset is way cooler than Vaders. If anyone right now is Vader 2003 it's Taker. 2)I'm watching the Ironman match right now, and I am not... Na'mean? I wasn't looking forward to it and I would say it's a disappointment if I wasn't already severely disappointed by their WM match. 3)Cole is pissing me off with his Hero-worshop of Kurt Angle. I don't think they have done nearly enough to build Kurt into a convincing uberhero - I must have missed the memo. 4)Tazz is disappointing me. It must be all the brawling, or he is pacing himself both mentally and vocally. 5)Taker vs. Angle is still my TV MOTY so far. Seconded by Eddie/Tajiri vs Team Angle 6)I appreciate the effort made by the WWE by giving us this Ironman match - this is one of those rare ol times where I'll say that. I just think they made the wrong call on the wrestlers involved... and the commercials really hurt the match. 2 commercials max for TV guys.
Guest Dmann2000 Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 Yeah, I'd call the match ***, nothing special, points for effort, minuses for executioin, off night for the 2, "Noble failure" (though not really a failure). In hindsight, it might have been better to book a 2/3 falls match that went about 30 minutes.
Guest The Winter Of My Discontent Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 It also lacked the competition aspect that other Iron Man matches were all about. This one was pretty much of a war of attrition.
RavishingRickRudo Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 It wasn't an off night, they just aren't good enough to pull it off. They do have limitations. The WWE style has limitations, it is a style which mainly relies on spots and formula. 60 minutes tends to over-extend the formula and spots and brawling alone cannot carry the match. Angle and Lesnar are both products of the WWE style - it's all they know, it's all they're told - so it naturally suffered.
Papacita Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 Yeah, when they signed the match I said they'd have been better off doing 30 mins instead of an hour. That way, commercials would've been less of an issue and it'd be easier to get into the match.
Guest Dmann2000 Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 It wasn't an off night, they just aren't good enough to pull it off. They do have limitations. The WWE style has limitations, it is a style which mainly relies on spots and formula. 60 minutes tends to over-extend the formula and spots and brawling alone cannot carry the match. Angle and Lesnar are both products of the WWE style - it's all they know, it's all they're told - so it naturally suffered. HHH and Rock were both products of WWE style, and their Iron man match worked much better.
RavishingRickRudo Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 HHH wasn't a product of the WWE style. He wrestled the WWE style, yes, but he wasn't bred under the hip-toss/dropkick WWE style like Angle and Lesnar. Besides, I'm not a big fan of that Ironman either.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now