dubq Posted March 13, 2005 Report Posted March 13, 2005 So, guy shits in a woman's bag, dumps a drink on another, wants to be a womanizer.. he's obviously in the closet. He was a fucking underwear model for christ's sake.. sounds like he secretly likes a bit of the ole cock-in-the-mouth if you ask me.
Kizzo Posted March 13, 2005 Report Posted March 13, 2005 So, guy shits in a woman's bag, dumps a drink on another, wants to be a womanizer.. he's obviously in the closet. He was a fucking underwear model for christ's sake.. sounds like he secretly likes a bit of the ole cock-in-the-mouth if you ask me. He was an underwear model?
Guest combat_rock Posted March 13, 2005 Report Posted March 13, 2005 Honestly, this is like picking between the lesser of two evils. Is Randy Orton being an annoying little shit? Probably. But look at Taker. Here's a guy that's clearly on his last legs and he has yet to put anyone over. In fact, since coming back at WMXX, he hasn't lost one match by pinfall or submission! And no one he's faced has been made to look like a credible challenge, from established stars like Booker T to Johnny come latelys like Heidenriech. For my money, I'm just ready to see him actually show a little concern for the company over himself and actually put someone over. Besides, it's obvious after last week's promo that Orton is either going to return to being a heel or being a face with a lot of edge. Either way, he should be fine. He's been "main event over" before, he can be again.
Guest cosbywasmurdered Posted March 13, 2005 Report Posted March 13, 2005 Honestly, this is like picking between the lesser of two evils. Is Randy Orton being an annoying little shit? Probably. But look at Taker. Here's a guy that's clearly on his last legs and he has yet to put anyone over.
Guest combat_rock Posted March 13, 2005 Report Posted March 13, 2005 Point. Granted it was during his weaker biker phase, and he proceeded to basically say that it wouldn't have happened if he'd faced him five years ago (which really made both look bad, since it made Brock look like he hadn't really beaten the "real" deadman, and made Taker look washed up).
SuperJerk Posted March 13, 2005 Report Posted March 13, 2005 Maybe(hopefully) they're putting him in with UT just so UT can stiff him and beat the shit out of him. I'd like to see that. Only $49.95.
Jericho2000Mark Posted March 13, 2005 Report Posted March 13, 2005 Point. Granted it was during his weaker biker phase, and he proceeded to basically say that it wouldn't have happened if he'd faced him five years ago (which really made both look bad, since it made Brock look like he hadn't really beaten the "real" deadman, and made Taker look washed up). Not to mention Taker's hand was "broken" and Taker made him look weak a month earlier by completely dominating him in their first match.
jester Posted March 13, 2005 Report Posted March 13, 2005 Point. Granted it was during his weaker biker phase, and he proceeded to basically say that it wouldn't have happened if he'd faced him five years ago (which really made both look bad, since it made Brock look like he hadn't really beaten the "real" deadman, and made Taker look washed up). Not to mention Taker's hand was "broken" and Taker made him look weak a month earlier by completely dominating him in their first match. And pinned Brock in a HANDICAP match with the Big Show with Paul Heyman cheating on his behalf. Taker did more harm for Brock.
Enigma Posted March 13, 2005 Report Posted March 13, 2005 That was awesome when UT beat Brock & Big Show in a Handicap Match 4 times.
Vyce Posted March 13, 2005 Report Posted March 13, 2005 Point. Granted it was during his weaker biker phase, and he proceeded to basically say that it wouldn't have happened if he'd faced him five years ago (which really made both look bad, since it made Brock look like he hadn't really beaten the "real" deadman, and made Taker look washed up). Not to mention Taker's hand was "broken" and Taker made him look weak a month earlier by completely dominating him in their first match. And pinned Brock in a HANDICAP match with the Big Show with Paul Heyman cheating on his behalf. Taker did more harm for Brock. I can't believe people still believe that Taker REALLY put over Brock. He may have lost to him, but Taker did Brock no favors. And that was in 2002 - even back THEN, the only thing Taker was good for (much like today) was putting new people over. Jesus, you know it's a sad state of affairs when Hulk fucking Hogan did a cleaner job to put Brock over than Taker. I hope Orton does win at Mania. Frankly, I can't stand the little prick, but honestly, the WWE has to build up new stars. Enough of this mentality that "Taker should only put someone over if it's the right guy." Fuck that - all Taker has left to offer is jobbing to the younger guys to get them over. If they WWE is committed to making Orton the next star, then just have him win the goddamn match.
