Some Guy 0 Report post Posted March 25, 2005 Off topic: I was shocked/in joy/and pissed when I saw Summerslam 92 Roddy Piper! Which I didn't hear was in the show (so I was upset no one I read mentioned he was on the show because it does matter in some regard, Piper didn't no show Summerslam 92!) No Piper did not in fact "no show" Summerslam. He showed up unadvertised and played the bagpipes. You're learning though. This is starting to remind me of the "When in Rome" deal from Anchor Man. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest fanofcoils Report post Posted March 25, 2005 Uh oh more controversy! I should have mentioned no showed + just wasn't on the show for WHATEVER reason (family, injuries, etc) in regarding to Undertaker and WM X. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest LooneyTune Report post Posted March 25, 2005 To try and make this topic entertaining, here's someones old avatar.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest fanofcoils Report post Posted March 25, 2005 When I read a lot of stuff about Summerslam 92 before I finally watched it, I didn't or barely read (and simply forgot) Piper was on the show I think. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Shadow Report post Posted March 25, 2005 obscure? HE WAS IN A FUCKING ANGLE! He had been pushed for about the last 6 months prior to that as a big threat. He didnt just show up. You are really clueless and stupid. You don't even know the simple meaning of No-Selling and No-Showing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Some Guy 0 Report post Posted March 25, 2005 Wrestlemania VIII is a classic PPV, it has EVERYONE worthwhile at the time except Sting and Vader. I think King Kong Bundy would have fit, better than Wrestlemania XI King Kong Bundy, which was an obscure Wrestlemania to return to IMO. Why was 11 "obscure" but not 8? I think it would be more "obscure" for him to have showed up for a WM when he wasn't under contract than for him to show at one for which he was contracted and had an angle leading up to his match with Taker. But I do think that Lou Thesz should have run in and Thesz Pressed HBK at WM 20 just to teach him a lesson about gimmick infringment and reincarnation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest fanofcoils Report post Posted March 25, 2005 More controversy. I understand it wasn't very clear but you SHOULD? try to understand me. I know Bundy didn't suddenly appear at WM XI, but Bundy for around that time frame didn't make as much sense as WM VIII Bundy IMO. I shouldn't have said no sell = no show because some people disagree. I am trying to be noncontroversial! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Arnold_OldSchool Report post Posted March 25, 2005 Razor Ramon was on the roster for WM 13 but was suspended. 1-2-3 Kid wasn't used either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest fanofcoils Report post Posted March 25, 2005 WM XI was obscure because I didn't think Bundy fit in with the times as well as he coudl with WM VIII which is a classic PPV and Bundy is a classic WWE figure, even though he may not be a superstar, but probably a future hall of famer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest fanofcoils Report post Posted March 25, 2005 No I don't want this to be an endless list wrestlers for any PPVs they weren't on, just the major ones that stick out in your mind that SHOULD have been at a PPV for whatever reason even though they might be injured not in the right fed, etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Shadow Report post Posted March 25, 2005 More controversy. I understand it wasn't very clear but you SHOULD? try to understand me. I know Bundy didn't suddenly appear at WM XI, but Bundy for around that time frame didn't make as much sense as WM VIII Bundy IMO. I shouldn't have said no sell = no show because some people disagree. I am trying to be noncontroversial! Let's see...KKB was in a stable that also consisted of a couple other "monsters" (Bam Bam, Kama) and had been built as a threat to the undertaker. How does he NOT fit that frame? KKB wasn't even USED at all in 1992 by WWE and i dont think he was even under contract to them anyways. Why dont you graduate 3rd grade first and learn the difference between No Sell and No Show...which are polar opposites. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest LooneyTune Report post Posted March 25, 2005 Abraham Lincoln - Heroes of Wrestling Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest fanofcoils Report post Posted March 25, 2005 Wow I try to say things to make them clear, what did I do wrong there? Is shadow just a troll? Any help on this one? The angle meant sense, I never disputed it! I just want to know why are you disputing me on this one? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Shadow Report post Posted March 25, 2005 WM XI was obscure because I didn't think Bundy fit in with the times as well as he coudl with WM VIII which is a classic PPV and Bundy is a classic WWE figure, even though he may not be a superstar, but probably a future hall of famer. With that notion, Bob Backlund should't been on the XI card either even though his character was one of the few bright spots in the sinking shit hole that wwf was in 1995. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest fanofcoils Report post Posted March 25, 2005 No sold has been used in reference to moves, I thought no sold means ignored, and thus no sold can mean ignored a PPV. But people didn't like this usage in the past, I shouldn't have mentioned "no sold" in this thread, my bad.