Best Triple Threat Ever?

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by What Would Kevin Do? Like I said, wrestling fans that are not total marks generally have things they look for in a match. If someone is a wrestling fan, and not biased, they can distinguish between a good match and a bad match, not only overall, but on various levels of wrestling, intensity, psychology, etc. To say that opinions on quality means nothing is almost like saying wrestling fans really don't know a thing about wrestling.

I dont believe match quality is all that important to the average fan, otherwise why was Hulk Hogan a success or Goldberg or a lot of other guys who aren't Benoit, Angle or Guerrero?

[What Would Kevin Do?]

You know, I had a nice long response written up to debate this, but screw it. You're looking at quality in terms of money... Money does no make a good match... What happened to people wrestling because they love to do it??? Goldberg maked a million dollars in one year, and he doesn't even like to wrestle. Screw that. You know who I respect? I respect the guys on the indy scene who have talent, but will never make it big. The guys who bust there ass for minimum wage, and actually go out and try to impress the crowd. When was the last time Goldberg tried to impress a crowd???

CyNick, I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but if your perception of wrestling as money making business has blinded you to quality, maybe you should go back and figure out why you were watching it in the first place. As I've said numerous times in this thread, wrestling fans know what they want in a match... Sure, they're going to markout for Hogan coming back, for Steve Austin, for HBK winning a world title, but sometimes sheer drawing power isn't enough. If I go to a WWE event because there are going to be big names there, and they stink the place up in the ring, I'm not going to be happy, in fact, I'm going to be pretty pissed off.

So here's an idea for you. You don't trust the journalists, you don't think wrestling fans can properly judge if a match is good or not? Watch the matches yourself. Be your own judge. If you still think quality depends souly on money, fine, that's your opinion, and like you said above, most opinions don't mean shit

[What Would Kevin Do?]

Originally Posted by The CyNick I dont believe match quality is all that important to the average fan, otherwise why was Hulk Hogan a success or Goldberg or a lot of other guys who aren't Benoit, Angle or Guerrero?

I think it has to do a lot with what they've seen... Currently in WWE, there is an average of 1 to 3 good matches per ppv. Some of those matches can be considered great... Still, that leaves a potential of 4 to 6 matches that are mediocre or less. It's a lowering of expectations, and it leaves the fans looking for something else besides match quality to justify what they're watching...

Now in theory, if a company could put on 5 to 6 good matches a card, people would grow used to that kind of quality. Therefore, if that quality dropped, they would realize it. A lot of WWE fans have accepted the style and don't seek other wrestling. Therefore, when they see someone like Goldberg, they are only really comparing him to others in the company, and other matches in that company.

I can basically gurantee that if you take a wrestling fan who is actually a true wrestling fan, and not a sports entertainment fan, and sit him down in front of a good RoH match, or a good NWA-TNA match, or a good Japanese or Luche Libre match, they will appreciate it. I agree, every company has bad matches, and every company has spot fests, and I am not bias, and I will not claim all RoH matches are gold, because they are not. I will say that ringwise though, the best RoH match can compete with the best WWE match, because any wrestling match, in quality, should be able to compete with any other wrestling match.

[The CyNick]

Hey I love a great wrestling match more than most, but I'm objective enough to realize that what I like in a wrestling match really means nothing. I'm not blinded by money, I just recognize that in a worked environment thats the only way to judge whats better.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by What Would Kevin Do? I think it has to do a lot with what they've seen... Currently in WWE, there is an average of 1 to 3 good matches per ppv. Some of those matches can be considered great... Still, that leaves a potential of 4 to 6 matches that are mediocre or less. It's a lowering of expectations, and it leaves the fans looking for something else besides match quality to justify what they're watching... Now in theory, if a company could put on 5 to 6 good matches a card, people would grow used to that kind of quality. Therefore, if that quality dropped, they would realize it. A lot of WWE fans have accepted the style and don't seek other wrestling. Therefore, when they see someone like Goldberg, they are only really comparing him to others in the company, and other matches in that company. I can basically gurantee that if you take a wrestling fan who is actually a true wrestling fan, and not a sports entertainment fan, and sit him down in front of a good RoH match, or a good NWA-TNA match, or a good Japanese or Luche Libre match, they will appreciate it. I agree, every company has bad matches, and every company has spot fests, and I am not bias, and I will not claim all RoH matches are gold, because they are not. I will say that ringwise though, the best RoH match can compete with the best WWE match, because any wrestling match, in quality, should be able to compete with any other wrestling match.

