Will one night stand stand the test of time

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Nobody will remember what happened afterwards, just like nobody remembers Warrior's horrible run after Wrestlemania VI.  That night is what is really memorable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As long as you see those two guys flailing in the undercard, you'll remember.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They'll be retired within 10 years, possibly 5, so that's not a problem.

[Promoter 0]

Some true stuff you said there TNABaddboi. WrestleMania 14(one of the best if not the best opening promo for WrestleMania ever) and SummerSlam 98 are my favourite of that era too for the reasons you mentioned. I really believe the strength of 1998 was the reason why the wwe got so hot and when it started to do stupid shit in 1999 the momentum of that year sustained the heat of the company. If the years were reversed I think wcw might have had a better chance because 99 sucked big time imo. Survivor Series that year also made Rock into a bona fide main eventer although the matches sucked(which might have been a precursor for the crap in 1999). That whole 1998 was superb.

 

I think pochorenella you are right about how the feuds were built for Mania X-7. That might be it. There's no real reason for certain matches at the event. Angle/Benoit was good no doubt, but the build said it all. They just put them together because they both didn't have anything to do. The TLC had no backstory. Vince and Shane was a nice sports entertainment segment, but perhaps the story behind it now seems too silly to make the match mean anything. Not to mention the crapola between Vince and Shane with the Invasion afterwards.

 

WM XX will stand the test of time and some may not like it here, but HHH had a lot to do with it after his lengthy ass reign. Hell, even Goldberg/Brock is memorable although for the wrong reasons. If they just cut out the tag team title matches that Mania is pretty good top to bottom.

[TNABaddboi 0]

Some true stuff you said there TNABaddboi. WrestleMania 14(one of the best if not the best opening promo for WrestleMania ever) and SummerSlam 98 are my favourite of that era too for the reasons you mentioned. I really believe the strength of 1998 was the reason why the wwe got so hot and when it started to do stupid shit in 1999 the momentum of that year sustained the heat of the company. If the years were reversed I think wcw might have had a better chance because 99 sucked big time imo. Survivor Series that year also made Rock into a bona fide main eventer although the matches sucked(which might have been a precursor for the crap in 1999). That whole 1998 was superb.

 

I pretty much agree with that assessment. 98 is probably my favorite single year of WWE, esp. in the modern era (97 was really hit or miss...the stuff that was good was great, but the stuff that wasn't really stunk). I think WM and SS were the only PPVs that year not totally carried by the ME. The ME was hot all year, but those shows benefited from well developed undercard matches. The storylines were still somewhat in 99, but I remember being quite disappointed in several shows that year (except Backlash and SS).

[Promoter 0]

Yeah, some of the storylines in 99 were okay. I think it really started to tank after WM 15 though.

[Guest MikeSC]

Well, I thought it sucked when I first saw it.

 

It still sucks.

 

It has definitely survived the test of time for me.

 

It will be just like Barely Legal --- at the time, called the greatest show ever. A little later, realized as one really not good show.

[UseTheSledgehammerUh 0]

Funny how the trolling TNA mark is ripping Barely Legal, when TNA is a direct (and significantly weaker) rip-off of ECW.

 

Please, return back to the land of hee-haw, broken guitars, and Hoyt.

[bob_barron 0]

Mike rips on TNA all the time idiot. He'd be the last person I'd call a TNA mark.

[Guest MikeSC]

Funny how the trolling TNA mark is ripping Barely Legal, when TNA is a direct (and significantly weaker) rip-off of ECW.

 

Please, return back to the land of hee-haw, broken guitars, and Hoyt.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm a TNA mark?

 

News to me.

 

One thing TNA does have, though, is that their matches don't tend to be utter crap.

 

But, no, I'm not a big TNA supporter. I simply wish them well in the hopes it makes Vince actually use his roster.

 

BTW, I suppose by your response that you disagree that Barely Legal was a pretty bad show. A baffling response.

