Hive Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Am I the only one who thinks it's a travesty that they keep jobbing The Miz to Alex Riley? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathers7 Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Am I the only one who thinks it's a travesty that they keep jobbing The Miz to Alex Riley? I think they're pushing Riley too quickly even though he is great on the mic, winning clean against a guy who was WWE champion for 5 months is a bit strange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tha Black Phenom Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Miz has nothing to lose IMO, Riley has everything to gain. Simple explanation for it. The old adage says you can't keep everyone on top... everyone is gonna have to end up taking a backseat sometime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linsolv Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I think they're pushing Riley too quickly even though he is great on the mic, winning clean against a guy who was WWE champion for 5 months is a bit strange. Miz was champ for 5 months because of his ability to cheat. If you just make it so that he can't cheat then he was ACTUALLY PUSHED as a weak wrestler. Clean wins should be coming left and right when he doesn't succeed in cheating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moe Hunter Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I just, I don't even... Is this a real post or am I being punked? The point isn't that weights are true, "Somebody might need to go back to fact vs. opinion school. HBK's 15 pound weight difference is a fact." It's not fact, it's absolutely not fact, yet that's the point you stated. Continuing on... it's that the idea that Cena was god-pushed because of his size is completely ridiculous when he's BILLED at 240. Seriously is this that hard to understand? Yes, because that's not what you said. You said HBK's 15 pound weight difference is a fact. Also, how exactly is it ridiculous to say he's pushed based on his size? Who cares what he's billed at? If they billed Kane at 240, would you tell me his size wasn't a factor? And yes, WO are based on "opinions," the opinions of thousands of people, which is then recorded and put into an award that has considerable recognition within the community. Seriously, this is how awards work in any field, so I'm not sure why it has to be explained. The point is Cena is objectively considered to be one of the best wrestlers on the planet, in addition to objectively drawing more money than anyone else. Not that I want to really get in to politics, but seriously this just sounds like "thousands of Americans can't be wrong!" We can say that there have been bad US Presidents, or elected leaders in any field. People voting for Cena for this award doesn't *make* him good, it just reflects the opinions of those people. Millions of people voted for Nixon, Reagan, Carter, Clinton, Bush, Obama... it doesn't mean they were all good, it just reflects the opinions of the people at the time. How is a collation of opinions somehow "objective"? Drawing money is objective, but a subset of community consideration can only be at best "less subjective than less opinions". So the whole "oh he's easily replaceable/he can't work/he's only there because Vince loves big guys" was a combination of three untrue statements. Not just "oh that's your opinion that's fine" statements, but flat out directly in the face of reality. I agree with you here. He's not easily replaceable, he fills a segment that no one seems like they could capture at the moment. He can work (though not that well IMO - he's sloppy, whiffs and botches way more than a ME guy should, and has awful psychology). He's not only there because of his size, but you'd have to be insane to ignore it, and that's why I took any issue with you at all - trying to suggest (though you say you weren't, in which case, very odd choice of words) that he's only got 15lbs on HBK. The WWE roster is big enough to create a few tag teams. Add an extra half hour to Smackdown and between that and Raw you can fit in 2 proper tag matches per week without reducing the singles action. Hell, just get rid of all the "Raw Rebounds" and other boring angles they have on SD, and there's plenty of time for tag teams! So I'm not very excited for this week's Raw, since there's no CM Punk to be had, just Vince and Cena arguing over whether he'll be there next week. I'll catch it on Youtube but that's about it. Looking forward to MitB though, if they follow through well on the angles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazorbeak Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 "Somebody might need to go back to fact vs. opinion school. HBK's 15 pound weight difference is a fact." It's not fact, it's absolutely not fact, yet that's the point you stated. Continuing on... Yes, because that's not what you said. You said HBK's 15 pound weight difference is a fact. Also, how exactly is it ridiculous to say he's pushed based on his size? Who cares what he's billed at? If they billed Kane at 240, would you tell me his size wasn't a factor? How is a collation of opinions somehow "objective"? Drawing money is objective, but a subset of community consideration can only be at best "less subjective than less opinions". The argument has moved on so completely that this post is pretty unnecessary. Yes, awards are objective. Your "thousands of Americans" statement is close to the truth, except it could be "thousands of anyone democratically selecting someone." Consensus creates the award, and the award is an objective measure of the respect of a community. Yes, sometimes there are mistakes, but that isn't the point. It's a semantics issue and a hair-splitting one, so again, why are we even talking about it? Would you say Richard Nixon was subjectively elected president? That it was a matter of opinion? No, even though subjective factors led to his presidency. Opinions created the award, winning the award is a fact. That's how it works in any award in any medium, that's why mentioning that someone has won an award is a factual counter to the subjective "oh I think so and so SUCKS." It doesn't inherently prove that so in so does not, in fact, suck, but it's evidence that they probably don't, or at least, didn't at one time. Yes, billed weights are objective, even if you think they're wrong (that is attacking evidence veracity, not whether it is a fact/opinion). The fact that Cena is billed at 240 (and it is a fact that he's billed at that weight) suggests that there is not an intended perception of Cena as "big guy," and that makes sense, considering he's not a particularly big guy, and outside of the Miz and Jericho, virtually everybody he works with is bigger than him. And again, my point was not that Cena couldn't have been pushed due to his size, so saying it's "insane" to dismiss that is missing the point. The point is it's an arbitrary distinction to say that 240 pounds is "big" and 225 isn't. What Shawn Michaels and Cena's weight difference if you had a weigh-in is absolutely not the point I was trying to make, now or ever. And as someone closer to Randy Orton's size, I have a hard time even picturing a guy 3-4 inches shorter than me as a "big guy." Yeah, he's in shape, but so is Dolph Ziggler. Are we going to say he's been pushed because of Vince's love of big guys? Did John Morrison get over because of his size? I mean