Fair enough, but thats why ROH and other indy only draw a few hundred people to their shows. There are only so many die hard wrestling fans out there. The vast majority of people see wrestling like they see other TV shows or movies, and dont worry about the quality of matches and so on. All they want to see is "Goldberg kick someones ass" and they are happy.

And there we go again talking about ring work, which again is subjective, Ive heard people say Kurt Angle's matches suck. I couldn't understand that thinking because I think his matches rule, but again its all opinion, its all meaningless.

[What Would Kevin Do?]

What is the money judging though??? Money can judge which company is having more success. Money can judge how many people saw the match. Money however cannot judge the quality of the match, especially when the people pay in advance before they see the match. Furthermore, great wrestling doesn't equal a great company. Money and exposure equals a great company.

It's pretty much a vicious circle because to get exposure, you need money, and to get money, you need exposure. It's easier to get exposure, but it's a very long process.

I'm curious though, if a fairly large amount of diverse wrestling fans could sit down and come up with a criteria for what makes a match good, do you then think that criteria could be effectively uses to judge matches?

[What Would Kevin Do?]

I'll agree that there may be only so many die hard wrestling fans.

I'll also agree that in ring work can be subjective, even though many people have the same ideals. Personally though, I don't believe that money is a justified way to judge the quality of the match. Just because you can measure it doesn't mean it's valid. Take movies for example. People can judge them, but it's all opinion. However, to say one movie is better than another movie based on nothing else but ticket sales isn't an accurate way to judge a movie...

I will go as far to say that there is no accurate way, due to subjectiveness, to judge the quality of a wrestling match. However, there is no way I'll agree that money is an indicator of quality.

[The CyNick]

No, and thats the point, you cant "judge" a wrestling match in terms of quality. I mean in theory you could get 100 fans to watch a match and give their opinion, but even then you have to consider what type of fans are judging.

For example, if you were to do the judging on a forum like this one, matches like Benoit-Angle would get most of the votes. But, I bet if you talked to a bunch of casual fans they might say Hogan-Andre was the greatest match of all time. So who is right? Well Andre-Hogan made a lot more money than Angle-Benoit did, so to me thats the only real way to judge a match.

I mean in theory if you could get the right cross section of fans to make up a criteria it would work, but I dont think thats posisble. Going back to Andre-Hogan, most people who liked that match probably didn't like it for the match itself, but rather because of the hype and because Hogan slammed Andre and beat him, thats all they would care about. The other 11 minutes or so they could care less about. So how do you factor that line of thinking into making a criteria for good matches?

In terms of exposure and money, WCW had both and they were a horrible company for some time before being purchased. If a company was good enough, they would be able to get TV, they would grow a fanbase and continue to prosper. Companies like ROH will never get that because they cater to such a small percentage of people.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by What Would Kevin Do? I will go as far to say that there is no accurate way, due to subjectiveness, to judge the quality of a wrestling match. However, there is no way I'll agree that money is an indicator of quality.

And I'm not saying money is a good way to judge quality either, but as you said (and now agree with what I'm saying) its the only way to judge because any other measure of quality is meaningless.

[Sensei Of Mattitude]

I was at XX and I didnt think the Triple Threat was all that great. Maybe it was because I wanted Shawn to win and I was somewhat blinded by my loyalites to the Heartbreak Kid or maybe I just have to watch it on DVD.

Oh by the way, if anyone remembers.... I was the kid that held up the Pete "Rose 14" sign during the Hall of Fame ceremony. Green Eagles Jersey and red Phillies cap. Just to let you know.

[What Would Kevin Do?]

Getting on tv isn't that simple. Very few channels are going to pick up a wrestling promotion when A. wrestling isn't "in" right now, and B. most indy feds are regional.

And once again, one match doesn't make money. First and foremost, people pay in advance to watch. You can say that Hogan vs Andre may have drawn better than Angle vs Benoit, but not that it was a better match. There are other things you have to take into account. For example, wrestlings popularity then as opposed to now, the other matches on the card, etc. If Angle Vs Benoit was on a card, and the rest of the card was nobodies, and WWE was charging 50 bucks to watch it, chances are, it wouldn't draw well. However, if the coach Vs Jim ross was on a card that was totally stacked besides that match, people would probably order the ppv for the other matches. If the latter made more money than the former, does that mean the Coach and Jim Ross are better than Angle and Benoit....

And yes, I know there are people who will order wwe ppv regardless.

[What Would Kevin Do?]

