TheBigBoot

I'd forgotten about Tyler Reks. Much as I like his new Barbarian-type look, he still looks awkward in-ring. Add him and the now-usless Khali (first year he hasn't been carried to at least one decentish match you could point to to defend him) to my nominations.

Should have just kept Knox around and given him Tyler's push.

Will try and check some of these mentioned here before the fifth.

Sabu vs Rob Van Dam @ Hardcore Justice

That one surprised me with how good it was. I thought that and Scorpio/Anderson (which I liked even more) would have been at place on an ECW card. Shame they weren't enough to save that show.

If the original One Night Stand made people start thinking WWE should bring ECW back, Hardcore Justice made me think that everyone should leave it dead and buried.

For anyone who hasn't seen it, there was a pretty good thread here a few weeks ago that has some interesting suggestions not nominated yet:

http://ukff.com/index.php?showtopic=122422

Also interesting was that IIRC one or two had House Show matches that random people had taped in their top tens. which haven't seen much of in recent years (in the nineties/early 2000s you'd always hear about them and some of them, like the Flair/Bret Iron Man, even reached well known status).

TNA Hardcore Justice - One of only a small handful of TNA shows I saw, but it didn't impress me at all.

In terms of what I enjoyed the most I think it goes something like this...

1. Raw 4th January (Bret Hart's return) to 1st February (William Shatner)

2. NXT Season 1 (didn't see enough of the subsequent Seasons to comment fairly, although the bits I did see from 3 were funny)

3. Raw 15th November (Old School) to 20th December (last week)

4. SmackDown! 25th June (week after Fatal Four Way) to 1st October (Season Premiere)

5. Raw 21st June (week after Nexus debuted at the end of a poor show so I won't count that one) to 16th August (day after SummerSlam)

So I suppose just count that as as a vote for all three shows.

Matt Hardy

After a rough couple of months at the beginning, I thought he had a pretty good year.

The feud with McIntyre was unlike almost anything else you see in WWE nowadays (closest was the Finlay/Knox or Finlay/Palumbo from '08 from a year ago) in terms of stiff, hard-hitting fights.

I also have to agree with the comments from guys like Kata Ha Jime in the best sellers thread last month - I thought he was one of the very few who understands the importance of selling (not just in WWE, but wrestling in general the last ten years) particularly that recent match with Del Rio and his storytelling was always solid at worst. I also thought he looked the best/second best worker in arguably the two best TLC matches this year - him and Christian really held those matches together.

Rey Mysterio

Fuck off!!

 

Agree with Abyss and Dibiase though.

I thought Rey had a pretty good year as well. He looked great inside the Chamber for the second year running, had the feuds with Punk and Swagger which both produced some of the better stuff this year, some top class matches vs. Undertaker on TV, the mini-feud with Miz, etc.

I would have voted Abyss if I'd seen more TNA because from what I catch not only does the guy suck but he seems to have actively regressed over the past few years (there was a small window a few years back where he seemed to be developing into a decentish big man worker) but it feels unfair nominating someone on three matches or whatever I've seen from him.

Bret Hart

He looked horrible in the Vince match where he wasn't able to do anything, but thought he looked better and better each time after that. He'd probably get my vote for "most improved" if there was such a thing , his facial expressions and timing at SummerSlam were remarkably good for a stroke victim who has been out of the ring for over a decade, he's a lot like Hardy and Rey in that the little touches were still there and he still had the second best punches on the roster (behind Lawler) from anyone who worked WWE this year.

That said, each to their own on all those and shame to hear Bubba has declined so much the past year.

This is a tough one because noone stands out as head and shoulders above (below?) the rest when it comes to being bad this year. I thought Morrison had been the most disappointing earlier on this year and actually thought Truth looked better than him in their team but he's been really good (at times borderline great) recently. Most of the NXT Divas sucked but considering their lack of experience, etc. its a bit harsh to put them in. So I'll go for the only person I didn't enjoy who worked both NXT and was given the chance to show his stuff on the main stage:

Darren Young

.... Even then I wouldn't be shocked if he develops into a better worker down the road. Like I said, tough, tough year for this 'Award'.

