TheBigBoot

 

Good call!

Indeed. That put more people I knew at the time off wrestling than any angle/moment/decision I've ever seen before or since. Honestly I would have thought it was just the area I was living but the combination of moving house so many times since and meeting people around the same age whose knowledge of wrestling ends around that same point and the last decade or so of being on the internet and the last seven or so years on here, the fact so many people point to it as when they stopped watching (at least for the time) or when all their friends stopped watching is incredible. Obviously it proved me wrong and I'd bet money there has never, ever, e-e-e-e-vah being a thread like this on here without it coming up at some point.

Obviously it didn't put me off since I'm still here, but it certainly seemed like I was certainly in the minority at the time.

I did stop following WCW as closely for a while after this...

There are no pictures that I can find, but this should give the game away

 

And didn't get back into it until the final months (which for my money were pretty good) but I can't blame it all on those title changes since my interest had been waning for a while by that point and most of the guys I liked had already jumped ship (Jericho, Raven, Benoit, Saturn, etc.), disappeared from TV (Hart, Savage, Hogan) or were blatantly phoning it in (Sting). The fact Russo was dumb enough to put the title on himself and a C-List actor just solidified my decision and I just decided there wasn't enough hours in the week left to keep watching everything WCW did. Considering it had been my favourite company since 1992 (with the exception of 1997, maybe) I'd say that took some doing. Sad as it might sound but in 1996-97 if I missed a show I'd actually be annoyed about it to the extent I wouldn't go out until after it had finished (this was when it was on 7 until 8, IIRC) or if I really to go to a mate's house/cinema/pub/wherever for a mate's birthday at that time I'd make sure I got it recorded for me. In 2000 if I missed one, I didn't care. That said there was no chance of me stopping on wrestling altogether at that point since I actually thought WWF's product was at its best around that time.

This is probably the only thing that came close:

I have a few:

 

Wrestling has always been a sleazy business and you could even say it's part of the appeal but I think that one just made a lot of people sit up and think for a little while if they really wanted to carry on watching.

Other than that one brief moment in time, to be honest most of the most common ones - Hornswoggle, PG ratings, John Cena, etc. - never made me think about giving up. The decline of actual wrestling around the world has made me less enthusiastic than I was in the past when at least if Nitro sucked you could change the channel to Raw, if WWF wasn't delivering there was always ECW, SMW or USWA, if the U.S. scene had gotten stale there was a thriving scene in Japan, etc. but I doubt there's one image that could sum it up. That even those things haven't made me give up makes me wonder what it would take for me to do so.

The same thing happened with Hogan/Warrior when I was at school. Not just the kids either, everyone had a parent/uncle/teacher who felt the need to chip in with their opinion. That's actually a good point really - a lot of people's memories of a match are tied up in how they felt at the time (e.g. if you'd followed Benoit for years and supported him all that time then it made the ending to WM XX all the sweeter, especially if you disliked Triple H for the reasons Dopper & Carbomb gave then you had an added bonus). I can see the moment being a big part of Austin/Rock which is why I think it suffers a bit for me because (for the only period in the last twenty two years) I wasn't watching WWF at the time. Even then, I still like it a lot.

I think, the only match noone has commented on is Benoit vs. Angle despite it getting votes. I know I criticised Kurt a bit in the Wrestler of the Decade thread but that's actually my favourite Angle match and was my favourite WWE match from that year (followed by Benoit/Lesnar on SmackDown!). I liked the fact that the backstory was based around wrestling. As long as that isn't done for every match ala early RoH, I think that can be an entertaining storyline in its own right. As opponents and partners it had been emphasised that both men thought they were not only the 'better' wrestler and in fact 'the BEST technical wrestler' in the company: so they both had something to prove. But that wasn't all, as the build-up played off three significant factors in: i.) their singles rivarly and last PPV match at Unforgiven (which Benoit won) - which in turned played off their feud the previous year; ii.) Their time as a tag team, forced to work togehter by Stephanie in an attempt to give Smcakdown! 'the best tag team in the world' - all the while trying to outperform and outshine one and other - even to the extent of wrestling against each other in singles matches; iii.) The tag team's split, Angle's heel turn and alignment with Heyman and the subsequent matches and angles between Benoit and Angle in the build-up specific to this match - i.e. this last part was the build-up most PPV main events get in the month beforehand. What I liked about the match was that they were able to work things into it that basically told that story, played off their past history and previous matches (particularly the fact that Benoit had beaten Angle twice in the previous few months) and produce something that surpassed my expectations because not only was it the technical match everyone envisioned, it was far more emotional than I expected. They portrayed how even though they were both even technically, Benoit had never been to the top and captured the WWE title so he was still an underdog even when he was in control. Amazingly when you were watching it, it made you think and feel this could be the night he did - something that translated really well to the live audience... Despite common sense dictating otherwise. The way it was able to make Benoit out to be a credible threat to the title, even a time when everyone was expecting Lesnar/Angle at Wrestlemania was superb. Benoit came across so strong here that the ending made Angle look like a credible champion - something he struggled with throughout his career. The match represents the end of era since it was pretty much the final curtain for the days of the 'Smackdown! Six' when Benoit and Angle were amongst those having great matches on a weekly basis and even though people had been complaining that had started to get stale since Surivor Series (which might be the reason that excellent Four Way Elimination match from December doesn't get as much love as some of the earlier 'SD! Six' stuff, despite it being as good as them) they actually made it still seem interesting. I'm sure I could watch it now and find things to pick apart from it but at the time this was one of the most fun I've had watching a match. Another one would be Cactus/Triple H from Royal Rumble 2000 which I watched with large group of people some of whom weren't even fans, had no clue who any of the wrestlers were (like The Rock's run-in) and still ended up cheering Foley on. Speaking of audiences for it I still remember the pops for Rock's cameo and after Foley kicked out of the first Pedigree being two of the loudest I had heard. At the time I wasn't a fan of Cactus getting back up post-match to attack Trips, but in retrospect the reactions for the post match were worth it. I was going to comment on Guerrero/Lesnar but I realised I should be meeting someone in the pub now and I'm already late. So (if in the unlikely case you wanted to know my opinion on it) just take what I said about the other matches and multiply it. Wrestling can be great when it goes right.

