HBK/HHH at SS '02

[Guest MikeSC]

HBK v HHH at SS '02 was "shitty"?

 

Wow.

-=Mike

...Armageddon you might have a point --- but the SummerSlam match?

Yes. It was shit. Illogical superman no-sell comeback, contrived garbage spots, etc...

Som, entertainment value means nothing?

 

If you said UT v Test was shit, I'd agree. Heck, I'd agree on Jericho v Flair or Christian & Storm v Booker & Goldust.

 

HBK v HHH was up there with Rey v Angle.

-=Mike

[Guest Ray]

I saw no "entertainment value" in this match. Maybe you did, and that's fine, but not me.

[AlwaysPissedOff 0]

Uhh...Banky

For some reason he's been granted the proverbial "go apeshit" card. Supposedly he helped out Dames with something concerning the board, so he can do whatever the hell he wants.

He's been given no "go apeshit" card. He's keeping the meaningless crap where it belongs and rarely does he ever leave HD, so there's no problem with him there.

 

If you have a serious problem with how Dames runs his board, either take it up with him or stop crying about it(not you, Andrew).

[J. Hungerford Smith 0]

I have no problem with how the board is run, just this particular banning.

[chaosrage 0]

Nah- it's not actually.

 

If you can't behave on an internet message board- why do you deserve a second chance?

Because everybody makes mistakes and has shitty days maybe? If he isn't doing anything wrong right now, then yes, it's stupid as hell to ban him for it.

 

Even more so if "exceptions" get made for other posters.

[AndrewTS 0]

Uhh...Banky

For some reason he's been granted the proverbial "go apeshit" card. Supposedly he helped out Dames with something concerning the board, so he can do whatever the hell he wants.

He's been given no "go apeshit" card. He's keeping the meaningless crap where it belongs and rarely does he ever leave HD, so there's no problem with him there.

 

If you have a serious problem with how Dames runs his board, either take it up with him or stop crying about it(not you, Andrew).

I've seen him posting quite a bit in other folders, but it's rare that I even notice it. I guess in HD he's fine, though, if that's where most of his stuff does go.

 

Still, I think if you get banned a first time, you usually really earned it. I've done a few complaints to mods about quite a few people, and almost all of them are still around.

 

There's another exception though--Sakura was banned then unbanned, but that was over a misunderstanding that was cleared up.

 

Uh...something on topic...

 

I think that Ray's being excessively harsh. Saying it's overrated? Good and fine, but "shit?" I disagree, although the Armageddon match I'd say sure thing.

 

Basically, if you think that match was shit, I couldn't understand how you could tolerate the TV shows if you're set the standard that high. If you weren't entertained by it, that's fine, but why keep watching if you think that match was so terrible?

[bob_barron 0]

He was warned and wouldn't stop being a douche- he was banned.

 

He also has tried to come back a million times and has been told no each time. So he is doing something wrong.

 

I covered Banky earlier.

[AlwaysPissedOff 0]

I have no problem with how the board is run, just this particular banning.

Again, that was Dames' call and I can understand why he did it even if I wouldn't have done it myself if I was in his position.

 

 

Because everybody makes mistakes and has shitty days maybe? If he isn't doing anything wrong right now, then yes, it's stupid as hell to ban him for it.

Since you obviously have no clue on the shit he did when he was around, it's pretty easy to understand why you'd keep complaining.

 

BUT...

 

It's not going to help. SmarkZone will be banned everytime he comes back. BOTTOM LINE.

 

Now, if you want to keep this pointless bickering going, then make a thread in HD and bitch away or else just drop it.

 

END OF SERMON.

[Guest Ray]

I think that Ray's being excessively harsh. Saying it's overrated? Good and fine, but "shit?" I disagree, although the Armageddon match I'd say sure thing.

 

Basically, if you think that match was shit, I couldn't understand how you could tolerate the TV shows if you're set the standard that high. If you weren't entertained by it, that's fine, but why keep watching if you think that match was so terrible?