[UseTheSledgehammerUh 0]

I found the quick title-win by the super-over Eliminators to be entertaining.

 

Storm/RVD was ok.

 

I found the Michinoku 6-man to by entertaining.

 

Taz/Sabu was pretty decent, with a good ending to a well-built feud.

 

The 3-way #1 contender's match was good, and I think shit on because Funk went over.

 

Main event was shit.

 

Certainly better than most WWE shows around that time.

[Guest MikeSC]

I found the quick title-win by the super-over Eliminators to be entertaining.

 

Storm/RVD was ok.

 

I found the Michinoku 6-man to by entertaining.

 

Taz/Sabu was pretty decent, with a good ending to a well-built feud.

 

The 3-way #1 contender's match was good, and I think shit on because Funk went over.

 

Main event was shit.

 

Certainly better than most WWE shows around that time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm, in order:

A squash

 

A putrid performance

 

The best match in ECW PPV history --- not ironically, not involving any ECW talent

 

A ME that was considered "disappointing" by ECW fans and mind-numbingly tedious by others

 

A horrendous 3-way match and a horrendous World Title match.

 

Add in a laughable Douglas v Pitbull match and you have the worst PPV --- in the month of APRIL that year.

 

IYH: Revenge of the Taker was better.

[Guest JMA]

It won't stand the test of time. It was a trip down memory lane, nothing more or nothing less. The thing that WWE can take away from it, though, is the enviroment of the event and the atmosphere. It created a buzz, and that's something WWE desperately needs to start doing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed. I actually felt the emotion of the fans on that show. Usually it takes something big to get WWE fans to stop going through the motions.

 

It's a shame that WWE can't breed their own mutants.

[cabbageboy 0]

Barely Legal isn't the greatest show ever or anything but I don't remember it being all that bad. I do seem to remember that Douglas/Pit Bull match being pretty crappy, but the rest of the show at least seemed to have memorable stuff attached to every match.

 

ECW shows never quite stand the test of time because so much of it is about initial shock reaction. It provokes a different reaction than say Summerslam 92 (which I just saw on 24/7...there's a show that does hold up I think). SS 92 and similar shows have an epic quality and some really great wrestling, so I can put it on and watch it anytime. ECW stuff is tougher to watch since the production is usually crappy and it is so mindnumbingly violent that by the end of the show I'm kinda desensitized. Even a really solid ECW show like Heatwave 98 has that problem.

[Guest Brian]

Here's an interesting thing to consider, but do shows that don't stand the test of time, that are booked to shock and awe; are they really effective? Do they measure up to a litmus test of shows that are booked for the long-term and offer real solutions for the problems that wrestling companies.

[jester 0]

It's a shame that WWE can't breed their own mutants.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Just wait until HHH knocks up Stephanie.

[cabbageboy 0]

Brian, I know what you mean. I'd say the one thing keeping WM 17 from being the best PPV ever is what you mention. The "shock and awe" type booking. The aftermath was an Austin heel turn that drove fans away and it simply doesn't give you that buzz afterwards like WM 3 does even today. I don't think main events of a major PPV should have nonsensical heel turns, that stuff should be done to set up such a show.

[Guest Brian]

I'd hardly call it nonsensical. Stupid, maybe, but non-sensical shows a lack of understanding of what was going on in the match and what had been happening between the two in the prior weeks. It made perfect sense in that context, and was not something that was just pulled out of thin air.

[Promoter 0]

I wouldn't call it nonsensical either, BUT they should have explained why Austin needed Vince better. They had enough ammo for it imo, but they went a cheesy route with Austin saying he was tired of the fans sponging on him. They might have even got the crowd to boo Austin if they went with some think was an original plan with Austin turning on Debra when she was managing Rock. What was non-sensical was teaming him with Triple H so quickly.

