lazorbeak

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Jaysin" data-cite="Jaysin" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>You two realize he's still under contract until July right? Punk is technically breaching his contract right now by not working, if he comes out and says anything he'll most likely make it worse if WWE decides to take him to court over the situation instead of just granting him his release.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Technically, I don't think CM Punk is breaching his contract just by not appearing at shows. Since all wrestlers are independent contractors who somehow all know to show up at the right arena, and not employees, the only way Punk is in breach is if his contract has a specified number of dates that he won't hit by July or similar clauses. Otherwise, he's just a contractor who isn't picking up any hours. Now, if he signed with another wrestling promotion, he might be in breach, but even then, WWE's contract language has to be specific because by nature an independent contractor should be able to work.</p><p> </p><p> But even if Punk technically was in breach, there's no way WWE would bring it into court, considering how hard they've worked to maintain the legal fiction that their wrestlers aren't employees.</p>

Why wouldn't you just use <a href="http://www.cagematch.de/?" rel="external nofollow">http://www.cagematch.de/?</a>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="milamber" data-cite="milamber" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Win/loss records dating back to 2003 for top superstars, for the statistically inclined. Of particular note is the record-setting amount of matches Bryan had in 2013. The stats don't tell the whole story though, as it doesn't take into account dusty finishes and includes house shows where babyfaces are more likely to win.<p> </p><p> <a href="http://www.cagesideseats.com/2014/2/6/5387450/wrestlemetrics-examining-how-wwe-tells-us-what-they-want-us-to-think" rel="external nofollow">http://www.cagesideseats.com/2014/2/6/5387450/wrestlemetrics-examining-how-wwe-tells-us-what-they-want-us-to-think</a></p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I think TV appearances are far more valuable, since the babyface seems to win all house shows. For example, Orton had a 24% winning percentage in 2007, but on TV (including PPVs), he was 22-32-3 (and that includes losses in multi-man matches including the rumble). That bumps him up to 40%, as he made the transition during the course of the year from being one of the top 5 heels to being arguably the #1 heel. Of course, being WWE, they still had him lose on TV to DX a lot, even as the champ.</p>

Cool article. Interesting to hear from Cabana, who hasn't really done anything in WWE. I know he was going up to New York for some project after hearing about it on Austin's show. What did that end up being?

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="BHK1978" data-cite="BHK1978" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I just want it for the old WWWF stuff and the WWF footage from the early to mid 1980's. I don't even care about the Attitude Era, as I hardly watched it (The WWF I am talking about, I watched ECW, Memphis, and WCW all of the time during that time period.) back then. <p> </p><p> Now the ECW and WCW stuff will be worth it. I wonder if they will have AWA, JCP, and Mid-South on there as well. I would love to see some of the Mid-South stuff.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I kind of doubt anything pre-Wrestlemania I will be available, at least at first. Hopefully they eventually include a lot of that territory stuff, as they've got the rights to pretty much everything except the U.S.W.A. and the earlier Memphis promotions. </p><p> </p><p> I also wouldn't be surprised if WWE didn't at least try to do some equivalent of "cheap seats," with Road Dogg and Josh Matthews (or whoever) doing commentary over old, bad TV matches.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="delv213" data-cite="delv213" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Completely incorrect, Both Wade Keller and Metzler talked about how Vince inked the Big Show because he originally wanted him to be the next modern day Andre The Giant. Big Show's first two months were spent destroying Mic Foley, numerous times I must add, and his sole loss came to Steve Austin when Mic Foley the special guest referee refused to ring the bell as Austin started hitting Paul Wight with a steel chair. Watch the match, they put over how much of a monster he was numerous times. It took like 12 chair shots and a Stunner to pin him and immediately after getting pinned he got up and no sold everything to go after Mankind. <strong>How do you put over a monster any more then that</strong>? </div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I remember what happened, Vince talked about how horribly Giant was booked in WCW, then booked him 100% <em>worse</em>, and managed to take a can't miss former champion and not make any money with him. You put over a giant by having him <strong>win wrestling matches</strong>. Preferably in dominant fashion. You don't "put over" what a monster a guy is by having the announcers talk him up as he repeatedly fails to win a single match! </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="delv213" data-cite="delv213" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Even during Wrestlemania he was put over, he destroyed Mic Foley by chokeslamming him onto 2 unfolded steel chairs and turned babyface by attacking the evil Vince McMahon right after. His push stopped because everyone except The Rock treated The Big Show like shit backstage specifically the locker room leader, The Undertaker who has done his fair share of burying outside talent coming in, in the past.<p> </p><p> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQWiNIc7CoI" rel="external nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQWiNIc7CoI</a></p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yeah, again, I know. And in the 2 months prior to his Backlash loss to Mankind in the re-match, he had pinfall victories over Tiger Ali Singh and Christian. <em>That is not good booking</em>. That's why I said saying what a great job WWE did of booking him was the opposite of true, his green-ness, backstage attitude, and everything else excluded. He was the biggest athlete in the promotion and they introduced him with months of losing, and followed that up with 50/50 booking against Kane. No part of that was "good."</p><p> </p><p> For comparison, WCW put him in the title picture, but he won the title twice inside of six months (granted, once was a screwy finish with Hogan, but nobody beat Hogan clean back then). When he wins the title the second time, cagematch pretty much gives the textbook definition of how to book a monster. He beats Arn Anderson clean in 3:38, then John Tenta in 4:01, then Ice Train in 0:27, then Scott Norton in 1:42. These are all on Nitro, and with the exception of Ice Train are guys that WCW fans see as big, tough dudes, and Giant is able to physically manhandle them because he's 7 feet tall. In between those matches he's winning handicap matches against 2 and 3 guys, because WCW has a million jobbers just to make him look good. Compare that to WWF in 1999, who were giving him non-decisions against Mideon.</p>

