Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 48
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Kaymakcian View Post
    I disagree and agree at the same time. I know it's weird, but I mean I feel there are some members of the IWC who want to see the WWE become ROH and pure wrestling. While others just want to see the guys that they are most entertained by get their shot. I mean there a number of guys on the WWE roster I think should have a bigger role with the company and others who shouldn't be in the spots that they are in. But that's everything in life there will always be people to debate different aspects. I think the WWE needs to change a few things, but that's because I feel they've been coasting for to long and if they don't stop they will fall upon themselves. There PPVs have been lackluster and the last three Wrestlemania's have been meh which isn't good. I can't remember the last time WWE had a streak of terrible Wrestlemania's like the ones I've just seen.
    If Wrestlemaina 28 sucked (Yeah 27 and 29 were just ok) then you must only like about 4 WM's because your expectations must be fucking over 9000. You had the most shocking World championship match in history of WM (ending in 18 seconds) Taker vs HHH with HBK has ref inside Hell in a cell, CM Punk vs Jericho, and a year worth of build to Rock vs Cena (The match was ok but the other matches blow it out of the water) That's the problem with most of the people on this site, they expect every PPV to be 5 stars, and a masterpiece that will still be talked about in 200 years.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by ewantu2 View Post
    If Wrestlemaina 28 sucked (Yeah 27 and 29 were just ok) then you must only like about 4 WM's because your expectations must be fucking over 9000. You had the most shocking World championship match in history of WM (ending in 18 seconds) Taker vs HHH with HBK has ref inside Hell in a cell, CM Punk vs Jericho, and a year worth of build to Rock vs Cena (The match was ok but the other matches blow it out of the water) That's the problem with most of the people on this site, they expect every PPV to be 5 stars, and a masterpiece that will still be talked about in 200 years.
    Reasons why I thought Wrestlemania 28 sucked:
    1.) The World Heavyweight Championship was 18 seconds long
    2.) The biggest match on the card, Rock vs Cena, was boring
    3.) The only two matches I enjoyed were CM Punk vs Y2J and HHH vs Taker

    So yeah sorry I didn't enjoy and 18 second match. Sorry I don't think that a three star match, and I'm being generous, should be the main event. Also let me again apologize for not thinking that two matches are worth 60 fucking dollars. Yeah my standards are oh so fucking high because I refuse to say that a crap card with crap matches sucked. People like you are what the problem is on this site. You enjoyed Wrestlemania 28, congratulations, but because I didn't you tried to attack me for it. Now when you respond to this one how about you try to do it without attacking me and we can have a back and forth?
    Brad Maddox is the new face of the WWE!


  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Kaymakcian View Post
    Reasons why I thought Wrestlemania 28 sucked:
    1.) The World Heavyweight Championship was 18 seconds long
    2.) The biggest match on the card, Rock vs Cena, was boring
    3.) The only two matches I enjoyed were CM Punk vs Y2J and HHH vs Taker

    So yeah sorry I didn't enjoy and 18 second match. Sorry I don't think that a three star match, and I'm being generous, should be the main event. Also let me again apologize for not thinking that two matches are worth 60 fucking dollars. Yeah my standards are oh so fucking high because I refuse to say that a crap card with crap matches sucked. People like you are what the problem is on this site. You enjoyed Wrestlemania 28, congratulations, but because I didn't you tried to attack me for it. Now when you respond to this one how about you try to do it without attacking me and we can have a back and forth?
    How is a "Three star" match boring? So only 4 and 5 star matches are good?

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by ewantu2 View Post
    How is a "Three star" match boring? So only 4 and 5 star matches are good?
    Three stars is fine for a midcard match, for a Raw or Smackdown! match, hell even for a regular PPV main event, but not for the MAIN EVENT of Wrestlemania. IF you expect me to pay 60$ for a PPV, I want a 60$ main event and the Rock vs John Cena was not a 60$ main event. The Rock vs John Cena did not live up to the expectations. Fact. If you liked Wrestlemania 28 fine, good for you, but I have large expectations for Wrestlemania which the last three did not live up to.
    Brad Maddox is the new face of the WWE!


  5. #25
    The Trinity URATOOL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    On the phone to yo momma
    Posts
    2,966
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Kaymakcian View Post
    Three stars is fine for a midcard match, for a Raw or Smackdown! match, hell even for a regular PPV main event, but not for the MAIN EVENT of Wrestlemania. IF you expect me to pay 60$ for a PPV, I want a 60$ main event and the Rock vs John Cena was not a 60$ main event. The Rock vs John Cena did not live up to the expectations. Fact. If you liked Wrestlemania 28 fine, good for you, but I have large expectations for Wrestlemania which the last three did not live up to.
    WM main events are often not amazing matches. Mania tends to have its 3 highest profile matches as first middle and last on the show. With the final match being the biggest money match, the one WWE deem is going to be the most popular in regards to buy rates. That is just how it work. You strike me as someone who has watched a quite a few Manias. I thought you'd have realised that before cracking open your piggy bank.

