At what point does someone become a true main eventer in your eyes?

**Xero** · 07-17-2010, 11:24 AM

Sure, you can say that, for example, Sheamus is a true Main Eventer, but why is he considered as such? Is there a specific moment when a wrestler becomes a true main eventer? Or does it have to happen over time? Is it about the world title? Or something else?

Essentially, what are your personal requirements to consider someone a main eventer?

**Bad Company** · 07-17-2010, 11:31 AM

A win over HHH. Except Shelton Benjamin.

**Favre4Ever** · 07-17-2010, 11:44 AM

I was gonna say consistency and talent, but maybe i'm thinking of another sport.

If you bring a guy in and have him only wrestling against main eventers, you can quickly create the perception that he is main event level as well (see: Brock/Sheamus).

**BizarroKing** · 07-17-2010, 11:44 AM

Once they have gotten over enough with the fans.

**jskinnyg** · 07-17-2010, 11:47 AM

I think it's a case by case kind of thing... In Sheamus' case for me, it was not when he was awarded the title so fast in his career, but how he carried it so well... That made him a main eventer in my eyes fella...

Another example... I think HHH became main event status when he won the IC belt the first time... I think for a lot of guys nowadays it's when you win the IC of US belt of some sort and carry the belt with a great run... Shows how much that person wanted a championship and to be in that position...

**Snowden** · 07-17-2010, 11:54 AM

Its shades of gray. For me, it seems like its a combination of tenure in the main event with a hint of (in the WWE) being featured on RAW consistently.

As far as tenure goes, its not like there's necessarily a running clock, but if you throw a wrestler into top tier programs over and over, then he eventually "sticks" as a member of the upper tier. That is, unless he's consistently getting squashed, but that hasn't happened in quite some time/would be a complete waste of time.

As for the RAW component, I "buy" a guy as a main eventer when he gets featured on the flagship show, and moreso, if he opens, opens the second hour, or closes the show. For example: Jack Swagger has been main eventing Smackdown for the past 4 or so months, but I think the perception of him is a high upper midcarder. If he did the same thing on RAW, I think we'd be more comfortable with the notion of him being a true main eventer. Of course there are exceptions in the modern era (Jeff Hardy), but for me it seems to be a good metric.

As for a company like TNA, its a lot harder. There's so many "name" guys, who are all "big deals" supposedly, that its hard to define a clear main event. Is Anderson a main eventer because he headlined the last PPV? Joe is a multiple time champ and pretty over, but nowhere near the title picture...is he a main eventer? Its a lot harder, which speaks to either (a) muddled booking or (b) a very fluid title scene. Hell, I could see any number of 10-12 guys holding the title in that company at any one time.

**Nicky Fives** · 07-17-2010, 12:04 PM

When they start wearing their likeness(es) on a t-shirt to the ring and appear on virtually every show against other "main eventers"

**Schlomey** · 07-17-2010, 12:09 PM

The only way to be a true main eventer is to have "IT"

Swagger got the title and the majority (not including myself) didn't consider him an actual main eventer. That's probably why he held the title RIGHT AFTER Wrestlemania since its considered by some to be the slow/off season.

You must have IT. Titles are great but you have to be a total package. Yes you are correct in saying that it only happens over time. You don't walk in to RAW and become a main eventer.

Sheamus, on the other hand, was basically forced into the main event scene BUT, over time, I have come to consider him a top dog & a main event wrestler. WWE took a gamble on HHH's friend and luckily it paid off....Which is a good thing because the new crop is sorely missing the IT Main Event stars.

My hope for the next 2 years is Wade Barrett.

**jskinnyg** · 07-17-2010, 12:49 PM

MIZ??

**Steveviscious89** · 07-17-2010, 12:57 PM

That's a real toss up for me. For the most part I like it when they build the star. There are exceptions every now and then that have happened over the years. Booker T winning the title at BATB 2000 is an example. But it seems to me that it would work best if you give the guy a good run with the #2 belt and then give him a shot at the title at some point. This is how it was done with DDP, Goldberg, The Rock, HHH, Kurt Angle, and countless others that were successful. Of course it won't work if they are stinking up the place, but it's not hard to pull the plug if you catch them during the run before the world title. TNA could make very good use of the Global title like this. I've always thought they could do this with Robert Roode if Beer Money were to break up at some point.