How anyone can vote anything OTHER than WrestleMania 25 is beyond me. There's so much expectation put on WM to deliver and yet last year's edition just rode by on name alone.

 

Come on, they had 'Taker/HBK on that card - that was a great performance, even if it was over-rated. It was definitely WM worthy, and whilst a WM should be better than a one-match card, WM9 it ain't. And it was certainly a lot better than Night Of Champions or the Christmas edition of RAW.

 

No word of a lie, I prefer Wrestlemania 9 to Wrestlemania 25. Without a shadow of a doubt. Michaels/Taker was the nuts, but they've done it before (and once better), and 9's got the old childhood memories running through it too. I suppose this is as much knee-jerking as over-loving something, but I'm inclined to agree with the WM25 hate, I watched it just the other day from start to finish and it was a right fucking slog. The crowd were asleep until Michaels/Taker, and fucked after it.

 

Hindsight is 20/20 and everything, but huge, huge mistakes were made with the Jericho match, Mickey Rourke, Kid Rock, Hardy vs Hardy and Orton vs HHH, in both card placement and booking. MITB passes by default as all of them do as it's a million guys and a ladder, but outside of the Taker/HBK and every single thing John Cena does on the show, WM25 can swivel. It even ranks below 13 in my eyes, because Austin/Bret was WAY more important and pivotal in the long run than Shawn/UT, and the Nation/LOD & Ahmed match murders anything else 25 has in support. I can only think of WM2, WM18 and, to a lesser extent, WM11 that I desperately struggle to sit through start to finish, but 25 has breezed onto my list.

13 wasn't a bad show if you chop the main event in half (or chop it of it completely). Not sure I'd put it over XXV but you are right about their respective big matches. I like both but Austin/Hart smokes Michaels/Taker. I don't mind WrestleMania II. Bulldogs/Dream Team and Funks/JYD & Santana are probably the best straight tag team matches I've seen at a WrestleMania, Hogan/Bundy isn't as bad as people seem to think (it is almost like everyone presumes it sucks but it doesn't really) and that powerslam out of the corner is ace, and as far as battle royals go the one there is at least a bit of fun. If Hogan/SAvage and Bret/Steamboat (both of which were supposedly planned at one point) had gone ahead for the show and the tag matches stayed the same I think it could be the best WrestleMania of the 80s. Unfortunately the bad stuff is really bad which drags it down. I'm with you on WMX8 being a letdown - they had such a good roster at that point that I really expected something better.

'Taker's facial expression when HBK kicked out of the Tombstone because it really made their match at WrestleMania XXV that much better. Sometimes it is the little things that count.

I went for Mr. Ziggles.

Haven't seen enough of The Pope but I liked him a lot as Elijah Burke and it was a shame when his push just disappeared. It's interesting the amount of praise he was getting online and the fact WWE seemed behind him, giving him Vince McMahon's endorsement as 'The New Face of ECW', and making him the leader of The New Breed. I don't know if it was Dusty Rhodes, who was supposedly a Burke supporter, leaving but he just sort of fell off the map after that. The comparison with MVP is interesting because I remember when MVP started a lot of people on here thought he sucked. Even up to around the time Burke was getting his big push (January 07) there was a lot of negativity towards him whereas Burke was starting to get praised as a future main eventer. I remember when MVP had that WrestleMania match with Benoit, a lot of people on here were stunned at how good it (and he) was, although there were still some who felt it was a carry-job. It wasn't really until after then when the Benoit feud carried on for the next few months that more and more people started to get on the MVP bandwagon. That period coincided with Burke turning into 'just another wrestler'.

I agree with most of JLM's thoughts on why he thought WrestleMania XXV was a good show, although I still found it disappointing partly because of the poor build-up and the anti-climatic main event (not that I

expected Hunter/Orton to surpass Taker/Shawn but like I said in the nominations thread I did think they could have gone out there and had an entertaining brawl which sent the majority home happy), and partly because the standard for WM in recent years has been very high as has the standard for monthly PPVs in general. No chance was it the event of 2009, but by the same token I don't consider it the worst.

Someone please refresh my memory, what happened on the April 6th edition of Raw?

 

WWE Raw (6th April 2009)

 

- Colon's vs Miz & Morrison in a great match, much better than the WM match the night before

- Steamboat, Cena, Jeff, Punk & Rey vs Edge, Jericho, Matt, Big Show & Kane was great

- A 10-woman Raw vs SmackDown tag match with hardly any botched moves

- Vince vs Orton ending with Batista returning to help the McMahon's

- My 30th birthday.

 

- Colons vs Miz & Morrison was an underrated feud. I thought they had plenty of good matches but this was in the top three.

- Steamboat, Cena, Jeff, Punk & Rey vs Edge, Jericho, Matt, Big Show & Kane might have been the best Raw match of the year. As much as I dug watching him roll back time at Mania and Backlash I actually think this might have been his best work. I liked the way all the feuds from the previous night came together and everyone got the chance to shine without it feeling like too much of a rushed mess.

- There have actually been some decent multi-Diva tags this year including the one at Bragging Rights. If they insist on getting all the Divas on the WrestleMania card again this year (and you know they will) then this should be the way to go. Beats having them all at ringside whilst Melina/Ashley is happening or that horrible battle royal from this year. Pick 10, 12, 14 of them and let them all have a few seconds in the ring to hit their big move.

- My 29th birthday so one good thing to come out of this thread is that I feel younger (thanks Dopper!).

Anyway, I think the card of the year is Backlash - some good stuff from Swagger/Christian (if not up to the standard of their second TV match), Steamboat rolling back the years against Jericho with a nice tribute to WrestleMania III, another decent match between the brothers Hardy, Good Ol' JR getting ribbed, Orton winning the title, and one of Cena's many quality main events this time against Edge.