I've seen plenty of far superior matches on free TV, there's no reason to stop watching.

 

I hated every minute of the Summerslam match. I don't see anything special about it at all.

[chaosrage 0]

Since you obviously have no clue on the shit he did when he was around, it's pretty easy to understand why you'd keep complaining.

I don't think it matters what he did, actually. That's in the past. If rules can be bent for Banky and Sakura, then it can be bent for him.

 

Now, if you want to keep this pointless bickering going, then make a thread in HD and bitch away or else just drop it.

 

END OF SERMON.

 

Alright, whatever man. It wouldn't be as bad if this thread wasn't the only semi-interesting thing going on at this board the last few days... I'm finished.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I'm seeing a running theme here.. do we attribute Smarkzones new posts to arenaline and forget about all the stuff he did in the past

[Fökai 0]

Yes. It was shit. Illogical superman no-sell comeback, contrived garbage spots, etc...

That's why you say "In my opinion", or shorthand it by stating "IMO".

 

Don't state that it was shitty because YOU say so.

 

There were 20,000+ in attendance that night who were on the edge of their seat for the entire match, while most of the big writers (Meltzer, Keller, Keith) raved about the match.

 

Doesn't make your opinion an invalid one, but next time choose your words better.

[Guest Ray]

That's why you say "In my opinion", or shorthand it by stating "IMO".

Sticking "IMO" on the end of every post is stupid.

 

It's obviously an opinion. I shouldn't have to spell it out.

 

There were 20,000+ in attendance that night who were on the edge of their seat for the entire match,

and millions of people buy Britney Spears records. What's your point?

 

while most of the big writers (Meltzer, Keller, Keith) raved about the match.

Meltzer is a Michaels mark who's lost his mind (proof would be his ridiculous comments such as Angle is better than almost everyone in the HOF, and Angle could have a great match with Edge but "lazy" Jumbo Tsuruta couldn't). Keith is an idiot who tosses out **** ratings like candy. Keller? I don't read him, but he gave ***** to the Angle/Lesnar iron man. That's all I need to say about that.

 

Doesn't make your opinion an invalid one, but next time choose your words better.

Sorry, I won't be sticking some silly abbreviation at the end of my posts. My words are chosen just fine. I watched that match and saw contrived, no-selling garbage.

[Fökai 0]

Sticking "IMO" on the end of every post is stupid.

 

It's obviously an opinion. I shouldn't have to spell it out.

 

When you make assumptions that the Nassau crowd were "idiots" for liking the match, considering it had an emotional background going into the match, while posting for over seven pages on why people SHOULDN'T like it, I think it goes beyond an opinion and becomes a game of "let me convince you to hate this match".

 

 

There were 20,000+ in attendance that night who were on the edge of their seat for the entire match..

 

...and millions of people buy Britney Spears records. What's your point?

 

The FACT IS, people were glued to the match.

 

Does that make it a necessarily "good" match? NO.

 

Should that vindicate the fans for enjoying the match? YES.

 

Meltzer is a Michaels mark who's lost his mind (proof would be his ridiculous comments such as Angle is better than almost everyone in the HOF, and Angle could have a great match with Edge but "lazy" Jumbo Tsuruta couldn't). Keith is an idiot who tosses out **** ratings like candy.

 

Considering he never made that Angle comment...and that Keith, among others, were emotionally invested in the match, it makes their opinion valid. You shouldn't dispose of their ideas because Keith has a different star scale that others.

 

Keller? I don't read him, but he gave ***** to the Angle/Lesnar iron man. That's all I need to say about that.

 

Yet, you can undercut ratings (Angle/Benoit RR 2003 at ***1/2?) and it's FINE? And we should STILL respect your opinion, yet shit on Keller for giving ***** to Lesnar/Angle?