This is the opposite of true. The first year of Big Show in WWE was an absolute mess. He came in as a big scary enforcer, and immediately did nothing but job to main event faces, putting over Austin, then Mankind repeatedly. Then he was kicked out of the corporation and turned face. Then after two months of 50/50 booking against Kane (also a face), he officially turned heel by joining the Undertaker. Then, after a whopping couple months of that storyline, he turned face (again) in November, winning the WWE title in a fluke (he wasn't booked in the title match). Then, after a feud with the Big Bossman, and the company's recognition that he had no heat as a babyface against Triple H, he dropped the belt on TV and turned heel again. That's four turns in 10 months, without going over anybody in a program other than the Big Bossman.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Teh_Showtime" data-cite="Teh_Showtime" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Had Bret not been used like crap in WCW they would have put them out of business. Sting finally toppling Hogan and then the addition of Bret Hart should have been the catalyst to actually break up the NWO (instead of split it into 2 factions like it did) but alas that's the way things fell.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I'm assuming you're also positing that WCW using Bret Hart correctly would mean Steve Austin falls down a well and is never heard from again (and the Rock contracts gigantism from drinking too much nerve tonic). Because that's about the only way WWF would have gone "out of business" from losing Bret Hart. The reality is it freed up a spot for a guy that was either better on the mic or a more believable champ or both. That's like arguing WCW would've gone under without Ricky Steamboat.</p>

