The early 2004 "classics"

[Lord of The Curry 0]

Their SummerSlam encounter beats the Mania encounter for sheer brilliance on the part of Angle. While at WrestleMania the story was "Eddy Guerrero outsmarted Kurt Angle" the story at SummerSlam was "Kurt Angle is the smarter wrestler."

[Guest Tjhe CyNick]

I was at Mania, so I can say being there for Benoit's title win was pretty special, but in 5 years I dont think it will be remembered. The main reason is that Benoit has already been taken out of the main event picture, and I dont think he'll be getting the title for any length of time. Was it a great match? Hell yeah, but I dont think it will be remembered anymore than anything else this year.

 

Same with Orton-Foley, and thats more because not enough people seen that one for it to stand the test of time.

 

For me the best match this year after watching them several times was Brock-Eddie because it had the most emotion involved. Watching Benoit winning the title was special becaue he's been around for so long, but seeing Eddie win the belt was something I never thought would happen, and given what he's went through in life and it being the Cow Palace, it was just amazing.

 

But there have been tons of great matches this year in WWE. Even though some of the booking has been questionable, this has been one of the best years wrestling wise in a long time.

[CBright7831 0]

Another good 'un I got to add. Rey vs Noble on Velocity. Really good match. Not as good as Noble/London, but still fun. TILT-A-WHIRL ARMBAR!

Might as well add in the 2nd Knoble/London Velocity match, too. Not as good as the 1st, but after re-watching it, I ended up liking it a bit more than I did after it originally aired.

 

The 2 Velocity Knoble/London matches are really good (as well as the Rey/Knoble match from Velocity). It's a shame not many people saw them.

 

What?!? Have you even SEEN the match (Knoble/London) in question? It went, if I recall, 12-15 minutes. That's more than enough time. And in that time, they did more than most guys do in 30.

It went 10:17. Their 2nd encounter went 7:05, and Rey/Knoble went 11:15.

I saw one of them while I was on vacation in Florida.

 

I don't know ifit was their first or second encounter, but I remember Noble winning the match and London was wearing white.

 

If that helps, of course.

[Guest LooneyTune]

-I'd say it was the best Rumble. What's better? 92?

 

 

92 was better. 91 was better. And it ties with 2001 and 1995.

Are you shitting me?! The 1991 Rumble Match was pretty boring, and had way too many people in the ring at once, taking away any kind of mini-matches or anything fun besides lots and lots of hugging. Plus no one actually cleaned house by ridding the ring of 10 people in 60 seconds.

 

1995!? Thats the absolute worst ever...besides 1999 (nothing can be worse than 1999). With such main event talent like Kwang, Doink, Well Dunn, Adam Bomb, Aldo Montoya, Eli & Jacob Blu, Duke Droese, The HEavenly Bodies...and pretty much everyone else but Lex Luger, Shawn Michaels, and Davey Boy Smith, how can it not be great? Add in the face that 60 second intervals take away any chance of actual storylines advancing or building other than HBK/Bulldog going from 1 & 2 to the end (which is ruined because the match barely went 40 minutes, while in 1991 Valentine & Martel both lasted longer than that and didn't even win)

[Just call me Dan 0]

Here's what pisses me off about Brock/Eddie. Eddie does extensive work on the LEFT knee, yet puts the figure four on the WRONG FUCKING LEG like SO many performers do.

 

If you work the left, pressure should be on the left knee, so the right ankle area would be over the left knee putting the pressure on. Instead, every worker applies the hold startinhg with the left leg, therefore putting the pressure on the RIGHT knee and working the wrong leg.

 

HUGE pet peeve, and those of you who have applied and/or been in the figure four should be able to pick up on that.

[Guest Rrrsh]

I think the SS match is 2nd purely because the wrong man won in the absolute wrong fashion. The 2/3 Falls match was anything but forgettable, by the way.

[Guest Rrrsh]

-I'd say it was the best Rumble. What's better? 92?

 

 

92 was better. 91 was better. And it ties with 2001 and 1995.

Are you shitting me?! The 1991 Rumble Match was pretty boring, and had way too many people in the ring at once, taking away any kind of mini-matches or anything fun besides lots and lots of hugging. Plus no one actually cleaned house by ridding the ring of 10 people in 60 seconds.

