(spoilers) BIG Disappointment IMO

Hanza

Its official, The WMXX main event is going to be a Tripple Treat. As much as I enjoy triple treats, the WM main event should always be a 1 V 1.

But there you go Michaels V Trips V Ben-WAAAAAAH!!!

Whats yall think?

Im not too pleased...

Hanza

Gillie

I would have preferred HBK vs Benoit!

But if trip has to be there so be it!
Kinda defeats the purpose of Benoit winning RR tho!
Anyway. Should be some interesting 3 way promos over the next few weeks.

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

Skud

shame really defeats the purpose of pushing a superstar to winning the rumble. Didn't they do they same a year or two ago where the winner didn't get a title shot full stop? they better not take away the rumble like kotr (it's unlikely but you never know)
imo kotr was one of the best events when a wrestlker had to fight 3 matches a night to win and earn a title shot.

NeroTheExtreme

1997 1999 was the only years (from 93 onwards when they stuck a title shot as a reward for winning the rumble) where the winner didn't go to Wrestlemania, and that was Vince and Austin.

2000 had a fourway, Rock and Big Show went over at the same time. Both were stuck in the fourway
2001 - Austin won it, faced the rock
2002 - Triple H won it, faced Jericho
2003 - Lesnar won it, faced Angle, the Smackdown champion

as for the others
1993 - Yokozuna won, faced Bret Hart
1994 - draw with Bret Hart and Lex Luger, Luger won the coin toss to get first crack at the whip and choked.
1995 - Michaels drew 1 and won the thing being the ring for less than 40 mins (1 min intervels), he faced Nash
1996 - Michaels won it second year in a row, he faced Bret Hart
1997 - Austin cheated and went back in under the rope, it went to Final Four, Undertaker ended up getting the match against Sid.
1998 - Austin won it second year in a row, he faced Michaels
1999 - Vince won it but Austin beat him at St Valentines Day Massacre.

There ya go.
Nero

Hanza

What where the other rumble results.
I know Ric Flair was the 92 champ... that was brilliant, he also came out of the rumble with the vaciant title and went to WM 8 that year and lost it to Savage in a Flair style New Zealand Lawn Mower match...

Hacksaw won it in 89 didnt he. And as far as I can remember the other 2 were hogan, but i think that may be wrong...

Hanza

NeroTheExtreme

The others were as follows

1988: Hacksaw Jim Duggan, eliminated the One Man Gang. Was never shown on PPV, a USA Network special, you can get copies of it on Ebay. Mine was fine.

1989: Big John Studd, took out Ted Dibiase who bought out number 30

1990: Hogan. Perfect was meant to win it but the Yellow machine vetoed it and gave Perfect number 30 and last man out as a consolation. Total bullsh*t.

1991: Hogan again, despite not needing to as he was pencilled in for Wrestlemania. He took out Earthquake as the last man out.

1992: Flair, the title was on the line for this one. Sid took out Hogan and Flair took out Sid after Hogan had dragged him halfway out.

And thats yer complete rundown.
Nero

Bungalow Bill

I don't think it's a bad thing, putting HBK in the mix always spices things up. Besides this might not be the main event, what about brock vs berg, or either of the other two big ones. eddie vs angle, taker vs kane

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

The Phenom

What have yous all got against kane and taker. Granted kane has been sh*t for a while anybody remember The Hurrikanes can't believe they did that to him.
But if they built him up as the killer he used to be which was what they were trying to do he could be just as good or even better than when he first came in.

As for the Undertaker we all know when hw comes back as The Phenom he'll be a huge crowd favorite and we'll all love him again.

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

Hanza

I am totally upset and disapointed with the way the undertaker is viewed on this board. Sure, he might not have what it takes anymore, and his mik skills were never the best, but for f**k sake guys, and Im not being a big taker fan boy here, and this aint no pun, but SHOW A LITTLE RESPECT.

If yall dont appreciate a veteran and legend, then what is it that yall want. I never thought Id say this, I agree with bungalow bill, is all everyone wants to see is Benoit. Heres a WMXX match for you Benoit V Benoit for the Benoit title....

Everyones opinions are there owns and thats not up for dispute, but god dam it, Benoit isnt everything, and IMO alot of people a bit of a respect attitude adjustment...

