PPV of the Decade

[Mr. TM]

Nominees:



One Night Stand: 2005
Royal Rumble: 2001
Summerslam: 2002
Bound For Glory: 2006
Armageddon 2000
Survivor Series: 2002
Final Resolution: 2008
Wrestlemania XX
Wrestlemania 23
Wrestlemania XXIV
Wrestlemania 18
Wrestlemania 19
Wrestlemania X7
Wrestlemania: 2000


​

Remember: This is in the Non-Spam Section

 

[Mr. TM]

Hard time for me to decide here, the list is filled with Wrestlemanias as we can see. I am a creative guy, just like that time I booked Heaven Championship Wrestling. But because of this creationalistismness, I will pick not a TNA ppv, not a puro PPV, not a WM, but Summerslam 2002. I think it was a fabulous show, moreso because of the face it really proved, for one year only, that Summerslam can be the #2 show. Benoit v RVD was a classic, Lesnar won the title against The Rock, Michaels and Triple H had their encounter, and the fucking undercard was loaded with talent. Maybe Taker and Test was a less than desired match, but the rest of the card was stacked.

 

[Jsaturn14]

While I agree that Summerslam 2002 was an amazing PPV, I believe that Wrestlemania 19 was that just much better. It might just be the best Wrestlemania of all time. You had Angle vs Lesnar, which featured Lesnar's infamous botched Shooting Star Press, and which Angle wrestled in with an extremely hurt neck. You had Team Angle vs Los Guerreros vs Beniot and Rhyno is a very underrated Triple threat Tag Match. You had a very good opening contest in Matt Hardy vs Rey Mysterio. Hogan vs McMahon in a fantastic street fight which had McMahon performing the leg drop off the ladder! You had a very very good World Heavyweight Title Match in HHH vs Booker T. I flipped out when Booker did the Harlem Hangover in this match! Such an Awesome Move! You had HBK in his return to Mania, stealing the show with Jericho in an absolutely beautiful match. No One had the upper-hand in that match for a long long time, and you really felt it was up for grabs, and of course you had the culmination of one of the greatest rivalries in WWE history, The Rock vs Stone Cold Steve Austin. Heck, on second viewing, even Taker vs Big Show and A-Train wasn't that bad! Overall, it was a fantastic show, with not a single match that could be deemed as "bad", an awesome concert set by Limp Bizkit, and a great closing shot with Angle and Lesnar embracing in the middle of the ring.

 

[klunderbunker]

It's X7.

X9 is overrated, plain and simple. How can you compare Angle and Lesnar to Austin and Rock? Oh hey, HHH gets to beat Booker to continue his ridiculous reign in a complete throwaway match to have HHH's ego get stroked a bit more. That certainly is great for Mania, let me tell you. If you want technical, we have Angle vs. Benoit. For the "other" match, HHH vs. Taker. If that's not a big match I don't know what is. For the tag titles, instead of Benoit and Rhyno vs. the Guerreros vs. WGTT, how about Edge and Christian vs. Hardys vs. Dudleys in TLC 2? There's also the Gimmick Battle Royal to give it a funness. Throw all that and more into a white hot 67,925 fans that give Austin the pop to end all pops and tell me how 19 or any other show compares to it?

 

[Jsaturn14]

It's X7.

X9 is overrated, plain and simple. How can you compare Angle and Lesnar to Austin and Rock? Oh hey, HHH gets to beat Booker to continue his ridiculous reign in a complete throwaway match to have HHH's ego get stroked a bit more. That certainly is great for Mania, let me tell you. If you want technical, we have Angle vs. Benoit. For the "other" match, HHH vs. Taker. If that's not a big match I don't know what is. For the tag titles, instead of Benoit and Rhyno vs. the Guerreros vs. WGTT, how about Edge and Christian vs. Hardys vs. Dudleys in TLC 2? There's also the Gimmick Battle Royal to give it a funness. Throw all that and more into a white hot 67,925 fans that give Austin the pop to end all pops and tell me how 19 or any other show compares to it?

1: 19 had Rock vs Austin did it not? So your first point is moot, as both shows had that match.

2: You want technical? You had Angle vs Lesnar, and you had the triple threat tag match.

3: You want Hardcore? You had Hogan and McMahon beating the hell out of each other with chairs, ladders, tables, lead pipes, etc...

4: The World Heavyweight Title Match is extremely under-rated. Yes, HHH won in the end, but to call it a throwaway match is just wrong. Coming into the match, I didn't think Booker had a chance in hell of winning, but once he hit that Houston Hangover, I started to believe. It was beautiful to watch through the course of the match the changeover from giving Booker no shot in hell, to a real chance to win.

5: You want the "other" match? You had HBK's return to Mania against the person who idolized him growing up in Chris Jericho. If that is not a HUGE match, IDK what is. Then to have the match be as phenomenal as it was, it was just icing on the cake.

 

[klunderbunker]

1: 19 had Rock vs Austin did it not? So your first point is moot, as both shows had that match.

Let's see. Throwaway match that made it 2-1 for Austin, or a main event for the world title? Yeah I fail to see the similarity.

2: You want technical? You had Angle vs Lesnar, and you had the triple threat tag match.

Oh yeah. A bunch of kicking out of finishers and a botched finish is better than Angle and Benoit going insane on the mat for 15 minutes. Oh and that tag sucked. I mean it REALLY sucked.

3: You want Hardcore? You had Hogan and McMahon beating the hell out of each other with chairs, ladders, tables, lead pipes, etc...

Yeah at the biggest show of the year that's what I want: a non wrestler and a guy that's in his 50s taking the spotlight from someone that needs the chance to get over. Again, it was good but not the classic it's made out to be.

The World Heavyweight Title Match is extremely under-rated. Yes, HHH won in the end, but to call it a throwaway match is just wrong. Coming into the match, I didn't think Booker had a chance in hell of winning, but once he hit that Houston Hangover, I started to believe. It was beautiful to watch through the course of the match the changeover from giving Booker no shot in hell, to a real chance to win.

No, actually it's just right. So as you say, you didn't think Booker had a chance. Then tell me: what was the point of the match if apparently the buildup sucked? That makes zero sense at all.

You want the "other" match? You had HBK's return to Mania against the person who idolized him growing up in Chris Jericho. If that is not a HUGE match, IDK what is. Then to have the match be as phenomenal as it was, it was just icing on the cake.

Great match. As good as Angle vs. Benoit, Taker vs. HHH and TLC 2 for the "other" matches? Nope.

 

[Jsaturn14]

Let's see. Throwaway match that made it 2-1 for Austin, or a main event for the world title? Yeah I fail to see the similarity.

What was the match quality for these two matches? Oh yeah, they were both amazing matches. I would argue though that the match at 19 was bigger though as they were wrestling for something more important than a world title: Pride. The Rock was ashamed that he had never beaten Stone Cold at Mania, and he was determined to do everything in his power to change that. That makes for some pretty compelling stuff.

Oh yeah. A bunch of kicking out of finishers and a botched finish is better than Angle and Benoit going insane on the mat for 15 minutes. Oh and that tag sucked. I mean it REALLY sucked.

