sheepy Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 [QUOTE]We are now able to confirm that Bobby Lashley is gone from World Wrestling Entertainment. In a phone call placed to WrestlingNewsWorld.com's Ryan Gray, Lashley said that he is gone from the company. While he would not give any specifics he made it clear that he did not want to leave but had too due to circumstances beyond his control. Lashley told WrestlingNewsWorld.com's Ryan Gray that he was training hard for a potential career in Mixed Martial Arts. The former ECW Champion said that despite the fact that he wanted to pursue an MMA career, it would not be with UFC. Lashley would not comment on whether or not he would be interested in going to TNA Wrestling. He said that WWE has granted his release but it would not be announced until the paperwork was finalized. [/QUOTE] So they finally got round to drug testing him then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undertaker666 Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Hopefully this is true because then I wont have to listen to him speak anymore! He had the charisma of a loaf of bread. Why wouldn't he want to go to UFC though?! :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blasphemywebleed Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 [QUOTE=Undertaker666;362788]Hopefully this is true because then I wont have to listen to him speak anymore! He had the charisma of a loaf of bread. Why wouldn't he want to go to UFC though?! :confused:[/QUOTE] He's scared of the lesnar!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabataged Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I read he was pissed because they fired his girlfriend Krystal or whatever her name was a little while ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Casey Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Basically, the story is that WWE wanted Krystal in Vickie's role - interim GM, only marrying Teddy Long for the money/power, cheating on Teddy with Edge... Krystal, not knowing her role, objected. And got fired. Lashley, being Krystal's boyfriend, objected. Not realising that the McMahons don't take that king of backtalk from anyone who hasn't been with the company since the New Generation, went cold on the Lashley project. Lashley, realising that his career peaked around the time he was Donald Trump's Chosen One, decided to burn his bridges. That's the abbreviated version - it's worth checking the bobbylashleyonline website forum, as the real Lashley apparently made some posts that everyone else mocked as they thought he was yanking their chain, and he got in a strop about it. He's also calling people who doubt him so he can say *Squeaky voice* "It's true! It's true!" Um... yeah. I'm not exactly bothered. With the exception of his match with Cena last year, I don't think Lashley had a single entertaining match in his WWE career. You can't count WM last year - that was an extended skit most memorable for the vicious punches Trump landed on Vince. At least we can say it's not a Wellness thing. WWE has been quick to distance themselves from Wellness violators, and they're now required to publicise any violations of the policy. If you go to the corporate WWE site, there's a notice saying that two developmental workers have been suspended, for example. Still nothing on wwe.com - sources elsewhere say it's not official until WWE have done everything to convince Lashley to stay, and then filed all the proper paperwork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonfun Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 If this is true I think it is a big loss. I thought he was a good wrestler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alden Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 this is from 1wrestling.com A lot of websites have reported that Lashley has indeed left the WWE. Until we can confirm this firsthand we will not run any stories supporting this item. Please not that when a WWE wrestler leaves officially he is removed from their website. Bobby Lashley continues to have a presence on the RAW roster on that site. Thanks--Bill Apter so i will have to wait and see on this one. it is true that most are taken down almost instently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackman Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 I liked playing him in RvS2007, but never saw a good match from him. Well I was impressed with one of his earlier matches, but they're all the same prolly. Only saw about 4 though. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghetto Anthony Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 UFC 92 Black vs Brock = Ratings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Aussie Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 [QUOTE=Ghetto Anthony;362878]UFC 92 Black vs Brock = Ratings.[/QUOTE] NO! Don't be a bathturd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undertaker666 Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 I'll admit there was one Bobby Lashley match I did like, and that was against Chris Benoit. It was a very technical match where he showed the skills from his amateur background and he proved that he could do more than his usual powerhouse moveset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ransik Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Problem is Benoit could get a great match out of anyone for most of his career. Probably could've made Ed Leslie look like gold if they'd ever gone 1 on 1. For such a great amateur wrestler, I never saw Lashley do anything new, exciting or innovative in the ring much less even halfway entertaining. He has the charisma of my left nut and the mic skills of what comes out of me after eating spicy foods. Only reason he was ever hired and pushed was for his size and muscles... I don't care he's