So the other day, I sent the following to my buddy and fellow professional wrestling aficionado Jay:
"Simply put...if you could make a dream card of any wrestler at any point, playing any character ever...how would you do it? You must give reasons.
The rules:
1. You can only have a person on the card once. For example, you cannot have Cactus Jack wrestle Terry Funk, and then have Mankind wrestle Steve Austin. Only one match per person.
2. You can only have a MAX of 9 matches.
3. If you wish to name your show, give your announcers, who does the ring introductions, fine. Wish to have managers in corners, do that as well. It doesn't have to make sense, so if you want Bobby Heenan in the corner of The Ultimate Warrior, do so.
4. Give reasons to WHY you have the match the way you did.
5. No more than 3 gimmick matches allowed.
6. Feel free to give match results if you want, but you don't have to if you don't want.
Go.
This is interesting, and I know you've thought about it. I'll do it too. But I'm not sending mine until I get yours. But I won't read it until after I send mine. Just title your email as "My List" that way I know to send mine."
Below is my list.
Venue: Madison Square Garden (backup is Caesar's Palace in Vegas; Wrestlemania IX was exquisite, even though Hogan ruined it at the end.)
Commentators: Gorilla Monsoon and Bobby Heenan
Ring Announcer: The Fink (circa 1990)
Dark Match: Brian Pillman vs The Brian Kendrick
I know, I know. I said nine matches because that's a usual PPV, but I like the possibility of the Loose Cannon beating up on the modern-day version of himself. I think it would be a good back and forth match, no Big Zeke in sight and Pillman would walk away after about a five-six minute match after a flying body press.
Match 1: Demolition vs Legion of Doom
Again, not a pretty match, but a fun one to watch. Mr. Fuji is on the outside for Demolition and Paul Ellerling is in LOD's corner. Back and forth powerhouse match for about ten minutes. End comes when Fuji tries to use the cane and hits Smash instead. Doomsday Device. 1, 2, 3.
Match 2: The Ultimate Warrior vs Batista
How could I not? I mean, having these two this early in the show says a number of things. Number 1, I know my first match is nothing short of an attraction match. This one would get people on their feet, even though the match itself would be awful. That's reason number 2. We both know these guys are the exact same character twenty years apart and missing some face paint and arm bands. I think it would be a good powerhouse match with one or two high points. Even though it makes little sense, I'd give the edge to Batista with his horrible version of a power bomb. Match goes maybe eight minutes.
Match 3: Owen Hart vs Chris Jericho (2009 version)
Come on. The consummate whiner versus the consummate whiner. Owen was one of the best to ever enter the squared circle (I believe without a shadow of a doubt that he would have been better than Bret) and Jericho as of now is exactly what would have been Owen if he lived to see this day. This match would have a lot of high spots and good old fashioned wrestling. A sure crowd-pleaser. Owen wins with the sharpshooter after he counters the Walls of Jericho. Match goes close to fifteen.
Match 4: Intergenerational Money in the Bank Ladder Match
"Superfly" Jimmy Snuka vs Rob Van Dam vs Ricky "The Dragon" Steamboat vs Shelton Benjamin vs Mr. Perfect vs "Rowdy" Roddy Piper
I couldn't resist. Talk about finding lifetime mid-carders and sticking them in against today's mid-carders. (I know, I know. Dragon was a world champ...but in NWA). This would be a good match, about twenty minutes long with some good spots. Snuka off a ladder with the splash, Benjamin's acrobatics, and Henning just being that guy. I was tempted to go with Punk instead of Shelton, but I am completely underwhelmed by his one trick pony matches. I think I'd go sentimental and give the win to Piper (and I'm talking 1986 Piper here) by shear luck after everyone else is done. And Piper is the heel, so it'd be fun to see him walk out with it.
Match 5: Jake "The Snake" Roberts vs Edge
I think this one speaks for itself. It's a good transition match between a high energy gimmick match and the last three main events. Jake is the good guy here, still has Damian and isn't 900 lbs. Edge is still Ultimate Opportunist, but this is as far as it goes for me for him. I can't see him as a main-eventer and I was almost tempted to put him in the Ladder Match. I think Jake gets the win with the DDT. Ten-fifteen minutes.
