WWF January-June 2001

[Guest Loss]

Can be found here for those who'd like to read it ...

[Guest Anglesault]

I'm in the middle of it right now, but to be fair on the Angle/HHH match, those two just simply suck against eachother. It's not fair to blame the booking on that.

[Guest Loss]

I'm in the middle of it right now, but to be fair on the Angle/HHH match, those two just simply suck against eachother. It's not fair to blame the booking on that.

Normally, I'd agree with you, but had that match happened with babyface Kurt Angle against heel HHH, instead of heel versus heel, I think it would have been much better. The work itself wasn't horrible. The problem with the booking was not only in the context, but in all the McMahon distraction and the Austin-based finish.

[The Mandarin 0]

It's hard to say if I agree with you or not on most of the points you made in this column. I don't have any of the tapes from 2001 and can vaguely remember most of the storylines and matches from this time. That's why I'm a fan and you're the critic. There's no way I could debate with you on any points you made in your column. With four hours or more of wrestling a week (and this was pre-brand split), and multiple storylines going on, it was hard to judge any of the storylines by themselves rather than judging a single show for its entertainment value.

 

Still, it was a very well written column. Are you only doing 2001, or are you doing other years as well?

[Guest Choken One]

How DARE you present us with well thought out and intelligent thoughts with actual support and unbiased opinions...

 

Shame on you.

 

*Reads More SK*

[Guest Anglesault]

I'm in the middle of it right now, but to be fair on the Angle/HHH match, those two just simply suck against eachother. It's not fair to blame the booking on that.

Normally, I'd agree with you, but had that match happened with babyface Kurt Angle against heel HHH, instead of heel versus heel, I think it would have been much better. The work itself wasn't horrible.

"suck" was probably a poor choice.

 

Kurt and Hunter just had the remarkable ability to put on the most solidly basic ***ish matches on earth, as opposed to the ****+ affairs they seem to have with other people.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I know what you're doing. I know what this column is about. Yet I find myself wondering -on paragraph #3- "what the fuck is he going on about". You gotta introduce the point of the article in the first 2 paragraphs dude. We're wrestling fans -which was pointed out in your article many times- and as the all-time greatest smark yelled out to Shawn Michaels on that fateful night, "Get to the point".

[The Mandarin 0]

We're wrestling fans -which was pointed out in your article many times- and as the all-time greatest smark yelled out to Shawn Michaels on that fateful night, "Get to the point".

Or in the immortal words of one Dusty Rhodes, "There's a lady! There's a lady in the men's bathroom!"

[Guest Ray]

The Rock v Steve Austin – Wrestlemania X-7

WWF World title, No disqualification

 

Austin was clearly the stronger of the two participants and held a victory over Rock two Wrestlemanias prior to this one.

That's not necessarily true. Austin had defeated Rock several times, but Rock had arguably become a bigger star in 2000 while Austin was out with an injury. Also Rock had won his match on the most recent PPV. Austin hadn't. Certainly Austin doesn't think of himself as stronger in the match, as he's utterly desperate to win and doesn't hesitate to cheat or sell his soul to his former arch-enemy to win.

 

He doesn’t have the will to stick it to his opponent as aggressively as he once did, at least not under the same circumstances

He wasn't agressive? You didn't see the fire in his eyes? The way he didn't hesitate to attack Rock at the start of the match? The way he snapped at the end and destroyed Rock with the chair? He was very agressive in the match.

 

Instead of proving that he can hang with the big dogs, he is now trying to prove that he hasn’t lost the ability to hang with the big dogs, which means he is a totally different character than he was in 1996.

He really wasn't trying to prove anything. That's not the story he was working. Austin's performance here is 'win at all costs.'

 

The match is far too overbooked, featuring a run-in from Vince McMahon and a finish that defines excess. The turn was obviously a flop with the live crowd, as his post-match reaction was still roaring. While Austin seemed on top of the world here, this match was the beginning of his downfall. He had the best year of his career in 2001 from an aesthetic standpoint and one of the most disappointing from a box office standpoint.

