LooseCannon25 0 Report post Posted July 9, 2003 Nope, if you would stop being so thickheaded you would realize that i'm saying that while you guys like to write people like Batista, Sean O' Haire, John Cena off, It is indeed POSSIBLE for them to improve, and make an impact in the future. You act like you have proof as to why they won't get better with time, but you're dead wrong Well, when the hell do they intend to start? It's been a year for Cena, and less than that for the other guys. Patience my son, patience is the virtue of time. Now quick, grab pebble from my hand young grasshoppa Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted July 9, 2003 It's been 4 (Three?) years for O'Haire. I'm not so hard on Cena because he's passable. But, I'm not a patient person. I find NOTHING at all good or interesting or cute (or whatever the fuck you consider it to be) about watching guys suck up the ring week in and week out with an I.O.U. stating that some time in the distant future they may get better and this will somehow all be worth it. If they aren't ready to put on a good match, get them off TV. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kid Kablam Report post Posted July 9, 2003 A post of mine from before. I love this "potential." It's the unknown thing that people try to used to excuse even the shittiest of wrestlers. (Test, SOH, Albert, Randy Orton, hell, Nathan Jones got potential remarks) As soon as "potential" is brought up, we are expected to back off and wait the eight years for this unexplained "potential" to finally manifest itself into true blue talent. And if six years in, someone brings up how the guy STILL sucks, they will get lambasted for no allowing the performer enough time to act on his "potential." I fucking hate "potential" But honestly, how do we decide if someone has "potential?" Do we draw straws? do we play eenie-meenie-miney-moe? Or do we just find people that we personally like who at the present moment are bad-unwatchable and try to explain that with "Well, they have potential, give them time!" How does one spot this potential? Did said potential holders hold a sign that says as much? If not, how do we separate those with "potential" from those who just don't have a prayer? And how long must we wait for this "potential" to be realized? With someone like Test, who's been here for almost six years without ever getting better, are they a lost cause, or do they still have some years left on their potential scale? None of this makes sense to me. I guess the real question is "Potetnial for what?" I think Sean O'Haire has the potential to be the next Billy Gunn that Vince gets a hard on for and renews his push every so often at the expense of a more talented worker. However, I do think that Shelton Benjamin has the potential to be the next smark darling. In other words, for the word potential to mean anything to me, it must indicate a move towards a goal, such as the next Billy gunn, or the next smark darling, and it must tell me that this superstar is on the fast track to this goal. IE Mike Vick has the potential to be the greatest mobile QB the game has ever seen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RavishingRickRudo Report post Posted July 9, 2003 I saw Brock right away and said "Wow" - it's not hard to make an impression on me, I like the 'little things', when Brock caught Booker T and used pure strength to lift him up that impressed me, his match with Bubba Ray impressed me, Batista, Cena, O'Haire - they've been given chances and haven't paid off _at all_. The Rock and Austin got popular in the days where you didn't need to be all that great in the ring - 2000 changed all that - the bar has been raised, you have to be able to do it in the ring. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LooseCannon25 0 Report post Posted July 9, 2003 I saw Brock right away and said "Wow" - it's not hard to make an impression on me, I like the 'little things', when Brock caught Booker T and used pure strength to lift him up that impressed me, his match with Bubba Ray impressed me, Batista, Cena, O'Haire - they've been given chances and haven't paid off _at all_. The Rock and Austin got popular in the days where you didn't need to be all that great in the ring - 2000 changed all that - the bar has been raised, you have to be able to do it in the ring. Once again i ask what Rock and Austin have that's so great in the ring? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RavishingRickRudo Report post Posted July 9, 2003 Rock has explosiveness - great athleticism and stamina and timing. Austin has some really great psychology. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
