KB Answers Wrestling Questions

[Lee]

So he was never in the Royal Rumble match itself?

 

[klunderbunker]

Not that I'm aware of no.

 

[Khalifa]

It does to a degree but if you haven't noticed, they're intentionally implying that it WON'T be Roman, which makes it clear that it will be him.

Yeah I noticed and I won't be disappointed by that outcome. I'm just impressed by the way they've gone about it and potentially setting up feuds between the 3 after Mania with some story already invested. A lot different to Bryan vs Reigns at Fastlane last year.

 

[Coco]

Level of interest in Fastlane?

 

[klunderbunker]

On a scale of one to Bret Hart, I'll go Bruce.

 

[The Fabulous Rougeau's]

Any reason in particular Hogan was not apart of Slamboree 96? After winning that cage match against the alliance at Uncensored he had a few matches against guys like Sullivan and Anderson and then disappeared.

 

[klunderbunker]

He had a set number of dates in his contract so he took the time off.

 

[justinsayne]

When was the last time Dolph actually stole the show?

 

[The Fabulous Rougeau's]

He had a set number of dates in his contract so he took the time off.

Any reason given storyline wise?

 

[klunderbunker]

When was the last time Dolph actually stole the show?

.....the night he cashed in Money in the Bank?

Any reason given storyline wise?

Not off the top of my head.

 

[Coco]

What's the angriest you've ever been at a shitty booking decision?

 

[klunderbunker]

Either Ryder getting buried or Punk losing to HHH in 2011 which somehow led to HHH vs. Nash.

 

[Coco]

Good choices.

 

[FunKay the Inevitable]

So there are conspiracy theories going around that in order to stem a 'tide of anger' that some fans over Reigns winning, WWE officially announced Nakamura signing and all the bells and whistles that go with that.

Maybe I'm just jaded by internet fans but, what anger? The result last night was greeted with indiffierence and apathy and people moaning on the internet is hardly anything new to WWE. Is this just an extention of the 'If XYZ Wins We Riot Complain Bitterly on the Internet'?

 

[The Fabulous Rougeau's]

What would be some of the highlights from WCW (matches and storylines) in the time period from Hogan's arrival up to the formation of the NWO?

Also, judging from your responses I think it's safe to say you weren't a fan of the company around this time period. How would you compare the product WCW was putting out around this time to that ofthe WWE? Was one clearly better or worse than the other?

 

[klunderbunker]

So there are conspiracy theories going around that in order to stem a 'tide of anger' that some fans over Reigns winning, WWE officially announced Nakamura signing and all the bells and whistles that go with that.

Maybe I'm just jaded by internet fans but, what anger? The result last night was greeted with indiffierence and apathy and people moaning on the internet is hardly anything new to WWE. Is this just an extention of the 'If XYZ Wins We Riot Complain Bitterly on the Internet'?

I'm thinking no on that one as like you said, this was obviously coming.

What would be some of the highlights from WCW (matches and storylines) in the time period from Hogan's arrival up to the formation of the NWO?

Also, judging from your responses I think it's safe to say you weren't a fan of the company around this time period. How would you compare the product WCW was putting out around this time to that ofthe WWE? Was one clearly better or worse than the other?

There aren't a lot in there. Hogan vs. Flair is always good but the stories are really lame. Maybe some of the TV Title stuff if you're into a slower pace. Savage vs. Luger isn't bad either.

As bad as it was, WCW was way better than the WWF. The WWF was just horrible at this point with Diesel killing the company and Vince trying to stay out of prison.

 

[Coco]

Aside from SmackDown and stuff that gets taped ahead of time, do you really think WWE is constantly messing with the audio and crowd reactions?

I've always seen this as a silly conspiracy theory.

 

[klunderbunker]

I'm not sure actually. I rarely pay attention to that sort of stuff though.

 

[Coco]

They're so sloppy and obvious on the taped shows that it seems improbable they could fuck with the live ones without a smart person like you noticing.

Fair assessment?

 

[klunderbunker]

Possibly, if I ever paid attention.

 

[Coco]

RUMBLINGZ~! have something major going down on Raw tonight.

Prediction?

 

[klunderbunker]

Probably Taker Mania announcement.

 

[Khalifa]

So why does Brock want to kill Ambrose exactly. I thought Brock only cared about the world title, atleast that's what Heyman was making it out to be like the last few months. So the Wyatts eliminate him in the Rumble and Reigns takes away his only shot of getting the gold anytime soon and Brock is mad at Ambrose who clearly showed he can't touch Brock without Roman or a chair. Am I just being a dick for thinking like that?

Is it fair enough to never care about the Wyatts again? WWE don't even give these guys 50/50 booking.

Do you think Shane v's Taker at Mania is actually a good way to make an Undertaker match a big thing again ( like streak wise) without even focusing on Taker? People were saying there really wasn't much to last years Taker match as the legend had died and they were really going off nothing, this year though you kinda get those last ten years of Takers Mania streak feeling but WWE are subliminally doing it, atleast I feel that way

 

[klunderbunker]

The commandment: thou shalt not intentionally provoke the wrath of Brock Lesnar.

I'm reaching that point.

Nah. I'm still not sure that match actually happens.

 

[MrHashasheen]

So... why does the prospect of Shane wrestling at Mania mean anything good? I mean, it's nice to see him, he's not been around since like 2009 or something, but I'm not seeing the appeal of him getting the Undertaker match.

Am I missing something, or is this just a generational thing between older fans and newer ones?