Match 6: Randy Orton vs Bret "Hitman" Hart
(Half-way point. No turning back.)
I couldn't resist. Hart had to be here somewhere, and Orton (2009 version) is without a doubt one of the best heels today. Mix that with the Bret Hart that had every fan eating out of his hands for how long and you get an amazing match. The surprise here is that Orton wins after about 20 mins.
Match 7: "Macho Man" Randy Savage vs "The Heartbreak Kid" Shawn Michaels
Again, couldn't resist. I'm talking Macho (circa 1988) versus Shawn (circa 1996-1997). This match is the show stealer, I think. Look at about fifteen minutes and look for Savage to win with the elbow. I can't imagine Savage losing, even though Shawn was at the top of his game.
Match 8: "Nature Boy" Ric Flair vs Triple H
This one needs little explanation. Ric Flair of the 80s versus Triple H now (or no later than 5 years ago.) I can see this one going about twenty five minutes and it would be amazing. I honestly think that next to the match before it, this would be the one to watch. The intensity of HHH and the wonderfully gifted trickery of Natch just means a good time for everyone. I give it to Flair because he ALWAYS finds a way to win.
Match 9: Fatal Four-Way for the WWF Title
Bruno Sammartino vs Hulk Hogan vs "Stone Cold" Steve Austin vs The Rock
Four icons from different times (sort of) battling it out for the WWF Title. (No WWE crap). Hogan, Austin and The Rock aren't even in the same class as Sammartino wrestling-wise, but they are the true draws of their generations. I think it would come down to just shear ability on Bruno's part that it's his match to lose, but a Stunner here, a Rock Bottom there, and of course the Leg Drop, I can't say for sure who would win. I think Sammartino should win, but I can't imagine Hogan not walking out victorious, based solely on the fact that I'm talking 1986-1989 Hogan here. Match would probably only go about fifteen minutes, but that doesn't matter, because no one expects an Iron Man Match.
*Who I left out: No Kurt Angle, Andre, Big Show, Dusty Rhodes, Sting, Rick Rude, Hardy's, DiBiase...Angle is the only one I kind of regret; he had no real place in my line-up, even though I thought about replacing Austin with him for about two seconds. DiBiase was hard for me too, but I could only validate putting him on as Money, Inc. with IRS and I think my tag match was better. Andre vs Big Show almost made it on instead of Warrior vs Batista, but I think the two muscleheads would be more entertaining than two big men. Also left off the Undertaker because I ran out of matches. I would have put him against Sting (the Crow version), but I stuck to WWF only...and he is the only opponent I would have like to see the Undertaker face.
I had fun with this and I've actually re-written it in my head about four different ways. I have no doubt that I will eventually redo this completely and send it on to Jay again. He sent me his back, and as always, I was impressed with his insights and ideas. Frankly, if he and I ever got up the courage to just apply to WWE or TNA, we could actually make wrestling entertaining once again...We're just that good (really, we are.)
20 February 2009
11 February 2009
Alex Rodriguez
In 1920, baseball appointed Kenesaw Mountain Landis, a federal juge, the first Commissioner of Baseball. His first major decision was to ban nine men from playing professionally for the rest of their lives. The Black Sox Scandal, as it became to be known, was a major black-eye for the sport that helped define America in one of its most trying times. With the arrival of "Babe" Ruth and the rest of the powerhouse Yankees of the '20s and '30s, (among other factors), baseball was able to regain its footing and remain America's Pasttime.
In 1985, awareness of illegal drug activities came to light when nine Pittsburgh Pirate players were summoned to appear before a grand jury and later their testimony was used in what came to be known as The Pittsburgh Drug Trials. This drug trial led to the nation becoming aware of the heightening drug problems throughout the league, not just Pittsburgh. Amphetamines and marijuana, long thought to be in use in the Major Leagues were now all but confirmed. In 1986, Baseball Commissioner Peter Ueberroth suspended a number of players for varying amounts of time.
In 1989, baseball's all-time hits leader, Pete Rose, accepted a voluntary life-time ban from Major League Baseball. Even though he was given the opportunity to apply for reinstatement, he has been denied both times (in 1997 and 2003). Rose has admitted that he bet on the game and it remains to be seen if his ban will ever be lifted in his lifetime and if arguably one of the greatest hitters ever will be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.