[Guest Ray]

When you make assumptions that the Nassau crowd were "idiots" for liking the match, considering it had an emotional background going into the match, while posting for over seven pages on why people SHOULDN'T like it, I think it goes beyond an opinion and becomes a game of "let me convince you to hate this match".

Convincing people to HHHate some more would be a good thing.

 

The FACT IS, people were glued to the match.

 

Does that make it a necessarily "good" match? NO.

 

Should that vindicate the fans for enjoying the match? YES.

They can enjoy it all they want. I thought it was pure shit and I'm not afraid to let everyone know.

 

Considering he never made that Angle comment

Which one? He said both, actually.

 

Keith, among others, were emotionally invested in the match, it makes their opinion valid. You shouldn't dispose of their ideas because Keith has a different star scale that others.

If their ideas are "that match had great selling" etc... then yes, I'll dispose of them.

 

Yet, you can undercut ratings (Angle/Benoit RR 2003 at ***1/2?) and it's FINE?

What's wrong with giving that match ***1/2?

 

Oh wait, I forgot Angle is god and has never had a match below ********.

 

Edit: Is this too sarcastic? ^^^

 

Underrating matches is not as bad as overrating them. I probably did underrate RR03, actually.

 

And we should STILL respect your opinion, yet shit on Keller for giving ***** to Lesnar/Angle?

I don't see how or why anyone would give such a rating.

 

You don't have to respect my opinion. You can take a giant shit on it...I won't care.

Edited December 4, 2003 by Ray

[AndrewTS 0]

And we should STILL respect your opinion, yet shit on Keller for giving ***** to Lesnar/Angle?

I don't see how or why anyone would give such a rating.

Ditto.

 

Keith gave it something like ****1/2--despite pointing out the myriad problems in it just above his rating. Stoopid or typo?

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Mathematics

 

"Brock" + "Angle" + "Ironman" = ****1/2 minimum.

 

Kinda like that "other" Ironman match...

[Guest Ray]

Maybe Keith's adrenaline kicked in while hitting the "*" key....

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Oh that adrenaline, you never know when it's going to strike...

[Fökai 0]

What's wrong with giving that match ***1/2?

 

That's the same question as asking what's wrong with giving Angle/Lesnar *****.

 

Oh wait, I forgot Angle is god and has never had a match below ********.

 

Edit: Is this too sarcastic? ^^^

 

Thanks for missing my point. When everyone on "God's green earth" (not really being serious) is giving Angle/Benoit upwards of ****1/2, while you may have possibly low-balled it by giving it ***1/2 without any specific reason, you can see why it goes beyond "Angle love" and is about appreciating the match for what it was.

 

Underrating matches is not as bad as overrating them. I probably did underrate RR03, actually.

 

That's why there are things called OPINIONS.

 

In Keller's OPINION, Lesnar/Angle is *****.

 

In YOUR OPINION, Benoit/Angle is ***1/2.

 

Why should be either rating be disregarded?

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Because they are just symbols that are completely arbitrary unless there are reasons to support it.

[Guest Ray]

When everyone on "God's green earth" (not really being serious) is giving Angle/Benoit upwards of ****1/2, while you may have possibly low-balled it by giving it ***1/2 without any specific reason, you can see why it goes beyond "Angle love" and is about appreciating the match for what it was.

I don't agree. Angle bias isn't the only think that would lead people to overrated it. That it was so superior to the Steiner/HHH match before it, that Benoit got a standing ovation, that it had mat wrestling in a fed known for the lack of it, etc... All of these things could lead people to overrate it.

 

I'm not just going to follow the crowd and give it ****1/2, when I don't think it deserves such a rating.

 

I will admit though, upon further viewing, Angle/Benoit deserves more than ***1/2, for Benoit's great performance.

 

That's why there are things called OPINIONS.

 

In Keller's OPINION, Lesnar/Angle is *****.

 

In YOUR OPINION, Benoit/Angle is ***1/2.

