The Good Old Days....

[RealMattKozza91]

Dont think i have to say anything.....

[JDviant]

1. I still dig that old LB stuff.

2. Debra actually looked pretty good in that clip, comical disproportions aside.

3. These were sad not good days since Kurt had just lost the title

[WorkingInAColeMine]

A thread about this video should just be stickied at this point

[barley96]

True main eventers unlike these steroided muscle-heads WWE has today.

[Deleted]

Mar 13, 2010 0:29:05 GMT -5 barley96 said:

True main eventers unlike these steroided muscle-heads WWE has today.

I'm sure Austin and The Rock and more wrestlers back then took steroids since there wasn't Wellness back then. Plus outside of Cena, Batista, Mysterio, and possibly Triple H I don't really anyone else who could possibly be doing steroids. Plus I doubt Triple H takes any since he always comes back ripped because I'm sure he has nothing better to do other then recovery and working out and his physique always gets worse the longer he stays. Also Cena was a workout partner for the guy who created that "Bigger, Stronger, Faster" documentary and he basically questioned every athlete as a steroid user and didn't question Cena at all. He also called him a genetic freak.

HBK, Taker, Edge, Orton, Jericho, Big Show, Kane don't really have to take steroids to lose a spot in the card and never got over with there size. Well Big Show did over by his behemot size and same with Kane (with mask) but a man big as Kane or Big Show doesn't need to take them to get over. Just ask The Great Khali. Plus the rest mentioned above look pretty lean or chubby.

Punk doesn't do drugs or drink for some unknown obvious reason to me.

Sheamus looks also pretty lean for a big man. If anything the Raw Midcard are the ones most likely doing steroids because maybe steroids will finally get them out of the midcard lol or maybe more promo time and a push that actually sticks can get them out. Plus when I see Kofi I doubt anyone screams Steroids when they see him or Swagger or Matt Hardy or Mark Henry or Christian or etc.

[Allie Kitsune]

Mar 13, 2010 0:37:29 GMT -5 @supersweetbotch said:

Mar 13, 2010 0:29:05 GMT -5 barley96 said:

True main eventers unlike these steroided muscle-heads WWE has today.

I'm sure Austin and The Rock and more wrestlers back then took steroids since there wasn't Wellness back then. Plus outside of Cena, Batista, Mysterio, and possibly Triple H I don't really anyone else who could possibly be doing steroids. Plus I doubt Triple H takes any since he always comes back ripped because I'm sure he has nothing better to do other then recovery and working out and his physique always gets worse the longer he stays. Also Cena was a workout partner for the guy who created that "Bigger, Stronger, Faster" documentary and he basically questioned every athlete as a steroid user and didn't question Cena at all. He also called him a genetic freak.

HBK, Taker, Edge, Orton, Jericho, Big Show, Kane don't really have to take steroids to lose a spot in the card and never got over with there size. Well Big Show did over by his behemot size and same with Kane (with mask) but a man big as Kane or Big Show doesn't need to take them to get over. Just ask The Great Khali. Plus the rest mentioned above look pretty lean or chubby.

Punk doesn't do drugs or drink for some unknown obvious reason to me.

Sheamus looks also pretty lean for a big man. If anything the Raw Midcard are the ones most likely doing steroids because maybe steroids will finally get them out of the midcard lol or maybe more promo time and a push that actually sticks can get them out. Plus when I see Kofi I doubt anyone screams Steroids when they see him or Swagger or Matt Hardy or Mark Henry or Christian or etc.

Well, remember, the first time Jamie Noble got fired, it was (ultimately) caused by his steroid use, so it's not ALWAYS the guys you'd think it is...

[Deleted]

Mar 13, 2010 0:46:23 GMT -5 Allie Kitsune said:

Mar 13, 2010 0:37:29 GMT -5 @supersweetbotch said:

I'm sure Austin and The Rock and more wrestlers back then took steroids since there wasn't Wellness back then. Plus outside of Cena, Batista, Mysterio, and possibly Triple H I don't really anyone else who could possibly be doing steroids. Plus I doubt Triple H takes any since he always comes back ripped because I'm sure he has nothing better to do other then recovery and working out and his physique always gets worse the longer he stays. Also Cena was a workout partner for the guy who created that "Bigger, Stronger, Faster" documentary and he basically questioned every athlete as a steroid user and didn't question Cena at all. He also called him a genetic freak.