Maybe he was a mark for himself, but I'm not sure how you can blame Bret at all for the screwjob. He didn't want to job to HBK as champ, he's entitled to feel that way. He had put HBK over repeatedly and didn't like the guy, so he didn't want his last act to be putting him over in a situation where Bret would be the babyface by default. And the part where it's not Bret's fault: WWE agreed to that- they didn't browbeat him into losing, they didn't pay him extra to do it the way they did for Jeff Jarrett in 99, they just said "okay, we'll have you lose the title tomorrow" and changed the finish without telling him.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Truly" data-cite="Truly" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>By the way, Austin lost the title match against Taker via interference from Pillman. The way they developed Stone Cold's character, carefully booking when he would go over someone or not, really maximized the effect of his climb to the top in my opinion. Would he have had the same impact if he was just hotshotted to the top? I honestly don't think so. The way WWE is handling the Bryan situation is the right way to go about it if history has a say in it.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> That's pretty out there. As I mentioned a few pages ago, Austin was treated as a top guy from 96 to winning the title in 98, only losing major matches to Bret Hart and the Undertaker in a 20 month period. Bryan was in the middle of 50/50 booking weeks before Summerslam, losing to Wade Barrett. He's also spent the last two-three months putting over Bray Wyatt, a guy WWE clearly sees as a big name, but is/was not nearly as popular as Bryan. Beyond that, he spent 3 months banging his head against the glass ceiling of Randy Orton, without getting any comeuppance of any kind. None of that booking applied to Austin. Austin didn't just lose or have screwy finishes 3 times against HBK, then turn around and put Goldust over for 3 months, because that would've been terrible booking for his character.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Teh_Showtime" data-cite="Teh_Showtime" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>DX was heel for the bulk of it, especially considering that Kane was a face during the interactions with HHH in early 1999</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Zuh? He specifically left DX when he turned heel in '99. And his babyface runs in the 2000's with HBK were longer than either?</p><p> </p><p> I'm not crapping on HHH, but the reality is that he's a B+ talent who benefited immensely from working with not one but two all-time huge stars. The idea that that somehow makes him the "greatest heel of all time" is the part that's just not supported by anything. Nowhere did I or anybody call him "irrelevant." And I mentioned six guys off the top of my head that I'd put ahead of him off the top of my head.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="dpoolez" data-cite="dpoolez" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>The first few years that he was on top (99-00) the WWE did great business. As for 2002-2004, the WWE had to deal with a brand split splitting their star power, Rock and Austin leaving, and to blame the ratings drop on HHH is partially disingenuous because ratings started slipping in 2001, a year that he was gone for most of. You're also forgetting that DX was and still is a huge draw and Triple H was a major component of that for all of its important incarnations.<p> </p><p> Triple H is easily a top 5 GOAT heel just on how greatly he can work both marks and smarks. Anybody that can get adults on FB acting like marks when he screws DB over deserves a GOAT heel nod IMO. Then you have the smark conspiracy theories about Triple H's backstage powers whenever he gets a win, understating when he does put somebody over or his NXT involvement, etc.</p><p> </p><p> I admit that I am a big Trips fan when I say this, but his ability to work everybody is second to none right now.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> He wasn't a heel in most versions of DX, so that doesn't effect what I'm talking about anyway. You're right that in part the business started falling off a bit while he was gone, but that just goes to how little he moves the needle- Austin's turn hurt business, Rock's leaving hurt business, Triple H never really had any appreciable positive effect on business in any way, and my point is it's pretty short-sighted to say he's the "greatest heel of all time" when he's never been able to sell a PPV or fill a house the way Ric Flair, Harley Race, Billy Graham, Gorgeous George, Roddy Piper, Jerry Lawler, or plenty of others did before him. And that's just off the very top of my head.</p><p> </p><p> Realistically, he's a tier below all of those guys.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Teh_Showtime" data-cite="Teh_Showtime" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>People get worked way too easily when it comes to HHH which is hilarious to me because since his turn last year he has cemented himself as the greatest heel of all time in my opinion. Yes I said that</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I'm not a Triple H hater, but that opinion is pretty far out there. He's not even the best heel in his immediate family. He's not an all-time draw over a period of time the way Flair is, he never drew huge the way that the Rock did, his times as #1 heel have seen pretty big drops both in terms of business and entertainment... he's just not even on the board for top heels. I mean he's the definition of a "B+" guy. It's just that he's a B+ guy who didn't retire due or leave the business or work a part time schedule the way every other main eventer from WWF's last boom period did.</p>