 

1995!? Thats the absolute worst ever...besides 1999 (nothing can be worse than 1999). With such main event talent like Kwang, Doink, Well Dunn, Adam Bomb, Aldo Montoya, Eli & Jacob Blu, Duke Droese, The HEavenly Bodies...and pretty much everyone else but Lex Luger, Shawn Michaels, and Davey Boy Smith, how can it not be great? Add in the face that 60 second intervals take away any chance of actual storylines advancing or building other than HBK/Bulldog going from 1 & 2 to the end (which is ruined because the match barely went 40 minutes, while in 1991 Valentine & Martel both lasted longer than that and didn't even win)

I miss-typed. I meant to say 90.

 

As for 95, the only reaosn its not higher is beacuse it was way too short. But the in-rumble story was FREAKIN AWESOME.

 

#1, Nobody had a fricken clue who was gonna win as a mark. Luger, maybe, but he already had his shot and didn't do much after Summerslam. Shawn Micheals had a good shot, but had not wrestled regularly, so kind of out of sight out of mind. Plus he was #1. Ditto with Bulldog, had a good shot, but was #2. The other two guys that had real good shots were Owen Hart and Bob Backlund. Neither men where obvious favorites, but had good shots. Also, King Kong Bundy and Mable were massive guys AND werent jobbers, so the marks always thought they could win. The key to Rumles is eitehr have a bunch of already proven draws in there or have NO clear draws in their. Thier needs to be SERIOUS doubt in the fans eyes on who will win. 98, 99 and 2000 WERE JUST BRUTAL in that sense, because it was Austin/Rock, Austin and Rock/Big Show. No drama.

 

#2, The story telling in the rumble was gold. The whole "first two guys lasting to the end" was thr best told story from bell to bell in Rumble history. And, just magnificant who Owen and Backlund got screwed by Bret after they screwed him earlier. There were lots of jobbers, sure. But alot of them were dumped early. There were NO THREATS thet were treated badly, and that is also a major flaw that is in most rumbles ( 02 RVD, 04 Cena)

 

#3, Screw 94, it has the most famous ending ever.

[Guest Brian]

I was at Mania, so I can say being there for Benoit's title win was pretty special, but in 5 years I dont think it will be remembered. The main reason is that Benoit has already been taken out of the main event picture, and I dont think he'll be getting the title for any length of time. Was it a great match? Hell yeah, but I dont think it will be remembered anymore than anything else this year.

I think it'll be remembered because I think Smarks will naturally end up recoding a good chunk of history, maybe an alternate history to what the WWE puts out, but history nonetheless. I think that because it took part on a monumental show, I think it will hold some significance. But as I see it, Chris Benoit's role as being the premiere wrestler in the world for a good portion of time will help to immortalize this, whether it is in the annals of McMahon's or Meltzer's history.

[Guest Rrrsh]

HBK/Hall will always be remembered from WM X. No one will remember that HBK took 6 months off after that and became a manager for Nash. The after effect, for the main part, wont matter.

 

Benoit won, and lost it too thr next big star in Orton 5 months later. That will be remembered. And thats all.

[Australian Pride 0]

-2004 Royal Rumble

Probably the third best Rumble, behind 1992 and 2001. They under-emphasise Benoit and have him sorta just there for periods of the match, which isn't what I was expecting and dragged the crowd enthusiasm for him down a bit.

 

-Eddie Guerrero vs Brock Lesnar (No Way Out)

Loved this match, and rank it as my MOTY.

 

-Jamie Noble vs Paul London (Velocity)

Don't get Velocity down here, and haven't attempted to find it elsewhere so I won't comment.

 

-Kurt Angle vs Eddie Guerrero (WrestleMania)

This match didn't do it for me, but maybe my expectations were so high that there was no way it could live up to them.

 

-Triple H vs Chris Benoit vs Shawn Micheals (WrestleMania)

A great match, and a memorable one. The fact that Benoit gets the clean tap-out from HHH was THE ending of the year, but I wouldn't rank it in an all-time WM top 5, or even top 10.

 

-Eddie Guerrero vs Rey Misterio (Smackdown gauntlet final)

Don't remember much of this match, other than it was exciting. No classic though.

 

-Triple H vs Shelton Benjamin (Raw - the first upset)

Anytime time HHH gets beaten reasonably cleanly will be considered a big deal. Wouldn't put it in the classic category, but it was a great match that emphasised how Shelton will be a star of the future.