I think you should go back and watch Angle vs Lesnar again. They spent a fair amount of time on the mat as well, and it was beautiful to watch both of these amateur champions go at it. As for the tag match, I say again: It is vastly under-rated.

Yeah at the biggest show of the year that's what I want: a non wrestler and a guy that's in his 50s taking the spotlight from someone that needs the chance to get over. Again, it was good but not the classic it's made out to be.

I fail to see your point here. EVERY WM has a match where people take the spotlight from younger talent who needs the chance to get over. At Mania 17 it was Vince vs Shane, and at 19 it was Hogan vs Vince. I happen to think that Hogan vs Vince was a great streetfight, plain and simple.

No, actually it's just right. So as you say, you didn't think Booker had a chance. Then tell me: what was the point of the match if apparently the buildup sucked? That makes zero sense at all.

Where did I ever say that the build-up sucked? The build-up for this match was all about how no one thought Booker had a chance in the match. I believe that the best kind of match is one that tells a story in the ring. I say again: It was beautiful to watch throughout the course of the match how Booker went from having no chance to win, to having people think that he could actually beat HHH.

Great match. As good as Angle vs. Benoit, Taker vs. HHH and TLC 2 for the "other" matches? Nope.

I see Angle vs Beniot with HBK vs Jericho. I see Taker vs HHH with Rock vs Austin. I see TLC 2 with Hogan vs McMahon, and I see Rock vs Austin at 17 with Angle vs Lesnar. For every match at 17 there is a counter match at 19. That is why it is so damn hard to pick between them. To me though, 19 had better storylines, better matches, etc....

 

[klunderbunker]

What was the match quality for these two matches? Oh yeah, they were both amazing matches. I would argue though that the match at 19 was bigger though as they were wrestling for something more important than a world title: Pride. The Rock was ashamed that he had never beaten Stone Cold at Mania, and he was determined to do everything in his power to change that. That makes for some pretty compelling stuff.

So you're saying that being in a match third from the end of the card in front of a smaller crowd at a lesser hyped show on a worse card is better than main eventing the biggest show of the millenium in front of a bigger crowd for the world title with a ton more drama? That's very funny. Also, 19 was FAR worse as Austin was more or less worthless there. It's 18 minutes long. Go watch it and tell me how many moves other than finishers there are in the last 10 of it.

I think you should go back and watch Angle vs Lesnar again. They spent a fair amount of time on the mat as well, and it was beautiful to watch both of these amateur champions go at it. As for the tag match, I say again: It is vastly under-rated.

I think you should go back and watch Angle vs Benoit again. They spent a fair amount of time on the mat as well, and it was beautiful to watch both of these amateur champions go at it. As for the tag match, you're very wrong. Let's see. We have a team of guys that have nothing in common other than being intense. We have cousins that are overrated. And we have two guys that are a team. They get 9 minutes and nothing at all of note happens and the champions retain. Why was this on PPV again and not Raw or Smackdown?

I fail to see your point here. EVERY WM has a match where people take the spotlight from younger talent who needs the chance to get over. At Mania 17 it was Vince vs Shane, and at 19 it was Hogan vs Vince. I happen to think that Hogan vs Vince was a great streetfight, plain and simple.

Oh yeah I remember that. I remember Vince and Shane having that blowoff match that had nothing at all to do with what should have been the biggest storyline ever in the Invasion that ran the entire summer. yeah the owner of WCW vs. the owner of WWF didn't mean anything at all and was just to steal the spotlight. That's very humorous. Hogan and Vince was decent, but it's nowhere near as great as it's made out to be.

Where did I ever say that the build-up sucked? The build-up for this match was all about how no one thought Booker had a chance in the match. I believe that the best kind of match is one that tells a story in the ring. I say again: It was beautiful to watch throughout the course of the match how Booker went from having no chance to win, to having people think that he could actually beat HHH.

You said it when you said you didn't think Booker had a chance. The point of building a match is to have you believe that the challenger, the underdog, has a chance. If they didn't convince you of that, then the buildup has failed and therefore sucks. That's all well and good that they convinced you of that during the match. I'm sure all the PPV buys they missed out on because of that are thrilled to hear it.

I see Angle vs Beniot with HBK vs Jericho. I see Taker vs HHH with Rock vs Austin. I see TLC 2 with Hogan vs McMahon, and I see Rock vs Austin at 17 with Angle vs Lesnar. For every match at 17 there is a counter match at 19. That is why it is so damn hard to pick between them. To me though, 19 had better storylines, better matches, etc....

Yeah you're wrong. You also forgot the Gimmick Battle Royal and Vince vs. Shane. If you see Hogan vs. McMahon as equal to TLC 2, that's rather sad, as are most of your other choices. X7 is miles better and it's not close at all.

 

[DiscipleofWrestling]

I had to vote for WrestleMania X-Seven, even though it was a close call with WrestleMania XIX. The facts are it was the end of the Attitude Era, and on that night, whatever type of wrestling you wanted, you got, whether it was hardcore, technical, high-flying, or a straight up brawl. The card, top to bottom, featured many of the most legendary and infamous matches of the decade. It was the benchmark PPV of the decade. There was the WWF/E before WrestleMania X-Seven, and then there was the WWF/E AFTER WrestleMania-X-Seven. You can't say the same about WrestleMania XIX, although it was itself an impressive card.

 

[AllHailJericho]

It was tough to choose between WM 19 and WM 17. Ultimately, I went with WM 17. It not only had the best TLC match, it also had Angle vs. Benoit which was freaking awesome, HHH and Taker was great, the triple threat hardcore match between Show-Raven-Kane was fun, same as the gimmick battle royal, and of course you had Rock and Austin. 17 is better than 19 because although 19 had 2 unbelivable mathces with HBK vs. Y2J, and Angle vs. Lesnar (both in the top 10 matches of all time in my opinion), 17 was just better if you consider the whole card.
ONS 05 deserves an honarable mention as well just because it was the last time we'll ever see the REAL ECW.

 

[Jsaturn14]

So you're saying that being in a match third from the end of the card in front of a smaller crowd at a lesser hyped show on a worse card is better than main eventing the biggest show of the millenium in front of a bigger crowd for the world title with a ton more drama? That's very funny. Also, 19 was FAR worse as Austin was more or less worthless there. It's 18 minutes long. Go watch it and tell me how many moves other than finishers there are in the last 10 of it.

So YOU believe that because it wasn't for a title, because YOU think the card was lesser, because YOU think that crowd size matters, and because YOU think that that 17 is better, that the match is worse? I say that both matches are on par with each other wrestling wise, but I just think that wrestling for Pride is a bigger deal than wrestling for a title, and when did where you wrestle on a card become an indicator of how good a match is? It doesn't matter where you wrestle on a card. Any match on any given card has the chance to be great if the wrestlers involved put in the effort. Furthermore, how many moves did Austin and Rock use at 17? Both of them know maybe a dozen moves between them including finishers. The rest of the time they are on the outside, throwing each other on tables, into the crowd, into the steel steps, etc.... So, what is the difference between the actual wrestling in both matches?