I went for Chris Jericho vs. Rey Mysterio at The Bash, although I might have voted Swagger/Christian II if it was on there. This is one of the better polls - I thought all those matches were at least very good (except the Dragon's Gate one which I haven't seen).

Several of these were absolutely superb at the time, but have been sullied too much by other things; WM20 & Flair's retirement being the main offenders. Eddie wins my vote by default. At least Fat Titted Piper's lousy, unnecessary return isn't doing well. Can't see how that even got nominated.

Shock and timing. Piper had spent the last however many years mocking WWE for being pornography or whatever, and if anyone knows anything about Piper's wrestling character it is that he hates Hulk Hogan. So it was a shock to see him in the ring and the timing of it came at a perfect place in the match giving us an interesting moment to watch who he would hit.

Flair's retirement ceremony isn't ruined for me because I always had the sneaking suspicion he'd be back (but hoped I was wrong). The 2000s had some great moments, although I'm not sure I'd put it ahead of the 90s where a lot of the ones I would consider the most memorable moments (Douglas throws down the NWA belt, Hogan's heel turn, Bret hugs Owen and Davey Boy, Austin stuns McMahon in MSG, Goldberg beats Hogan) for the most part led to something good afterwards.

I still think Benoit/Eddie is the defining moment for the decade for both positive and negative reasons.

Ah, that's what I meant about some discussion. A few points:

That said, nothing he's done to date has EVER put him above Benoit, Guerrero, Michaels, Lesnar or Angle; those guys at their best have always been better. Don't misunderstand me: I think Danielson has plenty of time to prove himself an elite of their class, although I think he'd have had a better chance of doing that in the same system that allowed the forementioned to do so well, rather than the current WWE system of micro-management. I just don't think he warrants being called "Wrestler Of The Decade" (hopefully he'll do so at the end of next decade), and I do feel his inclusion in this poll is largely because the indy fanboys are so desperate to be able to critically acclaim a wrestler outside WWE.

Maybe, and in fairness WWE has had a monopoly over mainstream wrestling outside Mexico and Japan for almost a decade now so it makes sense they would have some of the best wrestlers in the world, it's just interesting that he's the only non-WWE candidate. The reason I mentioned the names I did is because at one point in the last decade people were calling them the best in the world (or at the very least calling them a shoe-in for Wrestler of the Year) and I actually wouldn't have minded reading a case for some of them. In the case of Shocker people were calling him the greatest luchadore of all time (which even given that I haven't seen as much lucha as some seemed like hyperbole). Getting back to Danielson, I hope he does do well in WWE. Danielson is one of the few Indy guys I rate as well, although I haven't followed them much since the days of MLW, CZW, ROH, FWA, 3PW, All Star in 2003-04 so I'm sure there are plenty of talented workers out there. From what I have watched since he's one of the top guys. When I did he was one of the better guys and has only gotten better since. Guys who I wasn't really a fan of from their pre-WWE work (like Shanon Moore and CM Punk) seem to have gotten better from being in WWE although in those cases they spent a long time in developmental changing their style. I just hope they don't change Danielson too much. I haven't seen much of Samoa Joe's recent stuff against fellow heavyweights but I did like his stuff against Scott Steiner a few years back. Still, in a lot of ways I preferred Umaga.

Funny that you should say you don't rate Michaels' post-comeback stuff, TheBigBoot - I never rated any of his pre-hiatus stuff all that highly and thought he was ridiculously over-rated.

Actually, I'd agree with that. People used to rate him as the 'Best Wrestler in the World' which I didn't agree with. To me that only made sense if you only watched WWF but WCW, USWA, ECW, SMW, UWFi, AAA available either on satellite, cable or even in regular video stores I couldn't see it. I used to watch Jushin Liger and Benoit/Pegasus on NJPW Ringwarriors on a Friday night and I couldn't see how Michaels was better than them. Of course, he also had the misfortune of his prime coinciding with the tape trading boom (at least in the UK, in the States that may have been more late 80s/early 90s) so it was around the time of my (and I'd imagine a lot of others) first exposure to AJPW, AJW, JWP, MPW, FMW, ECW, etc. It is not that I thought Michaels sucked. It is just that there were just too many good wrestlers around (which is a good thing). I'm not one who always moans about the PS 50 every year but I will say that at the time I couldn't fathom how PowerSlam (who had no doubt watched all the stuff I had plus lots more) ranked him No. 1 ahead of Misawa, et al. in 1994 when I wasn't even convinced he was the best in the WWF. I don't want to turn this into another Hart vs. Michaels thread. There are certain specific things and certain specific matches, or certain specific years where Michaels worked better, but for the most part I felt Bret Hart was the better of the two. So yes I did think he was overrated in that sense. That said, in 2009 I'm much more likely to go back and watch a HBK match than a Bret Hart. Like Ian, I was aware of the backstage stuff, but in my case whilst that didn't exactly endear him to me it didn't stop me from enjoying his matches either. In-ring I thought he was very good and my only real problem with him being overrated was that I felt there were people better.

But since he returned, he's gradually won me over, and I personally now consider him the legend that everybody called him before. I still don't rate his old stuff, but I definitely think most of his matches since 2002 have never been anything below decent, and the vast majority of them superb. He doesn't just have great matches, he has great matches consistently to the point where I actually look forward to seeing him against anyone, because I know he'll make whoever his opponent is the most watchable they'll ever be, even if that opponent is a superlative wrestler himself

As for why I enjoyed more of his pre-comeback work - like I said, I still he is a great big match performer (and some of those compare favourably to his matches in the 90s) but when it comes to watching him on a weekly TV basis I think it comes down to lack of variety and overexposure. On the first point, a lot of the time the Michaels of 2002-2009 has just seemed more repetitive to me than he did in say 1991-1998, where his character and style was changing (I wasn't massively into his big title run in 1996 but even though, I may not have been a huge fan of his time on top I enjoyed the journey). Also that feud with Triple H seemed to go on for years and I thought a lot of their matches were sub-par to the extent that seeing those two cut promos on each other did nothing for me. On the second, his regular time-offs in the 90s seemed to make when he did wrestle it felt like a bigger deal than it actually was so I'd be looking forward to it. He can still pull out the odd non-big match cracker. I nominated his Raw matches with Jeff Hardy (08) and John Cena (09) because I really liked them but the fact remains that a lot of his stuff in-between then just doesn't do anything for me. Also for as good as those matches are, are they better than his TV matches vs. Razor Ramon and w/Diesel vs. Razor Ramon and 123 Kid in 1994? I wouldn't say yes and even if they are I think they are somewhat lost amongst all the average stuff. That's not really a knock because his TV matches go, they are technically sound and they still get a reaction from the crowd so I wouldn't say they don't work. They just don't stand out like they used to. I can also see why some feel the same about guys I like(d) watching week after week like Benoit and Mysterio but for me I just found them more enjoyable on a more regular basis. Personal preference I suppose. That said Shawn is still very, very good at what he does. I have no problem calling him a legend.