**The Pope** · 07-17-2010, 01:09 PM

I hate Sheamus

**blak23** · 07-17-2010, 01:42 PM

For me its two different things for faces it's all about the clean victories over top guys for example jeff hardy vs. hhh was when i said yea he's a main eventer. As for heels heels its all about main event heat. For example jericho, and edge had the main event heat then got the title or like punk and jbl the title was what put them and it gave them that level of heat.

**Madness42** · 07-17-2010, 01:46 PM

When they beat a main event talent in a somewhat clean fashion. It may be attributed to Luck (Sheamus) or opportunity (Swagger, Edge, Punk), but the fact is, they won. It may not be the best way to elevate talent, but, it is a sign of the times nowadays.

The "IT" factor Schlomey mentioned is very important as well, which is why Swagger is now kind of falling to the wayside in my opinion, despite they're attempt at making him dangerous & brutal lately. Of course, I think right now, the WWE populace has no idea what they want out of a young main eventer. Audience reaction has been lukewarm to most lately.

07-17-2010, 01:48 PM

One thing i just can say... if wwe want to push you... go for it.. because its a trial of a lifetime... its just like.. WWE is WWE.. even other company like tna.. has a great wrestler.. even tna got undertaker,cena,hhh WWE can build new superstar than can defeat all of them... look at it? hogan/flair in tna? vs sheamus/mcyntre in wwe.. how good they are..!

**blak23** · 07-17-2010, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowden

As for a company like TNA, its a lot harder. There's so many "name" guys, who are all "big deals" supposedly, that its hard to define a clear main event. Is Anderson a main eventer because he headlined the last PPV? Joe is a multiple time champ and pretty over, but nowhere near the title picture...is he a main eventer? Its a lot harder, which speaks to either (a) muddled booking or (b) a very fluid title scene. Hell, I could see any number of 10-12 guys holding the title in that company at any one time.

this is kinda what bothers me when i watch TNA i have no idea who's a ME anymore seems like guys are pushed in and out o the title picture way to often

**blak23** · 07-17-2010, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schlomey

The only way to be a true main eventer is to have "IT"

Swagger got the title and the majority (not including myself) didn't consider him an actual main eventer. That's probably why he held the title RIGHT AFTER Wrestlemania since its considered by some to be the slow/off season.

You must have IT. Titles are great but you have to be a total package. Yes you are correct in saying that it only happens over time. You don't walk in to RAW and become a main eventer.

Sheamus, on the other hand, was basically forced into the main event scene BUT, over time, I have come to consider him a top dog & a main event wrestler. WWE took a gamble on HHH's friend and luckily it paid off....Which is a good thing because the new crop is sorely missing the IT Main Event stars.

My hope for the next 2 years is Wade Barrett.

the term "IT" is kinda sketchy to me it's like saying "work rate" imo its such an abstract term.

I don't think this new gen is missing anything major just a bit more polish is needed. if i said the new generation (i.e. Miz, Morrison, Kofi, Ziggler etc) they all have everything but the great finisher. punk is the greatest example of this to me if punk kept using the anaconda vice he wouldn't have been able to get as over as well as he is with the GTS

**blak23** · 07-17-2010, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

One thing i just can say... if wwe want to push you... go for it.. because its a trial of a lifetime... its just like.. WWE is WWE.. even other company like tna.. has a great wrestler.. even tna got undertaker,cena,hhh WWE can build new superstar than can defeat all of them... look at it? hogan/flair in tna? vs sheamus/mcyntre in wwe.. how good they are..!

elaborate pls.

**Schlomey** · 07-17-2010, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blak23

the term "IT" is kinda sketchy to me it's like saying "work rate" imo its such an abstract term.

I don't think this new gen is missing anything major just a bit more polish is needed. if i said the new generation (i.e. Miz, Morrison, Kofi, Ziggler etc) they all have everything but the great finisher. punk is the greatest example of this to me if punk kept using the anaconda vice he wouldn't have been able to get as over as well as he is with the GTS

Looking at your list and comparing them to the current main eventers and the main eventers of my childhood...I just don't see it at all.