Hanza

Bungalow Bill

"Lesnar/Berg-hmm who's going to win this one, the only reason I'd watch is to see if Berg will give him the rub or just go stiff"

This is the kind of **** I hate! Goldberg vs lesnar could be a fantastic match. I must ask you the question, why do you watch wrestling?? Try watching the actula show for a few weeks without knowing whats going to happen and not reading rants which are completely biased.
These are two of the biggest names in the business and this match has never happened and in most probability will never happen again.
And as for "Kane/Taker- the big red tard vs the cripple". Undertaker's style has never been about his phenomenal athletic ability, it's about his presence, his strength, and his awesome character. Personally my fave gimmick of all time.
I think that you are in a minority in your hatred of him, he can still perform in the ring and i for one am looking forward to a great return.
"HHH/HBK/Benoit for reasons already discussed, does Triple HHH just want to give fans more reason to hate him"
TRIPLE H DOESN'T WRITE HIS OWN STORYLINES! ANd besides that will be a great match, and I'd say that he is going lose, I think that they will build it as this being too much for him.

NeroTheExtreme

And again, we're off on the "bleh, you read the internet, you don't know sh|t" attitude again.

It's got f*ck to do with what we read and everything to do with what we've seen in the last few years and how boring it gets.

98-99, we had to watch Kane and UT in nearly every PPV, me personally that bored me to tears and i got to the point of saying "Argh, who cares if they're feuding or if they're tagging!" So why re-hash it, The match sucked five years ago, whats changed other than the fact that they got older and slower?!

I'm with smiaras on the main event. HHH against Benoit would have been brilliant, but due to the stubborness of him, he won't even lay down to drop the belt, so he gets his gopher boy Michaels to do it for him. Yeah Benoit gets the torch, but HHH is such an asshole that he has to pass it via a messenger. And thats provided we're not swerved on the night of the event.

Why do I watch wrestling? The Storylines for one, and the athleticism in a lot of the guys. Although I don't see a lot of that from the likes of HHH or Undertaker or slugs that get injured every six months.

As for respect. We'll see. Lets give a couple of examples some guys who got my respect.
Michaels: Granted I hated him for screwing up the main event at Wrestlemania 13 and taking so much time off for a worked injury. He got his when he botched his back at the 98 Royal Rumble. He went on two months later in a 25 minute match with Austin in a mat wrestling style, something Michaels wasn't even all that comfortable with but had to abandon the high flying stuff. Five years later, and yeah I was sceptical of the comeback, but he's proved his worth, especially from last years wrestlemania on.

Jericho: Anyone who says he hasn't worked his ass off in the last few years needs their head read. On his debut, he was fed as cannon fodder to The Rock, then stuck in a worthless feud with Road Dogg, Then paired with CHYNA! By the end of the year he was on the upper end of the midcard and was headlining months afterwards. He also stood his ground against Goldberg last year and put him in his place backstage.

Now lets compare:
Undertaker - Has done nothing worth of note in the last few years, The Biker gimmick is almost as stale as the deadman gimmick was before he chucked it. He works a total of eight months every year and puts VERY FEW people over. Sure look at last year when he wouldn't put Cena over on PPV, he only agreed to do it on a Smackdown taping.

Kane - Yeah, admittedly he's been muck in recent years, but then when you're stuck in what had to be a sledgehammer angle of the year with HHH involving Necrophilia, it's not going to do much for your credibility! I'm not a big fan of the unmasking and return of the monster character, but it's still being built so i'm not writing it off just yet. The sad thing is, thanks to the Undertaker going on (yet another) hiatus, it leaves Kane doing jack sh|t until he comes back. But before the unmasking, he was as good as dead, and again, stale as last weeks loaf.

Goldberg and Lesnar, I'm not writing off either, the thing is, we know the outcome already as Goldie is gonna be leaving, it's not national security nor is it rocket science.

By the way bill, you want biased? Read your recent posts? Totally biased for the likes of selfish c*nts like HHH and Taker!

Nero

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

NeroTheExtreme

Originally posted by smiaras
Goldberg vs the Rock, Goldberg gets booed out of the building, ever watch any of his wcw matches where he just squashed everyone?

Yeah, that was kinda embarrassing as he was meant to be the face! Reminded me of InVasion 2001 when X-pac came out as a face and was booed out of the building!

