[Lucky]

He was gone at just the right time. I have it on good authority that he was going to screw a little boy after the PPV. Not a big deal? It was Jarrett's boy. He would have been so distraught he retires from wrestling immediately. TNA never gets started.

Vince would be so offended by this that he'd fire Owen. He'd of course get a job with WCW where he'd pee in Bret's mouth after the show. Only he misses and gets his eye. Bret is forced to retire even earlier. Chris Benoit is so distraught he retires immediately, has 8 more children, and 10 years later murders them all.

Eddie Guerrerro, Perry Saturn, and Dean Malenko call Vince looking for a job with their buddy Disco Inferno and Vince laughs and hangs up the phone (I mean, a Mexican and a crazy cross dressing ECW freak?). So instead they just get buried for their insubordination, losing matches to Sean Stasiak. WCW is worse than it was and dies anyway. But when Vince buys it he buries the Radicalz with the rest of them. Due to this stalling in his career Eddie is still being buried when he dies before he ever has a chance to breakout as El Mariachi, a gimmick stolen from a movie Vince JUST watched.

Because of the extra bodies in the WCW buyout Vince never feels the need to incorporate ECW into the invasion. RVD never arrives in WWE and just fades into oblivion. Heyman never gets a bigger role and is fired as an announcer a few months later. He retires from the business to reinvent Extreme Battle Dome and he never gets a chance to book SD and the Smackdown Six (or 4 since Benoit is retired and Eddie is losing to Scotty 2 Hotty in the lower card). ONS never happens, ECW is never reformed and CM Punk is given a school teacher gimmick.

Needless to say all of this makes WWE even worse than it has been but with not even a TNA present or highlights like the SD Six, Benoit winning the title, Eddie, and ONS its just a barren wasteland of suck. Kurt Angle never has any equal talent to wrestle and HHH buries him. X-Pac and Scott Hall get rehired and the Kliq and Steph dominate. Not funny Nash either. End of WCW Nash. The brand split occurs when HHH gives Nash the Fingerpoke of Doom II and the two split power as the two world champions. Rock never gets as big as he did and still leaves to do films, but is forced to do porn. Austin and Foley quit the business in disgust of the state of wrestling.

Vote for Joe. Owen would have destroyed wrestling.

Also, with no TNA Joe would have been hired by WWE and become Umaga.

[salmonjunkie]

See what I mean? Voting based on potential.

[gooker]

I know Joe's good but Owen had a longer career and accomplished more. Give Joe five more years and I'd probably vote for him.

And I saw Owen's Slammy hijacking from '96 on WWE.com the other day and it cracked me up.

"Sure he's got two title reigns but does he have two Slammys?!"

[Lucky]

Personally I think its BS to say Owen accomplished more. Surely we don't give him credit for his days as the Blue Blazer or in High Energy. He was in his prime for a longer period than Joe has been (in major national TV exposure) but in a different era when he was getting exposed less. Joe's career moves faster because modern wrestling moves faster. 12 PPV matches a year, 52 weeks a year of major TV. An era of higher level wrestlers and longer matches and bigger stakes (because again, part of what made Owen so awesome was that he was better than his peers but not better than the group that was about to change wrestling).

And again, not a knock on Owen because as I've said, I think this is a good and even matchup. But I DO think its even and to disregard Joe because his career has been too short? Owen's longer career was VERY up and down and besides one match with Bret and brief moments before HBK and Austin feuds were aborted he was a midcarder or tag team wrestler that was stupid half the time. He wasn't in heated feuds a lot of the time and he fell away to the background of WWF a lot. I think Joe has squeezed in a comparable amount in the 3 years in TNA that Owen did in 8 years in WWF. I also think Joe's 4 years in ROH were more high profile and had a LOT more than anything Owen did outside of WWF (Stampede, Japan, whatever). Now I'm not saying that Joe is better than Owen in this regard. Owen/Yoko, Owen/Bulldog, the Bret feud, the "Black Hart", even the "King of Harts." It was good-great stuff.