And of course, in 2007, the delivery of the voluminous "Mitchel Report," documented the alleged use of steroids and other drugs by a named 89 baseball players, most notably perhaps Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, and Roger Clemens. Though some players have vehemently denied use or at least knowingly using (Clemens, Bonds), the admittance of use by other players named (Andy Pettite comes to mind), leads many to believe that if nothing else, most denials are lies.
Now, where am I going with this? Simple. Alex Rodriguez, arguably the greatest player of his generation, has admitted to using performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) from 2001-2003. Now the questions loom as to how honest was he in his interview, how does it affect his legacy, etc.
The answer to these questions, I believe, are quite simple. It doesn't matter how honest he was and no, it categorically does not affect his legacy. In the same breath, I also don't think that anyone named in Senator Mitchell's report has to worry about their legacy. On the whole, Major League Baseball has been through some highly visibly, highly trying times in the history of the game. With the advent of sports as the defining American culture in the last ten years or so, we as fans have come to expect and accept to a degree that sports players are flawed. With nine cities/metropolitan areas supporting at least four major sports teams, with one supporting nine (NYC), one supporting six (the Bay area), and one five (Chicago), sports are our common interest. Even the lackadaisical, disinterested person still knows enough to watch a televised game to know who is playing and what is going on, at least by asking.
Think about how many professional athletes there are in the United States alone. Think again of how many foreign players immigrate to the United States just to play a game. There is no way that you are going to find a majority of "moral-bound" citizens playing in a sport. The need for a competitive edge is always there, especially considering the amount of dollars that are spent by the fan, and in turn are given to said players.
Did Rodriguez do something wrong? Yes. Will we as a society forgive him his trespass? Outwardly, no. We will vehemently deny him the right to be considered one of the greatest to ever play the game without an asterisk, much like we did with Barry Bonds breaking Hank Aaron's home run record. But on the inside, we will still know that he was good; very good, in fact. And that is the main idea in the steroid/PED argument: PEDs obviously give players some sort of edge competitively, but how much of an edge?
Alex Rodriguez is and always will be a great hitter. Roger Clemens is and always will be a great pitcher. The raw talent was always there. Their ability to hit and pitch to the best of their ability, and better than others was always there. Rodriguez hits for average and hits for power, but as a situational hitter in the playoffs, he's never paid off. If PEDs were the best thing ever, wouldn't he be a great hitter all of the time? The point is simple--he is a great hitter, he is extremely talented but he is human. He has his deficiencies as an athlete and probably (like the rest of us) as a human being. But that doesn't mean that he still isn't one of the greatest hitters of this generation...
And like every generation before him, there are problems with the game and problems with those who played it, even the great ones. To judge conclusively doesn't change that fact, nor does it change the fact that we as a society will still come back to the game...if for nothing else, the game itself.
In 1985, awareness of illegal drug activities came to light when nine Pittsburgh Pirate players were summoned to appear before a grand jury and later their testimony was used in what came to be known as The Pittsburgh Drug Trials. This drug trial led to the nation becoming aware of the heightening drug problems throughout the league, not just Pittsburgh. Amphetamines and marijuana, long thought to be in use in the Major Leagues were now all but confirmed. In 1986, Baseball Commissioner Peter Ueberroth suspended a number of players for varying amounts of time.
In 1989, baseball's all-time hits leader, Pete Rose, accepted a voluntary life-time ban from Major League Baseball. Even though he was given the opportunity to apply for reinstatement, he has been denied both times (in 1997 and 2003). Rose has admitted that he bet on the game and it remains to be seen if his ban will ever be lifted in his lifetime and if arguably one of the greatest hitters ever will be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.
And of course, in 2007, the delivery of the voluminous "Mitchel Report," documented the alleged use of steroids and other drugs by a named 89 baseball players, most notably perhaps Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, and Roger Clemens. Though some players have vehemently denied use or at least knowingly using (Clemens, Bonds), the admittance of use by other players named (Andy Pettite comes to mind), leads many to believe that if nothing else, most denials are lies.
Now, where am I going with this? Simple. Alex Rodriguez, arguably the greatest player of his generation, has admitted to using performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) from 2001-2003. Now the questions loom as to how honest was he in his interview, how does it affect his legacy, etc.