(I lament the fact we'll probably never ever see him against Big Daddy V).

Me too. Michaels vs. Big Guy was always one of the things I liked most about him, watching him fly around for guys like The Twin Towers, King Kong Bundy and Sid. In fact I enjoyed that little feud he had with Kane a few years ago and I remember him having a decentish Raw match with Khali. If he'd worked more matches with big guys during this run I think I'd have enjoyed it more. I'd still like to see him work a feud with Mark Henry at some point.

Never rated the Undertaker that highly - it always felt like his gimmick for a while took a lot of the skill out his game; he very rarely had to sell, almost never had to job cleanly, and it frequently felt like his opponent had to "tailor" his game around the gimmick, which meant we very rarely saw 'Taker out of his comfort zone or doing anything new unless he was wrestling Kane or Batista, or basically anyone billed as strong enough to cause him trouble. The fact that he pretty much always beat them, however, made him as predictable and annoying as Cena in that respect.

I agree with the first bit - that the gimmick dictated a lot of what he was/wasn't able to do. Disagree with he send bit - I think he's done very well for most of this decade at making it look like he was in trouble and despite the no-selling he actually takes a lot of bumps for a big man. Not necessarily in matches but in segments as well, Big Show press-slaming him off the stage (02) or Kennedy bloodying him as he smashed him in the head with a microphone probably did as much for them as if they had won a match and in both cases beating down The Undertaker has become a sign that the person who does it is inline for a big push. For me, it is is what made Maven eliminating him from the Royal Rumble, Great Khali pinning him cleanly in his debut, Big Show knocking him out (2008 and 2009) so effective (and surprising). It seems like when he does put someone over he goes all out for it and the above examples are actually more generous than a lot of headliners (past and present) would be.

2000-01 aside I think he's been okay in that respect. True he normally does almost always beat them in the end, but I actually like the fact that they have one guy who is almost unbeatable/is unbeatable at WrestleMania because it seems that when people do actually beat him it actually means something. I think he's the closest they've got to a present day Andre the Giant, not in terms of style but in terms of coming across as a legend, 'The Phenom', who doesn't need to be in the main event but always feels like a special attraction and a win over him means a lot. Coming across as an impervious to pain monster (Deadman gimmick) or a Bruiser Brody-with slightly more selling-American Bad Ass (Biker gimmick) guarantees that when someone does get the better of him it seems like a big deal. Even the times he didn't lose I thought guys like Test, A-Train and Kennedy were allowed to look competitive against him when he's probably got the political stroke to have insisted they be squashed like DDP when Undertaker was selfish.

I think the advantage for those people who didn't beat Taker the first time around but did look strong is that you got the impression they would do in the future - which is exactly what happened with Batista in 2007. The feud with Kennedy is actually a good example because you were left with the feeling that Kennedy didn't go over by pinfall (he got fluke wins at ) you felt like he was almost there and that he would beat him in the future if he kept at it - which is exactly what would have happened had Kennedy not been unable to cash in 'Money in the Bank' and you can bet 'Taker would have lost further matches in their feud. The more I think about the more I think Undertaker is a good contender for this. As far as the comparion with Cena goes, yes both their feuds are predicable but so were a lot of Hulk Hogan's (anyone who becomes his friend turns on him), Steve Austin's (McMahon tries to screw him, McMahon looks like he has succeeded, Austin finds a way to come out on top) and Ric Flair's (lose title-win it back) best work. As long as they make it entertaining along the way I don't mind and even though Cena and Taker are different kinds of character I do think that Cena has been protected for so long now that a clean win over him on a Big Four show could also mean something similar.

I would've voted Benoit if he'd been around for more than just half the decade, and I always felt he was hard done-by when he first joined the WWF. I was ecstatic when he won the belt at WMXX, but I thought the best time to put the belt on him was when he was a psychotic heel feuding with The Rock in '99/2000 - he looked the most threatening back then, and was red-hot as a heel.

I think there were plenty of times they could have put the belt on Benoit before they did: the feud with Rock you mention, in 2001 when he was (surprisingly) getting better reactions than Jericho in their feud with Austin (would have happened if he hadn't been injured), in 2002 when Heyman appartently wanted him to transition the belt off Lesnar onto Angle and McMahon went for Big Show, etc. Around mid-2003 I also thought they'd dropped the ball by not putting it on him sooner, but in retrospect I think things worked out better in terms of creating a huge moment since getting Triple H to tap cleanly in the main event of the 20th WrestleMania meant more in the grand scheme of things than his other possible title runs (which would all likely have ended up being short anyway) probably would have done.

Angle, well - what's there to say that hasn't been said already? Horribly over-rated. Great from a technical perspective, charismatic and was excellent in his "Killer Kurt" phase (despite being in the worst physical condition of his life), but has never been particularly consistent, most of his matches have been spotfests, and a lot of matches that people have spunked over, I really don't see the big deal. For example, people calling his match with HBK the best ever - sorry, don't see it. It's a very good match, and Angle does hold up his end of the bargain, but it's nowhere near Match of the Decade. Kurt's biggest problem has always been his spottiness - an amateur wrestler shouldn't be doing moonsaults or 450s (however beautiful they might look), and his finisher overkill has ruined many an otherwise classic match for me; in fact, it's become a particular problem in the past few weeks, killing off BOTH of Desmond Wolfe's finishers within three weeks of his debut, and stinking up an otherwise enjoyable (if not classic) spotfest between him and AJ (who's even more over-rated than Angle).

