If you can't beat em, bury em.

[Shocky]

WWE.com has an article up commenting on last night's UFC 91 PPV which aired last night. The article takes quite a few shots at UFC and the MMA business itself, at one point saying the PPV bouts were ending quickly "leaving UFC producers scrambling to fill the three-hour event with content."

WWE went on to say "The dearth of hearty competition left many viewers to watch less prestigious undercard fights and only served to bolster claims that UFC pay-per-view events can often be a "crap shoot" in regards to filling the full three hours."

Typical. Seriously, the WWE, in a time when it is at a decade low in ratings and attention, decides to take a shot at a business that is far more succesful then their company. Does this surprise you at all, no not really. It's jealousy, pretty much. Petty jealousy. The shot at UFC struggling to fill a 3 hour pay per view is hilarious in itself. I can't recall the last time the WWE had a pay per view that was a solid 3 hours unto itself that didn't have a bunch of shit filler matches scattered throughout. Oh and not to mention the countless backstage segments and diva segments, I mean truly, high quality entertainment.

So after a night of which the WWE should be happy that one of their own homegrown talents went onto win a "real" championship, they try to bury it because of petty jealousy. Instead of acknowledging that they have legit badasses in their company, they try to do what they do best, and that's bury someone.

It's pathetic in all honesty. The WWE is jealous that a guy like Brock Lesnar left their company of his own will, and has succeeded without them. When I woke up this morning, Brock Lesnar, front page of ESPN's website, Foxnews Website, Sportslines website, and most of the sports webpages I go to. This one event got the headline over a day full of college football. Brock Lesnar is a huge success story, took a large gamble, and it's paid off. Arguably, by the end of his UFC run, he maybe the biggest name to come from the WWE, outside of Hogan. Brock will be bigger then Austin, and anyone else the company has made the last ten years.

Like I said, the WWE is showing how pathetic it is in my opinion. Instead of congratulating Lesnar, the WWE is showing it's ass.

 

[Monkey_Mania]

Yeah, this is pretty pathetic. But it's to be expected because it was Lesnar who was on the card. Pretty lame that they did this. The only reason why I think they did this is because UFC is more competition than TNA is. It's still in bad taste though. This is almost as bad as WCW letting the finish of Raw be broadcast on Nitro. Pretty disrespectful and has no place in any form of business, including wrestling.

 

[donutman]

Obviously you don't know anything about business. You NEVER put the competition over. Never. UFC is easily the main competition to WWE. Vince could give a rats ass about TNA. To be a successful business, you can't care about anybody else except for yourself. Did WWE ever put over WCW before Vince bought them? Did Coke ever make commercials about how Clear Pepsi was so good? Does Jay Leno talk about how Lettermen had a great show the other day? Do cooperate companies care that when they are building their new multi-million dollar store, they are building directly in front of a mom and pop shop? The answers would be a resounding, No.

Also, just like the rest of the entertainment world, UFC looks down on Pro Wrestling. Last night, they didn't even mention onced that Brock was a pro wrestler. And even when they ever do mention pro wrestling in their broadcast, its always something negative. "Oh, this isn't scripted like pro wrestling, this is REAL!." "Brock left the joke that is pro wrestling to come here." blah blah blah. You have all heard it before. So tell me, why would WWE "respect" UFC when UFC doesn't even respect them?

 

[klunderbunker]

Well let's see. For one thing, you could get people that are into UFC to think "Hey, I like Brock Lesnar. He came from WWE. Maybe they'll have other guys I like." Both are on tv at different times. It's not like WWE is talking about Heroes or Monday Night Football. Also, right now MMA and UFC are destroying WWE. Why would you want to go and talk down about them? It makes sense to jump in with them and try to steal a handful of their viewers. WWE should respect UFC because it has what WWE wants: people watching.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I totally thought this was gonna be a Triple H thread

anyways. first of all, they have a good point. I will never in life purchase a UFC ppv becuase of this very thing. hell to the no. You far better off with a wrestling PPV as far as getting your money's worth. becuase a wrestlers JOB is to give you your money's worth, an MMA fighters job is to win. I dont think if your in a cage fighting brock lesnar, you could give two fucks about being entertaining, or trying to go long. I would imagine you would want something such as that to be over as soon as possible lol.

secondly, this irks me like it does everyone else. Like it annoys me when them graphics pop up on RAW and SD! talking shit about other programs. It just seems entirely uneccessary to me. And I think its funny that on the revisionist WWE dvds, they paint WCW like scoundrels for doing the exact same thing they do now. bullshit. You want to seem more legit, and prestigous WWE?? Try having some class.