The answer to these questions, I believe, are quite simple. It doesn't matter how honest he was and no, it categorically does not affect his legacy. In the same breath, I also don't think that anyone named in Senator Mitchell's report has to worry about their legacy. On the whole, Major League Baseball has been through some highly visibly, highly trying times in the history of the game. With the advent of sports as the defining American culture in the last ten years or so, we as fans have come to expect and accept to a degree that sports players are flawed. With nine cities/metropolitan areas supporting at least four major sports teams, with one supporting nine (NYC), one supporting six (the Bay area), and one five (Chicago), sports are our common interest. Even the lackadaisical, disinterested person still knows enough to watch a televised game to know who is playing and what is going on, at least by asking.
Think about how many professional athletes there are in the United States alone. Think again of how many foreign players immigrate to the United States just to play a game. There is no way that you are going to find a majority of "moral-bound" citizens playing in a sport. The need for a competitive edge is always there, especially considering the amount of dollars that are spent by the fan, and in turn are given to said players.
Did Rodriguez do something wrong? Yes. Will we as a society forgive him his trespass? Outwardly, no. We will vehemently deny him the right to be considered one of the greatest to ever play the game without an asterisk, much like we did with Barry Bonds breaking Hank Aaron's home run record. But on the inside, we will still know that he was good; very good, in fact. And that is the main idea in the steroid/PED argument: PEDs obviously give players some sort of edge competitively, but how much of an edge?
Alex Rodriguez is and always will be a great hitter. Roger Clemens is and always will be a great pitcher. The raw talent was always there. Their ability to hit and pitch to the best of their ability, and better than others was always there. Rodriguez hits for average and hits for power, but as a situational hitter in the playoffs, he's never paid off. If PEDs were the best thing ever, wouldn't he be a great hitter all of the time? The point is simple--he is a great hitter, he is extremely talented but he is human. He has his deficiencies as an athlete and probably (like the rest of us) as a human being. But that doesn't mean that he still isn't one of the greatest hitters of this generation...
And like every generation before him, there are problems with the game and problems with those who played it, even the great ones. To judge conclusively doesn't change that fact, nor does it change the fact that we as a society will still come back to the game...if for nothing else, the game itself.
03 February 2009
Hmmm
I actually gained two pounds from the last time I was at the doctor. The meds aren't really eating me up anymore, plus I think I'm learning how to eat...I'm just not very good at it. I'm not really feeling like a full update; that'll come sooner than later though. Hang in there. Hehe.
23 January 2009
A different direction...
All right, since no one is reading this, I thought I'd stop talking about me and talk about something in the sports world that I find interesting.
Today, Jeff Kent retired. Now, everyone has gone back and forth all day on talk radio and such about "Is he a Hall of Famer or not?" I'm with the detractors. He's definitely not.
Let's take a look at the stats on the surface:
.290 BA, 2461 Hits, 377 HR, 1518 RBIs. 560 2Bs, 47 3Bs, 94 SB, and 1320 Runs. His OBP was .356, which is average. His OPS was .856, which admittedly is pretty good. But more importantly was his defensive numbers. His fielding percentage for his career is .978. Now, against current HOF 2nd Basemen (there are 16 listed as 2B as their primary position; Jackie Robinson and Rod Carew are two notables not compared), here is how he stacks up:
BA: 8th
Hits: 12th
HR: 1st
RBIs: 3rd
Runs: 10th
2Bs: 4th
3Bs: 16th
SB: 11th
Fielding %: 7th
(Information attributed to http://major-league-baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/kent_on_road_to_baseballl_hof)
Impressive. It really is. But look closer. The majority of those stats came from 1997-2002, when he played for the Giants. Who did he bat in front of? That's right. The "Home Run King" himself, Barry Bonds. What did Bonds do in those years?
He averaged 145 hits, 30 doubles, 4 triples, 47 home runs, 110 RBIs, hit .310, and had an OBP of .693. Do you think maybe he benefitted from any of that? No. Of course not.
Not convinced? Ok. It wasn't fair compairing him to Bonds. Let's take a look at his contemporaries at the positon during his "breakout" years.
