Hive

Amen to that. I'd throw her over my shoulder and try to make a run for it out of the building, hoping the security would be mostly fatties that day.

Are you kidding me? I sure hope you don't work in marketing in any company... Completely ignoring a solid 25 % of your customer base is outright crazy.

Agreed. They complain when a guy doesn't win the strap, they complain when he do... they complain when a company does something predictable, they complain when they do something shocking... they just like to complain a lot. But then again, who doesn't? I myself love to complain about different aspects of wrestling. It's often more fun than watching it.

Indeed. It also amuses me that they seem to believe that if they all blade like crazy, the match will suddenly become 50 % better.

There are people who think Mark Henry is a good World Heavyweight Champion now?

Maybe they see Storm and Roode as the two biggest TNA stars of the future and wanted a big setup for a feud between them?

They need to play up his uncanny accuracy as much as they can, and even then he's bound to fall flat next to guys like Thor and Iron-Man. But I see Black Widow as being even worse, her strongest "power" is being insanely hot. Which she, granted, does really well. But still. I hope we'll see Ant-Man and Vision in a possible sequel. Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver would be even more awesome, but I foresee licensing issues with Fox. I think Loki will be the main villain, leading an alien invasion on earth. The Kree or the Skrull would be interesting candidates, but I could see them go with the Frost Giants from Thor instead due to Loki's ties there. It would be awesome if they throw in some other known villain as a secret cameo of sorts, though.

I just watched the Sting vs. Hogan match from BFG. And holy cow, that match was terrible! Guys like Hogan and Flair should really really REALLY stay as far away from in-ring action as they possibly can... I mean, Hogan made Sting look like Bryan Danielson in comparison. It almost reminded me of the Bret Hart vs. Vince McMahon match from last year. The turn was pretty good though.

I'm no fan of The Undertaker's character in any way and have never rooted for him in any matches (unless against someone I really disliked). However, I think it would be a huge mistake at this point to ever break the streak. He should keep winning those matches untill he retire, and hopefully against fresher people than Triple H and the likes, so that they can get a rub. Like Sheamus, Morrison, Barrett, The Miz, etc... just someone he hasn't had matches with at 10 PPVs already.

I agree, it would have been perfectly fine if it was for a huge blowoff match at Wrestlemania (or any other big PPV for that matter) to end a long feud between them. But this way, it was too rushed, completely unnecessary and utterly pointless.

...and that's why I feel they should either have done the swerve and have Triple H lose or not have done the stipulation in the first place.

Well. The question wasn't in any way directed to you, but okay then... They were both equally attacked and they both recovered from those attacks equally. Thus, they were both equal in terms of interference at the finish - in which Triple H cleanly pinned Punk, without any *recent* interference, after having heroically taken out Nash as well. Again, not sure why you believe I was talking to you when I was clearly responding to someone else. Unless you two are both the same person who just happens to enjoy having multiple accounts, of course. At any rate, I'm not making fun at anyone for choosing to not judge any storylines untill they have ended. I'm just pointing out that contrary to what *some* people here believe, it *is* actually possible to judge it in other ways. I'm not attacking anyone for judging the storyline only in it's full length, it was me who was attacked for doing otherwise.

Dude. You flat out asked: ...and then I tell you. If you don't want to know, don't ask. And in no way did I chastitise WWE for not doing exactly what I would have done, I chastitise WWE for doing one of the few outcomes of the match I did not like: Triple H cleanly pinning Punk. There's a huge difference. And seriously, are you saying that if anyone feels like critizing WWE we should just shut up and do a diary instead? Because it sounds like that's what you're saying. And if that is indeed your viewpoint, all I have to say is this: Oh but if they do that, I'm sure you won't complain one bit about it and just do a diary instead. Or alternatively, shut up and love it untill you see where the storyline ends. Because that's what good fanboys do. Let me ask you the following then: who or what gained from Triple H going cleanly over Punk?