All I'm saying is that I bet if you REALLY thought about it Owen wouldn't have "5 years" worth of more resume than Joe does. Even if he has 5 years more in a major TV promotion. Seems silly to me that a constant motivator for votes during this tournament has seemed to be longevity without real acknowledgment of how much was in that time. A LOT of these modern guys seem to be falling because they haven't been or weren't around long enough. Yet wrestling in Texas and wrestling on WWF Superstars and touring around the country doing the same match again and again are held up as the deciding factors. And I'm not saying these things should be marks against them. They were the eras and environments they were in. But wrestling changed and got a LOT faster and a LOT more competitive and a LOT more got squeezed into the same amount of time. Feuds that would be strung out for months across syndicated television filled with squashes over jobbers became 4 and 8 week feuds done on national TV over 1-5 hours a week of serious and competitive "primetime" action. Matches that USED to be special and rare became constant. Title reigns got shorter.

I get the basic instinct that if you spent a decade loving a guy like Owen that feels like more than the 2 years you've dug Joe. But to say Joe needs to put in years more when he's probably doing 2 or 3 times as much big stuff as Owen did during many of his years (and in fairness, Owen was around for the first few years of this change) just seems silly. And its been repeated a LOT during this tourney. ESPECIALLY with the TNA guys like AJ, Joe, and Daniels but also the ECW guys. Not to say I expected them to go far, especially with a group that pretty much consistently prefers nostalgia. But this whole time its really felt to me like there's been an almost "quantity over quality" standard. Not to say Owen or anyone else wasn't legitimate quality.

[Moosehead Jack]

and the difference isn't that great anyway. Owen was around 13 years, Joe 9, so its only a 4 year difference. Its not like we are comparing someone who is a rookie with Flair.

And I liked Owen, but I am really surprised it is even this close, to me Joe is clearly better. Not a knock on Owen, he was really good, but I would say, and sadly I have only seen very little of it, but from what I have read, what Joe did in ROH > everything Owen did

[Lucky]

Well, I presume when people say that guys like AJ or Daniels or Joe need to put in more time they're really talking about what they've seen in mainstream wrestling. Joe may have been around for 9 years but he's only had 3 years in the TNA spotlight. He probably clocks in around 6 if you count ROH but for a lot of people ROH isn't too accessible. Of course if those same people are giving credit to Owen in Japan then its kinda unfair to discount ROH. But presumably people are talking about Owen's time in WWF vs Joe's time in TNA. Even if ROH may not be much less accessible than ECW or Texas Wrestling.

I just think a LOT more gets squeezed into 1 year of wrestling in 2005 than in 1 year of wrestling in 1995. Forget about one year of wrestling in 1985.

[gooker]

Bottom line - Joe doesn't have any Slammys. Owen has two. That's why I voted Owen.

[Moosehead Jack]

Joe laughs at the Slammys

[gooker]

Joe's gonna kill the Slammys.

[Mikey]

Owen's up by two with less than 11 hours to go. Can our TNA contingent drum up a couple more votes?? TUNE IN NEXT WEEK TO NITRO!!

[Lucky]

Fuck Owen. I hope he dies in a retarded and easily avoidable tragedy while dressed like an idiot.

Oh, wait.

[Tommy]

Owen's making the Final Four, isn't he?

[Lucky]

I'm wondering that myself. You'd think Rock will roll over him but with this crowd you never know how far nostalgia can carry a guy. And with wrestling fans you never know how much the "he never got a chance" argument can carry Owen.

He never got a chance to be great, he never got a chance to get passed by dozens of better wrestlers. If CM Punk died today he'd probably become a folk hero.

[punk/core]

So then how is "he never got a chance" argument so much worse than the "he MIGHT do all this stuff possibly in the future" one?

[Lucky]

Its not really. Thankfully I never really made the 2nd one. I think I mentioned it but only in counter to the "Owen's potential." Because Joe does have the potential to be a World Champion and to carry a company. Owen might have had a shot at the WWF Title (although I highly doubt it) but he was likely gonna get passed by the crazy good talents reaching stardom. IF you're gonna judge Owen for what he could have been, its only fair to judge Joe for what he can be. And lets not forget that Owen died at 34 and Joe is 28. Joe's got a lot more time than Owen would have had.

But personally I say you judge the two on what they are and not what they might (have) become. And I think as much as Owen was a unique and talented wrestler in his day Joe is regarded as a top 5 guy in the world, and that the stuff Owen was doing in '97 is now common place and has been surpassed. I think Joe is a unique talent that we've never seen before (or at least that I can't think of a comp for) that has already helped raise one company into a higher stage of profitability and relevance and drew a lot of attention to TNA.