HBK, Taker, Edge, Orton, Jericho, Big Show, Kane don't really have to take steroids to lose a spot in the card and never got over with there size. Well Big Show did over by his behemot size and same with Kane (with mask) but a man big as Kane or Big Show doesn't need to take them to get over. Just ask The Great Khali. Plus the rest mentioned above look pretty lean or chubby.

Punk doesn't do drugs or drink for some unknown obvious reason to me.

Sheamus looks also pretty lean for a big man. If anything the Raw Midcard are the ones most likely doing steroids because maybe steroids will finally get them out of the midcard lol or maybe more promo time and a push that actually sticks can get them out. Plus when I see Kofi I doubt anyone screams Steroids when they see him or Swagger or Matt Hardy or Mark Henry or Christian or etc.

Well, remember, the first time Jamie Noble got fired, it was (ultimately) caused by his steroid use, so it's not ALWAYS the guys you'd think it is...

True but thats what I mentioned as well. The midcard is more likely to do steroids rather then the main event. Triple H, Taker, HBK, Jericho, Big Show are all guys that are getting pretty old and close to retiring. I don't see why they should take them. Plus they are over with the fans for the rest of there careers and shouldn't be worried about losing there spots especially in Triple H case. Big Show, HBK, Taker, and Jericho don't seem hesitant of putting guys over.

Plus with Linda McMahon running for office, WWE being PG with concerned parents, and in a post Benoit/congressional investigation in the world. I think WWE would hate to get more bad publicity that can affect Linda's case or WWE viewership. If the Benoit muders happened during this PG era there would be a significant drop in ratings I'm sure or parents wouldn't let there kids watch wrestling till they reach a certain age. If someone has failed wellness I'm sure they would take immediate action against that star more then ever. It cost Jeff Hardy MITB a ladder match or Regal being pushed into the WWE's hottest storyline of the time.

[celticjobber]

Mar 13, 2010 0:29:05 GMT -5 barley96 said:

True main eventers unlike these steroided muscle-heads WWE has today.

There's almost always been a steroid problem in every wrestling company for a couple of decades.

[mschif420]

Mar 13, 2010 0:37:29 GMT -5 @supersweetbotch said:

Mar 13, 2010 0:29:05 GMT -5 barley96 said:

True main eventers unlike these steroided muscle-heads WWE has today.

Also Cena was a workout partner for the guy who created that "Bigger, Stronger, Faster" documentary and he basically questioned every athlete as a steroid user and didn't question Cena at all. He also called him a genetic freak.

HEH

[Deleted]

Mar 13, 2010 1:22:05 GMT -5 @mschif420 said:

Mar 13, 2010 0:37:29 GMT -5 @supersweetbotch said:

Also Cena was a workout partner for the guy who created that "Bigger, Stronger, Faster" documentary and he basically questioned every athlete as a steroid user and didn't question Cena at all. He also called him a genetic freak.

HEH

Only Steiner calls himself a genetic freak I'm sure. Plus Steiner made Cena s*** his ring gear once in a house show. Well food poisoning and indigestion made Cena crap himself but Steiner was in the ring with Cena when he did it lol.

[jobsquad]

Yeah, I have seen guys juice up and then blow up to enormous proportions compared to not using them. I have also seen guys use them, get slightly bigger, but ultimately look like a natural lifter.

Then I have seen natural guys look juiced up, but really aren't. Genetics are an amazing thing really.

[-Lithium-]

Mar 13, 2010 0:20:54 GMT -5 WorkingInAColeMine said:

A thread about this video should just be stickied at this point

;D "Talk about the WrestleMania 17 Promo for Rock vs Austin here"

That would be awesome.

Oh, but really, the WM 19 video is better. Because it didn't have to include a generic storyline like Austins wife being involved, in the video...

["Dashing" Dr.VonPhoenix]

Mar 13, 2010 0:29:05 GMT -5 barley96 said:

True main eventers unlike these steroided muscle-heads WWE has today.

Tradition: OHAI!

[wrestlecrapcrap]

No doubt it's awesome.