He was an All-Star five times in 17 seasons, and the 2000 NL MVP. His All-Star appearances came in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2004, and 2005. (2004 was particularly disappointing, but having the game played in Houston while he was a member of the Astros certainly helped. All this while Mark Loretta was having a career year in San Diego). As for the MVP, he won in a year where statistically, Todd Helton was far and away the best player, but he played for the fourth-place Rockies and Kent played for the first-place Giants. Simply put, if he was that good, he should have made more All-Star game appearances in 17 years, especially when he played in the weaker NL (it could be argued that he was continuously up against Craig Biggio, I suppose, but Biggio stopped going to the game as a starter in 1998; and Robbie Alomar played for Cleveland and Baltimore in those years), and everyone else will throw out there: "How do you beat out Chase Utley these last couple of years?"
All right. I drifted. I got caught up in stats. But how about these two "stats?" He did all of this in the Steroid Era AND he was a horrible teammate. He feuded everywhere he went. He and Bonds didn't get along and these last couple of years with the Dodgers was supposedly rift with faked injuries and his inability to take a back seat to younger talent (James Loney, Blake DeWitt).
I don't know. In a time where we are literally running out of true Hall of Fame-caliber players, why should writers put in guys who were serviceably good, but not great? Isn't that what a HOF represents? The greatest to play the game? Jeff Kent, by the numbers, was good, but both Alomar and Biggio were better longer, offensively and defensively, and Kent will still probably get in first. Hell, I'd put in Alvaro Espinoza if we were just going to put ANYBODY in.
(That was for you, C)
Today, Jeff Kent retired. Now, everyone has gone back and forth all day on talk radio and such about "Is he a Hall of Famer or not?" I'm with the detractors. He's definitely not.
Let's take a look at the stats on the surface:
.290 BA, 2461 Hits, 377 HR, 1518 RBIs. 560 2Bs, 47 3Bs, 94 SB, and 1320 Runs. His OBP was .356, which is average. His OPS was .856, which admittedly is pretty good. But more importantly was his defensive numbers. His fielding percentage for his career is .978. Now, against current HOF 2nd Basemen (there are 16 listed as 2B as their primary position; Jackie Robinson and Rod Carew are two notables not compared), here is how he stacks up:
BA: 8th
Hits: 12th
HR: 1st
RBIs: 3rd
Runs: 10th
2Bs: 4th
3Bs: 16th
SB: 11th
Fielding %: 7th
(Information attributed to http://major-league-baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/kent_on_road_to_baseballl_hof)
Impressive. It really is. But look closer. The majority of those stats came from 1997-2002, when he played for the Giants. Who did he bat in front of? That's right. The "Home Run King" himself, Barry Bonds. What did Bonds do in those years?
He averaged 145 hits, 30 doubles, 4 triples, 47 home runs, 110 RBIs, hit .310, and had an OBP of .693. Do you think maybe he benefitted from any of that? No. Of course not.
Not convinced? Ok. It wasn't fair compairing him to Bonds. Let's take a look at his contemporaries at the positon during his "breakout" years.
He was an All-Star five times in 17 seasons, and the 2000 NL MVP. His All-Star appearances came in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2004, and 2005. (2004 was particularly disappointing, but having the game played in Houston while he was a member of the Astros certainly helped. All this while Mark Loretta was having a career year in San Diego). As for the MVP, he won in a year where statistically, Todd Helton was far and away the best player, but he played for the fourth-place Rockies and Kent played for the first-place Giants. Simply put, if he was that good, he should have made more All-Star game appearances in 17 years, especially when he played in the weaker NL (it could be argued that he was continuously up against Craig Biggio, I suppose, but Biggio stopped going to the game as a starter in 1998; and Robbie Alomar played for Cleveland and Baltimore in those years), and everyone else will throw out there: "How do you beat out Chase Utley these last couple of years?"
All right. I drifted. I got caught up in stats. But how about these two "stats?" He did all of this in the Steroid Era AND he was a horrible teammate. He feuded everywhere he went. He and Bonds didn't get along and these last couple of years with the Dodgers was supposedly rift with faked injuries and his inability to take a back seat to younger talent (James Loney, Blake DeWitt).