 

-Mick Foley vs Randy Orton (Backlash)

Great brawl, particularly when you consider that Foley had been pretty much inactive for 4 years prior to this.

 

-Triple H vs Chris Benoit vs Shawn Micheals (Backlash)

Technically a better match than the WM one, but it lacks the emotion and the historical significance.

 

-Chris Benoit vs Shawn Micheals (Raw: Showdown in the Desert)

Like Eddie/Kurt this one didn't click for me, and again it was likely because my expectations were sky high. Still a fine effort from both men, just not as gripping as I was expecting.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

I think the SS match is 2nd purely because the wrong man won in the absolute wrong fashion. The 2/3 Falls match was anything but forgettable, by the way.

SummerSlam was Angle's second match back from surgery and you expected Eddy to go over clean as a whistle?

 

"Wrong fashion"? I guess clean victories are a lost art these days. Angle won and in doing so, proved his point that Guerrero needed to cheat to win.

[Guest wildpegasus]

Here's what pisses me off about Brock/Eddie.  Eddie does extensive work on the LEFT knee, yet puts the figure four on the WRONG FUCKING LEG like SO many performers do.

 

If you work the left, pressure should be on the left knee, so the right ankle area would be over the left knee putting the pressure on.  Instead, every worker applies the hold startinhg with the left leg, therefore putting the pressure on the RIGHT knee and working the wrong leg. 

 

HUGE pet peeve, and those of you who have applied and/or been in the figure four should be able to pick up on that.

That's true that preformers put the figuref four on the wrong leg but in the pro wrestling laws of physics it's probably the correct leg to put it on. If it was put on the other way a lot of people would think it was put on incorrectly because we've seen it put on the wrong way 99% of the time.

 

 

A lot of the pain of the figure four comes from the bottom of the knee. THe ACL area. It's the same concept as a cross armbreaker. Hyperextending the joints. Flair's holding on to the top rope is actually a really smart move when you think about it as it adds pressure to the bottom part of the knee. You can really hurt someone if you put the figure four on a certain way. Most figure fours aren't true figure fours in that the calf area goes across too low on the leg so the submission hold doesn't really represent the number 4 anymore. If you put the leg up far enough and push up on the opponents straight leg while pushing down with your other leg you create a hyperextension of the knee of the opponent's straight leg.

 

Still, it's the straight leg that's technically hurting!

[Guest Rrrsh]

I think the SS match is 2nd purely because the wrong man won in the absolute wrong fashion. The 2/3 Falls match was anything but forgettable, by the way.

SummerSlam was Angle's second match back from surgery and you expected Eddy to go over clean as a whistle?

 

"Wrong fashion"? I guess clean victories are a lost art these days. Angle won and in doing so, proved his point that Guerrero needed to cheat to win.

Your damn right Eddie should have won. Realistically, a man dosn't come back from the injuries he had (Real or storyline wise) and beat the man who was champ 2 montsh ago. Eddie is just off a Title run, Angle should have lost. And if he wins, this is the time where Angle needs to cheat. The fued was obviously going to continue, it RETARDED to have the heel win clean. Specially vs the former champ after you have been hurt for that long.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

#1, Nobody had a fricken clue who was gonna win as a mark. Luger, maybe, but he already had his shot and didn't do much after Summerslam. Shawn Micheals had a good shot, but had not wrestled regularly, so kind of out of sight out of mind. Plus he was #1. Ditto with Bulldog, had a good shot, but was #2. The other two guys that had real good shots were Owen Hart and Bob Backlund. Neither men where obvious favorites, but had good shots. Also, King Kong Bundy and Mable were massive guys AND werent jobbers, so the marks always thought they could win. The key to Rumles is eitehr have a bunch of already proven draws in there or have NO clear draws in their. Thier needs to be SERIOUS doubt in the fans eyes on who will win. 98, 99 and 2000 WERE JUST BRUTAL in that sense, because it was Austin/Rock, Austin and Rock/Big Show. No drama.

 

There were two choices for the 1995 Rumble and the other (Owen Hart) lost his chance when Bret failed to take the title from Diesel earlier in the show. It was one of the most absurdly easy to predict Rumbles out there. Only 1998 was worse.