Matt Hardy vs Drew McIntyre

Rey Mysterio vs CM Punk

Batista vs John Cena

Jerry Lawler vs The Miz

The first was an old school, down and dirty, hate-filled angle that was a total contrast to a lot of the more 'polished' things in the company surrounding it. There was nothing pretty about it - the angles and matches were less about over the top stunts or goofy skits and more two guys you believed wanted to hurt each other by spearing people through the ropes, curb-stomping them on the ringsteps or punching each other in the face.

In some ways Mysterio against Punk was just good feud that produced good matches for Rey, but for Punk I think it was some of his best work so far both in-ring and on the stick. Only the Hardy feud from last year compares.

Batista versus Cena produced some of the best mike work of the year, was rooted enough in reality to be believable and provided a great set-up for WrestleMania. Much as I enjoyed Cena's Nexus stuff there were a few misses along with the hits, whereas I thought against Batista they both knew their roles and played them well.

Miz against Lawler was some of the best TV we've seen all year, shame it happened so late on because if this had started in October and ended now I think it would be the clear winner.

Straight Edge Society

John Morrison & R-Truth

ShowMiz

Goldust & Yoshi Tatsu

Kofi Kingston & Kaval

Jack Swagger Senior

Micheal Cole

Vickie Guerrero

Daniel Bryan

Wade Barrett

Skip Sheffield

Justin Gabriel

If they count (they were all already pushed stars in big companies i.e. WWE and CMLL):

The Miz

Dolph Ziggler

Sheamus

John Morrison

Alberto Del Rio

Kane

Batista

CM Punk

The Miz

Wade Barratt

Drew McIntyre

Sheamus

Alberto Del Rio

I can see this being a landslide and it seems every post but two (so far) has nominated Cena. Maybe 2010 will be looked back on as the year that the Cena hatred died?

My nominations are:

Jerry Lawler

The Big Show

The Undertaker

Rey Mysterio

John Cena

Alberto Del Rio

Dolph Ziggler

John Cena

Batista

Goldust

Sheamus

Edit: Forgot Rey Mysterio - add him to my list as well.

Well I just watched the clip on utube, much about nothing really.

 

As for Boxing vs Wrestling, neither are the power house that they were in the 80s/90s, yeah WWE can go for 3 hours long, but it doesnt say much when people are walking out the stadium during your main events, which is what ive been reading on here about the current tour.

Happened during the main event of WrestleMania XII.

Glad i didn't pay. ffs

Just watched it round with my family, and all I can say is I'm glad my dad paid for it.

I love that Jim Watt basically just said that all the hype was bullshit and anyone who bought into it was an idiot.

 

It was quite embarrassing really. Audley didn't want to be there, did he?

That was quite funny to be fair in a "I can't believe get away with this" kind of way - it's one thing charge money for something and then it not deliver. It's another to basically mock your customers for being marks after they've paid for it.

I feel for anyone who paid

I know wrestling is subjective (a point I made about Cena/Triple H putting people off earlier on) but I'd question how much Guerrero you've seen if you found that outside of two matches "the rest (of Eddie Guerrero's career) a bit crap".

Dill's probably watched as many Eddie Guerrero matches as anyone else here, he just hates everything.

Ah, I see. I know Dill's 13/14/whatever so I just thought maybe he hadn't seen that much of Eddie's work outside of his later years. It was the "a bit crap" summary of Eddie's matches other than two (seemingly random ones) that made me think he was either: A. trolling, B. hadn't seen enough of Guerrero to judge, or C. had hilariously bad taste in wrestling.

And I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt. If he has seen lots of Eddie's best stuff and still only likes two matches he rates then it's not a view I can relate to or fully comprehend (even in the case of the Flair one I thought they had a far better match on Nitro and don't see how the first PPV match with JBL was that different from some of their others) but to each their own I suppose. I won't pursue the matter any further.

Those Eddie/Mysterio 2005 matches were terrible, and they were so freakin boring. I never want to have to sit through the Judgment Day match again especially, that was brutal. I do think that Guerrero is a bit overrated due to his death though, becuase I think the only two matches of his I love is the first JBL match and against Ric Flair from Hog Wild, but the rest I find to be a bit crap.

