Do you think...

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

There needs to be a course taught on giving explanations on matches - cause it's hilarious seeing people write-up a sentence (that's not even a full sentence) and then expect that to be sufficient. Does anyone know what "in-depth" means? Or is the Kiddie Pool good enough? Even the people complaining about no explanations suck at giving them. Here's an idea - GO BACK AND WATCH THE SHOW!

[Tawren 0]

There needs to be a course taught on giving explanations on matches - cause it's hilarious seeing people write-up a sentence (that's not even a full sentence) and then expect that to be sufficient. Does anyone know what "in-depth" means? Or is the Kiddie Pool good enough? Even the people complaining about no explanations suck at giving them. Here's an idea - GO BACK AND WATCH THE SHOW!

I watched the show last Sunday-still didn't like it.

 

And if my explanations aren't good enough, so what-at least I have reasons.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

hmm...watch 4 hours that i didn't enjoy the first 2 times I saw it...

 

or bang head on desk for a few minutes and get same result quicker...

 

decisions...decisions...

[razazteca 0]

Will WM20 be good? No it will not. Why? Well because of the build up will not meet up to the expectations that the greatest wrestling event of the year brings. Now if the recent edition of Raw is any indictation of what to expect for the big show then it will be a total letdown. How are the fans suppose to follow the current angle of Evolution being the elite of Raw, when the leader loses a tag match the day after winning the big gold belt and the young lion chases off a coward fan fav in possibly the worst cliff hanger in tv history.

 

I expect half of the matches will be made 2 weeks before WM20 thus making the general audience indifferent about the PPV.

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

Why is everyone getting the third degree for liking JEricho/HBK? I hate Michaels just about, but even I was marking out like crazy, something I've rarely done this year, and having to explain why we like it is absurd. If I like Lesbian porn, must I defend why I like it? Or why I like the Yankees?

 

I liked it, good enough excuse for me.

[Tawren 0]

Why is everyone getting the third degree for liking JEricho/HBK? I hate Michaels just about, but even I was marking out like crazy, something I've rarely done this year, and having to explain why we like it is absurd. If I like Lesbian porn, must I defend why I like it? Or why I like the Yankees?

 

I liked it, good enough excuse for me.

I'm not attacking you guys for liking it, I just want to know why. Why did it have you marking out? Nostalgia, crowd, something in the match? Lots of people call it a MoTY, and I want to know why you guys think that, because I think it sucks.

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

I never can explain why I think I match is great, it just had the WM feel like Hogan/Rock....except not that good.

 

I was gonig crazy thinking Jericho might win when he had HBK in the walls of jericho...that actually woke me up from my blah this show is boring so far stage.

 

It would have been nice if they had the hug thing WITHOUT Jericho low blowing him, because it would have been a lot better that way.

 

Otherwise, it just seemed entertaining. I'm not saying MOTY (Benoit/Angle RR wins that), but it was good.

[EricMM 0]

I for one am BEGGING for as much background to be put into these matches as possible.

 

I want them to decide NOW what matches to have.

 

I want them to begin advancing stories now to lead to those matches. I want them to build CURRENT fueds to Wrestlemania if possible.

 

I want them to bring back Rock ASAP, and start his fucking fueding.

 

Wrestlemania should be about blowoffs. It should end fueds. Long feuds.

[NoCalMike 0]

UT vs. Kane & HHH/Orton is about as SHIT as you can get for main events given the talent in the WWE, however for some reason WM usually turns out a lot better then people expect going in. WMXX probably won't be one of the better ones, obviously, but whether it will SUCK or not, is still up for debate, it really depends and will rely on the undercard to carry it.

[Guest Dynamite Kido]

HBK/Jericho: Aside from the crappy finish, this was a GREAT match, best of the night and one of the best of the year.

Can you please tell me why you like it so much?

Not really.

 

I don't know why I like it so much - I can't bullet-point the reasons. I just know that when I first watched it (and when I go back and watch it every now and then) I really really like it. Aside from the crappy finish, everything was done just right.

Except for Michaels selling. But it was a fun match though.

[Austin3164life 0]

Matt/Rey: A fun little match to watch, but yet again, it was a fun little match. Not enough time.

 

ATrain/Big Show vs Undertaker: A decent hoss fest. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Victoria/Trish/Jazz: Didn't care to pay attention.

 

Haas/Benjamin vs Benoit/Rhyno vs Los Guerreros: It would've been done much better, had it been at least 5-7 minutes longer. Lacked the time to tell a deeper story.

 

HBK/Jericho: A controversial one. I loved this match when I first saw it. However, I realized that when you first see it, it's a match that makes you cheer. Since I've watched it 2-3 times after that, I realized that it's an excellent match for the first 8-10 minutes, but right when Michaels no-sells all the back-work that Jericho does, it really devalues the match quite a bit, but not THAT much. Still a great effort.

 

HHH/Booker: Better than expected. Wasn't a classic by any means, but I liked Booker's selling of the leg, even after the Harlem Hangover (in which he should've won after that spot). Triple H puts on some work-boots as well. It was a pretty decent match.

 

McMahon/Hogan: It was funny to watch, but too long and thus the joke got stale. Shave off 10 minutes and it would've been fine.