    Side note: I find it hilarious that Americans get arse raped $60 for Mania. I got charged less than $35.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by URATOOL View Post
    WM main events are often not amazing matches. Mania tends to have its 3 highest profile matches as first middle and last on the show. With the final match being the biggest money match, the one WWE deem is going to be the most popular in regards to buy rates. That is just how it work. You strike me as someone who has watched a quite a few Manias. I thought you'd have realised that before cracking open your piggy bank.

    Side note: I find it hilarious that Americans get arse raped $60 for Mania. I got charged less than $35.
    Yeah I've bought five since Wrestlemania 20. I've bought 20,21,23,25, and 28. I thought that the other four were worth the money and the main events were great.
    Brad Maddox is the new face of the WWE!


  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Kaymakcian View Post
    Three stars is fine for a midcard match, for a Raw or Smackdown! match, hell even for a regular PPV main event, but not for the MAIN EVENT of Wrestlemania. IF you expect me to pay 60$ for a PPV, I want a 60$ main event and the Rock vs John Cena was not a 60$ main event. The Rock vs John Cena did not live up to the expectations. Fact. If you liked Wrestlemania 28 fine, good for you, but I have large expectations for Wrestlemania which the last three did not live up to.
    Like the other guy said. Most WM main events are not super great matches.

  8. #28
    Personally, i don't expect every ppv to be five star...impossible. But I do expect every wrestlemania to be five star or close to it. You might think this is unreasonable...trust me, it isn't. WWE has a year to start blue printing how they want the next wrestlemania to go down. Obviously it's going to change, but they need to start with some sort of direction. When your pushing an event to be equivalent to the Super Bowl, there is a high amount of expectation from the fans. It is true that not every Super Bowl was even near five stars, some downright pitiful...but while you don't know what the outcome will be ahead of time for these games, wwe has the advantage of knowing who will win or lose weeks ahead. So expecting a five star or close to it ppv on their biggest show of the year is not unreasonable at all.

    Now, I don't see myself as the stuck up "only technical wrestlers should be allowed" kind of fan. I enjoy all styles, and even a wrestler with a limited move set can be the best performer on any given night. My problem is with the roster they currently have, there has been very little in regards to pushes. In fact I will argue there were far more demotions than pushes. Biggest noteworthy push I can think of in the past...oh, eighteen months have been Punk, Del Rio, and Sheamus (Swagger's push probably ended prematurely because of that DUI, with WWE keeping him for wrestlemania for the sake of not shaking things up). And Cessaro is the biggest push to the mid card, who is ready to main event, but it appears VKM has other plans in mind. Meanwhile, Miz, once a main eventer at wrestlemania, has been demoted to mid card. R-Truth, after being built up to be a top heel, gets demoted shortly after going face. I don't know where the hell Orton is at...we'll call him on the fringe. Kingston I believe can be pushed to main event, wwe just needs to rework his gimmick. They're apparently in no rush to do that.

    Never mind main event pushes. What about from lower card to mid card? The Usos are in with the fans. They have the look to be pushed as one of the top tag teams, a decent mid card level spot. Some mid carders that are memorable to me have been tag teams. Unfortunately, with Team Hell No holding the titles, there has been little development in this area. I thought maybe the Prime Time Players were being positioned for a wrestlemania confrontation against Team Hell No, they can work as a good heel team with proper writing, but instead Dolph Ziggler and Big E are slapped together at the last second, just simply to get Dolph into Wrestlemania. Yoshi Tatsu I think would make a good mid card wrestler, but with there being no Cruiserweight division, and the WWE just not knowing what to do with a Japanese wrestler, he's left to flounder. The stupid theme song doesn't help matters that much either.

    Point being, there needs to be more movement in these rosters. My problem isn't that their roster isn't all technical, but a good portion is being utilized very poorly, resulting in usually the same old crap.

  9. #29
    Personally, I don't mind the entertainment and what not, but it's refreshing to see smaller and more technical wrestlers, especially if they have great characters along with them i.e. Punk, KO, and Seth Rollins. I like wrestling even if the main guys are beefed up and look like they pop steroids like vitamins. My only issue with WWE is that there's more crappy drama and talking than the wrestling which is what I watch for. I don't mind the talking and exposition, I just wish there was less of it.
    I want to know who looked at David Otunga and said "You know something? This guy's good." They deserve to be fired.

  10. #30
    I agree and disagree at the same time. Sure, you can reference guys of yesteryear who didn't have a lot of technical talent but are stars , but this isn't yesteryear. I don't think 70s and 80s in-ring wrestling would fly in today's market. In fairness, I think it's the variety that keeps things interesting in the ring. If you give me 7 or 8 CM Punk vs Daniel Bryan-like matches every RAW, it's going to get old. What makes them special is what everyone else lacks. If you fill the roster full of those guys, it's no longer special anymore.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

© 2011 eWrestlingNews, All Rights Reserved.