The Greatest PPV of all time - Wrestlemania Round 4

[Guest The Beltster]

Well on the other hand, the poll asks for your favourite/least favourite PPV, and obviously you cant like the ones you havent seen. I love every WM I've seen, so I like them more than the ones I havent seen, hence I vote them off first.

Makes no sense to me, so I must be either missing something or retarded. Sure you can have favourites, but how can you vote off something that you dont have a valid opinion on? You are disciminating against an event for the sole reason that you havent watched/seen it, and thats rediculous. You might not be able to LIKE the ones you havent seen, but you cant DISLIKE them either, you dont have an opinion on them.

 

I wouldnt rate a movie I hadnt seen, same with this.

 

It doesnt mean the polls arent fair. How fair would it be for a PPV to win even though a lot of people voting havent even seen it? You vote for your favourites to win, you cant have favourites you havent seen.

Of course it makes them unfair. The ONLY way to make them fair is to only allow people who have seen every single WM to vote. I'm not saying thats how it should be because at the end of the day it doesnt really matter, but IF we were trying to be serious here, you cannot let people vote something off that they havent seen because their opinion of that event isnt valid or worth anything. Its like me recommending you buy a PS3 over a Wii when I've never used either. Makes zero sense.

 

You can't dislike something you haven't seen.

Yeah thats exactly what I was thinking...

 

Either way its not important, but I think its a valid point to mention that these things arent going to be all that fair when people are voting off PPV's they havent ever even seen.

 

PM me your address, Jimmy, I'll hook you up with some old WM's and you can let us know what you think, you might HATE them, but you might like them! :xyx

[Guest youcantseeme]

I voted for 20, just seems boring. Also voted for 19 as i feel it wasnt very exciting and very overrated.

[Guest Kanenite]

I'm also against the voting for something you haven't seen. If you haven't seen it, don't vote, it isn't fair to vote some great Wrestlemanias off just because you haven't seen them. I seriously recommend watching all Wrestlemanias, well apart from a few but then you can atleast have a balanced oppinion on what you like and what you don't. I used to do this with TWO's Favourite Wrestler and I realised it wasn't really appropriate for me to vote when I have seen nothing from them.

 

I voted Wrestlemania 14 and 20 though. I enjoyed the shows but compared to the ones left, they weren't as good.

[DC 536]

Whatever mate..it's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. If you haven't seen it, how can you possibly have an opinion on it?

I thought you were speaking in general terms, i.e. if you haven't seen something then you can't dislike it. I take it you were simply talking about things on TV or video/DVD.

 

I was taking your comment in the broadest terms possible, in that there are things that don't have to be seen to be disliked, i.e. radio presenters.

[Guest Jimmy Redman]

Makes no sense to me, so I must be either missing something or retarded. Sure you can have favourites, but how can you vote off something that you dont have a valid opinion on? You are disciminating against an event for the sole reason that you havent watched/seen it, and thats rediculous. You might not be able to LIKE the ones you havent seen, but you cant DISLIKE them either, you dont have an opinion on them.

 

I've never said I dislike any of the PPVs I've not seen. I just dont like them either, I cant, obviously. You're really missing my point. The whole thing is about favourites. Hence, I'm not voting off my favourites. My favourites, in terms of this list, are all the ones I've seen, because I like all the ones I've seen. Of course I would vote off something I didnt like before something I havent seen, because obviously something I dislike goes before something I have no opinion on. That just doesnt apply in this instance, because I like all the ones I've seen. So surely something I like comes before something I have no opinion on?

 

The question is, my least favourites out of (shortened for convenience):

 

WM 14 (no opinion)

WM 17 (loved it)

WM 19 (no opinion)

WM 21 (loved it)

etc...

 

I like those ones I've seen more, hence I vote off the others. I could "be fair", and just not vote until only ones I've seen are left, but whats the point in that? Its not about being "fair", its about favourites.

