Greatest WM Match Ever: Round 3 (Mideon Bracket)
This is going up later than normal (this is going up at 12pm instead of 7am like I usually do). It’s been a busy time, but this will still be up for 48 hours like all the polls have been. Here are the results from this bracket in round two:
1. Steve Austin vs. The Rock @ WM17 (54%) d. 4. Shawn Michaels vs. Chris Jericho @ WM19 (46%)
6. The Rock vs. Hulk Hogan @ WM18 (51%) d. 2. Ricky Steamboat vs. Randy Savage @ WM3 (49%) – This match won by a total of 11 votes in a tight race.
The Rock has two matches in the elite eight going to head to head. Which Rock match do you like better?
THE NAKED MIDEON BRACKET – ROUND THREE
#1) Steve Austin vs. The Rock for the WWF Title @ WM 17
The main event for the WWF Title for the PPV that many (including myself) feel is the best PPV in WWF history. The end result sees Austin capture the WWF Title after turning heel in a grueling, fast paced match that is the culmination of the very successful Attitude era.
VERSUS
#6) The Rock vs. Hulk Hogan @ WM18
This was a dream matchup too. Two icons, one from the past in Hogan and one from the present in Rock, going face to face in Toronto on the biggest stage of them all. It was one of the most electric atmospheres for any match in WM history.
Here’s the poll awaiting your vote:
Back tomorrow with the final matchup in the Elite 8 round.
Thanks for voting!
If Rock/Hogan wins, sad to say, I might not vote in the final 4.
Voted for Rock/Austin, but neither match is great IMO.
I went with Rock/Hogan. The match wasn’t better, but the spectacle of the whole thing, the fans during the match, it really was one of the hottest crowds I’ve seen and it was a huge match.
I agree with Dave, neither is actually that good from a wrestling standpoint. Both are more spectacles than anything else.
I. I was at sky dome for that match tv doesn’t do that crowd justice it was a specticle s/h been the main event because the crowd was dead for the last two matches
Man, that WM 17 match kicks all kinds of ass. I loved how the Texas crowd was so hot for Austin; but you can hear some of them rallying for Rocky once they realize that Stone Cold made his “deal with the devil.”
Rock/Austin was a good wrestling match as well as a spectacle.
I went for Rock – Austin, but I think Rock – Hogan’s run to the QF has vindicated it’s inclusion!
The Rock vs Austin may not be a classic in technical terms but it was one of the best matches that puntuated the attitude era of WWF. I could watch it again and again!
Rock/Austin was entertaining. But if you’re going to judge by techincal wrestling or even a bumpfest, it doesn’t rate high at all. It’s just the best of the the Rock/Austin brawls.
Rock/Hogan beat Savage/Steamboat. It’s not like people are voting based on technical wrestling considering that lost as well as the Hart/Hart match. And that’s fine. Everybody’s different.
I had to go with Rock/Hogan
This was one of the things that made me a fan – the crowd, the build up, “icon vs icon”.
Sure, Hogan sucks & The Rock wasn’t the best technical wrestler, but I’ll be damned if they both didn’t know how to pump up the crowd back then.
Looks like it has no chance of winning, but like someone else said it’s proven it’s worth by how far it’s gotten.
Rock hogan ended clean maybe I’m bais cause I was there. But the crowd made that more of a great moment then a great match that’s what I think gthe staying power of that match is they are preformers on the mic and in the ring that is what I think seperates those two as the best ever not taking anything away from austin because he is on that level to hogan rock was the most entertaining match I’ve ever seen maybe not technically sound but if I wanted to see that id watch mma
@John Canton
John, believe me, I am well aware people aren’t voting based strictly on techincal wrestling. What other reason would there be for Rock/Hogan advancing past Round 1. And like I said, Rock/Austin WM 17 was entertaining, I just wasn’t a big fan of the style of their matches. Just glorified brawls aided by intense storylines. Entertaining to an extent, but after the match, I’m kinda left with “well, that was alright, although I’ve seen it on Raw at least half a dozen times.”
@Dave
True. It’s the “WWE style” as people online called it. The standup brawls that started with Austin/Foley (during his Dude Love run) in the spring of 1998 that every other main eventer basically copied. It was also used by Undertaker, Rock and HHH, which is why they were all in main events all the time. They found a formula that worked. It wasn’t about grabbing holds. It was about throwing punches or kicks. Once Austin bailed in 2002 and they had the likes of Angle & Lesnar on board it changed a bit, but that period from 1998 to 2002 was all about the punch-kick type matches that built to the strong finishes.
I could easily write a column about this stuff.
@John Canton
Exactly. That’s pretty much my point. Hell, I’m not writing them off completely, there was alot of those matches that I enjoyed. A good number of them were very entertaining. But I’m not going to lie. I enjoy the main eventers who wrestle abit more than I do the “brawlers.” There’s a reason I prefer guys like HBK, Bret, Angle, and Jericho.
@ Dave : That’s why I feel Hart vs Austin at Wrestlmania 13 is overated. Should still make it to the final, since it is a classic, but the first 10 minutes of the match is a big brawl (mainly in the crowd). The rest is an hardore match, with a little bit of technical wrestling here and there. If I would watch back their Survivor Series match, it would probably be better, cause it was a pure wrestling match (from what I rembember).