 

#2, The story telling in the rumble was gold. The whole "first two guys lasting to the end" was thr best told story from bell to bell in Rumble history. And, just magnificant who Owen and Backlund got screwed by Bret after they screwed him earlier. There were lots of jobbers, sure. But alot of them were dumped early. There were NO THREATS thet were treated badly, and that is also a major flaw that is in most rumbles ( 02 RVD, 04 Cena)

 

Aside from the first two minutes, Flair's performance in Royal Rumble 1992 is a much better story than Bulldog/Shawn. Everyone hated him, and yet he manages to slip under the radar when the bigger guns (Hogan/Taker, Savage/Roberts, etc.) start going after each other.

 

#3, Screw 94, it has the most famous ending ever.

 

Agreed on that one, but it doesn't make for the best Rumble.

[Papacita 0]

There were two choices for the 1995 Rumble and the other (Owen Hart) lost his chance when Bret failed to take the title from Diesel earlier in the show. It was one of the most absurdly easy to predict Rumbles out there. Only 1998 was worse

It wasn't that predictable. While you knew that the Michaels/Diesel match had to happen eventually, as a mark, it was really hard to imagine Shawn taking the Rumble. I mean, he was never really booked to look all that strong, plus at the time, I halfway expected Shawn to retire, because he barely wrestled in 94, and had been working for months as a commentator by the time the event rolled around. They did a really good job of downplaying Shawn going into the show, and that's what really makes the match.

 

Hell, I'd even go as far to say that this year's Rumble was more predictable than the 95 Rumble.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I thought it was painfully obvious at the time. Perhaps you guys were just too young.

[The Niggardly King 0]

I forget if this was in December or January, but the Smackdown where Benoit went against Cena, then faced Brock later on in the night. Those two matches were awesome...but I cannot remember if they took place in January.

 

If not then my match for the year is Eddie/Brock, followed by the Wrestlemania XX Triple Threat. Although the Triple Threat had a better build, I still pick Eddie/Brock over it.

[Downhome 0]

While there have been some fantastic moments this year, almost all of which involved Benoit and Eddie, I don't think there have really been any matches this year which will really be remembered by most.

 

I think, more than anything, simple "moments" will be remembered. Benoit winning the Rumble, Eddie winning the title (and even winning the SD Rumble), Benoit winning the title at WM, then Benoit and Eddie hugging at WM. Then certain moments in the Orton/Foley match will be remembered.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

I think, more than anything, simple "moments" will be remembered. Benoit winning the Rumble, Eddie winning the title (and even winning the SD Rumble), Benoit winning the title at WM, then Benoit and Eddie hugging at WM. Then certain moments in the Orton/Foley match will be remembered.

What I'll always remember is that guy in the front row crying as Benoit and Eddie hug in the middle of the ring.

[Guest LooneyTune]

I forget if this was in December or January, but the Smackdown where Benoit went against Cena, then faced Brock later on in the night. Those two matches were awesome...but I cannot remember if they took place in January.

Aired December 4th, 2003....still great match, as 2003 (and even 2002) had a pretty thin amount of great matches in WWE.

[Guest The Shadow Behind You]

The best match might have not happened yet, remember the best Raw Brand match didn't occur until the final show of 2003.

[Just call me Dan 0]

Also remember: 2003 featured this many matches ranking from ***+ total all year, and READ THE THREAD TITLE.

 

Does anyone knoe if Brock/Benoit from SD is available anywhere? I've only seen it once and REALLY want to see it again.

[Guest The Shadow Behind You]

it was easily downloadable for me.

[Guest M. Harry Smilac]

The WM 3 way is a classic and that is thanks in part not to only the match itself but the 100% pro Benoit crowd.

 

It was also nice to see HBK smartly heeling up for a change instead of his usual dry face crap after he hit the German on Benoit to a chorus of boos.

 

 

In the same light Eddie/Angle was hurt by the shitty booking leading in to it that split the crowd half eddie and half angle.They didn't seem to give a shit about anything but the finish which is what ppl only seem to remember.

 

The shitty booking consisted of Angle cutting cheap usa heat face promos when he was supposed to be a heel.So much that by the time wm came I was seriously expecting him to come out wielding a 2x4 during his entrance.

[Guest krazykat72]

There were two choices for the 1995 Rumble and the other (Owen Hart) lost his chance when Bret failed to take the title from Diesel earlier in the show. It was one of the most absurdly easy to predict Rumbles out there. Only 1998 was worse.

I disagree here.

 

Rock in 2000 was really easy to pick.