iliketurtles Posted March 13, 2005 Report Posted March 13, 2005 Reading this thread something came to me... Randy Orton's Heavyweight title reign was the most forgettable reign I think ever. I've never liked Orton in the first place and he's nothing special to this day. Orton beating Taker at Wrestlemania would make his career, but is it actually worth it?
USC Wuz Robbed! Posted March 13, 2005 Report Posted March 13, 2005 Reading this thread something came to me... Randy Orton's Heavyweight title reign was the most forgettable reign I think ever. I've never liked Orton in the first place and he's nothing special to this day. Orton beating Taker at Wrestlemania would make his career, but is it actually worth it? Well in that forgettable reign, Orton had three title matches. He won 1 title match to win the title, won the rematch and lost to HHH in his third title match. Not a record a memorable champion should have.
Guest Dazed Posted March 13, 2005 Report Posted March 13, 2005 Honestly, this is like picking between the lesser of two evils. Is Randy Orton being an annoying little shit? Probably. But look at Taker. Here's a guy that's clearly on his last legs and he has yet to put anyone over. http://www.minnesotascore.com/articles/ima...BrockLesnar.jpg Taker hardly put Brock over at all. And is he the only person you can come up with over the last few years?
Epic Reine Posted March 13, 2005 Report Posted March 13, 2005 Stacy really isn't that hot at all and I will defend that point to the death. There really shouldn't be this much hassle over her.
Guest cosbywasmurdered Posted March 13, 2005 Report Posted March 13, 2005 Honestly, this is like picking between the lesser of two evils. Is Randy Orton being an annoying little shit? Probably. But look at Taker. Here's a guy that's clearly on his last legs and he has yet to put anyone over. http://www.minnesotascore.com/articles/ima...BrockLesnar.jpg Taker hardly put Brock over at all. And is he the only person you can come up with over the last few years? Yep. I can't stand Taker but he did put over Brock. At least in one match. And that one match is the one that the majority of people will always remember.
Hunter's Torn Quad Posted March 14, 2005 Report Posted March 14, 2005 Just a shame that they'll also remember the match that led up to the one and only match Undi put Brock over in.
bob_barron Posted March 14, 2005 Report Posted March 14, 2005 And I think people also remember Taker making Brock look like a bitch at Unforgiven (no-selling everything) and at No Mercy where it took Vince McMahon and the FBI to beat him
Guest cosbywasmurdered Posted March 14, 2005 Report Posted March 14, 2005 Just a shame that they'll also remember the match that led up to the one and only match Undi put Brock over in. Yes it is. I'm not saying that Undertaker did alot to help Brock out, but I think that the HIAC win was the most memorable part of their feud. I'm defending Undertaker, this is awful.
SuperJerk Posted March 14, 2005 Report Posted March 14, 2005 Reading this thread something came to me... Randy Orton's Heavyweight title reign was the most forgettable reign I think ever. Orton was champ? I seem to vaguely remember Benoit jobbing clean to him at Summerslam...but I thought the belt was already off of Benoit by then. Yes, the belt must have already been off of him because he had just come out of a midcard feud with Kane!
Guest TheLastBoyscout Posted March 14, 2005 Report Posted March 14, 2005 Just a shame that they'll also remember the match that led up to the one and only match Undi put Brock over in. Because Lord knows that UT not going down to Brock in a single month DESTROYED Brock's push, his heat... Oh wait, no it didn't. All it did was give us a kicks ass HIAC match.
Guest Trivia247 Posted March 14, 2005 Report Posted March 14, 2005 love this, disregard bad behavior as long as he beats the Undertaker.
Guest combat_rock Posted March 14, 2005 Report Posted March 14, 2005 I'm not saying disregard his bad behaviour, I'm saying that they will fight at WMXXI, and one of them will win. And it's my personal opinion that between the two of them, Orton is the lesser of two evils. Not to mention that a win by him would probably be better for the company in the long run.