I know wrestling is subjective (a point I made about Cena/Triple H putting people off earlier on) but I'd question how much Guerrero you've seen if you found that outside of two matches "the rest (of Eddie Guerrero's career) a bit crap".

It'd be easy to buy into the Dillkid "he's only over-rated because of his death" scenario if everyone hadn't been raving just as much before he died about how good he was.

 

But they were. So Dillkid is just talking shit.

Yeah, it's not like people thought his stuff with people like Santo, Liger, Benoit, Malenko, Mysterio, Lesnar or even Big Show sucked at the time suddenly went back and decided it was great once he died. Guerrero's probably the worst possible example you could pick for someone being "over-rated once they died" along with Misawa and Benoit since they were all smark favourites going at least back to the 90s. In fact you don't even have to look at the dirtsheets I remember Los Gringos Locos were getting praised in SOW back when AAA was on Galavision over here. A lot of people liked Guerrero for as long as I've heard of him.

That Rey Mysterio feud really was fucking awful. It got slaughtered on here, too. Sometimes there are just some soap storylines which really shouldn't be used.

 

Woah, woah, woah - hold on a minute! A couple of pages back you said you weren't following WWE at that point?

 

Not that it particularly bothers me, but it does stand out in the same thread. Not that you can't watch stuff since.

 

I wasn't. Reading the reports was enough to keep me away, but I torrented it after a friend of mine begged me to give it a chance because he enjoyed it so much. I should have had him assassinated.

Okay, fair enough.

It was an odd feud really. The storyline itself was indeed rubbish after they started the Dominick stuff and it was indeed panned on here at the time.

Which is a shame since the slow-burn heel turn from Eddie starting in February and then carrying all the way through WrestleMania, with Eddie getting more and more jealous of Rey

Who was booking Smackdown then?, and why isn't he being slaughtered regularly?.

Dave Lagana. The guy who took over from Paul Heyman (initially I believe it was reported as Lagana and Bruce Pritchard) in early 2003 was the head SmackDown! writer until ECW launched in 2006 and he was moved there.

I believe, Michael Hayes was named SmackDown!'s Head Writer around Summer 2006.

That Rey Mysterio feud really was fucking awful. It got slaughtered on here, too. Sometimes there are just some soap storylines which really shouldn't be used.

Woah, woah, woah - hold on a minute! A couple of pages back you said you weren't following WWE at that point?

Not that it particularly bothers me, but it does stand out in the same thread. Not that you can't watch stuff since.

Pity got pretty much all of mine in his post, Hogan at Wrestlemania 9 too. And I couldn't find an image of Triple H winning the 2003 Elimination Chamber.

Actually, I know someone who did quit after that. Admittedly they were a very, very casual fan and probably would have anyway but still

5 pages of people mentioning all kinds of shit with no critisism, then a few mentions of Cena lead to the people posting it being questioned for why they hate him and people summizing it's just because it's the cool thing to do.

 

I'm all for discussion and everything but a lot of people on here seem to dismiss anyone critisizing John Cena as someone doing it just to get a reaction.

 

Personally I find his matches hard to enjoy because his offence and his selling - so everything he does inside a wrestling ring - are so phony looking (something I've never said about any other WWE main eventer ever) that I can't suspend my disbelief, and I have the same problem with his promos. I love psychology in a match where the heel breaks down the babyface until he can muster up a comeback. That's probably the biggest critisism of Cena (and there are many), that he STILL hasn't grasped the concept that if somebody works for 10 minutes on your arm or leg you really shouldn't be running around or picking people up 2 minutes later.

So there is literally nothing about John Cena I enjoy watching.

 

... just kidding, I only don't like him because it's the cool thing to do.

 

I'm something of a Cena fan (I thought he was a shoe-in for 'wrestler of the year' in 2007 and by far the most consistent headliner in 2009 as well) and I disagree with pretty much everything you've said there, re. Cena's actual working ability (I even think he's a decent promo) but I do think you raise a valid point: If people dislike Cena that much and he's such a big part of the product then I'd say that's a perfectly valid reason for them to jack it in.

His fans can defend his actual matches, promos, angles, etc. as much as they want but if someone doesn't find any of them entertaining and they are a big part of the show then I can see why it would make them quit.

