|
Post by Bubble Lead on Dec 23, 2009 20:59:47 GMT -5
2000 through 2004 were probably the best years to be a fan aside from the late 80s.
The majority of the time from late 2004 onwards has been pretty bad with some good mixed in between. Its only recently gotten so bad as to be unwatchable for me though.
So overall, just for the amazing 2000 to 2004 era and the bits of goodness after that [like Edge for instance] I say yes.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Dec 23, 2009 20:56:24 GMT -5
Explain how he got the belt about as fast as Brock Lesnar? Despite very little buildup and not showing any particular reason why he deserves it? You have new guys like MVP, Kofi, Morrison, Swagger...who all have put on a bunch of great matches and have been at least built up to be credible title holders in some capacity, and they can all cut better promos than Sheamus and all have more personality and character. Yet Sheamus gets it? Its like if they gave the belt to Snitsky two months after he debuted. How do you know he hasn't shown anything? He's obviously demonstrated something to a number of veterans and influential decision makers that made them think of the idea of giving him the belt, and Vince had to agree because he didn't veto the idea. I'm going to find my post from another thread on this exact subject, because it really is being blown of all proportion. Listen to what he says in the interview with The Star guys. It's not politicking. The main eventers aren't keeping people down. They just want the young guys to demonstrate they have not only the talent, but the desire to be the future of this business. Sheamus, with HHH's stories of him going the extra mile to learn and turning up to shows he doesn't even have to be at, has that desire. I am saying that he hasn't shown anything onscreen, which is where it counts. Maybe he is great backstage, maybe HHH, Vince, and the road agents all see something in him, sure. Those guys arent buying tickets and PPVs though. A guy like Lesnar got pushed quickly but was pretty much immediately showing how special he was by doing amazing things in the ring and getting crowd reactions. Sheamus has done neither. I dont really care is the guy shows dedication to the business or not if he hasn't entertained me. As a fan, that stuff means nothing to me. I am not even talking politics either. If Sheamus kissed HHHs ass and politicked his way to the belt but was as gifted and entertaining as Lesnar was I would be HAPPY. If MVP or Kofi politicked their way up the ladder it would be a GOOD thing.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Dec 23, 2009 19:40:03 GMT -5
I'm not gonna argue one way or another... But I wonder if Kurt Angle got so much flak when they gave him the WWF title after being in the company for less than a year, and being partially comedy for most of that time. he was partially comedy and partially european champion, IC champion and KOTR Angle had tons of buildup, was an OLYMPIC GOLD MEDALIST, amazing in the ring and great on the mic. There is absolutely no comparison here between him and Sheamus.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Dec 23, 2009 19:38:24 GMT -5
Why is it that guys like Drew McIntyre and Sheamus, who haven't even been around for a year, are holding major championships. But guys who have been around, like Shelton Benjamin and Matt Hardy lose. It's surprising that this subject has never come up before in the couple of weeks since Sheamus and McIntyre won their belts. The most interesting Shelton has ever been was when he had his Momma around and the most over Matt has ever been on his own was during his worked shoot feud with Edge over Lita. Just throwing that out there. There are veteran guys who deserved titles more than Sheamus and Drew, but Shelton and Matt are not good examples. Both are more over than Drew or Sheamus. When has either guy drawn any sort of reaction at all? In fact, the WWE giving them both major titles so soon pretty much negates any sort of "so and so isn't over enough to be a champ" arguments until the end of time. Next time someone tells me that Shelton isn't good enough on the mic, over enough, or doesn't have an interesting enough character to be a major title holder all I am gonna say is "Sheamus."
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Dec 23, 2009 18:54:13 GMT -5
Explain how he got the belt about as fast as Brock Lesnar? Despite very little buildup and not showing any particular reason why he deserves it?
You have new guys like MVP, Kofi, Morrison, Swagger...who all have put on a bunch of great matches and have been at least built up to be credible title holders in some capacity, and they can all cut better promos than Sheamus and all have more personality and character.
Yet Sheamus gets it? Its like if they gave the belt to Snitsky two months after he debuted.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Dec 23, 2009 18:04:21 GMT -5
I doubt there is any sort of purposeful burial going on.