<p>Ron Simmons should be in the Hall for being the first black world champion. I can just picture his acceptance speech.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Comparing Jake to Shawn... I dunno i need you to expand on that a bit before I will go along with that myself. But overall good points' date=' everyone.[/quote']<p> </p><p> I meant in terms of overness and push, not necessarily in-ring skill. I also think part of the reason you're suggesting that Jake had so many "botches" is that psychology in the late 80's/early 90's was done more in the ring in those days, so it's easier to have more mis-communication, especially when a guy like Jake was more willing than most to do new stuff. By and large he had great psychology, and you wouldn't see him do the old "miss a spot, then pretend that never happened and try the exact same thing again" very often.</p></div></blockquote>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="bigtplaystew" data-cite="bigtplaystew" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Hey I want to throw this by you guys. Anyone a little weary of Jake Roberts getting into the Hall of Fame? I think he was great and influential. He was also dangerous, unreliable, and a volatile jerk for the vast majority of his career in WWE and elsewhere.<p> </p><p> Dude was one of my personal favorites as a kid and I think his influence on pro wrestlers years later was far greater than his accomplishments ever were. I mean no disrespect I'm just trying to look at this objectively. He had a relatively short run in WWE and never touched a belt. He never really had a significantly lengthy main event run. When he did he lost. I mean Kofi Kingston is more decorated than jake. Is Kofi a future Hall of Famer? R Truth? Guys like that? At that point are you putting in any guy that had a 5 year run with some TV time? So does Santino Marella get in? Umaga? Great Khali? lol. Believe it or not all those names had comparable or longer runs and accomplished more in the company than Jake Roberts did as far as titles go. I guess one should take into account during Jake's time there were only two singles belts which is a significant difference. If Jake hit his prime in the last few years I'm sure he'd have had a US/IC title reign or two. But still... he didn't :-)</p><p> </p><p> I wonder if they just induct too many guys because at this point it seems like if you had a 5 year career with the company and got a decent amount of TV time during that run you're in. Should it be more selective? I promise I'm not fishing for an argument I'm trying to gauge the pulse of this decision and asking questions, so please keep responses level headed accordingly.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yes, of course Jake deserves to get in. That's a silly question. I'm curious on what planet being with a company for six-seven years is "brief" in pro wrestling (I realize WWE's midcard today has long runs, but that's because there's nowhere else for them to go). Beyond that, Jake was actually a draw at a time when that was important, because there were other wrestling promotions out there. His value to the company was something like Shawn Michaels in the 00's or Mankind at his absolute most over in 98-99: he wasn't presented as the best athlete, but he was so over and such a good talker that he could main event house shows and have important matches on PPV without needing a belt. He also wasn't "dangerous" or "unreliable" during his initial WWF run, as he was consistently one of their very best workers. In fact, the only reason he didn't work a program with Hogan in 87 was that the fans were getting behind Jake too much. His feuds with Rick Rude and Andre the Giant were main event feuds, whether or not they were for a belt, and the program with Rude was years ahead of its time. Also, while it's hard to make too much of it from his one PPV headline appearance in WCW, that show had WCW's biggest buyrate until Flair/Hogan a few years later. And I'm pretty sure the buyrate wasn't thanks to the Ron Simmons/Barbarian match that was in the semi-main event. </p><p> </p><p> Obviously Jake was a rung below a guy like Randy Savage for most of his career, but that had more to do with the fact that he looked like he never set foot in a gym during a time when look was a huge deal in terms of who was pushed. In TEW terms, he was a main eventer in the biggest promotion in the world for 4-5 years. How many times he won a belt really doesn't matter. Ted DiBiase was already inducted in 2010, and really doesn't have a much better resume, and was used very similarly (except exclusively as a heel). Both were great workers, neither had the "championship" look, but both were big name stars that could work a 15 minute PPV match that the fans would go crazy for. </p><p> </p><p> If Jake were in his prime today he'd be a six time World Heavyweight champion and would be used to build up guys the company sees as bigger stars- that's just how WWE operates/operated in the past few years. Plus, it's hard to over-state just how much influence he has on the roster, from CM Punk to Randy Orton. He was a cool babyface at a time and place when babyfaces were almost all baby-kissing, good-looking dorks.</p>

