2010 kotr = *FACEPALM*
Printable View
2010 kotr = *FACEPALM*
King vs Miz easy match of the year candidate.
Even if you don't watch any indies, overseas, or TNA, would you really put that over HBK vs Undertaker from Wrestlemania? Lawler vs Danielson was a very good match, but was really on that MOTY level?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Knowledge
You're absolutely right about that. Although a motivated Jeff Hardy is fun to watch, the key word is MOTIVATED. Matt Hardy has always been the better of the two in terms of putting a match together with psychology, but even at his best he's not as good as CM Punk in the ring (don't even get my started who is better on the mic). For those who ONLY watch WWE CM Punk is new to you, but if you've been keeping up with the indies then he's no newcomer. Until about a year ago I was finally convinced WWE was using him properly (i.e. his feud with Hardy). But once again...politics rears their ugly head. The Undertaker wasn't too big on CM Punk (and apparently niether was HBK, which truly shocks me), and you saw what happened during the Undertaker feud. But whatever, no matter how much they try to bury CM Punk he's still one of the most over guys in the company.Quote:
Originally Posted by hectis
HBK vs Taker really wasn't MOTY it was two old dudes pulling out all the old tricks and kicking out of eachother's finishers ten times each. It was just absurd and overdone. Overdone in wrestling as a whole. Every indy "goodbye" match has been ending the way HBK/Taker did for the last 50 years. It was a great match though and deserves to be mentioned. I've seen tons of matches this year from the WWE which have been MUCH better. For example, the Orton vs Bourne match on RAW months ago the Shooting StaRKO match, the ending was simply better and it was a decent match. Any of Danielson's last few PPV opening matches... Kofi Kingston has had some damn good curtain jerkers this year.. there's just so much more in the WWE than HBK/Taker. But I will not call you a fool for picking that match.
And CM Punk is a nerd like Hardy said.. hearing him get verbally manhandled by Michael Cole was the nail in the coffin for him as far as I'm concearned. Even if they are burying him, he has been given the chance to fight for himself and he's on RAW being a fucking cornball like Hardy said. Hardy in TNA right now would smack the shit outta Punk in his days vs Raven back in ROH and the indies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Knowledge
You say that, but unlike Lawler vs Miz, which NO ONE believed Lawler could win (and that is a very important point), the HBK/Undertaker match could've gone either way (and before you say, "Me and my group of friends all knew Undertaker would win, so there!", check the IWC boards prior to the match. Fact is more people leaned on Undertaker winning the match, but there was still a good number of people who saw this as being Undertaker's big Wrestlemania loss). You can complain about kicking out of each other's finishers (which can be annoying, but doesn't sink a match to shit), but it clearly told very great story in this case. It built off their last big match (psychology), had better offense throughout than Lawler vs Miz, and in the end means a hell of alot more than a surprisingly good Lawler vs Miz match that had one guy EVERYONE knew would win.
And for the record, I don't think Undertaker vs HBK was THE best match of the year, I was just saying that is the best match from the WWE this year (workrate, psychology, story, importance...etc. No match in the WWE this year so far comes close to that when ALL those factors are considered. The TV matches you listed were very good, but none had the time to build to anything more than a "very good, but forgettable" level). Best match I've seen this year is either Chikara's big Cibernetico match, Mike Quakenbush/Manami Toyota vs Claudio Castognoli/Sara Del Rey, or the best match out of the Beer Money vs Motorcity Machine Guns series from earlier this year (if I remember right, the match they had right before their PPV finale). But if you ignored those and ONLY watched WWE, nothing is touching Undertaker vs HBK (for someone complaining about old guys battling it out, Lawler is older than both of them, and MIZ is no where near the worker of either despite the fact that Lawler carried him to a good match).
WWE released MVP......fuck that....he should have been champion but yeah that's right....Vince dosent like black people....