They put the title on him to give us an ill advised swerve and now, predictably, have no idea what to do with him. It doesn't help that the crowd doesn't care, but then again WWE gave nobody any reason to care about him so far besides that HES BIG AND MEAN.
I was losing interest in WWE before this Sheamus stuff and barely watching, but when I heard he won the title I knew exactly what happened when he won [flukey looking table spot that makes it look like he won on accident] and what they would do with him after [nothing, aside from keeping the belt warm for whoever is going to main event at Mania].
Stuff like this is why I decided to completely stop watching WWE. I used to still watch at least a RAW, ECW, or SD once a month but now I have completely given up. Vince and co. are living in a bubble and until its popped by bottomed out ratings and PPV numbers they arent going to change the way they do business, so I will spend my time on other things from now on.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 27, 2009 17:34:21 GMT -5
I'm seeing a whole lot of "Cena vs." for a guy who's suppose to be the "Biggest star of the Decade" The only Cena feud that ever delivered to me was vs. Edge.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 27, 2009 16:21:36 GMT -5
CM Punk vs. Undertaker didn't work at all, Punk's angle on the whole thing (drugged up zombies actually believing in the magic tricks and smoke and mirrors of Taker) was far-fetched, the matches weren't very good, and Taker just looked too dominant. Sometimes the way each guy is booked can make a feud suck, chickens*** heel vs. unstoppable (but hobbled) supernatural force did not goo well. Agreed. That was probably the worst World Title feud since Khali vs. Batista.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 27, 2009 14:42:39 GMT -5
Lashley and Kennedy are WWEs fault. Comparing TNA to WWE is also not relevant, WWE fans take a lot more convincing to accept a new guy suddenly compared to TNA fans [see Desmond Wolfe]. As far as WWE goes, by 2011 I am sure they will have some guys established. Its pretty obvious that they need to build a few guys to that level this year and its been in the works since the draft. Eh I don't really see Wolfe as accepted as a Main Eventer since dude's just got there but how was Lashley WWE's fault? didn't he leave because they fired Kristal? And Kennedy dug his own grave repeatedly Well hes feuding with Angle right off the bat. Thats kinda like coming into WWE and immediately feuding with HHH or Cena. I say Lashley because of the whole Kristal thing. WWE fired her because she said no to a storyline [BS since that kinda thing happens all the time] and should have known Lashley would be pissed about it. If they valued him they shouldn't have fired her or resolved the situation in some way to keep him happy. It wasn't like a Lesnar situation where he just up and left because he didn't want to wrestle anymore. WWE pissed him off and thats on them not Lashley. I say Kennedy was WWEs fault because they continued pushing him even though he kept getting injured and otherwise doing and saying stupid stuff. They should have given his push to someone else.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 27, 2009 14:34:53 GMT -5
All I remember about that match was that HHH looked REALLY orange and it distracted me the entire time.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 27, 2009 14:14:34 GMT -5
What ever happened to Bam Neely? Was he "future endeavored"? He was released in January I believe. Definitely released but I may be wrong on the month.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 27, 2009 14:12:38 GMT -5
{Spoiler}Now Festus is some generic big guy with camo pants named Luke.
I know its better than doing nothing at all but the whole thing was underwhelming to me.
He looked like a CAW. Anything that made him interesting before is gone now. Not impressed.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 27, 2009 10:50:11 GMT -5
It's pretty much the exact opposite. Ever since he won the belt (after getting a random title shot for no reason), everybody other than Ziggler has stopped caring about it. Who cared about it before? Prior to Ziggler trying to capture it, it was just Jericho vs. Mysterio. Its not Morrisons fault that Ziggler is the only credible midcard heel and apparently the concept of giving other heels some throwaway TV shots at the belt is lost on the SD writers.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 27, 2009 2:12:28 GMT -5
It took them like 3 years and when half their main-event was at their worst to do it >_> Anyways, my prediction for the new main-event in 2011: Raw - Triple H, John Cena, Randy Orton, Kofi Kingston, Jack Swagger, The Miz SD - Christian, CM Punk, John Morrison, Dolph Ziggler, Chris Jericho, and a long shot but Ted Dibiase AJ Styles has been the future of TNA for how long? Main Eventers take a long time to make and half the time they've tried recently they backfire (Lashley,Lesnar,Kennedy) Lashley and Kennedy are WWEs fault. Comparing TNA to WWE is also not relevant, WWE fans take a lot more convincing to accept a new guy suddenly compared to TNA fans [see Desmond Wolfe]. As far as WWE goes, by 2011 I am sure they will have some guys established. Its pretty obvious that they need to build a few guys to that level this year and its been in the works since the draft.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 27, 2009 2:04:11 GMT -5
So its Vance Archer and Sheamus time to be pushed as a big deal and then forgotten about?