 

[jmt225]

First of all, that "WWE Universe" tagline WWE says is the most ******ed shit ever. It makes me completely embarrassed to be a wrestling fan. Seriously, what the fuck?

Anyway, WWE is full of morons, and has been since they built the company around Cena. They had a chance to make a great wrestler like Cena into truly the next phenomenon of pro wrestling, and instead choose the path that was geared towards kids. Words cannot describe how idiotic WWE is for doing that..

However, even though they're 100% completely wrong here and could've worded this ten times better, I don't blame them for trying to A) Take credit off of Lesnar's name and B) Trying to put down the UFC. 'A' because if it weren't for WWE, Lesnar would be working on a barn somewhere in South Dakota and no one would've ever heard of him, and 'B' is basically self-defense. UFC fighters bury WWE all the time. Dana White is a bit better about doing it, but even he can slip out the "Fake" word every now and then, which is an insult to the business.

In the end though, WWE is still ******ed. Their product for the most part sucks, and the shit they do not only on their program, but publicly too, is just a complete embarrassment.

 

[Slyfox696]

I don't see the problem here. I mean, did they say anything that wasn't true? At all?

Is it not true that UFC, much like boxing, suffers because build-up often times leads to nothingness? That big money fights go :30? That I pay to watch Shamrock vs. Ortiz and it's over within the first minute and thirty seconds, prompting UFC to give away FOR FREE what I paid $50 for?

Is ANYTHING the WWE said untrue? No, it's not. So why are we criticizing the WWE for telling the truth? When I pay to watch John Cena vs. Chris Jericho at Survivor Series, I know that I'll see at least 15 minutes of that match, if not 20+ minutes. I know that what I am paying to see I will get my money's worth for.

I also saw Shocky mention stuff about promos, backstage segments, etc. If you have ever watched a UFC event, you should know that UFC is every bit as bad as the WWE is about promo packages and talking, if not more so. I would venture to guess that, in the span of a 3 hour PPV, the WWE on average, has more in-ring action than UFC does.

So, I don't have a problem with this. They are speaking the truth, they are showing why they are better than their competition and they are doing it at a time when people are most likely to be swayed by it.

And I think all of you who are taking shots at the WWE for good business need to step back and evaluate YOUR class.

I totally thought this was gonna be a Triple H thread

Which means you had your "Locked and Infracted" finger ready, right?

First of all, that "WWE Universe" tagline WWE says is the most ******ed shit ever. It makes me completely embarrassed to be a wrestling fan. Seriously, what the fuck?

Umm...wrong thread.

Anyway, WWE is full of morons, and has been since they built the company around Cena. They had a chance to make a great wrestler like Cena into truly the next phenomenon of pro wrestling, and instead choose the path that was geared towards kids. Words cannot describe how idiotic WWE is for doing that..

Yes, how idiotic to revolve your product around people who will pay to see it.

I'm just glad you don't run the WWE.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Fantastic post, Sly.

UFC intentionally tapes its undercard with commentary to air in case matches go thirty seconds. And Sly's also 100% right about issues like Shamrock / Ortiz.

But you take an inherent risk anytime you purchase anything. That's why marketing studies a consumer behavior known as "buyers remorse." People were probably justifiably upset after the end of the Hogan / Sting match in WCW after the build-up they had. Or Hogan / Warrior 2? Both matches were let downs. Oh well.

But Sly makes the point that you are promised between 160 and 180 minutes when you purchase a WWE or a TNA PPV. UFC has no such promise made.

 

[joejoe]

I'm in 100% agreement with Sly on this one. The WWE told the truth and it was hardly a pot shot. They mentioned the event because a former star of the WWE was going to headline the main event for the UFC.

As far as "if you can't beat um" well the WWE isn't losing to the UFC. Let me ask you this would the UFC ever sell out the Citrus bowl for an event? Would they ever sell out Ford Field or another huge venue for an event? The answer to that is plain and simple no.