Yeah, pretty much everything to be said about Angle has already been said. At one point I thought he was the most overrated wrestler of all time (when there were all the threads on whether he was better than Flair or Hart, when every PPV match he had was getting a ***3/4 + rating) since then he's had a pretty big backlash against him, not just on here but it seems from the wrestling media in general. I don't know that he's overrated anymore but he definitely was. A lot of your criticisms are the same as my own, although I've never had a problem with the moonsault since there seemed to be some thought behind it since it was (at least in WWE) saved it for PPVs/blow-off to feud matches on TV as if it was a last resort for when his other stuff didn't work, and also as cocky heel who believed he was the best athlete in the business showing off that he could do the high-flying pro wrestling stuff as well even though he didn't need to just to outdo a Mysterio/Michaels or whoever he was wrestling at their own game - but the fact he always missed it turned it into almost a comedy spot which is stupid (and dangerous). It is also indicative of my main problem with him: that none of his finishers 'work'. That he was able to turn the Angle Slam, top-rope Angle Slam, regular Anglelock and moonsault into transition moves really worked against him and, as you mentioned with Wolfe, he does the same to his opponents offense. If Jay Lethal can survive for that long in the super deadly, 'this is really a finish this time I promise', heel-hook Anglelock then how am I expected to believe it could beat a Mick Foley or (it if he ever returns to WWE) Undertaker with it? I also agree with the amateur wrestler point since one of the things that is annoying is how little actual mat-wrestling he often does which would have not only been believable in that they could get over how an Olympian was nearly unbeatable once he took his opponent down (as in the 'Killer Kurt' shooter-type gimmick vs. Orton) but would have prolonged his career. That Iron Man match he had with Lesnar was an ideal opportunity to show off that side of him but instead it ended up as a suplex-a-thon. But yeah Angle criticism has been done to death and he is a funny guy who had as many good matches as just about anyone else this decade, I just feel he could have been something more.

I thought No Mercy was the best PPV of 2002 and is one of my favourite ever PPV's though I doubt someone will agree with me there.

No I'd agree with that. Two of the best tag matches of the decade (Sexy Beasts/BookDust may even be the most underrated PPV match of the decade) and my favourite ever Hell in the Cell, plus a decent Cruiser match. I thought it was one of the better B-Shows they've done since 2000-01 (when everything seemed to click). Shame about Hunter/Kane though.

I think what I missed out on with WrestleMania 17 was not watching it live. Of those 'Manias listed I think I liked XIX the best, just because I think it was a very good card top to bottom, even if it didn't have the standout match that X7 or XX.

Even though I didn't nominate it because I didn't think it was even Top 5 for the year let alone the decade, Royal Rumble 2000 was one of the most fun events as far as watching it with a large group of people at university goes (some fans, some not) and everyone getting behind Foley's comeback in the same way as watching a football match - the guy was (is?) a genius at taking a beating in a way that it built sympathy to the extent you were willing him on even if you'd never seen him before. Backlash 2000 is possibly the best B-Show PPV ever. The crowd were really, really into Austin's return as well.

Forgetting match quality, of which there were plenty better, the first ONS was the most fun to watch for nostalgia and pure entertainment reasons if you liked ECW in the 90s.

I think I would put SummerSlam 2002 over all of them in terms of top-to-bottom good matches. The opener and main event were WWE Match of the Year contenders for me - two completely different matches with the first being a really fast-paced sprint which showed the chemistry between Angle and Mysterio and that must be one of the best opening matches this decade, the main event really felt like a changing of the guard as it saw Rock get whilst doing his utmost to make Lesnar look like a credible new champion. Regardless of whether or not it stands up now, Triple H/HBK was a great moment on the night. I wasn't Michaels' biggest fan but I enjoyed seeing him back and the match surpassed what I was expecting. Elsewhere, I thought RVD/Benoit was one of Van Dam's better WWE showings, UnAmericans/BookDust was a really heated old school tag that showed how over Booker was at that point, Test/Taker was a surprisingly good Big Man match, and Guerrero/Edge was still in the "pretty good" category if a little disappointing compared to what they would go on to achieve. Quality event that kept me entertained from start to finish.

I would have voted for Austin/Rock and HHH/Foley ahead of it. Why? Simply because wrestling overall was better in 2000/2001 than it was in 2004, and I was more into it. Plus, I think I just prefer your classic one-on-one match to triple threats. People's reasoning for not voting for the Benoit match may be as simple as that.

Oh definitely. I really, really liked watching that Triple Threat live but even at the time there were plenty who preferred Lesnar/Guerrero from a month before, or Orton/Foley and the Triple Threat rematch Harraga mentioned from a month later and that is just within WWE. Kobashi/Takayama from April and Kobashi/Akiyama from Departure are two others I nominated which shows what a good year 2004 was for big matches (plus I'm sure RoH/TNA fans would say Punk/Joe or something or that Triple X Cage match). I didn't vote for it but it is still a very good match though and one of the most emotional title wins I've seen thanks to the years of struggle and Benoit coming so close time and time again before.

Thought there would be some discussion on this one.

I think this is the toughest award out of any of them because I don't think there's been that one stand out guy/girl you could make a really solid case for being great for all (or at least most) of the decade like you had with Flair/Jumbo/Fujinami in the 80s and Misawa/Liger/Hart in the 90s. Maybe Kenta Kobashi - but then he didn't even make the poll. Most of the main contenders at the start of the decade either died, retired to do other things or couldn't keep up with the standard they started the decade with and went through the motions for (some of) the rest of it.

