Jericholic82 0 Report post Posted August 31, 2005 19 was fine for wrestling, but had some terrible booking. Book/Trips was good, Jeircho/Shawn was better. Rock/Austin was one of my favourite matches of the year, and just seemed way more important than most other WWE matches. Angle/Brock was pretty good, even if it was overrated. Hogan/Vince was fun. Undercard was rushed but solid. Only match I didn't really enjoy much was the 3 way tag. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree. While rewatching it on dvd earlie rin the year I notcied that none of the matches to me anyway, outright sucked, so it didn't get too boring or bad. HHH-Booker was slow at poitns but had a decent closing sequence IMO, but the pedigree, wait for 3 hours, then pin 3 count seemed lame. and this is without saying the booking was all wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cabbageboy 0 Report post Posted August 31, 2005 Well perhaps not much sucked (aside from UT vs. Albert/Show, which was hideous) but so many guys were wasted. Matt/Rey should have been much longer (geez guys, elminate the fucking Limp Bizkit songs...it was 2003 after all), all the guys in the 3 way tag were wasted, etc. To me shows like WM 7 and 8 are easily better than 19 because the booking wasn't retarded (yes the Slaughter heel turn was a mistake but the match itself wasn't bad). Sure there are nothing matches on both shows, but that sort of stuff never bothered me provided the good matches delivered. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Toshiaki Koala 0 Report post Posted August 31, 2005 Yeah, Goldberg vs. Steiner was better than Rey vs. Eddie, Joe vs. Aries and Scotty vs. Malenko. Suuuuuuuuuuure it was. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Mandarin 0 Report post Posted September 3, 2005 How is that shit match from Survivor Series '03 where Michaels made the rest of his team look like crap 1/4* less than BRET-AUSTIN SS96 and better than dozens of other actually great (or good) matches? Meltzer is stupid at times. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stahl 0 Report post Posted September 3, 2005 It's funny how people trash Meltzer for his ratings when everyone knows that any one of us would be trashed just the same if we ran a newsletter and offered our opinions/star ratings on matches. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hunter's Torn Quad 0 Report post Posted September 3, 2005 Yeah, Goldberg vs. Steiner was better than Rey vs. Eddie, Joe vs. Aries and Scotty vs. Malenko. Suuuuuuuuuuure it was. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> To be fair, you are talking about four different matches wrestled in four totally different styles. You can't judge a brawl by the same criteria you would use to judge a technical wrestling match because you're looking at two different types of match. A **** brawl would be lucky to get * if you were rating it on wrestling ability and technique. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Toshiaki Koala 0 Report post Posted September 3, 2005 But... Goldberg and Steiner! In the year 2000! How... how can it be good?!? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cabbageboy 0 Report post Posted September 4, 2005 He does overrate the Steiner/GB match no doubt but it was quite the impressive brawl for WCW at the time. I stress AT THE TIME. I watched that show again not too long ago and while it's still a relatively fun match, it isn't a classic by any means. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
UseTheSledgehammerUh 0 Report post Posted September 8, 2005 Dean/Scotty is criminally overrated. *** at best. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cabbageboy 0 Report post Posted September 8, 2005 Malenko/Scotty is a bad ass match. The only problem I had with it was Scotty doing the Worm on the leg after Deano had worked it the whole match. Certainly the best match of Scotty's career, at least singles. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
