You're Match of The Half-Year?

[Fox Piss]

Edge/Ziggler from Royal Rumble. Just started back watching wrestling at the end of 2010 and Royal Rumble was my first PPV in years. Loved this match first time i really saw Ziggler and thought he outshone Edge. Ziggler in my opinion is 1 of the WWE top workers.

[jimufctna24]

Trips and Taker by a mile for me. I actually enjoyed it more then both HBK vs Taker matches from previous years.

 

Honourable mention goes to

 

Orton vs Christian - Over The Limit

 

Punk vs Rey - Capital Punishment

 

Smackdown Chamber

[Ron Simmons]

Orton/Christian's first Smackdown match. Insanely hot crowd right through, a great story both in and out the ring, and an exceelent match.

[King Pitcos]

I'll go Undertaker vs Triple H as well. Extremely well done, and has the advantage over Edge-Ziggler and Orton-Christian in that it wasn't repeated another three times that month. I'd probably put the second Orton vs Christian match as second best of the year.

[PepperPlunge]

You got that one right. Long winded as it was, I told everyone that Batista hadn't drawn a dime and that Paul London could sell more tickets if he were to headline than Dave Batista. Oh wait, it wasn't that was it? I thought that Brock Lesnar had drawn more money than Batista. I didn't say Batista didn't make money or draw, I just said that I imagined Lesnar had made more than Batista.

Thats not how it was at all. You were beaten into submission until your views were changed. The whole forum seen it. I have it on good authrority that they laughed at you on the paid forum. We had a good chuckle about it in the Raw Chat last week. PM's were even exchanged. It was a legendary mid-opinion turn after you swore blind that Batista (massive star, big money drawer and all that) wasnt as big a star as someone who didn't draw much at all on PPV, on television, merchandise wise or at live events. So work it out. The forum has united. There is no longer a PCC or Paido devide. We all high-fived over that one. Even me and SBA had our arms around each other chuckling at your mid-thread opinion turn.

 

I'm not sure if you think that that's going to embarrass me or not. I don't even know what PCC stands for except that it seems to be some sort of 'clique' because you want to be 'cool' like the nWo whilst racking up your post counts or something. Nor do I know what SBA stands for. Nor did I know there was a paid members forum. What's the benefits of the paid members forum?

 

I also don't understand what you're getting at. You provided me the figure that Batista drew more than Brock Lesnar at their respective headlining Manias. Is it worse that I say 'fair enough, he drew more' or if I were to hold my stance and say 'I don't care what the figures say, Brock drew more'. And you saying that 'that's not how it was at all' means that I was saying Batista didn't draw any money whatsoever? You find the quote for me. Also find a quote that goes against what I was saying in the post you quoted me on. I can't be arsed because I know I'm right and would rather you go searching for it yourself whilst wasting your time. "What, like you were right about Lesnar being a bigger star than Batista?" Again, I know when I'm wrong and I'd like to think it's better of me to admit it. In fairness, other people were backing my points to some extent.

[air_raid]

As a self-confessed sometimes fapper, I'll throw my oar in on Richards-Edwards and say I thought it was a good match with a well-executed finish, but if suffered somewhat from the ridiculous assertion that the victor would actually be "the best in the world" in that self-aggrandisizing way that causes ROH to come under such derision, as well as a dead crowd other than the big spots and the end. Plus as a fan of both wrestlers, I was very interested to see who won, but honestly I couldn't say that I cared who won, and trust me there is a difference. A massive one.

 

As for the match I actually have as my best of Jan-June, in terms of delivering a match that I thought was both well executed and exciting and - here's the big one - had me on the edge of my seat shouting for who I wanted to win - there is absolutely only one contender, and its Undertaker vs Triple H.

[PepperPlunge]

As for the match I actually have as my best of Jan-June, in terms of delivering a match that I thought was both well executed and exciting and - here's the big one - had me on the edge of my seat shouting for who I wanted to win - there is absolutely only one contender, and its Undertaker vs Triple H.

 

Yeah, the emotional engagement of that match makes it my match of the half-year.

[IANdrewDiceClay]

What's the benefits of the paid members forum?

The benefits are to call you shit without reply. But where's the fun in that?

 

I also don't understand what you're getting at. You provided me the figure that Batista drew more than Brock Lesnar at their respective headlining Manias. Is it worse that I say 'fair enough, he drew more'

Did you shite say that. You went on forever listing examples (none of which were factual) to how he was a bigger star, and got angry using words like "are you fucking kidding me" and "I know more people who cared more about Brock than they ever have Batista." And you never even threw up your hands and accepted it. You just changed tact and started arguing why Batista was given more opportunities than Lesnar. You changed your argument. You didn't accept you were wrong. And even in this very thread you said "Batista/Triple H was built better", forgetting Angle and Lesnar was on a card with Hogan, Austin, Rock and Shawn Michaels.