Shawn in '96 was an even easier choice

Brock in 2003 was incredibly obvious too.

 

They're all on par with 95 and 98.

 

-Paul Jacobi-

[MillenniumMan831 0]

^^^ Hogan in 1991 was a no brainer as well.

[Promoter 0]

I can't believe no one has suggested Bradshaw vs. the champion of Mexico match

 

I'm going to agree with those that say Brock/Eddie is the match of the year. The reason I pick it is that it was really an upset and less predictable than the triple threat(which wasn't that predictable either). Eddie winning the belt was the stronger moment imo because it happened first. Look how the smackdown celebration happened. I think if that match happened at WM XX more people would have picked it as the superior match(Lesnar would have had WAY more heel heat with New York, but it would be more predictable).

 

Speaking of predictable. I'm going to say that the 1995 Rumble was not THAT predictable(I wasn't that young), but it was predictable because the break up story of Diesel and HBK set it up. Once Diesel retained his title against Shawn it was highly likely HBK would win even at #1. Here in Toronto there were rumours that HBK was the new Ric Flair and the changing of the time of entry also gave it away imo to break Flair's #3 ebtry record. Then again I was somewhat in between smarkism and markism at the time, so it wasn't that 100% clear and obvious to me.

 

1996 however was disgustingly obvious. 1997 had the least predictability to it and I didn't see it brought up. I think everyone predicted Bret winning. 1998 was another obvious one, but it was those predictable matches where fans wanted Austin to win and anything else might have been disappointing. The Tyson stuff was also entertaining to set up the following night. 1999 gets the worst award obviously, but I give them credit for trying to be unpredictable with Vince winning. It was painfully obvious Austin had to head to Mania as the contender and having Vince as a roadblock with their rivalry probably looked good on paper. Rock winning was also obvious in 2000. 2001 is a classic imo. 2002 had a lot of potential with all the rumours from Hall, Hogan, and Nash maybe doing a hostile takeover at the event. 2003 was dull because of the obvious choice. This year's event was really good, but at times didn't seem like a Rumble because at no time was there that much people in the match.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Who else could have won in 1995? Backlund & Owen maybe, but they lasted a combined 30 seconds. Lex Luger was on job duty by that point. He didn't even get the win at Survivor Series where Team USA always wins. Crush had returned just for that match. Bundy? Feuding with Taker. Bulldog hadn't done much since returning at Summerslam. Although I will admit one of the few times I have ever been legitimately shocked in professional wrestling was in that match, when I thought Bulldog had it won. I was like, what the hell, did Shawn screwup and hit the ground? That wasn't supposed to happen. Regardless it was brutally obvious that year. There was literally nobody else that could win it once Diesel retained. At least 1996 had Diesel and the wildcard Vader. It was pretty bad too, but not as bad as 1995. Aside from the predictability of it, it was also ruined by too many jobbers (Well Dunn? Mantaur?) and by the rediculous decision to only give 60 seconds between intervals.

 

1998 was the crowning of Austin. Like 1995, they had to do it, but it didn't exactly make it exciting. 1991 had no title shot up for grabs, so an upset was somewhat possible. Once Warrior lost it was written in stone, but it was less predictable leading up to the show.

 

The others....

 

1988 - Really could have been anyone. Nobody knew what the thing was even like back then, plus it was only 20 entrants. A face was likely though.

 

1989 - Studd, Dibiase, Savage, Hogan, Bossman, Akeem, Andre & Roberts were all being pushed heavily. Just imagine if Warrior & Rude were in this too.

 

1990 - Warrior, Hogan, Savage, Dibiase, Roberts, Rude (prepping for big heel push), and Perfect all could have won it. Hell, maybe even Rhodes. He was still being pushed at the time.

 

1992 - Flair, Savage, Hogan, Roberts, Piper, Sid & Undertaker were all legitimate threats and five of them were there right at the end.

 

1993 - Taker, Perfect, Lawler (in his first WWF Match), Savage & Yoko were the picks here. No Flair because word was already out on him that he would be out of the company the next night. Perfect was probably the favourite going in.

 

1994 - Bret or Luger. It was a choice of two, but pretty much 50/50 between them. So, of course, they had them both win.

 

1997 - Bret or Taker. I don't think anyone gave Austin much of chance which is what made this win so great.

 

1999 - Vince, Austin or HHH. What really hurt this Rumble is that the first half was filled with gaps in action and a bunch of jobbers. It improves once Billy Gunn comes out. They also picked the wrong guy to win.