I think you should go back and watch Angle vs Benoit again. They spent a fair amount of time on the mat as well, and it was beautiful to watch both of these amateur champions go at it. As for the tag match, you're very wrong. Let's see. We have a team of guys that have nothing in common other than being intense. We have cousins that are overrated. And we have two guys that are a team. They get 9 minutes and nothing at all of note happens and the champions retain. Why was this on PPV again and not Raw or Smackdown?

I agree that Angle vs Beniot is always an amazing match to watch, but Angle vs Lesnar was amazing to watch as well. Both matches had great mat work. Using your criteria though, I will say that Angle vs Lesnar was better though because it was a main event title match. Secondly, I have several issues with your assessment of the tag match. First, so because Beniot and Rhyno had nothing in common as a team, that makes the match worse? Okay, so what does Big Show and Jericho have in common this year? Did the fact that they had nothing in common make their matches this year any worse? Secondly, you are calling Eddie Guerrero overrated? Seriously? Maybe Chavo is a little overrated, but Eddie is one of the best ever, plain and simple. Thirdly, nothing of note happens? What did you want to happen? Did you want someone to bleed? Did you want some outside interference? What? Yes, the match isn't an all time great match, but watching the match, you were definitely entertained, and in the end, that is what a match is supposed to do, entertain you. I would say that the tag match was a good match then, and far from sucking.

Oh yeah I remember that. I remember Vince and Shane having that blowoff match that had nothing at all to do with what should have been the biggest storyline ever in the Invasion that ran the entire summer. yeah the owner of WCW vs. the owner of WWF didn't mean anything at all and was just to steal the spotlight. That's very humorous. Hogan and Vince was decent, but it's nowhere near as great as it's made out to be.

Shane had just bought WCW six days before Mania. The Vince vs Shane match had NOTHING to do with the purchase of WCW, and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that Vince was drugging Linda and cheating on her. Shane then felt that it was his duty as a son to protect his mom, and beat the crap out of his dad for putting his mom through all that shit. WCW had nothing to do with it, which makes your entire argument pointless. Now, how is Shane protecting his mom, and Vince and Hogan battling over who created Wrestlemania any different in terms of value? Both of these matches could have been removed, and younger talent could have wrestled in their spots. As this didn't happen though, we have to look at the entertainment quality of each match. Hogan vs McMahon was simply a very entertaining match, which makes it a great match.

You said it when you said you didn't think Booker had a chance. The point of building a match is to have you believe that the challenger, the underdog, has a chance. If they didn't convince you of that, then the buildup has failed and therefore sucks. That's all well and good that they convinced you of that during the match. I'm sure all the PPV buys they missed out on because of that are thrilled to hear it.

So your saying that you didn't tune into something just because you THOUGHT you knew who was going to win? Yes, going into the match, I didn't think Booker had a chance, but that didn't prevent me from buying the PPV. I still bought the PPV because I love rooting for the underdog. People love rooting for the underdog, whether they think they have a chance or not. The fact that the match convinced you that Booker had a chance during the course of the match is what makes the match great.

Yeah you're wrong. You also forgot the Gimmick Battle Royal and Vince vs. Shane. If you see Hogan vs. McMahon as equal to TLC 2, that's rather sad, as are most of your other choices. X7 is miles better and it's not close at all.

Firstly, what is the difference between the Gimmick Battle Royal, and the Pillow Fight at Mania 19? Both were useless Gimmick crap that were designed to waste time. Both thought they would be entertaining for the fans. I am sure some people enjoyed the gimmick battle royal, I am also sure that some people enjoyed the pillow fight. I for one see them both as crap though. Secondly, I do see Hogan vs McMahon as equal to TLC 2. Both are simply hardcore, spot filled matches. What exactly is the difference between Jeff doing the Swanton off the ladder to Bubba on a table, and McMahon doing the leg drop off the ladder onto Hogan on a table? Both matches were simply designed to fit in as many "Holy Shit" spots as they possibly could into each match, and both did their jobs well.

 

[klunderbunker]

So YOU believe that because it wasn't for a title, because YOU think the card was lesser, because YOU think that crowd size matters, and because YOU think that that 17 is better, that the match is worse? I say that both matches are on par with each other wrestling wise, but I just think that wrestling for Pride is a bigger deal than wrestling for a title, and when did where you wrestle on a card become an indicator of how good a match is? It doesn't matter where you wrestle on a card. Any match on any given card has the chance to be great if the wrestlers involved put in the effort. Furthermore, how many moves did Austin and Rock use at 17? Both of them know maybe a dozen moves between them including finishers. The rest of the time they are on the outside, throwing each other on tables, into the crowd, into the steel steps, etc.... So, what is the difference between the actual wrestling in both matches?

Oh ok. So in other words, Iron Mike Sharpe losing to Randy Savage in 3 minutes in a squash could be the greatest match of all time? Crowd size doesn't matter? Yes I'm sure you're right. We could have had Hogan and Andre in a barn in Detroit instead of in front of nearly 100,000 people and it wouldn't have mattered. And you can think that pride is more important all you like. You're wrong, but you can think it all you like.

I agree that Angle vs Beniot is always an amazing match to watch, but Angle vs Lesnar was amazing to watch as well. Both matches had great mat work. Using your criteria though, I will say that Angle vs Lesnar was better though because it was a main event title match. Secondly, I have several issues with your assessment of the tag match. First, so because Beniot and Rhyno had nothing in common as a team, that makes the match worse? Okay, so what does Big Show and Jericho have in common this year? Did the fact that they had nothing in common make their matches this year any worse? Secondly, you are calling Eddie Guerrero overrated? Seriously? Maybe Chavo is a little overrated, but Eddie is one of the best ever, plain and simple. Thirdly, nothing of note happens? What did you want to happen? Did you want someone to bleed? Did you want some outside interference? What? Yes, the match isn't an all time great match, but watching the match, you were definitely entertained, and in the end, that is what a match is supposed to do, entertain you. I would say that the tag match was a good match then, and far from sucking.

First off, yes Eddie is overrated. he was a career midcard guy that got the world title because Brock was leaving and then the ratings tanked and he was a transitional champion who gave the belt to JBL of all people. He became a legend because he died, and that's fact, period.

Second, how about some drama in the tag match? How about some time for it? How about ANYONE BUT THOSE SIX GUYS in there? Are you really going to compare those six to the six at Mania 17? That's just laughable.

So your saying that you didn't tune into something just because you THOUGHT you knew who was going to win? Yes, going into the match, I didn't think Booker had a chance, but that didn't prevent me from buying the PPV. I still bought the PPV because I love rooting for the underdog. People love rooting for the underdog, whether they think they have a chance or not. The fact that the match convinced you that Booker had a chance during the course of the match is what makes the match great.

I hate underdogs. They rarely win and it just gets your hopes up to think they could. And there was zero chance Booker would win no matter how good the match was, period. HHH would never drop a title in the middle of the card to a guy like Booker, and that's all that was ever possible. You had another guy like Booker who was having great matches yet HHH kept the belt even longer and had even more bad matches just so his ego could be stroked even more. That's why the match sucked.