 

Why should be either rating be disregarded?

Because of this:

 

 

Opinions

 

can

 

be

 

wrong.

[Guest Ray]

You know, I can't wait until the next "look back at an old match" thread like this.

 

Despite all the heated debate, it's been lots of fun.

[chaosrage 0]

I'm seeing a running theme here.. do we attribute Smarkzones new posts to arenaline and forget about all the stuff he did in the past

Har har...

[Guest I Got Banned for Sucking]

This is WWE. Considering that 98% (and falling, but that doesn't really back this statement up) of their audience are marks, they didn't need the match to be absolutely 100% logical, so I'm glad with what the did with it, although if it was one year later, it would be Triple H VS Shawn Michaels again at Unforgiven, although the World Heavyweight Championship being handed (Handed! No tourney! Nothing!) to Triple H could've thrown a spanner in the works for that, but I'm pretty sure that the rematch would've been at Unforgiven.

 

Your thoughts?

[Guest Monday Night Jericho]

When Benoit returned he wasn't brought back in a big PPV comeback match that constantly focused on his neck and the "will he be able to what he used to?" stuff that Michaels had leading into SummerSlam. Benoit was brought back with little attention to his injury and wasn't constantly referred to as a "vulnerable cripple", but the same tough technical guy that he'd been before. Now, if Benoit were to wrestle after having his neck worked over and over only to hit the swandive and do stuff that would generally put a lot of pressure on the neck (such as bridges etc etc) then I would classify that as bad selling.

 

However At SS we saw Michaels' back being played up none stop. Then we saw HHH put through chairs and gave him various moves/holds to the back; and as this was happening Michaels was screaming his lungs out. Then a few seconds later he hits the forearm, kips up and starts *dancing* around the ring?! I am looking at this with no bias what-so-ever, but that was embarrassing selling (and YES, selling is important before you ask...).

 

That wasn't the only thing wrong with the match either. Basically after he kipped up the back was basically just forgotten so Shawn could hit some spots. They weren't even good spots and had god-awful stalling in between, not to mention the transition that HHH made from outside the ring to underneath the ladder.

[Guest JumpinJackFlash]

This may sound real stupid on my part(but,hey, what's new?), but what does IMO mean? I got the IM(I Must), but what does the O mean? I always thought it was admit, but admit starts with an A so it should've been IMA. What does IMO mean?

 

I found the Armageddon match to be pretty good, but a little rushed in the ladder match.

 

The Summerslam match was good, because HBK was coming back from retirement, and noone knew if he could perform as well as he did. It was the devil HHH vs. the christian HBK. HHH attacked his weak spots, like the devil does, but with God on his side, HBK fought out temptation. That's why he may have been "no-selling" because it was intended that God was giving him the strength. So, you can say God "no-sells" evil.

 

Get it? Got it? Good.

[Guest Ray]

The Summerslam match was good, because HBK was coming back from retirement, and noone knew if he could perform as well as he did. It was the devil HHH vs. the christian HBK. HHH attacked his weak spots, like the devil does, but with God on his side, HBK fought out temptation. That's why he may have been "no-selling" because it was intended that God was giving him the strength. So, you can say God "no-sells" evil.

That's the most unique defense of this match I've ever heard.

 

Good one.

[The Dames 0]

This may sound real stupid on my part(but,hey, what's new?), but what does IMO mean?

In My Opinion.

 

Dames

[eirejmcmahon 0]

However At SS we saw Michaels' back being played up none stop. Then we saw HHH put through chairs and gave him various moves/holds to the back; and as this was happening Michaels was screaming his lungs out. Then a few seconds later he hits the forearm, kips up and starts *dancing* around the ring?! I am looking at this with no bias what-so-ever, but that was embarrassing selling (and YES, selling is important before you ask...).

Hmmmm...interesting...counter point : I just about lept five feet in the air when he kipped up and I really can't ask any more from my entertainment than that!