RavishingRickRudo

Nikita and Alexis are both as good as almost all the current "divas". Is this something that is supposed to be impressive?

There's no legitimate reason for Benoit to be on RAW. There's no reason why he should be wanting to beat HHH. It doesn't make sense and now the fans have to adjust to it. They reacted better to him in the last match of the show when he and HHH went face to face - and I wouldn't call the "Benoit" chant a "pity" chant either, as they were saying it quickly like "EC-dub". It wasn't the whole arena, though. I wonder if HHH will spin it in his favour... not that he has to.

Bradshaw - nice lariat, nice big boot, nice shoulderblock, stiff, good on the mic A-Train - best moveset in the WWE

.. and HHH is Vince's son-in-law. Game. Set. Match. HHH. HHH has also punked Lesnar out on many occasion without Lesnar retaliating at all. Lesnar is getting HHH's sloppy seconds in Bill Goldberg. To be honest, the only reason HHH probably doesn't have the "real" title around his waist is because he was already knee deep in a feud with HBK at the time Brock won the gold. Also, with the Big Gold Belt Trips gets to play Nature Boy.

Neither do I Chuck. There are no winners in that

Yes, because comparing her with Jackie Gayda sure does drive home the point that Ivory is good! (or in your case "isn't too bad"). *Clunck* OUCH! *grabs toe* Damn, how did that bar get so low?!

I think Vince would favor Lesnar over Triple H, even though it may seem unbelievable to some. Yeah, those whacky people who think Vince favours family over others... whyever do they think that?

It's like ink-blots with some people and the undisputed title. "HHH was eating at Wendys the other day; he had the grilled chicken sandwich, plain, and a garden salad with a bottle of spring water" - 1Conserver.com So, does anyone else get the vibe that they're setting up a title unification match? - Someguy.

Seriously, when the nominations for the 2004 year-end awards start, someone please remember this thread. I don't think I've heard as many stupid, unintentional, comments placed in a single thread in my time on the internet... and I've been to some pretty dumb boards. As not to completely flame this thread, I like the crap that they're doing and I'm not a Taker mark. They're actually being somewhat creative and aren't half-assing it; I can appreciate that kind of effort. It sucks that they had to make Goldie play second fiddle to it all, considering him vs. Brock is a featured match at mania as well and I was kinda diggin the match him and Kane were having in a very "poorly laid out, not very smooth, but they hit each other hard and that's cool" kinda way. I mourn the loss of Undertauro.

So why does she, you know, have bad matches? Given that she's "*easily* one of the *best* wrestlers the WWE has"...

No, MNF doesn't have people scripting what happens during the game. Sure they do; they're called coaches. Coaches = Bookers Players = Wrestlers Announcers/Host = Announcers Producer = Producer Writer = Writer. MNF is an advertised event, which guarantees a game between two teams. Thats what a PPV is, only it's like your getting 10 games. MNF is on "free" TV. They still deliver the expected action. RAW tends not to. PPV's are where they go "above" regular expectations - or at least, should. Raw would be those players talking about the game, what there going to do in that game, having things happen that build a story into the game. It's like an NFL live, the only difference is matches are used to further those stories at times, which would be like Salsbury and Berman getting on there fake field to show what could or will happen. No, when more than half the show is in-ring, it's ABOUT wrestling. If it was like NFL live there would be *very* little of it. Afterburn is NFL Live. My point about Raw was you can't use something not presented as a wrestling event in comparison to something that was. Raw didn't advertise a card for a month, ROH did. There's clear differences between them, mainly that one is a tv show and the other is a wrestling event, that make comparing them as if they were the same wrong. Raw is not presented as a wrestling event? So when I go to http://www.ticketmaster.com/browse?categor...=tm_sports_b_27 and see Raw being listed as a "Wrestling event" it's not presented as a wrestling event? Despite Ticketmaster selling WWE tickets for as long as I can remember... oh, i forgot, it's on TV and therefore is a television show; but other things on TV like MNF isn't a television show. Raw features wrestling matches, Vince can decide to make those matches go 20 minutes or they can go 2 minutes - he's done both before. His hands are not tied when it comes to putting wrestling on the card; he just chooses not to. It's applicable. ROH chooses to put on longer wrestling matches and better shows - is it realistic to think that the WWE can put on ***** matches each night? No. But can they be compared? Yes. Infact, you're letting Vince off with a lot more than he deserves given his resources. If your judging the WWE's total product, PPV's included, then it's fair game, because your no longer comparing a pencil to a pencil sharpener. A wrestling show is a wrestling show. And they do wrestling because it's used to further those stories. Now and then you get an advertised conclusion match, but not often enough to negate what happens the rest of the time and show, and aside from 1 or 2 matches here and there, even the advertised conclusion matches are used to further a story. They can further stories backstage. They still use wrestling as their primary method of entertainment. They just choose to use it poorly. If I see someone throw a football on a sitcom about a former football player, I'm not watching a football game. Raw and SD are the same way, the wrestling is simply an element used as a basis for everything and a story teller. So you're comparing someone throwing a football on a sitcom to over half-a-show dedicated to wrestling ?? (which, btw, is longer than an entire 22 minute sitcom.) And I'm not arguing the quality of what it is, simple what it is. You're even wrong with what it is. You're thinking it's friends when it's more like Monday Night Football. Not much, and that still doesn't make it impossible to turn back and forth. I've turned back and forth to find the same shitty skit going on, turn back, and am in the closing ends of a match. This happens to me often. I consider myself to be a pretty wise judge of time, wrestling, and television. So "not much" is bullshit. It's happened to me a couple of times tonight and I didn't even watch the whole show. It's not impossible to turn back and forth, but I would wager it's pretty damn difficult to be able to avoid some things and catch others without consistantly watching.