Firstly, what is the difference between the Gimmick Battle Royal, and the Pillow Fight at Mania 19? Both were useless Gimmick crap that were designed to waste time. Both thought they would be entertaining for the fans. I am sure some people enjoyed the gimmick battle royal, I am also sure that some people enjoyed the pillow fight. I for one see them both as crap though. Secondly, I do see Hogan vs McMahon as equal to TLC 2. Both are simply hardcore, spot filled matches. What exactly is the difference between Jeff doing the Swanton off the ladder to Bubba on a table, and McMahon doing the leg drop off the ladder onto Hogan on a table? Both matches were simply designed to fit in as many "Holy Shit" spots as they possibly could into each match, and both did their jobs well.

What's the difference? 17 had wrestlers, 19 had women in little clothing. I f I want to see women half naked, I'll go to a strip club. If I want wrestlers, I should find them on a wrestling show.

Second, what's the difference? The difference is that Jeff and Edge got careers out of TLC, while Hogan and Vince kept others from having spots on the card because they can't accept that no one cares anymore about them. Instead, maybe we could ahve had a decent tag match, but apparently that's not allowed because we need a pointless Roddy run in and Vince to drop his ass on a table to show that he's a MAN.

 

[NSL]

I'm going with One Night Stand '05. It was the first time a lot of people had seen the old school ECW guys, and it was a great card, and a great show. The storyline surrounding it was also well done, and it's something I still go back to, to this day.

 

[Slowdude]

WM20. I guess this is allot biased as it was the first ppv i ever watched but the day I watched it got me into wrestling. Cena winning his first title, Taker's return, Goldberg vs Lesnar shitfest, Eddie and Benoit's victories and post match celebration. It was just.. I can't put words into it.

 

[Jsaturn14]

Oh ok. So in other words, Iron Mike Sharpe losing to Randy Savage in 3 minutes in a squash could be the greatest match of all time? Crowd size doesn't matter? Yes I'm sure you're right. We could have had Hogan and Andre in a barn in Detroit instead of in front of nearly 100,000 people and it wouldn't have mattered. And you can think that pride is more important all you like. You're wrong, but you can think it all you like.

First off, my exact words were "Any match on any given card has the chance to be great IF THE WRESTLERS INVOLVED PUT IN THE EFFORT" Some three minute match isn't going to be the greatest of all time because THE WRESTLERS DIDN'T PUT THE EFFORT IN. Let's not gloss over my words to make your argument sound better. Secondly, I agree that if Hogan and Andre are in a barn than the moment wouldn't had mattered, but if let's say 50,000 people had witnessed it, it is still just as big as a moment than if 100,000 people witnessed it.

First off, yes Eddie is overrated. he was a career midcard guy that got the world title because Brock was leaving and then the ratings tanked and he was a transitional champion who gave the belt to JBL of all people. He became a legend because he died, and that's fact, period.

Eddie Guerrero is not just a legend because he died. His matches in WCW, along with Jericho's, Beniot's, Mysterio's, etc....They were the backbone of the company, and kept that place alive, that is why Eddie is a legend. His stint with Chyna in WWE, which was hilarious, is why Eddie is a legend. His stint in Los Guerreros with Chavo, and the hilarious vintages they did together is why Eddie is a legend. His amazing matches with Edge, RVD, Jeff Hardy, and everyone else he worked with is why Eddie is a legend. His epic, epic rivalry with Kurt Angle is why Eddie is a legend. (I will never forget the Angle Auction....so friggen funny). His rivalry with JBL is why Eddie is a legend. Those are all facts, period.

Second, how about some drama in the tag match? How about some time for it? How about ANYONE BUT THOSE SIX GUYS in there? Are you really going to compare those six to the six at Mania 17? That's just laughable.

First, Watch the match again, and then tell me there is no drama. Secondly:

Bubba Ray = Rhyno: Both absolutely useless pieces of trash in the ring.

Devon = Charlie Hass: Slightly better in the ring, but still trash.

Matt Hardy = Chavo Guerrero: Both could be solid Mid-Carders, but both men careers have become a joke, especially this past year.

Christian = Shelton Benjamin: Both Solid Mid-Carders

Edge & Jeff Hardy = Benoit & Eddie Guerrero: All 4 men are awesome, and will be remembered as legends in the business.

Yeah, I just compared the six men from 17 to the six men from 19. Really not that hard.

I hate underdogs. They rarely win and it just gets your hopes up to think they could. And there was zero chance Booker would win no matter how good the match was, period. HHH would never drop a title in the middle of the card to a guy like Booker, and that's all that was ever possible. You had another guy like Booker who was having great matches yet HHH kept the belt even longer and had even more bad matches just so his ego could be stroked even more. That's why the match sucked.

Just because you hate underdogs doesn't mean everyone hates underdogs. Just because you hate HHH doesn't mean the world hates HHH. To use either one of those arguments to decrease the quality of the match that HHH and Booker T had that night is plain wrong.

What's the difference? 17 had wrestlers, 19 had women in little clothing. I f I want to see women half naked, I'll go to a strip club. If I want wrestlers, I should find them on a wrestling show.

17 had people who had no business being in a wrestling ring, and 19 had people who had no business being in a wrestling ring. Yup, I see the difference between the two.

Second, what's the difference? The difference is that Jeff and Edge got careers out of TLC, while Hogan and Vince kept others from having spots on the card because they can't accept that no one cares anymore about them. Instead, maybe we could ahve had a decent tag match, but apparently that's not allowed because we need a pointless Roddy run in and Vince to drop his ass on a table to show that he's a MAN.

Maybe no one cares anymore about Hogan and Vince NOW, but at the time of Mania 19, people still very much cared about Hulk Hogan, as the pops that he got before and after the match proves. Secondly, Vince wasn't out there dropping "his ass on a table" to prove that he is a man, he did that to entertain the fans, which judging by the "Holy Shit" chants he got after he did it, he accomplished fairly well. As I said before, Street Fights, TLC, they are both just make types whose sole goal it is to shove as many "holy shit" moments as possible into the match. Both the 19 street fight, and the 17 TLC did just that.

 

[klunderbunker]

First off, my exact words were "Any match on any given card has the chance to be great IF THE WRESTLERS PUT THE EFFORT IN" Some three minute match isn't going to be the greatest of all time because THE WRESTLERS DIDN'T PUT THE EFFORT IN. Let's not gloss over my words to make your argument sound better. Secondly, I agree that if Hogan and Andre are in a barn than the moment wouldn't had mattered, but if let's say 50,000 people had witnessed it, it is still just as big as a moment than if 100,000 people witnessed it.

King of the Ring 1994. Owen Hart vs. 1-2-3 Kid. 4 minute match and at least four and a half stars because there was a ton of effort. Care to try again?

Again you're wrong about the crowd size. Mania 17 had about 15000 more people than 19 and the crowd was FAR better. They stayed hot all night unlike in Seattle where they got tired about 3/4 of the way throguh the show. Bigger crowds tend to do that.

Eddie Guerrero is not just a legend because he died. His matches in WCW, along with Jericho's, Beniot's, Mysterio's, etc....They were the backbone of the company, and kept that place alive, that is why Eddie is a legend. His stint with Chyna in WWE, which was hilarious, is why Eddie is a legend. His stint in Los Guerreros with Chavo, and the hilarious vintages they did together is why Eddie is a legend. His amazing matches with Edge, RVD, Jeff Hardy, and everyone else he worked with is why Eddie is a legend. His epic, epic rivalry with Kurt Angle is why Eddie is a legend. (I will never forget the Angle Auction....so friggen funny). His rivalry with JBL is why Eddie is a legend. Those are all facts, period.

