WWF January-June 2001

[Guest Ray]

I'm just not a huge fan of the different variations of "run around the ring in circles" spot

The spot was done very well and had meaning behind it so I don't see it as a problem.

 

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

Well it wasn't pointless so I don't know why you chose to use that word.

 

Perhaps Angle thought of Benoit's work in the Wrestlemania match as a fluke. Angle's character won't allow him to admit that Benoit got the better of him in the Wrestlemania match. "He got me before, but there's no way he'll do it again!" But he does. So Angle bails. Works for me.

[iggymcfly 0]

It was a very well-written article, but I can't really get into the fine points, because I'm too tired, and you've already kept me up until 3:40 reading this. I will say that while the two-man power trip didn't really make sense, the fact that they kept tension between them throughout, and the explanation that HHH was being loyal to Vince made it work. It wasn't until they did the Invasion angle and decided to never do the Austin/Rock rematch at Summerslam, that the show started to "fall apart." But I guess that could be a whole nother column.

 

Anyway, good work on the article. A lot of was spot on, and it was a good trip down memory lane.

[Guest Loss]

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".

Re-reading, I'd say this is valid. I normally don't like doing intros like that and I'm not particularly good at doing them, but I felt some type of explanation was in order. "Get to the point" is probably what I would have said had I read that as an observer myself.

 

I guess that sometimes, when you read something you've written so many times, it's hard to keep looking at it in the right perspective, and I had some trouble finding enough pairs of eyes to look over it and give me a reader's point of view before posting it. I don't think that problem will surface again.

 

Oh, and to whoever asked, yes, I'll be doing other years and other promotions as well.

[Guest Loss]

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.

Rock had become a bigger star, but he still wasn't really the bigger star. He held the WWF World title for four months and had trouble holding off guys like Chris Benoit and Kurt Angle that Austin seemed to have a much easier time disposing of in TV matches they'd had up until that point. Rock had only become a focal point (he was a more established Chris Benoit in 2004, playing second fiddle to HHH while holding the belt) in the previous couple of months or so. He had momentum on his side, but Austin had beaten him before and had made better showings against the same opponents.

 

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.

 

I'll explain this below, because it ties in with something else you quoted.

 

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.

 

I saw his eyes, and yes, it was a rather brilliant bit of characterization, but what I saw was an Austin mired in self-doubt who had no reason to be self-doubting. I actually thought that was the whole purpose of his heel turn -- everyone asked why because no one could understand his motives. In terms of his aggression, yes, it was there, but it wasn't the same kind of "there" it had been in the past. Austin was never exactly the most noble person anyway, but this was a case where he was thinking in terms of strategy and long-term effects, whereas most of the time, Austin was full speed ahead without giving a damn about the consequences.

 

Saying Austin wasn't aggressive was perhaps not the right choice of words. Austin was a totally different type of aggressive.

 

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.'

 

Why does he need the WWF title if he has nothing to prove? Why did he invest so much in making a comeback if he had nothing to prove? Again, it goes back to the self doubt.

 

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.

 

Vince's presence was not necessary, and it wasn't even effective in turning the crowd against him. The multiple chairshot finish I thought was great, but perhaps Vince's presence should have been saved for a bigger post-match angle.

 

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

 

Because typically, in most matches I've seen in 2001 anyway, the wrestlers are often on their way to accomplishing something when a McMahon shows up and switches the focus. The offense wasn't quite as bad here as it would be in matches like Rock v Jericho, but it still cheapened the ending.

[Guest Loss]

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 will be watching some RINGS at some point soon. Perhaps we'll see if it causes me to like this match more than I do.

 

The problem with hitting a submission out of nowhere isn't the fact that the body part isn't softened up, but rather the fact that it's too hard to tell what the wrestlers are thinking. "Grab a hold, any hold" seemed to be the mindset of too much of this match instead of "You know, I bet if I build all of my submissions around the knee, he'll probably tap to anything", and that was my complaint.

[Guest Loss]

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.

I agree with this point. It's the difference between this match and say, Angle/Lesnar from Smackdown last year. The stalling in that match wasn't going anywhere or leading to some cunning ploy from Lesnar, whereas the stalling in this match was more of a way for Angle to get Benoit exactly where he wanted him, and even create a little distance between the two for a short time.

[Guest Loss]

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.

I agree with this. The problem was that in most of the other matches, the crowd reaction isn't strong enough to call the work even effective. Also, the fatal four-way at No Way Out is another match where the reaction when Benoit and Eddy get into a brawl is strong because it was teased so well. They set the sequence up, they delivered, and the audience responded accordingly. I gave them credit for it.

 

There were more matches in the second half of 2001 with stronger crowd reaction that played into the story being told, as I'll elaborate on soon. The best examples of this were Austin/Angle at Summerslam 2001 and Rock/Jericho at No Mercy. Smackdown matches are a bit harder to be fair toward on this type of thing, though, simply because so much of the heat is piped.

[Guest Loss]

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.

That's pretty accurate. Matches under *** all seem to blend together to me from a snowflakes standpoint, even if I can acknowledge some of the finer points in the actual review.

