this years wrestlemania is MAKE IT OR BREAK IT for the WWE

Whaa whaa whaa. Oh no why is vermaat not posting? Guess what I have something called a life, look into it

In all your honesty, how will you react if WM 'breaks it' for the WWE?

I will be pretty damn upset, but I will give WWE a chance and see where they go with it. Maybe they have some aces up their sleeve.

No, you really didn't. You may think your argument explains how both can be true, but it's nonsense made to cover up an obvious contradiction.

It's all valid. WWE can go on a wrong road that can lead to their downfall. Immediately? NO. Eventually? It's possible!!!

WCW did not go out of business because it listened to it's fans. It went out of business because it didn't listen to it's fans. Bischoff and whoever else was running the show was listening to Hogan, Nash and a load of other prima donnas who thought that because they used to be big, they should be the focus of the show.

It partially went out of business because it listened to the fans. Hogan, Nash and the other OLD guys were a part of the problem too, but listening to the fans was another. This is why I am concerned that guys that are getting old in WWE are sticking around (Undertaker, Angle). But WcW only went with the NWO because it was getting a good reaction from the fans, everyone HATED it and HATED it even more the second time around and becausE WCW listened to the fans they decided that NWO worked well as a heel stable and kept them on.

I think everyone who as replied in this thread has given decent enough reasons to the whole John Cena situation. UNBIASED opinions. But you are such a fanboy you are just determined to disagree with anybody who doesn't think Cena is the be-all-and-end-all of WWE. Cena got MORE cheers after he lost the WWE title to Edge, not less. This is because the fans thought they were going to get a nice title chase, lot's of obstacles for him to overcome and prove his worth as WWE champion, much like Rock/Austin during their respective eras. (Rock wanting Triple H's title and having to go through DX; Austin wanting Rock's title and having to go through the Corporation.)

I am giving unbiased facts on John Cena. I am not thinking that he is the best ever, but face it, who else in the WWE has as much potential as he does? No one. There is no one that has as much charisma in the WWE to drive a new generation. Cena got more cheers after he lost the title to EDge because Edge sucks so much and was not ready for the title that even the guys who wanted to look "cool" didn't want to see him with the title further so they cheered Cena. Also, these fans suceeded in having Cena loose the title so they got bored with trying to screw him.

As far as I know (I may be wrong) as WWE's rating's have been steadily declining, TNA's have been steadily increasing. Granted, they are nowhere near the level of WWE yet, but all these "Fake fans" are real fans after all. Just because they are not watching WWE anymore doesn't mean they stopped watching wrestling.

TNA has no stars. TNA ratings is like 0.7. They only have gotten in the 1.0 range like once. AM RAW beats TNA in ratings. TNA is no match and if all those fake fans tha were watching WWE left and watched TNA, then TNA would get big ratings. Face it, TNA is a NICHE market.

Oh, and with regards to what the fans thought of the 619 at One Night Stand (I don't think anyone covered this) basically as soon as Psichosis was hung up on the middle rope and Rey started running, EVERYBODY booed. Not a few, EVERYBODY! Why? Because it is a boring, unrealistic, crappy move that everyone hates. (Compared to what it used to be.)

If this is what happened, then why are the fans not booing the 6-1-9 now? I think I can figure out why. A lot of the fans who came to watch One Night Stand are former ECW fans and are disgruntled at the WWE and they booed mysterio to screw with the program. Same mentality, boo the good guy (Cena, Mysterio) screw with the program. A lot were not TRUE WWE fans, they just came for ECW reunion.

BIATCH!

Don't you have homework in the 8th grade?

Are you kidding me? Rather than admit you were wrong, you're gonna serve up this bullshit souffle? In a relavent argument, you're going to use the logic of "Well, I talked to a few people..therefore, it's pretty easy to deduce what millions of fans wanted...even though I didn't watch WCW myself...or know anything about them." You have the logic of a garden gnome. Actually, you should get into politics...you could be President someday.

Yes that is called FIRST PERSON ACCOUNTS. I talked to a few people and knew the mentality of the fans because I was with a good representation of fans, the same fans that were watching WCW then, so I think they are a good source of information. And is that suppose to insult me? I'd love to be the president, it's one of the top jobs in da world.

No, you just won't admit when you're blatently wrong...even when you're caught with your pants down sodomizing a lie.

I do not lie.

Again, you state your bullshit logic as fact and keep skating around the issue that this is NOT EVEN A TOPIC ABOUT OPINIONS!! It's a FACT that ECW was ruined by Paul Heyman. You keep ignoring the fact that WWE even admits this. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with your head? Vince made jokes all the time about running Bischoff and WCW out of business because they were direct competitors. AT NO TIME DID VINCE EVER DO THAT TO PAUL HEYMAN! The joke is that Paul screwed ECW. PAUL. WWE knows this and admits it, yet you continue to insist that your "fantasy" version is the fact. Again, just admit you're wrong. You might save a shred of respect. (although I'm sure it's too late.)

I am not denying that ECW was ruined by Paul Heyman. But he was not the only factor n ruining it. He was not the sole factor. The WWE played a role in it too. Face it, if there was no WWE, then ECW would have a better chance of still being around because fans would only have two feds to watch.

What fucking program have you been watching? Again, this isn't even a topic of opinion you retard! This is something that actually happened..ALOT. Arguing otherwise just further proves you are SEVERELY out of touch with reality.

I think you are confusing "heel bischoff" getting beaten down for being a heel and Bischoff being mocked for WcW.

Don't waste your time arguing with the troll. Just point and laugh like everyone (But Kalyx, too busy worshipping his "heel" ness) else.

Your logic : Anyone who disagrees with me : TROLL.

Wow... it's amazing that I actually sat through 8 pages of this, and I still fail to see the original poster's points.

My points were that if the WWE makes a few mistakes at Wrestlemania (have Cena lose, have rey lose, have MArk Henry lose) that they will enter on a road that might lead to their destruction sometime in the far future. If they make these mistakes, WWE quality will go down.

For those of you who are just joinining us, let me give you a few "highlights" of the debate skills from this threads creator...Vermaat. This should give you an idea of the mentality we're dealing with here and why noone can find the original point he was trying to make. Enjoy!

You misunderstand my points. There is a difference between a company sucking on the whole and a company sucking in some fields. For example, you can have a computer that sucks at playing games, but does it suck on the whole? No, it is good for making spreadsheets.