Nero

Bungalow Bill

Listen guys I'm not picking fights with anybody, i just said that i think berg vs lesnar will be a great match. Also i said that if the only reason you would watch this match is to see if berg will give him the rub or sumthin then i think that you've forgotten why you originally liked wrestling in the first place. You should try enjoy it for what it is and not for stupid stuff like that.
Also goldberg gets huge pops these days, he is completely over. Yeah it may have been a mistake to put him against the rock early in his WWE run but he's been pretty good since.
This is just my opinion but I personally don't find taker as the phenom boring. Is that ok with you guys? yeah they had a few matches before but that was 1999! Coming up to five years ago. It's a lot of the non-hardcore fans that really want to see this match. Your beloved benoit vs HHH may have been a decent match but personally I think putting a third man like HBK in the feud only serves to make it more interesting.

"Yeah buddy HHH has no influence backstage! What I am stating is that the new triple threat match demerits from Benoit's rumble win and should Benoit win by pinning Michaels it is arrogance on HHH's part"

How exactly do you know all this??? They often do this kinda **** with the rumble winner. Also i believe that had anybody else had won the rumble (a) you would be complaining about it and (b) you would be annoyed if they didn't make it a three-way with benoit in it.
All i'm saying is that taker or HHH don't decide if they put people over or not, they are told what to do.

Ph3n0m

Originally posted by Bungalow Bill
All i'm saying is that taker or HHH don't decide if they put people over or not, they are told what to do.

well yes and no - they are told who they will be fighting and the suggested ending, however it has been documented that those particularer have a lot of pull when it come to creative and can in fact get their matches changed. A good example is Xpac/Albert vs Undertaker - this match was to result in a pin fall finish but UT got it changed to a DQ finish (if i remember correctly)

Also i said that if the only reason you would watch this match is to see if berg will give him the rub or sumthin then i think that you've forgotten why you originally liked wrestling in the first place.

I for one havent forgotten why I like wrestling - as I like to be entertained, I like to be the recipient of something different, however with people HHH and HBK with strong backstage pull, that will not happen

You should try enjoy it for what it is and not for stupid stuff like that.
why is it stupid stuff - because we actually care about what we see, who we want to see win, etc.

This is just my opinion but I personally don't find taker as the phenom boring. Is that ok with you guys? yeah they had a few matches before but that was 1999! Coming up to five years ago. It's a lot of the non-hardcore fans that really want to see this match.
unfortunately most of wwe's fan base are fans who can still remember those painful matches. whilst the first few between Kane and UT, the fact that atleast kane's character has been crapped on in the past 2 years, does nothing for me as a fan. UT's phenom character, I have always like but it became stale and boring - thats why change is good. However its like Hogan when he came back - sure it was fun but after the hype died down a lot of people realised that as a wrestler he was simply too old, even his promos became a staple diet of tedium

Your beloved benoit vs HHH may have been a decent match but personally I think putting a third man like HBK in the feud only serves to make it more interesting.
how is it interesting? HBK, according to Foley's book was always of the opinion that the Wrestlemania main events should be a one on one encounter, and that anything else detracts from the spectacle and importance of the main event

"Yeah buddy HHH has no influence backstage! What I am stating is that the new triple threat match demerits from Benoit's rumble win and should Benoit win by pinning Michaels it is arrogance on HHH's part"

How exactly do you know all this??? They often do this kinda **** with the rumble winner. Also i believe that had anybody else had won the rumble (a) you would be complaining about it and (b) you would be annoyed if they didn't make it a three-way with benoit in it.
Because of respecitve wrestling reports like Dave Meltzer of the wrestlingobserver.com. They didnt always do this **** with the rumble winner, only in recent times have they started to do that. Yes I would have complained if anyone else won the rumble as the hype was built up around Benoit as being the under-dog, plus the fact that he has been in both WCW and WWE and he has yet to have a succesful title reign as the champ. The simple fact is the sole focus up til he moved to Raw was that benoit was the under-dog, the guy who couldnt do it, but did in the end, despite the odds, and now because of actual backstage pull and possible future angles, the whole scheme of things has been severely screwed up

