Contrivance and Negligence-Is this all there is?

[AegonTargaryen]

CAUTIONARY NOTE:- If any of you find this thread to be convoluted, boring, drab, or torturous, you may leave without replying or bothering . And no need to shower indecorous and discourteous behaviour. I can be convoluted at times I admit, and I'm opinionated about Bryan .Deal with it!

Wrestlemania XXX is around the corner, and the feeling I'm getting is-Is this all there is?

First things first.
What's with the network BS anyways? It's essentially a fucking WWE-owned youtube where Vince Mcmahon will manage to get $120 yearly from most hardcore as well as casual fans who'll think "I'm getting thousands and thousands of hours of content AND all the pay-per-views AND wrestlemania. I'm in". But, just for a minute, how the hell is WWE Network a Network if it's not on TV but you've to access it on your computers and laptops and Iphones, only to be bombarded with more WWE Trending now??

Now, the way Raw ended, I'm sure most of you marked out for Undertaker's ministry look. But, is this all the WWE creative can put together for WM XXX?

HHH vs Bryan? I don't give a fuck about Bryan, so it ends there for me. I have no concerns or desires about him winning the WWE WHC. That's the last thing I want.

Bray Wyatt vs John Cena. John Cena can die today and it won't affect me one bit, if anything I'll be like a survivor of a Decade-long WWE concentration camp wherein I was forced to see John Cena on my TV screen every fucking Raw because they thought Kurt Angle or Chris Jericho won't sell T-shirts.

I don 't know what to say about Randy Orton vs Batista. I'm not excited in the least for this story. Batista at his current age looks like a steroid aftermath.

I'm sure I'll have your consensus in that Undertaker vs Brock Lesnar is their only "big match" this year for obvious reasons and why they'll have it as a main focus every Raw leading into Wrestlemania.

But, why has the WWE become this lazy? Does it feel like WM XXX is around the corner to you guys? Can you contrast it with WM XX? How big it was? Isn't WM XXX not supposed to be tenfold bigger? What are you guys excited about? Hulk Hogan returning to promote "Hulkamania" and the WWE Network?
HHH wrestling another meaningless WM match where the result hardly matters.
The best example that WWE has been consistently failing ME(personally) and the audiences (for whatever reasons, and GODDAMNIT Daniel Bryan is not the reason) is:-
The way Daniel Bryan challenged HHH for a match at Wrestlemania is essentially the same way CM Punk did in 2011. It's EXACTLY the same. "You're a coward who hides behind his wife". Only in Punk's case, it was believable , CM Punk was a believable character/wrestler as a realistic wrestler who's always furious over the boss, be it HHH, Vince, or John Laurinaitis. And Punk was believable to beat HHH, just like he's believable to beat The Rock. Is Daniel Bryan? I'm not so sure. So basically, Bryan is doing what CM Punk did in 2011, challenge HHH using the same damn phraseology, and now it's obvious they'll wrestle at the biggest stage.
But if Bryan sucks on the mic and possesses the charisma of a Goat and is shoved down MY throat day in and day out , since better performers like Jericho and Punk left, at least do it better? Bryan just challenged HHH in a Punk-replica of a promo which again in Bryan's voice sounded contrived. Bryan's hatred and fury sounds contrived. No matter what, when Bryan is "pissed off" so to speak, he's never half as intense or fearsome as either of Kurt Angle or CM Punk . Contrived!

Reason 2:- The Undertaker's Return.
Okay it's the last week of February and Undertaker is supposed to return for his big match at WM. It's understandable that Brock Lesnar and Undertaker is a match many have anticipated for the biggest stage, ever since their infamous (kayfaybe or real) staredown at the UFC event. But, just because these two have a history, and a staredown, how does it make creative not lazy in booking the buildup the way they did?

Brock and Paul Heyman enter with a bloody contract in their hands. So now, a former UFC champion has just blindly accepted that The Authority won't give him a title match??? Where's the raged bull Brock Lesnar? So basically it's a given that Brock should come down to the ring? Fine. At least talk? But no, it's Heyman who'll always do the talking. And sure, the familiar gong. Out comes Taker looking like Uncle Fester with a beard, and the same shit as before, contriving the creepy face, deep down Brock knows how he's to play his role and he did. And then he's chokeslammed through the table .WOW.

Is this the only way to book one of the biggest matches in WM history? No talk? No reason? Brock Lesnar- I'm a beast and I don't give a fuck about the locker room nor the fans. Undertaker-I'm 21-O at wrestlemania and I've got a bone to pick with you. Thus, we at WWE are making these two Goliaths go at it at WM XXX!!! That's all???

Is this all they can do for WM XXX? What a damn debacle. Bring up all the answers, thoughts, points, hatred, venom.

 

[Wald]

Can I ask you why you bother watching WWE anymore if you, seemingly, hate everything about what goes on in the majority of shows? Don't understand how you could get through Raw if you don't give a damn about Cena, Orton, Batista or Bryan as they are the show for the most part.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

Can I ask you why you bother watching WWE anymore if you, seemingly, hate everything about what goes on in the majority of shows? Don't understand how you could get through Raw if you don't give a damn about Cena, Orton, Batista or Bryan as they are the show for the most part.

I know what you mean. Is it my fault? I grew up in the 90s and loved wrestling , especially guys like Angle, Jericho, Edge, Benoit, Guerrero. Try and be at my place. I'd watched Raw from 2005-2010, week in and week out, as long as it was not Randy Orton who's the champion, it was JOHN FUCKING CENA. week after week. Understand my hatred? Not to mention how him and The Rock ruined WM 29.