Oh let's see.

vs. Jericho, Benoit, Mysterio. All good midcard/cruiserweight matches that meant next to nothing. They never moved up the card and never did anything other than stay in the midcard and then in the WWF it took 4 years for them to do anything more than midcard work. That kept WCW alive? Really? Because I thought it was Hogan and the NWO drawing crazy money.

w/Chyna: again, midcard stuff that wound up going nowhere and was just a rehash of more feuds that did nothing at all as Chyna wound up being the bigger deal. She winds up getting national attention in Playboy and Eddie got the COVETED European Title. Yeah that's a great step up for Eddie.

Los Guerreros w/Chavo: comedy sketches which were funny make no one a legend. It was a gimmick that he was good at, but his matches were the same as always.

vs. Edge, RVD, Hardy: more of the same. Midcard matches that wound up going nowhere other than in circles. What's the point of just staying in the same place in the card? That tells me he's not impressing the people that matter.

Vs. Angle: you can consider two matches a rivalry if you want to just go along with what Vince tells you. That's fine by me.

vs. JBL. Excuse me for a second.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Ok back now. Those were AWFUL. JBL wasn't ready to do a damn thing and Eddie was awful against him. a great wrestler should be able to have great matches with anyone and Eddie didn't do there here.

Eddie was very good, but in no way would he be considered a legend anywhere but Mexico and Texas if he had lived.

First, Watch the match again, and then tell me there is no drama. Secondly:

Bubba Ray = Rhyno: Both absolutely useless pieces of trash in the ring.

Devon = Charlie Hass: Slightly better in the ring, but still trash.

Matt Hardy = Chavo Guerrero: Both could be solid Mid-Carders, but both men careers have become a joke, especially this past year.

Christian = Shelton Benjamin: Both Solid Mid-Carders

Edge & Jeff Hardy = Benoit & Eddie Guerrero: All 4 men are awesome, and will be remembered as legends in the business.

Yeah, I just compared the six men from 17 to the six men from 19. Really not that hard.

So let's see. You're actually trying to compare those six to three good to great tag teams in a match that made their careers? We have Edge launched to stardom and Jeff who became a three time world champion out of that match, yet that's not as important as a forgotten match that could have been on Smackdown, simply because of who was in it? Yeah that's stupid as hell.

Just because you hate underdogs doesn't mean everyone hates underdogs. Just because you hate HHH doesn't mean the world hates HHH. To use either one of those arguments to decrease the quality of the match that HHH and Booker T had that night is plain wrong.

I think I've got it now. You really believe that the quality of the match means something if the ending sucks. Aha now we've got it! So, the match being decent makes up for the power play HHH plays and the fact taht after a Pedigree it took 48 seconds to get the cover, therefore making Booker look weak as hell all over again? Yeah that makes sense. Hey, let's have everyone lose to HHH since apparently it's ok if the part of getting there is ok!

17 had people who had no business being in a wrestling ring, and 19 had people who had no business being in a wrestling ring. Yup, I see the difference between the two.

Former world champions and stars have no business in a wrestling ring? Please, explain this to me.

Maybe no one cares anymore about Hogan and Vince NOW, but at the time of Mania 19, people still very much cared about Hulk Hogan, as the pops that he got before and after the match proves. Secondly, Vince wasn't out there dropping "his ass on a table" to prove that he is a man, he did that to entertain the fans, which judging by the "Holy Shit" chants he got after he did it, he accomplished fairly well. As I said before, Street Fights, TLC, they are both just make types whose sole goal it is to shove as many "holy shit" moments as possible into the match. Both the 19 street fight, and the 17 TLC did just that.

Oh my dear young man that has obviously so little knowledge.

See, you're confused. You think Vince and Hogan actually care about the people. How mistaken you are. If either cared, they would have realized that other, better, younger wrestlers would fit better in there. That's why the company is bad when VInce is on screen as the main focal point other than against Austin, and why Hogan is about to murder TNA where it stands. That's just amusing, you actually thinking that was for the fans.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Wrestlemania 23. Out of the choices on this poll it sticks out for me than any of the others. I was going to pick "other" and say 25, but I'm biased from having been there. In terms of the quality, 23 is just as good and here's why.

• 80,103 in attendance, one of the highest of any WWE event.
• 1.2 million PPV buys, highest of any WWE event
• Great MITB match
• Taker VS Batista
• Battle of the Billionaires with Stone Cold as the guest ref
• Cena VS HBK

Even its least interesting matches were still good. I know that a lot who preferred the stuff from the attitude era are going to disagree on this being the best of the decade, but it is definitely the best PPV since then. Wrestlemania 23 gets my vote for PPV of the decade because it was great from beginning to end.

 

[Jsaturn14]

King of the Ring 1994. Owen Hart vs. 1-2-3 Kid. 4 minute match and at least four and a half stars because there was a ton of effort. Care to try again?

Again you're wrong about the crowd size. Mania 17 had about 15000 more people than 19 and the crowd was FAR better. They stayed hot all night unlike in Seattle where they got tired about 3/4 of the way throguh the show. Bigger crowds tend to do that.

First, There are exceptions to every rule, congratulations on finding it. -applauds- Secondly, the crowd is Seatte got tired? Really? They seemed pretty damn lively to me during Angle vs Lesnar which was that last match on the card. I digress though, because you are obviously trying to connect two completely unrelated things: A crowd's size to a crowd's energy. How big a crowd has no bearing on a match unless their energy matches their size. A 200 person crowd could be better than a 50,000 person crowd if the 200 person crowd has energy, and the 50,000 person crowd has none. Bigger Crowd does not always equal bigger energy. Now in terms of 17, of course the crowd "stayed hot" throughout the night , but it had nothing to do with their size, and everything to do with the fact that Austin was in the Main Event, and the crowd was a Texas Crowd. A hometown star is always going to produce white hot energy, that has nothing to do with how big a crowd is.

Oh let's see.

vs. Jericho, Benoit, Mysterio. All good midcard/cruiserweight matches that meant next to nothing. They never moved up the card and never did anything other than stay in the midcard and then in the WWF it took 4 years for them to do anything more than midcard work. That kept WCW alive? Really? Because I thought it was Hogan and the NWO drawing crazy money.

w/Chyna: again, midcard stuff that wound up going nowhere and was just a rehash of more feuds that did nothing at all as Chyna wound up being the bigger deal. She winds up getting national attention in Playboy and Eddie got the COVETED European Title. Yeah that's a great step up for Eddie.

Los Guerreros w/Chavo: comedy sketches which were funny make no one a legend. It was a gimmick that he was good at, but his matches were the same as always.

vs. Edge, RVD, Hardy: more of the same. Midcard matches that wound up going nowhere other than in circles. What's the point of just staying in the same place in the card? That tells me he's not impressing the people that matter.