I want to scream every time I see someone trash the finish of this match. It wasn't overbooked. It wasn't excess. Everything that was done at the end was done with a purpose, and perfectly fit with the rest of the match. It was a great finish. A truly brilliant piece of storytelling with Austin's descent and his sacrifice of honor for the title he so desperately wants.

 

Really, why must everyone have the knee-jerk "bad finish!!!!" reaction whenever they see a ref bump or a McMahon?

[Guest Ray]

Chris Benoit v Kurt Angle – WWF Backlash 2001

Ultimate Submissions match

 

This match might have been better had Angle stayed focused on Benoit’s knee, leg and ankle, while Benoit stayed focus on Angle’s arm and shoulder. Instead, they switched gears too many times, and the last thing they could afford in a match with these kinds of stipulations was a lack of long-term selling. As a collection of submission moves, I’ve seen more advanced work in NJPW, and the mat wrestling was probably better in their Wrestlemania match, so as much as I want to love them for trying new things in this match, I can’t in good conscience praise the match as anything better than a sometimes fun left-of-center watching experience.

Submission holds don't need body part damage to work. Watch some RINGS or something. It's as if everyone's been brainwashed into thinking a knee submission won't work unless the knee is worked over for ten minutes. Really, Benoit brought some of the neatest matwork I've ever seen in a WWF ring, yet everyone craps on it because they don't do any boring formulaic "body part work" before each hold.

[Guest Anglesault]

Chris Benoit v Kurt Angle – WWF Backlash 2001

Ultimate Submissions match

 

This match might have been better had Angle stayed focused on Benoit’s knee, leg and ankle, while Benoit stayed focus on Angle’s arm and shoulder. Instead, they switched gears too many times, and the last thing they could afford in a match with these kinds of stipulations was a lack of long-term selling. As a collection of submission moves, I’ve seen more advanced work in NJPW, and the mat wrestling was probably better in their Wrestlemania match, so as much as I want to love them for trying new things in this match, I can’t in good conscience praise the match as anything better than a sometimes fun left-of-center watching experience.

Submission holds don't need body part damage to work. Watch some RINGS or something. It's as if everyone's been brainwashed into thinking a knee submission won't work unless the knee is worked over for ten minutes. Really, Benoit brought some of the neatest matwork I've ever seen in a WWF ring, yet everyone craps on it because they don't do any boring formulaic "body part work" before each hold.

I think everyone craps on it because it was a pretty boring match with alot of stalling by Angle.

[Guest Ray]

Except it wasn't boring and Angle's stalling had lots of purpose to it.....

[Guest Anglesault]

Except it wasn't boring and Angle's stalling had lots of purpose to it.....

People like to see action. Stalling could have all the meaning in the world. It's still standing and/or walking-running around.

[Guest Ray]

When you watch a film with a meaningful scene with no dialogue, do you say "screw this meaningful shit! blow up a car or something!" ?

 

Angle's stalling is part of a great character performance.

[Guest wildpegasus]

Except it wasn't boring and Angle's stalling had lots of purpose to it.....

I agree. The match wasn't boring. I actually watched it over 10 times.

 

Angle was blown up in this but he used it to his advantage and did the old NHL beat the clock trick. It backfires sometimes because the team rests on their lead and can lose sometimes and that's what happened to Angle. Angle was essentially dumping the puck here trying to delay time so the hungry team wouldn't come back.

 

 

Submission holds don't need body part damage to work

 

That is so true. Man, I'm tired of everyone thinking you have to injure a bodypart beforehand for a submission to work. Heyman on commentary and Benoit/Angle here were telling us that's not always the case.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I really enjoyed the review on the Austin/HHH vs. Benoit/Jericho tag match as you -besides pointing out storytelling and technical aspects- also talked about how they manipulated the crowd. You seemed to have forgotten about that in (most of) the other match reviews, but focused on it here. I think if Wrestlers go a step-up to involve the crowd and get them hot, then it should be factored into how good (or at the very least "effective") the match was.