if you classify Cena as a big guy, where do you make the cut-off? That was the point I was making several pages ago. For TEW purposes, Cena would be a middleweight. He's listed at around the same size as Ric Flair in his prime. So to dismiss the work it took to get him over by saying "oh well he's a big guy so of course" was a tremendous oversimplification which was why I used facts to explain why it wasn't just an "oh I think x and you think y" situation. But again, why are you bringing this up days after the conversation has totally moved on? As for why The Rock is getting in the ring next year, he has no monetary reason for it: he's having a lot of success in Hollywood with his twin personas of Dwayne Johnson, comedic actor and The Rock, action hero guy. He's most likely doing it because he likes working in front of a live crowd and he wants to help the company out. I think he just wants to do it. Wrestling can be pretty addictive, and Rock's been gone a solid 7 years, so it's no surprise he's got the itch [/obscure reference]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teh_Showtime Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 They really bill Cena at 240? I wouldnt have a problem believing it if they said he was 260. I think 260 would have him as a big guy, but only relative to the others that are not big guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linsolv Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Man I'm not having fun with this Christian feud. More than anything it's getting Teddy Long over as a heel, more than Christian. Maybe that's the goal? I dunno. It's so infuriating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn michaels Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 As for why The Rock is getting in the ring next year, he has no monetary reason for it: he's having a lot of success in Hollywood with his twin personas of Dwayne Johnson, comedic actor and The Rock, action hero guy. He's most likely doing it because he likes working in front of a live crowd and he wants to help the company out. I think he just wants to do it. Wrestling can be pretty addictive, and Rock's been gone a solid 7 years, so it's no surprise he's got the itch [/obscure reference]. Yeah. I've been doing my research and he's worth 10 to 15 million dollars a movie. So money is no reason. Perhaps we're so used to a world where people only return because of all the "bad" reasons, that we may think of doubting The Rock as an imediate instinct. But maybe this is one of those cases where he actually returns because he loves the business. Afterall, he did grow in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaysin Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 As for why The Rock is getting in the ring next year, he has no monetary reason for it: he's having a lot of success in Hollywood with his twin personas of Dwayne Johnson, comedic actor and The Rock, action hero guy. He's most likely doing it because he likes working in front of a live crowd and he wants to help the company out. I think he just wants to do it. Wrestling can be pretty addictive, and Rock's been gone a solid 7 years, so it's no surprise he's got the itch [/obscure reference]. http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e322/VenomousPrime/19.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazorbeak Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 That's what I get for referencing Billy Wilder movies around the children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaysin Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 That's what I get for referencing Billy Wilder movies around the children. I figured the movie reference was less obscure than Billy Kidman's name for the Shooting Star Press Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linsolv Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 That's what I get for referencing Billy Wilder movies around the children. You mean the Marilyn Monroe picture? I didn't realize it was obscure. I thought that the image of her skirt being blown up by the subway grate was one of the most iconic Hollywood moments... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cappyboy Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 You mean the Marilyn Monroe picture? I didn't realize it was obscure. I thought that the image of her skirt being blown up by the subway grate was one of the most iconic Hollywood moments... And that was a different movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linsolv Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 :| [EDIT: Sorry, I took the first link I could find. It turned out to be bad. So I had to get a new one.] (Or... is "Seven Year Itch" actually a SUPER obscure Some Like It Hot reference? I dunno. I just sorta assumed that the reference was more direct than 'being the name of a movie but not the movie I'm referring to...') Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaysin Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 And that was a different movie. Don't think so... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Year_Itch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaunGBD Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 On June 22nd' date=' WWE registered the "CM Punk" name for merchandise use. WWE trademarked Punk's name for wrestling use back in 2009. It will be interesting to see if they allow Punk to use the name once he leaves the company. WWE also recently registered "The Last Outlaw" for wrestling use, which goes along with The Undertaker. [/quote'] Source: NoDQ So I would think he resigned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn michaels Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Source: NoDQ So I would think he resigned. Do you have any direct link to this information? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linsolv Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Do you have any direct link to this information? http://nodq.com/wwe/311801425.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn michaels Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 http://nodq.com/wwe/311801425.shtml Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hive Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Has anyone seen this video of Punk arguing with a "fan" in Australia? It's awesome! Watching Punk yell "You have a vagina!" at some moron is priceless. Check it out: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teh_Showtime Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 nothing will ever beat "I hope your parents die". That was classic Punk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn michaels Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 The WWE registered the CM Punk name for merchandise purposes on the 22nd of June. The shoot happened 5 days later. Do i need to say more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantabulous Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 The WWE registered the CM Punk name for merchandise purposes on the 22nd of June. The shoot happened 5 days later. Do i need to say more? Yes, please, because none of us have figured out Punk is either staying or coming back after he's rested up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angeldelayette Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I actually enjoyed John Cena's opening promo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.