Guest Thrashist Posted March 14, 2005 Report Posted March 14, 2005 What kind of strikes me as odd is that since all world champs become a part of history and Vince seems to be big on history and picking his champs carefully, it's really a shame how Randy Orton has entered the history books so soon before IMO he has been even remotely close to being ready. I wouldn't be surprised if after all is said and done, nothing becomes of Randy Orton. Even in his supposed successful feuds, Orton has always done the bare minimum required to avoid being cast as not worth the effort, but I think that right there was a sign that he couldn't handle it. It's amazing how with all of the heat they've had, it took guys like Guerrero, Jericho, Benoit years before they could have the one title reign that Orton got within months. Oh well, at least Orton's early win has led to a main event that wasn't Orton vs HHH, and instead the emergence of BATISTA.
Hunter's Torn Quad Posted March 14, 2005 Report Posted March 14, 2005 Just a shame that they'll also remember the match that led up to the one and only match Undi put Brock over in. Because Lord knows that UT not going down to Brock in a single month DESTROYED Brock's push, his heat... Oh wait, no it didn't. All it did was give us a kicks ass HIAC match. I don't think you could have missed the point any more than you have. Undertaker treating Brock like his bitch, when it should have been the other way around considering Brock was the young studly powerhouse and Undertaker was the grizzled and war torn veteran, definitely took something away from Brock's aura.
Vyce Posted March 14, 2005 Report Posted March 14, 2005 love this, disregard bad behavior as long as he beats the Undertaker. No one is saying to disregard his behavior. But we're presented with these two choices: 1.) Have Taker win at Mania as punishment for Randy. 2.) Put Orton over Taker at Mania to hopefully make him a star. Punish Orton in other ways and / or delay his punishment until after Mania. Which is better for the WWE in the long run? Option #2. Frankly, given the state that the WWE is in these days, it's time to stop this nonsense of protecting old farts, like Taker. That was a lesson that WCW didn't learn until it was far too late for them to do anything about it. Doesn't mean we have to like that the guy who'd reap the benefits is an ass like Orton, but SOMEONE needs to be pushed, and if Orton is the only one in legitimate position, then by God, let it be him.
Guest Rrrsh Posted March 14, 2005 Report Posted March 14, 2005 BTW, why should Orton be punished? Far worse has been done with no punishment.
alfdogg Posted March 14, 2005 Report Posted March 14, 2005 Don't bother trying to debate with Trivia, Vyce.
Guest Thrashist Posted March 14, 2005 Report Posted March 14, 2005 Which is better for the WWE in the long run? Option #2. Not necessarily. At this point, breaking the Mania winning streak is a special deed and whoever does it will do something that a dozen other men have tried but failed. Even if Taker retires in the next year, it would be hard to believe that he wouldn't come back for a Wrestlemania program some time down the road. So if you just gave the win away to a questionably-deserving Orton, you run the risk of giving away a thirteen-year record to a man who may not have the talent in him to uphold that torch. By no means am I advocating 'protecting' an aging politician like Taker or saying that he should retire with the streak. All I'm saying is that something better has to come along than Orton.
Hunter's Torn Quad Posted March 14, 2005 Report Posted March 14, 2005 Which is better for the WWE in the long run? Option #2. Not necessarily. At this point, breaking the Mania winning streak is a special deed and whoever does it will do something that a dozen other men have tried but failed. Even if Taker retires in the next year, it would be hard to believe that he wouldn't come back for a Wrestlemania program some time down the road. So if you just gave the win away to a questionably-deserving Orton, you run the risk of giving away a thirteen-year record to a man who may not have the talent in him to uphold that torch. By no means am I advocating 'protecting' an aging politician like Taker or saying that he should retire with the streak. All I'm saying is that something better has to come along than Orton. While having Orton break Undertaker's streak does have some risks to it, you have to take risks sometimes when it comes to who you give major wins to, or you risk things getting stale, which they have been for a while. And if not Orton this year, then you run the risk of having people less 'ready' next year.
Guest Arnold_OldSchool Posted March 14, 2005 Report Posted March 14, 2005 Orton is 1-0 at WM , correct?
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now