 

Rock/Austin: This match doesn't touch their 17 bout, but is far ahead of their 15 bout. It kind of blends both matches to make a good match. Told an excellent story for what it was, two guys who hate each other and want to prove something. Both participants tried hard.

 

Angle/Lesnar: A very good match that ranks up there as one of the best 'Mania main events. The only thing that ever really made me uneasy was the spotty selling and the botched SSP.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Why is everyone getting the third degree for liking JEricho/HBK?

 

Why is everyone acting like everyone is getting the 3rd degree for liking Jericho/HBK? The majority of posts in this thread have favoured Jericho/HBK where maybe 3 or 4 posters have said they didn't like it. There are probably more posters playing the victim than there are posters hating on the match.

 

I liked it, good enough excuse for me.

 

Yep. Thoughtless. Good enough for you. That's actually indicative of a lot of people who liked the match, and the event itself. Good showing; does WM proud.

 

must I defend why I like it?

 

Well it IS a discussion board. You don't have to, but it tends to improve quality if you do - not to mention it actually gives some meaning and relevance to what you say. Otherwise, all you'll get is "Duh, I likked it allot, it was intertayning ******" "Yeah, I licked it too. HBK roolz" "Yeha" "Yep" "*****". ... that's the type of convo someone would have in the 3rd grade. I think we are all high school educated -and better- here; we should be able to go beyond that and show some analytical skill. If you don't know why you like something, then I don't think you're paying attention; to the match, or yourself.

 

And if my explanations aren't good enough, so what-at least I have reasons.

 

When someone says "Sure, I'll go in depth" and then provides 2 and 3 *word* "detailed" analysis of a match, that's not only "not good enough", it's downright bad. And Bad Reasons are just as bad as No Reasons; infact, it's probably worse as it _takes away_ from that persons opinion, rather than contributing nothing at all.

 

... Might as well stay on topic...

 

WM 20 will be loved by the same people who usually love WWE PPV's. Not a bold prediction, but it will hold water down the line when the event is over and people are who rave are raving about it. Do I think it will be a _bad_ show? Nah, I'll give Vince enough credit to say he won't screw this up... even though I gave him that same credit before RAW X and that bombed miserably. I don't think it will be the blow-away show people say it will be, though. But again, that's the usual bunch overrating things - the same people who tend not to give detailed analysis...

Edited December 18, 2003 by RavishingRickRudo

[Tawren 0]

And if my explanations aren't good enough, so what-at least I have reasons.

 

When someone says "Sure, I'll go in depth" and then provides 2 and 3 *word* "detailed" analysis of a match, that's not only "not good enough", it's downright bad. And Bad Reasons are just as bad as No Reasons; infact, it's probably worse as it _takes away_ from that persons opinion, rather than contributing nothing at all.

What's wrong with providing my reasons for not liking the matches? You yourself said it was a discussion board and people should give reasons.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Do you think..., ...WMXX will be good?

 

Depends on the card they give us when the time comes. HHH / Orton isn't helping though.

[2GOLD 0]

If the Orton/HHH and Taker/Kane matches hold true then the upper card is in big trouble.

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

So is everyone done arguing "BOO HBK/Jericho says because I say so and wooo HBK/Jericho rules because it was."

 

Too many arguments over this match and it's getting old defending the match either way, because it's obvious no one is going to change their minds because I or someone else gives a good reason why it sucked/ruled.

 

:Flashes back to UT/Brock argument from No Mercy this year::

[haVoc 0]

Those two matches could surprise us and actually be good. Remember, this is WM their booking for. Not a 5 minute Raw ME or a throw away PPV like Backlash.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

When THESE are the reasons??

 

"Matt/Rey: decent, too short

ATrain/Big Show vs Undertaker: slow brawl, not interesting

Victoria/Trish/Jazz: sloppy mess"

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

When THESE are the reasons??

 

"Matt/Rey: decent, too short

ATrain/Big Show vs Undertaker: slow brawl, not interesting

Victoria/Trish/Jazz: sloppy mess"

I hope to God that wasn't me...(checks)

[Tawren 0]

When THESE are the reasons??

 

"Matt/Rey: decent, too short

ATrain/Big Show vs Undertaker: slow brawl, not interesting

Victoria/Trish/Jazz: sloppy mess"

What more should I say, when those are my thoughts on the match? Rey/Matt wasn't even 6 minutes long, so I called it short. The handicap was a slow brawl, and it wasn't interesting. And the womens match was a sloppy mess that again, was really short. Seriously, what more should I say about these matches?

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

What spots were sloppy? Who made them sloppy? What were the circumstances that led to it and what could they have done differently? What made the cruiserweight match "decent"? Was it their chemistry, spots, pace, build? Any neat lil moves in it? Taker vs. Big Show/Albert was so much better than you get it credit for where they worked the handicap match in a way that made sense. Taker got the advantage early because he needed to gain control and end it before they could slow it down and use their numbers. Taker was throwing some nice punches here and was definitely kicking up the workrate. Nice pace set early on and even when it slowed down they maximized their use of the holds. I dug the abdominal stretch used in the match; probably the best usage of it I've seen especially in a "big match". The tombstone at the end was a nice touch - alberts huge head added to it... I mean, that's a paragraph and I've only seen the match one or two times, which was a few months ago.