Your argument about the Cruisers, for example, bleeds of inconsistencies. You say that they are lazy. What PROOF do you have of this? By your own admission, you are using "logic" to deduce this. You reason that they work hard to get to the WWE, then get lazy because they've "made it." You act like this is the ONLY explanation for WWE Cruisers using less "innovative" moves. What most people have brought up is that they have been limited. Rey's been limited too. Innovative? If he was truly being allowed to be innovative, he'd have cranked out a lot more than a 619. You're using ONE move to "prove" that a wrestler is innovative, when that move has been repeated for four yeasr on the WWE. What about Akio and his corkscrew moonsault? What about Paul London's dropsault into a moonsault splash on a second opponent? What about Jamie Noble doing that nifty sunset flip, catching on the opponents arms behind him, then spinning them into a standing flipping powerbomb? What about Nunzio's jumping armbar slam off the second rope? What about Kendrick's Sliced Bread #2? I can call each and every one of those moves just as innovative as Rey Mysterio's 619, by your own terms. How come they don't count?

This is the only explanation I can think of for cruisers to suddenly droip the quality of their matches, well, certain cruisers. Rey also has the West Coast Pop, another innovative moves and many others. If you watch a Rey match you will see, like when he twists around the wrestler and goes under him and pins him. There are too many moves for me to mention. Rey is one, no one else on the roster does the things he does. 6 1 9 is unique because of the way it utilizes the ropes, I don't see other wrestlers utilizing the ropes like this.

All the moves except Sliced Bread are innovative, I agree. However, these are the only innovative moves I see these guys pop out and they are nowhere near as fun to watch as Rey. They just aren't as fast paced and they only pull off these moves rarely. Rey pulls out the 6 1 9 in every match. Sliced Bread is pretty much a dudley dog.

Why does your theory that they are being lazy (where you have no proof) is a "fact" and yet consistently reported news about wrestlers being limited must be false? Then you say Vince keeps them because he thinks they have potential.... WHAT?! That sounds like a child saying the sky is green, then when someone says "look, it's blue" he goes "God put a blue film over it." To the child, this may be logical, but to everyone else, it sounds assinine. You say that the WWE only fires bad wrestlers, which of course explains why they've let people like Akio, Charlie Haas, and Sean O'Haire go--all wrestlers who have tremendous wrestling ability and a penchant for doing unique moves. You say that Cena is a good rapper... and maybe in freestyling, he is, but his CD was regarded by most rap critics as in the lower echelon of all rap CD's released last year. In other words, rap fans who know what they're talking about agree that Cena's album pretty much sucked.

Vince knows they are lazy, but keeps them because they have potential. Nothing wrong with that. He knows that eventually there is a chance they can break out, so he keeps them, no reason to rush, they are still good even when lazy. It's just that Rey is getting the world title and they are not. The news that were reported are nothing but rumor because they were not reported on the official site.

Akio was a good wrestler, but there is more to being in the WWE then just amazing wrestling. Akio had no mic skills and no character and he did not develop his mic skill or character. When he debuted he was silent japanese guy and he never changed.

Charlie Haas was taken back. Hopefully he has improved. Like Akio he suffered from character lack.

I did not see what's so special about O'Haire. Generic Hoss and he was bad on the mic. Good in pre recorded promos but bad live.

Like I said about Cena's disc, it is not the issue for me that it was bad or good. Someone said Cena was not a rapper and I said he was because he made a rap CD. Now, I tend to think that it was good and Music is something that is subjective, not objective. It sounded good to my ears, you might have a different taste and I don't trust "critics" when it comes to music.

You claim that a small crowd can influence hundreds more to chant what they chant, using a psychological "sheep mentality" argument as proof. Again, you assume that people will chant just because others are doing so. YOu assume that if they don't, they feel awkward. Again, this has no basis. Your friends may do that (or not). You may do that (or not). But that does not mean everyone does that. If you conducted a formal exit poll of wrestling fans exiting an arena and got their opinions, THEN that would be proof (if they said what you said). You argue that Mark Henry was the product of bad storylines. Nevermind he's been a sloopy worker and has injured other wrestlers (the latest being a botched splash on Batista a few months ago). You're being quite technical, so I don't see why you think Rey shares no blame in the Eddie incident. Earlier, you build him up like he's the best guy in the biz (or one of the best). So if he was really fervently behind Eddie, why didn't he just refuse? Lose a job? If he's that big, wouldn't Vince be afraid to fire him? After all, by your words, he keeps other Cruisers because of potential. If he's willing to do that, why would he fire his best Cruiser (again in your words)? And even if he were to lose his job... he's a huge name. He could go to another fed and get paid just about as much. So the fact that he did this indicates a level of personal blame. I'm not saying Rey's evil, but you cannot say he shares zero blame in this.

No one is going to admit that they went with the crowd. It is a proved fact that people fall under peer pressure. Do all of them? No, that's why a lot of people cheer for Cena. But do a lot of them? Yes. Read any psychology text book, it will tell you that pressure from those around you has a lot to do with you wanting to imitate them.

Batista was already wrestling injured. There is no 100% conformed report that Mark Henry caused the injury. WWE did say it, but only in storyline purposes. They did not say that it was the fault of Mark Henry on the website. Just because it was in a match with him, doesn't mean it's his fault.

Rey is one of the best guys backstage. There is nowhere to turn besides the WWE because Rey has to look out for his pay. No one pays as much as the WWE and rey knows this and there is no one that is a competitor in North America that will pay as much. I don't think that there was that much going on. Obviously WWE got permission from Eddie's family, so who is Rey to judge? Rey never did anything bad so he is in the clear, and whenever or not he should step in and fight Orton for doing it is up to debate because Orton was doing it for a storyline. Fight the WWE? they got permission from Eddie's family so there's not that much to do here.

[Lord-Of-Darkness]

Duuuuuuuude......your so gonna get flamed again. Why do you bother.

Also, I went to the effort of making a shirt for you on PSP to mock the shopzone thread and this one..... and don't even get mentioned by you. What.......the fuck

Originally Posted by Lord-Of-Darkness Duuuuuuuude......your so gonna get flamed again. Why do you bother. Also, I went to the effort of making a shirt for you on PSP to mock the shopzone thread and this one..... and don't even get mentioned by you. What.......the fuck

Ok lol that was pretty cool except I said "Make it or break it" now make or break but okay lol it was pretty funny !!!

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD Kane Knight said I make useless post. The irony gives me a happy face. -------> Everybody but me is wrong lololol

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Vermaat Your logic : Anyone who disagrees with me : TROLL.

My logic: People who deliberately deny facts, lie and create their own versions of the truth? Either seriously mentally handicapped or trolls.

With you, it's a 50-50 shot. I'm guessing troll.

If anything were true, it would be that my logic is anyone who disagress with me is a retard. Even that's a stretch, but hey, the least you could do is come close to reality.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Vermaat Ok lol that was pretty cool except I said "Make it or break it" now make or break but okay lol it was pretty funny !!!

