Superfly Snuka

Even in a hotshot angle, if Khali were going to win, he'd need to have a manager who could speak for him for promos sake. Thus, since he doesn't, I think there is a zero chance of him winning.

Our friends from Toronto are not going to be happy tonight.

You know, though, Triple HHH is burying KK right now for thinking he tore his triceps off the bone, when it was no where near as serious. Heck, HHH tears his quad off the bone getting out of bed every morning. Also, Dr. Ferninad Rios (WWE doctor) is pretty damn bad at diagnosing, it would seem. If a muscle tore off a bone, it would roll up a little (at least) and be easily palpable and visible on extension of the arm, even with considerable swelling.

I would complain, too, as I wanted to avoid spoilers for Smackdown this week...EXCEPT frickin' Tazz said Edge won the title while I was watching ECW this week. Even said that there was reaction by the Undertaker to it on wwe.com,, which told us Batista didn't win the title. That really sucked. I wasn't complaining. I know Edge won the belt and I came here to see exactly what happened in the cage match preceding it. I simply would like to know the matches on the rest of the card without finding out who won. I wasn't trying to put you down or anything, but rather show that I'm disgusted that WWE (through Taz) ruined their Friday show for me. It's fine that they send those WWE mobile alerts or whatever, but some of us (like you, I assume0, like watching Smackdown without spoilers, esp. a big one like that. Also like watching ECW without Smackdown spoilers.

I would complain, too, as I wanted to avoid spoilers for Smackdown this week...EXCEPT frickin' Tazz said Edge won the title while I was watching ECW this week. Even said that there was reaction by the Undertaker to it on wwe.com,, which told us Batista didn't win the title. That really sucked.

It's be cool if kennedy won without using Money in the bank, then used Money in the bank to go after one of the other titles later in the year (rumble time?), to consolidate two brands together (say if they got rid of ECW at the end of the year or whenever). It's be the easiest way to do it.

It would be funny if all this turned out to be RVD's idea to get Punk to join the NB to act as a mole and create chaos in the group until it falls apart from the inside out. Then at the big blowoff Punk turns on the NB and helps the Originals destroy the faction. RVD goes all "Bond villain" on us and cuts a huge promo about how the NB was Vince's idea on how ECW SHOULD be, and how the Originals are what ECW IS, and how Punk represents the true future of ECW: someone who's different from most of society (like the Originals) but has the talent to go as far as he wants in the world of WWE. He then puts over Punk as someone who can carry a promotion if given the chance and how he can be a franchise player. I have reservations about RVD's ability to cut a promo like that in a completely serious tone (in this case his character works against him) but it could be awesome if pulled off correctly. "So, the "Boss man" was the one who wanted the New Breed to be over..." yadayaya. It'd be like his ONS I speech, but worse. I still don't understand how they can run a promotion with the same 9-10 guys each week, with the champion not fighting any ECW guys, and no other belts to go for. I don't know how they're going to build to Monty and Lashley (based on the poster) for ONS 3 when Monty can't win tag matches and is a clear 3rd wheel behind Burke/Punk in the group. Extreme matches also would be nice once in a while.

I know it's been said once or twice before, but ECW really needs a TV champ. If there's no belt (and let's face it, everyone BUT ECW guys are fighting for the ECW belt the last few months), what are the ECW guys wrestling for? Burke/Punk would make a hell of a tv champion; heck even thorne would be decent.

Surely you jest. His ROH work with his "I'm straight edge and I'm better than you" straight edge heel work is some of the best stuff I've ever seen/heard.

I agree that him holding the title (when it's snapped) looks stupid. Actually, what I'd like for him to do is what he did when he had his first (7 day?) reign, when he walked to the ring holding the belt (that was unsnapped) at one end in one hand. Different from other guys, but looks kind of cool (and would be old school, in regards to his character). Actually, I'm bored by guys wearing it around their waste, or what Cena currently does with it. The two coolest ways I saw a belt brought to the ring was by Eddie Guerrero, is his WCW days, when he carried the (cruiserweight?) belt over his back with one hand; it looked like he was a really sleazy guy for some reason, which was his character at the time. The other was Cena going to the ring at ONS 2 when he held it high with both hands when the belt was snapped; it just looked cool.