Morrison over Cena/Hogan/Hart/Michaels/Taker - no way

Miz could become THE guy

Kofi is very talented and very over but as we have seen before when he was on RAW, it takes WWE writers and fans all of 2 seconds to forget him.

Ziggler - A strong mid card talent he will always be and that is not a put down.

I just don't see hardly any of the fresh faces of WWE reaching the heights of the ones I listed above.....Could be wrong (and probably am) but currently there is NOBODY even close to a Taker/HBK/HHH.

**Londoner** · 07-17-2010, 02:28 PM

When they keep main eventing for months n months.

/obvious answer

**blak23** · 07-17-2010, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schlomey

Looking at your list and comparing them to the current main eventers and the main eventers of my childhood...I just don't see it at all.

Morrison over Cena/Hogan/Hart/Michaels/Taker - no way

Miz could become THE guy

Kofi is very talented and very over but as we have seen before when he was on RAW, it takes WWE writers and fans all of 2 seconds to forget him.

Ziggler - A strong mid card talent he will always be and that is not a put down.

I just don't see hardly any of the fresh faces of WWE reaching the heights of the ones I listed above.....Could be wrong (and probably am) but currently there is NOBODY even close to a Taker/HBK/HHH.

that's when i think it becomes harder to see because people are looking for the next rock, undertaker, hhh, or hbk. that's not what it should be about all three of the guys you mentioned are three totally different guys from imo three different areas on the spectrum. give the guys today a chance to find there own way to the ME picture

**blak23** · 07-17-2010, 02:51 PM

for me the thing with miz and morrison i think one could easily be switched out for the other and you still get the same results

**Xero** · 07-17-2010, 02:52 PM

Miz can talk, Morrison not so much.

**blak23** · 07-17-2010, 02:55 PM

i thought morrison was pretty funny as a heel

**Schlomey** · 07-17-2010, 02:59 PM

i'm not looking for the next rock. It was an example of a totally over face being a main eventer...the TYPE necessary for the role. Right now there really isn't a whole lot of them going around. None that I see really taking the the world and the company by storm.

**blak23** · 07-17-2010, 03:04 PM

I'm afraid the guy who takes the world by storm doesn't exist in this day and age

**DLVH84** · 07-17-2010, 03:38 PM

I would say it takes time, and it just depends on when it's the right time.

**BollywoodSingh** · 07-17-2010, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jskinnyg

I think it's a case by case kind of thing... In Sheamus' case for me, it was not when he was awarded the title so fast in his career, but how he carried it so well... That made him a main eventer in my eyes fella...

Another example... I think HHH became main event status when he won the IC belt the first time... I think for a lot of guys nowadays it's when you win the IC of US belt of some sort and carry the belt with a great run... Shows how much that person wanted a championship and to be in that position...

You think HHH was a main eventer once he beat Marc Mero in 1996?

**Anybody Thrilla** · 07-17-2010, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BollywoodSingh

You think HHH was a main eventer once he beat Marc Mero in 1996?

Was that before or after the Hogpen Match?

**Chavo Classic** · 07-17-2010, 04:30 PM

When a guy reaches the top, turns heel/face and still remains at the top, or comes back to the top after dropping off somewhat. This type of longevity and versatility define a top tier guy for me.

Recent examples of this would be Orton, Batista, and to a lesser extent, CM Punk. Guys who haven't done this yet, and therefore aren't main event yet in my eyes, are Sheamus, Swagger, and again (for the sake of debate) CM Punk.

Obviously there's guys such as Cena and Goldberg in WCW, who are so popular that they surpass this criteria.

**Rammsteinmad** · 07-17-2010, 04:34 PM

When they main event an event.

**VSG** · 07-17-2010, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rammsteinmad

When they main event an event.

He said it. But another criteria for me is when they win the IC title and defend it atleast once (Not so much US title)

**RatedGSuperstar** · 07-17-2010, 05:16 PM

I never really saw Sheamus as a legitimate main event guy until after he dropped his first title. WWE can have as many random young guys win world titles as they want, but unless they continue to be booked in a strong way after losing the title, it's not going to take off. Sheamus came out of his WWE reign looking great -- "taking out" HHH had a lot to do with it, but he was also allowed to show a bit of personality. Swagger's slowly been following the same path by looking like a monster in his feud with Rey Mysterio.