"make or break" and "make it or break it" mean the same thing. What difference does it make?

[Lord-Of-Darkness]

Nine pages later, and this guy is still debating things I'm not even sure he understands himself. He claims to have a life, but if he is half the rambling retard he is on here in real life, I'm very suprised that his friends haven't beaten him with a big stick by now...

[Lord-Of-Darkness]

Originally Posted by Kane Knight "make or break" and "make it or break it" mean the same thing. What difference does it make?

He won't pay for the merchandise, but he will critisize it. You just can't help the guy now...

[Xero]

This is the only explanation I can think of for cruisers to suddenly droip the quality of their matches, well, certain cruisers. Rey also has the West Coast Pop, another innovative moves and many others. If you watch a Rey match you will see, like when he twists around the wrestler and goes under him and pins him. There are too many moves for me to mention. Rey is one, no one else on the roster does the things he does. 6 1 9 is unique because of the way it utilizes the ropes, I don't see other wrestlers utilizing the ropes like this. All the moves except Sliced Bread are innovative, I agree. However, these are the only innovative moves I see these guys pop out and they are nowhere near as fun to watch as Rey. They just aren't as fast paced and they only pull off these moves rarely. Rey pulls out the 6 1 9 in every match. Sliced Bread is pretty much a dudley dog.

First of all, the West Coast Pop is a seated senton into a Hurricarana. Learn some move's names.

Second of all, why do you think they aren't doing them? Matches in the WWE are almost always booked to the minute. There is not a lot of adlib in the lower card's matches. Simply put in your words, they don't do these moves often because, as you've stated, they are too dangerous. In the real world, they're just not scripted to do those moves and the road agents (there's a new phrase for you) tell them what to and not to do.

That's another thing. You said that the cruisers are basically liabilities. Why would Vince keep them around if they're so dangerous?

And there have been many reports stating that Henry did indeed injure Batista. They just "worked" it into something they call a "storyline".

(This is the last time I post in this thread with anything to do with his arguments.)

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Lord-Of-Darkness He won't pay for the merchandise, but he will critisize it. You just can't help the guy now...

FINLAY could help him.

The only problem is, the dumb fuck would call him a fighting irish bastard to his face.

[Lord-Of-Darkness]

Originally Posted by Kane Knight FINLAY could help him. The only problem is, the dumb fuck would call him a fighting irish bastard to his face.

After the beating....

[Arnold HamNegger]

Originally Posted by Vermaat It's all valid. WWE can go on a wrong road that can lead to their downfall. Immediately? NO. Eventually? It's possible!!!

So basically, your argument is this: Whenever anyone else gives their opinion about their displeasure for WWE...according to you...they are wrong. Your logic: "WWE is the best! The quality has always been good! You're an idiot to say other wise! If you don't like WWE, then you aren't a real wrestling fan!"

But now, suddenly after ALL THESE YEARS, WWE will decline in your opinion...if Cena loses. You dismiss all of OUR oppinions, relavent points and facts about WWE's decline as false...but suddenly just because your hero CENA might lose the belt, "WWE WILL GO DOWN A WRONG ROAD THAT CAN LEAD TO THEIR DOWNFALL."

This is the basis of your argument, point blank. You are not a "wrestling fan", BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION. Frankly, you are nothing more than a HYPOCRITE CENA MARK!.

Originally Posted by Vermaat It partially went out of business because it listened to the fans. Hogan, Nash and the other OLD guys were a part of the problem too, but listening to the fans was another. But WcW only went with the NWO because it was getting a good reaction from the fans, everyone HATED it and HATED it even more the second time around and becausE WCW listened to the fans they decided that NWO worked well as a heel stable and kept them on.

Ok, here all in one sentance you contradict yourself. I will put the contradiction in bold so you can see it with your own eyes. "But WcW only went with the NWO because it was getting a good reaction from the fans, everyone HATED it and HATED it even more the second time around and becausE WCW listened to the fans they decided that NWO worked well as a heel stable and kept them on."

In one breath you say it was getting a "good reaction from the fans" then after a "," you proceed to then say that "everyone HATED it and HATED it even more the second time around."

Fans = good reaction.....everyone = HATED IT.

Everyone are the fans, the fans are everyone....thus the contradiction you ignorant piss monkey! The fact in all of our 3 dementional worlds is that WCW DID NOT listen to the fans. You stated yourself, that "everyone HATED IT." Yet, WCW continued to be run by Bischoff, Hogan, Nash, etc. who listened to nobody but themselves. By IGNORING THE FANS (that means NOT listening to them), the fans eventually grew sour of WCW's product and jumped ship to WWE. THUS, the gain in WWE ratings and the demise of WCW. That's the fact.

Your theory/logic: "WCW gave in and listened to the fans and when the fans got what they wanted they realized it was crap and didn't want it anymore." (or something to that effect.) Yeah, that's the ticket. Just a bit of advice, if you know NOTHING about a company and didn't watch them...then whatever "logic" you come up with that strays from the factual truth is NOT A FACT to anyone but you. Thus, your whole argument is bullshit. Simple enough?

Originally Posted by Vermaat Cena got more cheers after he lost the title to EDge because Edge sucks so much and was not ready for the title that even the guys who wanted to look "cool" didn't want to see him with the title further so they cheered Cena. Also, these fans suceeded in having Cena loose the title so they got bored with trying to screw him.

This is the scenerio that your brain developed in order to cope with the fact that ***GASP*** people were booing Cena? This makes absolutely NO GODDAMN SENSE to anyone sane of mind. It's sad, you can't cope with the fact that people actually don't like your hero, so you're brain protects you by developing a blanket of lies to delusionally hide under. Explain the fact that ratings went UP when Edge won the title and he got a HUGE face pop when he won the belt. Just so you know, viewers at home can't "pressure" other viewers to tune back into a product they lost interest in. It's a simple formula: Ratings went down because people got sick of Cena. Ratings went up when Cena dropped the belt. Thus, proving that people weren't "fake" wrestling fans, they just weren't fans of Cena. The fact is, that Edge drew higher ratings as Champ than Cena ever has....so try to "logic" your way around that.

Originally Posted by Vermaat Yes that is called FIRST PERSON ACCOUNTS. I talked to a few people and knew the mentality of the fans because I was with a good representation of fans, the same fans that were watching WCW then, so I think they are a good source of information.