That is why I feel benoit is getting dumped on

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

NeroTheExtreme

Originally posted by Bungalow Bill
Listen guys I'm not picking fights with anybody, i just said that i think berg vs lesnar will be a great match. Also i said that if the only reason you would watch this match is to see if berg will give him the rub or sumthin then i think that you've forgotten why you originally liked wrestling in the first place. You should try enjoy it for what it is and not for stupid stuff like that.
Also goldberg gets huge pops these days, he is completely over. Yeah it may have been a mistake to put him against the rock early in his WWE run but he's been pretty good since.
This is just my opinion but I personally don't find taker as the phenom boring. Is that ok with you guys? yeah they had a few matches before but that was 1999! Coming up to five years ago. It's a lot of the non-hardcore fans that really want to see this match. Your beloved benoit vs HHH may have been a decent match but personally I think putting a third man like HBK in the feud only serves to make it more interesting.

You're entitled to your opinion, as stated before but we don't ram our opinions down your throats because you're anti-internet writers, so extend the same courtesy by not ramming your opinion down ours because we think the same way of certain writers. You've thrown that around a couple of times now, and it's an argument that holds no water whatsoever.

I enjoy wrestling for what it is, but what i don't enjoy is the same garbage being re-hashed a few years down the line. And taker is notorious. What was the main event for No Mercy last year? Taker Vs. Lesnar, two guys who stink up the ring when in the same ring as each other, same as the previous No Mercy. Sticking the two of them in hell in the cell couldn't save it. It's main event was grossly overshadowed by the tag team finals. And the same thing is gonna happen with mania.

Mania's main event should not be triple threats or fatal fourways. Look at mania 16! It's main event was diabolocal to say the least, with an ending that would make Achille's sick!

And just for the record, i find Benoit boring as hell, but he's worked hard enough to get the fair crack of the whip he deserves.

My point is, UT/Kane was sh|te (IMHO) four years ago, how is it gonna get any better now that they're older and slower? Answer that please.

Nero

Gillie

It might be intersting if it were a zimmerframe match!:D
Seriously tho. I'm looking forward to it on the basis that Calloway will walk after it.
He's had his day - move on.
Someone already mentioned Hogan. Why would anyone want to come back looking frail and useless. Taker looks slow in the ring and he's just not believable any more!

Bungalow Bill

"m point is, UT/Kane was sh|te (IMHO) four years ago, how is it gonna get any better now that they're older and slower? Answer that please."

The only way I can answer that is that I never thought it was so. Also the older and slower part. I personally never attributed much to people's athleticism. That's why I liked guys like jake roberts and taker and ultimate warrior. I think rock and a dreadfully inadequate hogan managed to pll off quite a match at the last WM.
Yeah I did get a little annoyed at some guys comment about the goldberg match. I just think that the internet has stilted his enjoyment of the shows. If the only reason he would want to watch it is for the reason he gave, then I think that he's forgotten why he likes it at all.

"
nd just for the record, i find Benoit boring as hell, but he's worked hard enough to get the fair crack of the whip he deserves."

My point is that most people don't care about what goes on behind the scenes they just want an enjoyable final product.
Also, there would have been uproar everywhere around these virtual parts if benoit hadn't won the rumble, I wasn't speaking to one person in particular(whoever made the ingenius mindreader comment) i was speaking to the majority of people posting in disagreement with me.

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

NeroTheExtreme

Originally posted by Bungalow Bill
That's why I liked guys like jake roberts and taker and ultimate warrior. I think rock and a dreadfully inadequate hogan managed to pll off quite a match at the last WM.

That match wasn't even all that great, the crowd were jacked due to the fact that it was a dream match that many would thought would never happen. This is why the rematch wasn't so great the year later. It's not that the rematch sucked, it was because it was on par with the original, just less hype.

Warrior was going stale before they even stuck the title on him, sticking the strap on him was just a way to extend the longitivity of that gimmick. I marked out for the guy bigtime, but in retrospect, he was a three move wonder. He wouldn't last pissing time if he was to return the way the business is now.

Jake Roberts i'll give you props for, he did jack sh|t in the ring, but his psychology was second to none. He could stare you sh|tless. And anyone will tell you that.

Back to the point, it's great watch, but re-runs bore me, and the last thing i wanna see is UT-Kane rehashed for months on end. Not saying it's gonna happen, but in McMahonland, history has a tendency to repeat itself once too often.

Nero

whosurpaddy

not sure if anyone would consider this a spoiler, so ill tag it anyway.