Sharpton and Jackson use their mob tactics to get Imus removed from the airwaves but do little to nothing about the blatant sexism and endorsement of the "gangster" lifestyle that has a much larger effect on the children. Instead of fighting the larger, and most would argue more important fight gripping their community, Sharpton and Jackson would rather take the easy fight and go after a 66 year old man who made a poor attempt at humor on his comedy show. Did getting the mean white man removed from the airwaves help anything? Is the black youth safer now than it was before this stupid firestorm? If "yes", how? There was no threat. And saying that the public airwaves needed to be "cleaned up" isn't any of Sharpton and Jackson's business. There was no FCC violation. Imus didn't go o the air and scream "Nigger!" or "Fuck!" or anything to violate the FCC's already strict guideline. As far as the public airwaves, Imus was already clean. People may have disagreed with his joke, people may have been offended by the joke, fine. That all should have been taken care of when Imus apologized. He didn't harm any of those players. This whole thing is a first amendment issue. Imus has the right to say what he wants, yes. Sharpton and Jackson have the right to be offended and protest Imus's comments, yes. They DO NOT have the right to use mob tactics to remove Imus because of something he said, no matter how much they may disagree or not like what he said. That matter should have been left up to MSNBC/CBS. The fact that nothing had been done about it for a few days until Sharpton and Jackson really started raising a stink about it tells me that MSNBC and CBS would have kept Imus and let him run out the rest of his contract. The fact that Sharpton has said that Imus is only the beginning of this fight, that all shows will be monitored and basically insinuating that any show that makes comments that Sharpton and Jackson don't like/agree with/whatever, will be treated in the same way...well, I don't want to say it, but it sounds an awful lot like racial censorship. Threatening a boycott of a radio/tv show does not entail a mob tactic. It is the most effective way to get a program off the air. You say fighting the blantant sexism and endorsement of gangstas are fights Jackson and Sharpton should be fighting and I could agree with that. Then the next paragraph you state that the public airwaves are "none of their business". Is it only their business when it is hip hop involved? When I hear hip hop on public airwaves it is heavily censored. Now, Jackson and Sharpton should go after the music industry starting with the music groups that releases the songs. But that is inequivalent to a racist and sexist remark against a specific group of individuals. It is not a First Amendment issue to you. If it were a First Amendment issue to you then you would also be defending the rights of Jackson and Sharpton to petition and protest as they see fit. That falls under freedom of speech as well correct? General Motors,Sprint,American Express,Staples,etc are all in the customer service field. They have the right not to have their product affiliated with Don Imus. MSNBC/CBS has the rights to protect their ad revenue that keep their stations on the air. Don Imus can definitely say whatever he likes. He is not being prosecuted by the government. When there are many other factors involved as there are,there must be consequences. Everyone involved are well within their rights in this situation. Why doesn't Sharpton/Jackson protest/ start boycotts of Music record labels that have artists with racist/sexist comments (including gangsta rap). They (record labels) are as much of a conglomerate as CBS or MSNBC, no? There is a ton of rap music (by blacks and whites), for example, that is directed at specific individuals/groups. I wish there would be better representatives/leaders, in regards to the "public face", of the black community than Sharpton (and to a lesser degree Jackson, who was an important leader in 60s and 70s, but has turned into an awful caricature now). I do find it peculiar how these guys are "reverends", but never express forgiveness, even after their goals (such as getting imus fired) are achieved (of course, reverends shouldn't have to come clean about an affair b/c the tabloids are going to go public either, but i digress). It is interesting how Sharpton has not retracted his comments about the Duke rape case that initially helped fuel the flames without evidence, despite those guys being exonerated. Both of these guys, as well, as many a time made ethnic/racist comments about Jews in particular that are just as, or more so, offensive (and also homosexuals and whites). Sharpton is a snake (and Imus is a dumb ass).

You do mean "crapping", right?

Roma seemed to be in character. I don't think so. I'm pretty sure Roma knew how he was going to be portrayed by the other guys on this disk and decided to just defend himself, saying "well, okay, people didn't accept me as a true member, but really, people accept a 67 yo Ric Flair and a pot bellied Arn Anderson as people to be afraid of?" (To paraphrase). The Horseman concept was great in the eighties, but this disc just shows how lame it was for it to be brought back numerous times in the nineties and even lamer how guys (see Anderson, Arn) really tried to keep this going/thought it would work just as good as in the eighties with the "right mix".It's the same lameness that people here (including myself) always complain about when the NWO and DX reformed. The "magic" was gone by then. The worst part is how much these guys, surprisingly, put over Mongo McMichael. THAT was the true low-point of the horsemen. The parts I enjoyed the most, commentary-wise, by far were by Coke-head Tully and Barry.

