Guest BoboBrazil Posted October 14, 2002 Report Posted October 14, 2002 Brock barely got any offense in at all in that Unforgiven match. I watched it and he got short bursts of offense that never lasted longer than 30 seconds at a time a few times during the match and that is it.
Guest Anglesault Posted October 14, 2002 Report Posted October 14, 2002 Yeah, Brock, Heyman, Matt Hardy, the World Title and a steel chair took Taker almost to his limit. Then Taker beat shit out of everyone, had Lesnar pinned twice, and gave him an after match beatdown. I don't get it. Undertaker has created a legend in the WWF, and you think he should just go in their and get squashed. What a waste that would be. It took HHH, Chyna, Kane Los Boriquas and NAO to help Shawn beat Taker in the Casket match. OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG! And Oh my god, Rock needed ref bumps, Vince distractions, Ric Flair and a led pipe to beat Taker! OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG! And last year, Steve Austin needed Triple H and a chair and all asorts of othershit to beat him! OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG!
Guest BionicRedneck Posted October 14, 2002 Report Posted October 14, 2002 When did I say he should get squashed? How about an even match? without ref bumps, interference etc. to make the champ look weak
Guest Anglesault Posted October 14, 2002 Report Posted October 14, 2002 Because No one EVER has an even match with the Undertaker. It's part of the fucking character, you have to pull out all the stops to beat him, ESPECIALLY when he is a face. Hell, KANE and MANKIND have never beaten him clean, and they were always his biggest threats. The man has an unbeatable aura about him. It's supid to have one guy come in and kill that. Oh, by the way, Yokozuna needed 73 run ins and the power of the urn! OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG
Guest Brian Posted October 14, 2002 Report Posted October 14, 2002 But Undertaker couldn't even have been bothered to sell for him, let alone go up on many of his lifts (the safer ones). Now, I can understand the beating up afterwards (and the finish) if Brock had been given a decent standing against him, but it wasn't even close. Brock never looked even close to being on the same level as taker and he's holding the title. The difference is the times. The WWE needs main eventers, and if their title holders on a lower level than by far the biggest challenger, than what does that do?
Guest Anglesault Posted October 14, 2002 Report Posted October 14, 2002 Brock never looked even close to being on the same level as taker Who ever has?
Guest Angle-plex Posted October 14, 2002 Report Posted October 14, 2002 Because No one EVER has an even match with the Undertaker. It's part of the fucking character, you have to pull out all the stops to beat him, ESPECIALLY when he is a face. Hell, KANE and MANKIND have never beaten him clean, and they were always his biggest threats. The man has an unbeatable aura about him. It's supid to have one guy come in and kill that. Oh, by the way, Yokozuna needed 73 run ins and the power of the urn! OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG Hell, Hulk Fucking Hogan couldn't even beat the Undertaker clean. And what is with OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG?
Guest Brian Posted October 14, 2002 Report Posted October 14, 2002 He didn't have to beat Taker clean, he just had to look somewhat credible around him. He's more than two years past the invincibility gimmick and at an age where he should be on his way out the door.
Guest Angle-plex Posted October 14, 2002 Report Posted October 14, 2002 He didn't have to beat Taker clean, he just had to look somewhat credible around him. He's more than two years past the invincibility gimmick and at an age where he should be on his way out the door. I know, but Hulk Hogan beat everyone clean. Taker comes along and Hogan needs to cheat. Brock has a chance to look credible at No Mercy, although I doubt Taker will give him any offense.
Guest Anglesault Posted October 14, 2002 Report Posted October 14, 2002 I just think it's stupid to have years and years of no one being on the same playing field as Taker, and then of all people, BROCK is? I mean, at least give th honor to someone with worth to the company.
Guest Brian Posted October 15, 2002 Report Posted October 15, 2002 But that was eleven years ago when they were immediately pushing Taker into the main events and making sure he was established.
Guest Anglesault Posted October 15, 2002 Report Posted October 15, 2002 And it stuck for 11 years, meaning everyone did it.