Originally Posted by The CyNick And I'm not saying money is a good way to judge quality either, but as you said (and now agree with what I'm saying) its the only way to judge because any other measure of quality is meaningless.

Money is not a judge of quality because the money is given before the match. Money is a judge of the companies quality, and possibly the drawing ability of the wrestlers... However you can't use something that takes place before the match as a way to judge the quality of something that hasn't happened.

Furthermore, even if you could use money to judge the quality of a match ( which once again, you can't, because money is a factor BEFORE the match happens) you said yourself it's not a good way. Since judging a match by money is inaccurate, it's creating an erroneous image of the match... Even if opinion is subjective, I would trust a subjective analysis before I consult a method that erroneously judges a match.

[BasicThuganomics]

This is one of the only times I've seen someone get in an argument with CyNick and me not agree with what CyNick is saying.


Maybe this topic would have been better if it had said "Favorite Triple Threat Match ever?"

[Rob]

Originally Posted by Wondermouse CyNick, other people have covered your drawing arguments, so I'll skip that. Your cheap shot's unwarranted. Firstly, the whole perveted-justice thing reeks of entrapment, setting up a victim and doing their damnedest to bust anyone they can, possibly even people who wouldn't have actively sought out sexual experience with an underaged person on their on. Secondly guys like Steve Austin, Ric Flair, Dustin Rhodes, Booker T, and other not so great characters are/were raking in tons of money. How much worse is a child molestation that never occured than armed robbery, sexual harrassment, or domestic abuse? And before anyone gives me shit, I'm a sexual abuse victim.

Feinstein is still a paedo. It can't be entrapment if the law aren't involved either. Child molestation is the worse thing in the world in my opinion. Hell some murders are justifiable in my book.

I'm sorry if you are a sexual abuse victim but that has nothing to do with what Feinstein did.

[Rob]

And for the record, if you think what happens in a wrestling move for move defines a what a great match is then you are very much mistaken.

[What Would Kevin Do?]

Originally Posted by Rob And for the record, if you think what happens in a wrestling move for move defines a what a great match is then you are very much mistaken.

Not sure if that was directed at me or not, but if it was, I never said that what happens move for move is the only thing that can make a great match. Then again, it doesn't matter, because according to this thread there are no great matches, just matches that a large amount of people have positive opinions on.

[Rob]

Originally Posted by What Would Kevin Do? Not sure if that was directed at me or not, but if it was, I never said that what happens move for move is the only thing that can make a great match. Then again, it doesn't matter, because according to this thread there are no great matches, just matches that a large amount of people have positive opinions on.

It wasn't really directed at anyone specifically.

[BasicThuganomics]

I think that drawing power should be a factor in what makes a match great, but not the only factor. I mean as good as the ROH match might be (never seen it sorry) the fact that Benoit/HBK/HHH had like 20,000 people getting excited after a 5 hour show, and drew somthing like a million people worldwide is going to be more impresive than the ROH match. Those three men had to put on a match when they knew that nearly a million people would be watching them, and they pulled off a great match so I think that they had a more difficult job than the ROH match. But the fact that they drew more money and had more people watching isn't the only reason that would make the WMXX a better match by any means.

WWKD, you are absolutely right that money isn't a way to judge a match completely since money is handed out before the show. CyNick is stating that asking peoples opinions is pointless because people have different tastes, but I think that because there are different people with different tastes we should be asking for opinions. If more people are able to say that one match is better than the other than I think that is a good way of judging it. If a match is able to appeal to different people with different tastes, then IMO that shows the wrestlers involved put on a good match.

[Wondermouse]

Originally Posted by Rob Feinstein is still a paedo. It can't be entrapment if the law aren't involved either. Child molestation is the worse thing in the world in my opinion. Hell some murders are justifiable in my book. I'm sorry if you are a sexual abuse victim but that has nothing to do with what Feinstein did.

Rob Feinstein is not a pedophile. Pedophilia is being sexually attracted to young children. From the conversation on PervertedJustice.com the alleged target was 14-years old, and could pass for 18. How many times in the past 3 years have we heard jokes about the Olsen twins? Hillary Duff is being pushed down our throats - and she's fifteen! Is anyone who's attracted to Hillary Duff, dare I say it, a pedophile?

I meant that the situation was similar to entrapment, and, if the law were involved, Rob would have a case. I can't stand assholes who feel it's their duty to ruin people's lives by luring them into a trap just so they can feel better about themselves. The title of their website, Perverted Justice, is fitting.