[cabbageboy 0]

That's the stuff I meant, the aftermath. I'd heard about an Austin heel turn since Aug. 2000 and was really kinda waiting for it. But the justification and post WM stuff was nonsense. Teaming with the guy who conspired to have you run over with a car? Teaming with the guy who made your life hell for 4 years? There was no real reason that made good sense for him doing this. If anything the Rock was stale and could have used the heel turn.

 

I guess my point is aesthetically it's not as enjoyable as stuff like SS 92, which is a stand alone show. I can't think of WM 17 without putting it in the context of what happened next, with the entire business going in the tank, Austin's financially bleh heel run, the botched Invasion, etc. Whereas with SS 92 I just watch it in its own context and enjoy, it has no baggage...make sense?

[Guest Brian]

That's the stuff I meant, the aftermath.  I'd heard about an Austin heel turn since Aug. 2000 and was really kinda waiting for it.  But the justification and post WM stuff was nonsense.  Teaming with the guy who conspired to have you run over with a car?  Teaming with the guy who made your life hell for 4 years?  There was no real reason that made good sense for him doing this.  If anything the Rock was stale and could have used the heel turn.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But that all made perfect sense within the context of the match and its build. WWE may spelled it all out wrong when they laid their cards out. There was a great reason for the initial turn and siding with his enemy that they just happened to have screwed up. Austin tried to play the one-upsmanship game with the Rock every week, and it just didn't work when it came time for the match. There was nothing Austin could do to win, to stay on top, other than to side with someone as powerful as McMahon, as diabolic. He was, at one point, Austin's peer (though on opposite sides) and Austin needed someone of that calibre to work with him so that he could top the Rock. There was no way around it for Austin by the end of that match.

[pochorenella 0]

That's the stuff I meant, the aftermath.  I'd heard about an Austin heel turn since Aug. 2000 and was really kinda waiting for it.  But the justification and post WM stuff was nonsense.  Teaming with the guy who conspired to have you run over with a car?  Teaming with the guy who made your life hell for 4 years?  There was no real reason that made good sense for him doing this.  If anything the Rock was stale and could have used the heel turn.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But that all made perfect sense within the context of the match and its build. WWE may spelled it all out wrong when they laid their cards out. There was a great reason for the initial turn and siding with his enemy that they just happened to have screwed up. Austin tried to play the one-upsmanship game with the Rock every week, and it just didn't work when it came time for the match. There was nothing Austin could do to win, to stay on top, other than to side with someone as powerful as McMahon, as diabolic. He was, at one point, Austin's peer (though on opposite sides) and Austin needed someone of that calibre to work with him so that he could top the Rock. There was no way around it for Austin by the end of that match.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree. I remember that face to face interview they had with Rock and Austin prior to the event, and Austin was very clear when he said he NEEDED to beat Rock, "more than anything ever" or something to that effect. You could say he sorta telegraphed it right there, like Vince did in WM2000 when he said "You want shocking? I'll give you shocking!" and turned on The Rock. Of course, at the time, I saw neither one coming, so it's all in hindsight now.

[cabbageboy 0]

Yes I get all that. I realize that Austin got desperate and needed to win the match, so he sided with Vince. Sure it made sense in that one match scenario but did they think about what it was going to do long term to the company?

 

The weeks after Austin's heel turn illustrate clearly that they had no idea what it meant to turn Austin. He dicked around with UT in a weird role reversal feud, joined up with mortal enemy HHH in an angle that was so WCW it isn't funny. I'd argue that it wasn't until HHH got injured that Austin was even the focal heel of the promotion.

 

The point is that I have a hard time separating WM 17 from what followed. Matchwise it's better than WM 14 for instance but WM 14 is a show I find myself watching more, because it was a great show in its own right and led to a fabulous era of the WWF.

[Promoter 0]

I think Austin's heel turn was telegraphed in hindsight too, but they still bungled it. I said they had enough ammo to turn him heel and make fans buy it, but they didn't make sense of the damn thing. Here is what they should have done even using their own storylines.

