Everybody loves binary decisions, especially wrestling fans! In This Or That, we’ve forced ourselves to choose between two options that relate to wrestling.
Over four questions, @TimWelcomed, @JoeySplashwater and @TomBlackett will have to choose one of two options and give their reasoning on each of their choices. You can then vote on which one you’d choose, giving you the
false impression that you’re somehow involved and we care about your opinion chance to join the conversation!
UPDATE: With Tim recovering from Wrestlemania duties in New Orleans, we have friend of the site Nightlife (AKA @AnimeKing420) filling in for him on the panel. He also came up with some of the awesome questions we’ll be breaking down.
Before we start, here’s last week‘s results:
Will Wrestlemania 30 be among the best Wrestlemania’s ever?
NO – 61%, YES – 39%
Bigger scumbag entering the Hall of Fame?
Carlos Colon – 88%, Ultimate Warrior – 12%
The Ross Report – 70%, Talk Is Jericho – 30%
More anticipated superhero film?
Captain America: Winter Soldier – 58%, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 – 42%
More surreal moment from Wrestlemania 30: The Undertaker’s Streak ending or Daniel Bryan’s championship celebration?
Two very important moments at Wrestlemania 30, which was more surreal?
To me, a wrestling moment is “surreal” when I sit back in my chair and say, “wow. We’re here.” It’s when I have a somewhat hard time believing said wrestling moment is actually real. For Daniel Bryan’s big win and victory celebration to close out Mania, I just didn’t feel that. It was probably because it had been pushed so hard over the last several weeks leading up to the big match that Daniel Bryan was the biggest underdog of all time and him winning would be this huge, shocking thing, that left a lot of fans like myself expecting a win, and when that came, it was great, and I enjoyed every moment of it, but it didn’t knock me back like a truly surreal moment would have.
When Brock Lesnar ended the streak, it took me what felt like half an hour of second-guessing and thinking “this is a schmoz, right? They’re going to restart the match or something, right?” before I realized it had really just happened, and I immediately opened several Twitter searches so I could see morons cry about the outcome of a worked professional wrestling match, To me, the moment when Undertaker lost at WrestleMania was truly surreal.
Undertaker’s streak ending
Going to put this all into perspective, well MY perspective. Let’s look at Bryan Danielson. The 5’7” pale dude with the strong suits of being able to wrestle long matches and come up with submissions and great reversals. What if I told you in 2007 that he would main event Wrestlemania 30 with the entire show being based around him? Exactly.
The Streak ending was always a possibility and honestly, it should have ended at some point before ‘Taker retire. As stunning and incredible as it was seeing the reaction to Brock Lesnar actually getting the 3 count, hearing the crowd and witnessing the moment of confetti falling as Daniel Bryan closed a show that was opened by Hulk Hogan, Steve Austin and The Rock is most surreal to me in the best way possible.
When the Undertaker’s streak was broken, I wasn’t even paying attention; in fact, I’m pretty sure I was turned away from the TV, smugly explaining to a non-wrestling fan friend about how his win was such a sure thing… and then he lost. Even then, it took Brock Lesnar going to the back for me to believe it really happened and wasn’t going to be taken back.
Bryan’s win was less of a surprise, though that it happened at all is still incredible to think about. His natural, organic rise isn’t something we’ve seen for years – Punk’s is comparable, but that always felt like an afterthought designed to appease him and the fans, rather than something that WWE would be behind 100% and build a Wrestlemania around.
However, Bryan’s big win still isn’t comparable to the streak ending. It had become such a big, integral part of Wrestlemania and for it to end in such an abrupt way is… well, it’s a shock, but it’s also pretty exciting. It’s one less crutch for WWE to fall back when it comes to building to a Wrestlemania, so it’ll be interesting what they do in future years.
Undertaker’s streak ending
If you had to watch one for the entire year: 1995 WWF or 2000 WCW?
Which nightmare year would you choose?
This one’s a gimme. Easily 2000 WCW, EASILY. Sure, you had nonsensical booking, stupid companywide reboots, Hugh Morris, the KISS concert, Surge product placement, and many others, but on the other hand you had the Filthy Animals, Lance Storm, “Screamin'” Norman Smiley, The Wall, and Surge product placement. I mean, really, The Wall alone is reason enough to choose 2000 WCW over 1995 WWF. He was a chokeslamming supervillain who wore a shirt and tie and sunglasses at all times, even in the ring. He was like Mr. Hughes except about a thousand times cooler. All 1995 WWF had was a boring ass Vinnie Vegas title reign and Issac Yankem, DDS.