But like I said earlier, Owen beating Joe is a much more acceptable thing to me than Owen beating Sting. I think Owen and Joe are matched up well, but I'm snipey because my guys are pretty much entirely eliminated from this tourney and I might tune out real soon.

[DevSop]

Oh this is still going on....OWEN FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!

Bunch of CWI's and everytime I think I'm done with the showdowns a new one starts to royally piss me off again. Sting > Joe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Owen.

[Moosehead Jack]

well at least you got part of it right

Joe > Owen

but Joe is also > Sting

[Tommy]

You need more >'s between Joe and Owen, Sop.

[Moosehead Jack]

this showdown is now officially dead to me

[bdbdbd]

Owen beat Joe?

Owen Hart?

For reals?

[Lucky]

Yeah, people are stupid.

[Tommy]

bd said:

Owen beat Joe?

Owen Hart?

For reals?

Owen beat Sting to get the opportunity to beat Joe.

[Moreofabreadguyanyway]

Eh, it's ridiculous that Owen beat Sting, but Joe? I like him as much as the next guy, but I don't follow Indie Wrestling, and to me, Owen's 6 year WWF run was better than Joe's 3 year TNA run. Maybe a year from now I'd put Joe over Owen. But at this point in Joe's career, I don't think it's too surprising that Owen beat Joe.

[Batman]

Thanks, produce.

luckylopez said:

I like Owen, I just think Joe is better. He's a better worker in a better industry. Owen was something unique and exciting in his period of American wrestling, but then came a rush of guys perfecting the style. Owen got unlucky that he never got to work with Benoit, Malenko, Angle, Booker, Saturn, Eddie, and much of the Monday Night War guys that helped change wrestling. His career would have had more highlights and higher standing. But Joe also exists in a different industry and became a standard bearer in a much more skilled and well rounded "sport" where the fans have become more jaded. Owen was flooring us with Enziguris, a move that has become a standard transitional move now.

Which again, isn't meant to be an attack on Owen. I love the dude. But he was a very good worker in a largely bad working era who played an amusing whiny heel. His best work was probably in tag action, but that may be because he didn't get the opportunity to truly shine. Fate robbed his legacy, most likely. Joe's not yet found his peak (hopefully) and half of his career has happened on a very small stage of ROH. I think his career plays better against Owen than it would many of the longer running guys in this tourney, but if most of the field of voters hasn't seen even half of it, what are you gonna do? Joe's got more potential for greatness by pure virtue of still being around, but I also think he was better positioned and skilled to make that top level than Owen ever was. But we'll never know.

salmonjunkie said:

And that's why I'm voting for Samoa Joe. I am completely biased towards Joe in this matchup. Samoa Joe is just fucking awesome. If you like workrate, my god, Joe is just devestating in the ring. A guy that size yet so agile and quick. Every match he's in is good, whether it's a main event that's back and forth, or a pummelling squash. The guy just portrays vicious - despite being a pretty average looking fat guy. And he can work the mic. He's got this great character who's all business, no bullshit, and hardly ever over-the-top. He's almost like an early Stone Cold Steve Austin, or even an early Batista.

If anyone has the "it" factor, it's Samoa Joe. If TNA is going to be successful, it's going to be be because of this guy. (with some help from Angle, Christian, AJ, and Curry Man)

Funny, this poll is mostly based on potential. I think a lot of people who voted Owen vote it based on the potential of what his legacy could have been if he had not died. I also think that a lot of people voting for Joe are basing it on potential of what he will do for TNA in the next 5-10 years.

Vote Joe.

luckylopez said:

Personally I think its BS to say Owen accomplished more. Surely we don't give him credit for his days as the Blue Blazer or in High Energy. He was in his prime for a longer period than Joe has been (in major national TV exposure) but in a different era when he was getting exposed less. Joe's career moves faster because modern wrestling moves faster. 12 PPV matches a year, 52 weeks a year of major TV. An era of higher level wrestlers and longer matches and bigger stakes (because again, part of what made Owen so awesome was that he was better than his peers but not better than the group that was about to change wrestling).

