Television Tho Prop Grops Throps

I like this return:



Not one of the most popular, but Big Show looked as dominant as I've seen anybody look in WWE.
 
HBK v Bret Hart, Wrestlemania '96
Ric Flair v Randy Savage, Wrestlemania '92
HBK v Razor Ramon, Wrestlemania '94
TLC 2
Austin v The Rock, Wrestlemania 17

As for returns, maybe the Austin one when Foley beat the Rock. Kane has some memorable ones. Promos? Punk's shoot promo, many Austin-Vince segments and HHH had some great promos as a heel in his prime. Flair was the best talker. Search for some old videos of his.
 
I wouldn't call WWE turning him face or heel him reinventing his character. Like BR said, since his pipe bomb he's done relatively little. It was the company that changed his focus and not him. Plus he played the same character, just with different motives.

I wasn't watching in the days of the Nexus so fair enough. There's quite a big gap in between where I left off to picking back up again.
 
Raul Madrid said:
I got back into wwe in late 2010
Click to expand...
tumblr_lnx7r6XRzI1qccm2fo1_400.gif
 
Wait... Whos been saying that Bryans been buried?

Anyway, Bray is basically Mick Foley in 2014 isnt he? Hes just amazing. Cena in the mask was the best thing hes done in a while (minus looking straight into the camera which made me laugh lol)

I liked Raw on the whole as every segment was WM focused and is making me look forward to this Sunday.

We doing predictions in here?
 
I often lurk on Wrestlezone forums, out of curiosity more than anything. If they're in anyway representative of a portion of the IWC then there's definitely a case that a lot of people interpret the way the storyline has been handled as Bryan being buried. A lot of wrestlers get the same sort of support/treatment. I think it's just a case that a lot of the IWC (a lot like football fans) lack any ability to step back and take a look at the bigger picture, very much living in the here and now wanting immediate gratification.

Obviously that isn't all of the IWC, as it isn't all football fans, but the internet has a lot to answer for in those terms.

I hope I got across what I'm trying to say, but I'm struggling with coherency right now, so yeah.
 
Remember that buried doesn't necessarily mean someone's losing left and right, but rather that they are not being used as they should. Many believed that DB was indeed being buried during all those promos back in August/September where HHH and Steph made him look weak time after time after time. If the reward had been him winning the title back then, it would've been overlooked as part of the story. As myself and many others believe Bryan was NOT supposed to be elevated back into main event status this soon (the crowd forced them too), it does appear he was being semi-buried as they clearly changed direction to Cena-Orton part 54.

Damien Sandow is a clear example of someone being buried. The thing is, with WWE there isn't always a big picture. This is the company that pushes and depushes wrestlers on a monthly basis and wants us to forget previous storylines like they never happened. They lack a wide approach and thus, for example, many undercard matches for WM have zero build.

Finally, seeing how terrible the product's been for about a year and a half, why would loyal fans be patient and believe things will get better when clearly they are not? I mean really, does it feel like the biggest wrestling event of the year is five days away?
 
Not being used as they should does not mean buried. Buried means buried. It's a very specific term. That's one of the main gripes when the IWC use buried for everything that it doesn't mean. Which is probably why you get frustrated with us when we get frustrated with you and vice versa. Almost every star gets misused at some point. Zack Ryder was buried. Buried is not a lack of elevation, but definition by is a huge lowering in status. Buried.

If he was written off TV and came out to job to Santino, then he'd be buried. It really is a specific term that gets used to label basically 'not being used to his full extent' which is something completely different.

It also makes you appear incredibly knee jerk when perhaps you don't mean to be, which is where this IWC vs the rest divide becomes greater.
 
Zarlak said:
Not being used as they should does not mean buried. Buried means buried. It's a very specific term. That's one of the main gripes when the IWC use buried for everything that it doesn't mean. Which is probably why you get frustrated with us when we get frustrated with you and vice versa. Almost every star gets misused at some point. Zack Ryder was buried. Buried is not a lack of elevation, but definition by is a huge lowering in status. Buried.

If he was written off TV and came out to job to Santino, then he'd be buried. It really is a specific term that gets used to label basically 'not being used to his full extent' which is something completely different.