UFC and the WWE aren't in competition. One is real sport the other is entertainment. That's like saying the UFC is in competition with the latest TV sitcom.

 

[jmt225]

Is it not true that UFC, much like boxing, suffers because build-up often times leads to nothingness? That big money fights go :30? That I pay to watch Shamrock vs. Ortiz and it's over within the first minute and thirty seconds, prompting UFC to give away FOR FREE what I paid $50 for?

So every WWE main event lives up to its hype? No, it doesn't. No entertainment company can offer a guarantee when it comes to the quality of its programming.

Is ANYTHING the WWE said untrue? No, it's not. So why are we criticizing the WWE for telling the truth? When I pay to watch John Cena vs. Chris Jericho at Survivor Series, I know that I'll see at least 15 minutes of that match, if not 20+ minutes. I know that what I am paying to see I will get my money's worth for.

Actually, they made a couple ridiculous claims in their ******ed article. Let's look at them:

"Critics have noted that many of the fights on the UFC pay-per-view ended in the first round, leaving UFC producers scrambling to fill the three-hour event with content."

UFC does not "scramble" to fill three hour events. There's a reason they have Prelim fights. If a fight on the main card ends short, then we get a good fight from the preliminary bouts. On Saturday, we got every fight on both the main card and prelim, which resulted in one of the UFC best pay-per-views this year.

"The dearth of hearty competition left many viewers to watch less prestigious under-card fights and only served to bolster claims that UFC pay-per-view events can often be a "crap shoot" in regards to filling the full three hours."

There is nothing "less prestigious" about any fight. By this logic, no matches on a WWE pay-per-view mean anything outside of the main event. What a stupid fucking thing to say on their part.

"For his part, Lesnar took the encouragment of the WWE Universe and the hard lessons forged during his fiery time at WWE and showed UFC and the world why he is not only a man of mettle but also a former three-time WWE Champion.."

Please tell me Sly, what did Brock learn about SHOOT fighting from wrestling in WWE?

Umm...wrong thread.

Umm.... no. Read the entire post from WWE:

http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/8656158

LAS VEGAS - "In a stunning upset, Brock Lesnar became the first man to capture both the WWE Championship and the UFC Heavyweight Championship when he defeated UFC fan favorite Randy "The Natural" Couture on Saturday night in Sin City.

Lesnar, dubbed "The Next Big Thing" upon his arrival in WWE, earned the moniker and his first WWE Championship in 2002 after besting The Rock at SummerSlam. Thanks in large part to the backing of the WWE Universe, the former college wrestling phenomenon went on to regain the title twice, both times against Kurt Angle, once at WrestleMania in 2003 and then six months later on SmackDown.

For Lesnar, the road to UFC gold proved surprisingly short. Within roughly six months, the former WWE Superstar climbed to the top of the ultimate fighting heap, capping his ascent with the upset victory over Couture.

Critics have noted that many of the fights on the UFC pay-per-view ended in the first round, leaving UFC producers scrambling to fill the three-hour event with content. The dearth of hearty competition left many viewers to watch less prestigious under-card fights and only served to bolster claims that UFC pay-per-view events can often be a "crap shoot" in regards to filling the full three hours.

For his part, Lesnar took the encouragment of the WWE Universe and the hard lessons forged during his fiery time at WWE and showed UFC and the world why he is not only a man of mettle but also a former three-time WWE Champion."

See why I said that now?

Yes, how idiotic to revolve your product around people who will pay to see it.

Yet, they've made the most money when gearing towards EVERYONE, not just one little portion of the audience.

 

[donutman]

Yet, they've made the most money when gearing towards EVERYONE, not just one little portion of the audience.

Umm, they sure made lots of money when they geared the Attitude Era to the older teens-young adults crowd. You can't tell me that they geared towards kids during that era. Kids will always watch wrestling. While older fans, for whatever reason, stop watching. Its pretty simple. The older you get, the less wrestling you will watch whether its because of a job, family, ect. When you are a kid, you have all the time in the world to watch Wrestling every week. It's a no brainer to target their biggest audience.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Umm, they sure made lots of money when they geared the Attitude Era to the older teens-young adults crowd. You can't tell me that they geared towards kids during that era. Kids will always watch wrestling. While older fans, for whatever reason, stop watching. Its pretty simple. The older you get, the less wrestling you will watch whether its because of a job, family, ect. When you are a kid, you have all the time in the world to watch Wrestling every week. It's a no brainer to target their biggest audience.