 

Absolutely.

 

I never missed more than 3 or 4 consecutive episodes of Raw or pay-per-views from 1993 all the way through until earlier this year.

 

Despite my dislike of Cena, I always tuned in because at least when he faced the other main eventers (with the exception of Sheamus) they were good enough workers to carry him to decent matches in decent feuds imo.

 

So the final straw for me was the night Nexus attacked Cena. Seeing legitimate rookies feuding with John Cena was such a horrible prospect in my mind that I haven't watched a Raw or ppv since that night.

 

I still read reviews of the shows each Tuesday and if I see something interesting I will then watch a repeat, but it hasn't happened yet.

That's what people mean about wrestling being "addictive". From early 1988 up until the period when I didn't have Sky at uni, the only period since the 1980s where my parents didn't have Sky, where I didn't have any friends who were still watching to record it for me and where I kept managing to miss Channel 4's version of Heat despite promising myself every week I'd sprint home from the pub or whatever when it was on (sure the time seemed to change every Saturday as well!) that would have been the same for me. Other than that one period, then from 1988 up until now the only times I think the only times I didn't watch at least one of the shows a week (bet it Superstars, Prime Time, Mania, Raw, SmackDown, etc.) were when I was visiting friends, on holiday, at concerts or festivals, staying at friend's houses, away on school/university/sports trips, at family functions, funerals, business meetings, conferences, etc. Even then I'd try and get the episodes recorded for me. Or nowadays look them up online. The fact I still watch every week does make me wonder what it would take to put me off completely.

The Tim White suicide FAIL did give rise to the very funny series of skits he did with Josh Matthews, though. 'Mr White! That's not wise!'

Yeah, I don't remember anyone complaining about those. The problem a lot of people on here had with the original was the timing since just before Christmas, a time of year when suicides aren't exactly uncommon. I suppose that goes back to the Hassan points earlier in the thread. Also the way it went down was a little odd. It started like a comedy skit to the extent everyone was expecting them to go back and deliver a punchline, but they didn't. They just left it as if he was dead and moved onto the next match. As a result a lot of people got annoyed about them trivializing suicide by using it to "kill off" a referee in this manner. At the very least it seemed a harsh way to write out one of your TV characters.

It was only when people realised he wasn't actually "dead" (in kayfabe terms) and it was part of an ongoing series that people started to have a laugh at it (although I'm sure there were people who found those offensive as well).

This was a very embarrasing moment for a 10 year old Dillkid, watching Raw one friday afternoon:

I think that I died a bit inside that day.

Poor old Marty couldn't keep a straight face during that segment. To the extent that was rumoured to be part of the reason WWE cut ties with him at that point.

Making you say "ah bloody hell" or something I can understand, but if some of the things in here make you stop watching wrestling altogether then you can't have been much of a fan to begin with.

I find a lot of them surprising as well. That's why I was asking Merzbow what it was about Mysterio unmasking and ajcmstyles and RAMM about the Mae Young stuff from 2000, when the rest of the product was white hot. I suppose in most cases it really must be the straw that broke the camel's back rather than the specific angles themselves.

I still say a huge problem with the way WWE's been attempting to create stars in the last few years is that nobody's been given that decisive, main-event moment since Cena and Batista.

Orton kicking Vince in the head came across as such a moment at the time... Until they ruined it.

Austin had the WM13 match with Bret, Triple H had the Royal Rumble win over Cactus Jack, Cena had JBL and Batista had Triple H. Since then, none of the new main eventers have been given that one, decisive win that cemented their places; I still don't 100% buy CM Punk as an established, perennial main-eventer because of the nature of his first two title wins, and the fact that he's never really beaten anyone of solid main event stature decisively.

I agree about Punk. What about Edge and Orton though? Like I said to Supremo, I won't deny that both have had some bad booking in the past but they do/did come across as main eventers to me. As did Jeff Hardy. Not on the level of Austin, Cena or Triple H, but certainly leagues above Punk.

Swagger's been nothing but a lame duck, and Sheamus, whilst he's running with the ball he's been given, was initially the lamest duck of them all - it's only after he got the belt they gave him the Triple H beatdown, but they seem determined to undermine that with him running away all the time. Not every heel has to be a chickenshit, and I don't see why a guy as hulking as Sheamus should be.