As far as why I watch? I used to watch every Raw and every SD until 2008. Now I hardly watch an entire Raw in a year, and have forgotten what SD looks like. But it's not about me or what I think. I gave my opinion. I dislike Daniel Bryan shoved down my throat week after week . To me he's nothing more than a tiny little goof running around like a clown.

The only reason I've my constantly-shattering faith in the WWE intact still is guys like The Shield, Cesaro, Jack Swagger, Dolph Ziggler, Chris Jericho-returns and Lesnar. I don't mind seeing Randy Orton, but Cena? Goddamn. But this may be my last WM, after which I'll stop checking out Raw results and wrestling news. I mean it. There's only so many times I'll watch a disappointing product and guys like CM Punk leaving.

 

[Wald]

Yeah but everyone feels that way about their era. Guys like Angle, Benoit, Edge etc. really came in to their own after the year 2002 when they were given the chance to get to the top of the card but I remember at the time loads of the IWC, me included, talking about how wrestling was now garbage and we wished we could get it back to the way it was in 1989 through 1992.

The way I dealt with it is to not be as big a fan any more. I don't watch every hour WWE puts out, sometimes miss out on watching a minute of wrestling in an entire week and only watch the major PPVs live now. It's not the same as it used to be for me but it never will be and I imagine you've pretty much reached that point too. You grew up with Benoit, Eddie, Angle and the rest in the same way I grew up with Bret, Perfect, Warrior and Rude. Think about dipping in and out and just specifically watching what you want and you might find, like me, that you begin to enjoy the product a lot more again.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

Yeah but everyone feels that way about their era. Guys like Angle, Benoit, Edge etc. really came in to their own after the year 2002 when they were given the chance to get to the top of the card but I remember at the time loads of the IWC, me included, talking about how wrestling was now garbage and we wished we could get it back to the way it was in 1989 through 1992.

The way I dealt with it is to not be as big a fan any more. I don't watch every hour WWE puts out, sometimes miss out on watching a minute of wrestling in an entire week and only watch the major PPVs live now. It's not the same as it used to be for me but it never will be and I imagine you've pretty much reached that point too. You grew up with Benoit, Eddie, Angle and the rest in the same way I grew up with Bret, Perfect, Warrior and Rude. Think about dipping in and out and just specifically watching what you want and you might find, like me, that you begin to enjoy the product a lot more again.

I agree. Thus, I said I 'd mostly be watching the development of Roman Reigns, Bray Wyatt, etc. As far as Cena, or Batista, what's the last time they changed their character or did something intriguing? Batista too is just a paycheck stealing musclehead here for money. And he's not even making efforts to improve his mic work. All he says is "Deal with it" .

 

[TheOneAndOnlyGOAT]

You seem pi$$ed lol.

Your hate for Bryan is similar to my hate for punk so I understand it.

Did you really say that punk is believable as a wrestler? Lol ok.
Punk is NOT believable as a wrestler.

Cm punk is just an angry nerd. He might be guys with muscle but no balls like Batista but in a real fight Rock, Cena, Del Rio... Could all kick his asss.

Is punk beating Henry believable? Hbk beating vader? Mysterio beating big show? Punk lifting Lesnar on his shoulders ? Absolutely not.

Because Bryan insulted HHH, you say he copy punk? Really?

Cm punk is the biggest copy cat in the world.

Rock was insulting HHH and his wife when punk was getting his first tatoos, when punk was wrestling in front of 10-20 trash people.

And at least Rock did it with style, it was funny, he didn't say lame boring crap like punk did "You're going to hide behind your wife".

How lame and pathetic.

Punk is believable as a wrestler? Hahahaha yeah. His chopstick arms strike fear in the heart of his opponents.

Cm punk doesn't look like a badasss, as much as he copies Austin, he'll never be Austin.

Austin looked like a rebel and a guy who could totally kicked your ass not a punk emo male version of Ke$ha.

Punk looks like an immature high schooler trying to pull one on their teacher in his feud with hunter, thank God he left.



As for Hogan, not excited at all. I want to be happy for his fans but like you fcking saw him for 20+ years, you saw him in his first LONG run then he made his comeback in 94 then he made another LONG run on top in wcw then he had his "final run" in 02, then another run in 03 then his "one more match"against hbk then another match with Orton in 06 and now in 14 for his "last run" smh.

I want to be happy for Hogan fans, you know the first action figures, the VHS tapes, the ice cream bars, the 80s, all the nostalgia as kids being brought back but damnn it's 2014 and we're still talking about Hogan? Really?

At least Austin or Rock didn't have a long run on top like Hogan did and they're years younger, they can come back but Hogan? Really? He's 60 YEARS OLD!!


As for taker, he looked stupid doing the facial expressions and I'm not excited at all for his match with Lesnar, extremely predictable.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

You seem pi$$ed lol.

Your hate for Bryan is similar to my hate for punk so I understand it.

Did you really say that punk is believable as a wrestler? Lol ok.
Punk is NOT believable as a wrestler.

Cm punk is just an angry nerd. He might be guys with muscle but no balls like Batista but in a real fight Rock, Cena, Del Rio... Could all kick his asss.

Is punk beating Henry believable? Hbk beating vader? Mysterio beating big show? Punk lifting Lesnar on his shoulders ? Absolutely not.

Because Bryan insulted HHH, you say he copy punk? Really?

Cm punk is the biggest copy cat in the world.