It also makes you appear incredibly knee jerk when perhaps you don't mean to be, which is where this IWC vs the rest divide becomes greater.
Click to expand...

This. This is what I was trying (badly) to say.
 
Zarlak said:
Not being used as they should does not mean buried. Buried means buried. It's a very specific term. That's one of the main gripes when the IWC use buried for everything that it doesn't mean. Which is probably why you get frustrated with us when we get frustrated with you and vice versa. Almost every star gets misused at some point. Zack Ryder was buried. Buried is not a lack of elevation, but definition by is a huge lowering in status. Buried.

If he was written off TV and came out to job to Santino, then he'd be buried. It really is a specific term that gets used to label basically 'not being used to his full extent' which is something completely different.

It also makes you appear incredibly knee jerk when perhaps you don't mean to be, which is where this IWC vs the rest divide becomes greater.
Click to expand...
It's a term created by fans and I'm explaining how they (we) use it.
 
Swearengen said:
It's a term created by fans and I'm explaining how they (we) use it.
Click to expand...

It's a term that was created and then for some reason altered by some fans to mean something completely different. If we all decide to start calling a throw in a goal kick it doesn't mean that's what it's called. I'm just explaining why people get frustrated by the IWC and see them as knee jerk whiny people when they're probably not. Because they don't help matters by using terms that describe the opposite of what's happening. It just looks like a huge exaggeration. If you guys decide to take a word that means one thing and apply it to something completely different, then people will think you're exaggerating.
 
Zarlak said:
It's a term that was created and then for some reason altered by some fans to mean something completely different. If we all decide to start calling a throw in a goal kick it doesn't mean that's what it's called. I'm just explaining why people get frustrated by the IWC and see them as knee jerk whiny people when they're probably not. Because they don't help matters by using terms that describe the opposite of what's happening. It just looks like a huge exaggeration. If you guys decide to take a word that means one thing and apply it to something completely different, then people will think you're exaggerating.
Click to expand...
The IWC are the ones using the term therefore they may label it whatever they want. That's how I see it, anyway. I'm not saying that the IWC is perfect, but to be honest the anti-IWC are much worse. You lot complain just as much as we do (about us complaining), first of all. Second, whatever we say, you'll say the opposite. Third, you lack the ability to criticise, which is astonishing. The truth, as has been said, is probably somewhere in the middle. We complain too much and you don't complain at all.

I will say, however, that loyal wrestling fans, myself included, have had to endure a terrible product for years. I mean, when was the last time we actually watched quality programing? So, as fans, we want change and we want things to be better, therefore whatever they dish out, if it's not good enough, we'll probably complain. If WWE writers were creative and gave us entertaining shows on a weekly basis, I'd lean back and watch. Atm though, 90% of it is subpar. Btw, football fans are just as whiny.
 
Swearengen said:
The IWC are the ones using the term therefore they may label it whatever they want. That's how I see it, anyway. I'm not saying that the IWC is perfect, but to be honest the anti-IWC are much worse. You lot complain just as much as we do (about us complaining), first of all. Second, whatever we say, you'll say the opposite. Third, you lack the ability to criticise, which is astonishing. The truth, as has been said, is probably somewhere in the middle. We complain too much and you don't complain at all.

I will say, however, that loyal wrestling fans, myself included, have had to endure a terrible product for years. I mean, when was the last time we actually watched quality programing? So, as fans, we want change and we want things to be better, therefore whatever they dish out, if it's not good enough, we'll probably complain. If WWE writers actualyl were creative and gave us entertaining shows on a weekly basis, I'd lean back and watch. Atm though, 90% of it is subpar. Btw, football fans are just as whiny.
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

The lack of ability to criticise is pretty much an anecdotal statement. From what I've seen the anti IWC lot have spent so long giving constructive feedback to some of the IWC who embarrass you (typically 10 year old Americans) for them to ignore and knee jerk away that it gets so tiresome that it's just left well alone or people blow their gasket because they're sick of seeing it. It gives the rest of you a bad rep. This isn't helped by the fact that you use words that mean one thing to describe something completely different which makes you look like knee jerkers even though you don't mean to be. Just because you've decided to change the meaning of a word doesn't mean that the meaning of the word actually changes and people will dispute it with you if you claim that something is happening when it isn't. See how anecdotal evidence can show both sides of the story? ;)

I won't necessarily say the opposite of what you say so much as just go with my opinion. Sometimes it will match yours, sometimes it won't. I agree with a lot of what you say, just not some areas.
 