Yes, you based your PERSONAL OPINION off talking to a few people. The key word there asshole is OPINION. Your opinion does not = fact to anyone other than you. Let me put it to you this way, according to your "logic" here, let's say I go and interview a few people your age and race...then turn around and make assumptions and project life changes on 1 million people your age/race, including you. Suddenly you are forced to follow the same religion, follow the same beliefs, wear the same cloths, watch the same TV shows, eat the same foods, etc. based off the data I collected from the FEW PEOPLE I got information from. Well, according to your "logic"...I talked to A FEW PEOPLE who were good "representatives" to your age/race...thus I'm now an expert on the subject and the people involved. Therefore, the opinions I develop based on my "logic" are facts. Then I make the entire million other people...including you...conform into the mold that my "logic" created...without ever having heard your opinion. That's the "logic" you're using to fuel your argument.

Sound insane? YES! If I tried to do that I would be thrown in an assylum, be jailed or killed. Your "logic" sounds alot like dictatorship or communism...only they were a little more open minded then you. (of course you will say that my example is extreme and doesn't apply to you...because anything relavent doesn't apply to you when it proves you wrong...in your mind. That's called delusional buddy.

Originally Posted by Vermaat And is that suppose to insult me? I'd love to be the president, it's one of the top jobs in da world.

Well, the world the rest of us live in Vermaat...politicians are considered crooks and liars...especially our current President...so yeah, I could see how you'd be flattered. They never admit they're wrong either and always tell the truth.

Originally Posted by Vermaat I do not lie.

President Vermaat: "I did not have sexual relations with that girl!"

Originally Posted by Vermaat I am not denying that ECW was ruined by Paul Heyman. But he was not the only factor n ruining it. He was not the sole factor. The WWE played a role in it too.

Based on YOUR OPINION and YOUR GODDAMN OPINION ONLY! Seriously, WWE hasn't come out and taken any credit for sinking ECW. They just laugh at Paul Heyman. Have you had private personal conversations with Vince McMahon and he secretely admits this to you and ONLY YOU? Once again, it's your "logic" creating this...and it doesn't make it a fact. The only fact is that you continue to push an argument for WWE that doesn't exist, because WWE has already stated their opinion on the demise of ECW. Accept it and move on. You are wrong. Paul Heyman destroyed ECW, just ask WWE. Better yet, don't argue with me...why don't you email WWE and tell them that their opinion is wrong. After all, you're the expert.

Originally Posted by Vermaat I think you are confusing "heel bischoff" getting beaten down for being a heel and Bischoff being mocked for WcW.

I think you are confusing "reality" with "happy time." The rest of the world watched Vince depants Bischoff every chance he got. What the hell were you watching? Once again, this isn't opinion vs. opinion you douchebag...these events ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE...in the REAL REAL time.

Originally Posted by Vermaat My points were that if the WWE makes a few mistakes at Wrestlemania (have Cena lose, have rey lose, have MArk Henry lose) that they will enter on a road that might lead to their destruction sometime in the far future. If they make these mistakes, WWE quality will go down.

Again, quality has never EVER been down in the WWE before...but it will if your precious Cena loses. Spoken like a true Cena fanbitch. Your hypocrisy knows no end.

Originally Posted by Vermaat You misunderstand my points. There is a difference between a company sucking on the whole and a company sucking in some fields. For example, you can have a computer that sucks at playing games, but does it suck on the whole? No, it is good for making spreadsheets.

The only point you get across when you speak like this is that your grammer and debate skills suck. That's the only "sucking" going on.

Originally Posted by Vermaat This is the only explanation I can think of for cruisers to suddenly droip the quality of their matches, well, certain cruisers.

Key words, "The only explanation I can think of...." This means you don't have the facts, because you DON'T KNOW. You aren't in the WWE, you don't talk to anyone in the WWE, you don't talk to any of the cruiserweights...therefore, YOU DON'T KNOW! Therefore, whatever stupid theory you've come up with, ISN'T A FACT...so stop using it in a debate as such. How can you possibly believe your theory to be fact and then discount what other ACTUAL WRESTLERS have said on the subject? There's a professional term for that and it's CRAZY.

Originally Posted by Vermaat Vince knows they are lazy, but keeps them because they have potential.

Unless you have documented proof that you've ever...oh I don't know.... SPOKEN TO VINCE PERSONALLY and gotten HIS OPINION, quit speaking for him as if it's a fact! SHUT THE FUCK UP!

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Arnold HamNegger So basically, your argument is this: Whenever anyone else gives their opinion about their displeasure for WWE...according to you...they are wrong. Your logic: "WWE is the best! The quality has always been good! You're an idiot to say other wise! If you don't like WWE, then you aren't a real wrestling fan!" But now, suddenly after ALL THESE YEARS, WWE will decline in your opinion...if Cena loses. You dismiss all of OUR oppinions, relavent points and facts about WWE's decline as false...but suddenly just because your hero CENA might lose the belt, "WWE WILL GO DOWN A WRONG ROAD THAT CAN LEAD TO THEIR DOWNFALL."

LOL Yeah. It's pretty funny seeing him talk about how dominating they are through thick and thin, but THIS will be the difference maker.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Lord-Of-Darkness After the beating....

I think after the 8th or 9th he might suspect something was up.

[Xero]

Didn't read it, but I am going to put this all on the line.

If John Cena retains the title barring a Triple H injury, AND if Mark Henry beats the Undertaker CLEANLY, I will forever leave TPWW....... Forever.

I mean that.

However, if I'm correct, YOU must leave.

Edit: This was a joke, by the way.

(I know it'll happen, just saying...)

[Corkscrewed]

Some others may have covered this, but anyway...

This is the only explanation I can think of for cruisers to suddenly droip the quality of their matches, well, certain cruisers. Rey also has the West Coast Pop, another innovative moves and many others. If you watch a Rey match you will see, like when he twists around the wrestler and goes under him and pins him. There are too many moves for me to mention. Rey is one, no one else on the roster does the things he does. 6 1 9 is unique because of the way it utilizes the ropes, I don't see other wrestlers utilizing the ropes like this.

The West Coast Pop is a springboard hurricanrana. It's done by plenty of wrestlers in Japan, and in Indy Feds. I hope you do not argue that because Rey is the only one who does it in the WWE, that means he's innovative, because then you'd be missing the whole "don't use other people's finishers" code.

Twisting around a wrestler and pinning is another standard move called a spinning sunset flip rollup. It's a neat move, but it's been done by other Cruisers as a counter. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a wrestler about to be powerbombed flip over and roll into a sunset flip.

Watch the MNM vs Batista/Rey match from a couple of months again. Nitro and Mercury did some pretty nifty moves as well. I made a topic about it if you care to search.

London and Super Crazy do lots of rope interaction moves too. How about Super Crazy's rope switch into a falling moonsault? Or when he arm wrenches an opponent, holds onto the arm, leaps up onto the top rope then leaps into a head scissors?