**VSG** · 07-17-2010, 05:23 PM

The minute I saw Swagger take Mysterio out on a "road trip", he was pure gold in my eyes.

**Snowden** · 07-17-2010, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VSG

He said it. But another criteria for me is when they win the IC title and defend it atleast once (Not so much US title)

So then guys like (recently) Kofi Kingston and Drew McIntyre, or (more in the past) William Regal and Carlito were Main Eventers when they won it? I get upper mid-card, but main event is stretching it IMO.

**VSG** · 07-17-2010, 06:15 PM

At a point of time they could all (and 2 of them even now) actually be the main event of a tv show without anyone having to raise eyebrows. Main event is not necessarily about the top title in the company.

**Troelar** · 07-17-2010, 06:54 PM

I think defining when someone is a main eventer is almost impossible, there are too many criteria to consider: Match-bookings, mic skills, time on air, title implications, fan reaction, wrestling ability - add your own

How about losing your Main event status? If we can find out when that happens, then reverse it - tada that's when you're a main eventer... Sadly I can't think of anything right now

**Swiss Ultimate** · 07-17-2010, 07:34 PM

Khali is not.
Triple H is.

For me, it's the ability to walk into the ring and make the fans care one way or the other if you win or lose, regardless of who you are facing. It has to be about you more than anything.

Mankind's WWF Title run and Main-Event matches were satisfying because I truly wanted him to win, knowing that the matches were pre-determined I really cared if Mick won or lost. Flip that over with Triple H, I really really wanted him to lose.

**Shadrick** · 07-17-2010, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schlomey

Kofi is very talented and very over but as we have seen before when he was on RAW, it takes WWE writers and fans all of 2 seconds to forget him.

If he's very over then the fans don't forget him....

**Snowden** · 07-17-2010, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VSG

At a point of time they could all (and 2 of them even now) actually be the main event of a tv show without anyone having to raise eyebrows. Main event is not necessarily about the top title in the company.

Eh, I think main eventing a TV show and being a top draw (for which I believe is a loose synonym of main eventer) are two very different things. I agree that the top title does not necessarily equal main event, but I can't see them realistically headlining, say, the next 3-4 PPVs like a John Cena, HHH, Randy Orton can and do, nevermind a Wrestlemania. Winning the second tier titles are certainly a stepping stone to ME status (though how you're, and the title, are booked is a huge part of it), I don't believe that it makes you an auto main guy. I think, what it comes down to, is that we're using two different definitions of "main event."

07-17-2010, 11:42 PM

When they become man enough
to kiss vince mcmahons ass.

07-17-2010, 11:24 AM	#1
Xero He's Here Posts: 60,735	At what point does someone become a true main eventer in your eyes? Sure, you can say that, for example, Sheamus is a true Main Eventer, but why is he considered as such? Is there a specific moment when a wrestler becomes a true main eventer? Or does it have to happen over time? Is it about the world title? Or something else? Essentially, what are your personal requirements to consider someone a main eventer?

07-17-2010, 11:31 AM	#2
Bad Company Mad Posts: 26,228	A win over HHH. Except Shelton Benjamin.

07-17-2010, 11:44 AM	#3
Favre4Ever Incoming Text Posts: 2,646	I was gonna say consistency and talent, but maybe i'm thinking of another sport. If you bring a guy in and have him only wrestling against main eventers, you can quickly create the perception that he is main event level as well (see: Brock/Sheamus).

07-17-2010, 11:44 AM	#4
BizarroKing I'm Brllnt! Posts: 3,139	Once they have gotten over enough with the fans.

07-17-2010, 11:47 AM	#5
jskinnyg Voices Say I'm Awesome... Posts: 1,715	I think it's a case by case kind of thing... In Sheamus' case for me, it was not when he was awarded the title so fast in his career, but how he carried it so well... That made him a main eventer in my eyes fella... Another example... I think HHH became main event status when he won the IC belt the first time... I think for a lot of guys nowadays it's when you win the IC of US belt of some sort and carry the belt with a great run... Shows how much that person wanted a championship and to be in that position...