That's all well and good, but the concern isn't just who tunes in - it's who the advertisers perceive will be watching the program, if their target market is being reached, and if they are attaching their product to something that may cause negative association.

The big issue the WWE had during the Attitude Era were complaints from parents and certain censorship groups, which led to several long-time, big-money advertisers pulling their ads off WWE TV. And while more teens tuned in to watch WWE programming, their buying power isn't as strong as parents who watch with their younger kids. Plus, there are less complains now-a-days, which the WWE has to be careful of in the wake of the Benoit Murders and the steroid situation.

 

[Shocky]

The point is, it doesn't matter if you agree with the WWE or not, but why even bother mentioning the UFC at all if you refust to acknowledge them as direct competition. Dana White was just on Jim Rome, and he did nothing but praise the WWE when Rome asked him how it felt to be compared to the WWE. He said they established a brand, and not an individual, much like how the UFC is trying to do. They don't push competitors, they sell the brand. Why then does the WWE feel like it has to talk down about the UFC?

What's the point. What does the WWE possibly gain by talking down UFC? To me, it shows they are scared. If the WWE isn't a sport, and is simply entertainment, then turn a blind eye to it, don't run it down. It's an inherent risk whether a boxing match or MMA that someone gets knocked out in 30 seconds, but as a consumer, it's a risk I'm willing to take.

The WWE continues to say MMA isn't a threat, yet has changed how many rules over the last year to try to make itself more of an MMA style match? It's double talk. On one hand they want to pretend it doesn't exist, and on the other they are trying to become more like it, while taking cheap shots along the way at UFC. As I said, if they weren't worried or bothered by it, why even mention it to begin with?

 

[Slyfox696]

So every WWE main event lives up to its hype? No, it doesn't. No entertainment company can offer a guarantee when it comes to the quality of its programming.

Yeah, but at least I get to see my favorite wrestlers for 15-20 minutes. As opposed to paying $50 for a 1:15 knockout, which then means we need a rematch for FREE because of the failed hype.

Actually, they made a couple ridiculous claims in their ******ed article. Let's look at them:

"Critics have noted that many of the fights on the UFC pay-per-view ended in the first round, leaving UFC producers scrambling to fill the three-hour event with content."

UFC does not "scramble" to fill three hour events. There's a reason they have Prelim fights. If a fight on the main card ends short, then we get a good fight from the preliminary bouts. On Saturday, we got every fight on both the main card and prelim, which resulted in one of the UFC best pay-per-views this year.

Sure they do. They'd MUCH rather their money fights go the full rounds, with the knockouts being in the last round. If you keep putting on guys nobody wants to see, people quit buying.

Do you think it's a coincidence that UFC's biggest PPVs always include their biggest names? Do you think those people pay to see undercard fights?

"The dearth of hearty competition left many viewers to watch less prestigious under-card fights and only served to bolster claims that UFC pay-per-view events can often be a "crap shoot" in regards to filling the full three hours."

There is nothing "less prestigious" about any fight. By this logic, no matches on a WWE pay-per-view mean anything outside of the main event. What a stupid fucking thing to say on their part.

No, what's stupid is your interpretation of what they said.

They are saying that people pay to see the money fights, but since the money fights often times don't live up, then we're left with people we don't want to see and weren't advertised.

Compared to the WWE, when you know EVERY match that will be on the card ahead of time, and you know EXACTLY what you get yourself into.

"For his part, Lesnar took the encouragment of the WWE Universe and the hard lessons forged during his fiery time at WWE and showed UFC and the world why he is not only a man of mettle but also a former three-time WWE Champion.."

Please tell me Sly, what did Brock learn about SHOOT fighting from wrestling in WWE?

How about steroids to become massively strong?

Umm.... no. Read the entire post from WWE:

Umm...yes.

This thread isn't talking about your feelings on "WWE Universe", it's talking about Brock Lesnar in the middle of a WWE vs. UFC war.

Like I said, wrong thread.

See why I said that now?

Do you see why it was spam and completely irrelevant to the topic??

Yet, they've made the most money when gearing towards EVERYONE, not just one little portion of the audience.