[PepperPlunge]

I said that before you gave the figures that Batista drew more money.

 

And I've ended up wasting my time like a flid:

 

 

From my perspective, it's pretty simple: Batista was a bigger star than Lesnar - he had more time to develop and build a connection with the fans.

 

If Lesnar had stuck around instead of leaving after a couple of years, it's obvious he would've been the bigger star. Possibly (though this is definitely debatable) more so than Cena.

 

I'm not getting the slagging off that Lesnar's getting for his ability, though - Lesnar was fucking good. If you like Goldberg or Kevin Nash for the reasons most commonly stated, then there's no reason you can deny this - the guy had the biggest monster aura since Goldberg or even Kane on his debut, routinely came out and destroyed people impressively, and, unlike Goldberg, was consummate in the ring, had good matches whether they were squashes or competitive, and could even sell against guys who were a threat to him. He's one of the few people in WWE history who looked plausible enough to end Taker's streak.

 

I suppose that's it. It's me being defensive over people playing down Brock. I don't really pay attention to buy rates much but comparing the two Wrestlemanias, Batista was the bigger star and more people will remember Batista. Had he stayed on, Brock would probably have been the bigger star. It's a moot point though.

 

Then when someone said that Brock probably wouldn't have been a bigger star because in his book WWE were planning on him being upper midcard and being able to drop into the main event occasionally, I said they'd read the book and I hadn't so they probably had a better informed opinion than me.

 

Hope you have fun talking about me in your little paid forum.

[IANdrewDiceClay]

I said that before you gave the figures that Batista drew more money.

Posted by: Loki Jun 13 2011, 16:44

 

Wrestlemania 19, Brock Lesnar's one WM main event v Angle, got 560,000 buys (undercard included Austin, The Rock and Hogan)

 

Wrestlemania 21, headlined by Batista v HHH, got 1,085,000 buys (undercard included JBL and HBK).

 

I absolutely loved Lesnar, but he was never as big a draw as Batista ended up being. What he'd do NOW, of course... different matter.

Posted by: johnny_boyz Jun 13 2011, 17:09

 

It seems he drew more. You can't lay all of the blame at Lesnar though as that feud wasn't booked very well

[PepperPlunge]

It wasn't booked very well. Batista/HHH was booked very well. A factor of that is Batista's likability and getting over with the crowd. A bigger factor is probably Triple H's ability to get over as a heel. Regardless, it was a very good slow burning feud. Angle vs. Lesnar played second fiddle to vignettes of Hogan/McMahon a lot of the time. Booker T and Triple H had a horrendous build. Booker T won a battle royal on Raw to become the number one contender. Randy Orton and Undertaker had a good build. To be fair, Hardy vs. Mysterio was a good feud but that was opener.

 

Regardless of that, it'd be unfair to say Lesnar didn't have his opportunities with booking. He steamrollered through a load of people. I didn't think his run was a failure but he had ample opportunity to get over too. But looking at the two Wrestlemanias, you must agree that the build for 19 wasn't very good. It's simplistic to say 'yeah, but Mania 19 had Austin, Rock, Hogan' but Hogan was I can't imagine too many were going to fork out the PPV price to see Hogan vs. McMahon alone and though it's quite surprising that Austin/Rock didn't help draw more, the WWE was a different company in 2003 than it was in 2001. Austin was buried by WWE for walking out and Rock was off making movies and people sensed that his career was coming to an end. And WWF was red-hot at Mania 17.

 

 

 

And you said something along the lines of me flat out refusing to accept that Batista drew more. I said in the post you quoted me on that he drew more.

[IANdrewDiceClay]

All that is one-sided shite to make your argument better without look at the circumstances of the other person. I'm not getting into this argument again. You've already suffered one humiliating defeat at the hands of several forum members in the last thread you tried. Whats the point? Nobody likes revisiting the scene of a rape. And this a thread about matches of the year so far. What has your musings about Lesnar failing to draw as the companies top star got to do with that Masters and Mcintyre masterclass on Superstars?

 

And you said something along the lines of me flat out refusing to accept that Batista drew more. I said in the post you quoted me on that he drew more.