I agree with that as well. It isn't a new complaint as far as WWF/E though, I remember that's one of the main problems a lot of WCW/NJPW/UWFi fans had with Vader's run in WWF. He'd never been a "chickenshit" heel in any of those places but once he joined WWF it seemed they wanted to add that element to his character and it didn't really work. Even with Sid, who was technically a tweener, a few months later there was some complaint that they'd made his character more of the traditional cowardly heel (attacking teenagers and senior citizens) to hype the Rumble match with Michaels, than an all-out badass. Not saying they were wrong to do so considering how much he got cheered when he did do the "hulking badass" thing in the early 90s.

It raises their profile, sure, but it doesn't make them a star.

What counts as a star though?

 

Someone who sells tickets, sells merchandise, and generates column inches.

 

You look at how boxing has struggled to produce stars. It's not like people aren't amassing good fight records, it's just that as a profession they've lost the knack of making people care about the fighters and the fights. They've failed, IMO, to learn from either WWE or UFC.

Or they've just forgotten how they made their own stars standout in the past?

Tiger Rick is spot on in what he's saying. Another thing is that to the casual audience alot of it is who wins is who's the best, because of UFC's "these lads are real" type audience. So an impressive performance is out of UFC's hands. If a boring cunt with pasty skin called Clive got a shot at Brock Lesnar and knocked him out, he's a star. If a boring cunt with a hairy chest and tight little shorts beat John Cena, I'm rolling my eyes and seeing whats happening on Eastenders.

I think you are pretty safe for now. I can't see that happening for the following reason:

There are however more than enough guys in "tight little shorts", unfortunately. It seemed to be the official uniform last time I watched ROH/X-Division type guys.

They also have enough boring guys as well.

But wrasslin' needs more hairy guys right now (okay I know they've got CM Punk but that's about it).

And some guys called Clive.

Tiger Rick is spot on in what he's saying. Another thing is that to the casual audience alot of it is who wins is who's the best, because of UFC's "these lads are real" type audience. So an impressive performance is out of UFC's hands. If a boring cunt with pasty skin called Clive got a shot at Brock Lesnar and knocked him out, he's a star. If a boring cunt with a hairy chest and tight little shorts beat John Cena, I'm rolling my eyes and seeing whats happening on Eastenders.

No he's not, as I've already explained using Frankie Edgar as an example. If all it took to become a star in the UFC was to beat another star then Frankie Edgar would be huge right now. BJ Penn is one of the UFC's biggest stars and biggest draws. He's just lost twice to Frankie Edgar. So, is Frankie a star now? No he's not. People still don't give a shit about him and it's almost cruel to watch press conferences where everyone pretty much ignores him, despite the fact that he's the champion. Nobody talks about how good Frankie is, they talk about what's happened to BJ to make him less invincible. Sure, to make Edgar a star they can now create a Countdown special that emphasises what an achievement it is to beat BJ Penn, and how talented and awesome he must be to have done it twice, with talking heads and highlight packages putting him over, but then that's no different to what WWE could do to make their own star. Put someone over John Cena clean, then harp on about it and make him a huge deal like when Triple H beat Cactus Jack. But they don't do that. They haven't done that in years. They have guys doing obstacle courses, falling over and looking like knobheads.

That actually seems to be one of their pet obsessions these last eight years or so. Obstacle courses. They seemed to be a prominent feature in the Diva Searches and then even when they stopped those they seemed to find reasons for Divas to do them as part of special challenges and stuff. I don't doubt that some of it is designed to "humble" the participants but it has happened so often that I also think someone in the office must think that wrestling fans want to see obstacle courses for some unknown reason.

Orton's potential had already fizzled out weeks before his Mania bout with Triple H though. Neither the quality of that match, nor the result, could've salvaged him by that point.

 

 

That's the real point of reference that's required when discussing Orton's botched push. Right there and then was the last time I was ever duped into being excited about professional wrestling. I allowed myself to think they were actually going to make something out of Randy, I genuinely believed he was set to be the next Stone Cold, and then in twenty seconds everything turned to shit and I haven't cared about anything they've done since. Even when Nexus tore shit up, deep down inside I knew they'd eventually fuck it, which they did.