Cena/Batista is pretty damn close in my book though. It's based on the same premise, the two biggest stars of the era going one on one, with one eager to prove he should be the face of the company while the other looking to prove that he deserved it all along.

And if that doesn't, HBK/Taker reaches it. We're getting just as good stuff today in my book.

[spagett]

Mar 13, 2010 14:37:37 GMT -5 wrestlecrapcrap said:

No doubt it's awesome.

Cena/Batista is pretty damn close in my book though. It's based on the same premise, the two biggest stars of the era going one on one, with one eager to prove he should be the face of the company while the other looking to prove that he deserved it all along.

And if that doesn't, HBK/Taker reaches it. We're getting just as good stuff today in my book.

Cena/Batista is absolutely no where near the same level as Rock/Austin.

[wrestlecrapcrap]

Mar 13, 2010 15:00:47 GMT -5 spagett said:

Mar 13, 2010 14:37:37 GMT -5 wrestlecrapcrap said:

No doubt it's awesome.

Cena/Batista is pretty damn close in my book though. It's based on the same premise, the two biggest stars of the era going one on one, with one eager to prove he should be the face of the company while the other looking to prove that he deserved it all along.

And if that doesn't, HBK/Taker reaches it. We're getting just as good stuff today in my book.

Cena/Batista is absolutely no where near the same level as Rock/Austin.

The quality of the feud this go around isn't all that different. Of course the star power in the grand scheme of things (i.e. the entertainment landscape as a whole) it is, because Rock and Austin were much bigger crossover stars. The feuds are pretty much still the same though, all Rock/Austin was at WM17 was simply about who was the best. There was little to no added storyline development other than that, infact it's quite a common consensus that the one storyline that was added, being Debra, wasn't needed and distracted from the core idea of what it was supposed to be.

Cena/Batista is pretty much the same, both guy's motivations are explained. Batista wants to prove he should have got the opportunities Cena did. Cena had his title stolen by Batista. I'd even go as far to say that this story has been more intricately crafted than Rock/Austin, with them using Bret/Vince initially to involve Batista, and have him earn his favour of a title shot from Vince.

I'm not saying that Rock/Austin was bad. It was fantastic. What made it so great was that it was simple for the most part. In terms of storytelling though (and not overall mainstream appeal) I don't think Cena/Batista lags that far behind.

[spagett]

Mar 13, 2010 15:14:32 GMT -5 wrestlecrapcrap said:

Mar 13, 2010 15:00:47 GMT -5 spagett said:

Cena/Batista is absolutely no where near the same level as Rock/Austin.

The quality of the feud this go around isn't all that different. Of course the star power in the grand scheme of things (i.e. the entertainment landscape as a whole) it is, because Rock and Austin were much bigger crossover stars. The feuds are pretty much still the same though, all Rock/Austin was at WM17 was simply about who was the best. There was little to no added storyline development other than that, infact it's quite a common consensus that the one storyline that was added, being Debra, wasn't needed and distracted from the core idea of what it was supposed to be.

Cena/Batista is pretty much the same, both guy's motivations are explained. Batista wants to prove he should have got the opportunities Cena did. Cena had his title stolen by Batista. I'd even go as far to say that this story has been more intricately crafted than Rock/Austin, with them using Bret/Vince initially to involve Batista, and have him earn his favour of a title shot from Vince.

I'm not saying that Rock/Austin was bad. It was fantastic. What made it so great was that it was simple for the most part. In terms of storytelling though (and not overall mainstream appeal) I don't think Cena/Batista lags that far behind.

I think the build up to this Wrestlemania has been on the whole very good. Especially when you compare it to the mess of last year and I think in particular Batista Cena has been done well.

I just think it does them no favours to compare it to Rock/Austin simply because they can't compete with that.

But for what it is yeah I agree that Batista/Cena has all the makings of a really good feud.

[Deleted]

They're never coming back, watch your future fade?

[Deleted]

Mar 13, 2010 15:22:14 GMT -5 Lizuka #BLM said:

They're never coming back, watch your future fade?

Because I came to play?

[Free Hat]

While the basic premise behind Cena/Batista is the same, the fact of the matter is that neither man has the kind of charisma necessary to pull off what the Rock and Austin did here. While I think this feud has been decent in its own right, comparing it to Rock/Austin ultimately does it no favours.