Last edited:
Zarlak said:
I agree with you completely that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

The lack of ability to criticise is pretty much an anecdotal statement. From what I've seen the anti IWC lot have spent so long giving constructive feedback to some of the IWC who embarrass you (typically 10 year old Americans) for them to ignore and knee jerk away that it gets so tiresome that it's just left well alone or people blow their gasket because they're sick of seeing it. It gives the rest of you a bad rep. This isn't helped by the fact that you use words that mean one thing to describe something completely different which makes you look like knee jerkers even though you don't mean to be. Just because you've decided to change the meaning of a word doesn't mean that the meaning of the word actually changes and people will dispute it with you if you claim that something is happening when it isn't. See how anecdotal evidence can show both sides of the story? ;)

I won't necessarily say the opposite of what you say so much as just go with my opinion. Sometimes it will match yours, sometimes it won't. I agree with a lot of what you say, just not some areas.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Good posts, even if I respectfully disagree with some of your opinions. At the end of the day, the IWC is far from perfect, as is the anti-IWC.
 
Not sure whether to order this on box office and watch it Monday morning (doubt I'll be able to stay up) or download it first thing in the morning and watch it around lunchtime

How much is it on virgin media?
 
This is literally the worst thread on here now. Well done lads.
 
I'm gone for two days and this is what happens.

Moving on, Steve Austin predicts CM Punk will return for WrestleMania.
 
Bryan was being buried. He is the most over superstar since Cena in 2005 and yet he was scheduled to fight Sheamus at 'mania. Before the Punk walkout fiasco he was being misused. Much like Punk during his title reign he was being sidelined. As far as I recall the likes of Hogan, Macho, Austin, Warrior, Rocky, Cena were all headliners during their peaks
 
Don't believe for one moment this Bryan stuff was something they were forced into doing and I'd go as far as to say people are gullible if they truly believe that. It's a case of people underestimating how good the WWE can be with booking and storylines when they really put their minds to it.

Also, Bryan was moved in the Wyatt feud for a reason while Orton/Cena had their feud to merge the title's. It's called timing and planning. They had an entire year and had to make sure they mapped it out properly. The feud with Wyatt took up the perfect amount of time and just as he was finished, Bryan was right where he needed to be, ready to start building at the big moment at Wrestlemania. You believe for one moment it was just a coincidence that he wasn't even entered into the Rumble? You think they're stupid enough to actually say "Okay, here's our hottest guy, let's just push him into a meaningless match at Wrestlemania and waste a full year for feck all!". And when we talk over, we're talking truly over. Not one of those guys who get over big for a few months and then it fades when they don't get pushed to the moon. This is different, you'll struggle to find anything like this for a long time, Bryan has reached the very top level and that's not something you ignore.

No doubt they didn't expect Batista to get shit on like he did. But whether he was booed or cheered, that would never of effected Bryan being inserted into the match at Mania and having his moment. Oh look, it's Orton, the guy aligned with Triple H for so long. Oh look, Triple H brings back his good pal and guy who he'd been aligned with before, Batista. You think that's all just coincidence and the WWE were going to fade out of WRESTLEMANIA THIRTY with Batista/Orton while Bryan was midcard getting no vengeance?

I said it last year, the plan was always for Bryan to get his moment at Wrestlemania. They had the swerve at the Rumble which in hindsight actually worked out brilliantly. There's only two possible outcomes to finish Wrestlemania 30. It's either Daniel Bryan finally winning the title and standing tall as the show fades. Or it's CM Punk returning and screwing Daniel Bryan, which is legit the only other outcome that won't send the fans into an absolute rage. I guarantee you that we will see one of those at Wrestlemania, I'd bet money on it if anybody fancies a flutter.
 