I mean, no one does what Undertaker does with the ropes (Old School)... are you saying that he's a super innovative man as well? Because as much as I love Taker, he's got a pretty darn standard moveset.

All the moves except Sliced Bread are innovative, I agree. However, these are the only innovative moves I see these guys pop out and they are nowhere near as fun to watch as Rey. They just aren't as fast paced and they only pull off these moves rarely. Rey pulls out the 6 1 9 in every match. Sliced Bread is pretty much a dudley dog.

I'm sorry, but Rey, especially in the WWE, is nowhere as exciting to watch as he was in WCW or in ECW. He's much slower and relies on the same string of staple moves. His debut match against Chavo on Smackdown years ago was really cool, but since then, has he really added any real moves to his arsenal? He's still doing the 619, West Coast Pop, that body scissors into a bulldog, and some top rope moves like a moonsault. He's added a Bronco Buster he uses occassionally, but didn't X-Pac used to do it?

The point is that Rey isn't as glowingly brilliant as you paint him to be either. His matches follow the formulamatic path that his fellow Cruiserweights pursue, with occassional flashes of brilliance. The same can be said of all the wrestlers. If Rey hasn't added new moves to his moveset since he debuted, wouldn't he be lazy as well?

Rey's matches are NOT fast paced these days (due in part to age and to the "WWE Style"). His matches are on par with those of Super Crazy, Paul London, and Kid Kash. Nunzio has a slower style, Jamie Noble is more methodical (although he can go fast as well). Have you watched his earlier matches? THAT'S fast.

Vince knows they are lazy, but keeps them because they have potential. Nothing wrong with that. He knows that eventually there is a chance they can break out, so he keeps them, no reason to rush, they are still good even when lazy. It's just that Rey is getting the world title and they are not. The news that were reported are nothing but rumor because they were not reported on the official site.

What?! That's why he fired Juventud Guerrera, right? Juventud is one of the best cruisers in the world, but he's an idiot, and his backstage antics cost him his job. However, by your logic, Juventud would still be in the WWE because he has "potential."

There's this thing called politics. I don't know how old you are, but perhaps you are too young to know what this is. The WWE (as well as many companies) is dominated by politics. This has been documented by numerous wrestlers who've been with the company and wrestlers who are still in the company. Of course the company isn't going to admit to that. If you were doing something shady, would you report it to the world?

The fact that you cling to this idea that only news from the official site is valid is prepostrous. PWInsider and 1Wrestling are reputed news agencies who have consistently proven to provide reliable and accurate news. Jamie Noble was fired because he failed a drug test, but this was never reported on WWE.com. Does that mean it's not true? Because Noble will tell you himself that that's what happened. How can "your only way of explaining" Cruiserweight "drop" in quality be a valid argument, but wrestling news web site reports be false? What makes your word better than their's?

Akio was a good wrestler, but there is more to being in the WWE then just amazing wrestling. Akio had no mic skills and no character and he did not develop his mic skill or character. When he debuted he was silent japanese guy and he never changed.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. But he had POTENTIAL! Why didn't Vince keep him if he obviously was a great wrestler? You just negated your own point here.

Furthermore, you can't have mic skills if you're not given time to talk, or a character to portray. If Rey Mysterio was portrayed as a silent Mexican field worker, he'd have gone down the same path. He was on a "Japanese Yakuza" storyline with Tajiri, but that lasted all of two weeks. How can you even blame him?

Charlie Haas was taken back. Hopefully he has improved. Like Akio he suffered from character lack.

No, he was simply not used. You can have the best talent in the world, but if you're not being put in consistent storylines, what can you do? He had a thing going with Shelton, then Shelton went to RAW. Then Haas was shuffled around different tag partners. And even if he had character lack... this still defeats your first argument: that Vince keeps wrestlers around because they have potential. If this was the case, Haas would never have been let go in the first place. Therefore, there must be another reason.

I did not see what's so special about O'Haire. Generic Hoss and he was bad on the mic. Good in pre recorded promos but bad live.

You do realize he could do a senton bomb, right? You do realize he had that unique Widow Maker finisher, right? You do realize he was very quick and athletic, right?

Probably not, because he never go to display those skills in the WWE. In WCW, he was a tremendous athlete. In the WWE, he played second fiddle behind Rod Piper.

Like I said about Cena's disc, it is not the issue for me that it was bad or good. Someone said Cena was not a rapper and I said he was because he made a rap CD. Now, I tend to think that it was good and Music is something that is subjective, not objective. It sounded good to my ears, you might have a different taste and I don't trust "critics" when it comes to music.

Okay, he was good to you. But that's the thing... you're dealing with people who probably know more than you. So you can't just say that your opinion is fact.

Here's an example:
You called O'Haire a "generic hoss." This suggests you don't think a "generic hoss" is anything special. Yet if you ask very casual wrestling fans, they'll be impressed by a hoss because the guy's big. That's it. The guy's big, and that's "cool." You will probably look at that fan and shake your head, wondering how he can form that opinion, because he's just a generic hoss! You might even argue that the hoss in question can't wrestle well, only does a few moves, and has little character. But he'll say that he likes him because he's big, and it's his opinion. So who's right there, you or the fan? Does that mean that hoss is good, because the fan liked him?

Critics have experience in the subject matter. They've dealt with it and have developed a taste for what's good and bad. They're not always right, but they're probably better at judging things than you or I, on average at least. You can't just dismiss something like that just because you don't agree with it. That's simply ignorant.

No one is going to admit that they went with the crowd. It is a proved fact that people fall under peer pressure. Do all of them? No, that's why a lot of people cheer for Cena. But do a lot of them? Yes. Read any psychology text book, it will tell you that pressure from those around you has a lot to do with you wanting to imitate them.

Another stereotype. No one is going to admit they went with a crowd? Hell, I am PROUD to say that I've stood by my own ideals and went against the crowd. I and many people I know have faced peer pressure on petty things like drugs and alcohol and cigarettes, and we've emerged doing our own thing.

But lets ignore that for a bit. You're misinterpreting these textbooks. The peer pressure you're talkiing about is direct peer pressure. People are directly inviting you to join them in an activity. In a crowd atmosphere like that, the "pressure" is at best indirect. If you chant with a crowd, it's not because you're being coerced or prodded to do it. It's because you feel like it as well. At best, you chant along because you think it's a hoot. Say the crowd chants "Cena sucks!" and you go along. Obviously, you can't like Cena, or else you wouldn't join it at all. The fact that you participate indicates that you share some sort of apathy or dislike towards him. After all, if you're a fan of your local sports team, but you're at the venue of their opponent, and everyone else chants against your team, would you go along? Of course not, because you support your team.

However, if you disliked that team or didn't care, then of course you'd go along with it.