Say what you want about him but Triple H was maybe the strongest contender for this by the end of 2000 and if you were able to look into the future and guarantee that he would be at/near the top for the entire next ten years I think people would have presumed he had the decade in the bag. Unfortunately he wasn't really able to maintain that standard for the rest of the decade, despite the odd flashes of brilliance. Personally I wouldn't vote him Wrestler of the Decade but he's a stronger contender than some might give him credit for.

Edge and Kurt Angle both had a pretty harsh backlash against them, and whilst I've also criticised both at times, I think they can also be a bit underrated in that they have been there or there abouts in prominent positions, funny segments and good matches for most of the last ten years. To be honest, I could see Angle having won the vote had it been done halfway through the decade. In-ring I'd put them both behind Benoit and Guerrero.

I'm surprised to see so many votes for Chris Benoit not just because of how he went out but because post-2002 everywhere you looked there seemed to be a lot of people who had gone off him in the few years before then/felt he was too repetitive/felt he'd been surpassed by guys like Danielson, etc. The only exception being the period directly before and after he won the World Title. Not me and I remember defending him and his matches with guys like A-Train, Edge, JBL, Orton, Finlay and Regal as examples that he still had 'it' but even then I wouldn't say they were his best years in-ring. Even I will admit that once he won the title there was a feeling of "what's left?" as if it was some kind of 'lifetime achievement award'.

Eddie Guerrero isn't a bad pick at all. He really developed into an elite level allrounder. Some of his promos were amazing as well so if it is taking into account guys who made the effort to improve themselves then you could argue he's way ahead of Benoit in that respect. He made what seemed like a derivative one-joke gimmick work in his first WWF run, his post-2001 release work on the international circuit was really really good, and then in his comeback he showed how he could get over with the WWE audience and despite attempts to turn him heel the audience still loved him whatever he did. He had the odd disappointing match here and there and people were quick to criticise whenever he and Kurt Angle or Rey Mysterio had a sloppy exchange, but I don't think that really mattered since in terms of the overall entertainment package I thought he still delivered. Even after his death he was still the most over babyface on the roster! On the other hand it is sort of depressing if the best wrestler of the decade is a guy who died of a heart attack halfway through it.

The Undertaker had some dull periods and also missed some time due to wear and tear but on the other hand the last ten years really did go a long way to adding to his legacy. His 2002 heel run, 2003 babyface run and the last few years were the best work he'd done since 1996-97 but unlike then when his best matches tended to be against world class guys like Foley, Hart, Michaels and Austin I think he also showed that he could have decent matches with people you wouldn't expect him to. The predictably crackers against HHH (01), Rock & Angle (02), Lesnar (02; 03), Angle (03; 06), Orton (05), Edge (08), Michaels (09) were supplemented by surprisingly good ones against a washed-up Flair (02), a demotivated Hardy (02), Test (02), A-Train (03), Big Show (03; 08; 09), Cena (03; 04), Vince McMahon (03), Mr. Kennedy (06), and Batista (07; 08) when in reality all of those could have quite easily ended up sucking. He even managed to get something half-decent out of Great Khali.

As good as he was at his best, Brock Lesnar was only really around for two years the first few months of which were spent being compared to Goldberg/Sid and mocked by the casual fans and six months of which were spent in the dreaded 'Happy Clap Brock' getting mocked by the smart fans (on here and elsewhere). I still say he might be the best new wrestler to make his debut in the decade.

Despite great runs in early 2000, mid-2001 and February 2008-present and being one of the few watchable things on Raw in 2003, Chris Jericho was too inconsistent and seemed to have times when he just couldn't be bothered. He also missed that whole period from August 2005-November 2007.

Shawn Michaels missed the first couple of years, only worked four times in 2002 and I'm not as keen on a lot of his post-comeback stuff as some. If Benoit was "too repetitive" then I think you have to hold the same standard to HBK. Still a great big match performer though.

Credit to Bryan Danielson for being the only non-WWE worker to get on there. Especially where guys like Kobashi, Joe, KENTA, Mysterio, Muto, Styles, Mistico and Shocker who were all heavily praised on here as being one of the best in the world at one point in the last decade didn't. I think it shows how consistent he's been since he always seems to get in the Wrestler of the Year polls, despite being in promotions that less people watch. I haven't seen enough of his stuff to vote for him (or to dismiss him) but hopefully someone gives a decent argument in the next three days.

Hmmmn...

I think what makes the Benoit thing so difficult to separate the man from the performer was that wrestling played a part in it be it the drugs, the deaths of his friends, to all those headbutts, etc. Even his marriage stemmed from a wrestling storyline. That and it was so public. I felt awkward watching Snuka after I first read up on his past but that wasn't constantly in your face in the way that it seemed Benoit was the only subject wrestling fans were discussing for a while afterwards (understandably so). For about three months it seemed there was another Benoit story/update out there somewhere every day. I had people who don't watch wrestling, wouldn't be able to name more than two wrestlers, have never watched wrestling and don't even understand wrestling asking me about it.

Most people watch wrestling for a bit of escapism and having all that stuff NEWM mentioned "having an unshakable thought of" in the in the back of their minds makes that harder to enjoy. It just reminds you what a fucked up business it can be.

All that said, I have watched some Benoit matches since he died but I can certainly understand why others wouldn't.

At least my personal favourite (HHH / Foley) is getting some votes. Although I think people should be kinder to Benoit's greatest moment, too. Certainly a much better match than HBK / Taker.

I'm shocked at that.*

*That = You watched some WWE in 2009.

Jericho/Mysterio - Consistently good matches, built around a strong pro wrestling storyline (Jericho's obsession with Mysterio's mask) that was one of those rare cases where the PPVs matches kept getting actively better culminating in a legitimate MOTYC at The Bash. It is also the only one of those feuds that really played out in different match types (Elimination Chamber, singles, tag) throughout the whole year without ever getting boring - I was more excited going into their match at The Bash than I was their match at Judgement Day. Their Beat The Clock Match from last week's SmackDown! was the best match I've seen so far in 2010 as well.

I assume people nominated Mark Henry out of habit? He's been the best he's ever been the past couple of years.