And you're right. My sexual abuse case was very different. It was real, and I was actually a young child.

[John la Rock]

Wrestlemania XX. HHH/Benoit/HBK stole the show at the biggest PPV ever. I'd say it's by far the best triple threat ever.

[Rob]

Originally Posted by Wondermouse Rob Feinstein is not a pedophile. Pedophilia is being sexually attracted to young children. From the conversation on PervertedJustice.com the alleged target was 14-years old, and could pass for 18. How many times in the past 3 years have we heard jokes about the Olsen twins? Hillary Duff is being pushed down our throats - and she's fifteen! Is anyone who's attracted to Hillary Duff, dare I say it, a pedophile? I meant that the situation was similar to entrapment, and, if the law were involved, Rob would have a case. I can't stand assholes who feel it's their duty to ruin people's lives by luring them into a trap just so they can feel better about themselves. The title of their website, Perverted Justice, is fitting.

Firstly, having sexual relations or intending on having relations with any underage person makes you a paedophile. Nothing about being attracted to them. I think Brooke Hogan and Hillary Duff are hot but I wouldn't think about going near them until they were of age. You can't help who you are attracted to. You can help who you have sex with.

Secondly, you can't stand people who lure others into traps? It wasn't a trap. Feinstein intended on having sex with a minor and he got caught. I hate it when people are paedophiles and when people defend their actions.

I have spoken enough about this in the past so check out older threads if you want my thoughts.

[The CyNick]

Thats some wild logic. So if someone were to try to have sex with the Olsen twins when they were underage it would be okay because they 'look older'? That makes no sense.

Anyway, I never said, or at least I didn't try to say that you can use money as a means to determine a quality wrestling match. Rather, what I was trying to say is that there is NO WAY to judge what a good wrestling match is. Again, everyone can have opinions, but they are just that, opinions, and are therefore meaningless. The point I was trying to make about money is that the only way to compare one match to another (again not necessarily talking about quality here) is to look at money drawn (inc ratings), everything else is meaningless. I'm not saying HHH/Benoit/HHH is a higher QUALITY match than an ROH match because it was on a $45 million show. I'm saying its impossible to say with any certainty that one is better than the other in terms of QUALITY. However, the Mania match was better in the sense that it actually drew money, or at least was part of a show that drew money. Whereas the ROH match likely lost money.

Again we can go back to the movie/CD arguement. I can say I like "x" muscian or "y" movie, but thats just an opinion. Someone else can say those movies were horrible. So you'll never get a clear cut answer on what is the "best movie" in terms of quality. The only thing you can use to compare movies/CDs/wrestling matches to one another is money drawn.

[What Would Kevin Do?]

You can't say one match drew more money than another. You can however say that one event drew more than another. People purchase whole events, not single matches

Now I'm nitpicking though, because besides that, I think we're pretty much in agreement.

[Wondermouse]

I made no judgment whatsoever about whether or not sex with the Olsen Twins, or Hillary Duff was alright.

I'm saying that society itself is pretty hypocritical; Rob's life is more or less ruined, while, on the next channel, Hillary Duff is an international sex symbol.

[BasicThuganomics]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Thats some wild logic. So if someone were to try to have sex with the Olsen twins when they were underage it would be okay because they 'look older'? That makes no sense. Anyway, I never said, or at least I didn't try to say that you can use money as a means to determine a quality wrestling match. Rather, what I was trying to say is that there is NO WAY to judge what a good wrestling match is. Again, everyone can have opinions, but they are just that, opinions, and are therefore meaningless. The point I was trying to make about money is that the only way to compare one match to another (again not necessarily talking about quality here) is to look at money drawn (inc ratings), everything else is meaningless. I'm not saying HHH/Benoit/HHH is a higher QUALITY match than an ROH match because it was on a $45 million show. I'm saying its impossible to say with any certainty that one is better than the other in terms of QUALITY. However, the Mania match was better in the sense that it actually drew money, or at least was part of a show that drew money. Whereas the ROH match likely lost money. Again we can go back to the movie/CD arguement. I can say I like "x" muscian or "y" movie, but thats just an opinion. Someone else can say those movies were horrible. So you'll never get a clear cut answer on what is the "best movie" in terms of quality. The only thing you can use to compare movies/CDs/wrestling matches to one another is money drawn.

Cynick you're so off about this. People's opinions are valid because when a diverse group of people can all agree that one match might have been better than the other, that says something.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by What Would Kevin Do? You can't say one match drew more money than another. You can however say that one event drew more than another. People purchase whole events, not single matches Now I'm nitpicking though, because besides that, I think we're pretty much in agreement.

