Random Wrasslin' thoughts.....

leggo

IIRC the match they had was godawful. Just no chemistry, sadly, so giving them time on Mania wouldn't have made sense as much as it would've storyline-wise.

Judging someone's HOF candidacy on their booking or position on the card is kinda missing the point IMO. It's like saying that only managers in a workplace are good at their job.

Angron

leggo wrote: »

IIRC the match they had was godawful. Just no chemistry, sadly, so giving them time on Mania wouldn't have made sense as much as it would've storyline-wise.

Judging someone's HOF candidacy on their booking or position on the card is kinda missing the point IMO. It's like saying that only managers in a workplace are good at their job.

Maybe it was, honestly can't remember a thing about the match beyond the attack backstage.

beakerjoe

The match was awful. No heat, no one in the arena cared and for two people who have teamed with eachother pretty well, they had no chemistry what so ever. Can't blame WWE for not going forward with it, but to be fair the build up to the match was piss poor at best too.

Riddle101

Not sure why WWE wants The Shield to wrestle in a Handicap match at TLC. I mean the Miz and Kane being involved is unnecessary. Braun, Sheamus and Cesaro are more than capable of taking them on in a 3 Vs 3 match.

Agent Coulson

Riddle101 wrote: »

Not sure why WWE wants The Shield to wrestle in a Handicap match at TLC. I mean the Miz and Kane being involved is unnecessary. Braun, Sheamus and Cesaro are more than capable of taking them on in a 3 Vs 3 match.

To put Roman over of course

Snakeweasel

Im thinking 5 on 3 at TLC is to set up AOP joining Shield for 5v5 match at survivor series

x43r0

Snakeweasel wrote: »

Im thinking 5 on 3 at TLC is to set up AOP joining Shield for 5v5 match at survivor series

That would be unreal

beakerjoe

Snakeweasel wrote: »

Im thinking 5 on 3 at TLC is to set up AOP joining Shield for 5v5 match at survivor series

Why? They have no assocaition with The Shield at all bar their similar attire

martyos121

beakerjoe wrote: »

Why? They have no assocaition with The Shield at all bar their similar attire

Yeah I wouldn't be gone on that at all either, especially given the fact they'll be in War Games the night before and should be selling the after-effects of that for a couple of weeks.

Snakeweasel

beakerjoe wrote: »

Why? They have no assocaition with The Shield at all bar their similar attire

I agree wholeheartedly with your logic, but this is WWE we are talking about, logic rarely comes in to play.

The White Feather

So now that WWE is bringing back Intergender matches(Finn vs Sister Abigail!) who do you pair up next?!!

PopePalpatine

Asuka vs The Miz when she's done beating the women's division several times over.

Agent Coulson

Has RVD got one last run in him and would Vince give him one last run?

Riddle101

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Has RVD got one last run in him and would Vince give him one last run?

God I hope not. RVD has been dreadful for years imo. His TNA work was embarrassing, and his last WWE run wasn't exactly great either. Maybe at one point RVD could have been a big main event star in WWE, but not now. His time has passed.

Omackeral

They should've pulled the trigger on him in 2001. He was white hot during the InVasion and the people wanted him to be a star. He could've been on top easily as a tweener or as an out and out face. The reactions he was getting were savage, his look, his moveset, his theme and his connection with the crowd. In a world of fantasy bookings and re-wrote invasions of that day, they let that one slip right through their fingers.

Bounty Hunter

Riddle101 wrote: »

God I hope not. RVD has been dreadful for years imo. His TNA work was embarrassing, and his last WWE run wasn't exactly great either. Maybe at one point RVD could have been a big main event star in WWE, but not now. His time has passed.

cue a Royal Rumble appearance and a short run to mania when he is in some multi man ladder match for a mid card title.



I'm pretty sure he will show up in WWE again at some point but don't every expect him to have a main event run.At this stage he is kinda like Jeff Hardy returning except with a lower ceiling and no potential tag partner f not being used as a singles star. As said above 2001 was the time when he could have made it big, not 16 years after that

beakerjoe

Omackeral wrote: »

They should've pulled the trigger on him in 2001. He was white hot during the InVasion and the people wanted him to be a star. He could've been on top easily as a tweener or as an out and out face. The reactions he was getting were savage, his look, his moveset, his theme and his connection with the crowd. In a world of fantasy bookings and re-wrote invasions of that day, they let that one slip right through their fingers.

I dont think WWE trusted RVD enough to run with him as a top guy.

When they went with him in 2006, they were kind of proved right as it wasnt long before he dropped the ball with it. (Though I admire him for taking the rap for his buddy Sabu, very selfless act).

Omackeral

beakerjoe wrote: »

I dont think WWE trusted RVD enough to run with him as a top guy.

When they went with him in 2006, they were kind of proved right as it wasnt long before he dropped the ball with it. (Though I admire him for taking the rap for his buddy Sabu, very selfless act).

By 2006 all his serious momentum was gone I think. His motivation wasn't very apparent throughout that run and to be honest, the buzz around him had kind of worn off too. Also, he was behind Edge, Cena and DX even when he was champion. I think if they pull the trigger in 2001, you've a very different legacy for RVD.

beakerjoe

I agree with you that it was a time if there ever was one to pull the trigger on RVD it was then.