They do gear the product towards EVERYONE. You have your older males with the Divas and guys like Triple H and Orton, you have your kids with guys like Rey Mysterio and Great Khali, you have your females with guys like Cody Rhodes, Cena, and Orton, you have your older wrestling fans with guys like HBK and Taker, and you have your younger wrestling fans like Cena and Batista.

You have your brawlers, high flyers, cruiserweights, women's wrestling, heavyweight wrestling, tag team wrestling, etc.

There is NOTHING that a wrestling fan could want that the WWE doesn't provide in some capacity.

The WWE DOES gear their product toward everyone. But like has been said, the children will be the fans the longest, so you want your biggest moneymakers to target them. Because, just like cigarettes, when you have them hooked, they're hooked for life.

 

[Marquis]

I found it really sad when i saw that article that the WWE was trying put the UFC down. Seriously instead of pointing out what they consider flaws in their PPV focus on your own product. What makes it worse as shock mentioned Dana only has said good things about the WWE especially McMahon. Now about the argument that you get your moneys worth for a WWE ppv but don't for UFC ones cause of the chance a fight ends early. You know there is a reason they have an undercard? Not just any ol random undercard like what the WWE does for there filler matches. They put damn good fighters in there undercards. In fact when the fight goes on the full 15mins or more i hear complaints cause most of the time its a boring fight with someone running away or just trying to score points. People to me seem damn happy when the fight ends early by knockout or submission especially since it shows a form of domination over your foe.

 

[jmt225]

Yeah, but at least I get to see my favorite wrestlers for 15-20 minutes. As opposed to paying $50 for a 1:15 knockout, which then means we need a rematch for FREE because of the failed hype.

Most of the time you can watch that wrestler for 15-20 minutes on Raw every week. So, what's your point here?

And also, seeing someone you admire and look up to and root for knock someone out in a minute and fifteen seconds is a thrill you can't get from wrestling anymore.

Sure they do. They'd MUCH rather their money fights go the full rounds, with the knockouts being in the last round. If you keep putting on guys nobody wants to see, people quit buying.

Do you think it's a coincidence that UFC's biggest PPVs always include their biggest names? Do you think those people pay to see undercard fights?

If it's a good fight, people want to watch it. Yes, the main event guys are what sale the product, but the undercard is just as important. People want a good main event, but they also want good fights leading up to it. That's what separates the UFC from boxing. In the UFC, most times then not, you're going to get an undercard with names people DO know, and you're going to at least get a couple of good fights. The UFC has done a great job these past couple of years creating recognizable names.

No, what's stupid is your interpretation of what they said.

They are saying that people pay to see the money fights, but since the money fights often times don't live up, then we're left with people we don't want to see and weren't advertised.

Compared to the WWE, when you know EVERY match that will be on the card ahead of time, and you know EXACTLY what you get yourself into.

Then how come UFC's pay-per-view buys are ahead of WWE's? You can't deny the facts.

Also, what I forgot to point out about WWE claiming the UFC "scrambles" to fill out three hours, fuck... a lot of times WWE's pay-per-views end at 2 hours and 30 minutes. So, obviously, WWE is struggling way more in that department then the UFC is. But yet, you still claim there aren't flaws in what they said?

How about steroids to become massively strong?

Eh, more like HGH, but good point nonetheless, lol.

However, it's obvious Lesnar is off that stuff now. He's no where near as ripped now as he was in WWE.

Umm...yes.

This thread isn't talking about your feelings on "WWE Universe", it's talking about Brock Lesnar in the middle of a WWE vs. UFC war.

Like I said, wrong thread.

Do you see why it was spam and completely irrelevant to the topic??

So you would just rather me start a thread claiming how ridiculous that tag line is? Whatever your answer is, I gave my thoughts on the article WWE wrote. And reading that 'WWE Universe' crap was on my mind when I wanted to share my opinion on the article, because that saying was said in the article multiple times. It was one small part of my post; a post that explained my feelings on the "Brock Lesnar in the middle of a WWE vs. UFC war" as you put it.

They do gear the product towards EVERYONE. You have your older males with the Divas and guys like Triple H and Orton, you have your kids with guys like Rey Mysterio and Great Khali, you have your females with guys like Cody Rhodes, Cena, and Orton, you have your older wrestling fans with guys like HBK and Taker, and you have your younger wrestling fans like Cena and Batista.

