You said he looked good physically.
He did.
I said he was huffing and puffing.
And I clearly said "ring-wise." That would mean doing things, ya know, inside of the ring, such as running, punching, kicking, and all of the other things wrestlers do... inside of the ring.
Not being in cardio shape = not looking good physically.
It does? I don't think so. Look at Samoa Joe's fat ass. Think he can't go 20 minutes? He can. Looking fit and having great cardio do not always go hand in hand.
Unless you just meant he was aesthetically pleasing then sure. Although he was wearing a shirt and jean shorts so I'm not sure how much you can tell from that.
1. He was wearing pants, not jean shorts.
2. Did you see his arms? They were freakin' shredded. The guy is in good enough shape,
aesthetically, and that leads me to believe (like any clear thinking human being) he could easily be ready to go by April of next year, at least enough so to have a brawl with Vinny Mac.
He looked out of shape to me.
Have your eyes checked, sooner as opposed to later.
Yes, Rock is a nostalgia play, but there is a proper way to do that. That is, putting over the next generation.
John Cena doesn't
need The Rock to put him over, he's been the face of the company for at least five years. Also, it's not like this is really moving Cena forward. It's not like beating Rock is going to change hearts and minds. If they already like him, they will after WM 28. If they already hate him, beating Rock won't do him any favors with that portion of the crowd. Why are they doing it? Cena vs. Rock is good
for the company, same would go for another Austin vs. McMahon feud/match.
You don't have the past win and you don't put past vs past unless it's like McMahon vs Hart.
This would be exactly like Hart vs. McMahon, except for, A. Austin can still get in there and get it done, and B. Austin/McMahon is all kayfabe, where Hart/McMahon was real. Those are the only differences. Hart/McMahon worked because people cared about that feud. People still care about McMahon/Austin, therefore it's good for business.
I compare wanting Vince vs Stone Cold to WCW because it wouldn't further anything.
It would draw money, plain and simple. Not every, single thing done in professional wrestling needs to move something/someone forward. Some things happen in hopes of putting on a good show (and making money).
After the match then want.
Austin goes back to making shitty movies? Vince officially retires the Mr. McMahon character? Who knows,
who cares, it's fun stuff.
It's not foreward thinking.
Again, every little thing they decide to do doesn't need to revolve around the future. It's not like the main event is Austin vs. Rock for the title, or something like that. You're overreacting, big time.
WCW,
again? Just drop this. WCW died for several reasons. Shitty, nostalgic booking turned people off, but only after several years of doing so, and creating absolutely no superstars (outside of Goldberg) in the process. Again, you're overreacting.
You can say "one match isn't the same as booking your whole year on nostalgia" all you want but the bottom line is booking for nostalgia and booking 2 old guys against each other does nobody any good.
Actually, it does. Next to Andre and Hogan, it's probably the biggest, most important feud in the history of professional wrestling. It sunk WCW, brought the WWF back to life, and all of this took place during the most successful era in the history of the business.
Those
two old guys would still put on one hell of a show, and it's a show people would care about.
Vince wants 1 Million buys for WrestleMania 28. Why not stack the card with whatever draws the most money? And in the process, introduce your current product to fans who haven't been watching over the last few years. It's good business.
It's like putting those ridiculous huge rims on a shitty car.
Wow, that analogy
sucks. Maybe the shittiest one you could have thrown out there.
Why can't you think critically as in "what is it in and of itself?"
I'm the one who isn't thinking critically? I've taken each one of your comments, completely gutted said comments, and explained why you're wrong. I believe my critical thinking skills are right where they should be.
Because you're a mark for the attitude era?
This reads like an
assumption, seeing you have no clue what I do and do not like. You're not thinking in a very
critical manner
If you book Austin vs McMahon, it's a one time thing.
..that draws money.
After it's over you have a pile of guys that need to get over. So why the hell not give someone a HUGE rub and make them look like a star by putting them against the Miz or CM Punk or another guy who could use it to get put in the same category as Orton and Cena?
To be perfectly honest, if they want to have Miz vs. Austin, fine with me. If Austin thinks he can handle that kind of match, physically, go for it. I'm just saying Austin vs. McMahon would be great for business, it would pose little risk to Austin's health, and Miz could stay in the title hunt.
O wait, that's right, because YOU like the attitude era and want to see a shitty brawling match that'd basically be bloody and chair shots.
Yep.
Oh, and it would help in making a
ton of money.
