230 pound weight limit. That's ********. I liked it better when the X-Division was about no limits, not weight limits.
Speaking of the Austin turn... anyone else slightly expecting Cena to reenact this moment in his match with The Rock at Mania?
WrestleMania can suck two big ones this year, I've no interest in it.
I will say this though: out of all the marquee matches, surprise surprise that Burial's match with Lesnar has been built the best.
Originally Posted by NDX
One of the PPVs TNA did away with was Destination X, right? If so, does that stipulation Austin Aries came up with for whoever holds the XD title and trade it in for a chance at the world title now become forgotten about?
Translation: I goofed but I just don't wanna say it.Metallo said:For a guy that does a lot of making sh** up yourself thats hilarious. You're so good at digging up old posts to b*** about do it yourself.
There is stuff to enjoy and I've talked about it. I really don't have an agenda. I just want a consistent quality product like we used to get. I feel what you're saying about not watching it to send him a message. He won't get it though. As you've said before a lot of people stopped watching. He should have got the message a long ****ing time ago. I've done it a b4 myself & if WM goes like I think it will I probably will again even tho part of me'd feel like I was turning my back on Punk/Bryan/Cesaro/Rhode Scholars/AJ etc. It won't be enough as I'm just one person & I don't have a Nielson box. I wish I could get a lot more people to stop w/me and really send him a message but that won't happen. As long as he's making any kind of profit it's gonna be business as usual. Vince won't change unless he's forced to.Metallo said:And thats the excuse to only talk about sh** like this over and over? I respond to people who quoted me too but I talk about a much broader variety of topics because unlike you I don't have an agenda. I'm here to talk wrestling...not swoosh in and try to push some argument about John Cena because I get off on it or have an ax to grind. Its the same way with other posters in here. I like to talk about things positive and negative instead of slagging somebody off because I'm biased and ******** because Cenas not my cup of tea. There's plenty of stuff to actually enjoy without focusing on one thing most of the time. If you hate it that much send Vince a message and stop watching.
If you were paying attention just fine you wouldn't have goofed & said I'd only responded to you when I'd clearly also responded to NDX. There's room for improvement there, broseph. It started w/me talking about how bad most of WM looks, not just Cena/Rock. You responded and now we're doing this whole thing again.Metallo said:The vast majority of your posts of late have been about b***ing about Cena. Show me otherwise. And most of what you've said is responding to me.
I'm paying attention just fine. Thats why its clear this kind of sh** is all you usually talk about when you post in this thread.
Perhaps. Again I'm just gonna take your word for it because I don't care enough to do the research. Maybe it just seems like over a decade because of how lame it's been. It's still a lot longer than the few months we've been dealing w/Rock recently. Which was my point.Metallo said:I'm already pretty calm. Nobodys putting words in your mouth. If anyones doing that its you. You can't even bother to get Cenas time on top right without b***ing. For a guy who complains about it so much you weren't even paying enough attention to get your f***ing facts straight. He didn't become THE focus until 2005 and even then HHH vs Batista was the bigger event at WM21.
Nah. That's obviously not it. I've even defended him on other forums. You're the only one I have this problem with.Metallo said:Unlike you the vast majority of my time in this thread isn't focused on this partucular discussion or b***ing about Cena. If I was so uncalm I'd be focusing only on this. I'm not. There's a bunch of other cool stuff to talk about and I have been. You're the one that seems to be hellbelt on keeping it going. Like John Cena and blaming him for everything is your primary reason for being here. maybe you should calm doww on your Cena hate. You act as if its personal between you and he.
I never disputed that this is true for some cases. You made it seem like it was true for everyone that don't want Cena to win.Metallo said:Aaaand this applies to none of what I said. It still doesn't mean that a lot of people wouldn't care if WWE went out of business because of their poor decisions. A lot of them have moved on.
The Attitude Era was better than this one is, right?Metallo said:Even when WWE does something good and puts on good shows that DO get a lot of press a lot of them still write WWE off like its crap or something children watch. I know a ton of people like that. A lot of people look down their nose at pro wrestling already and I wouldn't be shocked if a lot of former fans have joined those ranks because its not cool. I knew plenty of causal fans like that. It wasn't about the quality. It was about wether or not it was trendy to watch. Once the trend ended the audience peeled off little by little. The Attitude Era had a lot of sh** too but some of it still got eaten up by so called fans
You still don't get it. Maybe this'll help. I AGREE WITH THIS. PUNK SHOULD HAVE BEATEN ROCK AT LEAST ONCE. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AWESOME. IT ALSO WOULD HAVE BEEN PUNK BEATING ROCK ON THE 1ST TRY EVEN THOUGH CENA COULDN'T. WHILE I'D HAVE LOVED IT, IT APPEARS THE FOOLS WHO HAD PUNK LOSE TWICE IN A ROW DIDN'T. THAT "CAN'T LOSE 2 PPV'S IN A ROW" THING APPARENTLY APPLIES TO CENA, BUT NOT PUNKMetallo said:I understand this is a sh**ty answer that doesn't hold up. That seems to be what all this is about because you don't like what you are hearing.
