Kurt Angle - I resent him. He got a push Chris Benoit or Chris Jericho would have had far more success with in 2000-2001.

Surely Angle can't be blamed for McMahon's notion of pushing home-grown talent over outsiders?

 

His needless risk-taking and gross injuries are the main reason WWE-style wrestling has become headlocks and spinebusters.

Some would argue it's a good thing that they've toned down from 2002's suplex-a-mania.

 

One could argue it's Benoit's fault, as he started the suplex craze with his rolling germans on Austin.

 

Anyway, before that it was punch/kick/finisher Attitude Era-style, and I doubt you'd want to go back to that.

 

Shawn Michaels - Michaels is probably better at subtly burying his opponents than HHH.

You know the worst thing about it is that people think he "makes everyone look good" because he bumps.

The toning down is a good thing. I do agree with that. I just think that's when all the matches started looking exactly alike up and down the card -- right after KOTR '01.

Ya know, the mention of repeated suplexes is interesting to me. What'd everyone think of Taz during his last ECW run? He suplexed damn near everything. He had a really strongly booked character but he was never a great wrestler.

Angle is a better athlete than Taz, but as a worker, there really isn't much difference, honestly.

 

Taz was booked far better than Angle really ever has been while in ECW, though, and seemed a lot better than he really was as a result. There's no reason Angle could not have been the greatest wrestler of all time, but he started in the company around the time HHH starfucked his way to the top and new guys weren't getting as much help as they were before that. He also had the disadvantage of coming through the WWF farm system and peaking physically during a monopoly, so he never got a chance to learn to work any other styles. That's the sad thing about Angle -- as flawed as he is, WWE will never produce a better homegrown talent. Ever.

That's the sad thing about Angle -- as flawed as he is, WWE will never produce a better homegrown talent. Ever.

Didn't WWE produce Brock Lesnar? He had far more natural talent in my mind.

I think Brock Lesnar was doing just about everything better in the ring than Angle was by the end of his first year on the main roster. I think their series was highly overrated though as Angle really drug things down a few notches. Thier iron man match was awful but then what would you expect with Angle in the ring that long.

Brock was good, but he disappeared so quickly, long before he ever met his full potential.

Brock had about the best 4 minute match I've ever seen with Manabu Nakinishi a few weeks ago in Japan.

Shawn Michaels - has the look and build of an old lady

I question you pointing hid build out only because you have been so outspoken about steroid use among wrestlers.

 

Angle is a better athlete than Taz, but as a worker, there really isn't much difference, honestly.

 

Taz was booked far better than Angle really ever has been while in ECW, though, and seemed a lot better than he really was as a result. There's no reason Angle could not have been the greatest wrestler of all time, but he started in the company around the time HHH starfucked his way to the top and new guys weren't getting as much help as they were before that. He also had the disadvantage of coming through the WWF farm system and peaking physically during a monopoly, so he never got a chance to learn to work any other styles. That's the sad thing about Angle -- as flawed as he is, WWE will never produce a better homegrown talent. Ever.

I agree with everything you wrote here.

My point was that he has the build of a pipsqueak, cowardly heel, but plays a superman babyface. He's in the wrong role for his look. That wouldn't be as much of an issue if he made his opponents look good in the process, but he typically doesn't.

 

I understand why you thought that, and yes, I should have explained it. It's just that smaller guys are typically underdogs in wrestling, while Shawn is typically the odds-on favorite in every match and his working style does nothing to dispel that.

My point was that he has the build of a pipsqueak, cowardly heel, but plays a superman babyface. He's in the wrong role for his look. That wouldn't be as much of an issue if he made his opponents look good in the process, but he typically doesn't.

 

I understand why you thought that, and yes, I should have explained it. It's just that smaller guys are typically underdogs in wrestling, while Shawn is typically the odds-on favorite in every match and his working style does nothing to dispel that.

OK, gotcha. And I agree with you.

People seem to think if you point out someone is undersized then you must be implying they need to use steroids. HBK's probably not the best example since he most likely can't add weight because of his back injuries, but it does come close to exposing the buisness when a balding 40 year old with a chicken chest can go toe to toe with someone like Kane and only lose because of outside interference.

I buy Benoit, who's shorter than Michaels, against guys twice his size. It's more difficult with Michaels, though. Benoit works like a small guy going against a big guy would and should. Michaels is going to do the same spots on Kane that he would Daivari.

People seem to think if you point out someone is undersized then you must be implying they need to use steroids. HBK's probably not the best example since he most likely can't add weight because of his back injuries, but it does come close to exposing the buisness when a balding 40 year old with a chicken chest can go toe to toe with someone like Kane and only lose because of outside interference.

I didn't really think that Loss was saying that Shawn should take steroids, but the way he originally wrote it it came across that way.

 

Shawn can't add weight because that is about as big as someone with his frame and his age can get without steroids or a completely out-of-control work out routine.

 

I buy Benoit, who's shorter than Michaels, against guys twice his size. It's more difficult with Michaels, though. Benoit works like a small guy going against a big guy would and should. Michaels is going to do the same spots on Kane that he would Daivari.

HBK bumps for Kane, not so much for guys like Davairi.