Vs. Angle: you can consider two matches a rivalry if you want to just go along with what Vince tells you. That's fine by me.

vs. JBL. Excuse me for a second.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Ok back now. Those were AWFUL. JBL wasn't ready to do a damn thing and Eddie was awful against him. a great wrestler should be able to have great matches with anyone and Eddie didn't do there here.

Eddie was very good, but in no way would he be considered a legend anywhere but Mexico and Texas if he had lived.

1: To have a successful wrestling show that does huge numbers and draws huge money you need to have two things: You need to attract the true wrestling fan by having great action in the ring, and you need to attract the casual wrestling fan by having a ridiculous storyline. WCW had that at first. They had great in ring action with Guerrero, and Jericho, and Mysterio, guys who routinely had the best matches night in and night out, and they had the ridiculous storyline in the NWO. What happened though once Guerrero, and Jericho, and Benoit, and Malenko left? All WCW was left with was ridiculous storylines, and it died. So yeah, Guerrero's mid-card work was a crucial factor in keeping WCW alive. The reason Guerrero never moved up in WCW had nothing to do with his amazing wrestling ability, and ability to entertain the fans, and everything to do with the backstage political bullshit of the company that always kept the younger talent down.

2: Your basing someone's legacy way to much on where they were in the pecking order. Take someone like Tito Santana, two time I-C champ, always a Mid-Card guy his entire career, BUT a WWE Hall of Famer, why? Because he connected with and ENTERTAINED THE FANS! A person's legacy in wrestling is not about where he was in the order, but how well he entertained the fans. Eddie Guerrero always, always entertained. Whether it was with his humor (The Chyna stuff, The Los Guerrero's vintages, His hilarious stuff with Kurt Angle and Team Angle) or whether it was in the ring( His matches in WCW, his three match stint with Edge that culminated in one of the top two matches EVER on Smackdown, his matches with Angle, His amazing match with JBL at Judgement Day 2004, which btw is nominated for match of the decade by this very site). Eddie Guerrero would have been a Hall of Famer whether he died or not because he was a master at entertaining the fans, which is what SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT is all about. That is why he is a legend.

So let's see. You're actually trying to compare those six to three good to great tag teams in a match that made their careers? We have Edge launched to stardom and Jeff who became a three time world champion out of that match, yet that's not as important as a forgotten match that could have been on Smackdown, simply because of who was in it? Yeah that's stupid as hell.

Once again you switch up the topic. We were not talking about the Impact that the two matches had on the business. We were talking about the men in the matches. Quote from you "How about ANYONE BUT THOSE SIX GUYS in there? Are you really going to compare those six to the six at Mania 17? That's just laughable." If you are going to compare the men in the matches, it is quite easy, I already did it. If you want to switch up the topic though, that is fine with me. If you want to talk about the impact that the two matches had, it is no question that TLC did more for the business, and for the men involved. Does a match not having a landmark impact on the business though make the match any less entertaining though? No. The Tag Team match was entertaining, plain and simple.

I think I've got it now. You really believe that the quality of the match means something if the ending sucks. Aha now we've got it! So, the match being decent makes up for the power play HHH plays and the fact taht after a Pedigree it took 48 seconds to get the cover, therefore making Booker look weak as hell all over again? Yeah that makes sense. Hey, let's have everyone lose to HHH since apparently it's ok if the part of getting there is ok!

How did the ending of the match suck? Is it because HHH won? Wow, HHH won the match, big deal. Does an ending that you didn't like make a match less entertaining? Nope. There are plenty of matches where I hated the ending, but then looking back on the match, I appreciate the effort that the two guys put into the match, and I appreciate its entertainment value. Yes, I am that kind of person. Did HHH winning make me jump for joy? Nope. That doesn't mean that I didn't find the match extremely entertaining to watch though.

Former world champions and stars have no business in a wrestling ring? Please, explain this to me.

The Hypocrisy of this entire Gimmick Battle Royal thing astounds me. You want to bash Hogan for getting back into the ring, and keeping a younger guy out of the spot, but then you think it is awesome that 17 Has-Beens get back into the ring? Really? Maybe, "They have no business being in a wrestling ring" was a bit much, but should they have been on the card. According to your own logic, Nope! Why couldn't the Battle Royal been with young stars, who would have gotten the chance to shine? Is it because these 17 guys couldn't let go of the past, much like your accusing Hogan of doing? Whether we use your logic, or mine, the Gimmick Battle Royal was crap.

Oh my dear young man that has obviously so little knowledge.

See, you're confused. You think Vince and Hogan actually care about the people. How mistaken you are. If either cared, they would have realized that other, better, younger wrestlers would fit better in there. That's why the company is bad when VInce is on screen as the main focal point other than against Austin, and why Hogan is about to murder TNA where it stands. That's just amusing, you actually thinking that was for the fans.

I think your forgetting one crucial little thing when it comes to the Hogan vs Vince match......The Fans wanted to see it! Hogan and Vince do care about the fans in some respect because they give the fans what they want to see. Back at the time of this match, the people still very much cared about Hulk Hogan and Hulkamania. It was what the people wanted to see, and so Vince and Hogan gave it to them. I think we have digressed from the original point though, was The Streetfight an entertaining match? With Vince's legdrop, the chair shots that these guys gave and took, Vince's classic bloody stare up from the ring apron, Piper's appearance, yes, this match was very entertaining.

 

[klunderbunker]

First, There are exceptions to every rule, congratulations on finding it. -applauds- Secondly, the crowd is Seatte got tired? Really? They seemed pretty damn lively to me during Angle vs Lesnar which was that last match on the card. I digress though, because you are obviously trying to connect two completely unrelated things: A crowd's size to a crowd's energy. How big a crowd has no bearing on a match unless their energy matches their size. A 200 person crowd could be better than a 50,000 person crowd if the 200 person crowd has energy, and the 50,000 person crowd has none. Bigger Crowd does not always equal bigger energy. Now in terms of 17, of course the crowd "stayed hot" throughout the night , but it had nothing to do with their size, and everything to do with the fact that Austin was in the Main Event, and the crowd was a Texas Crowd. A hometown star is always going to produce white hot energy, that has nothing to do with how big a crowd is.

Ah ok so when a wrestler puts in effort, time means nothing and a match can be good. The Mania 19 tag title match sucked, so there was no effort, unlike in the TLC match where they nearly killed each other and the crowd was way into it, meaning the effort was there to impress the crowd. That sums up things well: TLC over triple threat crap.

1: To have a successful wrestling show that does huge numbers and draws huge money you need to have two things: You need to attract the true wrestling fan by having great action in the ring, and you need to attract the casual wrestling fan by having a ridiculous storyline. WCW had that at first. They had great in ring action with Guerrero, and Jericho, and Mysterio, guys who routinely had the best matches night in and night out, and they had the ridiculous storyline in the NWO. What happened though once Guerrero, and Jericho, and Benoit, and Malenko left? All WCW was left with was ridiculous storylines, and it died. So yeah, Guerrero's mid-card work was a crucial factor in keeping WCW alive. The reason Guerrero never moved up in WCW had nothing to do with his amazing wrestling ability, and ability to entertain the fans, and everything to do with the backstage political bullshit of the company that always kept the younger talent down.