Rock was insulting HHH and his wife when punk was getting his first tatoos, when punk was wrestling in front of 10-20 trash people.

And at least Rock did it with style, it was funny, he didn't say lame boring crap like punk did "You're going to hide behind your wife".

How lame and pathetic.

Punk is believable as a wrestler? Hahahaha yeah. His chopstick arms strike fear in the heart of his opponents.

Cm punk doesn't look like a badasss, as much as he copies Austin, he'll never be Austin.

Austin looked like a rebel and a guy who could totally kicked your ass not a punk emo male version of Ke$ha.

Punk looks like an immature high schooler trying to pull one on their teacher in his feud with hunter, thank God he left.



As for Hogan, not excited at all. I want to be happy for his fans but like you fcking saw him for 20+ years, you saw him in his first LONG run then he made his comeback in 94 then he made another LONG run on top in wcw then he had his "final run" in 02, then another run in 03 then his "one more match"against hbk then another match with Orton in 06 and now in 14 for his "last run" smh.

I want to be happy for Hogan fans, you know the first action figures, the VHS tapes, the ice cream bars, the 80s, all the nostalgia as kids being brought back but damnn it's 2014 and we're still talking about Hogan? Really?

At least Austin or Rock didn't have a long run on top like Hogan did and they're years younger, they can come back but Hogan? Really? He's 60 YEARS OLD!!


As for taker, he looked stupid doing the facial expressions and I'm not excited at all for his match with Lesnar, extremely predictable.

LOL@ hogan stuff.
And I'm not going to unrealistically deny that CM Punk is a very believable wrestler when it comes to MANHANDLING guys bigger than him(except for Cena, maybe). Nor am I going to argue about who can kick who's ass in REAL LIFE/REAL FIGHT since we IWC creeps mostly deal with Fake Wrestling- the same fake wrestling where Eddie Guerrero beat Brock Lesnar, the future UFC champion using a Frog Splash, lol. Guerrero was 5'8 and his frog splash wasn't even quarter as effective as Van Dam's five star, and Van Dam's body type was legitimately powerful(with all his stretching and yoga stuff, his kicks, thigh muscles ,etc.) so his frog splash was done with ten times the intensity( I needn't even elaborate since his best frog splashes can be youtubed).

But being 6'1, or almost as tall as Cena, CM Punk has a height leverage whereas Bryan is what, 5'8? He's not as ripped as Guerrero was, and CM Punk body-slaming HHH or Cena would look like two opponents of a similar stature engaged in it, but Bryan??? And I'm not even arguing that Stature is everything because quite frankly, Kurt Angle, who was 2 inches shorter than Cena/Punk would manhandle/suplex guys like Lesnar and Big Show in triple threat matches. Angle had a machine-like intensity for a guy his stature that remains unsurpassed and unrivalled! Is Angle believable to manhandle Lesnar, HHH, Cena, or Henry? Definitely-to an extent. Is Punk? Not half as much believable to manhandle Lesnar as Angle. But Bryan? Bryan is just too tiny to be believable in that vein. So was Guerrero. They're both underdogs who're meant to use different moves just to keep opponents down and work on their arm/leg, etc. Another factor is that Bryan is not a believable champion- will never be. It just comes with the fact that he's 5'8. I know it's tragic but it's true. In the world of Pro Wrestling , you can't put a guy who's 5'8 with men of 6'1-6'4 being the NORM. That includes everybody basically from Punk, Michaels, Lesnar, Cena, HHH, Rock ,Austin, Mankind... The only exception was Kurt Angle, and Chris Benoit, but only Kurt Angle was a true main-eventer in the WWE long-term (his WM classics with Lesnar and HBK to cite as an example), whereas Benoit was just given 2004 as his year.

Does CM Punk look like a badass? He doesn't need to. Neither did Shawn Michaels, or Bret Hart. Not EVERY world-title wrestler will look as intimidating and forbidding as Brock Lesnar or John Cena. CM Punk was fine, neither too hot nor too bad. It has a lot to do with his height/weight. If 5'8 wrestlers should be beating around guys like HHH, Orton, or Cena, then you may as well invite AJ Styles, Daniels, Austin Aries, and Chris Sabin to wrestle and beat them on pay-per-views.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

Be honest.....you are HIM aren't you..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvXRoe3vui0

Hahaha hilarious. I'm not that fat kid, for which I'm very sorry to disappoint your hopes. I did not make an effort to watch that video as I don't like wasting my bandwidth on stupidity. I'm pretty sure you'll find dozens and dozens of both fat and skinny kids around the internet, especially on youtube whining over WWE product and all. I for one choose the medium of Text to express my opinions and thoughts, and don't see any reason to upload damn youtube videos.

 

[TheOneAndOnlyGOAT]

Does CM Punk look like a badass? He doesn't need to. Neither did Shawn Michaels, or Bret Hart. Not EVERY world-title wrestler will look as intimidating and forbidding as Brock Lesnar or John Cena. CM Punk was fine, neither too hot nor too bad. It has a lot to do with his height/weight. If 5'8 wrestlers should be beating around guys like HHH, Orton, or Cena, then you may as well invite AJ Styles, Daniels, Austin Aries, and Chris Sabin to wrestle and beat them on pay-per-views.

Yeah but Bryan is portrayed as an underdog babyface, CM Punk was portrayed as a badasss babyface.

Kevin Nash needing security to protect him from punk? Really? Really?

Or Punk beating The Shield 3 on 1? WTF? Why? Isn't Roman Reigns supposed to be the next BIG star?