Guest BionicRedneck Posted October 15, 2002 Report Posted October 15, 2002 But that was eleven years ago when they were immediately pushing Taker into the main events and making sure he was established. Yeah, like they should be doin with Lesnar. Mean Mark must have a short memory.
Guest Brian Posted October 15, 2002 Report Posted October 15, 2002 As for Sault's reply, yes, Undertaker should have been selling for people since he dropped the gimmick. But he did fine for Triple H, did a decent job with RVD, and better with Angle on said SmackDown in July. Why can't he at least off up something near that for Brock? Heck, he can have the fals finishes, just sell. He can have most of the offense, just go up on Brock's throws. He can beat up Brock post-match, just give him a little bit of credibility. A shred.
Guest Anglesault Posted October 15, 2002 Report Posted October 15, 2002 Maybe he has my viewpoint on Brock.
Guest DJ Jeff Posted October 15, 2002 Report Posted October 15, 2002 I would rather see Lesnar pin the Undertaker clean at No Mercy then have someone interfere and screw the Undertaker out of winning the WWE Title. Clean finishes I like alot better, especially if it's the main event at a PPV. Also, as far as how long Lesnar should hold the WWE Title for, it should be until Wrestlemania 18, where he could lose it to either HHH, Angle, or Benoit. That sure as hell beats the 1 month title reigns HHH and Hogan had.
Guest BionicRedneck Posted October 15, 2002 Report Posted October 15, 2002 Maybe he has my viewpoint on Brock. Yeah, coz that is a good attitude to have for a "company man", "locker room leader" and all the other complete bullshit the WWE says about the Underdrawer.
Guest Anglesault Posted October 15, 2002 Report Posted October 15, 2002 Does that make it right? Maybe it does. Just because management wants it, doesn't make it right
Guest Anglesault Posted October 15, 2002 Report Posted October 15, 2002 Maybe he has my viewpoint on Brock. Yeah, coz that is a good attitude to have for a "company man", "locker room leader" and all the other complete bullshit the WWE says about the Underdrawer. What's wrong with a company man wasnting what's right for the company?
Guest BionicRedneck Posted October 15, 2002 Report Posted October 15, 2002 Are you completely clueless? Making your companies World Champion look shit, is good for the company?
Guest Anglesault Posted October 15, 2002 Report Posted October 15, 2002 If said champion is bad for the company, then yes, indirectly.
Guest Brian Posted October 15, 2002 Report Posted October 15, 2002 This is the same AngleSault that crucifies HHH every time it seems that he even remotely influences any authority?
Guest Anglesault Posted October 15, 2002 Report Posted October 15, 2002 This is the same AngleSault that crucifies HHH every time it seems that he even remotely influences any authority? HHH does things for HHH that only help HHH. Taker is doing something for Taker that I believe helps the company.
Guest Brian Posted October 15, 2002 Report Posted October 15, 2002 Is he helping the belt? Is he helping the champ? Is him holding onto his spot for another month helping anyone who could be getting the opportunity to main event? Is he helping the guy who's eventually going to beat the champ?
Guest Anglesault Posted October 15, 2002 Report Posted October 15, 2002 He's helping the belt by starting the motion to get it off the champ. Believe me, Vince won't stand for 4,000 people much longer.
Guest Brian Posted October 15, 2002 Report Posted October 15, 2002 But who's fault if the four thousand? Is it Triple H's and Kane's? Is it the booker's for not having a mid-card? Is it Taker's, because he is who the fans are paying to see win?
Guest Spaceman Spiff Posted October 15, 2002 Report Posted October 15, 2002 I see Brian hasn't gotten enough of banging his head against a brick wall. ...er, I mean, arguing w/ AS re: Brock. Same difference.
Guest Anglesault Posted October 15, 2002 Report Posted October 15, 2002 But who's fault if the four thousand? Is it Triple H's and Kane's? Is it the booker's for not having a mid-card? Is it Taker's, because he is who the fans are paying to see win? Not so much whose fault (All four of them, IMO) but who will get blamed.
Guest Brian Posted October 15, 2002 Report Posted October 15, 2002 I still don't see how it's anyone's fault other than the bookers, Vince, or Triple H and Undertaker.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now