Goldberg got over with even less talent and started out as a jobber. DDP was nothing compared to Guerrero and he got over. David Arquette and Vince Russo both did very well for themselves in a very short time. Benoit won the world title. Eddie never came close. So the politics argument is crap. Eddie simply wasn't good enough.

2: Your basing someone's legacy way to much on where they were in the pecking order. Take someone like Tito Santana, two time I-C champ, always a Mid-Card guy his entire career, BUT a WWE Hall of Famer, why? Because he connected with and ENTERTAINED THE FANS! A person's legacy in wrestling is not about where he was in the order, but how well he entertained the fans. Eddie Guerrero always, always entertained. Whether it was with his humor (The Chyna stuff, The Los Guerrero's vintages, His hilarious stuff with Kurt Angle and Team Angle) or whether it was in the ring( His matches in WCW, his three match stint with Edge that culminated in one of the top two matches EVER on Smackdown, his matches with Angle, His amazing match with JBL at Judgement Day 2004, which btw is nominated for match of the decade by this very site). Eddie Guerrero would have been a Hall of Famer whether he died or not because he was a master at entertaining the fans, which is what SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT is all about. That is why he is a legend.

Koko B. Ware, John Studd, William Perry, Pete Rose. They're all members of the WWE HOF. I suppose they're on the same level as Hogan, Hart and Flair. The HOF is a JOKE.

Chris Benoit did all those things you said he did. He's not getting in. In other words, outside circumstances can change things, like Eddie's death got him in.

Once again you switch up the topic. We were not talking about the Impact that the two matches had on the business. We were talking about the men in the matches. Quote from you "How about ANYONE BUT THOSE SIX GUYS in there? Are you really going to compare those six to the six at Mania 17? That's just laughable." If you are going to compare the men in the matches, it is quite easy, I already did it. If you want to switch up the topic though, that is fine with me. If you want to talk about the impact that the two matches had, it is no question that TLC did more for the business, and for the men involved. Does a match not having a landmark impact on the business though make the match any less entertaining though? No. The Tag Team match was entertaining, plain and simple.

No, it wasn't entertaining. It was filler and nothing more. Instead of a classic like the match at SS 03, this was nothing. It was 6 guys with nothing else going for them so they were thrown into a match no one cares about. And the impact a match has on a person's career has no bearing on it? Please. You're telling me Hogan vs. Andre or Austin vs. Hart is remembered for the matches rather than the aftermaths? Please.

How did the ending of the match suck? Is it because HHH won? Wow, HHH won the match, big deal. Does an ending that you didn't like make a match less entertaining? Nope. There are plenty of matches where I hated the ending, but then looking back on the match, I appreciate the effort that the two guys put into the match, and I appreciate its entertainment value. Yes, I am that kind of person. Did HHH winning make me jump for joy? Nope. That doesn't mean that I didn't find the match extremely entertaining to watch though.

It sucked because HHH hit the pedigree and it took 45 sevonds for him to get the cover. That's not only stupid, but it makes Booker look weak as hell. He can kick out of a sledgehammer shot but not a pedigree after that long? That's just stupid and designed to make HHH look strong, which had happened in nearly every world title match for months instead of at Mania which is supposed to be special. It was the same thing all over again instead of something new. It had no hype on the show at all and Booker looked like a jobber. that's why the ending and the match were bad.

The Hypocrisy of this entire Gimmick Battle Royal thing astounds me. You want to bash Hogan for getting back into the ring, and keeping a younger guy out of the spot, but then you think it is awesome that 17 Has-Beens get back into the ring? Really? Maybe, "They have no business being in a wrestling ring" was a bit much, but should they have been on the card. According to your own logic, Nope! Why couldn't the Battle Royal been with young stars, who would have gotten the chance to shine? Is it because these 17 guys couldn't let go of the past, much like your accusing Hogan of doing? Whether we use your logic, or mine, the Gimmick Battle Royal was crap.

The Gimmick Battle Royal was three minutes and a way to let the audience breathe a bit. Hogan vs. McMahon was 20 minutes plus and on the freaking poster. If you can't see the difference there, I can't help you.

I think your forgetting one crucial little thing when it comes to the Hogan vs Vince match......The Fans wanted to see it! Hogan and Vince do care about the fans in some respect because they give the fans what they want to see. Back at the time of this match, the people still very much cared about Hulk Hogan and Hulkamania. It was what the people wanted to see, and so Vince and Hogan gave it to them. I think we have digressed from the original point though, was The Streetfight an entertaining match? With Vince's legdrop, the chair shots that these guys gave and took, Vince's classic bloody stare up from the ring apron, Piper's appearance, yes, this match was very entertaining.

I didn't. I had no desire to see two men in their 50s try to be young one more time and steal half an hour of the show from two other guys. Instead of this, Benoit could have fought Eddie. Doesn't that sound a bit better for 20 minutes? Vince vs. Hogan was watchable I guess on another show, but not on Mania and certainly not for that long of a match.

 

[Jsaturn14]

Goldberg got over with even less talent and started out as a jobber. DDP was nothing compared to Guerrero and he got over. David Arquette and Vince Russo both did very well for themselves in a very short time. Benoit won the world title. Eddie never came close. So the politics argument is crap. Eddie simply wasn't good enough.

Seriously? You want to go here? Seriously? Okay.....Any wrestling historian, anybody who worked in WCW will tell you that there was a load of backstage political bullshit in the company, which saw the older guys not want to give up their spots. There is also a proven track record of WCW putting over guys who didn't deserve it, over more Talented wrestlers. You already said the guys who got over, now lets look at the guys who they went over, and what happened once they left WCW.

Eddie Guerrero: Amazing In-ring talent, who was never given the chance to get on the mic and develop a personality. Left WCW and went to WWE. Got the chance to get on the mic, develop a personality, got over with the fans. Continued to have 4-5 star matches, and became a world champion.

Chris Benoit: Amazing In-Ring talent, who only won the world title in WCW once they learned that he was going to jump ship to WWE. Still jumped ship. Continued to have 4-5 star matches. Finally got a chance to get on the mic, got over with the fans, and became a world champion.

Rey Mysterio: Amazing In-Ring talent, never got the chance to get on the mic in WCW. Came to WWE, continued to have 4-5 star matches, became a World Champion.

Not convinced by those three, thats fine, I got more.

Chris Jericho: Amazing In-Ring Talent, was given the chance to get on the mic in WCW, but was then put in crap promo's and rivalries because he started to get over. Jumped ship to WWE. Was used right by WWE, given the chance to shine on his first day by interacting with the Rock. Became the first Undisputed Champion, continued to have 4-5 star matches, and is now considered one of the best ever.

Not convinced by him though of how badly WCW mis-managed great talent, and continued to push CRAP over them. Well, I got more.

"Stone Cold" Steve Austin: Told by Eric Bischoff that he would never be anything more than a Mid-Card Talent. Was fired over the phone by WCW. Went to WWE, and became the biggest superstar of the 90's, making more money than anyone in WWE history.

WCW was the biggest joke of an organization. If they had handled the great talent that they had on their doorstep correctly they would still be alive today, its that simple. WCW didn't push lesser guys over Eddie Guerrero because he was no good, they did it because WCW was moronic when it came to pushing great talent.