Imagine if Austin in 97 or Rock in 98 or Lesnar in 02 or even Cena in 04 losing with two guys to a cruiserweight / light heavyweight?


I admit, Bryan brawling with a guy like Kane looks extremely unrealistic but I don't know, I like Bryan.

For example, Punk doing the GTS (lifting some wrestlers on his shoulders looks unrealistic) but most Bryan's moves are kicks and high flying moves, they don't look that unrealistic.


HBK became a star as well and he wasn't big. When he was in the late 80s / early 90s he was the smallest wrestler but he became a star.

I think it's a similar situation here with Bryan.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

Yeah but Bryan is portrayed as an underdog babyface, CM Punk was portrayed as a badasss babyface.

Kevin Nash needing security to protect him from punk? Really? Really?

Or Punk beating The Shield 3 on 1? WTF? Why? Isn't Roman Reigns supposed to be the next BIG star?

Imagine if Austin in 97 or Rock in 98 or Lesnar in 02 or even Cena in 04 losing with two guys to a cruiserweight / light heavyweight?


I admit, Bryan brawling with a guy like Kane looks extremely unrealistic but I don't know, I like Bryan.

For example, Punk doing the GTS (lifting some wrestlers on his shoulders looks unrealistic) but most Bryan's moves are kicks and high flying moves, they don't look that unrealistic.


HBK became a star as well and he wasn't big. When he was in the late 80s / early 90s he was the smallest wrestler but he became a star.

I think it's a similar situation here with Bryan.

No it's not a similar situation. HBK became a star and a main-eventer because Hogan left with all the steroid scandal thing and the WWF wanted to change their outlook and image and this was from 1994 onwards with Bret Hart becoming the WWF champion, and HBK looked quite amazing and ripped and if I'm not mistaken was exactly an inch taller than Bret Hart@ 6ft 1. Obviously, throughout the ages there have been champions of different heights/builds but whom would you rather be WWE champion? Vader or HBK/Bret Hart? Kurt Angle, or Rey Mysterio? Batista, or Eddie Guerrero(SD 2005), Randy Orton, or Daniel Bryan? The answer is obvious. Stature MATTERS. Daniel Bryan is very unfortunate because he's not even 5'10 or 5'11 like Angle, nor possess half the mic skills of Guerrero, or intensity of Benoit/Angle. Quite simply, Bryan is NOT main event material for all these aforesaid factors. HBK? HBK is the greatest over-all in-ring performer of the 90s. He had it all, charisma, mic skills, passion, unpredictability , in-ring skills. And good looks? Bret Hart on the other hand was a great wrestler and will always be, but lagged behind Michaels in certain areas, however I think of themselves as 2 different sorts of Wrestlers and characters, j ust as Rock and Austin are. You can't measure either's achievements or performances using the other as a measuring stick. So no, HBK did not represent a "small-guy champion" in an era of Big-guy wrestlers because the company by then had a different philosophy. And Austin wasn't exactly a musclehead or a steroid freak either but just a tall, averagely built Texan who did look like a badass who'd kick your ass regardless if you're a Gym rat such as HHH.

 

[TheOneAndOnlyGOAT]

No it's not a similar situation. HBK became a star and a main-eventer because Hogan left with all the steroid scandal thing and the WWF wanted to change their outlook and image and this was from 1994 onwards with Bret Hart becoming the WWF champion, and HBK looked quite amazing and ripped and if I'm not mistaken was exactly an inch taller than Bret Hart@ 6ft 1. .

Yeah but Bret had about 20 pounds more than hbk in their prime.

And WWF wanted to change their image? Isn't that what they're doing right now after the Benoit steroid and suicide scandal?

Obviously, throughout the ages there have been champions of different heights/builds but whom would you rather be WWE champion? Vader or HBK/Bret Hart? Kurt Angle, or Rey Mysterio? Batista, or Eddie Guerrero(SD 2005), Randy Orton, or Daniel Bryan?

Actually I prefer Hart over Vader, Eddie definitely over Tista, and Bryan over Orton, Orton is just boring, he didn't change a d@mn thing since fcking 2008.

Only thing he changed is calling himself "The Apex Predator" instead of "The Viper". I hate how they do in the storyline "We want the old viper back", I want to see something new not the same exact thing.

Bryan is NOT main event material for all these aforesaid factors. HBK? HBK is the greatest over-all in-ring performer of the 90s. He had it all, charisma, mic skills, passion, unpredictability , in-ring skills.

Whoaa whoaa HBK had mic skills? Lmfao. Michaels was always trash on the mic, sorry.

Unpredictability? No. HBK always sucked as a babyface, his whole run in 96 was an absolute flop.

I hated it. The whole cinderella story "the boyhood dream" storyline was trash, terrible, just terrible.

HBK during that year, used backstage politics to bury Vader. What a little b!tch.

He was being portrayed as a fan favorite and was acting like the biggest b!tch on the planet.

nWo were ruling the wrestling world when Cindy was having his "WWF title run".

So no, HBK did not represent a "small-guy champion" in an era of Big-guy wrestlers because the company by then had a different philosophy.

There was Diesel, The Undertaker, Yokozuna, Lex Luger, Razor Ramon, Sycho Sid, Vader...

HBK was smaller than pretty much everyone in his era.

Right now, the majority of the wrestlers are light heavyweights, it's nothing like in the past.

And Austin wasn't exactly a musclehead or a steroid freak either but just a tall, averagely built Texan who did look like a badass who'd kick your ass regardless if you're a Gym rat such as HHH.

WHAT?