So, who will teach Ivory how to wrestle?

They should have called it a "Dream Survivor" as in, "all of your favourite (or least favourite) cast-aways going at it with each other".

If HHH is impotent from the roids, Vince is... um.. MORE impotent. RRR: Witty

Why do you feel that way? If I have to wear an identity card, have my moves monitored where ever I go, essentially give up my rights to privacy, and can get arrested without cause or explanation and thrown in jail without any rights to a lawyer - that's terrorism. That's using force, either physical or psychological, to obtain control over another. It's using fear to promote the governments own objectives; no matter how righteous they "appear" to be. How would you respond to someone who says that a person's safety is more important than their freedom? I'd say at what price and at what point does freedom die? RRR: Doesn't like feeling like a pawn.

I heard Vince wanted to get in on the action, but Shane said no because he was worried his dad would steal the show and bring in Patterson and Brisco and.... I've gone over the line again, I'M SO SORRY.

I heard there was a lot of blood. ... good lord I'm sorry.

Shane McMahon

What caused ECW to die was bad business and financial decisions. At their demise, they were getting upwards of 5000 people at a show so I don't think the product was the source of it's demise as the fan enjoyment was there. However, if the WWE is hoping to tap into another wrestling market, they will fail miserably just by the nature of what they're doing. ECW under the WWE brand is still the WWE.

So would their attempt to make ECW be similar to their attempt to make a football promotion or their attempt to be a wrestling company?

The fire-line had me on the floor. His laissez faire attitude is awesome; he's playing a different game!~

You are correct, sir!

No, it can be monitered easily by flipping to the channel when you want to. And really if the WWE is that predictable, how are you gonna see a promo, and not no where it's going? If it's going to a match, you'll realize that, if it's not, you'll realize that too. Simple really, all you need is a brain and remote and the WWE becomes miraculously enjoyable. Funny, you promote using a brain when getting around the show, but you don't promote it when watching the show. There's a difference between knowing where a promo is going and how long it's going to be.

No they hired writers. MNF doesn't have writers? And comparing it to MNF would work if you used a PPV. Comparing Raw to NFL Live or a show like that would be more logical. MNF is on TV, you don't have to pay to see MNF (aside from the cable bill - which is the same RAW). And my point wasn't judge a specific worker by Raw matches, a worker can be judged by any match in one way or another, my point was don't tell me the WWE never puts on any good wrestling matches simply because there wasn't one on Raw. If they're not putting on good wrestling matches, they're not putting on good wrestling matches. RAW *especially*. Raw's objective is to further the stories characters are involved in, an ROH event's objective is to put on a great card of wrestling matches. So I'd say the comparison isn't valid. If the objective is to further stories then why do wrestling at all? Why dedicate more than half the show to it? The objective of ANY show should be to be "good" - the WWE is a wrestling show, despite it being on TV, just as MNF is a football show. If they aren't putting out good wrestling then they've failed. Like I said, if it were PPV's and house shows people were critiquing, fair game, thats a product you pay to see, it's a transaction of money for a service. A TV show doesn't work the same way, you don't get charged 5 dollars for watching Raw, you don't get an announced card the second you turn on the show. So critiquing wrestling on a show about wrestling that features wrestling matches is somehow wrong because the show about wrestling isn't really about wrestling... despite there being wrestling on the show?? It's completely and totally a television show, which is one goal Vince has reached. Now all he needs is for people to view it as such. Yeah, cause then maybe they'd see it's a bad television show...

Any McMahon Child is the spawn of satan.