Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Place to be Nation Presents: Real World Champion 1995-2000

The staff over at Place to be Nation have voted to determine which wrestler in North America earned the title of the "Real World Champion" for each given year. Wrestlers were determined by the following factors: workrate, drawing ability, influence, and general overall presentation. Don't think of this as which actual champion was the best but rather which wrestler of a given year best represented a combination of all these factors, the factors in which you would look for in a champion. Click on the link below to read the article and comment here too to voice your opinion on the selections.

http://placetobenation.com/ptbns-real-world-champion-1995-2000/

72 comments:

  1. So, what choices do you all agree or disagree with. ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with shawn being 1995 and 1996. Id say austin was 1997 1998 and 1999. And I honestly couldn't pick between rock ot triple h for 2000, they were both so awesome

    ReplyDelete
  3. I wrote '98 and '99, to pat myself on the back. Shit, I don't even remember which other ones I wrote.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lol Shawn wasn't world champion in 1995. And a list without the longest reigning world champion

    of that time period in Big Daddy Cool Diesel just makes it incomplete.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Where does it say he was World Champion?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Quite clearly it's in the title: Real World Champion 1995-2000

    ReplyDelete
  7. That's not the point of the article.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The staff over at Place to be Nation have voted to determine which
    wrestler in North America earned the title of the "Real World Champion"
    for each given year. Wrestlers were determined by the following factors:
    workrate, drawing ability, influence, and general overall presentation.
    Don't think of this as which actual champion was the best but rather
    which wrestler of a given year best represented a combination of all
    these factors, the factors in which you would look for in a champion.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh come on, brah. The title is obviously misleading. If the title of the article says world champions, I expect an article about actual world champions. You could have easily titled that article with "The Real Stars of 95-2000" or "The Real Main Event Wrestlers of 95-2000".

    ReplyDelete
  10. The whole idea comes from the "Championship Belt" concept that has been for different sports... who was the real champion of each year. It's explained right at the top.

    If you glanced over it, fine, but you said you expected the article to be on a certain topic, I would expect a reader would review the pretty brief explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I didn't read the BoD intro no, but I read the article and the introduction parapraph to your article did say this: "...have to come together to argue who the true Real World Champion of North American wrestling". In no way did you say that you weren't including actual world champions and in no way did you further elaborate what the term "real world champion" meant. Plus you never actually explicitly said that Shawn was IC champion in 1995. You worded it in a way that suggested he was world champion that year. I expect that type of history rewrite from the WWE but not the upstanding folks in the IWC.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well, we are including actual world champions from those years. We are basically saying who was the alpha dog of each year, who had the best year. In wrestling terms, the alpha dog should be considered the World Champion.

    Sometimes, it is actually the person who was champion, sometimes it isn't.

    Disagreed that it was written to hint he was world champion. What would we possibly gain by trying to trick people?

    Thanks for reading!

    ReplyDelete
  13. You want to swerve people for the hits, brah! Swerve = ratings!

    And see, that also could have been a good title for your article, "The Top Alpha Dogs for 95-2000" instead of muddying the waters by including the term world champion in there.



    And okay, Shawn was world champion during the period of 95-2000, but he wasn't world champion in 95. That'd be like WWE releasing a DVD of greatest world champions during the 1995-2010 timeline and then including a jobber match from 95 featuring Jeff Hardy vs Razor Ramon just because Jeff happened to win the title later on in his career.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yeah, the answer is always Hulk Hogan.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I love this series. Well done with fine choices.

    Oh how I wish Bret and Shawn had interacted in 1995. If even a couple of draws or whatever. Pity Bret was so held back. Could have helped that year ALOT.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Just admit you're a dick and move on.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Regarding Bret in 1997, I was watching the Raws from late 1996 and in December they were sowing the seeds for the heel turn then.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thank you! And yes I agree on 95/96.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yeah they definitely were, late 1996 is such an interesting time.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I would have went with Austin in 1999.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rock gets wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much love for 1999. Besides his matches with Austin, his bouts were sub par.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Definitely could make a case there. What is your reasoning?

    ReplyDelete
  23. 1. Austin was THE guy. Make no mistake about it, Rock was still second banana.

    2. Besides his matches with Austin, The Rock was pretty sub par in the ring.

    3. Rock was stuck in lame feuds (Billy Gunn, Bulldog, Al Snow, New Age Outlaws) and putting the Boss Man over.

    4. The Rock got huge pops. But Austin's were always a smiggin louder

    ReplyDelete
  24. I recall pushing hard for Rock here simply because I wanted to write one for both Rock and Austin.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The wrestling was pretty subpar across the board in 1999. There wasn't really a formula here, but everything- ring work, promos, crowd reactions, drawing- it was all considered to some degree. But in the end, it was entirely subjective. I don't think any of us would claim that we came up with the definitive answer for anything; the debates these strike is most of the fun.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Honestly, Rock and Austin were the only two choices for 1999

    ReplyDelete
  27. Rock did have some weird feuds... Austin didn't have a ton of great matches either though. It is definitely a really tight race.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Really, they're the only two real options

    ReplyDelete
  29. No, it's not. It's clearly Austin and it's not even close. Rock spent time dicking around with Billy Gunn and the Bulldog.


    While Austin was always on top

    ReplyDelete
  30. Rock also had the big feud with Mankind that dominated the first two months, back to back strong months with Austin. The fan driven face turn that saw him explode in popularity and become a catchphrase machine. He had a good war with Triple H that elevated both men.