See, that's what I'm saying. NO ONE, atleast the older fans, believed Lawler would win. unimaginable. Maybe some younger fans thought so, but only because they see Lawler as some old announcer. BUT then after Miz goes through the table, and King is alone atop the ladder; Riles is laid out too, there's just something that felt good about the moment and for a moment I believed he was going to win. It was well worked, and a well scripted match. And even AFTER Cole? When Miz and Lawler were at the top, knowing that Lawler always had those sick punches, there was a second where I thought they might just be crazy enough to put the belt on Lawler, even if just for the night. But Miz, worked the ending very nicely, hung on and used the belt. Turned out to be a SURPRISINGLY good match, and when I looked at it all, I said you know I bet a lot of people were surprised at it as well, at how well it was done, so it's certainly capable of being placed with 10-15 other matches as a candidate for MOTY. And I was only talking about the WWE. To me there's too much damn wrestling, too many styles, to really compare them all. But a great match is a great match nonetheless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Knowledge
I think the fact the match was terrible is causing you to overrate it a bit. Surprisingly good (I'd even say it was very good) is an accurate rating. But MOTY...nah, not even if we're just talking WWE. And really, it was too much of a leap to think for one second Lawler could possibly win, which pretty much made the whole thing an exercise in pointlessness when it comes down to it. Even the fanboy in me didn't buy it (and this is coming from a guy who, for a couple moments, thought Ric Flair might go over Edge in their one and only ladder match a couple years back).
The HBK/Undertaker match was better in every possible way (besides having better offense, better pacing, a much much better story going into it, and a much better crowd, a good argument for either man going over could be made). I just don't get how you could be so high on that match, but then rag on Undertaker vs HBK when looking at things objectively.
Well I'm just gonna say it, you look at wrestling from a SMARK's point of view so there really is no point in justifying why I thought the match was good because you'll use psychology, pacing, offense, all this shit to defend why I PERSONALLY IN MY OWN MIND shouldn't think of the match highly. Could you name 20 matches this year that even I would agree were OVERALL BETTER yes. But like you said, the fanboy in me, would keep that match in there somewhere.
Just wondering, do you consider Lawler a legend at all? I mean other than WWE. You seem knowledgeable enough to know of his early work. Would you place him REAL high on the legends list if so? Imagine if Lawler was a touring type, like Ric Flair was back in the days. Instead of holding court and keeping it Memphis. This is why I think the match was great, because it was a LEGEND in there.. and for a moment I forgot that Lawler was a WWE announcer and actually thought that was the guy who slapped Andy Kaufman and piledrove women, so maybe, just maybe...
Kinda like how you were with Flair and Edge. Only I dunno how you could think Flair wasn't capable of getting the W in any match, even in his late WWE jobbing days. It's fucking Flair. He can pull that GOD card out at any moment..
I think Jerry Lawler is a little overrated as being a legend, wrestling wise.
Lawler overrated? Wrestling wise? He wasn't the greatest of wrestlers inring wise, but who exactly from his era was doing SPECTACULAR things in the ring? It was a different time back then. Back then was really about the storytelling and the back n forth in ring. Now it's about big spots, hardcore and big payoffs to short feuds. Wrestling wise, there were only a few guys at the time who were even going to the top rope. Randy Savage innovated going up top for an AMERICAN wrestler. At that time we lagged behind Japan and Mexico in terms of having the best WRESTLING WISE matches. But we still had the GREAT STORIES and the BIGGER THAN LIFE characters. Lawler, unlike the Hogans and Flairs, also didn't trek too far from home. Atleast no where near as much as they did. While the Kaufman feud got him mainstream pub, he was always local in Memphis and he never really traveled to outside territories. Flair was all over the place, getting his name out there. Hogan the same. I garuntee you there were plenty of territories where fans wanted to see Lawler but he was always about Memphis. If anything Lawler is underrated as a legend, and mainly thanks to the WWE.
heh, once again I think few knew that TNA had a PPV yesterday. It was decent but it kinda got fucked up & predictable towards the final matches.