I know I (and ButhReedMark) already responded to the Austin "push" bit, but just wanted to say it seems like ages since I read a post from you. That bit is probably true - I think a comparable situation would be Kane in 2003. Sure he didn't go over Hunter/Goldberg for the title and lost to Undertaker at the next Mania, but it was Shane O'Mac who'd sapped his momentum. It would have taken one hell of an effort (and clean wins over Trips and Cena) for Orton to recover from that but they'd already put him in a position where it seemed like he wasn't worthy of such a push.

I think that's the real problem with those 'fake pushes', as you put it in one of the later posts. It's not so much that they blatantly set someone up to fail from the start. It's more that they set someone up to get over, sandbag them so they lose a bit of momentum and don't get too over?/big-headed?/valueable?, and then give them a push anyway. It does indeed make it more difficult to get fully behind the next big thing, as we have seen with Nexus and Sheamus.

WWE on the other hand doesn't have that type of motivation to keep making new stars, they can pick and choose whoever they want whenever they want, and as such they choose no-one whatsoever. Nothing progresses, nothing gets refreshed, everyone stays in the same slot forever. My point wasn't that Vince McMahon wouldn't notice Brock Lesnar's potential, it's that since they pushed Brock in 2002 and then I guess Cena and Batista in 2005, there's been absolutely no new main event stars worth getting genuinely excited about. Three in a decade. Fucking hell. UFC usually creates the same amount in about six months. They allow people to make stars out of themselves and then work with what they have. WWE does everything in their power to stop people becoming stars and works directly against everything they have. It's absolutely retarded.

At one point or another Angle, Guerrero, Orton, Edge, Jeff Hardy, Jericho and Mysterio all became stars in the last decade. Lashley and Kennedy looked to be in line for huge pushes as well before things went wrong. Have most of them been subject of the dreaded stop-start booking? Sure. They were able to get around it and make a connection with the audience to become either merchandise draws or people that looked crdible in main events. Could any of them have been bigger stars if they had been given the same push as Lesnar/Cena/Batista? Maybe so, but I still think they qualify as stars compared to 99% of wrestlers who have worked in that period or even the period before. Now if you want to say they got as over as they did almost in spite of the way they were booked then I can see an argument for that.

Sure, if Brock was just getting into the WWE today there's still a chance, given his size and athleticism, that Vince would give him the same monster push he did back then. But if he did, it'd be a huge rarity in today's climate and that's the problem. New stars coming through should be the norm and they should come in all shapes and sizes. They shouldn't happen about once every five years and always feature identical gigantic guys. That's when it becomes a boring pile of wank.

I agree.

during hardy vs hardy match at mania, matt with two tee's hit his head off the steps, thought nothing of it untill a doctor ran out and quickly stoped the flow of blood, then a tiny gash on cena which a doctor ran out and cleaned him up, then orton then punk........when this happenes during fantastic match like punk vs rey that kills the flow of the match.

nwa wcw early 90's was u/pg ffs and flair was bleeding like there was no tomorrow.

I don't fully understand that one. People are always saying they want more 'realism' in wrestling. Surely having 'ringside doctors' there to check out cuts makes it closer to legitimate sports?

I disagree with this somewhat. Admittedly the WWE can decide who they want to try and push, which for the UFC is more difficult to do (although not impossible, they can set a guy up with a series of matches they'll presume he'll win and make them seem a bigger deal than they perhaps are) but that doesn't mean the push is going to work.

Boxing has done that for years. As you say their is a pretty high risk factor due to the risk of upsets.

I suppose the risk factor in wrestling has always been different, namely that you could give a guy a big push and then he could go somewhere else - a different territory, Hollywood, whatever which seems to have made WWE (and probably TNA, although their inability to create stars doesn't seem deliberate) a bit paranoid about getting fully behind someone on a Goldberg/Lesnar/Batista/Cena/Lashley level again.