07-17-2010, 11:54 AM	#6
Snowden All Hype Posts: 2,186	Its shades of gray. For me, it seems like its a combination of tenure in the main event with a hint of (in the WWE) being featured on RAW consistently. As far as tenure goes, its not like there's necessarily a running clock, but if you throw a wrestler into top tier programs over and over, then he eventually "sticks" as a member of the upper tier. That is, unless he's consistently getting squashed, but that hasn't happened in quite some time/would be a complete waste of time. As for the RAW component, I "buy" a guy as a main eventer when he gets featured on the flagship show, and moreso, if he opens, opens the second hour, or closes the show. For example: Jack Swagger has been main eventing Smackdown for the past 4 or so months, but I think the perception of him is a high upper midcarder. If he did the same thing on RAW, I think we'd be more comfortable with the notion of him being a true main eventer. Of course there are exceptions in the modern era (Jeff Hardy), but for me it seems to be a good metric. As for a company like TNA, its a lot harder. There's so many "name" guys, who are all "big deals" supposedly, that its hard to define a clear main event. Is Anderson a main eventer because he headlined the last PPV? Joe is a multiple time champ and pretty over, but nowhere near the title picture...is he a main eventer? Its a lot harder, which speaks to either (a) muddled booking or (b) a very fluid title scene. Hell, I could see any number of 10-12 guys holding the title in that company at any one time.

07-17-2010, 12:04 PM	#7
Nicky Fives b/c 5 is better than 4 Posts: 9,721	When they start wearing their likeness(es) on a t-shirt to the ring and appear on virtually every show against other "main eventers"

07-17-2010, 12:09 PM	#8
Schlomey Black Sheep Jew Posts: 8,859	The only way to be a true main eventer is to have "IT" Swagger got the title and the majority (not including myself) didn't consider him an actual main eventer. That's probably why he held the title RIGHT AFTER Wrestlemania since its considered by some to be the slow/off season. You must have IT. Titles are great but you have to be a total package. Yes you are correct in saying that it only happens over time. You don't walk in to RAW and become a main eventer. Sheamus, on the other hand, was basically forced into the main event scene BUT, over time, I have come to consider him a top dog & a main event wrestler. WWE took a gamble on HHH's friend and luckily it paid off....Which is a good thing because the new crop is sorely missing the IT Main Event stars. My hope for the next 2 years is Wade Barrett.

07-17-2010, 12:49 PM	#9
jskinnyg Voices Say I'm Awesome... Posts: 1,715	MIZ??

07-17-2010, 12:57 PM	#10
Steveviscious89 We Want Sting! Posts: 358	That's a real toss up for me. For the most part I like it when they build the star. There are exceptions every now and then that have happened over the years. Booker T winning the title at BATB 2000 is an example. But it seems to me that it would work best if you give the guy a good run with the #2 belt and then give him a shot at the title at some point. This is how it was done with DDP, Goldberg, The Rock, HHH, Kurt Angle, and countless others that were successful. Of course it won't work if they are stinking up the place, but it's not hard to pull the plug if you catch them during the run before the world title. TNA could make very good use of the Global title like this. I've always thought they could do this with Robert Roode if Beer Money were to break up at some point.

07-17-2010, 01:09 PM	#11
The Pope Pope Is Pimpin' Posts: 4,676	I hate Sheamus

07-17-2010, 01:42 PM	#12
blak23 Posts: 1,763	For me its two different things for faces it's all about the clean victories over top guys for example jeff hardy vs. hhh was when i said yea he's a main eventer. As for heels heels its all about main event heat. For example jericho, and edge had the main event heat then got the title or like punk and jbl the title was what put them and it gave them that level of heat.

07-17-2010, 01:46 PM	#13
Madness42 Does not compute. Posts: 67	When they beat a main event talent in a somewhat clean fashion. It may be attributed to Luck (Sheamus) or opportunity (Swagger, Edge, Punk), but the fact is, they won. It may not be the best way to elevate talent, but, it is a sign of the times nowadays. The "IT" factor Schlomey mentioned is very important as well, which is why Swagger is now kind of falling to the wayside in my opinion, despite they're attempt at making him dangerous & brutal lately. Of course, I think right now, the WWE populace has no idea what they want out of a young main eventer. Audience reaction has been lukewarm to most lately.