Look at Austin's arms and physique in that pic then compare it to Punk.

Austin was a beer swelling bald redneck with a goatee that wears black vest, black trunks and black shoes.

Austin also had the charisma to pull off the badasss gimmick, punk doesn't.

It just worked with Austin.

Also, you can't expect people to consider punk a badasss when he's using moves like the suicide dive, imagine Austin using a high flying move?

 

[AegonTargaryen]

Whoaa whoaa HBK had mic skills? Lmfao. Michaels was always trash on the mic, sorry.

Unpredictability? No. HBK always sucked as a babyface, his whole run in 96 was an absolute flop.

I hated it. The whole cinderella story "the boyhood dream" storyline was trash, terrible, just terrible.

HBK during that year, used backstage politics to bury Vader. What a little b!tch.

He was being portrayed as a fan favorite and was acting like the biggest b!tch on the planet.

nWo were ruling the wrestling world when Cindy was having his "WWF title run".

There was Diesel, The Undertaker, Yokozuna, Lex Luger, Razor Ramon, Sycho Sid, Vader...

HBK was smaller than pretty much everyone in his era.

Right now, the majority of the wrestlers are light heavyweights, it's nothing like in the past.

If you refuse to believe that Shawn Michaels-the legend did not possess mic skills and was one of the best talkers besides Flair, Punk, Jericho, etc. Then NOTHING I or anyone else says can change that because that's like someone saying Rock didn't have Charisma, or Austin was a bum. Anyways moving on.

You mention "Diesel, The Undertaker, Yokozuna, Lex Luger, Razor Ramon, Sycho Sid, Vader... " but are refusing to understand that only Undertaker and Psycho Sid out of these won the WWF championship(in 1997) whereas the others left for WCW, and Yokozuna? The last time he was in the WWF championship pic was during Hogan's time in 1993. We're talking POST-Hogan here. No Kevin Nash no Razor Ramon. The WWF had nobody besides Bret Hart and Michaels to trade the title, and also Undertaker. But this was an era of Michaels and Hart simply, until Austin 3.16 Era which begun at WM 14.

And right now majority are "light heavyweights" ? You mean Cena, Orton, Swagger, Cesaro, Batista, Lesnar, Mark Henry, Big E, Roman Reigns..are all light heavyweights? This isn't 1990s or an era characterized by "weights". Today's WWE environment is much more multi-dimensional than 1994. You've got Bray Wyatt who's bulky, Cena who's a musclehead, Daniel Bryan who's a tiny technical wrestler, Roman Reigns who's the best-looking beastly body today, Orton who's as ripped and defined as ever, and I won't comment on Batista. And you've got guys like Rollins and Ambrose who're quite in the middle of the light heavyweight-heavyweight scale.

And this is Austin-the not so ripped and never-was a musclehead Austin in 2000:-

This is HHH- That's what a musclehead or a defined physique looks like, not a beer-swollen body like Austin's

 

[TheOneAndOnlyGOAT]

If you refuse to believe that Shawn Michaels-the legend did not possess mic skills and was one of the best talkers besides Flair, Punk, Jericho, etc. Then NOTHING I or anyone else says can change that because that's like someone saying Rock didn't have Charisma, or Austin was a bum. Anyways moving on.

You mention "Diesel, The Undertaker, Yokozuna, Lex Luger, Razor Ramon, Sycho Sid, Vader... " but are refusing to understand that only Undertaker and Psycho Sid out of these won the WWF championship(in 1997) whereas the others left for WCW, and Yokozuna? The last time he was in the WWF championship pic was during Hogan's time in 1993. We're talking POST-Hogan here. No Kevin Nash no Razor Ramon. The WWF had nobody besides Bret Hart and Michaels to trade the title, and also Undertaker. But this was an era of Michaels and Hart simply, until Austin 3.16 Era which begun at WM 14.

And right now majority are "light heavyweights" ? You mean Cena, Orton, Swagger, Cesaro, Batista, Lesnar, Mark Henry, Big E, Roman Reigns..are all light heavyweights? This isn't 1990s or an era characterized by "weights". Today's WWE environment is much more multi-dimensional than 1994. You've got Bray Wyatt who's bulky, Cena who's a musclehead, Daniel Bryan who's a tiny technical wrestler, Roman Reigns who's the best-looking beastly body today, Orton who's as ripped and defined as ever, and I won't comment on Batista. And you've got guys like Rollins and Ambrose who're quite in the middle of the light heavyweight-heavyweight scale.

And this is Austin-the not so ripped and never-was a musclehead Austin in 2000:-

This is HHH- That's what a musclehead or a defined physique looks like, not a beer-swollen body like Austin's

Austin ALWAYS had a waaaaaaaaay better physique than skinny fat asss punk.

Shawn Michaels was NEVER a good talker, NEVER.

His mic work is extremely average. That was always his weak point and the fact that people say that he's a good talker is an absolute joke.

He was always AVERAGE AT BEST on the mic.

You mentioned those big guys but there are a lot of cruiserweight / light heavyweights in the roster, more than big guys which wasn't the case 20 years ago:

Daniel Bryan, CM Punk, Dolph Ziggler, Seth Rollins, The Miz, Kofi Kingston, Darren Young, The Usos, R-Truth and Xavier Woods, Cody Rhodes, Los Matadores, Sin Cara, Rey Mysterio...

 

[enviousdominous]

CAUTIONARY NOTE:- If any of you find this thread to be convoluted, boring, drab, or torturous, you may leave without replying or bothering . And no need to shower indecorous and discourteous behaviour. I can be convoluted at times I admit, and I'm opinionated about Bryan .Deal with it!