 

The "no ratings under ***" thing is actually beyond just Chris Coey. Meltzer does that for TV matches, and John McAdam's tape list, which is the first website I ever came across online, does the same thing.

[Guest Loss]

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!

Thank you, and yeah, I was worried about the article coming across that way at times, but the point I was trying to make is that some of these matches have gotten ***** from others and I can't even bring myself to give them ***. Typically, using words like "everyone" is just asking for trouble, and it's something I normally try to avoid.

 

It's been pointed out, and I agree, that the opening was the worst part of the article. In the future, there will be no opening, so perhaps it won't influence the tone of everything else.

[Guest Loss]

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.

I think every point here is valid, and I thank you for taking the time to go through it. I agree with you on what are the strong points and what are the weak points. Perhaps the reason it's easiest to explain Austin is because he had the most defined character and was better at conveying that character than anyone else. Benoit was better at some things, and Jericho, on the rare occasion that he decided to be 100%, was even slightly better, but Austin was better at taking his work somewhere over the long haul. There were few peaks and valleys with Austin -- most of his work was very level, which made it easier to appreciate, and is the reason why he was the best worker of 2001.

[Guest Loss]

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.

That should have been edited out. I watched Austin/Benoit before either of the other two matches, and at the time, to my knowledge, it was the first sharpshooter he had ever used. I needed to go back and edit this after watching the other matches, and it completely slipped by me. Mistake on my part.

[MARTYEWR 0]

Loss, it's great to see you writing again, as your analysis is some of the most well-thought stuff. Your point about Austin/HHH-Benoit/Jericho immediately made me remember how I forgot about Benoit not being the legal man at that point, amongst other things I had forgotten over time in the article.

 

Question: Any reason why you didn't review the Royal Rumble match itself? I know a few people at the time considered it a good->great Rumble, and I actually expected you to chime in on the subject.

[Guest Loss]

Loss, it's great to see you writing again, as your analysis is some of the most well-thought stuff. Your point about Austin/HHH-Benoit/Jericho immediately made me remember how I forgot about Benoit not being the legal man at that point, amongst other things I had forgotten over time in the article.

 

Question: Any reason why you didn't review the Royal Rumble match itself? I know a few people at the time considered it a good->great Rumble, and I actually expected you to chime in on the subject.

Thanks for the feedback.

 

I was leaning on the fence on the Royal Rumble. As I said in the intro, I do plan to come back to 2001 after watching more footage and comparing and contrasting my views now compared to what they'll be down the line after watching more footage on a global scale.

 

If I'm going to do the Rumble, I want to do it every year, so I'll ask now -- should I include the Rumble in these in the future or should I just ignore it?

[MARTYEWR 0]

If I'm going to do the Rumble, I want to do it every year, so I'll ask now -- should I include the Rumble in these in the future or should I just ignore it?

I think, more often than not, the Rumble match at each year, for better or for worse, has people at least talking and that's a good enough reason to include it. You have your Rumbles that most people remember as being great, such as '92 Flair, '00 Rock, and '04 Benoit, but even deeper analysis on a Rumble such as '99 McMahon would be interesting. Hope that last one doesn't give you too much of a headache however.

[godthedog 0]

If I'm going to do the Rumble, I want to do it every year, so I'll ask now -- should I include the Rumble in these in the future or should I just ignore it?

i think some rumbles deserve to be talked about within the parameters of your project, because they were so highly anticipated or they're so highly thought of or whatever, but i don't think all of them are relevant to the scope of what you're doing. the 2002 rumble doesn't have a huge reputation, everybody already knew what was going to happen, and is only important for historical reasons (namely the return of triple h). i don't think taking the time to review it would help you out any. the 2004 rumble, however, looked to be great on paper, had a lot of anticipation going into it, has become very highly thought of, and i think demands analysis. do a rumble because there's something special about it, not just because it's a rumble.

[Guest wildpegasus]

. Your point about Austin/HHH-Benoit/Jericho immediately made me remember how I forgot about Benoit not being the legal man at that point, amongst other things I had forgotten over time in the article.

Thoughts about the legal/illegal wrestler in the ring thing. Time and time again we see wrestlers pin the illegal man in the ring. It happens. If Austin goes and hits the stunner on Benoit and than goes for a pin who can blame him? If the referee is too stupid to not know that Benoit is an illegal man in the ring why should Austin stop covering his opponent especially when he's the heel? Get away with it and get out of the match with your titles around your waist especially in a match like this when you have two hungry wrestlers nipping at your heals.

 

On the other side of the coin the pin the illegal man thing can be viewed as a way to get a cheap pop in the ring but I don't think it's that bad a way of cheating to construct a match. If the reff's gonna count your pinfall go for it.

[chaosrage 0]

Vince's presence was not necessary, and it wasn't even effective in turning the crowd against him. The multiple chairshot finish I thought was great, but perhaps Vince's presence should have been saved for a bigger post-match angle.