Cos somehow, pushing ten different people the same exact way is eventually going to work somehow...
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 26, 2009 3:32:53 GMT -5
Easiest answer: Randy Orton. Pushed so heavily from day one that people consider him losing his title feud with HHH a burial. But it was. It wasn't just the one loss at Unforgiven, it was the whole feud. Triple H made it very clear that he's the one who created Orton and Orton was not in Triple H's league - and then he beats him. It totally killed Orton's heat and credibility. Then, Orton somehow is able to re-establish himself and finally faces Triple H in a rematch at the Royal Rumble and loses again. There really is no excuse for that. Not all the blame goes to Triple H, as it wasn't a very wise move to turn Orton face in the first place. At least not in the way they did. He had been an obnoxious jerk for a long time, beating everybody down and telling us he was better than us and now he gets kicked out of Evolution. Are we supposed to feel sorry for the little brat? No. They should have had Orton decide to LEAVE Evolution by delievering an RKO to Triple H. It would have made a world of difference. That way, the audience might have fealt sorry for him for getting screwed out of the title at Unforgiven and get behind him on his quest to regain it. But they decided to say scrap that, let's go with Batista. I didn't think it was a burial. He was still winning the majority of his matches and HHH had to cheat to beat him in the first place. I mean, if Orton was buried than every other challenger outside of Batista and Chris Benoit was buried during that era of HHH as well , people dont seem to agree with that most of the time or they say its just smark hate. Was it bad booking, yes. Bad booking doesn't equal not being pushed though. He was still being pushed and after he got out of that storyline he turned heel and continued to be pushed.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 25, 2009 22:15:54 GMT -5
The majority of Triple Hs heel feuds. Hell, he even went over Austin, who people try and paint as a guy who steamrolled over everyone and never lost. Its pretty amusing how HHH is exempt from both the "face must win at WM" and "face must go over the especially nefarious, dastardly heel" rules. I remember after WM 25 a lot of HHH defenders saying he had to win at WM 25 and beat Orton as badly as he did because a face has to win at WM and a face has to win in such a personal feud. How dare anyone complain or question that! Yet this doesn't apply to the countless times heel dickhead HHH beat the snot out of faces. *shrug* Uhh, but he has lost most of the recent WMs... Like all of them from 20-24. Yeah I know. I was talking about him winning WM 2000. Not saying he never loses or anything. Just saying that he won the majority of his heel feuds which is a rarity in WWE land.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 25, 2009 21:21:06 GMT -5
The majority of Triple Hs heel feuds.
Hell, he even went over Austin, who people try and paint as a guy who steamrolled over everyone and never lost.
Its pretty amusing how HHH is exempt from both the "face must win at WM" and "face must go over the especially nefarious, dastardly heel" rules.
I remember after WM 25 a lot of HHH defenders saying he had to win at WM 25 and beat Orton as badly as he did because a face has to win at WM and a face has to win in such a personal feud. How dare anyone complain or question that! Yet this doesn't apply to the countless times heel dickhead HHH beat the snot out of faces.
*shrug*
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 25, 2009 20:03:01 GMT -5
Oh, also CM Punk. Even when people were complaining he was supposedly being forgotten about, he was getting TV time, winning the majority of his matches [as a face] and winning MITB or titles.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 25, 2009 19:38:17 GMT -5
Easiest answer: Randy Orton.
Pushed so heavily from day one that people consider him losing his title feud with HHH a burial.
|
|