incident between Masters and Taker during house sh

[krazysane]

jackrabbitslim said:

How do we know who is and who isn't a locker room leader? I missed that memo.

Yeah. Did you get that memo?

Yeah. I got the memo. And I understand the policy. And the problem is just that I forgot the one time. And I've already taken care of it so it's not even really a problem anymore.

[Hiroshi Hase]

jackrabbitslim said:

How do we know who is and who isn't a locker room leader? I missed that memo.

I'm assuming the rumors and such that have made the rounds, and that's what some are going by.

[Mr. Mediocre]

jackrabbitslim said:

Haven't read past the initial post, but have we gotten to the double standard of how this was ok, yet Holly is still a bully yet?

That's all this thread has been about since like page 2.

[joeman]

jackrabbitslim said:

How do we know who is and who isn't a locker room leader? I missed that memo.

It is presumption, like Michelle McCool having sex with the Undertaker.

[Christianv2]

joeman said:

jackrabbitslim said:

How do we know who is and who isn't a locker room leader? I missed that memo.

It is presumption, like Michelle McCool having sex with the Undertaker.

Well when she was asked she said "and what if I am?" and that kinda implies um yes she is.

[krazysane]

joeman said:

jackrabbitslim said:

How do we know who is and who isn't a locker room leader? I missed that memo.

It is presumption, like Michelle McCool having sex with the Undertaker.

I know they did, they did it in my bed. I was in the same bed. While they were going at it, I was sleeping. So they thought. I didnt wanna be rude and let them know that your grunting sweating bodys were keeping me awake yet aroused. So I just layed there as quiet as you can be as those too got it on.

[HMARK Center]

maxnificent said:

My bottom line to all of this is that it's obvious people have a blind bias in their attempts to hate everything, except for what's "underground." There's a group of wrestlers who can do no wrong (but remember one word: Benoit), and there's a group who will be the "victims" of unclever nicknames and being told their matches aren't "five stars."

Please. You're seeing conspiracies and ghosts where there are none.

Shockingly enough, many good wrestlers out there are praised for, well, being good wrestlers. Brian Kendrick is a fine, fine wrestler: athletic, charismatic, and smart in the ring, knows what he's doing at all times. It's not that he's "small" or "underground", its that he's actually good at what he does, at least to a sizable enough group of fans.

This whole "Rage against the IWC!" phenomenon is absolutely pointless. This board alone is awash in a sea of differing opinions and stances on issues, and yet this whole "The IWC only cares about flips!" idiocy continues. I'm sorry, it just comes off as sad. Stop playing the rebel, just give a damn opinion and make a mature, logical argument/debate. I, for one, am in no mood to see a board I frequent splintered by such inane ramblings as "EVERYBODY THINKS THIS WAY, HIVEMIND!" and related crap.

As for the story, it seems like it may not be true (conflicting reports), but I'm not even going to address the story. All I'll address is that intentionally stiffing someone, outside of a little rookie hazing (i.e. some stiff chops that you tell a guy you're gonna land on him while you're both backstage) or doing something to intentionally get over something in the ring, is inexcusable.

I'm sorry, but there are reasons nobody takes wrestling seriously, and stuff like "stiffing green rooks" is one of them. You want to chew out a guy for a shoddy performance once you're backstage? Fine. You want to get him in line, maybe have put him in front of "wrestlers' court" in the locker room? No problem.

But no serious profession airs its dirty laundry like that out in front of the audience. Grow up, or stop asking people to take your company seriously.

[The F'N Captain]

Kinda overzealous on Taker's part there. I mean if Master's wasn't selling sure maybe stretch him a little or throw a stiff shot or two, but no need to basically asault him. Maybe Taker was pissed when he sold a little THEN quit. I dunno.

You know Finaly got a laugh out of it. He's oldschool like Taker.

[joeman]

Except we are getting this from unreliable sources, how do we know she really said this? Seriously, it is like taking tabloid quotes as truth.

A great example of this is the suppose Batista quote from his book. Cute, but really some reporters have a lot of time on their hands.

[krazysane]

hitmanmark said:

maxnificent said:

My bottom line to all of this is that it's obvious people have a blind bias in their attempts to hate everything, except for what's "underground." There's a group of wrestlers who can do no wrong (but remember one word: Benoit), and there's a group who will be the "victims" of unclever nicknames and being told their matches aren't "five stars."

Please. You're seeing conspiracies and ghosts where there are none.

Shockingly enough, many good wrestlers out there are praised for, well, being good wrestlers. Brian Kendrick is a fine, fine wrestler: athletic, charismatic, and smart in the ring, knows what he's doing at all times. It's not that he's "small" or "underground", its that he's actually good at what he does, at least to a sizable enough group of fans.

This whole "Rage against the IWC!" phenomenon is absolutely pointless. This board alone is awash in a sea of differing opinions and stances on issues, and yet this whole "The IWC only cares about flips!" idiocy continues. I'm sorry, it just comes off as sad. Stop playing the rebel, just give a damn opinion and make a mature, logical argument/debate. I, for one, am in no mood to see a board I frequent splintered by such inane ramblings as "EVERYBODY THINKS THIS WAY, HIVEMIND!" and related crap.

