No, I'm just going to cringe at your lack of grammar, which you can't even pull off in style. e.e. cummings, you aint//. The idea of "winners" in internet arguments usually removed from any sort of factual discussion, and instead based around who is a bigger douche, who said what, what was intended to be said, and making assumptions about what the other person is thinking when they clearly don't know (or care to know) is ludicrous.

I may have just argued for the sport and recreation of it, but I couldn't for the life of me completely read your post without getting a migraine, and hating the school systems for some reason.

Not on topic, but I have to say that I agree. It happens all too frequently, though he does make the boards entertaining sometimes.

On Ziggler, I liked what I saw. I thought it was cool how he introduced himself to people all the time, I hope he keeps doing that. I was surprised by the match and how good he looked, especially against Dave. I hope we see good things from Ziggler, he's certainly got the talent to be more than a jobber.


Agreed. I was a fan, but he hasn't been the same since Mizark wrecked his day. And for the past few weeks/months, he's just been intolerable. I also hate how he bitched about not being in the main event all the time, but that's another discussion altogether.

Anyone else remember the days when a debuting guy was allowed to win his first match?

When they squashed jobbers? Yes, but in the long run does that make a huge difference? I'm not being a douche, I'm really asking.

On a side note, Braden Walker won his debut match, along with his second match and look at the star he is now. I don't think Ziggler could ever be as great as Braden Walker.

Braden would knock Dolph's brains out with his hands on his hips. :y:

That's a good question:

If you win your debut, it's against a jobber, which illustrates that you're good enough to beat a guy that everyone can beat. If you lose your debut, it's against a top tier monster, which illustrates that you weren't good enough to start where you started, and maybe you should start out against some jobbers. Either way, debuts are rarely impressive when it comes to the pinfall. It's the match itself you need to watch.

Right. Even guys who go undefeated for a while don't make it much further after that. I know this is just one example, but look at Ricky Ortiz. He's undefeated in WWE (on TV anyway), but he's doing it on ECW. Being as bad, or at least unrecognized (by fans and WWE themselves really) as ECW is, what good is that going to do for him a year from now?

Undefeated streaks can be awesome, but as Goldberg proved, if you get over because of them, often you don't have much life past them. A lot of people can't see The Undertaker wrestling post-WrestleMania streak. Why is that? Because guys become so dependant on these things. There's no reason why Taker could not work another WrestleMania after losing to someone at the previous Mania.

One good thing about losing in your debut, or losing in general, is that if you can get over despite it, it proves some kind of invariable quality to you. A guy who can look good losing can probably look good winning, whereas a guy who looks good winning can often look like crap losing.

There's just more value and more benefit to a guy who can both win and lose well, than a guy who needs to keep going over to stay over.

I flat out do not understand the line of thought of hyping guys up over weeks or months, and then having them lose in their debut. What's the point?

I wish I could answer that, but I really don't know either. Fans immediately lose interest in someone who can't live up to their hype, and said wrestler is relegated to jobber duty, or wished well in his future endeavors.

Maybe it's just me but maybe they should team him together with Mr. Kennedy. They are both solid wrestlers who's gimmicks could kinda work together, it would work better though if Kennedy still wore the suit and would pop out randomly backstage and scream his name.

Batista is a former four-time World Heavyweight Champion, and generally considered one of the best guys in the WWE. If Ziggler can hang with him in his first match, he has the potential to really go far. I see no damage in this loss.

And I am going to throw it out there again -- I really want to see a Dolph Ziggler/Jack Swagger tag team.

Yeah, aside from being able to joke about his name



THE BIG ZIGGLER

IT'S ZIGGLE TIME

BIGGLEDY ZIGGLEDY

FO' ZIGGLE MAH NIGGLES

I really don't know why anybody likes this motherfucker. I guess it's a Mike Knox thing.

THICK AND ZIGGLEY


ZIGGLE 'DEM TIGOL'BITTIES

Weird he may be, but .44 uses reasoning and logic, and that's rare on here.