07-17-2010, 01:48 PM	#14
Brock Guest Posts: n/a	One thing i just can say... if wwe want to push you... go for it.. because its a trial of a lifetime... its just like.. WWE is WWE.. even other company like tna.. has a great wrestler.. even tna got undertaker,cena,hhh WWE can build new superstar than can defeat all of them... look at it? hogan/flair in tna? vs sheamus/mcyntre in wwe.. how good they are..!

07-17-2010, 02:28 PM	#19
Londoner One Of A Kind Posts: 22,178	When they keep main eventing for months n months. /obvious answer

07-17-2010, 02:51 PM	#21
blak23 Posts: 1,763	for me the thing with miz and morrison i think one could easily be switched out for the other and you still get the same results

07-17-2010, 02:52 PM	#22
Xero He's Here Posts: 60,735	Miz can talk, Morrison not so much.

07-17-2010, 02:55 PM	#23
blak23 Posts: 1,763	i thought morrison was pretty funny as a heel

07-17-2010, 02:59 PM	#24
Schlomey Black Sheep Jew Posts: 8,859	i'm not looking for the next rock. It was an example of a totally over face being a main eventer...the TYPE necessary for the role. Right now there really isn't a whole lot of them going around. None that I see really taking the the world and the company by storm.

07-17-2010, 03:04 PM	#25
blak23 Posts: 1,763	I'm afraid the guy who takes the world by storm doesn't exist in this day and age

07-17-2010, 03:38 PM	#26
DLVH84 Samurai Rocker Posts: 2,876	I would say it takes time, and it just depends on when it's the right time.

07-17-2010, 04:30 PM	#29
Chavo Classic The Great Pink Hope Posts: 8,817	When a guy reaches the top, turns heel/face and still remains at the top, or comes back to the top after dropping off somewhat. This type of longevity and versatility define a top tier guy for me. Recent examples of this would be Orton, Batista, and to a lesser extent, CM Punk. Guys who haven't done this yet, and therefore aren't main event yet in my eyes, are Sheamus, Swagger, and again (for the sake of debate) CM Punk. Obviously there's guys such as Cena and Goldberg in WCW, who are so popular that they surpass this criteria.

07-17-2010, 04:34 PM	#30
Rammsteinmad TPWW's #3 Peep Posts: 20,903	When they main event an event.

07-17-2010, 05:16 PM	#32
RatedGSuperstar Stupid Sexy Flanders Posts: 1,728	I never really saw Sheamus as a legitimate main event guy until after he dropped his first title. WWE can have as many random young guys win world titles as they want, but unless they continue to be booked in a strong way after losing the title, it's not going to take off. Sheamus came out of his WWE reign looking great -- "taking out" HHH had a lot to do with it, but he was also allowed to show a bit of personality. Swagger's slowly been following the same path by looking like a monster in his feud with Rey Mysterio.

07-17-2010, 05:23 PM	#33
VSG Hazardous to Your Health Posts: 21,730	The minute I saw Swagger take Mysterio out on a "road trip", he was pure gold in my eyes.

07-17-2010, 06:15 PM	#35
VSG Hazardous to Your Health Posts: 21,730	At a point of time they could all (and 2 of them even now) actually be the main event of a tv show without anyone having to raise eyebrows. Main event is not necessarily about the top title in the company.

07-17-2010, 06:54 PM	#36
Troelar Member Posts: 192	I think defining when someone is a main eventer is almost impossible, there are too many criteria to consider: Match-bookings, mic skills, time on air, title implications, fan reaction, wrestling ability - add your own How about losing your Main event status? If we can find out when that happens, then reverse it - tada that's when you're a main eventer... Sadly I can't think of anything right now

07-17-2010, 07:34 PM	#37
Swiss Ultimate Amazon Affiliate Posts: 42,694	Khali is not. Triple H is. For me, it's the ability to walk into the ring and make the fans care one way or the other if you win or lose, regardless of who you are facing. It has to be about you more than anything. Mankind's WWF Title run and Main-Event matches were satisfying because I truly wanted him to win, knowing that the matches were pre-determined I really cared if Mick won or lost. Flip that over with Triple H, I really really wanted him to lose.

07-17-2010, 11:42 PM	#40
MrSpikeLee Guest Posts: n/a	When they become man enough to kiss vince mcmahons ass.