As for the story, it seems like it may not be true (conflicting reports), but I'm not even going to address the story. All I'll address is that intentionally stiffing someone, outside of a little rookie hazing (i.e. some stiff chops that you tell a guy you're gonna land on him while you're both backstage) or doing something to intentionally get over something in the ring, is inexcusable.

I'm sorry, but there are reasons nobody takes wrestling seriously, and stuff like "stiffing green rooks" is one of them. You want to chew out a guy for a shoddy performance once you're backstage? Fine. You want to get him in line, maybe have put him in front of "wrestlers' court" in the locker room? No problem.

But no serious profession airs its dirty laundry like that out in front of the audience. Grow up, or stop asking people to take your company seriously.

I really agree with your point of view on the subject.

[The Ichi]

What exactly goes on in the Wrestler's Court, anyway?

Do I even wanna know?

[MGH]

hitmanmark said:

maxnificent said:

My bottom line to all of this is that it's obvious people have a blind bias in their attempts to hate everything, except for what's "underground." There's a group of wrestlers who can do no wrong (but remember one word: Benoit), and there's a group who will be the "victims" of unclever nicknames and being told their matches aren't "five stars."

Please. You're seeing conspiracies and ghosts where there are none.

Shockingly enough, many good wrestlers out there are praised for, well, being good wrestlers. Brian Kendrick is a fine, fine wrestler: athletic, charismatic, and smart in the ring, knows what he's doing at all times. It's not that he's "small" or "underground", its that he's actually good at what he does, at least to a sizable enough group of fans.

This whole "Rage against the IWC!" phenomenon is absolutely pointless. This board alone is awash in a sea of differing opinions and stances on issues, and yet this whole "The IWC only cares about flips!" idiocy continues. I'm sorry, it just comes off as sad. Stop playing the rebel, just give a damn opinion and make a mature, logical argument/debate. I, for one, am in no mood to see a board I frequent splintered by such inane ramblings as "EVERYBODY THINKS THIS WAY, HIVEMIND!" and related crap.

As for the story, it seems like it may not be true (conflicting reports), but I'm not even going to address the story. All I'll address is that intentionally stiffing someone, outside of a little rookie hazing (i.e. some stiff chops that you tell a guy you're gonna land on him while you're both backstage) or doing something to intentionally get over something in the ring, is inexcusable.

I'm sorry, but there are reasons nobody takes wrestling seriously, and stuff like "stiffing green rooks" is one of them. You want to chew out a guy for a shoddy performance once you're backstage? Fine. You want to get him in line, maybe have put him in front of "wrestlers' court" in the locker room? No problem.

But no serious profession airs its dirty laundry like that out in front of the audience. Grow up, or stop asking people to take your company seriously.

Well. f***ing. Said.

[HMARK Center]

curryman said:

What exactly goes on in the Wrestler's Court, anyway?

Do I even wanna know?

Well, most sports have "players' court", where they'll kind of rib a guy, making him pay a small fine for something considered a party foul or whatever, though sometimes players will sort of police themselves if they feel a teammate has done something over the line.

I'm sure wrestlers' court is likely the same format, but punishments likely range from "Pay so-and-so $200 for what you did" to "Get in the shower with JBL."

[The F'N Captain]

curryman said:

What exactly goes on in the Wrestler's Court, anyway?

Do I even wanna know?

I really hope they play "The People's Court" themesong.

[Maxnificent]

krazysane said:

hitmanmark said:

Please. You're seeing conspiracies and ghosts where there are none.

Shockingly enough, many good wrestlers out there are praised for, well, being good wrestlers. Brian Kendrick is a fine, fine wrestler: athletic, charismatic, and smart in the ring, knows what he's doing at all times. It's not that he's "small" or "underground", its that he's actually good at what he does, at least to a sizable enough group of fans.

This whole "Rage against the IWC!" phenomenon is absolutely pointless. This board alone is awash in a sea of differing opinions and stances on issues, and yet this whole "The IWC only cares about flips!" idiocy continues. I'm sorry, it just comes off as sad. Stop playing the rebel, just give a damn opinion and make a mature, logical argument/debate. I, for one, am in no mood to see a board I frequent splintered by such inane ramblings as "EVERYBODY THINKS THIS WAY, HIVEMIND!" and related crap.

As for the story, it seems like it may not be true (conflicting reports), but I'm not even going to address the story. All I'll address is that intentionally stiffing someone, outside of a little rookie hazing (i.e. some stiff chops that you tell a guy you're gonna land on him while you're both backstage) or doing something to intentionally get over something in the ring, is inexcusable.

I'm sorry, but there are reasons nobody takes wrestling seriously, and stuff like "stiffing green rooks" is one of them. You want to chew out a guy for a shoddy performance once you're backstage? Fine. You want to get him in line, maybe have put him in front of "wrestlers' court" in the locker room? No problem.

