I have. I'm only watching RAW and SD now because I'm resting between movies. Marathoning the Re-Animator trilogy is tiring work.
I think this is the first SD I've watched in over 3 months. I didn't miss it.
When did Kofi get all those tattoos on his... everywhere?
Sweet. I did a Re-Animator marathon myself a while back. I really need to own the first one. When Raw is on you shoudl watch a wrestler oriented movie (a GOOD one) like They Live.
Kofi has tats? Shows how much attention I pay to him.
just saw bret's comments about hhh..... someone's still a bit bitter about 97 i think
He seems to be sticking to his guns.
Bret Hart Continues to Question Triple H's Originality
By
Steve Carrier on 02/02/2013
Arda Ocal
spoke with Bret "Hitman" Hart after his comments about Triple H was published everywhere.
Ocal asks what he makes of these comments gaining a large amount of attention. Hart stands his ground, even goes further with his stance:
- Gives Triple H vs Undertaker a grade: "I said I'd give (Taker vs HHH at WrestleMania 28) a 4-out-of-10. I think that was generous." and goes on to explain why.
- "I wouldn't put him in the top 1000 great wrestlers. To me he was very mediocre."
- Questioning Triple H's originality and contributions to pro wrestling.
Even though I disagree with Bret I can see why he may still have some ill feelings for H. Triple H was still way more of a b*stard about Montreal even after Shawn had basically said he felt bad about how everything went down. Shawn tried much harder to make things better between he and Bret.
If he appears on Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy is most likely to ask him many Wrestling related questions.
Plus, Jay Leno is an insecure man, this according to David Letterman.
I'd be insecure too if I knw that deep down I was a backstabbing little a**hole who stole the Tonight Show...three times.
Carsons one appearance on The Late Show and sitting behind Daves desk then giving it back pretty much said everything that needed to be said.
Yep, and that meant if things didn't go exactly as planned he'd be able to adapt in ring and still make the match work.
Yeah they were chalk and cheese, it was why Flair didn't rate him as highly in his book. DDP and Savage must have had full binders of detailed match lay-outs when they worked each other.
The funny thing is their matches came off as wild and unpredictable brawls.
I think Flair once compared working with Steamboat with Savage and said he thought Steamboat was better because he could call it in the ring.
Its interesting how the three of them all had such great matches together in various combinations despite 2 very different ways of working a match.
I'm all for the Orton heel turn but not at the expense of turning Brock face, I think you lose some key elements from Brock when he's a face.
I agree. He's a perfect heel. Especially considering his history with WWE and how he left. Much easier to get some big heel heat off him. Plus he's just that damn much more impressive when he's unleashed as a ruthless monster.
Now you are digging up my deeply buried anger for the ending to WrestleMania 9.
Everyones anger.
Even then guys like Cena, Orton and Ziggler got a lot of development on the main show before the WWE threw a belt on them or booked them in a high profile PPV match.
Trying to run wrestling as anything but a wrestling show is and always will be stupid, if I want to watch drama I'll watch Justified, if I want to watch comedy I'll watch Modern Family. When I watch a wrestling show I'd like to see good promos building up fights and....wait for it.....wrestling as the main focus.
Thats how I feel. I don't mind a blend of wrestling and comedy/drama/skits...WWE should be that way. But the skits shouldn't be the majority of whats on screen. Wrestling is never going to be as funny or the acting as dramatic and well done as the best the experts on those things in the film/and tv industry have to offer. Vince can try as hard as he wants but he's never going to be able to turn out the material of a Larry David or Mel Brookes or David Zucker (in their primes of course). If I want to be amused that way all the time I'd rather watch the experts do it than sit through WWE's often feeble attempts taking up 2 whole hours.
I gave you an opening to just admit this an entire thread ago.
You know he wasn't going to do that until he had nothing else to fall back on
I don't mind Labar even when he talks nonsense like claiming the 5 million number was all because The Rock has the belt, but Isenberg is an obnoxious tool who is pretty ****ing clueless.
I like their show sometimes but they are also WWE trained chimps of the worst kind sometimes. Its clear they sucked at the teet of the Attitude Era and never even cared for anything else. Nothing wrong with being a fan of that era, I was too, but I love the business...PERIOD. I'll give anything good a chance. As for the Rocks 5 million rating thing: its clear they were only giving one side of it. I wasn't even born when Bruno was in his prime but going back and looking at old stuff I've become a fan. But at some point variety became a crime for the wrestling business and for a good chunk of the audience who has been conditioned since 1984.
Amen! When you are trying to establish a guy wins are important and so is protecting your character, but when you have 30 years of success the legacy becomes about the matches, the feuds, the promos and the moments, and Flair has a greater collection than any wrestler that ever lived.
Despite what Flair does thats stupid when you are THAT great not much is going to change it. Its not like he pulled a Benoit.
Flair passed the point of mere wins and losses tarnishing his legacy a long time ago. Bischoff tried to BURY him in WCW by acting like he was a jobber nobody and he still couldn't. If that didn't do it nothing will.
Indeed, to Hulk it would be the complete opposite of good business no matter what.
Yup. He and Shawn could have made MORE money than they did. But Hogans ego wasn't going to have any of that.