You make it sound like these fans are being forced to chant against their will. That's what your language suggests. The fact is that the Cena sucks chants are significant. I don't deny that many fans enjoy Cena, but probably an equal amount dislike him or don't care about him. In terms of popularity, apathy is equivalent to animosity, because neither is on your side.

If your peer pressure thing was right, then rioters would be able to use that excuse all the time. "I broke into the store because everyone else was doing it too... I really support my neighborhood though!" That's not valid. And neither is your point.

Batista was already wrestling injured. There is no 100% conformed report that Mark Henry caused the injury. WWE did say it, but only in storyline purposes. They did not say that it was the fault of Mark Henry on the website. Just because it was in a match with him, doesn't mean it's his fault.

You're right. However, using my "logic" and "reasoning," given the nature of the injury (on the tricep area) and his prior history of injurying other wrestlers (accidentally, but injuring them nonetheless) and the fact that it occurred when Mark gave him a big splash (this was reported on several reputable sites, which makes it confirmed to everyone but you, who apparently won't believe it unless it's published on WWE.com), I have determined that it was Henry's fault.

What, you don't accept my argument? I did the EXACT same thing you did when you said the other Cruisers are lazy. So something's gotta give.

Rey is one of the best guys backstage. There is nowhere to turn besides the WWE because Rey has to look out for his pay. No one pays as much as the WWE and rey knows this and there is no one that is a competitor in North America that will pay as much. I don't think that there was that much going on.

He's a huge name. TNA would pay him a comparable salary for his namesake. Furthermore, the WWE might even be quite reluctant to let him go even if he did cause a bit of trouble, given his name. That's why they kept RVD signed.

Obviously WWE got permission from Eddie's family, so who is Rey to judge? Rey never did anything bad so he is in the clear, and whenever or not he should step in and fight Orton for doing it is up to debate because Orton was doing it for a storyline. Fight the WWE? they got permission from Eddie's family so there's not that much to do here.

The reports indicate that the family was never clued in on exactly what would happen until it happened. Basically, the WWE told the family half-truths.

Of course, you'll say this was never confirmed because it wasn't on WWE.com. But if you were the WWE, would you publish it? Of course not. But people like Metzer have reported this, and he's well known for getting things right. If you don't accept that, then you're simply being stubborn, which would then negate most of your points.



Of course, you ARE being stubborn and one-sided, which is why most of your points are wrong. And yet you continue to argue, so I've got to guess that you're not a troll. In a one on one live argument, most of the people here (not the ones who resort to only name calling, but basically everyone else) would destroy you in a debate.

[Corkscrewed]

In short: Vermaat continues to take his own assumptions and opinions and use them as fact, but he refuses to accept reputable sources and arguments that go against his point of view, dismissing any such things as invalid. He tries to use academic tactics to support his case, but every instance contains an occassion where he asserts his opinion as fact.

This assertion of one's own opinion as fact while ignoring or dismissing any conflicting points is the basis of Vermaat looking like an illogical and ignorant fool who continues to stubbornly argue a lost cause.

[Kalyx triaD]

Randy Orton's the greatest wrestler alive today.

[Kane Knight]

Kalyx, I thought you were Christian? Don't they frown on blatant homosexuality?

[Kalyx triaD]

Originally Posted by Kane Knight Kalyx, I thought you were Christian? Don't they frown on blatant homosexuality?

Ascension, my friend. The dogmatic views of any religion no longer limit me. But if it's all the same to you; I'm still very against man-man love.

[Kane Knight]

It's all the same to me. You are all equally inferior in my eyes.

[Kane Knight]

But if you're against homosexuality, why the support for Orton (A gay act in and of itself)?

[Kalyx triaD]

It's no more gay than a guy chanting John Cena's name. Or a guy chanting anybody's name for that matter. For the record, I never chanted anybody's name in my life.

Okay maybe Jay-Z, but everyone else was doing it...

[Kane Knight]

No, chanting Cena's name is pretty fucking gay.

[Kalyx triaD]

Originally Posted by Kane Knight No, chanting Cena's name is pretty fucking gay.

I think I'll agree with you today.

-nt- entered too early.

You guys keep saying how I am stubborn and use my opinion as fact but you do THE SAME THING. Do you work in the WWE? NO! Your knowledge of what REALLY goes on backstage is as good as mine so unless one of you works backstage and is IMPARTIAL, then that can be taken to be worth more. Otherwise we are on a LEVEL playing field, realize THIS.

But now, suddenly after ALL THESE YEARS, WWE will decline in your opinion...if Cena loses. You dismiss all of OUR oppinions, relavent points and facts about WWE's decline as false...but suddenly just because your hero CENA might lose the belt, "WWE WILL GO DOWN A WRONG ROAD THAT CAN LEAD TO THEIR DOWNFALL."

Wrong. You misunderstand. I admitted that WWE has declined once before when JBL was the champ. I only declined that WWE is not leading good business and that they are making "mistakes" in judgement as most of you feel. This is why I explained that the reasons the ratings dropped (I never declined that the ratings dropped) was because of all the fake fans leaving. This is why I mentioned it, I never said WWE never declined. And yes, if WWE does those mistakes at Wrestlemania they will decline for the time being.

Ok, here all in one sentance you contradict yourself. I will put the contradiction in bold so you can see it with your own eyes. Fans = good reaction.....everyone = HATED IT.

lol !!! nWo were HEELS. HEELS are meant to be hated. When I said that everyone hated them, I meant hated them as heels. This makes them pretty effective heels, so a hated reaction is a GOOD reaction for a heel and the nWo were heels.

This makes absolutely NO GODDAMN SENSE to anyone sane of mind. It's sad, you can't cope with the fact that people actually don't like your hero, so you're brain protects you by developing a blanket of lies to delusionally hide under.

Edge won the title and the ratings went up. TRUE. Because of Edge? In a way, TRUE. Because Edge won the title? FALSE. The ratings went up because Edge promised LIVE SEX. And you know what, sex sells! Mideon could have won the title and promised Live Sex and ratings would go up.

Yes, you based your PERSONAL OPINION off talking to a few people. The key word there asshole is OPINION. Your opinion does not = fact to anyone other than you. Let me put it to you this way, according to your "logic" here, let's say I go and interview a few people your age and race...then turn around and make assumptions and project life changes on 1 million people your age/race, including you.

It's not based on my opinions, it's based on my experience. And guess what, your side of the argument has to be abandonded too then, because you don't have any better source then I do. You too are making judgements why people did this and that. At least my theory plays out logically. I talked to a good pool of people and granted, wCw people were not all like them, but they were a cut away representation of wCw fans. Now, what you said about the issue does not even have THIS backing.