You know what dude, you seem to indulge in whatever misery you can make up for yourself. It's okay, you probably have an undiagnosed case of Asperger's syndrome.

CAUTIONARY NOTE:- If I find this thread to be convoluted, boring, drab, or torturous, I may present a plausible explanation as to why I feel that way for the sake of debate. It's what intelligent people do.

Wrestlemania XXX is around the corner, and the feeling I'm getting is-Is this all there is?

Annnnnd, Wrestlemania 29 impressed you? What was your favorite match? Mark Henry vs Ryback or Y2J jobbing to Fandango?

As opposed to making a series of points regarding who should be used in what capacity, you're just here to shit on every performer's potential and use their lack of an ability to impress you as your only means of backing up your bullshit. Asking rhetorical questions doesn't validate your misery.

First things first.
What's with the network BS anyways? It's essentially a fucking WWE-owned youtube where Vince Mcmahon will manage to get $120 yearly from most hardcore as well as casual fans who'll think "I'm getting thousands and thousands of hours of content AND all the pay-per-views AND wrestlemania. I'm in". But, just for a minute, how the hell is WWE Network a Network if it's not on TV but you've to access it on your computers and laptops and Iphones, only to be bombarded with more WWE Trending now??

Was the network wrestling at Wrestlemania XXX? Oh wait, it's a network and has nothing to do with the card at Wrestlemania. Yeah, umm. I'm no fan of the idea of the WWE Network, I'm also not a fan of how you're using your opinion of it in a way that flaunts your perspective and in no way relates on how it's either contrived or an example of negligence. Just because it doesn't fit your unique definition of "network" doesn't mean that it's any less of what hardcore fans will expect. They'll get their PPV fix, and you'll be moaning about how anything bearing the name "network" without being a tv network can't possibly be enjoyed.

Now, the way Raw ended, I'm sure most of you marked out for Undertaker's ministry look. But, is this all the WWE creative can put together for WM XXX?

Umm. Yeah, you obviously hated the ending. You hate anything that prompts a "Was that it?" reaction from you. We all get that. Was it good enough for me? Sure. Brock sold the moment well and the crowd loved it, for tv it worked as a means of hyping their match at Wrestlemania. Maybe you would have preferred the hype to occur sooner, but you'll never make any of that clear because you're too busy asking your "Was that it?" bullshit.

HHH vs Bryan? I don't give a fuck about Bryan, so it ends there for me. I have no concerns or desires about him winning the WWE WHC. That's the last thing I want.

Again, you're trying to plant a seed of an idea in our heads that your repertoire of book smarts is beyond that of most random losers who use this forum as a social crutch by suggesting that everything within this thread relates to "Contrivance and Negligence". You don't like Daniel Bryan, that's fine, it's a free country. If you didn't give a fuck about him, then you wouldn't have made a comment about him. If you had a rational opinion to share about your dislike of Daniel Bryan, then we'd have something to debate. Instead you choose to display how immature you are by brain farting the most ignorant case of cognitive dissonance I've ever seen.

Bray Wyatt vs John Cena. John Cena can die today and it won't affect me one bit, if anything I'll be like a survivor of a Decade-long WWE concentration camp wherein I was forced to see John Cena on my TV screen every fucking Raw because they thought Kurt Angle or Chris Jericho won't sell T-shirts.

You know what kid, I'm probably the last person who should be telling someone else that they should cool it on the negative metaphors regarding their John Cena experience. I've claimed to have been "forced" to watch John Cena as often as I've allowed myself to watch him, which isn't very much. Your opinion regarding the implications of John possibly putting over Mike Rotunda's kid is "John Cena can die". Adorable.

I don 't know what to say about Randy Orton vs Batista. I'm not excited in the least for this story. Batista at his current age looks like a steroid aftermath.

Of course you know what to say. Just go ahead and pinch off another "Is that all there is?" rhetorical question. Your thoughts go kind of like the ending to The Sopranos. You make an odd comparison with Batista and then... that's all you had to offer in terms of justifying calling the encounter "contrived" or "negligent". Your shit comparison is contrived in that you took the obvious route of relating his physique to steroid use and then forced "aftermath" into the description for lack of a more constructive criticism of his demeanor, it's negligent in that after you admit that you literally have no thoughts that are even good enough for your own standards you're still willing to shart one out if only to listen to yourself type.

I'm sure I'll have your consensus in that Undertaker vs Brock Lesnar is their only "big match" this year for obvious reasons and why they'll have it as a main focus every Raw leading into Wrestlemania.

Yeah, it's a big match. I'd love to discuss the obvious reasons for why it's such a big match, only this thread was supposed to question why it's so contrived and negligent.