gone and I won't miss him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnightnick Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Thank god he's gone. If he had retained that push he had before he was injured, I'd be having a 03 flashback. Not watching at all. I didn't want to see Brock when he was originally around. Why would I want to watch a Black Brock with less talent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franchise22 Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 hes no longer on the raw intro. i noticed that on monday when i was at the show and when i watched it again when i got home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i effin rule Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 WWECW Championship curse continues? Although this is a blessing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamrobertk Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 I think there was a massive "and..." when this was announced, to be honest they could give this guy the biggest push they have ever given a wrestler and he would never get over enough to warrent a title run. Let him go, TNA will hire him, make him a champion, their tv rating will go up 0.01 and then fans will continue to claim (despite every number telling something else) that TNA is better than WWE and can use wrestlers better yet continue to pull PPV buy rates 1/8th of WWE's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ransik Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 [QUOTE=adamrobertk;363083]I think there was a massive "and..." when this was announced, to be honest they could give this guy the biggest push they have ever given a wrestler and he would never get over enough to warrent a title run. Let him go, TNA will hire him, make him a champion, their tv rating will go up 0.01 and then fans will continue to claim (despite every number telling something else) that TNA is better than WWE and can use wrestlers better yet continue to pull PPV buy rates 1/8th of WWE's.[/QUOTE] The sad truth of it is... the WWE can only outbook TNA around Wrestlemania time. When Russo doesn't get much input, TNA shows and PPVs are downright old school fun to watch, whereas WWE repeats the same angles and other crap because they don't feel the need to think. Ratings and buyrates mean nothing in terms of quality. I've seen much better TNA PPVs in the last couple years than I have WWE... if every WWE fan gave TNA a month trial you'd see a drastic improvement in audience. Fact of it is that TNA doesn't get enough media exposure like WWE does, even on their own network. So if you don't know its there, you won't know its on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamrobertk Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 The only definitive measure of quality is "How many people take 2 hours out of their lives to sit down and watch a wrestling show" and "How many people are willing to spend X amount of their hard earned cash to watch a wrestling show". TNA fans can claim it is better but the simple fact is more people are choosing to watch wwe and even better when people see TNA coming on next they are choosing to turn on another channel. TNA to me seems stagnated, steady. If TNA was any good the rise in viewers would be quicker than it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepy Posted January 24, 2008 Author Share Posted January 24, 2008 [QUOTE=Ransik;363142]The sad truth of it is... the WWE can only outbook TNA around Wrestlemania time. When Russo doesn't get much input, TNA shows and PPVs are downright old school fun to watch, whereas WWE repeats the same angles and other crap because they don't feel the need to think. Ratings and buyrates mean nothing in terms of quality. I've seen much better TNA PPVs in the last couple years than I have WWE... if every WWE fan gave TNA a month trial you'd see a drastic improvement in audience. Fact of it is that TNA doesn't get enough media exposure like WWE does, even on their own network. So if you don't know its there, you won't know its on.[/QUOTE] Thing is, TNA is often good for a month and then crap for the next month. If they could put on consistenly good shows then they'd get the media exposure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justtxyank Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 [QUOTE=adamrobertk;363192]The only definitive measure of quality is "How many people take 2 hours out of their lives to sit down and watch a wrestling show" and "How many people are willing to spend X amount of their hard earned cash to watch a wrestling show". TNA fans can claim it is better but the simple fact is more people are choosing to watch wwe and even better when people see TNA coming on next they are choosing to turn on another channel. TNA to me seems stagnated, steady. If TNA was any good the rise in viewers would be quicker than it is.[/QUOTE] I don't watch TNA, but this is simply not true. Ratings and buyrates don't measure quality, they measure fan loyalty and interest. The NWA was putting on great shows from the 80s-90s but never got the ratings on TV or the national exposure that the WWF had. They were poorly marketed in comparison and didn't have star power. That doesn't mean their wrestling wasn't any good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djthefunkchris Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I think I dissagree slightly with justtxyank... NWA did have the star power, and was VERY Popular.. UP till wrestlemania 1. When WWF pulled ouf ot NWA, that's when they started "Stealing" the talent, but before, NWA was the governing body... although.. I really can't say I dissagree fully, because your comparing Apple's to Orange's. NWA was not a Promotion, but a governing body over the promoter's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomnipotent Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 [QUOTE=adamrobertk;363192]The only definitive measure of quality is "How many people take 2 hours out of their lives to sit down and watch a wrestling show" and "How many people are willing to spend X amount of their hard earned cash to watch a wrestling show". TNA fans can claim it is better but the simple fact is more people are choosing to watch wwe and even better when people see TNA coming on next they are choosing to turn on another channel. TNA to me seems stagnated, steady. If TNA was any good the rise in viewers would be quicker than it is.