Sure they can give Morrison a string of wins and have him beat everyone in the midcard, but that doesn't mean he'll get over. If someone in a legit sport beats people then its impressive but we all know wrestling isn't real. Wrestling runs the risk of pushing someone too hard and having a an backlash because of it. That and it takes more than a bunch of wins for fans to care about a wrestler, and if they don't care about a wrestler than a bunch of wins won't matter. Goldberg beat everyone on his rise to the top of WCW, but if somebody else had that push than they might not have gotten as over, but he had the attributes needed and the push happened at the exact right moment in time.

I think Lashley had he ever been given the WWE Title (which I'm sure would have happened) may have gone on to prove your theory there.

Everyone knows wrestling's fake, a guy winning a bunch of matches doesn't make the audience care. The wrestler needs a personality, somethign that makes the mstand out, and they need an it factor or some charisma or some such talent. Getting the balance between pushing a guy and not over-pushing him and findign someoen with the right personality to strive is a very difficutl thing to do. Plus with UFC the sense of unpredictability is always, to some extent, there. Purely because its real. The WWE have to create that sense of unpredictability and that's a very rare thing to amanage to do. Eric Bischoff used to look for one unpredictable moment a week which shows you how rare it is. With no competition to shrow a spanner in the works its even more difficult.

Unpredictability is overrated.

Some of the best, most effective long-term, slow-burning storylines have led to endings even the most intellectually challenged and slow-witted of fans saw from a mile off: the Mega-Powers Exploding, Sting beating Flair at GAB '90 to "bring WCW into the Nineties", Sting as the man who would get the title shot against Hogan at StarrCade, Austin winning the WWF Title at WrestleMania's XIV and XV, Chris Benoit's title chase, Batista turning on Triple H, Lesnar getting revenge on Heyman and winning the WWE Title at WrestleMania XIX, etc., etc.

On the other hand, Triple H beating Angle and then sticking with Stephanie was 'unpredictable' since the ending even the most casual of fans were expecting was for Steph to turn heel on hubby, and what we did get drove people nuts at the time. In other words, they wanted the angle they'd predicted.

There's nothing wrong with giving the fans what they want in the end, just as long as you can make the journey there seem interesting.

Has anyone posted this?

I loved it.

I know you're only smark-baiting here, but I must admit I didn't like it. I didn't have a problem with them putting the belt on him so much, it was the fact that they retired the title while he held it. I know the Cruiserweight championship had been treated like a joke for years, but I still think it was very sad for it to end it's run as a comedy title with a midget champion. Only bothered me a little bit though, I wasn't going to turn the TV off in disgust or anything like that.

It was indeed a silly way for it to end (I would have liked something like they did with Dreamer/RVD when they retired the Hardcore title with say Noble/Rey for Rey's comeback match or something - not even PPV you could stick it on free TV) but what I find more interesting is that Hornswoggle was something of an internet favourite (or at least a UKFF favourite) until they stuck a title on him/made him a McMahon. At the time it seemed there were a large number who thought his theme tune was great (at least until Finlay started using it which they and I hated), a few who thought the Cruiserweight title win/feud with Noble was funny, a few who absolutely hated it and majority who weren

That show had MX/Zenk & Pillman, Steiners/Doom and Luger/Flair in a Hell in a Cell type Cage. There

I wish I'd skipped most of those Michaels/Triple H matches instead of feeling like I had to watch all of whatever show they were on.

5 pages of people mentioning all kinds of shit with no critisism, then a few mentions of Cena lead to the people posting it being questioned for why they hate him and people summizing it's just because it's the cool thing to do.

 

I'm all for discussion and everything but a lot of people on here seem to dismiss anyone critisizing John Cena as someone doing it just to get a reaction.

 

Personally I find his matches hard to enjoy because his offence and his selling - so everything he does inside a wrestling ring - are so phony looking (something I've never said about any other WWE main eventer ever) that I can't suspend my disbelief, and I have the same problem with his promos. I love psychology in a match where the heel breaks down the babyface until he can muster up a comeback. That's probably the biggest critisism of Cena (and there are many), that he STILL hasn't grasped the concept that if somebody works for 10 minutes on your arm or leg you really shouldn't be running around or picking people up 2 minutes later.

So there is literally nothing about John Cena I enjoy watching.

 

... just kidding, I only don't like him because it's the cool thing to do.