Well, the world the rest of us live in Vermaat...politicians are considered crooks and liars...especially our current President...so yeah, I could see how you'd be flattered.

This is a different argument, but there is nothing seriously wrong with the president. the president is not a "crook"

Paul Heyman destroyed ECW, just ask WWE. Better yet, don't argue with me...why don't you email WWE and tell them that their opinion is wrong. After all, you're the expert.

It's not my opinion, it's a fact. Okay let's have another example. Let's say you are really a dumb person and you walk around naked in the middle of winter soaked in water. You get sick. Who'se fault is it? Ok, it is your fault for going around naked in water in the middle of winter. However, if it was summer, you would not get sick. Thus, it is also partially the fault of the WEATHER that you got sick. In this case, Paul Heyman is the guy walking around naked and the Weather is the WWE. Sure, ECW went out of business partially because of Heyman, but if there were no WWE around, then they would be in business, thus WWE is part of the reason as well. Simple.

WWE did not mention their role because it's rather obvious.

I think you are confusing "reality" with "happy time." The rest of the world watched Vince depants Bischoff every chance he got.

Vince was depanting him as one character to another. I watched it and I did not observe Vince depant him as being wCw. This is what I SAW.

Like I said, Quality has been down in the WWE when JBL was champ, so you can't say that I never said that. You misunderstand.

The only point you get across when you speak like this is that your grammer and debate skills suck.

Sorry that you could not answer my valid point so you had to focus on my grammar and spelling. Better luck next time.

Key words, "The only explanation I can think of...." This means you don't have the facts, because you DON'T KNOW. You aren't in the WWE, you don't talk to anyone in the WWE, you don't talk to any of the cruiserweights...therefore, YOU DON'T KNOW! Therefore, whatever stupid theory you've come up with, ISN'T A FACT...so stop using it in a debate as such.

You don't have the facts either because you did not observe what happened. We are all speculating it. As far as actual wrestlers, what wrestler will admit to being lazy? What wrestler will admit to it being their fault? No one, so their comments are BIASED.

Unless you have documented proof that you've ever...oh I don't know.... SPOKEN TO VINCE PERSONALLY and gotten HIS OPINION, quit speaking for him as if it's a fact! SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Neither do you. But pure logic dictates that this argument makes sense.

[QUOTE]First of all, the West Coast Pop is a seated senton into a Hurricarana. Learn some move's names.

Second of all, why do you think they aren't doing them? Matches in the WWE are almost always booked to the minute. [QUOTE]

The West Coast Pop is the move's name. They don't do them because they're too dangerous and that is true. That is why they need to develop moves that arenm't dangerous, like what Rey did, but still exciting. This is why I respect Rey. I've never heard of Road Agents scripting matches move by move. I know that they script some spots, but not every single match via move by move? Do you have proof of this? However, I do not see why they would screw some wrestlers and not others. I mean, if they scrippted it like you say they do, then wouldn't wrestlers not be valued for their ability to "write" their match in the ring.

Cruiserweights are liabilities if they are allowed to do crazy moves that are only acceptable on indies that don't care for what their wrestlers do. Vince McMahon cares about his wrestlers, that's why he stopped them from making these moves and is hoping that they can come up with safer moves like rey DOES.

There were also reports that Henry did not injure Batista.

The West Coast Pop is a springboard hurricanrana. It's done by plenty of wrestlers in Japan, and in Indy Feds. I hope you do not argue that because Rey is the only one who does it in the WWE, that means he's innovative, because then you'd be missing the whole "don't use other people's finishers" code. London and Super Crazy do lots of rope interaction moves too. How about Super Crazy's rope switch into a falling moonsault? Or when he arm wrenches an opponent, holds onto the arm, leaps up onto the top rope then leaps into a head scissors?

Rey brough the move to the WWE. If everyone is using it, why didn't anyone bring it in? Because they didn't care but Rey did and he brought this innovative move to the WWE. Now he is going to be world champion and is well rewarded. Could it be something other that innovation, and just Rey picking up the move and using it in the WWE first? Yes and that would be SMART. Maybe the others wrestlers should start bringing moves into the WWE and maybe they will be like Rey.

I will admit, MNM are very innovative wrestlers and the best tag team in the WWE right now.

Super Crazy is quite impressive as well. He seems to not be held back by "big bad vince" and neither do MNM eh. This makes your theory of big bad vince limiting wrestlers seem a little off because there are so many that he doesn't limit. Taker's move is cool, a classic, an ARTIFACT from another generation.

What?! That's why he fired Juventud Guerrera, right? Juventud is one of the best cruisers in the world, but he's an idiot, and his backstage antics cost him his job. However, by your logic, Juventud would still be in the WWE because he has "potential." There's this thing called politics. I don't know how old you are, but perhaps you are too young to know what this is. The WWE (as well as many companies) is dominated by politics. This has been documented by numerous wrestlers who've been with the company and wrestlers who are still in the company. Of course the company isn't going to admit to that. If you were doing something shady, would you report it to the world? The fact that you cling to this idea that only news from the official site is valid is prepostrous. PWInsider and 1Wrestling are reputed news agencies who have consistently proven to provide reliable and accurate news. Jamie Noble was fired because he failed a drug test, but this was never reported on WWE.com. Does that mean it's not true? Because Noble will tell you himself that that's what happened. How can "your only way of explaining" Cruiserweight "drop" in quality be a valid argument, but wrestling news web site reports be false? What makes your word better than their's?

WWE won't keep someone JUST because they have potential. But that can be one of the big reasons. Juventud was fired because he was making trouble backstage and I tend to believe that. It is not official and we don't know so we might as well make guesses, but based on what I heard about him, he sounds pretty crazy. WWE will not keep crazy workers around.

I know about politics, that's the trouble with listening to wrestlers, they get political like in wCw. WWE is affected a bit by politics but not as much as everybody says. If it was, we would have the higher politicians holding titles all the time, like in TNA with jarret. HHH hasn't held the title in a while, The Undertaker hasn't held a title in a long time. It's there, but the wrestlers tend to overstate it's impact because I don't see the top politicians holding all the success.

What I see in the cruiserweight drop of quality is observation. Something I actually see. I do not see any prove of Vince holding them down because not all are being held down. Look at Rey and Super Crazy and MNM. This is why I think there is another explanation and going by human character, I will say they get a little lazy. Is this 100% true guranteed? No, but neither does your argument of big bad vince.