Mr.Nice Guy

LeeJM wrote: »

Dont think I have ever disagreed with anything on this forum as much as I disagree with the above statement.

I'm not sure why. I don't think he will ever get into the WON Hall of Fame which is surely a far more credible one than the WWE version. Readers of the Observer voted him Most Embarrassing Wrestler in the 1997 awards and he was on three occasions a winner of the Worst Gimmick award.

When I think of a Hall of Fame wrestler I think of a legend of the business. His father, for example. Dustin Rhodes is nowhere near his father when it comes to legendary status. His stuff in recent times has been utterly forgettable and he's been a glorified jobber the last few years. A good wrestler in many ways whose work I have enjoyed at various points, but to describe him as a Hall of Fame talent? No chance imo.

PopePalpatine

I find it a bit of a bummer that RVD fell out of favour after being busted for weed...yet so many wrestlers end up succumbing to complications from much more harmful prescription painkillers.

beakerjoe

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I'm not sure why. I don't think he will ever get into the WON Hall of Fame which is surely a far more credible one than the WWE version. Readers of the Observer voted him Most Embarrassing Wrestler in the 1997 awards and he was on three occasions a winner of the Worst Gimmick award.

When I think of a Hall of Fame wrestler I think of a legend of the business. His father, for example. Dustin Rhodes is nowhere near his father when it comes to legendary status. His stuff in recent times has been utterly forgettable and he's been a glorified jobber the last few years. A good wrestler in many ways whose work I have enjoyed at various points, but to describe him as a Hall of Fame talent? No chance imo.

I agree, hes far from a WON hall of famer.

I enjoy his work at points throughout his career, but he was never WON worthy. He just simply hasnt a huge body of fantastic in ring work, nor was he a significant draw.

WWE hall of fame, hes a cert.

ERG89

beakerjoe wrote:

I agree, hes far from a WON hall of famer.

Black Reign on the other hand......

leggo

Possibly controversial opinion, but like Tough Enough winners, I don't give any credibility to Hall of Fames that are based on fan/journalist votes. HOFs should be peer-selected, based on those who've worked within the industry, because the fact is that we don't have a clue what Goldust is like to work with, what he's like in the locker room, we basically don't have a notion about him beyond what we see in the ring (and the fact that his booking position on the card is being discussed is kinda testament to how skewed that judgement is).

Vince handpicking people can be problematic, but as the boss of these people he's infinitely more qualified to make these decisions than a million of us combined who've never spent a day working with the people we discuss. We've every right, as paying consumers, to discuss and debate these wrestlers' careers, but we've no qualification to make any kind of defining judgement call on their work/legacy.

sky88

I think people get far too caught up in won and wwe hall of fames.

Controversial thought but rvd was just never good enough to be the top guy never enjoyed him as much as everyone else did

CastorTroy

Just finished watching Lucha Underground. First season I watched and only started part of the way through. Ultimate Lucha was a bit crazy overall.

Bounty Hunter

ERG89 wrote: »

Black Reign on the other hand......

OSW hall of famer!

beakerjoe

leggo wrote: »

Possibly controversial opinion, but like Tough Enough winners, I don't give any credibility to Hall of Fames that are based on fan/journalist votes. HOFs should be peer-selected, based on those who've worked within the industry, because the fact is that we don't have a clue what Goldust is like to work with, what he's like in the locker room, we basically don't have a notion about him beyond what we see in the ring (and the fact that his booking position on the card is being discussed is kinda testament to how skewed that judgement is).

Vince handpicking people can be problematic, but as the boss of these people he's infinitely more qualified to make these decisions than a million of us combined who've never spent a day working with the people we discuss. We've every right, as paying consumers, to discuss and debate these wrestlers' careers, but we've no qualification to make any kind of defining judgement call on their work/legacy.

People take these hall of fame’s way too seriously.

My gripe is just because someone isnt successful, ie title runs, big main event angles etc, shouldnt be a criteria for Hall of Fame.

People gripe about folks like Koko B. Ware being put in the WWE Hall Of fame, saying things like "They'll let anyone in now" or "Hes only getting in because hes black". Koko may have been a jobber to the stars for WWF and never really was in any big angles or have a title run, but the guy was a damn hard worker. His place in the roster as an enhancement talent is a vital role and thanks to him many new stars got over during the 80's and early 90's. I could argue he deserves his place in there as much as Hogan or Savage.

Its Vinces Hall of Fame and him and his close friends backstage choose who goes in. Whether the candidate is well liked backstage or marketable for publicity for the current WWE are the only reasons people get in. It’s a nice pat on the back for those in wrestling to have their moment, which Id say all of them deserve.

leggo

Totally agree. Ultimately, it doesn't really mean a lot to us, but it does mean a lot to the guys who go in. So when we play the "X doesn't deserve it" card, we're just ****ting on a guy's work. Goldust has over 20 years now of turning chicken **** into chicken salad (he even made that crappy angle with R-Truth a while back watchable), who are we to deny him when he gets a pat on the back?

Blue_Dabadee

His best in-ring work was when he was tagging with Cody at a time when he was lobbying hard to have a match with him. I could imagine he is a huge asset backstage since a lot of guys like Mark Henry, Cena, Big Show and Kane only appear on a part-time basis.