I've continued to say in this thread, you refused to accept it until you changed your opinion at the last minute. I found you a quote of you doing that, above. I never thought you continued to think the same opinion throughout your argument. I'd have respect if you did that. Sticking to you guns is better than continuing to arguing once you've been proved wrong.

[PepperPlunge]

All that is one-sided shite to make your argument better without look at the circumstances of the other person. I'm not getting into this argument again. You've already suffered one humiliating defeat at the hands of several forum members in the last thread you tried. Whats the point? Nobody likes revisiting the scene of a rape. And this a thread about matches of the year so far. What has your musings about Lesnar failing to draw as the companies top star got to do with that Masters and Mcintyre masterclass on Superstars?

 

And you said something along the lines of me flat out refusing to accept that Batista drew more. I said in the post you quoted me on that he drew more.

I've continued to say in this thread, you refused to accept it until you changed your opinion at the last minute. I found you a quote of you doing that, above. I never thought you continued to think the same opinion throughout your argument. I'd have respect if you did that. Sticking to you guns is better than continuing to arguing once you've been proved wrong.

 

So it's better for me to carry on saying Lesnar was the bigger draw despite their being numbers to prove otherwise? And I'm the idiot here? If my opinion was that Manchester United didn't win the league in 2010/11, would I be more respected if I carried on battling the argument out despite there being concrete evidence that Manchester United did win the league?

 

"And this a thread about matches of the year so far. What has your musings about Lesnar failing to draw as the companies top star got to do with that Masters and Mcintyre masterclass on Superstars?" - You brought it up you bloody idiot. Don't act like I dragged this rubbish argument in here. I said 'end of topic' after one of the posts hoping to put it to bed. I'd like to think me getting the better of you here has put it to bed at least.

[IANdrewDiceClay]

So it's better for me to carry on saying Lesnar was the bigger draw despite their being numbers to prove otherwise? And I'm the idiot here? If my opinion was that Manchester United didn't win the league in 2010/11, would I be more respected if I carried on battling the argument out despite there being concrete evidence that Manchester United did win the league?

Steve Austin drew more money than Hulk Hogan, but he isnt the bigger star and was never a bigger draw than Hogan. If your that passionate about your opinion and how right you are, you dont roll over and die like that. Drawing money in wrestling isnt like winning something for real. There's a lot of factors to look at. Just because he outdrew him at WrestleMania didnt make him the bigger star, but thats the thing that ended your argument. Its just the factors you were looking at were so obviously wrong, you'd have thought if you couldnt spot them as soon as look at them, you wouldnt be so easy to change your opinion. Bringing up Man United winning the league is so fucking mental. What an outthere statement.

 

"And this a thread about matches of the year so far. What has your musings about Lesnar failing to draw as the companies top star got to do with that Masters and Mcintyre masterclass on Superstars?" - You brought it up you bloody idiot. Don't act like I dragged this rubbish argument in here. I said 'end of topic' after one of the posts hoping to put it to bed. I'd like to think me getting the better of you here has put it to bed at least.

I brought up an example of you not knowing the difference between something, I didn't ask for a discussion on the merits of Brock Lesnars ability to draw did I? Did I ask for a discussion on it? Nope. Stop making things up. I was actually giving you advice on the similarities between you not knowing the difference between someone taking the piss or having an honest opinion. Same could be said about some of the shite you come out with.

[RepoMan]

As if I wasn't annoyed enough by the You're in the topic title, EZ Money then went on a pointless, ignorant rant at Butch. I mean seriously? I don't care if he's posted that he's ignorant, you can't just say rubbish like that and then expect to get away with it.

 

Why even make a topic asking the opinions of the members of the forum only to shit on someone when they suggest something that they like. If you knew Butch at all, or read any of his posts, then SURELY you must have some idea of what 'wrestling' the guy is into? He likes a lot of old school stuff, no pointless flashy shit between two half-a-stone indy nerds with flippy floppy whatsits or whatever. So it's absolutely no surprise that he enjoyed the match that he did - something that's probably as close to 'traditional' wrestling from back in the day as anything you'll get in WWE at the moment.

 

In fact, many of the matches on that show are leaning towards that style of wrestling, and I for one feel that Superstars is WWE's best show most weeks.

 

But seriously EZ, if you have issues with someone having their OWN opinion, then for the love of God just make a damn poll with options and FORCE people to choose something from your so-called acceptable list of what YOU feel were the best matches of the half year.

 

Well done on starting AND killing a productive thread.

 

And please stop with the 'heat' references like UKFF is actually a talking point at the water cooler in offices. It's not, and if it is then I think you're job is the shits.