[Guest wildpegasus]

Except it wasn't boring and Angle's stalling had lots of purpose to it.....

People like to see action. Stalling could have all the meaning in the world. It's still standing and/or walking-running around.

It works here. Essentially it gives Angle heel heat, it's something different and it gives the viewer something else to think or talk about. Remember Angle doesn't do if for too long so it's not as if it's a great big stop in action.

[Guest Ray]

Except it wasn't boring and Angle's stalling had lots of purpose to it.....

People like to see action. Stalling could have all the meaning in the world. It's still standing and/or walking-running around.

It works here. Essentially it gives Angle heel heat, it's something different and it gives the viewer something else to think or talk about. Remember Angle doesn't do if for too long so it's not as if it's a great big stop in action.

Exactly. I also thought Angle had some great facials before and during the stalling. He has this great "oh crap, I can't believe this guy is beating me" look on his face.

[Guest Anglesault]

When you watch a film with a meaningful scene with no dialogue, do you say "fuck this meaningful shit! blow up a car or something!" ?

If I'm watching XXX or some other Vin Diesel type movie sold on the action, absolutely.

 

When you have a match sold on the instensity of two men trying to get eachother to submit, there's got to be a better way to get your point across than the classic "do nothing"

[chaosrage 0]

Wait, where are the ratings? I demand snowflakes.

[Guest Ray]

When you have a match sold on the instensity of two men trying to get eachother to submit, there's got to be a better way to get your point across than the classic "do nothing"

You're really missing the point of Angle's stalling here. Angle's having his ass handed to him by Benoit. Angle, playing a cocky overconfident character, bails when Benoit, who is a lowly pro wrestler in Angle's eyes, constantly gets the upper hand. He's in disbelief. He doesn't know what to do. He bails. He tries to get away. It fits his character...it fits the story they're telling. What's the problem?

 

Wait, where are the ratings? I demand snowflakes.

There's no snow in June.

[Guest wildpegasus]

When you watch a film with a meaningful scene with no dialogue, do you say "fuck this meaningful shit! blow up a car or something!" ?

If I'm watching XXX or some other Vin Diesel type movie sold on the action, absolutely.

 

When you have a match sold on the instensity of two men trying to get eachother to submit, there's got to be a better way to get your point across than the classic "do nothing"

I have never watched a Vin Diesil movie before but as far as action movies go there is never pure action throughout because it wouldn't sell. If it goes the whole distance without a breakage in action the action itself becomes "completely meaningless". How many fights or action scenes have you seen in a movie that go over 15 minutes? Not too many. I don't know if Vin Diesil movies have "meaningful scenes" in them or not but they would have to use breaks in the action to keep the movie going. In other words stalling scenes or meaningful scenes in the sense that they keep the action from becoming boring. Even if you hate the slow scenes they're the scenes that let you appreciate the action parts. It's the same thing in wrestling.

[KingPK 0]

Wait, where are the ratings? I demand snowflakes

 

How about actually reading what Loss wrote? You can get a pretty good idea wether or not he liked the match or not.

 

Really great job here, Loss. I believe that the formation of the Two Man Power Trip the night after Mania was, in hindsight, one of the worst things that has happened in Stone Cold's career. I didn't get why HHH joined him then, and I still don't now. I distinctly remember the fans going bonkers when HHH came out, thinking he was coming to save Rock, but they had to do the "OMG SWERVE~!" and put them together. It never worked because the fans were asking themselves "Weren't these guys at each other's throats no more than two months ago?"

 

Of course, then HHH got injured, and everything just went to hell, and the character just wasn't the same.

 

Looking forward to part two.

Edited June 23, 2004 by Kingpk

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Loss is taking the Coey(1) system of giving star ratings to matches worth giving star ratings to. Anything that doesn't get one you can assume is under ***(2).

 

(1) I don't actually know if Coey started that (3)

(2) I don't actually know if this is the case (3)

(3) But I'm pretty sure I'm right.