"Bill Goldberg has one date left with the company and it is against Brock Lesnar at WrestleMania. This is why they ran the “suspension” angle last week. WrestleMania still looks like Goldberg’s last match with the company" its gonna be interesting to see how their gonna promote this match without any input from goldberg

Bungalow Bill

For all your giving out about what I think is an excellent card for WMXX, using the same guys does ANYBODY have any better suggestions??????????????

And also why the big wrestler hate???? Is there any big guys that any of you can tolerate without getting sickened by the size of their moveset.

Also, on the recycling feuds issue, this is not limited to taker and Kane which hasn't happened for five years. How many times have we seen austinvs rock, foley vs HHH, lesnar vs angle. They do it all the time. When taker comes back he will most certainly not be stale and as for Kane he's better these days than he has been for years. Should be a good one!

Hanza

Ok I feel semi responsible for starting the next chapter in the Nero Bill rivalery.

I started all this by saying that Taker should be respected. I was wrong in saying that. I personally will always have alot of respect for verterans and hard workers.

Undertaker has been very VERY stale, to say the least. And I dont see him lasting that much longer. But I would like to see the Kane Taker match a WM personally. I think rehashing the dead man gimmick will work for exactly 1 night, thel 14th of March mabey , but that will be it.

Kane, Fake deisel, Issac Yankem, Glenn Jacobs... whatever, IMO has Test syndrome. AS in, Test has a reasonable amount of talent, but cannot provide as he is constantly dropped in the gimmick section labeled: UNWANTED. Same with Kane. "Ok, Glenn, if this works, we'll run with it,"says Vinny MAc"But as soon as it gets stale we'll start shoveling it down peoples throats." Kane either needs the one correct gimmick, or pack em' and hang em!

But all in all, I would like to see it for historys sake.

As far as every single wrestler goes, no matter if they are WWE, TNA:NWA, CZW, ROH, NoaH, APW or even IwW, every wrestler will always have their fans somewhere, and therefore they must be doing something right.

All we do on this board is discuss what we dont or do like, and what we agree and disargree with, not what everyone else should feel or think. If you disagree with what someone says, disagree with them, but put up a valid point first and not an immature series of insults or derisery comments.

Hanza

NeroTheExtreme

Originally posted by Bungalow Bill
For all your giving out about what I think is an excellent card for WMXX, using the same guys does ANYBODY have any better suggestions??????????????

And also why the big wrestler hate???? Is there any big guys that any of you can tolerate without getting sickened by the size of their moveset.

Also, on the recycling feuds issue, this is not limited to taker and Kane which hasn't happened for five years. How many times have we seen austinvs rock, foley vs HHH, lesnar vs angle. They do it all the time. When taker comes back he will most certainly not be stale and as for Kane he's better these days than he has been for years. Should be a good one!

Well it's not so much a rivalry, more of a heated debate. It becomes a rivalry when it gets personal

I don't hate big guys, I just don't love them as much as Vinny Mac. I like Brock Lesnar because not only is he big, he's athletic and he's also a damn good submission wrestler. Again, pales in contrast with the likes of Goldberg or Undertaker. I also liked Nathan Jones when i saw him in WWA in 2002, alas he wasn't quite the same by the time he got to WWE.

Austin V Rock got boring as well, their match at last years wrestlemania was bad again in comparison. A lot of that was due to Austin's neck but that was well worn out, same with HHH and Rock, altho that ironman match ruled.

Lesnar/Angle was covered last year and the majority of the guys in here also agreed that 6 months is too long for an angle to drag out. In the 80s and 90s this was acceptable due to a 4 ppv a year. But now when we have one, sometimes two, a month. There's no excuse for it.

Nero

Bungalow Bill

A heated debate is what i would thoroughly(*spell*) enjoy having with you guys. However i get called a muppet when i disagreed with smiaras.

"All I'm saying is that I am dissappointed with the setup thus far for XX whihc is meant to be the biggest PPV of the year, but at least one good thing has come out of this discussion...another muppet making my Ignore list"

Actually that isn't all you said. I said that you seemed to be missing the entire point when you said that comment about the goldberg v lesnar match, which was true. You then called the undertaker a cripple which he is anything but and i made the argument that you don't need fantastic athletic ability to make it as a pro wrestler.