Before coming in this thread, I was thinking there might be something going on with Dancin' Bats. People are actually getting offense in on him, & he's starting to do something that could be interpreted as "taking the fall" in matches. I wonder if someone in the back gave him a stern talking-to? :?:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/B2UGAkbF1Mk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/B2UGAkbF1Mk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

THE BIG ZIGGLE!

Yeah, because I'm the only guy on here that has said they were impressed with Dolph Ziggler in his first outing.

I haven't seen his second match, but I imagine it would be pretty OK.

Also, BDC, for the love of God -- RAW and ECW are linked via the talent exchange. ECW guys (like Swagger) and RAW guys (like Ziggler) can appear on each other's show. ECW and SmackDown! have the same relationship. The only two brands that don't have a talent exchange agreement are RAW and SmackDown! (but even then there are occasionally cross-over appearances).

WWE does often tend to do things in threes. Though more to the point, it always surprises me when the same fans who want something new and different clamor for more of the same.

And to be fair, Noid, you might not have been the only one who said they were impressed. On the other hand, you were the only one talking IC Championship that I can really see.

Ziggler's impressive in the sense that I'm impressed with his ability to get on television without actually doing anything amazing

You just blew my mind, dude.

No offense, but I'll reserve judgment until I've seen the match myself. I don't trust your opinion at all.

Anyway, just because there are currently no RAW/ECW tag teams, doesn't mean there can't be. Jack Swagger & Dolph Ziggler wouldn't so much be a cocky team as a pair of assholes (with Ziggler of course pretending to be friendly and respectful outside the ring) with amateur backgrounds. Their gimmick would be nothing like John Morrison & The Miz.

They might do well as singles wrestlers. Swagger, in particular, looks to be on the rise. But that being said, they may be pushing him too fast, and if they stop pushing him, they may lose his direction all together. A tag team run polishes him off some more, and gives him a purpose.

My God. You consider calling a mid-carder IC Title worthy me blowing the guy? Santino Marella was the previous IC Champion. Before him, it was Kofi Kingston, fresh into his stint on RAW after coming over from ECW. Guys have won the title in their debut.

Also, if you see similarities between Jack Swagger & Dolph Ziggler and John Morrison & The Miz, then it is their heel status and their potential awesomeness. It always surprising me when the same fans who rib someone for saying they want something new and then wanting "more of the same" cannot understand the principal of wanting things that don't work to be changed, while wanting more of the same of something that works and works well.

I'm sorry, .44, but I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. How could Ziggler do anything impressive if he hasn't been on TV? If you're counting his stuff in OVW, DSW or FCW, then I'd say he actually has some impressive stuff down there. If you're referring to his run in The Spirit Squad, I'd say that while the gimmick was stupid, they did well for what they were given so early on.

In a company that had Snitsky employed for like four years, can you really be surprised at a guy like Ziggler getting a shot?

Oy vey.

It'd be a decent way to retain, though.

I mean, if he ever got to that point.

Ziggler's decent, and he might get better. However, when I've heard him talk, all I can think is "nigga please." The gimmick is a dime a dozen, and he's going to need to shed it in the future to be remotely viable.

I loved that kick, BTW.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/s9KbwOmTjQE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/s9KbwOmTjQE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

So...BDC posted the match...It's not like there's any need to reserve judgement anymore.

I'm feeling an R-Truth heel turn right now. As for Dolph, good tenacity "From Hollywood, California" has potential. Does he have an actual finish yet? I'm liking his introduction gimmick. We'll see how he does in a longer match; can't brawl your way through that.

I just watched the match from last night with Santa Clahaas. I found him to be fairly sloppy again, and rather boring. The only thing I thought was entertaining about Ziggler was the attempt to be intense or whatever. He made me think of some bad wrestling parody, so I got to thinking....

Maybe that's the point.

He was like a parody of Randy Orton and his Chinlock of Doom.

Raw & ECW are somewhat combined as Smackdown & ECW were awhile back, it could work, watch wrestling more often BDC.