[/QUOTE] The only way to objectively measure something's quality is by testing its popularity? I think not. Consider some of the most popular music right now. Music that gets radio play, is plastered all over MTV, is constantly requested... is this the kind of music you consider to have a good deal of quality? What about the bad movies that hit the top of the box office because a load of people took the time to watch them? Let's take a look at 27 Dresses, #2 on the box office list. From Yahoo.com: [I]"27 Dresses" centers on Jane (Heigl), an idealistic, romantic and completely selfless woman…a perennial bridal attendant whose own happy ending is nowhere in sight. But when younger sister Tess captures the heart of Jane's boss – with whom she is secretly in love – Jane begins to reexamine her "always-a-bridesmaid..." lifestyle.[/I] That made me shudder. Cliche much? Haven't we seen this movie twenty-seven times before? Yet it hangs out in the #2 spot, having grossed over $23 million over the span of a weekend. A butchered I Am Legend movie translation along with First Sunday kick it with 27 Dresses on the Top 10 list. Why do people do things? Because they want to. Why would somebody watch a wrestling program that's of a lower quality than another? Because he wants to. Thing is, desire can be manufactured. There's an entire industry behind this manufacturing, in fact... it's called marketing. Make something look good, and people will believe you. Even worse, make something look like partaking in it will make you look better to society... people will build temples in your name after spending countless amounts of money to partake in it. So, simply saying that something's quality is determined by the number of people who watch it/eat it/drink it/live it is ignorant at best as it considers the market to be an objective authority on the topic of quality. This would be a fantastic argument if the market weren't a moron. Unfortunately, it is. The market is a moron. end rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moe Hunter Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Well said Thomnipotent. As someone with a keen interest in Marketing, you're right on the money. Marketing can't force peolpe to do things, but they can very very heavily influence decisions when done right. It doesn't matter if TNA is good or not, or better than WWE by some measurable or intangible standard. If people want to watch WWE, they will. If they want to watch TNA, they will. Take the movie of Fight Club for example. Incredibly good movie. But the Box Office numbers were very disappointing. Popularity doesn't equal quality. Here's another one hitting closer to home - Smackdown Vs Raw, versus Total Extreme Wrestling. I don't think anyone here is about to argue against the top-knotch quality of TEW, but in terms of "which game gets more buys", blatantly SvR is ahead in that department, despite all the bugs, lazy development, overhype and underdelivering... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamrobertk Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 The fact is what the critics claim as quality music is what a small minority of people claim as quality music and the films that they claim as quality are what a small minority claim are quality. Why is Terminator 2 better than Million Dollar Baby, easy, because more people prefer terminator 2 to Million Dollar Baby. It's like this. If you have 5 guys who say 1 wrestler is superb, and a hundred guys who say the next wrestler is superb, who is better? By common concensus you have to go with the 100. Just because these idiots claim to be experts, means they have a more indepth knowledge and therefore their oppinion seem's to be worth something. However if 200 people believe that idiot is speaking bull**** then you kinda have to go with the masses. The simple logic with this is, more people chose to turn on WWE on a monday night and watch it, therefore we have to assume that those people do actually enjoy watching it. Say 3 million people watch Raw and 500'000 watch TNA. 2.5 million people like WWE and by not watching TNA therefore we have to assume that they do not like TNA. If the minority watch TNA and preach that it is brilliant because they are smarks who love the buisness, who gives a ****, the wrestling buisness is built on the casual fan and unless tna can appeal to the casual fan it cannot be better than WWE because more people will believe that WWE is better than TNA. To me TNA dosen't try enough to capture the casual fan, and the only way they will ever be succesfull is by doing that. At the moment each week WWE has more people believing their product is worth watching than TNA does. In terms of buisness and making money (lets not forget this is the wrestling buisness where the prime objective is to make money), thats all that counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Ryland Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Just for clarity, are you saying that general public's opinion is worth more than the opinion of the (more knowledgeable, more experienced) experts just in regards to cinema and wrestling, or are you suggesting that that is the case in all situations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.