Guest KingPK Posted November 30, 2005 Report Share Posted November 30, 2005 People knock him for getting the title in the first place, but you certainly can't say that JBL didn't take the ball and ran it as far as he could. The guy completely changed his look and gimmick and just kept getting better as the year went on. In fact, I still think that John Cena got over as a main eventer because JBL was such a good foil for him and the heel/face line was solidly drawn; if that was anyone else, we might have been hearing the Cena backlash that's starting now start up months ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Evil Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 I too thought the Eddie vs JBL match was a great one but can it be considered one of the truly best WWF matches if there is too much mixed feelings on it? For example, Bret vs Austin at Mania does not get this. I don't want anyone to bash anyone here. It's just something to think about. Speaking of matches from 2004 BENOIT vs HHH Ironman -- Just a few thoughts I recently rewatched this the other night and loved it. It had some faults like when you repeatably see a wrestler charge into the turnbuckle spot only to be met by your opponent's feet. This seemed to be due to the WWE's limiting of moves. Too much interference as well. But outside of the faults, I found myself captivated a lot more this time around. Perhaps it was the French announcers who really seemed to know their wrestling history. They referenced Double A after HHH hit the spinebuster and even brought out Lyger's name. No, that's only part of the reason. It was due to Benoit having one of the best selling performances I have ever seen in the history of wrestling. Benoit was incredible here selling the effect an Ironman match can have on your body. And when you combine that selling with some credible bumps to go along with it than you have something good. Benoit takes some legit career ending bumps here including a suicide dive, a hiptoss on the EDGE of the ring apron!!!! which is a known career ender and a blind chairshot to the back of his head. This on top of a crazy chest first bump into the turnbuckles as well as some other bumps on the outside of the ring. They were all bumps that had importance. One other thing I really liked about this was the change of direction at the end of the match. At that point, the focus switches from attacking Benoit's chest to his head area. A brutal kneeshot, a hit into the post and a chairshot to end all chairshots followed by some punches. In a short period of time, we have made it so that Benoit is once again in a predicament where he's in danger of losing where as if the concentrated attack was still on the chest I don't think it would've worked as well for various reasons. Just watch Benoit's selling in this. If you can get behind that than you're going to find yourself really getting into this. The overall selling over the duration of the match, the selling of the chest after the missed headbutt/going into the turnbuckles chest first, the chairshot sell which is the best I've ever seen, Benoit collapsing after trying to make it back into the ring, the crawling over to HHH for the pin, the after match selling - It's all super. It just feels like a long drawn out battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted January 20, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 Of course it can still be considered one of the greatest WWF matches, regardless of the dissention. It just depends on the opinions you take seriously and those you dismiss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Evil Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 Of course it can still be considered one of the greatest WWF matches, regardless of the dissention. It just depends on the opinions you take seriously and those you dismiss. Of course it can but the question becomes this: Let's take as an example 2 great matches that are watched by the same fan base. To simplify things we'll divide that fan base up into A, B and C. The first match is loved by A,B and C. The second match is equally loved by A, thought of as good to fair by B and eh to bad by C. The love by a good portion of the fans is the same strength for both matches. However, it does not have the universal appeal to the whole fan base. We've seen cases where people are divided like this. Does this mean the second match is as good as the first match? If you're part of group A than yes it does but even than I think you have to give the accolades to the 2nd match for being better because it appeals to everyone which is quite an achievement. Just something to think about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchistxx Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 It's subjective though, isn't it. An ECW fan might go crazy for a spot crazy gore-fest, that fan B would consider average. Fan B, a ROH fan, would go crazy for a 60 minute story driven wrestling bout, which the ECW fan would be bored by. Hogan/Orton is the best match I've seen in WWE this year, ahead of stuff like Benoit/Finlay. Just because others don't like it, it doesn't mean I can't still regard it as a great match. You could call Rock/Austin a more generally regarded classic, but Eddie/JBL is still regarded as a classic by some people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Evil Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 It's subjective though, isn't it. An ECW fan might go crazy for a spot crazy gore-fest, that fan B would consider average. Fan B, a ROH fan, would go crazy for a 60 minute story driven wrestling bout, which the ECW fan would be bored by. Hogan/Orton is the best match I've seen in WWE this year, ahead of stuff like Benoit/Finlay. Just because others don't like it, it doesn't mean I can't still regard it as a great match. You could call Rock/Austin a more generally regarded classic, but Eddie/JBL is still regarded as a classic by some people. Yeah, we have to talk about that too but I was mostly talking about an own organization's fans being divided. Do we give extra credit to a match that drags everyone in and less credit to a match that doesn't even if both matches top fanboys are equally fanatic about their match? We have to ask ourselves the question on why one match doesn't appeal to everyone. What went wrong with one match and what went right with the other match? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchistxx Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 Well, no, we as individuals don't have to give credit to a certain match just because it draws more fans in, unless we are judging on what match is more universally loved or has the more drawing power, rather than which match we thought was better. But yes, I suppose if we were compiling a list of '100 Classic Matches', not based on opinion but on popular consensus, the amount of people the match appealed to would definately have to be taken into consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Cooke Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 My brother and I watched some wrestling last night after being bored with regular TV. Amongst other things, we re-watched Eddy/JBL from Judgement Day. It is still an amazing match and I think it would fit in my all time top 30 easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts