Steve J. Rogers

A friend of mine actually doesn't understand the concept of a sharpshooter. I told him you twist the legs by pulling them from underneath you and then you sit down on him bending your knees, he doesn't believe its possible, sadly I've yet to be in a situation to show him Ever had that happen, where someone is incredulous to what could be the most simplistic move you can do? Steve

I'm still trying to perfect Austin's "bounce right back up with the middle finger salutes and beer guzzle" Guess there is a reason you rarely saw stunners in places other than inside the ring Have to rewatch vintage stunners, probably he never quite landed (this is for non-match stunners) straight down but more to the side so he could pop up and do the finger thing Course why the hell am I anaylizing how Austin sold the post-stunner antics? Actually here is a good question, in real fights if you want to do something akin to a rock bottom or choke slam, you just do it, why in wrestling do you have to drape your opponets' arm over you? Never understood that Steve

Yeah it sucks when the guy doesn't know how to sell for you Did he think the move was just stepping over your prone opponent? Geez

Stunners are hard to pull off if the person you are doing it to has no idea what you are doing, it really is an ineffective move when you think about it, I mean the guy gets a little whiplash (and if they don't know what they are supposed to do they aren't going to oversell it McMahon/Rock style either), but chances are, he is still standing and you are sitting on the ground. Even if you add the kick to the groin to get him in stunning position

Name one babyface who got to the top level because the people felt sorry for him. Okay, I am really just talking about the length of the storyline, which would be forgotten come a couple of months after the storyline ends and the babyface goes into other angles and storylines. We are talking about a business where angles and storylines tend to get forgotten months after they end

But wouldn't he get sympathy heat by default thanks to a real pissed off GM's heel heat? And obviously he'd get the "Well he tried his best out there" lines pushed on him from the babyface announcers

Rocky Miavia? It can be done I don't think its meant that he is squashed by the scrub, maybe scrub wins on a fluke, maybe scrub absorbs the offense, then fights back which surprises the hell out of the guy and the scrub picks off the win that way I never understood why losses are generally given so much heat in terms of fan reaction. If the vinegetts work in getting the guy over, and future matches show that he is working on improving and proving them wrong it can get the person over. Plus shouldn't it be a week-to-week thing with heat I mean just because Wrestler A lost one week means that he can't win the next week. This isn't boxing where losses really do count towards rankings Steve

-If Vince hated the idea of Austin winning the title so much why couldn't he pull a Montreal on him at WM XIV and/or firing him the day later Can't just be because he knew Austin was good for business, it was never kayfabed that the WWF was in dire straits at the time and that the current champ, HBK had one of the worse drawing runs of all-time under his belt -Why does everyone sell Mick Foley turning into Cactus Jack like its the second coming when he is the same guy who is the clownish Mankind and why is Cactus sold as unbeatable while Mankind is very beatable Using the logic that the WWF used to have in not revealing wrestler's pasts (yes they did mention Cactus from time to time, but never outright said the character was different than Mankind)

Alot of Kane's backstory has been reconed pretty much to satisfy the angle at the time. Heck Kane was supposed to be a complete virgin, never even BEEN OUT with a woman before Torrie and then you have Katie Vick

Jericho got over by losing a string of matches in his "Conspiracy Victim" angle, course that was based on a heel turn but it did happen I think the heat would come off of the GM at first and the wrestler (obviously a face) would be seen as trying to be plucky, a "comeback kid" of sorts that you see in non-scripted sports were sometimes that over-hyped pheonom just becomes a productive player It also depends on how long the angle lasts as well, it can't last more than three months of shows before becoming a running gag

And without that refusal you lose one of the hottest angles in history, so what's your point? Bret was SMART and the shit he asked for made sense in context, and helped the business as well as himself. He was looking to have the best of both worlds, and the fact that he wasn't completely selfish like Shawn is what hurt him. The agreed upon plan of a DQ and the drop at the next PPV kept him strong in his home country, but would still have ended in Bret jobbing, and would have produced a hot month of TV to boot. Shawn wasn't looking out for the business at all with his political maneuvering, just himself. Also compare it to Shawn's own turn that fall. In Shadows its made to look like HBK was being a total spotlight hog with the seeds of his turn starting at SummerSlam Granted HBK was always better as a heel than a face (prime example being his main run with the title (March 96 to Nov 96) was poorly received) and can pull off turns more effectivley than Bret could (basically Shawn didn't have to turn his character around the way Bret did) so Shawn's "turning on Taker" was seen more of taking the spotlight away from Bret winning the title and starting the HBK turn and putting HBK in a position to outshine the champion as both would be heels for the forseeable future Also Bret always thought that the heel turn would effectivley kill his "Hitman" character in the States, and while this can never be fully proven (in WCW he turned too often to even register anything other than respect heat) Bret did feel that in some ways the turn was Vince's way of a slow burn towards his eventual leaving the company Steve

Shut up. Shut the fuck up. We haven't won a world series in FIVE years. We only have THREE players left from that team, four if you count Tino. You needed today's game as validation that the "dynasty" was over? Fucking moron. Do us all a favor, and slit your wrists after you read the next paragraph. Anyway, watching the game I didn't hear any boos towards him, not enough for the TV mics to pick up anyway. And I did hear an audible cheer when Damon recorded the last out, so there was obviously (as usual) a lot of Red Sox fans in the house. I'd like to give Michael Kay the finger. Geez, I was being sarcastic based on the fact that the last Yankee with any kind of equity that should be sheilded from any sort of booing reaction (Rivera, Jeter, Bernie, Posada, Tino, O'Neill, ect) was apparantly getting "showered by boos" according to Michael Kay On the flip side, I would be worried that we are seeing the start of Mariano's slide into being a stead, effective specialist rather than the most dominant closer to ever play the game. Just a little bit, no doubt Friday night against the O's it will be 1-2-3 Steve

I think he just wanted a dramatic way to open the discussion about why the fans were booing Mariano Rivera

Listening to Michael Kay on his radio show ranting about this like the fans were giving Mo the finger and that it made him feel terribile to be a New Yorker So its official, Mariano is the last "True Yankee" to get the boos, so the 96-01 dynasty really is dead Steve

Besides Wily Mo Pena, Nick Johnson and Eric Milton, there was D'Angelo Jimenez, Christian Guzman, Mike Lowell, Zach Day, Jake Westbrook, Damaso Marte and Ted Lilly. Right, forgot about them. But by the same token, the Yanks never did have the "room" for any of them. Not with Boggs/Hayes/Brosius at third (okay 2002-2003 they could have used a Mike Lowell, but come on, they weren't going to let him ride the pine untill Brosius retired) SS was solidified in 1996 and will still be for a while to come, 1B was always Giambi's since he first made rumblings about "always wanting to be a Yankee, 2B was solidified with Knoblauch and Soriano (untill the trade to get ARod) You could make the case Day, Westbrook and Lilly fell into the Steinbrenner era trap of wanting veteran pitchers instead of guys from the farm to a lesser extent than the obvious Doug Drabeks and Al Leiters of the mid-late 80's I mean Pettitte was nearly traded every July 31st it seemed! Steve

No, being a fatalistic Mets fan is more fun Okay, maybe not bring back Armando, but it is funny that all winter/spring fans and media kept saying that the guys bridging the starters and Looper are the main concern, and who blows the game? LOOPER! "Super way to start a super summer" -Oz (Chris Klein) American Pie II

and some people wonder why the yanks were so willing to give up on vazquez? I think its more people keep wanting to get on the Yanks for giving up on a guy too soon. When you think about it, as barren as the farm system has been, who in this era have the Yanks given up that has gone on to "bigger and better things" There has been no Fred McGriffs, Willie McGees, Doug Drabeks, Jay Buhners, JT Snows, and Al Leiters in this run Eric Milton and Willy Mo Pena I think are the only ones. Maybe Nick Johnson if he stays healthy. Not counting Alfonso Soriano obviously due to who the Yanks got in return Heck, if the Yanks held on to Tino the way fans and media were clamming about at the time (as in "don't break up the team" since Brosius and O'Neill had retired why not keep a guy who can still play) Lord knows how everyone would be crying about the Yanks wasting a roster spot on a guy who should only be a soild defensive backup and guy off the bench (in other words, what Tino is now) That really is where Cashman and Watson have to get credit for.

I never thought I'd ever say this but: BRING BACK ARMANDO BENITEZ Hell bring back John Franco and Jesse Orosco Steve

I think it's more about him putting on quality classic type matches as opposed to just having a good win/loss record. Also he's fought for the for the title 4 times over the years, throw in two IC matches which has to be near the top of a list of most title matches involved in (with the belt on the line) Also it goes along with the vintage HBK catch phrase "The Showstoppa, The Icon, THE MAIN EVENT!" Steve

I cant remember anyone bringing it up until then anyways. It was a big deal around the internet as people were saying this was the first time Taker ever faced someone @ Mania who arguably should have gone over. Triple H mentioned Taker being unbeaten once as well but it was never a focus i dont think. It was basically "I dont like/I dont like you either" deal. It also has been used as a trivia question every now and then "Which current WWF Superstar has the most consecutive wins at WM" and the like In general streaks don't get recongnized anyway unless its approaches "Oh wow this gotta be close to a record or something" categories. Also the streak never really "mattered" untill Taker was a face anyway. The Championship was the focus of his 6th straight win against Sid, Kane was "Brother Against Brother" and he was a heel against Bossman, so by the time the HHH match came up, it was 8 in a row and he was a face Steve

Also, Blockbuster can be quite pushy if your queue is empty, which is odd considering you pay a flat fee every month, not like you are paying per movie or something, which I can see sending "Your queue is almost empty" emails over Netflix never sends emails at any point to remind you about such things Steve

Don't ask why I'm wondering this, but despite all the overhype that the WWE does for its product and of course Wrestlemania, I wonder just how much the two are really considered the "big time" in terms of the industry as a whole Well, I ask because so many times both get dumped on by wrestlers and other promotions (going back to WCW, ECW, ect) granted some of the shots come from people with grudges against Vince and/or someone with the Federation, or just hate their business practices but it does seem that the only "Yeah that is the big time" comes from people employed by the WWF/WWE at the time they are making the statements. So is main eventing a WWE Wrestlemania actually considered a pinnacle spot in the industry? (Granted there have been many questionalble MEers in WM's history) or is it just the overhype machine of the WWE promoting its product Put it this way (and yes I'm aware I'm comparing an on the level sport with a scripted one but go with me) The MVP of the Arena Bowl or the Grey Cup may keep that moment as a special one that no one can every take away, but he would trade all that just to play a down in the NFL's Super Bowl, and I'm wondering if an MEer on an Indy fed (or ROH/TNA, ect) would feel the same way Curtian Jerking at WrestleMania? Steve

Don't ask why I'm wondering this, but despite all the overhype that the WWE does for its product and of course Wrestlemania, I wonder just how much the two are really considered the "big time" in terms of the industry as a whole Well, I ask because so many times both get dumped on by wrestlers and other promotions (going back to WCW, ECW, ect) granted some of the shots come from people with grudges against Vince and/or someone with the Federation, or just hate their business practices but it does seem that the only "Yeah that is the big time" comes from people employed by the WWF/WWE at the time they are making the statements. So is main eventing a WWE Wrestlemania actually considered a pinnacle spot in the industry? (Granted there have been many questionalble MEers in WM's history) or is it just the overhype machine of the WWE promoting its product Put it this way (and yes I'm aware I'm comparing an on the level sport with a scripted one but go with me) The MVP of the Arena Bowl or the Grey Cup may keep that moment as a special one that no one can every take away, but he would trade all that just to play a down in the NFL's Super Bowl, and I'm wondering if an MEer on an Indy fed (or ROH/TNA, ect) would feel the same way Curtian Jerking at WrestleMania? Steve

Triple, problems with my PC, how the #()$*()@ do I simply make IE just cease to exist on my PC?

Double