I'm something of a Cena fan (I thought he was a shoe-in for 'wrestler of the year' in 2007 and by far the most consistent headliner in 2009 as well) and I disagree with pretty much everything you've said there, re. Cena's actual working ability (I even think he's a decent promo) but I do think you raise a valid point: If people dislike Cena that much and he's such a big part of the product then I'd say that's a perfectly valid reason for them to jack it in. Same with Triple H a few years ago (or even the internet fans who were moaning about it all being about Austin/McMahon in 1999). His fans can defend his actual matches, promos, angles, etc. as much as they want but if someone doesn't find any of them entertaining and they are a big part of the show then I can see why it would make them quit. The "gave up because wrestling could never get any better" is a bit of a puzzler but its already been discussed but as far as criticising/commenting in other posts I actually found some of them interesting/not things I'd expect...

Seriously? I actually find that the most interesting one I've seen so far since as much as it was criticised at the time, I never thought of it as something that would make people quit the product (I admit I maybe underestimating Rey's popularity). Where you just particularly big Rey fan or was it WCW's booking in general that put you off?

and in the same vein:

Im not going to post it but that brings HORRIBLE memories of the Royal Rumble 2000 bikini content if anyone can remember that, she was teh fecking reason PPV's were delayed by 50 minutes in the UK in 2000

As bad as those were - and I actually watched Rumble 2000 with a large group (not all wrestling fans) in my University's chaplaincy so I can understand where you're coming from - I never would have quit WWF over them since I thought the rest of the product was starting to get really good around that time. That Royal Rumble 2000 had Cactus/Triple H Streetfight a few minutes later which restored any faith I'd lost.

 

Only my love for the Armstrongs kept me going. Thank fuck they pulled Brad out quickly.

Well that just shows can like the same people, look at the same thing and still see it from complete opposite ends. As a fan of Brad Armstrong, I was actually pleased he was getting something resembling a push! In 1998 if someone had told me Brad would be involved in a celebrity angle the following summer, I'd have laughed at them. So whilst I knew he was realistically just there to carry the load, I was hoping the angle would keep going so him and Rey would get some PPV time out of it. I actually thought a cool old school guy like ol' B.A. getting the celeb rub (even in a crap angle with a rapper I'd never heard of) was pretty cool at the time.

That said I can see why you thought about quitting wrestling in 1999 (although I wouldn't have, since there were too many characters I liked and wanted to see how things would turn out for them) whilst the quality of the actual wrasslin' over in WWF was constantly getting torn apart, ECW was past it's peak and WCW had seemingly taken too many wrong turns. Just interesting that The No Limit Soldiers was the straw that (almost?) broke the camel's back.

Disgraceful, Hassan was brilliant. It doesn't matter if he had any 'decent' matches or not - when Santino was at his funniest and you wanted to see what he would come out with each week you knew you were never going to get a decent match, same with plenty of other people. It's all about character and he was different, he was a step up from the typical anti-American character, he was relevant for the time and he and Davari had perfectly fine arguments to make. And I always love JR almost exploding at the mere thought of the guy. With the reaction he was getting outside WWE it's disappointing they didn't give him a World title shot before they ditched him.

Even if he was fighting "Tom Hanks with the Aids"? Ah but what about the people who didn't find Santino at his "peak" funny - there were a few of them on here in those days as the weekly posts from Mr. Seven and JLM in the weekly Raw threads proved. For the people who didn't find his gimmick funny or enjoy his matches, he offered nothing. Same for the people who found Hassan's gimmick offensive and thought his matches sucked.

What could be better than a guy who murdered his family and a drug addict winning the world titles. Jesus.

Shit, you're right. Now I'm going to have to hate every single wrestler because they might kill someone in 3 years time.

If we all didn't watch wrestling shows that featured guys who are drug addicts/had serious drug problems you'd be left with a pretty limited selection (no more WWF, WCW, WCCW, USWA or ECW for a start).

Looks like I'm going to have to trade in everything I have covering the Von Erich/Freebirds feud (in case Kerry, Kevin, Michael, Terry, etc. were high that match) for a copy of Lance Storm's Greatest Promos. I would have gone for Lance Storm's Greatest Matches but I daren't even watch those since ECW and WCW were full of people with well-known substance abuse problems.