And again, not a knock on Owen because as I've said, I think this is a good and even matchup. But I DO think its even and to disregard Joe because his career has been too short? Owen's longer career was VERY up and down and besides one match with Bret and brief moments before HBK and Austin feuds were aborted he was a midcarder or tag team wrestler that was stupid half the time. He wasn't in heated feuds a lot of the time and he fell away to the background of WWF a lot. I think Joe has squeezed in a comparable amount in the 3 years in TNA that Owen did in 8 years in WWF. I also think Joe's 4 years in ROH were more high profile and had a LOT more than anything Owen did outside of WWF (Stampede, Japan, whatever). Now I'm not saying that Joe is better than Owen in this regard. Owen/Yoko, Owen/Bulldog, the Bret feud, the "Black Hart", even the "King of Harts." It was good-great stuff.

All I'm saying is that I bet if you REALLY thought about it Owen wouldn't have "5 years" worth of more resume than Joe does. Even if he has 5 years more in a major TV promotion. Seems silly to me that a constant motivator for votes during this tournament has seemed to be longevity without real acknowledgment of how much was in that time. A LOT of these modern guys seem to be falling because they haven't been or weren't around long enough. Yet wrestling in Texas and wrestling on WWF Superstars and touring around the country doing the same match again and again are held up as the deciding factors. And I'm not saying these things should be marks against them. They were the eras and environments they were in. But wrestling changed and got a LOT faster and a LOT more competitive and a LOT more got squeezed into the same amount of time. Feuds that would be strung out for months across syndicated television filled with squashes over jobbers became 4 and 8 week feuds done on national TV over 1-5 hours a week of serious and competitive "primetime" action. Matches that USED to be special and rare became constant. Title reigns got shorter.

I get the basic instinct that if you spent a decade loving a guy like Owen that feels like more than the 2 years you've dug Joe. But to say Joe needs to put in years more when he's probably doing 2 or 3 times as much big stuff as Owen did during many of his years (and in fairness, Owen was around for the first few years of this change) just seems silly. And its been repeated a LOT during this tourney. ESPECIALLY with the TNA guys like AJ, Joe, and Daniels but also the ECW guys. Not to say I expected them to go far, especially with a group that pretty much consistently prefers nostalgia. But this whole time its really felt to me like there's been an almost "quantity over quality" standard. Not to say Owen or anyone else wasn't legitimate quality.

luckylopez said:

Well, I presume when people say that guys like AJ or Daniels or Joe need to put in more time they're really talking about what they've seen in mainstream wrestling. Joe may have been around for 9 years but he's only had 3 years in the TNA spotlight. He probably clocks in around 6 if you count ROH but for a lot of people ROH isn't too accessible. Of course if those same people are giving credit to Owen in Japan then its kinda unfair to discount ROH. But presumably people are talking about Owen's time in WWF vs Joe's time in TNA. Even if ROH may not be much less accessible than ECW or Texas Wrestling.

I just think a LOT more gets squeezed into 1 year of wrestling in 2005 than in 1 year of wrestling in 1995. Forget about one year of wrestling in 1985.

luckylopez said:

And with wrestling fans you never know how much the "he never got a chance" argument can carry Owen.

He never got a chance to be great, he never got a chance to get passed by dozens of better wrestlers. If CM Punk died today he'd probably become a folk hero.

punkerhardcore said:

So then how is "he never got a chance" argument so much worse than the "he MIGHT do all this stuff possibly in the future" one?

luckylopez said:

Its not really. Thankfully I never really made the 2nd one. I think I mentioned it but only in counter to the "Owen's potential." Because Joe does have the potential to be a World Champion and to carry a company. Owen might have had a shot at the WWF Title (although I highly doubt it) but he was likely gonna get passed by the crazy good talents reaching stardom. IF you're gonna judge Owen for what he could have been, its only fair to judge Joe for what he can be. And lets not forget that Owen died at 34 and Joe is 28. Joe's got a lot more time than Owen would have had.

But personally I say you judge the two on what they are and not what they might (have) become. And I think as much as Owen was a unique and talented wrestler in his day Joe is regarded as a top 5 guy in the world, and that the stuff Owen was doing in '97 is now common place and has been surpassed. I think Joe is a unique talent that we've never seen before (or at least that I can't think of a comp for) that has already helped raise one company into a higher stage of profitability and relevance and drew a lot of attention to TNA.

We hadn't really hashed that aspect of the whole thing out up to this point. . . .