I would think so but I've just about given up arguing about it (until now) because he still somehow manages to get on this list every year even the last few where, as you mentioned, he'd been a decent big man (partic. 2006 and 2008). He's now also over as a pretty useful babyface on Raw and I expect whenever they want to build up their next Monster Heel they'll have them work a program with and beat Henry.

Good list, regardless of what you think of the product - 2009 really was the year of great one-off 'WWE Moments', although I'd expect TNA to crack it next year. Some real gems there (apart from Chris Masters doing the Crazy Train which was okay but I didn't find as funny as everyone else it seems). I'm going for Undertaker's face at WrestleMania.

As good as The Rock Concert was, it was just one event whereas the others were angles that made the shows more enjoyable for the time they lasted. In that sense, Edge and Christian (2000), Austin, Angle & McMahon (2001) and Paparazzi Productions (TNA 2006) are all better for me because they produced comedy on a weekly basis and in the case of the last one really did make TNA's comedy seem a lot less scripted than the stuff in WWE at the same time. (I also hoped Michaels kicking Stan would get on there. If HBK's going to win a 'Decade Award' I'd rather it be that one than 'Match Of The Decade' with Taker/Angle)

Anyway, I went for Commissioner Regal a man who has always seemed to have a really, really good grasp of what works in terms of delivery, facial expressions and attention to detail far beyond the usual standard in pro wrestling.

I bought Great American Bash 2004 a few years ago, because I was curious after reading the praise for Mysterio/Chavo as WWE's best Cruiserweight match on here, and having seen the event I didn't hate it. It had that match and I thought the Bullrope match was decent and the four way was okay. That said the card did look really drab going in which is why I didn't watch it at the time and it was before people had really gotten into JBL's character. I actually thought that GAB 2005 was worse.

I nominated WrestleMania 2000 and X8 because they were such let-downs considering what they could have been, but I wouldn't actually vote for either. I'm going with the obvious one here.

Triple H vs. Randy Orton (like the show itself) is Most Disappointing but wasn't close to being worst.

Then again, I see what NEWM means about judging this according to talent level. TNA throwing a reality TV star out there to try and get some publicity or WWE throwing Vickie Guerrero out there in a Hog Pen match to write her out of the storyline were always doomed to be rotten matches it is just that they turned out even worse than expected. Particularly the TNA one which had the misfortune of being on a real stinker of a show to begin with and by a minute or so in actually seemed like they were doing their best to have a worse match than that 2002 mixed tag on Raw.

Same here, and that's an achievement considering HHH/Cena headlined only a few years previous.

 

Cena/HHH was a great match. It had great crowd interaction, played them perfectly, told a good story and in beautiful wrestling style, good triumphed over evil in the end. It wwas a billion times better than either HHH/Orton or HHH/Jericho and it was also better than the 4 way from WM 16 and the HHH/Batista match.

 

Seems like we saw the match totally differently, because I thought they looked as ill-prepared for the hostile reactions to Cena as Lesnar and Goldberg had been a few years previous, and more or less completely ignored the live crowd by playing their assigned heel and face roles instead of acknowledging that the crowd had essentially turned both of them. They then gave them an ending that went down like a fart in a crowded lift, as Cena clearly hadn't won them over by the conclusion and the STFU with HHH right next to the ropes had the smell of a Dusty finish.

WWE were definitely prepared for the hostile reactions to Cena at WrestleMania 22. Cena had been getting booed for ages and after watching Trish and Rey get booed earlier on that same WrestleMania there is no chance they were expecting the audience to suddenly all rally behind Cena. That's why they had Jim Ross talk about him being such a "controversial" champion and they tried to spin it as the old school fans relating to Triple H.

HHH/Steiner. At least Goldberg/Lesnar had a surreal atmosphere going for it.

 

Sprules/Tyler shouldn't be here on account of the greatest commentary in industry history.

Well in that case, by the same token I'm not voting for HHH/Steiner because it led to some interesting discussion on here, particularly when Cat_Mutt compared it positively to that Angle/Lesnar Iron Man.

I agree with Carbomb that OPWO's Big 'un in Wigan was a "proper match" - two trained wrestlers, in front of a paying crowd in an actual venue. That said that mixed tag was such a mess, with them throwing a barely trained diva out there against opponents unprepared to carry her, and it was actually shown on international TV where you would expect a higher standards than a small British indy.

Say what you will about Trips, Nash and Steiner but I doubt they have ever being in anything as bad as either of those.

Three horse race for me, between:

1.) Rey Mysterio - Strong showings in the Royal Rumble and at No Way Out, cracking series with Jericho including a couple of MOTYCs, gave Ziggler and Morrison their best matches, team with Batista had the best match anyone did with JerriShow and then when he and 'The Animal' had their split he capped off the year with some underdog performances against him. In-ring I think he had the most good matches of the three. This was by far his most consistent year (would consider 2002 but he wasn't around all year) since going to 'New York'.

2.) Christian - In some ways the most deserving since he was so consistent despite not being featured through any kind of big push yet he still managed to do a good job coming across as the big fish in a small pond and had plenty of good matches with the whole variety of opponents he was thrown from Swagger to Henry to Kidd to Dreamer to Ryder to Regal to Benjamin to Tatsu. I'd go further and say he has been the best wrestler they've had since the start of the new ECW. The only problem I have with picking him is that he seemed to get lost in the shuffle (even more so than usual for the ECW Champ) towards from about late August to November, not even appearing at HIAC or Bragging Rights, until they gave him a bit of a push again at the very end (strong showing at Survivor Series, given a title defense at TLC, the current tourney to set up a No. 1 Contender).

3.) Chris Jericho - Was my pick for this last year and he had another strong year in '09. When you combine the stuff against Rourke and the Legends, the feud with Steamboat, the short-lived team with Edge, the 'thrown together' JerriShow's ability to develop into a proper team and have more interesting matches with Cryme Tyme and MVP & Henry than the Harts or Legacy managed (despite plenty of practice in both cases) and the actual quality of matches with Cena and Mysterio you could even argue he had an even better year than last year where the highlights were mainly to do with the same feud with Michaels, plus some decent stuff with others. He's certainly shown more variety this year. Unlike Mysterio he didn't get suspended either so he was around (and heavily featured) all year.

