Guest Anglesault 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" ? Well, it probably had two strikes against it since I don't like Test's basic big man offense nor do I like his goofy drunken selling. I also have yet to see a match where he actually builds up to his "big spots" instead of just hitting them right away. This match is no exception. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted January 25, 2004 And I don't like when people say that I'd never admit when he does something well. I freely say that before test ruined the match, he did a pretty good job of getting out of eddy's way at X-Seven. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DangerousDamon 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. I'm sorry but what the fuck is 6/3/94? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downhome 0 Report post Posted January 25, 2004 I'm sorry but what the fuck is 6/3/94? What many people consider the greatest singles match of all time, Misawa vs. Kawada, for the Triple Crown. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted January 25, 2004 I liked Jones vs. Benoit. Of course, it was all Benoit, but the match was not bad. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MixxMaster 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. you do realize who has been on even MORE than Test, and has ALSO had 0 "good" matches? This is a TIE, between Test and Orton...plain and simple. The only "decent" matches that had Orton in them, were BOTH with RVD. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DangerousDamon 0 Report post Posted January 25, 2004 I'm sorry but what the fuck is 6/3/94? What many people consider the greatest singles match of all time, Misawa vs. Kawada, for the Triple Crown. Oh, okay. When people start throwing out random dates and not saying what they're about, I get a bit confused. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault 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. you do realize who has been on even MORE than Test, and has ALSO had 0 "good" matches? This is a TIE, between Test and Orton...plain and simple. The only "decent" matches that had Orton in them, were BOTH with RVD. Orton misse a couple months. Test got injured and stayed on TV. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted January 25, 2004 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. I thought WWF TV in 2001 was really quite good. The Invasion angle was botched horribly (I would have booked it to never end, personally), but the TV matches --- outside of the horrid time between WM X-7 and Judgment Day --- were actually quite watchable. Heck, we got Austin v Angle, Rock v Jericho, and TONS of other great matches in 2001. Now, 2002? Yeah, THAT sucked. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted January 25, 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. Isn't it high praise that he had a good match when he could've coasted by on his laurels? He worked a good match when he KNEW nobody would see it. You stick ANYBODY in his programs and see them work well. I doubt Benoit could have had a good year with ALL of the work with Scott Steiner involved. Is Test GREAT? No. He's average. He's not bad at all for a power guy --- but that is back-handed praise. Is he the worst worker on RAW? Good lord, no. Mark Henry is worse. Gail Kim was worse. Rodney Mack was worse. D-Von Dudley is worse. Goldberg --- yes, Goldberg --- is worse. Scott Steiner was worse. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michrome 0 Report post Posted January 25, 2004 2001 TV was pretty terrible from June-on. January-Wrestlemania was chalk-filled with great TV matches, Wrestlemania-Judgement day was fucking terrible, J-Day to KoTR had a bunch of good matches again, and it went to hell after that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheFranchise 0 Report post Posted January 25, 2004 2001 TV was pretty terrible from June-on What did that coincide with? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
