Steviekick Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 It's too bad Angle wasn't brought in instead of Shamrock in 97. Think of the matches that could've gave us. Angle vs. Vader, Angle vs. Hart, Angle vs. Michaels, Angle vs. Owen... OMG...those all could have been amazing.
cynicalprofit Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 *Drools at chance of Bret/Angle* I just cant see it happening due to Bret's condition, but the wreslters always try to come back....he is surely thinking it over. As a fan, he knows HE wants to see it.
Guest Choken One Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 It's too bad Angle wasn't brought in instead of Shamrock in 97. Think of the matches that could've gave us. Angle vs. Vader, Angle vs. Hart, Angle vs. Michaels, Angle vs. Owen... OMG...those all could have been amazing. God No. NO. NO! Angle took a year of training to get where he was...So if he was in Shamrock's boots, He wouldn't be the same Angle we know today... Angle would not be a success because His character wouldn't fit in with the scene in 1997...
art_vandelay Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 I think WrestleMania XX (6 months away) is cutting it a bit too close for a challenge to be made against a guy who's still recovering from a stroke. Was Angle serious when he said that? Or was it just flattery stuff?
LaParkaMarka Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 The problem with wrestling, the reason why the ratings are down, is very few guys know how to wrestle anymore. I like Bret, and I wish that were true, but I think he's a little delusional. The problem with why the ratings are down, to me, is bad writing and lack of new stars being built. You know, I think one of the big problems in WWE is the Main Event style of match. A lot of matches in WWE are also very spotty or has psychology that leads nowhere. Fans have been conditioned to only pop for the entrances and finishers. Which is probably a bad idea. So I dunno if Bret was that far off in blaming the WWE's problems on wrestling. I think it also has to do with stale storylines and whatnot, but the wrestling plays a factor too.
Your Paragon of Virtue Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 Undertaker. Despite his Frankenstein gimmick, Mark Callaway is a solid, convincing, steady, reliable wrestler. I love Bret man, he's the guy that got me hooked on wrestling. But no person who wasn't affected by a concussion would say something like this. Hell, now that I think about it, the only other guy who praises Undertaker's work is Foley, and his list of head injuries speaks for itself. I wonder if I drop myself on my head that I'll dig Taker? he's got quite a great reputation among the people he's worked with over the years in general, despite the smark hate. shawn michaels said he's the easiest guy to work with he's ever wrestled. Too bad the matches are terrible for the rest of us. I don't know about recently, but career-wise he's been pretty bad, except for those couple of series in 96-97 when he feuded with Bret and Shawn. Diesel left the WWF and never had a good match again, coincidentally when he stopped wrestling....Bret and Shawn. Go figure.
Guest The Real Nosferatu Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 Undertaker is on my good list for one reason. He can do a dive over the top rope without use of the ropes and he first did it 10 years into his career (so he was 30 something when he first did it) Plus Dead Man Undertaker kicked ass and he was going to beat the shit out of HBK at WM XIV if he didn't job to Austin.
TheFranchise Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 Plus Dead Man Undertaker kicked ass and he was going to beat the shit out of HBK at WM XIV if he didn't job to Austin. What did i miss?
Guest The Real Nosferatu Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 Rumors (keyword there) are that HBK was bragging he wouldn't put over Austin at the show, so UT had to threaten him with violence if he didn't do the right thing and loss to Austin as planned. That's pretty close to the story, but I'm not sure if it was 100% true.
Guest croweater Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 I'd take Bret vs. Hogan with bret finally going over before Bret and Angle. Mainley because Bret OWNS Hogan in everyway (I really don't see Hogan's charisma, but it's obviously just me) and he's deserved to go over him a bazillion times. Also he would be much better protected from injury.
King Cucaracha Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 I'd take HBK vs Angle over Bret vs Angle, because Bret doesn't NEED to come back. It'd be a sorry sight to see the guy in the ring, a sight I wouldn't want to see. Think Piper, only probably worse.
Guest Choken One Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 I'd take Bret vs. Hogan with bret finally going over before Bret and Angle. Mainley because Bret OWNS Hogan in everyway (I really don't see Hogan's charisma, but it's obviously just me) and he's deserved to go over him a bazillion times. Also he would be much better protected from injury. How so? Bret never could draw like Hogan Did, Never changed the landscape of the game... Bret was the glue that held things between Hogan and Austin but aside from Wrestling Ability, Hogan has Bret beat everywhere else. Money? Hogan Draw? Hogan Ratings? Hogan Charisma? Hogan Popularity? Hogan Name "Value"? Hogan Ability? Hart Politics? Hogan by FAR. Bret was HORRIBLE at it. So Hogan "Owns" Bret.
Guest Choken One Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 I'd take HBK vs Angle over Bret vs Angle, because Bret doesn't NEED to come back. It'd be a sorry sight to see the guy in the ring, a sight I wouldn't want to see. Think Piper, only probably worse. The two Most spottish no sellers...
JMFabiano524 Posted October 3, 2003 Report Posted October 3, 2003 I'd take HBK vs Angle over Bret vs Angle, because Bret doesn't NEED to come back. It'd be a sorry sight to see the guy in the ring, a sight I wouldn't want to see. Think Piper, only probably worse. Yeah, and besides not needing to, he owes WWE nothing for obvious reasons.
JMFabiano524 Posted October 3, 2003 Report Posted October 3, 2003 And no, I do not believe Vince had him killed, it was an accident, or the fault of the harness makers. True. However, there was the chance it could have been avoided if not for the apparent need to punish him for rejecting the sleeping with Debra storyline.
dubq Posted October 3, 2003 Report Posted October 3, 2003 I don't think the Bret of now could do that match justice. Isn't he still all messed up from his post-concussion syndrome? The only way we'd get the classic we're all hoping for is if you could transplant Bret from 6-8 years ago into it.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now