Those are the ones who've made me enjoy watching wrestling the most this year and that's my main criteria for this (Hon. mention to John Cena for being in almost all of the good matches I saw from the Raw brand). I wouldn't mind any of them winning.

Has to be one of the Raws for me.

Don't get me wrong Victory Road was rubbish but then again it is one of only three TNA events I saw last year - maybe it made more sense to their fans. WM was the Most Disappointing event of the year but still had some good matches and having seen every WM so far I wouldn't even call it the worst 'Mania. The Bash had arguably the best PPV match of the entire year. I didn't see those other two WWE PPVs so I can't comment.

Hmmm, I think I'll go for the Raw after Royal Rumble as the ultimate momentum killer following the surprisingly good job they'd done building up Orton the week before.

Christian - The guy does a great job at coming across as the big fish in a small pond, as far as being a 'hero to the fans' with the way he displays the right amount of confidence (taking on all challengers, etc.) and humour in promos without it being overbearing. In ring, he's never been better. Chiddy is right about him not really having a bad since his comeback. Hardy had a good year as well although I preferred him in 2008. Rey is better at playing face in peril, during actual matches but that's about it.

Taking a leaf out of dopper's book, I think these are interesting picks:

On the same grounds, I'm going to throw Triple H vs Cena from WM22 in there. Cena was still utter shit technically at this point (I believe this is the match that, when asked for feedback afterwards, HHH told Cena 'you suck'), and the misjudgement of the live crowd was the worst I've seen since Lesnar/Goldberg. Such a monumental fuck-up for such an important match. Not even the comedy entrances could save it.

I know a lot think Trips buried Cena in the build-up but this choice surprises me. I didn't like that match as much as some (need to give it a rewatch at some point, its been 3 years) but I remember that being a runner up for Match Of The Year on here in 2006. Granted I think the enjoyment it might have been mainly to do with the crowd interaction (I believe this is where the "Yeah"/"Boo" spot started), which sort of set the stage for ONS II vs. Van Dam, but there's plenty who would rated this as Cena's and Hunter's best match from that year. I know a lot of them seemed to rate it based on the role reversal with Hunter as face for the night and Cena as heel which they hoped for the following year with Michaels/Cena (which I did enjoy) that ended up being worked as babyface/babyface instead. One thing I will give credit for is I thought Hunter was quite generous in most of the match in terms of making Cena look to be his equal which wasn't the case in the build-up and even tapped at the end. I do agree with you on one thing - I thought it was quite an important one as well. Even though he won the title the year before this was really the start of Cena's run going into overdrive as far as establishing him as The Man on Raw went. No offense to JBL, Angle and Jericho but beating Hunter in the main event of Mania was by far Cena's biggest moment to that point and really did show WWE was fully behind him (if they had wanted to give up the push and experiment with his character but needed a strong champion this was their out and they declined it). To be honest, I think I liked their stuff from this year more but again I'd have to see this match again since I might be misremembering bits of it. Other than Benoit/Angle from Soilent_Green, I think that will be the only match nominated for both 'Best' and 'Worst' of the Decade. Unless someone has picked this...

Big Show vs. Floyd Mayweather

This one also surprises me, although I admit it very nearly did bomb with the confusing build-up but I thought it turned out to be one of the better Fighter vs. Wrestler matches I've seen, and certainly better than crap like Styels/Trigg. Had they had them go toe-to-toe and Show still lose I would agree but here, as in real life, the only things Mayweather had over Show were his speed and ability to throw punches (which are both realistic since they are true) but if he got caught he would get killed. When they first set that up at No Way Out (great angle BTW) I wasn't sure how they could translate it into a match without Show looking like an idiot. They managed and I think with the way they did it the only way to have made him look stronger would have been to go over (which was never going to happen). See whilst I wouldn't say I was expecting this to 'suck' like some of WCW's celebrity matches (with the way WWE like to manage things I imagined they'd have gone over it again and again), I did think the audience would turn on it if when tried to portray Mayweather as a plucky Rey Mysterio type underdog, especially since I thought he might go over clean which would be a waste of Show's comeback (and also make someone like Rey kind of pointless as well if an even smaller athlete from another sport can come in with no training and beat someone that much bigger). Given the size difference, I can get why people were dreading the prospect of Mayweather somehow managing to outwrestle Show, which would have made them both look crap, but fortunately that didn't really happen. I thought Mayweather was really good a Southern-style chickenshit heel, who was all cocky on the surface but needed to rely on outside interference and cheating because he was totally outmatched by the big bad wrestler. I know a lot of people are fed up with wrestlers always doing the job (I expect it but in kayfabe terms I can understand the frustration especially when they are held under regular wrestling moves - you wouldn't have a pro wrestler with no training walking into boxing and out-boxing Wladimir Klitschko, so in a way I can relate) but it was nice to see the wrestler come out of it looking good since you don't normally have wrestlers booked to look that dominant. That said, I wouldn't vote it Match Of The Year but I can see why people lot really got into it since it really was Pro Wrestling. Mayweather actually reminded me of Raven here with the collection of flunkies and foreign objects, with BS as the World's Largest Goldberg.

Each to their own, and all that, thinking those matches were poor is just as valid I just thought they were interesting picks since they both received so much praise elsewhere.

WWE Wrestlemania 16

WWE Wrestlemania 18

I'm going to second those/add them to mine.

Neither are actually the worst PPV of all time but there probably both in the top three most disappointing. For the same reason people didn't enjoy this year's WM/felt it was a let down, only more so because of how hot the product was - WWF was on fire in 2000 with their most consistent run of quality PPVs and yet WrestleMania was probably the second worst of them (behind King of the Ring 2000). Not even the spectacle of Taker/Flair and Hogan/Rock could save WM X8 from feeling like a disappointment, the nWo angle feeling like another wasted opportunity (following the InVasion), very few major feuds were blown off, and the finish felt more like a funeral than the celebration of a returning hero McMahon wanted.