jdw Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 The WM19 match takes everything in the WM17 match and does it better. [...] WM17's advantages are just being in Texas and being the peak of the boom period. One was for the whole ball of wax. The other was pushed less than Hogan-Vince, and was sandwiched in build up between Brock-Kurt and Trip-Book as the anchor feuds/matches for each brand. They were the "biggest stars in the company", but had just been brought back. Rock was there for a trilogy of matches (Hogan, Austin, Goldberg) before heading back out... it never felt like the fans really took to Heel Rock at that point, and I don't recall the Backlash PPV doing business. Just don't think there was the drama there in 2003, where as 2001 was batshit intense. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 I agree that there was more drama in 01. I just don't think the match was as good and I thought the dramatic ending was really awful though I know I am in the minority there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 One of the problems with the WM19 match was that the significance of it (Austin's last real match) wasn't really known at the time, as they kept that very quiet from fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death From Above Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 I prefer their match at WrestleMania XV. This is pretty much the definition of a nothing, "my turn, your turn" match. I'd have given it thumbs up as a TV main event. Maybe. But a Wrestlemania? XV was a disaster as an overall show. This main event was better than most of what was on it but that only raises it above "disaster" into "okay, they didn't screw up my turn, your turn". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Having rewatched both matches recently, I don't see the case for rating 19 over 17. One, 17 doesn't have 19's leg work that goes nowhere. Two, 17 doesn't have submissions being applied in the first ten minutes. Three, the finisher overkill in 19 was much worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 Missed this when the thread was originally going on: How would adding 15 more minutes have *helped* the match? Is there really that much more for them to have done? The match felt rushed to me at 30 minutes. I don't know what else they could have done, but a longer-than-usual match for the two biggest stars of the era isn't a weird request. This was their "long" match: 03/28/99 Mania: Steve Austin pinned The Rock (16:52) 04/25/99 Backlash '99: Steve Austin pinned The Rock (17:07) 04/01/01 Mania: Steve Austin pinned The Rock (28:06) 03/30/03 Mania: The Rock pinned Steve Austin (17:53) John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.