But, why has the WWE become this lazy? Does it feel like WM XXX is around the corner to you guys? Can you contrast it with WM XX? How big it was? Isn't WM XXX not supposed to be tenfold bigger? What are you guys excited about? Hulk Hogan returning to promote "Hulkamania" and the WWE Network?
HHH wrestling another meaningless WM match where the result hardly matters.
The best example that WWE has been consistently failing ME(personally) and the audiences (for whatever reasons, and GODDAMNIT Daniel Bryan is not the reason) is:-
The way Daniel Bryan challenged HHH for a match at Wrestlemania is essentially the same way CM Punk did in 2011. It's EXACTLY the same. "You're a coward who hides behind his wife". Only in Punk's case, it was believable , CM Punk was a believable character/wrestler as a realistic wrestler who's always furious over the boss, be it HHH, Vince, or John Laurinaitis. And Punk was believable to beat HHH, just like he's believable to beat The Rock. Is Daniel Bryan? I'm not so sure. So basically, Bryan is doing what CM Punk did in 2011, challenge HHH using the same damn phraseology, and now it's obvious they'll wrestle at the biggest stage.
But if Bryan sucks on the mic and possesses the charisma of a Goat and is shoved down MY throat day in and day out , since better performers like Jericho and Punk left, at least do it better? Bryan just challenged HHH in a Punk-replica of a promo which again in Bryan's voice sounded contrived. Bryan's hatred and fury sounds contrived. No matter what, when Bryan is "pissed off" so to speak, he's never half as intense or fearsome as either of Kurt Angle or CM Punk . Contrived!

Ahh, here we go. You think that by the storyline Daniel Bryan has no reason to be upset with HHH, and thus his promo seemed very contrived for occurring arbitrarily. You haven't explained your hatred for Daniel Bryan beyond the adverse notion that you don't give a fuck about him, I don't see any reason to take you at your word when you decide that Daniel Bryan behaves in a contrived manner. Your ass interpretation of how someone might have behaved in a contrived manner doesn't explain what the WWE could have done to make Wrestlemania XXX more impressive for you.

Reason 2:- The Undertaker's Return.
Okay it's the last week of February and Undertaker is supposed to return for his big match at WM. It's understandable that Brock Lesnar and Undertaker is a match many have anticipated for the biggest stage, ever since their infamous (kayfaybe or real) staredown at the UFC event. But, just because these two have a history, and a staredown, how does it make creative not lazy in booking the buildup the way they did?

How does it make you not lazy in that all you did was describe a few moments from history and then ask another fucking stupid rhetorical question. Explain what the fuck you mean. The burden isn't on the WWE to please a malcontent sack of misery like you, the burden is on you to put in detail what the fuck it would take to please you and then see if anyone relates to it.

Brock and Paul Heyman enter with a bloody contract in their hands. So now, a former UFC champion has just blindly accepted that The Authority won't give him a title match??? Where's the raged bull Brock Lesnar? So basically it's a given that Brock should come down to the ring? Fine. At least talk? But no, it's Heyman who'll always do the talking. And sure, the familiar gong. Out comes Taker looking like Uncle Fester with a beard, and the same shit as before, contriving the creepy face, deep down Brock knows how he's to play his role and he did. And then he's chokeslammed through the table .WOW.

Yeah, Heyman does the talking. You might use it as yet another fucking excuse to bitch like an obnoxious geek, but it works for the rest of us. Brock Lesnar isn't a very good talker, Paul Heyman is an excellent orator.

Do you realize how fucking stupid you sound when you call something contrived? I don't know if you know this, but the entire show is contrived. Everyone on the show is behaving in ways that are performed based on a previous understanding of what was supposed to happen. The Undertaker does his "creepy face" because that's his fucking gimmick you mother fucking imbecile. I'm sure if it would have pleased a fucking ****** like you, he would have come out in his street clothes and read a fucking newspaper. They perform in contrived ways because that's the fucking show you're supposedly a fan of, a pretty fucking stupid one obviously.

Is this the only way to book one of the biggest matches in WM history? No talk? No reason? Brock Lesnar- I'm a beast and I don't give a fuck about the locker room nor the fans. Undertaker-I'm 21-O at wrestlemania and I've got a bone to pick with you. Thus, we at WWE are making these two Goliaths go at it at WM XXX!!! That's all???

Oh good fucking grief, you are so fucking stupid. Brock Lesnar is a character in the WWE that is hyped as an unstoppable monster, The Undertaker is a character in the WWE that has a win streak at Wrestlemania. That's all that they need, that is an adequate amount of hype. If you have an idea for how it could have been presented better, FUCKING SHARE IT!!

Is this all they can do for WM XXX? What a damn debacle. Bring up all the answers, thoughts, points, hatred, venom.

All you did was sit there and type your disappointment without offering a way for the WWE to impress you. You don't want to be impressed, you're a compulsively disappointed jackass who's trying to bait someone less intelligent than you into disagreeing with you. This entire fucking post was contrived, if you had a reason for any of your negative bullshit you would have shared it. Either you're too stupid to explain what you mean, or you really don't know why in the fuck your brain draws such fucking stupid conclusions and it's just easier to rap away on your keyboard so the only social judgement you'll face is with words on a screen.

Honestly, you make a great case for the rest of us to watch and enjoy Wrestlemania XXX if you're going on the record to say that you wouldn't enjoy it.

 

[JoeMallard]

Or Punk beating The Shield 3 on 1? WTF? Why? Isn't Roman Reigns supposed to be the next BIG star?

Oh yeah and who helped Reigns get where he is today...PUNK! If The Shield were put into that match with someone like Kane, it would not have the same effect. Punk was the number two guy in the company. Who gave Reigns the push he needs to make it to the top? Punk beat every other member of The Shield, except for Reigns. The number two guy in the company lets one of the future of the company go over him does a lot more than you think. As much as you hate Punk, there is no denying that fact!

 

[AegonTargaryen]

You know what dude, you seem to indulge in whatever misery you can make up for yourself. It's okay, you probably have an undiagnosed case of Asperger's syndrome.

CAUTIONARY NOTE:- If I find this thread to be convoluted, boring, drab, or torturous, I may present a plausible explanation as to why I feel that way for the sake of debate. It's what intelligent people do.