 

PM me your address' date=' Jimmy, I'll hook you up with some old WM's and you can let us know what you think, you might HATE them, but you might like them! :xyx[/quote']

 

Well be prepared for some serious postage costs there :P And trust me, I wish I had the time and the means to watch a lot of wrestling that I've missed.

 

Seriously, I know I, as well as other kids, cop it a little for not knowing much in terms of older wrestling. Hell I havent seen much wrestling pre-2004. But I think in the case of judging TWO's favourite WM, its not really unfair. You dont need to watch every one to have a valid opinion. No one has listened to every band ever, but surely we could poll for TWO's favourite band? Its the same thing.

[Guest the HiTman]

I thought you were speaking in general terms, i.e. if you haven't seen something then you can't dislike it. I take it you were simply talking about things on TV or video/DVD.

 

I was taking your comment in the broadest terms possible, in that there are things that don't have to be seen to be disliked, i.e. radio presenters.

 

Fair enough, I was being specific to something you have to see and I know this is a bit pedantic, but with reference to radio presenters; they would need to be 'heard' to be liked/disliked, so you can't dislike something you haven't seen/heard. :xyx

[Guest The Beltster]

I think we all know and knew from the start that WrestleMania X-Seven is going to win this thing. Even though it is grossly overrated IMO.

 

I'll save you the time running a Rumble one too: 1992 will win. Which is nonsense to me aswell, and that was overrated also, to me.

[Guest SuperKick Kid]

Im not so sure about the 1992 Rumble being a sure winner.

 

Some have not seen it and therefore, despite the fact that some dont like that people do this, they will vote it out.

 

Personally, I think 2001 or 2002 or 2007 all have good chances.

 

WM 17 may be the winner here, but 19 and 22 are looking good.

 

I think a sure fire winner is the 2002 Survivor Series when it comes to the Survivor Series poll. I think that PPV was perfect. And the surprising thing is that it didnt have any Survivor Series Elimination matches on the card.

[Guest The Beltster]

1987 - 1990 wouldnt be my choice for Survivor Series, after that it wasnt the same. 1990 was awesome.

[Guest Jung]

You know I was thinking considering all the fighting and such, we should pick say 5 matches from youtube, meaning everyone can watch them, and then vote for what you think is the best match.

 

So 5 legendary matches, that we all can watch, thus no excuse and strange voting and who knows might lead to something interesting?

 

Anyone think that may be a good idea?

[Guest SuperKick Kid]

You know I was thinking considering all the fighting and such, we should pick say 5 matches from youtube, meaning everyone can watch them, and then vote for what you think is the best match.

 

So 5 legendary matches, that we all can watch, thus no excuse and strange voting and who knows might lead to something interesting?

 

Anyone think that may be a good idea?

 

Sounds like a good idea, but the real question is.....Which Matches?

[Guest dpddave]

Warrior vs hogan without question HAS to be on the list...it was the biggest match in the history of the business

[Guest Jung]

Well anyone who's good at digging around youtube may well decide that.

 

I'm just thinking these best ever threads always turn into "whats the best PPV of recent memory" because unsurprisingly they are the ones which the majority of people have seen. Not everyone is Beltmark and seen Survivor Series 87 and really enjoyed.

 

Now to me, I think to really see what demographic the people of this sire fit into and to properly judge, would be to give everyone access to a selectio from different eras, then they can judge and we can actually have proper discussion over why someone doesn't like something compared to "well I've never seen it".

 

Can do a range of styles, puro, high flying, hardcore, power based, squash etc whatever, or a range of promotions, a range of era's, a range of type of matches, then everyone gets to see the same thing and can vote accordingly.

 

Currently these best of PPV threads can be predicted before you even start. Either ones with best word of mouth will win or a modern one will. Let people actually watch the match, and then judge from that, unbias verdict.

 

What do we all think?

[King 277]

Not everyone is Beltmark and seen Survivor Series 87 and really enjoyed.

 

 

 

The Tag Team matches really made SS 87&88.

[Guest Wolverine]

Still unhappy about 8 and 13 being voted off. You all suck.

 

This round, I voted for everything except 17, 19 and 23.