    He was messing with Billy Gunn because they were transitioning the title to Triple H through Austin and saw Rock as someone that could be used to attempt to elevate Gunn. Austin missed a chunk of the fall, whereas Rock clocked in the highest rater Raw segment of all time with This is Your Life and had a fun run with Rock n Sock before and after Survivor Series.


    If they wanted to get the belt from Austin to Triple H, how is that an affront to Rock? It is pretty clear they wanted to burn to Rock winning at Mania.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Can we please stop with the myth that This is your Life was the highest rated RAW segment of all time?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Fine. One of the highest segments in Raw history. Still hit a big number and he was a big part of it, obviously.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Yeah, I don't remember if anyone else really came up with any sincerity. I wanna say Foley and maybe Benoit's names were thrown out there just for the sake of argument (that would be the really interesting thing here, to go back and look at some of the off-the-wall names we threw out there just for the sake of argument; I was pushing hard for Jericho in '01, I remember that).

    ReplyDelete
  34. And look who was 1?

    From Meltzer:

    "June 28, 1999: A match where Steve Austin won the WWF title from The Undertaker in Charlotte drew the largest rating and audience to ever witness a pro wrestling match or for that matter, any pro wrestling segment, ever on U.S. cable television. The match did a 9.5 rating, which was 10.72 million viewers. Perhaps the most impressive is that one out of every six television sets in the U.S. that had cable that was on during that time was watching that match. Because for more than a decade, Vince Russo has made it a talking point to say how the “The Is Your Life: Rock,” segment was the highest rated segment in history (it did an 8.4 quarter), to show how skits outdraw matches, it’s become a talking point how that was the highest rated segment in Raw history. Actually there were a handful of different quarter hours that beat that total, including most of the second hour of the May 10, 1999 show."

    ReplyDelete
  35. By all means, please report us to the corresponding regulatory agencies for such matters.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Austin was popular in '99. Everyone got that?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Wasn't Rock a big part of that May 10 show?


    Honest question, if that title match on 6/28 is Rock vs Undertaker, do you think it scores that rating? I think the product was that damn hot.

    ReplyDelete
  38. No. Austin was on another level at this point

    ReplyDelete
  39. So we can't debate Austin v. Rock for 99?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Are you going to make the correction about This Is Your Life?

    ReplyDelete
  41. I don't even disagree with your take on Austin being the choice. But I don't think it isn't as big of a gap as you stated.

    ReplyDelete
  42. That is some good info, never knew that one so thanks for sharing.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Austin vs. Undertaker from the night after the 1999 KOTR is the highest rated segment in Raw history.

    The thing is, Rock didn't even win the title at WrestleMania, so that's a moot point.

    Granted, I couldn't stand The Rock back then so I have a bias. If you combine everything, I give a very narrow edge to Austin, however it seems like the WWF took Rock for granted.

    ReplyDelete
  44. We absolutely can. It certainly looks like we are.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Yeah it is a fun discussion, exactly what I hoped for when we came up with the idea.

    ReplyDelete
  46. If you picked Rock in 2000, then I'm on board

    ReplyDelete
  47. No worries. Russo's been pushing it for years, I think to make Meltzer's head explode

    ReplyDelete
  48. So you pushed for Rock, but not Randy Savage, who held the WCW title for 24 hours?!?!?! Turn in your smart card!

    ReplyDelete
  49. Awesome. Rock was the guy in 2000, but 1999 was all about Austin until he got hurt at the end of the year.


    Even then, at Armageddon 1999, he's fighting the New Age Outlaws. Come on, Rock's not even close

    ReplyDelete
  50. What is your take on Rock vs. Triple H in 2000?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Well, Triple H won 2000, but I'd LOVE to hear the argument against Austin winning in 2001.

    ReplyDelete
  52. WWE pushes it too

    ReplyDelete
  53. Rock v. Taker would obviously draw as well, but that was a huge night and a huge match

    ReplyDelete
  54. Well yea. Shouldn't that make him the champ on your criteria?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Hmmmm. That's a real tough one.


    I want to say The Rock, but HHH's wars with Foley put him over the top. HHH's shit was starting to wear thin by the end of the year.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Which is weird since they had a title match on Raw about a month before

    ReplyDelete
  57. 2001's gotta be Austin....maybe Angle?


    Jericho wasn't really doing much in 2001 until his feud with The Rock and that wasn't until October.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Rock by an inch. He had the series with Helmsly, the battles with Benoit and Angle and a decent run with Undertaker and Kane.

    By the end of 2000, I was tired of the so-called People's Champion.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Rock was also having a cage match with All Snow

    ReplyDelete
  60. One dude on here from England said Steve Austin was essentially an average wrestler, but I think he's one of the most under appreciated in-ring wrestlers of all time.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I don't want to give anything away, so I'll just it wasn't Jericho.

    ReplyDelete
  62. It's obviously a big part of it, but not the whole picture.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Again, not strictly about popularity. Or any other given thing.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I wouldn't have, no. I have no journalistic integrity.

    ReplyDelete
  65. >We factored in workrate, promo skills, drawing ability, influence and general overall presentation, acceptance and cache.



    Austin, Rock, Austin, Austin, Austin, Austin and Austin.


    I think Rock only has him at promo skills for 1999. I don't have any facts and figures, but come on, Austin drew ungodly amounts of money in 1999.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Well yea, it being Jericho would make no sense. It's gotta be Austin or Angle.

    ReplyDelete