Annnnnd, Wrestlemania 29 impressed you? What was your favorite match? Mark Henry vs Ryback or Y2J jobbing to Fandango?

As opposed to making a series of points regarding who should be used in what capacity, you're just here to shit on every performer's potential and use their lack of an ability to impress you as your only means of backing up your bullshit. Asking rhetorical questions doesn't validate your misery.



Was the network wrestling at Wrestlemania XXX? Oh wait, it's a network and has nothing to do with the card at Wrestlemania. Yeah, umm. I'm no fan of the idea of the WWE Network, I'm also not a fan of how you're using your opinion of it in a way that flaunts your perspective and in no way relates on how it's either contrived or an example of negligence. Just because it doesn't fit your unique definition of "network" doesn't mean that it's any less of what hardcore fans will expect. They'll get their PPV fix, and you'll be moaning about how anything bearing the name "network" without being a tv network can't possibly be enjoyed.



Umm. Yeah, you obviously hated the ending. You hate anything that prompts a "Was that it?" reaction from you. We all get that. Was it good enough for me? Sure. Brock sold the moment well and the crowd loved it, for tv it worked as a means of hyping their match at Wrestlemania. Maybe you would have preferred the hype to occur sooner, but you'll never make any of that clear because you're too busy asking your "Was that it?" bullshit.



Again, you're trying to plant a seed of an idea in our heads that your repertoire of book smarts is beyond that of most random losers who use this forum as a social crutch by suggesting that everything within this thread relates to "Contrivance and Negligence". You don't like Daniel Bryan, that's fine, it's a free country. If you didn't give a fuck about him, then you wouldn't have made a comment about him. If you had a rational opinion to share about your dislike of Daniel Bryan, then we'd have something to debate. Instead you choose to display how immature you are by brain farting the most ignorant case of cognitive dissonance I've ever seen.



You know what kid, I'm probably the last person who should be telling someone else that they should cool it on the negative metaphors regarding their John Cena experience. I've claimed to have been "forced" to watch John Cena as often as I've allowed myself to watch him, which isn't very much. Your opinion regarding the implications of John possibly putting over Mike Rotunda's kid is "John Cena can die". Adorable.



Of course you know what to say. Just go ahead and pinch off another "Is that all there is?" rhetorical question. Your thoughts go kind of like the ending to The Sopranos. You make an odd comparison with Batista and then... that's all you had to offer in terms of justifying calling the encounter "contrived" or "negligent". Your shit comparison is contrived in that you took the obvious route of relating his physique to steroid use and then forced "aftermath" into the description for lack of a more constructive criticism of his demeanor, it's negligent in that after you admit that you literally have no thoughts that are even good enough for your own standards you're still willing to shart one out if only to listen to yourself type.



Yeah, it's a big match. I'd love to discuss the obvious reasons for why it's such a big match, only this thread was supposed to question why it's so contrived and negligent.



Ahh, here we go. You think that by the storyline Daniel Bryan has no reason to be upset with HHH, and thus his promo seemed very contrived for occurring arbitrarily. You haven't explained your hatred for Daniel Bryan beyond the adverse notion that you don't give a fuck about him, I don't see any reason to take you at your word when you decide that Daniel Bryan behaves in a contrived manner. Your ass interpretation of how someone might have behaved in a contrived manner doesn't explain what the WWE could have done to make Wrestlemania XXX more impressive for you.



How does it make you not lazy in that all you did was describe a few moments from history and then ask another fucking stupid rhetorical question. Explain what the fuck you mean. The burden isn't on the WWE to please a malcontent sack of misery like you, the burden is on you to put in detail what the fuck it would take to please you and then see if anyone relates to it.



Yeah, Heyman does the talking. You might use it as yet another fucking excuse to bitch like an obnoxious geek, but it works for the rest of us. Brock Lesnar isn't a very good talker, Paul Heyman is an excellent orator.

Do you realize how fucking stupid you sound when you call something contrived? I don't know if you know this, but the entire show is contrived. Everyone on the show is behaving in ways that are performed based on a previous understanding of what was supposed to happen. The Undertaker does his "creepy face" because that's his fucking gimmick you mother fucking imbecile. I'm sure if it would have pleased a fucking ****** like you, he would have come out in his street clothes and read a fucking newspaper. They perform in contrived ways because that's the fucking show you're supposedly a fan of, a pretty fucking stupid one obviously.



Oh good fucking grief, you are so fucking stupid. Brock Lesnar is a character in the WWE that is hyped as an unstoppable monster, The Undertaker is a character in the WWE that has a win streak at Wrestlemania. That's all that they need, that is an adequate amount of hype. If you have an idea for how it could have been presented better, FUCKING SHARE IT!!



All you did was sit there and type your disappointment without offering a way for the WWE to impress you. You don't want to be impressed, you're a compulsively disappointed jackass who's trying to bait someone less intelligent than you into disagreeing with you. This entire fucking post was contrived, if you had a reason for any of your negative bullshit you would have shared it. Either you're too stupid to explain what you mean, or you really don't know why in the fuck your brain draws such fucking stupid conclusions and it's just easier to rap away on your keyboard so the only social judgement you'll face is with words on a screen.

Honestly, you make a great case for the rest of us to watch and enjoy Wrestlemania XXX if you're going on the record to say that you wouldn't enjoy it.

You're a miscreant given to anger, Vain and full of ire, in rage hasty as fire. Until you summon up some courtesy and decorum, try to battle your temptations to invariably reply to my threads like that nasty child with anger management issues.