People love that match cause Austin was bleeding like a pig at the end and never gave up. The feud was great (one of the best they had in the WWF history if not the best) and the match made Austin. But the quality of the match in itself is not that hight.
I think we need to have a serious discussion about the criteria by which we judge a match to be “high quality”. To me, a “high quality” match does not necessarily require high quality technical wrestling even though some “high quality” matches happen to have high quality technical wrestling.
@Jaykob
There are plenty of matches that aren’t full of technical wrestling that I consider high quality matches. I love techincal wrestling as much as the next guy, but there are plenty of brawls and spotfests that are also high quality. However, IMO, there is no doubt that technical matches are higher qulaity *wrestling matches* than your typcial brawl, which happened alot during the Attitude era.
@Jaykob
My thoughts exactly.
You can’t judge it by technical wrestling because it wasn’t such. It was a brawl(I can’t see it playing out as anything but) with tremendous psychology, especially from Austin. He did everything in his power and he couldn’t put the Rock away, until he starting unleashing those savage chairshots. He wanted to win the title so badly that he would align himself with his mortal enemy, Mr. McMahon to win & keep the title at all costs. The match is hardly a byproduct of its time, as it still holds up, is still believable, and we’re still talking about it so positively some 9 years later. Same thing for Cactus/HHH from Royal Rumble 2000, or Austin/HHH from No Way Out 2001.
@keysersoze
Go back and read my various posts on this thread. I said numerous times I enjoyed this match, and though it was the very best of the Austin/Rock series. I never said it wasn’t believable, not sure what that even means. It’s wrestling.
My only point is that I find both more technical matches and even bumpfests more entertaining than the brawl type matches. There are 3 types of matches to me: Technical wrestling, Bumpfests, and brawls. I find brawls to be the least entertaining of the three. And the Attitude era chanpioned this style of match and ran with it. It worked, can’t blame them. And like I said, I even found many of them entertaining. However, I just think brawls are the least entertaining of the three types of matches. Just my opinion. It’s all very subjective.
Also, I didn’t like the ending of the match at all with Austin taking all the chairshots with The Rock laying on the mat the whole time. Seemed kind of rushed to me and not very smooth. The ending of a match (especially the main event at Wrestlemania) is always an important/integral part of how a match is judged as well.
I disagree w/ you Dave. I think the chairshots complimented the story very well. I think the fact that you have Stone Cold saying in the sit down Promo “I need to be the Champion Rock, more then anything in the world” And relaying in a match where he did everything to beat the Rock including getting assistance from the “devil” himself Mr. McMahon… He only has one option and that’s to take a chair and literally beat the hell out of him until he’s immobolized. I like that better then the idea of having to hit your “finisher” 4 to 5 times to get a win. Makes the finisher rather watered down IMO
@Atiba
Atiba, that is fine. Like I said, this is all very subjective. Liking or disliking the finish of this match, no one is right and no one is wrong. Over the years, I’ve seen/heard many people say they didn’t like the ending at all. I’m one of them.
As far as finishers go, that is a valid point. On one hand, you can think it makes the finishers look watered down, like you said. On the other hand, it can actually make the wrestlers themselves look strong because it took so many finisihers to finally beat them. I think making a wrestler look strong is more important than the actual finishing move. But like I said, this kindo of stuff is all very subjective.
I agree… two different ways to look at it. And as you said it’s all very subjective.
Go back and read my various posts on this thread. I said numerous times I enjoyed this match, and though it was the very best of the Austin/Rock series. I never said it wasn’t believable, not sure what that even means. It’s wrestling.
My only point is that I find both more technical matches and even bumpfests more entertaining than the brawl type matches. There are 3 types of matches to me: Technical wrestling, Bumpfests, and brawls. I find brawls to be the least entertaining of the three. And the Attitude era chanpioned this style of match and ran with it. It worked, can’t blame them. And like I said, I even found many of them entertaining. However, I just think brawls are the least entertaining of the three types of matches. Just my opinion. It’s all very subjective.
I went back and read your posts like you asked me, and like I read before, you stated your opinion that brawls/spotfests/etc. are less entertaining to you than a technical-style wrestling match. I said that the Austin/Rock match was believable because it wasn’t just another mindless brawl from the Attitude era like you say. The “whatever that means — it’s wrestling” comment doesn’t hold any water, otherwise you wouldn’t have a preference for technical style wrestling in the first place. And why would you invest your time in someone or something that you don’t believe in to some degree, even if you know it’s “fake” and the whole point of the art is to make it as realistic as possible?
Dude, you are lost. I never said any type of match was believable or not. You put those words in my mouth. Not me. I don’t know where you came up with this “this is believable and this isn’t” stuff.
It’s this simple for me. I find technical matches more entertaining. That doesn’t mean it’s more believable. Entertaining does not equal more believable.
I don’t find brawls all that entertaining. That is my personal preference. This Austin/Rock match was probably the best out of them all. It was a good match, but it wasn’t my cup of tea.