This is the sort of reverse logic that helps WWE justify their awful choices, but it's still backwards. "Oh, Summerslam didn't draw, so Bryan's not a draw." There was no story to Summerslam. Cena picked Bryan out of a ring full of stars and the build was... what? Vince berating his beard, Bryan taking a loss to Wade Barrett, and doing basically nothing with Cena. Yes, chants in of themselves don't immediately equal drawing power. But it means the crowd is hot for a guy and maybe don't 50/50 book him with Wade Barrett, a guy you mangled back in 2011 with awful booking. Seriously, let's go back to 1996 and re-book WWE the way they do today. Austin wins KOTR, the live crowd is excited to see him, his 3:16 catchphrase is over. Shawn Michaels picks him to be the #1 contender (not because he won KOTR, just... because), and Austin spends the next 6 weeks trading wins with Savio Vega. Austin wins, but gets screwed out of the title, and never gets any comeuppance on the heels, despite increasingly loud crowd reactions. WWE point out repeatedly that he's not championship material because he's too bland and small. Steve Austin "bald hats" aren't a top seller, and WWE throws its hands up and says "oh well, this guy just can't draw." He's not booked in the 1997 Royal Rumble at all, instead losing to Hunter Hearst Helmsley in the opener. Of course, what actually happened was that Austin, even though he was still a heel for another 9 months, just stopped losing to anyone that wasn't a top draw in the company (including the Royal Rumble in 1997). WWE started booking him like a champion over a year before he won the belt for the first time, at Wrestlemania, in a story where the heels desperately tried to keep him from winning the belt but still couldn't stop him. He won two Royal Rumbles and only lost on Pay Per View to Bret Hart and the Undertaker in a span of 20 months. In the meantime, WWF put out some of its best merchandise ever (compare with this), and kept Austin in major storylines, where again, he didn't lose. WWE has booked Bryan incompetently for months and then get to say "oh he's not drawing well." More fun facts about buyrates: buyrates were down when Lesnar beat Rock at Summerslam, and down even worse when he beat Kurt Angle at Wrestlemania, but he's still one of the biggest PPV draws in the history of pay per view when booked correctly (UFC 100).

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Instead of everyone saying "ok I understand Batista is going to win and that sucks so I'm not going to buy it" instead you guys went the opposite direction. Bryan is going to be a surprise entrant and win it because Vince and Triple H are playing us and they are going to swerve us. Even though they've given you ZERO indication over the last six months that Daniel Bryan was anything more than an Upper Mid Carder with a fun yes chant. Right or wrong that is how they view him, that is how they have pushed him. If anyone thought anything but this result was going to happen they only have themselves to blame for watching/buying. It was the most obvious Rumble in years.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I didn't go any "opposite direction"? <img alt=":confused:" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/confused.png.d4a8e6b6eab0c67698b911fb041c0ed1.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /> I didn't buy the show. I just looked at what their biggest and best match was and thought maybe they should build according to that. And the bar I was at was just as bored/annoyed by Batista's win as everyone else. It was the most poorly booked rumble in years, and the crowd reaction pretty well bears that out. Seriously, the WWE could've at least had Bad News Barrett come out and play up being #30 instead of stupidly thinking that the crowd wouldn't boo Rey. Spoiler alert: they did.</p>

<p>Seriously WWE, remember that time you were culturally relevant by having fresh faces and fresh match-ups while that other company ran re-treads of Hogan vs. Piper and Hogan vs. Warrior and a bunch of other guys that had worn out their appeal as main event draws? </p><p> </p><p> Even WCW knew to put the belt on a new guy when the crowd wouldn't stop chanting for him.</p>

<p>I hope it's Cena/Hogan vs the Wyatt's in a handicap match where Hogan stands on the apron and Cena singlehandedly recovers from having his arm pulled out of its socket and his neck broken and pins all three Wyatt Family members. Then Hulkster and Cena can pose in the ring for a few minutes.</p><p> </p><p> Seriously this company is run by idiots.</p>