I don't know. In a time where we are literally running out of true Hall of Fame-caliber players, why should writers put in guys who were serviceably good, but not great? Isn't that what a HOF represents? The greatest to play the game? Jeff Kent, by the numbers, was good, but both Alomar and Biggio were better longer, offensively and defensively, and Kent will still probably get in first. Hell, I'd put in Alvaro Espinoza if we were just going to put ANYBODY in.
(That was for you, C)
17 January 2009
No title
I can't believe I finished that last post with "Fin." What the hell? Am I some ridiculously awful student filmmaker? Ugh. So dumb.
How about another update?
Don't freaking say "no thanks" you bastards!
Anyway. Jerks.
I'm no better, really. I haven't lost any weight, even though I think I should have, if that makes any sense. Then again, it is me, and knowing me, I won't actually lose any weight and I'll have to have my foot cut off.
My eyesight has started to get worse again, and that freaks me out. But then again, it is kind of good, because that is like my WARNING sign. When they start to get "ugh," I know my sugar is out of whack. Mainly, they haven't been blurry like before, but they hurt, and I can't read. I look at the words and they just go everywhere. Not fun.
As far as a job, that still hasn't happened, and I know my wife-to-be is almost in freak-out mode, but isn't showing it. Hopefully, this week that'll change.
I don't want to write anymore. Fin.
Anyway. Jerks.
I'm no better, really. I haven't lost any weight, even though I think I should have, if that makes any sense. Then again, it is me, and knowing me, I won't actually lose any weight and I'll have to have my foot cut off.
My eyesight has started to get worse again, and that freaks me out. But then again, it is kind of good, because that is like my WARNING sign. When they start to get "ugh," I know my sugar is out of whack. Mainly, they haven't been blurry like before, but they hurt, and I can't read. I look at the words and they just go everywhere. Not fun.
As far as a job, that still hasn't happened, and I know my wife-to-be is almost in freak-out mode, but isn't showing it. Hopefully, this week that'll change.
I don't want to write anymore. Fin.
01 January 2009
A New Day
So, on Tuesday, I had a doctor's appointment to further my education in diabetes and how to treat it. Gratefully, I wasn't put on insulin, but I still need to take medication. My doctor was pretty cool, even for a clinic doc that didn't have to care, but she seemed to. Diet and exercise. That I knew. But how the hell do I do it? What do I watch? What can I still eat? Drink? She set me up with a dietician (that's on January 8) and obviously, she told me I pretty much can't do anything that I used to. Ok. That's kind of obvious, but of course it still kind of sucks. Not so much what I can't eat, because I want to eat better anyway and now I have the ultimate reason. It's the "what can I drink" question that kills me. I drink a lot of water anyway, but my taste buds don't do well with JUST water. But I can't have pop any more (except of course for diet or caffeine free versions) and that will really help with the weight loss. But diet pop is disgusting. Sprite Zero and Diet Squirt are ok, but I can't do diet dark pops...gag. No juice unless it's sugar free (which sucks because I LOVE ORANGE JUICE!) and sugar free juices are hard to find. So yeah, reiteration: I can't have anything.
Ok. Now the calm version of this. I know what I have to do. Watch what I eat. Learn to count carbs (carbs turns to sugar), don't eat ANYTHING with ADDED sugar. A piece of fruit as a snack food is not a bad thing. No pop will be the hardest thing, but once I get used to that, I know I'll be ok. Eliminating pizza and fast food to help the diet. Cook instead of ordering or going out (all ready been doing that in our ridiculously small kitchen), portion sizes and exercise! I know I can do it. That's not the problem. It's still going to be hard, but I have to do this! I have a wonderful woman to marry and I see no reason to die young because of stupidity!
Ok. Now the calm version of this. I know what I have to do. Watch what I eat. Learn to count carbs (carbs turns to sugar), don't eat ANYTHING with ADDED sugar. A piece of fruit as a snack food is not a bad thing. No pop will be the hardest thing, but once I get used to that, I know I'll be ok. Eliminating pizza and fast food to help the diet. Cook instead of ordering or going out (all ready been doing that in our ridiculously small kitchen), portion sizes and exercise! I know I can do it. That's not the problem. It's still going to be hard, but I have to do this! I have a wonderful woman to marry and I see no reason to die young because of stupidity!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