Vince was important to show how desperate Austin was. From what I got of it, he spent a year out with injuries and he was older than he was in 98 and 99, so he wasn't sure he could beat the Rock again. The self doubt thing makes perfect sense, especially when you think about him retiring a couple of matches after his title reign because of the same injury. Plus since he was getting old and the neck injury was wearing him down, he MIGHT never get another shot like this. That's why he needed it more than "anything else in the world".

 

The turn made the match. For 40 minutes, you see his frustration build up, how nothing he could do could put Rock away, and he just couldn't beat him. Realizing that or not wanting to take the chance, he uses his backup plan, Vince. The chairshots by itself wouldn't be enough. Austin used chairs in a lot of matches. But siding with the evil boss, going against everything his old character stood for proved how obsessed he was with winning it.

 

Now they were in texas, so nothing they could do would turn the crowd against him. But to everyone else it was a heel. Aligning with Vince was about the only way he could have turned heel.

[Guest momoracci]

I will be watching some RINGS at some point soon.

Loss: Change the 'RINGS' part to 'Volk Han.' They had lots of bad undercard stuff during the first few years and you pretty much weren't going to get a good match unless it involved Han. That changed once Tamura, Kohsaka and Yamamoto started hitting their peaks, but even then, Han was still the glue that kept RINGS' main events at a high level.

 

Anyway, sorry to bring this off-topic a bit but I absolutely love Volk Han's work and enjoy pimping it to as many people as possible.

 

-Anthony, who still thinks Tamura/Kohsaka 6/27/98 is the best men's singles match ever.

[Guest Contentious C]

I really would have broken this thing down further. Wrestlemania may have seemed like a starting point, but it's really more of an end. Stopping there and making it into a 3- or 4-part piece would have helped, I think - maybe Wrestlemania/SummerSlam/year-end as a pattern, at least for WWF 'years'. Having lots of material that's worth reading is rare enough in and of itself, so it's hard to complain, but when it all deals with one topic, it's easy to get tired of reading over it without a break or a change-up of some kind.

[Guest Ray]

Rock had become a bigger star, but he still wasn't really the bigger star. He held the WWF World title for four months and had trouble holding off guys like Chris Benoit and Kurt Angle that Austin seemed to have a much easier time disposing of in TV matches they'd had up until that point. Rock had only become a focal point (he was a more established Chris Benoit in 2004, playing second fiddle to HHH while holding the belt) in the previous couple of months or so. He had momentum on his side, but Austin had beaten him before and had made better showings against the same opponents.

The opponent thing is a slight problem, but I think Austin's paranoia makes up for it. You don't necessarily need a real reason to be paranoid. The key thing is Austin thinks Rock is better. When someone's paranoid and full of doubt, they can turn a lot of things around in their head. People who beat or almost beat Rock, like Benoit and Angle...Austin beat Benoit...but maybe he thought Benoit was overconfident and lost due to that. Austin had Angle beat a few times, but HHH always came out so Austin thinks he'll doesn't really know if he could've beaten Angle all the way. A paranoid can find plenty of reasons.

 

I saw his eyes, and yes, it was a rather brilliant bit of characterization, but what I saw was an Austin mired in self-doubt who had no reason to be self-doubting. I actually thought that was the whole purpose of his heel turn -- everyone asked why because no one could understand his motives.

As was said, his heel turn came in part from him sitting at home for a year with his neck injury, seeing Rock become the most popular star in the world, perhaps resenting this and becoming paranoid due to it.

 

Why does he need the WWF title if he has nothing to prove? Why did he invest so much in making a comeback if he had nothing to prove? Again, it goes back to the self doubt.

If he was trying to prove something, then why would he cheat? Why would he use sneak attacks to gain the advantage? Why would he accept Vince's help? If you want to prove you're better than someone else, do you do it by cheating? It seems clear to me that he wanted the title no matter what he had to do to get it. The WWF title is the biggest prize in the business, and he wants it.

 

Vince's presence was not necessary, and it wasn't even effective in turning the crowd against him. The multiple chairshot finish I thought was great, but perhaps Vince's presence should have been saved for a bigger post-match angle.

His presence was necessary, to assist Austin's heel turn and to show us how far he's truly fallen.

 

Because typically, in most matches I've seen in 2001 anyway, the wrestlers are often on their way to accomplishing something when a McMahon shows up and switches the focus.

In most matches? Yes. Not all matches. Yet people still react that way even if the finish clearly fits the story, as it does with this match.

 

The offense wasn't quite as bad here as it would be in matches like Rock v Jericho, but it still cheapened the ending.

I don't see how it cheapened the ending in any way. I think it adds a great deal of richness and depth to the story. This is Steve Austin - the ultimate rebel, the ultimate bad ass, THE anti-authority guy - and he's accepting the help of...Vince McMahon? What could possibly be lower than that? It's designed to show Austin sacrificing his principles to get what he so desperately wanted. It's not bad, it's not cheap, it's GREAT.

[SuperJerk 0]

All I'm going to say is that I really enjoyed reading it (the writing style worked well for the topic), and am really looking forward to reading the next column.