So difficult. When this question was pitched, my heart skipped a beat. THIS is what This Or That is about, folks! The tough decisions.
WWF 1995 had Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Owen Hart, Razor Ramon and a decent roster. But the shows were dreadfully boring at times with the abundance of squash matches and goofy characters. WCW had abysmal booking with silly match stipulations and decent talent.
Give me silly, baby! WCW 2000 also had some gems as there was usually one or two awesome matches per week with all the programming they had so it’s not like it was all bad, despite what WWE and Bryan Alvarez productions tell you. Kidman and Rey Mysterio Jr were tearing it up as were many wrestlers. I’m actually desperately awaiting The WWE Network to add all of the WCW 2000 Nitro’s as it’s my most desired piece of content they hold and have yet to add.
It’s so easily WCW 2000, it’s not even a choice. I missed out on both periods but the death days of WCW is something I’m fascinated by, while mid-90s WWF is incredibly off-putting for the most part.
Weirdly, the biggest factor of my disinterest might be the commentary of Vince McMahon, who I REALLY struggle to listen to. As dreadful as the announce team for Raw might be these days, nothing is as grating to me as hokey ’90s Vince. I just can’t deal with it, especially not when I’ve got delicious Russo-riffic WCW as an alternative option!
Better big man: Vader or Bam Bam Bigelow?
Who was better?
Without a doubt, Big Van Vader all the way. Japanese people ran in terror as he approached, the leviathan bringing about nothing but destruction in his wake. From Antonio Inoki to Stan Hansen to Kenta Kobashi, he wrestled the greats in packed arenas all throughout Japan. While both Vader and Bam Bam were pretty agile for big guys, Vader had the edge in strong style expertise, along with what I consider to be a much, much more prestigious list of opponents.
Another difficult one that I had to go back and forward on. I LOVE Vader and 95% of the time, he would win a tie breaker due to the Boy Meets World factor. However, this is one of the 5% times. I once had an “experience” with Bam Bam Bigelow as a 4 year old child. We left a house show early and on the long walk back to my father’s car, we saw Bam Bam going into a home.
Shocked as I can be, my dad blurts out “BAM BAM!” and the giant of a man with his terrifying head tattoos turn around. I wanted more than anything to run as fast as possible and go to another planet where Bam Bam would not find me and end my very young life. Bigelow didn’t react either way but it was still the scariest moment ever.
Also, he was a great wrestler and his ECW matches with Rob Van Dam are among my favorites but he scared me as a child therefore I pick him!
Bam Bam Bigelow
I can’t get enough of Vader. The Vadermania video that Botchamania’s Maffew put together has become my go-to piece of evidence to prove how insane / unique wrestling is to non-fans and he’s one guy whose matches I always enjoy on some level or another.
I liked Bam Bam and he had the plus of seeming a little safer to work with… though that’s also something of a negative. We love wrestlers who seem genuinely confused as to whether it’s real or fake (SPOILERS: IT’S ALL REAL).
Sweet candy snack time: Dark chocolate or milk chocolate?
We obviously love junk food here.
Milk chocolate. All dark chocolate ever does is decrease the overall quality of whatever it’s added to. Milky Way is my favorite confection, and the dark chocolate variant takes a five-star chocolate bar and makes it two stars at best.
In my opinion, the only people who like dark chocolate are old people who think it’s good for them or marks who just want to be “different”.
Look. I’m a complex individual. I have a huge disdain for milk to the point where if someone is drinking a glass of milk nearby, I ask them to keep it away from me. I’m aware of how weird this is but I am who I am. Yet, I love many things that include milk in them, I just hate milk in its typical form. Something milk related I love is milk chocolate flavors, especially M&M’s.
As far as chocolate goes, I’m not even a huge fan. I enjoy chocolate candy bars but pure chocolate and chocolate flavors aren’t my favorites so why in the world would I want to double that? Hit the bricks, double chocolate. Much like Dolph Ziggler, it does too much to the point where it becomes bland. (I’m talking about Ziggler’s theatrics, not his moves.)
First of all, most of the stuff you get in the United States doesn’t deserve to be called chocolate. BELIEVE.
Anyway, now I’ve gotten the obligatory cultural snobbery out the way, I’m delighted to confirm that dark chocolate is the type of thing your dad will make a fuss about liking so he can come off as cultured. Give it a rest, dad. Nobody’s fooled.