DrVenkman PhD 0 Report post Posted January 24, 2004 Yeah it's rather markish and goes against what a lot of people here think, but hey, that's what Shades of Gray always has been. Feel free to read it and comment on it here, but if not, hey, whatever. Shades of Gray Edit: Obviously the sub-title of the thread is "If you want", not "Is you want". Damn typos. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndrewTS 0 Report post Posted January 24, 2004 The worst match on the card involves Ric Flair, for crying out loud. That's funny, I don't know where "Brock Lesnar vs. Hardcore Holly" could involve Flair. The WC book also disappointed me. I read it in a day, sold it, and don't regret it. Although, yeah, the actual buildup to the Rumble sucks but the show should be good. I wonder if this will be another 2001 for WWE--absolutely terrible TV shows, but fantastic PPVs. ....well, probably not with all those Raw PPVs scheduled. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrVenkman PhD 0 Report post Posted January 24, 2004 Maybe Benoit can carry all the Raw PPVs? I think Holly/Lesnar will be better than the tag title match, but I understand the point of view where the former could be the card's worst match. Still, it won't touch HHH/Steiner. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland 0 Report post Posted January 24, 2004 I like your column and agreed with it for the most part, but there's no way Big Show was the worst wrestler of the year, Mark Henry gets that "honor" Most Improved: I kind of agree with Cena, but I'm more inclined to vote for someone that's actually improved in leaps and bounds, and that's Rene Dupree. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted January 24, 2004 I like your column and agreed with it for the most part, but there's no way Big Show was the worst wrestler of the year, Mark Henry gets that "honor" Nope. Test. 12 months of constant screen time and 0 good matches. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland 0 Report post Posted January 24, 2004 I like your column and agreed with it for the most part, but there's no way Big Show was the worst wrestler of the year, Mark Henry gets that "honor" Nope. Test. 12 months of constant screen time and 0 good matches. hmmm....My god I actually agree with you for once. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dangerous A 0 Report post Posted January 24, 2004 Sorry fellas. Worse wrestler of the year was Nathan Jones. Although he wasn't in WWE all that long, he sucked so bad it was memorable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Ray Report post Posted January 24, 2004 Test. 12 months of constant screen time and 0 good matches. vs. Val Venis - Sunday Night Heat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jack_Bauer 0 Report post Posted January 24, 2004 I expect a decent match from Brock and Holly. I expect a crap match from the Table match though, so I agree that Flair will be in the worst match of the night. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted January 24, 2004 Sorry fellas. Worse wrestler of the year was Nathan Jones. Although he wasn't in WWE all that long, he sucked so bad it was memorable. In all of like 8 matches. Test was awful on a regular basis. vs. Val Venis - Sunday Night Heat. Matter of opinion Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Ray Report post Posted January 24, 2004 vs. Val Venis - Sunday Night Heat. Matter of opinion Oh fucking hell. Saying "matter of opinion" is the lamest, pussiest way ever to avoid challenging a statement. Test had a good match. ACCEPT IT. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Ghost of bps21 0 Report post Posted January 24, 2004 Test had one good match all year and he gets to come off the shit list? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Ray Report post Posted January 24, 2004 Test had one good match all year and he gets to come off the shit list? No. He had a good match, so fucking admit he had a good match. Don't be a biased little pussy and say that's just a "matter of opinion" to avoid giving the slightest bit of praise to a wrestler you don't like. Get it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Ghost of bps21 0 Report post Posted January 24, 2004 This is my first post in this thread. Your bitching should be directed elsewhere. First and foremost it's convenient that his lone watchable match occured where only 4 people could see it. Secondly...it's almost a detriment that he "had a good match" there...and dropped the ball in every match he had that people did see. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Ray Report post Posted January 24, 2004 First, Anglesault's not here, so everyone else shall receive the brunt of by bitching~! Second, that the match was on Heat does not give one the right to say it's just a "matter of opinion" and weasel out of admitting that he had a good match. It was a good match. It doesn't matter how many people did or did not see it. Maybe he "dropped the ball" in those other matches because they were poorly booked? Maybe Test and Val were allowed more freedom in booking their own match because it was on Heat. Maybe that's why they had a good match on Heat. Did anyone stop to consider these things? No...you just continue the bias. If a wrestler I hate has a good match, I fucking admit it. See RVD vs Orton, Raw. I hate Rob Van Suck. He had a good match with Orton. Bias is lame. Test had a good match. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted January 24, 2004 vs. Val Venis - Sunday Night Heat. Matter of opinion Oh fucking hell. Saying "matter of opinion" is the lamest, pussiest way ever to avoid challenging a statement. Test had a good match. ACCEPT IT. I DIDN'T LIKE IT. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Ray Report post Posted January 24, 2004 A biased Test hater not liking a Test match?! I'm STUNNED. You could knock me over with a feather right now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red Hot Thumbtack In The Eye 0 Report post Posted January 24, 2004 If a person doesn't like a match, it wasn't a good match. Simple as that. They could be the only person to not like it, but they're still right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted January 24, 2004 I like your column and agreed with it for the most part, but there's no way Big Show was the worst wrestler of the year, Mark Henry gets that "honor" Nope. Test. 12 months of constant screen time and 0 good matches. I totally agree. Big Show was in some good matches during July. Test might have had one good match but no one saw it to begin with. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted January 24, 2004 A biased Test hater not liking a Test match?! I'm STUNNED. You could knock me over with a feather right now. Explain how it was anything but the standard Test match. More importantly. explain how it hit *** Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michrome 0 Report post Posted January 25, 2004 If a person doesn't like a match, it wasn't a good match. Simple as that. They could be the only person to not like it, but they're still right. This is idiotic. There are good matches, and there are bad matches. 6/3/94 is great. It doesn't matter if you're too stupid or dense to get it, it's still great, whether you like it or not. There are concrete aspects of it beyond any subjectivity. If you enjoy a match that was a piece of shit, it wasn't good, you just have low standards. I'm beginning to think there's probably a parallel between the way people see wrestling and how they are in real life. If someone enjoys Red Lobster more than The Palm, does not make it better? Hell no. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndrewTS 0 Report post Posted January 25, 2004 Henry's gotta be the worst. Test had a good match with Val, but it took HBK to drag a decent one out of Mark Henry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Ray Report post Posted January 25, 2004 A biased Test hater not liking a Test match?! I'm STUNNED. You could knock me over with a feather right now. Explain how it was anything but the standard Test match. Why don't you explain why it was "just a standard Test match" ? More importantly. explain how it hit *** Good pacing, good build, well-executed power moves, active crowd, good believable near-falls, etc... Test might have had one good match but no one saw it to begin with. This is really fucking stupid. Yeah, it's completely irrelevant because "no one" watches Heat. Wonderful. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red Hot Thumbtack In The Eye 0 Report post Posted January 25, 2004 If a person doesn't like a match, it wasn't a good match. Simple as that. They could be the only person to not like it, but they're still right. This is idiotic. There are good matches, and there are bad matches. 6/3/94 is great. It doesn't matter if you're too stupid or dense to get it, it's still great, whether you like it or not. There are concrete aspects of it beyond any subjectivity. If you enjoy a match that was a piece of shit, it wasn't good, you just have low standards. I'm beginning to think there's probably a parallel between the way people see wrestling and how they are in real life. If someone enjoys Red Lobster more than The Palm, does not make it better? Hell no. What is wrestling in this day and age? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downhome 0 Report post Posted January 25, 2004 It's cool to say "I didn't like that match, it just wasn't good for my liking". It's stupid to just say "That match was a horrible match, and I am right and everyone else in the world is wrong". That's how I look at this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland 0 Report post Posted January 25, 2004 I think too many people try to act cool and smarklike by saying a match sucks than by finding any redeeming qualities in it. Sad. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downhome 0 Report post Posted January 25, 2004 I think too many people try to act cool and smarklike by saying a match sucks than by finding any redeeming qualities in it. Sad. What exactly do you mean by that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spaceman Spiff 0 Report post Posted January 25, 2004 OK, let's end the arguing. Worst wrestler of the year: (tie) - Nathan Jones, John Heidenreich I think that's something *everyone* can agree with. Maybe even throw Lita in there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downhome 0 Report post Posted January 25, 2004 I don't see how you can mention anyone other than Nathan Jones. Uless you just don't count him since he wasn't really around that much. I don't know who I would pick for worst of last year when it comes to all of the full time guys though. To be quite honest with you, here lately, I've hated Steiner more than just about anyone else. I'm a huge fan of his, but his matches in WWE this go 'round have just really given me a headache. There have been times this past year where I went "well, that Mark Henry/Test match didn't TOTALLY make me want to hurt people", I haven't done the same for Steiner once I don't think. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChick 0 Report post Posted January 25, 2004 I like your column and agreed with it for the most part, but there's no way Big Show was the worst wrestler of the year, Mark Henry gets that "honor" Nope. Test. 12 months of constant screen time and 0 good matches. Disagree. While Test hasn't had more than one arguably good matche, he's been consistant in medocrity. I don't see how he's worse than, say, Booker T. Wrestlers like Henry and Jones have barely had watchable, decent matches. Therefore, Test>them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