 

2000 - Very predictable, but the match itself is excellent. Probably my #4 Rumble after 90, 92 & 04.

 

2001 - Rock or Austin. Like 1994, this was down to two guys. I think they went with the wrong choice here (a Rock win should have set up an Austin heel turn well in advance of Wrestlemania). Too much comedy makes it worse than 2000 and the wrong ending hurts it, but it still comes in at #5.

 

2002 - The crowning of HHH. For marks, Austin, Taker & Angle probably had a shot, but really this is all about Trip. Almost as predictable as 1995 or 1998, elevated a tad because of better competition.

 

2003 - Brock was the favourite, but it wasn't as close as one might think because of the splits. I remember these boards at the time and many many people picked RAW wrestlers Jericho, HBK or even RVD to win, and then Brock win his shot later.

 

2004 - Benoit, Goldberg (who would then jump to Smackdown and job to Brock at Mania), Orton (Vince's pick, before HHH talked him out of it, according to Meltz) and Angle were legitimate threats. This is also the first Rumble since 1997 that I got wrong. I thought Angle would win and go on to face Eddy in the Main Event at Wrestlemania with Brock/Goldberg being non-title.

[Guest LooneyTune]

The only years I knew 100% who would win were 1996 (even as a super-mark), 1998 (no one could've won but Austin), 2002 (HHH all the way), and 2003 (Super-Brock Push).

 

2004 I was 99% sure Benoit would win, but I had a little doubt up until the final 4 when I knew he'd win.

 

2001 I honestly thought Kane would win, just because they were making him into an unstoppable monster again. My original pick going into the match though was the Rock.

 

1999 the SWERVE that everyone loaths. I originally picked Austin.

 

1997 Austin was still an after-thought and originally picked Hart because it seemed like the most logical choice.

 

1995...sucked. Luger was my pick mainly because no one else but Backlund kissed main events recently and no way he was going to headline WRESTLEMANIA.

 

1994 I picked Bret Hart because he was cool...seriously, thats why I picked him.

 

After that, I just went with Hulk Hogan winning (except in 93, I picked Undertaker).

[Guest Rrrsh]

#1, Nobody had a fricken clue who was gonna win as a mark. Luger, maybe, but he already had his shot and didn't do much after Summerslam. Shawn Micheals had a good shot, but had not wrestled regularly, so kind of out of sight out of mind. Plus he was #1. Ditto with Bulldog, had a good shot, but was #2. The other two guys that had real good shots were Owen Hart and Bob Backlund. Neither men where obvious favorites, but had good shots. Also, King Kong Bundy and Mable were massive guys AND werent jobbers, so the marks always thought they could win. The key to Rumles is eitehr have a bunch of already proven draws in there or have NO clear draws in their. Thier needs to be SERIOUS doubt in the fans eyes on who will win. 98, 99 and 2000 WERE JUST BRUTAL in that sense, because it was Austin/Rock, Austin and Rock/Big Show. No drama.

 

There were two choices for the 1995 Rumble and the other (Owen Hart) lost his chance when Bret failed to take the title from Diesel earlier in the show. It was one of the most absurdly easy to predict Rumbles out there. Only 1998 was worse.

 

#2, The story telling in the rumble was gold. The whole "first two guys lasting to the end" was thr best told story from bell to bell in Rumble history. And, just magnificant who Owen and Backlund got screwed by Bret after they screwed him earlier. There were lots of jobbers, sure. But alot of them were dumped early. There were NO THREATS thet were treated badly, and that is also a major flaw that is in most rumbles ( 02 RVD, 04 Cena)

 

Aside from the first two minutes, Flair's performance in Royal Rumble 1992 is a much better story than Bulldog/Shawn. Everyone hated him, and yet he manages to slip under the radar when the bigger guns (Hogan/Taker, Savage/Roberts, etc.) start going after each other.

 

#3, Screw 94, it has the most famous ending ever.

 

Agreed on that one, but it doesn't make for the best Rumble.

A: As a Mark, there is no way. HBK had done NOTHING in the past year as a wrestler. Yah, he had a beef with Deisel, but when a guy is inactive for such a long period, that really hurts his chances. And he was #1.

 

B: Flairs lack of selling that he was tired and since he unrealistcally was giving offence made the story less beilevable.