Actually, I'd be really down with this if the group just consisted of Punk/Burke/Monty. The others guys are extraneous and make the group too much of a hodge podge with no real unifying theme really (New breed is not good enough, b/c you can't picture a strict school teacher, hanging out with a goth guy, hanging out with a badasss, hanging out with a jock and straight edge guy). Just like you couldn't throw 4 random characters to be the "4 horseman" and have it be successful. Punk/Burke could do some great SCS-type stuff with Monty as the muscle.

i like the Punk heel turn, only b/c it sets up RVD vs. Punk at ONS III. But A) There's not enough mike time for both Punk and Burke if they're in the same group, which is troubling as one of them (likely Burke) will regress and B) Fans won't boo Punk unless he goes hardcore "I'm CM Punk and I'm better than You" straight edge style, but I don't think WWE writers will let him take it that intense/extreme.

Best part was that they showed how the fans of the 4 horseman originally were college frat guys who dressed up in blazers and ties and had signs like "Support your local Horsemen". Damn cool. I know Flair used to talk about women in his promos all the time back then (and stylin' and profilin'), but I never remembered how much he outright referred to banging chicks and sex acts/impressions as much as he did during his promos back then. Damn.

Well, at least it wasn't as bad (plausibility-wise) as his Wresltemania 21 match, where JBL destroyed him for like 95% of the match and then Cena won with like a minute of offense.

Well, as Giant Gonzales is permanently confined to a wheelchair and i believe, destitute, I would say the guy who played Giant Gonzales is much worse..off. But wrestling-wise, Khali doesn't wear a fake muscle body suit with/without fake hair, so Gonzales is worse.

Holy Sh*t, i think you're right!

If money in the bank is the first match, there has to be a good chance of the winner cashing it in after one of the championship matches tonight, right? Why else would you put it first? this may be just like when Edge faced Flair in the first match at NYR 2006 so he could rest and win the title as after the last match (or perhaps after the undertaker win).

LOL that CNN has one of the headlines on its front page "Trump has 50% chance of losing hair". http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/03/29/p...t.ap/index.html It would be funny if real life mirrored wrestling, and Vince, being jealous of Trump, actually instructed Austin to do a quick three count on Lashley.

Kane/Khali, while being no classic, will be much better than most people think (and sufficiently short). Khali needs to go over if he makes even one appearance on tv post-mania. If not, then I guess we'll see Kane-Taker for the title at Summer Slam.

I don't think he can, and it's not his fault. People on this board are complaining that he's not the next Rock and Austin, but is that because of the characters or the times? The Rock and Austin were great characters, but how many things didn't work during the attitude era? Not much, once WWF/E changed to a more edgy product (like Nitro), which really just mirrored society in general wanting edgier/more provocative things. Rap rose to real prominence societally and fiscally speaking in the mid-to late nineties, more violence/sex/cursing on TV/radio was occurring (just think of the things you can see on the radio/tv that you'd never would have heard in 1995) for many reasons (not the least of which people really hated that the eighties and early nineties were so bland/boring). The Rock and Austin characters were great, but only attained their level during the attitude era b/c the people DEMANDED this type of character as opposed to the other way around. Last few years, in general, it seems the public at large feels there may be TOO much sex/cursing/etc. happening/commonplace and in a way, want less edgier things 9and becoming more conservative in many ways). This is why wrestling fell into this recession (not the best word, but you get what I mean) and lost the casual fan, in addition to losing major talent and WWE losing competition, and getting lazy. NO ONE from the current crop will become Rock/Austin/Hogan big because the public doesn't want it currently. Probably in a half decade-to decade they will, since these things are usually cyclical. But I'd say the mood/general attitude of society at the time dictates the state of the wresting business much more than any character/characters.

Hogan probably had it written into his contract as "Creative control" over his character .

wow...THAT'S a pretty damn bold statement there, man...I'm not saying you're stoned or anything, it may happen, just saying that's a DAMN bold statement. Not stoned, and know UFC has taken away alot of the boxing PPV buys (as opposed to Wrestling PPV buys), but it'll happen if they do a unification bout. The last year they did as much basically in terms of PPV buys as WWE did. And MMA is still growing by large bounds while WWE is kind of stuck in the same palce for the last few ways (obviously having peaked in the late '90s). In wrestling terms, it's like having the excitement over the Invasion angle, but with zero chance of f*cking it up, as long as they have the champions face each other.