Loving this crowd reaction.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Teh_Showtime" data-cite="Teh_Showtime" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>TBF we need more 30 minute long promos and 6 minute matches that end in a DQ after a run in because this wrestling thing just isn't working.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Whoah six minutes?! Can we at least put a commercial break in between them or make sure the focus of the match is on a butter-faced woman's fake breasts? Most midcarders only need 3 minutes before we end the match in a no contest.</p><p> </p><p> Yeah note that nothing in jester's whole rant had anything to do with the quality of the wrestling or how it's generally improved. It's easier to just be "lol old guys still work there?"</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="jesterx7769" data-cite="jesterx7769" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>So I just watched the RAW reply or w/e in my hotel room while channel flipping. Haven't watched for years due to the pathetic nature of it and HOW is it possible this product has gotten worse?<p> </p><p> -Goldust is still around</p><p> - So are the New Age Outlaws</p><p> - Daniel Bryan (who used to be awesome on indy) now has a "yes" gimmick? And the crowd is stupid enough to do it? Wow.</p><p> - Bradshaw is still announcing</p><p> - Kane is now a GM role? wtf, I am now crying.</p><p> -Stephanie McMahon is still around on tv. WTF</p><p> -Batista is back (yay for 45 year old steroid guys)</p><p> -R Truth/ Kwik is still there</p><p> -Also some flamboyant latin guy? Yeah bc that's original and have never seen that. But oh wait he has a big lighting rig come down so that means hes awesome</p><p> </p><p> I mean seriously wtf, why isn't this halfway decent? I want to consider myself a wrestling fan but after half an hour to still see where its at I can't believe they still fill arenas and easily reminded me whey I haven't watched in years.</p><p> </p><p> It seems the only positive thing about this is still CM PUnk who has been everyones favorite for years and I wish he was around during good writing years.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I just turned on WWF TV. HOW is it possible that it's gotten worse?</p><p> </p><p> -The Undertaker is still around. He still can't sell.</p><p> -Vince McMahon is supposed to be a big shot authority figure? What happened to Jack Tunney? Vince is just an announcer.</p><p> -Steve Austin, who used to be good in WCW, is now doing a gimmick where he just drives trucks and curses? And the fans are stupid enough to cheer it? Wow.</p><p> -One new guy has a gimmick where he just licks his thumb and talks about how big his **** is. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> See how easy it is to bury any wrestling time period in history if your whole point is nothing but "lol this sux"? Yes, there's some bad stuff in WWE's product, but the existence of comedy midcarders or Daniel Bryan being hugely over isn't part of it. But yeah, Goldust being in the best shape of his life and being over is somehow a bad thing, because....?</p>

Oh god, I would take anything instead of this. I would take Batista/Cena before that. As far as pure crowd reaction, I don't think you could beat Bryan losing to Wyatt, and then replacing Xavier Woods or some other no hoper as a replacement #30 entrant.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Arrows" data-cite="Arrows" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>You can only make someone look weak so many times before weak is all people see.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I might agree with that if we weren't talking about Brock Lesnar. As I mentioned, he has more real life credibility than pretty much any heel in the last 50 years, so "showing his ***" a bit isn't going to make "weak all people see" the way it pretty much did with somebody like The Miz, especially if he goes out and beats the Show down the way he should at the actual show.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Arrows" data-cite="Arrows" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Can anyone give me a logical explanation for why they're making Brock look completely pathetic? I really don't understand making the one guy who's actually proven himself to be a legit bad-ass, look helpless against someone anyone with knowledge knows he'd destroy.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> The logical explanation is that they want Brock to be booed so they can't just have him come out and murder guys, that will turn him face as soon as he goes up against someone the crowd doesn't like. Since he's still got probably the best legit athlete resume in the past 50 years, he can afford to look a bit silly on TV so that it's not a foregone conclusion that he's winning his match on Sunday.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="jwt13" data-cite="jwt13" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>This has always been the case with pro wrestling, Hulk Hogan, Goldberg, Randy Savage, Warrior, Hall and Nash, and many many more have drawn crowds based on names and not wrestling ability.<p> </p><p> The attitude era was built around this look at the match levels there was never great wrestling matches, just solid storylines based around the names that they had.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> The first paragraph is pretty true, the second is pretty out there. There were tons of great matches in the Attitude era. They did a better job of creating new stars, since they pretty much had to, but it was a lucky coincidence that they also had a bunch of great wrestlers who were waiting for a break.</p>