You have your brawlers, high flyers, cruiserweights, women's wrestling, heavyweight wrestling, tag team wrestling, etc.

There is NOTHING that a wrestling fan could want that the WWE doesn't provide in some capacity.

The WWE DOES gear their product toward everyone. But like has been said, the children will be the fans the longest, so you want your biggest moneymakers to target them. Because, just like cigarettes, when you have them hooked, they're hooked for life.

Now see, this is really off topic. But I was the one to bring it up, so whatever.

You have points, but Cena calling JBL a poo-poo head just doesn't sit well with me. When Cena moved to Raw, they had a chance to make him cutting edge, but decided to go a different route and I've heavily disagreed with that choice ever since. Yes, Cena is the top draw, but I feel he would be a much bigger draw if he wasn't made to act like a fucking superhero with a mind that throws out insults a six-year-old would use. But we'll never know.

 

[Slyfox696]

Most of the time you can watch that wrestler for 15-20 minutes on Raw every week. So, what's your point here?

My point is that when you put down your hard earned money for a PPV, you're going to get what you pay for.

Unlike UFC, when you might get a 15 minute championship draw, or a 30 second knockout.

Which is what the WWE said.

If it's a good fight, people want to watch it. Yes, the main event guys are what sale the product, but the undercard is just as important. People want a good main event, but they also want good fights leading up to it. That's what separates the UFC from boxing. In the UFC, most times then not, you're going to get an undercard with names people DO know, and you're going to at least get a couple of good fights. The UFC has done a great job these past couple of years creating recognizable names.

Bullshit.

And if you were to say the same about wrestling, I'd say bullshit again. Main-Events are what sell cards, not undercard fights. Undercard matches can be fun, but they don't sell shows.

Then how come UFC's pay-per-view buys are ahead of WWE's? You can't deny the facts.

Because you only get to see them fight once every couple of months.

You only get to see Randy Coutoure fight 2 or 3 times a year. So, you pay the bigger money, and more people pay, to watch it because if you don't then, you may not get to again for a while.

But, answer me this. If UFC is better than the WWE, how come the WWE absolutely SMOKES them in terms of revenue generated from their product? Hell, I'll answer it for you. It's because the WWE can give you what boxing and UFC can't. They can give you what you pay for.

Also, what I forgot to point out about WWE claiming the UFC "scrambles" to fill out three hours, fuck... a lot of times WWE's pay-per-views end at 2 hours and 30 minutes. So, obviously, WWE is struggling way more in that department then the UFC is. But yet, you still claim there aren't flaws in what they said?

The WWE ends their PPVs at quarter till the hour. Always. With the exception of Wrestlemania, it's always 2 hours and 45 minutes, almost on the dot.

I presume this is a precautionary measure, where if something were to go wrong, they'd still have a little time to play with. However, it's NOT because the WWE scrambles to fill time, it's an executive decision to do it as such. The WWE has put on a FIVE HOUR PPV, with no scrambling before. They do three hour TV shows all the time. It's not a scramble, it's just their decision.

So, no, there are no flaws.

Eh, more like HGH, but good point nonetheless, lol.

However, it's obvious Lesnar is off that stuff now. He's no where near as ripped now as he was in WWE.

True, but it's much easier to maintain muscle mass than it is to gain it. And when you have things like steroids and HGH to help you build it, it's easy enough to get off of it and maintain the body.

Well, by "easy" I mean, requiring hours of work. But, easier than building it.

So you would just rather me start a thread claiming how ridiculous that tag line is?

Yes.

 

[FromTheSouth]

First of all, I don't think WWE is burying UFC at all. The comments about "scrambling" to fill the allotted time comes from JR's blog on his personal website. The WWE article did nothing but praise Brock Lesnar. Sure, they put themselves over in their praise of Brock, but did nothing to bury him.

If JR wants to bag on UFC, the that's his right. I think it would be better served learning names of the moves of the wrestlers he calls, but whatever.

I don't think the WWE has ever really been down on UFC. From UFC's early days, the WWE has always been, at the very least, nice to them,, and at their peak in relations, the WWE was the biggest shill UFC had. I would go onto say, that besides Dana White, the WWE was the best thing to ever happen to UFC. All the kids who were 10 and 11 when Ken Shamrock was in the WWE grew up and started checking out where he came from.