Rock could have lost one to Punk then beat him later. They had TWO matches. You do understand that right? Keep up. It would have also helped with the glaring absences during his title reign to win it later. Those problems only weaken the image belt thats being dropped to Cena.
If you don't understand what I'm saying I could have proven myself right 1000 times & you still wouldn't get it. That's the wasteMetallo said:How am I wasted your time? Am I forcing you to keep posting? Thats your choice. Your'e the one hellbelt on proving what you're saying right. If you think your time is being wasted then just stop. Your reply here was ******ed. If you feel your time is being wasted YOU are the one doing that not me.
The only absolutes I've used are the imaginary ones in your brain such as "No one wants to see the Rock win". I understand the Punk/Rock thing perfectly. See the red parts above.Metallo said:You don't seem to understand the idea that Rock could have lostto Punk then won the title later to put Cena over. Your theory relies on absolutes.
Me not complaing enough about the Rock enough to please you. This is what I'm talking about when I say pay attention. You're not following along. Right before I said "deal with it" you were talking about how I complain about the Rock so rarely in comparison to my complaints about Cena.Metallo said:You'd learn to do the same. Your opinion is biased though. And your opinion seems to be centered on refuting what I say not just your feelings on Cena. I don't give a f*** what your opinion is. Have it or not. Up to you. Its your right but you seem to take issue when someone puts up a fair open minded and logically thought out counterarguement to your talk of "its all about John Cena...booo." If you want to keep your blinders on thats on you.
Dea with what?
Never said it was about sticking it to the Rock.Metallo said:Like I said Rock vs Brock is a prime example of what this is REALLY all about. If it was about Cena they'd have Cena be top dog at WM30 in the main event. But Vince knows Rock vs Brock will get the biggest attention possible. THATS what its been about for the last 3 years, more than ever, in WWE. That is now THE goal for him and has been for a while.
Only you are focused on one single part of the issue like a laser while ignoring everything else at your convenience. If the main push here was to put Cena over they'd do EVERYTHING in their power to make Cena look as good as possible. They'd have had Rock agree to better terms a few years ago. They've always gone out of their way to devote all resources to push Cena as the top dog before so why not now? They did in 2005 when it WAS about getting Cena over no matter what. Hell we haven't even SEEN as much of Cena on Raw because The Red Carpet champion hasn't been around as much. If they REALLY wanted to stick it to the Rock and put Cena over they would have had CENA debut the new WWE title belt. They gave it to ROCK because he has a much wider and stronger acess to the Hollywood media than Cena. Thats a prime example of why this is about pimping the WWE and Vince chasing the mainstream exposure he's chased for thirty f***ing years. Its been the same MO BEFORE Cena and it'll be that way AFTER Cena.
Geez! I was obviously talking about detractors which is the last word of yours before I said "I think Cena has more". I'm not disagreeing w/what you said about Hogan. Maybe I ain't being clear enough for you.Metallo said:Cena has NEVER held the belt for four f***ing years. How does Cena have more than that? Even all of Cenas combined reigns don't equal the length of Hogans first one. Hogan went over FAR more than Cena even has. How is that Cena getting more?
Agreed.Metallo said:Another difference is the midcard MATTERED during Hogans run and got strong focus beneath his main event work. Not true with Cenas era. That has less to do with Cena. WWE's focus on the midcard has been eroding for over a decade. Before Cena became top guy. Vince's entire view on his roster and his entertainment model for WWE has changed in the last decade.
I said it was Vince/Booking but I didn't feel the need to go into detail. We both already know. Maybe I should have anyway.Metallo said:That has more to do with what he learned from and what he had to deal with as far as stars in the 80's and 90's. It has more to do with him coming out on top against WCW and ECW. The way the wrestling talent was used and percieved and how they were presented on air started changing 20 years ago when they had more tv time to fill with new content. Long before Cena. TV is no longer just a tool to promote ppv's but a medium that brings them a lot of money and viewers in its own right. That alone is one thing that changed how many wrestlers were featured and used.
Then why do you mention Cena more than you ever mention Vince Mcmahon even though he is relevant in the general direction the main event has been going in? Mention it as much as you feel like? You are ok with sayng in the end its all about putting Cena over but whos fault is that? Then when I asked you in the past you still didn't really go into detail on Vince how HIM doing all this hurts the company.
Ditto.Metallo said:The midcard is Vince doing what he's doing because he doesn't give a damn. He sees them as interchangable parts. As long as he has a few top stars like Cena, Punk, HHH, Taker, Rock, and Lesnar to draw almost everyone else is just filler. He wants the WWE brand name to draw not the specific stars. Thats another change from 10, 15, 20, 25, and even 30 years ago.
I'd send Bryan to TNA & I'd send G.Bishoff to WWE so they could future endeavor his worthless assA question for you all:
If you could get WWE and TNA to swap any two wrestlers which ones would you choose?
I'd go with Kurt Angle to WWE and Chris Jericho to TNA. Right now there would be a lot of fresh and potentially amazing new matchups that could be made with each in the other company.