Well, actually in a lot of cases people do pay for shows based on only one match. Wrestlemania III is a great example, Mania X-8 is another as was X-Seven and tons more. All of these shows had one clear main event that was used in advertising and therefore the success or failure of the show in terms of money made is on the heads of the people involved in the main event.

In contrast last years Mania wasn't built around just one match, instead they built it on the 20th anniversary concept, so its tough to give one match all the credit. But like I said, with some of the others in the past it was clear which match was drawing the money.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by BasicThuganomics Cynick you're so off about this. People's opinions are valid because when a diverse group of people can all agree that one match might have been better than the other, that says something.

It would only be valid if you could poll all the people (or at least a representative cross section of them) who paid for Wrestlemania XX and ask them "which was the best match on the show?". Any other method will be skewed.

Take here for example. Most of the people on this forum are marks for what we call workrate and would have went with either Benoit or Eddie's match as MOTN. But thats not a fair representation of the people who watched the show. I talked to a buddy of mine who watched the show, and his favorite part of the show was Undertaker's match. Now you might think thats insane (I know I did), but I'm sure a lot of people felt that way. Hell I'm sure a lot of people loved seeing Austin stun both Goldberg and Lesnar and therefore felt that was the best match. But on a forum like this, you'll never get a fair assessment of what the 'average' fans thinks about a show.

So just because 90% of the people on this forum feel one way about a match it doesn't mean squat, because like I said the people here are skewed in one direction. If there was an accurate way to get a fair opinion on matches I'd be willing to listen to the results, but I dont see how thats possible.

Yep, you're right CyNick/ Most of the people I know who are not "Internet fans" said that the best match of the night was Taker vs Kane.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Loose Cannon Yep, you're right CyNick/ Most of the people I know who are not "Internet fans" said that the best match of the night was Taker vs Kane.

Well and you see most people would scoff at that and say those guys are morons, but thats why Mania did 850,000 buys and every other PPV this year will be lucky to do 300,000. People like us love guys like Benoit who work their asses off, but the reality is your average fan finds them boring and wont pay to see them.

[BasicThuganomics]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Well, actually in a lot of cases people do pay for shows based on only one match. Wrestlemania III is a great example, Mania X-8 is another as was X-Seven and tons more. All of these shows had one clear main event that was used in advertising and therefore the success or failure of the show in terms of money made is on the heads of the people involved in the main event. In contrast last years Mania wasn't built around just one match, instead they built it on the 20th anniversary concept, so its tough to give one match all the credit. But like I said, with some of the others in the past it was clear which match was drawing the money.

Even if there is one match that is the most hyped, without a stacked undercard to support it, most people won't shell out 35 - 50 bucks for a PPV.

[BasicThuganomics]

Originally Posted by The CyNick It would only be valid if you could poll all the people (or at least a representative cross section of them) who paid for Wrestlemania XX and ask them "which was the best match on the show?". Any other method will be skewed. Take here for example. Most of the people on this forum are marks for what we call workrate and would have went with either Benoit or Eddie's match as MOTN. But thats not a fair representation of the people who watched the show. I talked to a buddy of mine who watched the show, and his favorite part of the show was Undertaker's match. Now you might think thats insane (I know I did), but I'm sure a lot of people felt that way. Hell I'm sure a lot of people loved seeing Austin stun both Goldberg and Lesnar and therefore felt that was the best match. But on a forum like this, you'll never get a fair assessment of what the 'average' fans thinks about a show. So just because 90% of the people on this forum feel one way about a match it doesn't mean squat, because like I said the people here are skewed in one direction. If there was an accurate way to get a fair opinion on matches I'd be willing to listen to the results, but I dont see how thats possible.

You're looking into this too much CyNick when you start talking about getting a representative cross section of the people who watched Mania. The point of this topic was obviously geared towards internet smarks in the first place since we're on the internet discussing it. The point of this topic isn't what is the definative best triple threat match ever, its to find out what people OPINIONS are. Since the point of this forum is to post opinions, I don't see how opinions are irrelevant. Just out of curiousity, ( i don't know if you posted it earlier in the thread or not) what is you're favorite triple threat match that you've seen? You don't have to prove it with buyrates and attendance, just your opinion....

[Rob]

Originally Posted by BasicThuganomics Even if there is one match that is the most hyped, without a stacked undercard to support it, most people won't shell out 35 - 50 bucks for a PPV.