I'll settle for calling the thread "WWE and Fergal Devitt thread"
 
For anyone wondering who Devitt is, feast your eyes upon this:



Kota Ibushi is great too.

Just thinking about what other guys I like in NJPW to give them a mention, and there's so many. Okada, Tanahashi, Ishii, Goto (I have his entrance theme downloaded <_<), Shibata, Nakamura, Alex Shelley, The Young Bucks, and now AJ Styles is meant to have signed for a year? So much good wrestling coming from that company.

Don't watch much from Japan outside of them, but I do like Daisuke Sekimoto. He lariats people really hard and does (deadlift) German Suplexes, which is really all I want from a wrestler.
 
Last edited:
Even when Bryan was being "buried" on screen, WWE invested tons in him off screen, there was never a moment when he wasn't going to have a big part to play in WM. You don't invest that much for a non-title match vs Shaemus. Stop believing false leaks. Triple H's dominance video confirms that they've had you all along. The 2003 run of doom, Jericho, Angle and the racist Booker feud......which also left out Nash, because the IWC always acknowledges him being his mate. It was a thing of beauty.

They can seriously continue this angle with 3 different winners at the ME, everyone but Orton pretty much. But it HAS to be Bryan, whether they can continue the feud after the chase has concluded as well as McMahon/Austin did is another thing.
 
mic.m said:
Bryan was being buried. He is the most over superstar since Cena in 2005 and yet he was scheduled to fight Sheamus at 'mania. Before the Punk walkout fiasco he was being misused. Much like Punk during his title reign he was being sidelined. As far as I recall the likes of Hogan, Macho, Austin, Warrior, Rocky, Cena were all headliners during their peaks
Click to expand...

There was no proof that those two were ever scheduled for Mania was there? Just a random online rumour.
 
Am I the only one who wants Triple H to win the title on Sunday, go to the top turnbuckle and start doing a 'yes' chant?

The reaction alone would be priceless.
 
In between all that....he needs to with the top rope pedigree.

ALSO KNOWN AS THE PEPSI PLUNGE. Punks ROH finisher which the IWC constantly believe was banned by Haitch himself because it looks like the Pedigree, so another one that works flawlessly in the story.
 
People care about TNA? I keep up to date with whats happening on there, but I never actually watch the show itself.... largely because it sounds awful 90% of the time. Jeff Hardy as Willow? What the feck.

Really looking forward to 'Mania, I think there are 3 matches on there that will be over 4 stars, and another 2 or 3 that will be over 3 stars... so it should be a really decent show overall.
 
Annihilate Now! said:
People care about TNA? I keep up to date with whats happening on there, but I never actually watch the show itself.... largely because it sounds awful 90% of the time. Jeff Hardy as Willow? What the feck.

Really looking forward to 'Mania, I think there are 3 matches on there that will be over 4 stars, and another 2 or 3 that will be over 3 stars... so it should be a really decent show overall.
Click to expand...
The creative team isn't the best, but TNA does produce quality matches and some interesting storylines. WWE isn't exactly flourishing at the moment, either.

Yeah WM should be decent. The build has been lacking, but the matches are bound to be quality. The undercard is so lackluster though, I reckon the first half might be average, which sort of sets the tone for the remanining part of the show. Last time they produced a great show from start to finish was probably WM21.
 
Swearengen said:
The creative team isn't the best, but TNA does produce quality matches and some interesting storylines. WWE isn't exactly flourishing at the moment, either.

Yeah WM should be decent. The build has been lacking, but the matches are bound to be quality. The undercard is so lackluster though, I reckon the first half might be average, which sort of sets the tone for the remanining part of the show. Last time they produced a great show from start to finish was probably WM21.
Click to expand...

The undercard consists of a Shield match (which at worst will be entertaining - at best could be really good), a Battle Royal (which again, will at least be fun), a tag match (which should be fun considering the workers involved) and - technically - Daniel Bryan vs. HHH... which will be fantastic.

The only bomb I can see on the show is the Divas match, but that should hopefully be kept short.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.