Koko B. Ware, John Studd, William Perry, Pete Rose. They're all members of the WWE HOF. I suppose they're on the same level as Hogan, Hart and Flair. The HOF is a JOKE.

Chris Benoit did all those things you said he did. He's not getting in. In other words, outside circumstances can change things, like Eddie's death got him in.

Your right, outside circumstances can change things:

Chris Beniot: On his way to the HOF, killed his entire family and himself, and will now no longer be in.

That is not what happened with Eddie though. Eddie was heading to the HOF before his death. Did his death speed up the process? Of course it did, but he would have been in the HOF regardless of whether he died or not.

No, it wasn't entertaining. It was filler and nothing more. Instead of a classic like the match at SS 03, this was nothing. It was 6 guys with nothing else going for them so they were thrown into a match no one cares about. And the impact a match has on a person's career has no bearing on it? Please. You're telling me Hogan vs. Andre or Austin vs. Hart is remembered for the matches rather than the aftermaths? Please.

I never said that the impact that a match had on a person's career has no bearing. Of course it can have bearing on a match. It can ADD to the match, and make a match that much better. The impact of a match can not DETRACT from the entertainment value of a match though. Let me say that again: Impact can only ADD to the entertainment value of a match, it can never DETRACT from it. So did the triple threat tag have an impact on the career's of those who participated? NO, but does that detract from the entertainment value of the match? NO! It was still an entertaining match, that did its job well. Maybe it was a filler match, but that does not mean that it wasn't an entertaining match.

The Gimmick Battle Royal was three minutes and a way to let the audience breathe a bit. Hogan vs. McMahon was 20 minutes plus and on the freaking poster. If you can't see the difference there, I can't help you.

I didn't. I had no desire to see two men in their 50s try to be young one more time and steal half an hour of the show from two other guys. Instead of this, Benoit could have fought Eddie. Doesn't that sound a bit better for 20 minutes? Vince vs. Hogan was watchable I guess on another show, but not on Mania and certainly not for that long of a match.

Two Things: First, The Gimmick Battle Royal lasted longer than 3 minutes, it was more like 15 with all the entrances for each guy. Again, that 15 minutes could have been used to get younger guys over. Secondly, The reason why Hogan vs McMahon was 20 minutes, and was on the poster for Mania was because the MAJORITY of fans wanted to see it. We are not talking about whether you or I wanted to see it. We are talking about what the MAJORITY of fans wanted, and what they wanted was Hogan vs McMahon. Now does not wanting to see a match make it any less good? No. There are plenty of matches that I never wanted to see to begin with, but then once I watched them, they turned out to be good-great matches. I put Hogan vs McMahon in this category. A match that a MAJORITY of fans wanted to see, but that had some detractors. There are some detractors who never saw the match because they never wanted to see it, some that watched it and then used their bias for never wanting to see it to say it sucked, and then some detractors who watched it, and appreciated the effort that Hogan and McMahon put into the match, and saw it as a great match. I think it is obvious which category you fall in.

 

[klunderbunker]

I'm going to not reply to the majority of your post because it's not related to the PPV of the decade which both of us have completely veered off topic on so that's not your fault. I disagree with most of it, but that's taking over the thread and that's not the point of this. If you want to keep arguing that I'd be glad to, but in another thread.

Let me say that again: Impact can only ADD to the entertainment value of a match, it can never DETRACT from it

Incorrect. The Royal Rumble for example certainly has a huge impact on a person's career. Ricky Steamboat vs. Matt Bourne from WM 1 was one of the better matches on the card and the outcome meant nothing at all. That's why the match wasn't nearly as important or remembered as the main event or Andre vs. Studd. Since it means nothing in the long run, there's far less interest in it and the crowd cares a lot less.

wo Things: First, The Gimmick Battle Royal lasted longer than 3 minutes

Awh you indeed have me here. It was 3:05.

it was more like 15 with all the entrances for each guy

Meaning it wasn't the match that went that long but stuff before the match that has no bearing on it at all. Gotcha.

Secondly, The reason why Hogan vs McMahon was 20 minutes, and was on the poster for Mania was because the MAJORITY of fans wanted to see it

According to Vince, yes. According to people that think this through, not so much. A lot of people likely did indeed want to see this, true. However, I highly doubt a huge majority did. It was one of the headlining matches, but it certainly wasn't the best choice. Hulk vs. Shane would have been much better in the ring, but the story wouldn't have been there. The problem wasn't the hype, which was solid, but the match itself just wasn't there at all. It was sloppy and nothing but a meaningless blood bath and then never really talked about again. It's not the worst match I've ever seen of its genre, but it's certainly not worth. Oh believe me I've seen it. I've reviewed all of the Mania shows on here earlier this year. They're in the old school review section if you want to argue them out with me.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

I haven't read Klunderbunkers argument, but from a quick scan I think he's arguing for WrestleMania X7 over WrestleMania X9. It's hard to decide between the two, X9 had a good card from (almost) start to finish, but only half of X7 is any good. I guess it depends if you think a couple of good/great matches are better than a a satisfying card as a whole. That's why I'm voting for the original One Night Stand. JBL beating up The Blue Meanie was more intresting than Austin's heel turn and it had a feelgood ending, like WrestleMania's should have.

 

[gd]

All of the Wrestlemania's kind of blend together for me. At first thought, it's really hard to differentiate them, so that eliminates half of the list.

I'm actually going to go with ONS '05. It's something that's actually pretty memorable. The whole atmosphere was pretty awesome. It was just like old schoold ECW, except they actually had money to make it run smoothly. Plus, Cena v. RVD at ONS '06 was awesome, so I'll include that in my vote.

 

[Monkey_Mania]

It's Wrestlemania 17 and it's not even close. from top to bottom this WM had it all. Every match was solid outside of the womans match. The best damn Hardcore Title match ever. Taker vs. Trips in what I consider to be the best match on the show. Angle an Benoit going hold for hold in a classic, and then TLC 2. Oh and don't forget Austin vs. The Rock. This Mania was amazing, from top to bottom, even the gimmick battle royal held it's own for what it was. This isnt only the best PPV of the decade, it's the best damn PPV EVER!

 

[wolvdog316]

WM 17 and it's not close folks. Jesus Christ if one more idiot tries to explain why the fuck that shit Rock-Austin 3 match was anywhere NEAR as good as their WM 17 match I'm going to dropkick a limping Chicken

Austin-Rock 3 was pure shit. It was horrible, neither man gave a damn, and Austin was so hurt he could barely walk. Brock and Angle was NOT a good match. For some reason they didn't click on that night. It happens. But their match would be maybe 4th best on WM 17 card behind TLC, HHH vs Taker, and Austin vs Rock. That was their WM. That's it folks. WM 19s Main Event, their premier match of Austin vs Rock 3 and Hogan vs McMahon would all be behind the big 3 at WM 17.

Only match that could break it would be Jericho and Michaels who would be behind Austin-Rock, and probably behind HHH vs Taker.

I was in attendance for WM 17. It felt special and it was special. I didn't feel that way for Summerslam, or Royal Rumble or WM 25.