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

Five-star matches are no longer all-time classics. They’re now simply the best matches in any promotion in any given year. There’s not often an explanation to accompany the snowflakes, with the mindset being that the snowflakes act as an explanation for themselves. It’s a way of thinking that has been ingrained into “the IWC” (God, I hate that term!) by Scott Keith, and it’s something that has turned poor into passable, and fair into fantastic.

 

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

 

I hope this sinks in for some of you who are reading this.

 

Carry on...

[Guest wildpegasus]

Wait, where are the ratings? I demand snowflakes

 

Really great job here, Loss. I believe that the formation of the Two Man Power Trip the night after Mania was, in hindsight, one of the worst things that has happened in Stone Cold's career. I didn't get why HHH joined him then, and I still don't now.

Politics.

[Guest Anglesault]

When you have a match sold on the instensity of two men trying to get eachother to submit, there's got to be a better way to get your point across than the classic "do nothing"

You're really missing the point of Angle's stalling here. Angle's having his ass handed to him by Benoit. Angle, playing a cocky overconfident character, bails when Benoit, who is a lowly pro wrestler in Angle's eyes, constantly gets the upper hand. He's in disbelief. He doesn't know what to do. He bails. He tries to get away. It fits his character...it fits the story they're telling. What's the problem?

I understand what he's trying to do.

 

I'm just not a huge fan of the different variations of "run around the ring in circles" spot, and I think it's a great big waste of everyone's time to do it on a PPV to establish something that had already been established at the last pay per view and multiple TV shows in between.

 

I thought the pointless brawling at Mania was supposed to symbolize Angle's realization that Benoit can wrestle him?

[griffinmills 0]

I have never watched a Vin Diesil movie before but as far as action movies go there is never pure action throughout because it wouldn't sell.

I would reccomend Pitch Black as an example of a good Vin Diesel action movie with some thought but that is more of a Horror/Independent film than an action film I guess.

 

As for Loss's article.

I think the article is an accomplishment. Sometimes I feel like I am being talked down to while reading it. The thought that matches were overlooked by "everybody" or small asides like the one about Street Fight matches just rub me the wrong way. I do admire the work and effort put into the writing though.

Dare I say **** to ****1/2

Just kidding, just kidding don't hit me! Great job!

[godthedog 0]

about halfway through it, and i'll just start typing comments out as they come to me.

 

As a stunt show, both this match and its predecessor are both tremendous with several cringe moments. As a match, there just isn’t much here. It’s easy to watch and enjoy, especially live. You know the insane asylum bumping and death-defying spots are only a few seconds away from each other, but as soon as the moves happen, they’re forgotten, only for you to be left to question what you just watched. A stunt show can be fun; this match is proof of that. However, can a total stunt show result in a good match? If the answer is yes, we haven’t seen the match that showed that to be true yet.

--cute little similarity between your writing and mine. i like the way you think.

 

--i like the consistency in talking about austin's strengths (i.e., his energy and timing), which not only help unify the article, but strengthen your point about him by bringing up example after example, and in a nice literary way, defines him very clearly in very concrete ways. it seriously has the feel of building a character in a novel, and someone who's never seen austin work would still have a definite sense of what he's like. try to do this as concretely as possible with everybody. find those revealing details about each wrestler that make them memorable, rather than relying on the standard IWC generalizations and cliches like "we see sparks of greatness from two wrestlers who are known for being the standard bearers of excellence." that doesn't really give us something as definite to grasp on to, it doesn't make the writing come alive, and you're clearly capable of making the writing come alive.

 

--in general, you're very successful in giving this article the "exhaustive sprawling epic" vibe, but some of the match choices aren't really necessary & slow the article down. i don't think the rock/austin rematch on raw the night after wrestlemania is worth talking about in this context; you state your case very well for being telling of the historical forces that are in place, but you say at the beginning that your focus is on the matches and the IWC's standard of rating matches. this privileges matches that are worth discussing in themselves and not because of something else. in this context, don't use a match as an excuse to rehash the history. in general, choosing to partly focus on matches that just "look good on paper" and are as forgettable as this one add unwanted fat to an already-lengthy piece, & i had to make an effort to avoid just skimming it and moving on the next match.