That's just how I roll. What I would have done? I wouldn't have made that dumb stipulation in the first place if I didn't have someone to (temporarily) replace Triple H with. But they could have had Nash turn on Triple H only, leading Punk to win the match due to that interference. Johnny Ace would then gain (temporary) control instead of Triple H, with The Miz and R-Truth as his henchmen. We could then have Miz and Truth vs. Triple H and Punk at the next PPV, with Nash again interfering on behalf of Ace. That could in turn lead to a Triple H vs. Punk vs. Nash triple threat match at the PPV after that, assuming that Nash could pull that off without pulling a muscle. At any rate, I just don't see any good reasons - storyline or otherwise - for having Triple H go over Punk. Punk was the hottest thing in wrestling a couple of months ago, but WWE seems sort of busy trying to kill that heat. What does Triple H gain at this point of his career from winning over Punk? Nothing. All it does is hurt Punk's momentum for no good reason. And it doesn't even seem like he'll be getting a rematch anytime soon.

"Hey maybe it will take a turn in the end that suddenly turns all this current crap into gold! You shall not judge!" I know you're kidding, but too many people seem to actually think that way. First of all, it's silly to say you cannot judge a storyline while it's ongoing and have to wait untill it's completed. A storyline is NOT only about the end result. Secondly... while Punk's loss *may* (but probably won't) be rectified later on in the storyline, I fail to see how someone as irrelevant and not-over as Mark Henry pinning their 2. biggest name cleanly for a world title will ever make sense. Did you see the reactions in the crowd? No? Well that's because there were no reactions. People were either just stunned in disbelief or couldn't bother to care enough about Henry to neither boo no cheer. Likewise, in no way can I see WWE doing ANYTHING that will make me go "oh yeah, now it makes sense to have Super Cena win the belt for the 6th time this year and completely wreck the momentum they spent all year building for Del Rio".

Night of Champions killed off the interest in WWE I got back after the whole Punk thing. - Henry pinning Orton cleanly to become a world champion. OMG... wtf? HENRY??? Why oh why....? - Del Rio losing the other world title to Super Cena after an unspectacular title run that lasted... 1 month or so? Thank God they had Del Rio win both the Royal Rumble and Money in The Bank for this major payoff. And good thing we saw the title back on Cena, it's been so long since he last ruined another guy's momentum by getting it for no reason. At least a couple of months. - Triple H winning against Punk. Seriously, that was just so extremely silly and unnecessary. On the only upside, it's nice to see them try to do a bit with the tag team division again - which sadly seems to have been reduced to one token match per PPV, just like the diva division.

Oooh, forgot to mention the Bobby Heenan and Chris Jericho documentaries as well. Good stuff.

Yeah it does bash WCW a lot. Not as much as the Monday Night Wars documentary, but still a lot. And I cannot for the love of it understand why a guy like Triple H, who worked there for like one day, has to featured so heavily on that dvd. Him bitching about losing to Alex Wright is nothing but arrogant crap, and shouldn't be there. Still, it's better than nothing...

Well I have actually seen the WCW one before, it's just been a while. On Netflix, I've seen most of the documentaries - except for the one about Cena, since he doesn't interest me. And the 50 greatest superstars, I just couldn't get through. But watched Steamboat, Bret Hart, Big Show, Hardy Boyz... and I think that's pretty much all they have in terms of documentaries. They also have some mostly-matches stuff, like one with The Rock. I watched that as well, but I find the documentaries to be the most interesting.

Netflix has Rise and Fall of WCW now? Nice, better watch that. Watched a lot of their other wrestling documentaries, some good stuff here and there.

I think you guys are putting too much into that promo. It is said that he will "return to action". And yes, while that *could* mean that he will wrestle - it could also mean that he will just cut a promo on Cena and lay a Rock Bottom. "Action" does not necessarily mean that he will wrestle. Maybe he'll be a guest referee between Cena and Del Rio? On another Survivor Series topic, I expect some sort of "new nWo" team to participate in a match. The big question is just whether it will be with Triple H and Nash or Punk and Nash...

What video? You're linking to the main page of a website. Though from what I read, The Rock will be at Survivor Series to interact with Cena - but will not wrestle.

I think it was a reference to him using Randy Savage's Elbow Drop...?

But too few WWE fans know who Nash, Hall or Waltman are these days. Back then, they were new and fresh and well-known. Now they are... none of that.

What are you talking about? What has Averno done wrong?