 

Austin comes back and is paranoid about who ran him over. Fine. The wwe is a different place with Rock as champion and Triple H coming off a monster reign for that timeframe anyways. Kurt Angle is rising. Austin returns and is rusty for real and takes out his problems on both heels and faces. He goes overboard in trying to kill HHH at Survivor Series which is heel hint #1. Jim Ross even said Austin was going over the edge.

 

Austin goes onto win the Rumble and even battles fan favourite The Rock. Austin is then challenged by HHH and he loses a ppv match and a feud. BINGO!!!! Austin is not the same man anymore and use that to make fans believe he doubts himself before going up against the popular Rock whom he defeated at WrestleMania before. They did not play up Austin's injury perhaps playing with his mind and performance. That would have explained why the new Austin would seek the help of Mcmahon and it would also show Austin would do anything to get back ontop of the wwf(still sticking to his character). In hindsight they should have turned HHH face, but even if he wanted to stay heel they should have separated the two and caused friction with the Mcmahon family.

 

They should have played it that the fans would eventually hope Austin would come to his senses and stun Vince because I believe that is a major reason why Austin had trouble turning heel in some places. His character was one that would just use Vince for the title and then stun him and turn back to the fans. They should have just played that up and not try to force the heeldom to make fans boo. Eventually the fans would get annoyed with Austin staying with Vince. It had to be gradual for the turn to make sense after what he did at WM 17. This is all hindsight though and I can see why they wanted HHH and Austin together immediately to stop fans backing Austin, but it damaged his character.

[slabinskia 0]

I have to disagree with anyone saying wm3 is better than wm17.WM17 is my favorite ppv ever.The card was stacked.Austin/rock,tlc,angle/benoit,vince/shane,and even hhh/taker were all good imo.The only real losers were apa/rtc and chyna/ivory and they were kept short.WM3 is a 2 match show.Maybe it is because I didn't see wm3 until a few years after it happened.

 

As far as wm3 having more historical impact,it did.However,that is another reason why I like wm17 more.WWF/E went downhill for the most part after that show.It was the last great wrestling event imo.

 

Another thing is that the matches were much better than I was expecting.Austin/rock didn't have great matches before that one so I was expecting a good,not great match.Vince/shane was something I didn't want to see at all and it was as good a match they could have had.I know I am one of the few but I also liked hhh/taker.

[cabbageboy 0]

It's just an aesthetic feeling really. WM 17 ends in a negative light while WM 3 ends happily. That's really what it comes down to in the end. If WM 17 had ended with Austin winning, not turning heel, and then shaking the Rock's hand I might feel different about the show. It's still a great, great show either way.

[slabinskia 0]

On the subject of wrestlemanias,WM20 I thought was 3rd best behind 17,3.The only thing that hurt wm20 imo was the length.Cut 45 minutes out of it and its a really great show.I would have put wm10 on the list but outside of the 2 classics,the rest of the card was terrible.

[Guest Brian]

It's just an aesthetic feeling really.  WM 17 ends in a negative light while WM 3 ends happily.  That's really what it comes down to in the end.  If WM 17 had ended with Austin winning, not turning heel, and then shaking the Rock's hand I might feel different about the show.  It's still a great, great show either way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But the problem is it wouldn't have ended the way the match should have ended.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Austin's heel turn was an anti-draw but it was certainly pulled off very well.

 

For those of you who think that Austin slamming the Rock over and over and over with chairs and never getting a pin looked stupid, you have to remember WrestleMania 15, which was about Rock slamming Austin over and over and over with chairs while Vince pulled out referees and tried everything to give Rock the edge. WM17 was about a mirror universe ending, and it also happened to be at the end of a great match.

 

It was absolutely brilliant until the next night when Austin came out and said "Why? I don't have to tell you why, because you fans suck!" and everyone said "Hoo boy, they didn't actually think of a logical explination for him to turn heel."