 

--excellent point-by-point analysis of the nonpsychology in the angle/benoit submission match & why it made no sense.

 

It’s sure to be taxing to create any emotion or pulse out of a ridiculously amplified gimmick match named after three inanimate objects, but the presence of Benoit and Jericho makes all the difference in the world between this and the other matches.

--a bit of purple prose going on here, but i like that sentence a lot.

 

Like other matches from around the time, they build successfully to nearfalls that pop the crowd, but unlike other matches at this point, they are able to generate believable nearfalls without kicking out of trademark finishers or performing ridiculous stunts.

--you do a great job of justifying your judgments with examples like this, but examples like this are generalities in themselves and sometimes need to be justified. what were the believable nearfalls? pick specific moments to grasp on to in the matches that illuminate your point. it strengthens your argument, and it makes the review more fun to read, because half the fun of reading a match review is recreating the match in my head.

 

--with benoit's two weeks of hell (from judgment day to the smackdown match with austin), you kind of mention in passing effects from matches that happened 2 or 3 days ago, but i think it deserved to be mentioned that benoit was doing all this in the span of two weeks. this is something extraordinary, especially within the scope of your article, because you're normally discussing matches that happened 2 or 3 weeks apart and rarely concerned the exact same person. you're covering six months in the history of an entire company, and a fifth of the article is devoted to the matches one man has in eleven days. that's pretty damn remarkable, & dwelling on that a little would've been a nice touch to unify the article.

 

--again touching on austin, you very subtlely track the evolution of his character to good effect. going from

Austin as the ask-no-quarter, give-no-quarter redneck, beer-swilling son of a bitch (who the fans have the nerve to cheer not in spite of his disposition, but because of his disposition)

to

Austin is what Crazy Old Man Flair would be without the Old Man part and a little forethought.

you're focusing on the matches themselves all the while, but as a reader i'm getting something good to grasp on to that helps me take in the article as a whole, and not just a series of match analyses.

 

This is the point where the match falls apart. Shane should have attempted another pinfall after dropping the elbow, but instead, gave up on the issue entirely. The rest of the match works as a contest to see which of the two can do the most inhumane things to the other. The spots at the entrance are totally unnecessary and excessive, and the match falls apart as a result.

--watch out for that.

 

---------------------------------------------

overall, i thoroughly enjoyed the hell out of this piece and stayed up til 2:30 in the morning just so i could finish reading it. once you get down to the meat of your project, it's a fascinating and quite engaging read. i do agree with rudo, in that you take too long to get to that meat. the longer you spend on airy generalizations like "I’ve seen some of my favorites held back by the inner political workings of the business, all to instead push someone else who’s a proven failure," the less professional you sound. although i wouldn't say the introduction is bad, it's certainly the weakest part of the piece. focus on the arguments, don't focus on the rhetoric. outline your project, state why you think it's worthwhile, state your goals, etc., then get right into it.

 

that's the only major flaw i see in the piece. aside from the tweaking issues i already mentioned (strengthening examples, unifying the piece, etc.), you've got it down. you've clearly got an excellent analytical mind for the kind of analysis this project demands, you know how to argue, you've got a grasp on the prose that lets you state your case convincingly and compellingly. the writing never comes close to being sterile or dry, which is quite a feat, given the detail you sometimes go into. i eagerly await the next piece.

[Guest wildpegasus]

Loss, I disagree with some things and agree with other things but I guess that's to be expected. It must have taken a while to do all that so I appreciate the effort.

 

 

 

About the Benoit Austin match. First off if anyone knows about a satellite version existing of this please tell me. I need the full version. You said Benoit used the sharphooter for the first time in the company. I don't understand why you'd say that because even in 2 of the matches you reviewed Benoit uses it. He used it rarely from time to time in the WWE especially in the beginning of 2000. Right up to the submission match on Raw against the Rock where he kind of dropped it. In the Rock match he hits a leg drag followed by a sharpshooter. After that match the Rock would start using that exact same transistion into the sharpshooter as one of his key big moves.