THEN you made a silly comment about HHH controlling everything in the business which from you is relatively unfounded also.

I would like if you recanted or reconsidered your petty insults smiaras. I really do think that the majority of people on this board have relatively balanced views when they are called on to discuss something. You however are yet to prove me wrong.........

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

Ph3n0m

Before I get accussed of defending smiaras, I am not however several things struck and I would like Bungalow BIll to explain the following statement made:

Originally posted by Bungalow Bill
You then called the undertaker a cripple which he is anything but
Now call me anal, but when a big man as old as Mark Calloway gets injured it severelly hampers his movements in the ring, making him look slow and awkward. So how is it that you can say that the Undertaker is not a cripple, when it is fact that he has bad knees, hips that do need replacing coupled with the fact that he has over the past 2 years taken much time off to heal "nagging injuries and long term problems"???

Originally posted by Bungalow Bill
THEN you made a silly comment about HHH controlling everything in the business which from you is relatively unfounded also.
How is it unfounded when several people on this board, including myself have quoted our sources on such information??

Bungalow Bill

I don't know a whole lot about the kliq thing, but wasn't that only because they were the main stars at the time and vince couldn't do without them. Tell me if i'm wrong but that certainly would not apply in this instance. And anyway that was years ago. What were your sources? i did not see this.
"Like you I've disagreed with Nero but we didn't resort to handbags at ten paces, we were able to give differing opinions and get on with it"
Actually you were the one who called me a "muppet" on two occasions when I disagreed with you.
And as for taker's past injuries. What about angle, benoit, rhyno, HHH and countless others who are impaired in some shape or form. My point was that Taker CAN still handle himself in the ring and while he's no jeff hardy he's a ric flair anyway who seems to be very popular around here.
And yes i did make one mistake where I made a generalisation when i first started posting and apologies to Nero but in this instance I have done nothing wrong

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

Bungalow Bill

The FACT of the matter is that unless your sources were found on a certain WWE.com then you cannot know. Why exactly do you think that vince would give triple H so much power and freedom if everyone hated him? It doesn't make sense. He does not have the power of being one of the only big names anymore either. That is why it annoys me with all this "he won't put anybody over" talk.
Give me one move Taker used to do but now can't. Plus I already gave the analogy of Jake Roberts which seemed to be accepted. (Not just by me).
If austin had so much pull, then why did he walk out due to his creative direction?

I know I won't change your opinions but that doesn't mean I can't offer you an alternative. I just think that you would enjoy the goldberg vs lesnar match if you didn't have so many preoccupations. Like the one YOU mentioned for example. People I've talked to who don't read net-talk are really looking forward to these matches as they don't look for these things. They don't notice that Goldberg has a limited moveset, and they don't care.

Ph3n0m

The FACT of the matter is that unless your sources were found on a certain WWE.com then you cannot know.

Fact - Vince McMahon has publicly stated he hates the internet - and occasionally WWE releases information to that fact. WHy else would all their wrestlers be told no interview for any wrestling related internet sites, unless they are completely pre-approved by VInce himself? In fact most interviews given by wrestlers of WWE origin are a) on pre-approved radio show or b) after they have left the company (like Zach Gowen has recently done)

Why exactly do you think that vince would give triple H so much power and freedom if everyone hated him?
Because 1) he is married to the bosses daughter 2) before then while he was out with his injury he was asked for creative input 3) vince mcmahon has the final say on all creative elements - doesnt mean he is not heavily influenced by people like HHH

Give me one move Taker used to do but now can't.
Flying clothesline
High legdrop
Tombstone (but that is due to neck injuries, and it is rarely broken out)


If austin had so much pull, then why did he walk out due to his creative direction?
Austin walked because of creative differences between himself and Vince McMahon and the direction of the company

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

Bungalow Bill

I'm not going to continue this but Vince said that about the internet because stuff about WM was leaked. Austin walked out because he couldn't change a thing. FACT.
Taker can do the flying clothesline/lariat, don't make things up.
At least give yourself the chance of enjoying brock v berg and try not to be so critical before it has even happened. WWE will pull out ALL the stops for this mania. Say what you want, i'm not writing back to this thread, it's getting ridiculous.