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Arnold_OldSchool Report post Posted March 25, 2005 Don Muraco at Starcade 83 - Gritty blood and guts worker who would've fit in with the NWa of the times. /still thinks you needs to shut up Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest fanofcoils Report post Posted March 25, 2005 Why? I would love to know. Maybe I could dispute what you say or I can learn from you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Some Guy 0 Report post Posted March 25, 2005 More controversy. I understand it wasn't very clear but you SHOULD? try to understand me. I know Bundy didn't suddenly appear at WM XI, but Bundy for around that time frame didn't make as much sense as WM VIII Bundy IMO. I shouldn't have said no sell = no show because some people disagree. I am trying to be noncontroversial! I'm trying, dude. Read that post you made and explain to me how it makes sense. Is English a second language for you? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Shadow Report post Posted March 25, 2005 Wow I try to say things to make them clear, what did I do wrong there? Is shadow just a troll? Any help on this one? The angle meant sense, I never disputed it! I just want to know why are you disputing me on this one? I'm a troll because i have used common sense and logic which you have repeatedly failed to even comprehende? Learn what no-sell means first. Learn what no-show means next. learn the opposites. You said King Kong Bundy should have been on the WM8 card because he is a "classic" name, when he's just in reality another of the many "monsters" of the 80's with little to no significance. He wasn't even used in wwf at all from 1989 to 1994 when he came a FULL time employee again. So you wanted to use an old timer who wasn't even being used on the card when there was bigger name in WWF actually legit left off the card for WM8 in the British Bulldog. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest LooneyTune Report post Posted March 25, 2005 I no sold my bowel movement (washes out boxer shorts). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Arnold_OldSchool Report post Posted March 25, 2005 Kerry Von Erich - good looking roider who could wrestle...put him on any WWF PPV of the 80's. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Some Guy 0 Report post Posted March 25, 2005 I no sold my bowel movement (washes out boxer shorts). No, I think the toilet no showed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest fanofcoils Report post Posted March 25, 2005 More controversy. I understand it wasn't very clear but you SHOULD? try to understand me. I know Bundy didn't suddenly appear at WM XI, but Bundy for around that time frame didn't make as much sense as WM VIII Bundy IMO. I shouldn't have said no sell = no show because some people disagree. I am trying to be noncontroversial! I'm trying, dude. Read that post you made and explain to me how it makes sense. Is English a second language for you? What specifically do you not understand about it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest LooneyTune Report post Posted March 25, 2005 The endless blabbering of incoherrent nonsense would be a good example. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest fanofcoils Report post Posted March 25, 2005 This thread is very simple, when you watch a certain PPV from the past do you ever think why the fuck is this certain wrestler not on this PPV as he SHOULD be on the show. Wrestlemania XIX Edge would have been good IMO even though some people don't like Edge and yes, he was injured, but still it was weird without him on it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Shadow Report post Posted March 25, 2005 It is not very simple when YOU dont even understand the fucking question you asked us. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest fanofcoils Report post Posted March 25, 2005 You can disagree with my choices, post your own choices IF YOU WANT. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Some Guy 0 Report post Posted March 25, 2005 More controversy. I understand it wasn't very clear but you SHOULD? try to understand me. I know Bundy didn't suddenly appear at WM XI, but Bundy for around that time frame didn't make as much sense as WM VIII Bundy IMO. I shouldn't have said no sell = no show because some people disagree. I am trying to be noncontroversial! I'm trying, dude. Read that post you made and explain to me how it makes sense. Is English a second language for you? What specifically do you not understand about it? First of all, there has been no "controversy" in this thread just confusion and mockery. Secondly you typed "should" in all caps and tagged a ? after it. You've made very little sense and added nothing to the thread that you started and can;t even seem to articulate what it's supposed to be about. Arnold Oldschool seems to be the only one taking this seriously and he is making points backed up with reasoning albeit to a rather foolish topic. Try it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Some Guy 0 Report post Posted March 25, 2005 This thread is very simple, when you watch a certain PPV from the past do you ever think why the fuck is this certain wrestler not on this PPV as he SHOULD be on the show. Wrestlemania XIX Edge would have been good IMO even though some people don't like Edge and yes, he was injured, but still it was weird without him on it. What made it weird? Edge being on the show would have been weird as he had just had spinal fusion surgery like 2 weeks before the show. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest fanofcoils Report post Posted March 25, 2005 My question was vague it seems (or YES according to you), which does happen in life, so I am trying to make it specific so you get it. Do you get it now? Wrestlemania IV Flair, Starrcade 93 Bret Hart, etc. This is fantasy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