But no serious profession airs its dirty laundry like that out in front of the audience. Grow up, or stop asking people to take your company seriously.

I really agree with your point of view on the subject.

How clever. How long did it take to think of that post?

[Mr. Mediocre]

hitmanmark said:

maxnificent said:

My bottom line to all of this is that it's obvious people have a blind bias in their attempts to hate everything, except for what's "underground." There's a group of wrestlers who can do no wrong (but remember one word: Benoit), and there's a group who will be the "victims" of unclever nicknames and being told their matches aren't "five stars."

Please. You're seeing conspiracies and ghosts where there are none.

Shockingly enough, many good wrestlers out there are praised for, well, being good wrestlers. Brian Kendrick is a fine, fine wrestler: athletic, charismatic, and smart in the ring, knows what he's doing at all times. It's not that he's "small" or "underground", its that he's actually good at what he does, at least to a sizable enough group of fans.

This whole "Rage against the IWC!" phenomenon is absolutely pointless. This board alone is awash in a sea of differing opinions and stances on issues, and yet this whole "The IWC only cares about flips!" idiocy continues. I'm sorry, it just comes off as sad. Stop playing the rebel, just give a damn opinion and make a mature, logical argument/debate. I, for one, am in no mood to see a board I frequent splintered by such inane ramblings as "EVERYBODY THINKS THIS WAY, HIVEMIND!" and related crap.

As for the story, it seems like it may not be true (conflicting reports), but I'm not even going to address the story. All I'll address is that intentionally stiffing someone, outside of a little rookie hazing (i.e. some stiff chops that you tell a guy you're gonna land on him while you're both backstage) or doing something to intentionally get over something in the ring, is inexcusable.

I'm sorry, but there are reasons nobody takes wrestling seriously, and stuff like "stiffing green rooks" is one of them. You want to chew out a guy for a shoddy performance once you're backstage? Fine. You want to get him in line, maybe have put him in front of "wrestlers' court" in the locker room? No problem.

But no serious profession airs its dirty laundry like that out in front of the audience. Grow up, or stop asking people to take your company seriously.

Thank you, HMark. That was a lot better said than I was able to put it.

[HMARK Center]

maxnificent said:

krazysane said:

I really agree with your point of view on the subject.

How clever. How long did it take to think of that post?

Me? Took me less than two minutes to think of and write.

I did make sure to read the entire thread, though.

[Ace Diamond]

chuckymac314 said:

am90 said:

lollerz, but I was only using Masters as an example.

I was actually thinking of what Triple H did to Carlito and the whole tag division over on Raw. Buried five young talents within a matter of days. Why bother doing that? It doesn't make any sense.

Buried five young talents within a matter of minutes, actually.

Yeah, poor London and Kendrick, buried so badly they're now beating the tag champs in non-title matches

Oh wait.

Seriously I'm going to go on a rant here. Because Carlito has pretty much buried himself by the time this happened (seriously, after all the breaks he's gotten he couldn't get himself over?), Umaga got his heat back by absolutely wrecking HHH a few weeks back, and Randy Orton is Randy Orton (i.e. shouldn't be where he is anyway)

Back to the topic at hand. Masters got what he deserved to a degree; he's been on TV two years and if he hasn't learned by now how to sell then that's pathetic.

Also, there is no proof yet that Taker actually dislocated Masters' arm, and if he did, well then yes he was going too far. I think bloodying Masters' nose was going too far too, but frankly if you're going to no-sell the goddamn Undertaker and it's not in your gimmick, you are a smurfing idiot. Taker usually seems like an ok guy backstage from what we hear but there are incidents of him doing some very vindictive things (threatening to beat the crap out of HBK, Squashing the idea of pushing the Hardys as legit singles comptetitors against the 2-man Power-Trip, and now this). I personally think he should've stopped at the stiff chops and the shouting and then just tried to have a talk with Masters backstage afterwards. Obviously that didn't happen, but what's past is past.

And yes, the problem also probably lies in bringing up people too fast, but that's what happens when you have all the look and none of the skill and Vince happens to see you.

[jmac950]

Oh, the ironies of the Undertaker yelling at someone for no-selling.

It was a house show, and what did Taker expect? Masters to sell his arm on the apron the whole time he stood there? NOBODY does that. They usually sell their injured body part for about a minute, then they stand there. And if the beating was true, Taker went way over board and should be suspended for it.

[BIG DUNC]

godz said:

drpepper said:

So Perry Saturn gets annoyed in the ring and has to fall in love with a mop and taker does it and what, nothing.

Whether you think what Taker did is right or not, to think that punishing him with a retarded gimmick makes sense business wise or any other way.....you can't be serious.

Of course i'm not saying they should do something like that, i'm not stupid, but if it is true they should reprimand him in some way, giving out the impression that he is above the law would just give him and other established stars more scope to start doing things like that whenever they feel like they've been disrespected.