Ph3n0m

I'm not going to continue this but Vince said that about the internet because stuff about WM was leaked.

nope, that was always Vinnie's issue with the Internet well before the WM leak - get your facts straight

Austin walked out because he couldn't change a thing. FACT.
Austin in previous times was able to change a whole lot of things, like smiaras said the suggested program with Jarrett

Taker can do the flying clothesline/lariat, don't make things up.
wow - nice of you to point out the one move of the THREE i listed - even better still you are talking about a move he has rarely pulled out of the book in recent times, because his damn knees are shot

At least give yourself the chance of enjoying brock v berg and try not to be so critical before it has even happened.

Who says we wont enjoy it - you are the one that completely contradicted public knowledge from respected websites that I have mentioned, you are the one that constantly shills that HHH doesnt have backstage power and that Goldberg and Lesnar will have a great match - the fact that we accepted what you said and put forth our opinion to which you tried to shoot down, says a whole lot for you as an individual keeping an open mind.

The Phenom

F**king hell yous are both as bad as each other. One of yous will start giving out about them shoving their opinions down your throat. But then directly after that they will proceed to try shove their opinions down our throats.

Jeez what the hell happened to yous i thought this was a board wer we all respected each others opinions.

But obviously yous f**ked up somewhere on that.

Ph3n0m

Originally posted by The Phenom
F**king hell yous are both as bad as each other. One of yous will start giving out about them shoving their opinions down your throat. But then directly after that they will proceed to try shove their opinions down our throats.

Jeez what the hell happened to yous i thought this was a board wer we all respected each others opinions.

But obviously yous f**ked up somewhere on that.

so who is this rant aimed at?

The Phenom

All of yas why dont yous pm each other or something instead of filling up the threads
with all that off the point crap

Ph3n0m

needless crap - so a heated debate about certain elements of wrestling is needless crap?

i can only speak for myself, anything I posted about was based on facts, plain and simple - I mean hell if that is needless crap what you would prefer to see here???

if we cannot debate wrestling here without it be classed as needless crap then what is the point in having a wrestling forum then???

I read the dirtsheets all the time, I have been following wrestling for over 20 years, so personally I think my opinion does count for something - however I will not stand idly by and watch posters give opinions based on ignorance - anything that has been stated here by myself is based solely on the facts that are publicly available.

To hide behind the mask of pms, is to declare fear in acknowledging the truth - it would be all too easy for me to send a load of pms out with blatent lies - instead I choose to make public what other people do not know - so therefore I resent your ignorance by calling it needless crap - when in fact it isnt, it is necessary information that is used to backup my opinion and to point out to people the truth when they post what they believe to be right (when in actual fact they have been proven wrong)

The Phenom

I never said it was needless crap i said it was off the point. The rest of us don't need to see yous fill up the threads because your fighting over whos opinion is right and whos is wrong.
I thought everybody was allowed have there own opinion so why dont yous just respect everybodies. Sure we all enjoy a little disbute now and then but they take it to far.

Ph3n0m

Originally posted by The Phenom
I never said it was needless crap i said it was off the point. The rest of us don't need to see yous fill up the threads because your fighting over whos opinion is right and whos is wrong.
I thought everybody was allowed have there own opinion so why dont yous just respect everybodies. Sure we all enjoy a little disbute now and then but they take it to far.

"needless or off the point" - thats merely symantics - you still classed it as crap

question: did you actually read every single post or just skim over them. you would have seen, atleast in respect to myself, I never forced my opinion on anyone - I merely stated facts (and I am getting sick of reapeating that over and over and over).

I never denied anyone their opinion, I corrected their mistakes using facts (oh dear there is that word again)

Bungalow Bill

What my problem is what passes for fact in your world, IMO the things you say are facts are not completely founded.

ALso taker can still do a tombstone, they just changed his finisher to go with his gimmick.
HE said that he wouldn't enjoy the goldberg match. He said something along the lines of , ' the only reason i'd watch it is to see if berg will give him the rub'. That, i believe is warped manner in how to approach watching wrestling.

And eh phenom2 we can argue if we want, we're arguing about wrestling. Isn't that the point.

Ph3n0m

Originally posted by Bungalow Bill
What my problem is what passes for fact in your world, IMO the things you say are facts are not completely founded.

if you want founded facts just let me know and I will cheerfully give you links to the facts that back up every single thing I have said in this thread