People buy boxing PPVs for one fight all the time.

[Rob]

Okay if you showed 100 people off the street the best match from the last ROH show and from Backlash, who do you think they could pick?

[BasicThuganomics]

Originally Posted by Rob People buy boxing PPVs for one fight all the time.

Wrestling and Boxing are two completely different things. Boxers fight how many time a year? While people see their favorite wrestlers perform once a week for the most part.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by BasicThuganomics You're looking into this too much CyNick when you start talking about getting a representative cross section of the people who watched Mania. The point of this topic was obviously geared towards internet smarks in the first place since we're on the internet discussing it. The point of this topic isn't what is the definative best triple threat match ever, its to find out what people OPINIONS are. Since the point of this forum is to post opinions, I don't see how opinions are irrelevant. Just out of curiousity, ( i don't know if you posted it earlier in the thread or not) what is you're favorite triple threat match that you've seen? You don't have to prove it with buyrates and attendance, just your opinion....

I have no problem with the discussion, in fact in my first respornse in this thread I said that the Mania match was the best. I only started to talk about the irrelevance of opinions on matches in later replies when talking about money and other issues.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by BasicThuganomics Even if there is one match that is the most hyped, without a stacked undercard to support it, most people won't shell out 35 - 50 bucks for a PPV.

I disagree.

Mania X8 looked pretty bad, Jerihco-HHH had a horrible build, Taker-Flair didn't look too appealing and Austin-Hall was trainwreck waiting to happen.

I believe anyone who ordered that show either did it because it was Mania or because of Rock-Hogan. I dont think a significant number of people went in saying "I gotta see how that whole Booker T-Edge shampoo deal ends".

[BasicThuganomics]

Originally Posted by The CyNick I have no problem with the discussion, in fact in my first respornse in this thread I said that the Mania match was the best. I only started to talk about the irrelevance of opinions on matches in later replies when talking about money and other issues.

Yeah but even in that post you talked about the business it drew, and not that you thought it was actually the best match in your opinion. So the Mania match would be your favorite triple threat match even if it hadn't drawn the way it did. And also according to you'r logic if I understand you the match itself didn't even draw much, the event drew, not just the actual match.

[BasicThuganomics]

Originally Posted by The CyNick I disagree. Mania X8 looked pretty bad, Jerihco-HHH had a horrible build, Taker-Flair didn't look too appealing and Austin-Hall was trainwreck waiting to happen. I believe anyone who ordered that show either did it because it was Mania or because of Rock-Hogan. I dont think a significant number of people went in saying "I gotta see how that whole Booker T-Edge shampoo deal ends".

I think tha Mania is what made people buy it, although Rock Hogan was a huge draw I'll admit. Wrestlemania always draws more than normal PPV's. For the most part, a stacked undercard is needed to get people to buy a PPV.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by BasicThuganomics I think tha Mania is what made people buy it, although Rock Hogan was a huge draw I'll admit. Wrestlemania always draws more than normal PPV's. For the most part, a stacked undercard is needed to get people to buy a PPV.

I dont think you would argue that Mania X8 had a stronger undercard than XIX (Austin-Rock, HBK-Jericho, Angle-Lesnar, BT-HHH, Mysterio-Hardy) yet X8 outdrew XIX by about 300,000 buys. Why? Well obviously people cared more about the main event in 02, Hogan-Rock was a bigger draw than Hogan-McMahon. Even though Mania XIX got the highest buyrate for 2003, it wasn't by much, even though the card was stronger from top to bottom than many other Manias. To get the big numbers for Mania you need a main event that people will pay money to see. Note, Mania XX was the exception to the rule because that was a once every ten years deal which you cant do every year.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by BasicThuganomics Yeah but even in that post you talked about the business it drew, and not that you thought it was actually the best match in your opinion. So the Mania match would be your favorite triple threat match even if it hadn't drawn the way it did. And also according to you'r logic if I understand you the match itself didn't even draw much, the event drew, not just the actual match.

Its not that the match didn't draw much, its just that no match on the card was positioned as the main draw in the advertising (Goldberg-Lesnar was pushed slightly harder than any other match, but not enough to give them full credit), so the only way to credit them is to say the top 5 matches sold the show equally. In which case HBK-HHH-Benoit was a huge draw, but it wasn't any more of a draw then say Angle-Guerrero or Lesnar-Goldberg, etc

In the ring, I really liked the Mania match, but who didn't? Can I say it was the best of all time, I dont know, it depends on the criteria for what is good, hence the debate.