I don't believe the "big" news sites because they show bias against Vince and althought they are often right, they are also often wrong and untrue.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. But he had POTENTIAL! Why didn't Vince keep him if he obviously was a great wrestler? You just negated your own point here. Furthermore, you can't have mic skills if you're not given time to talk, or a character to portray. If Rey Mysterio was portrayed as a silent Mexican field worker, he'd have gone down the same path. He was on a "Japanese Yakuza" storyline with Tajiri, but that lasted all of two weeks. How can you even blame him?

He did have potential. And vince did keep him, he kept him for a while. Akio never improved and Vince isn't going to keep you forever even with potential.

I firmly believe that if he could talk, WWE would have let him. What is the point in WWE not letting him talk if he can? If he couldn't, then of course they would not let him talk because it would be bad. He can practice talking on house shows and such or just in his own free time. WWE can't put him on T.V when he can't talk.

No, he was simply not used. You can have the best talent in the world, but if you're not being put in consistent storylines, what can you do? He had a thing going with Shelton, then Shelton went to RAW. Then Haas was shuffled around different tag partners. And even if he had character lack... this still defeats your first argument: that Vince keeps wrestlers around because they have potential. If this was the case, Haas would never have been let go in the first place. Therefore, there must be another reason.

He was used. You contradict yourself here. First you say he was not used, but then you say how he was used with Shelton and then he had all these various partners. I remember him being used so to say that he wasn't doesn't really work. Vince kept Haas for a while with his potential, but Vince can't keep paying these guys just for their potential so after a while you are released.

You do realize he could do a senton bomb, right? You do realize he had that unique Widow Maker finisher, right? You do realize he was very quick and athletic, right? Probably not, because he never go to display those skills in the WWE. In WCW, he was a tremendous athlete. In the WWE, he played second fiddle behind Rod Piper.

I did not watch wCw so if what you say is true, then I was wrong to say that he has no wrestling skill. However, as far as his WWE career was concerned, he was a generic hoss and never showed those skills as you admit. But I don't see where you get that he was not allowed to. Why was he not allowed to while others were?

(had to put in 2 posts)

Okay, he was good to you. But that's the thing... you're dealing with people who probably know more than you. So you can't just say that your opinion is fact.

Music is music. Music is subjective, the only thing that can be said is if it's music or not. Same for art. The rest is left up to the opinion. In the opinion of the critic, Cena's CD was bad. In my opinion it is good. Neither of us is right, that is how it works. Music is entirely subjective but that's an entire argument on it's own.

As far as your example, I would say that neither of us would be right. If the fans think O'Haire is cool because he is a hoss then that's fine with me. It's his opinion that he is cool because he is big and I cannot argue with it. However if he was to make a statement that O'Haire is a good wrestler because he is big, then there might be an argument. And the hoss can be a good entertainer on the whole even if he can't wrestle worth a damn, for example if he is like Roccky on the mic.

But lets ignore that for a bit. You're misinterpreting these textbooks. The peer pressure you're talkiing about is direct peer pressure. People are directly inviting you to join them in an activity. In a crowd atmosphere like that, the "pressure" is at best indirect. If you chant with a crowd, it's not because you're being coerced or prodded to do it. It's because you feel like it as well. At best, you chant along because you think it's a hoot. Say the crowd chants "Cena sucks!" and you go along. Obviously, you can't like Cena, or else you wouldn't join it at all. The fact that you participate indicates that you share some sort of apathy or dislike towards him. After all, if you're a fan of your local sports team, but you're at the venue of their opponent, and everyone else chants against your team, would you go along? Of course not, because you support your team. However, if you disliked that team or didn't care, then of course you'd go along with it. If your peer pressure thing was right, then rioters would be able to use that excuse all the time. "I broke into the store because everyone else was doing it too... I really support my neighborhood though!" That's not valid. And neither is your point.

You would admit for going against a crowd because that's admirable, but you won't admit going with it because it is not seen as good. As far as fans participating, I will give to you that you make a good point that you need to have a degree of apathy to go with those "cool" guys in the crowd. That's true, a true fan of WRESTLING would not go along with them. But not a lot of people are like that, a lot of people go to watch and they don't think about it so they're easy to sway. They don't even think when they boo cena because they don't think deeply about wrestling, they go with the rest of the people.

As far as breaking into a store, that's law. Psychologically, is saying "other people were doing it so I broke in with them because they pressured me to do it but I really support the neighboorhood" valid? Yes it is psychologically valid to say that and it can happen to anyone. Is it legally valid? No.

You're right. However, using my "logic" and "reasoning," given the nature of the injury (on the tricep area) and his prior history of injurying other wrestlers (accidentally, but injuring them nonetheless) and the fact that it occurred when Mark gave him a big splash (this was reported on several reputable sites, which makes it confirmed to everyone but you, who apparently won't believe it unless it's published on WWE.com), I have determined that it was Henry's fault.

Since Mark Henry was involved in the match with Batista and the injury took place in that match, then you can logically assume that Mark Henry caused it. That's right. However, this assumption is negated by the fact that Batista was already prone to injury and that in order to make it you went by websites, some of which did report that Henry did not cause it.

He's a huge name. TNA would pay him a comparable salary for his namesake. Furthermore, the WWE might even be quite reluctant to let him go even if he did cause a bit of trouble, given his name. That's why they kept RVD signed.

See the trouble with this is that TNA does not have this kind of budget. WWE pays a lot and TNA simply can't pay as much. Why do you think Shannon Moore signed back with the WWE? Because TNA was not paying him as much as the WWE. I never heard on RVD being in trouble so please elaborate on that. Unless you mean that time when he worked stiff and dangerous and busted open a bunch of guys, but he corrected that.

The reports indicate that the family was never clued in on exactly what would happen until it happened. Basically, the WWE told the family half-truths.

This is interesting. I do not believe the things I read on the internet unless it comes from an official source. If WWE did give the family half truths and did not warn them of what would happen, then WWE was in the WRONG. Of course the WWE would not report them, so we are forced to go by rumors. However, if this is what has happened, why didn't Chavo Guerrero, a member of the family, do anything to protest?

This kind of weakens the idea that WWE never let them know what was to happen. But if it did, the WWE is WRONG. I will not argue for them here.

Of course, you ARE being stubborn and one-sided, which is why most of your points are wrong.

I am not any more stubborn then you are. As far as a live debate, I do not believe I have anything to fear from anyone here as my points are valid ones.

In short: Vermaat continues to take his own assumptions and opinions and use them as fact, but he refuses to accept reputable sources and arguments that go against his point of view, dismissing any such things as invalid.

In short, Corkscrewed, is unable to argue valid points with Vermaat so he resorts to attacking Vermaat's character. This only shows his weakness, as he was unable to validly defeat any points that Vermaat was making and makes incorrect assumptions such as "Vermaat asserts his opinion as fact" which is not true as Vermaat backed his opinion with logic and fact.

[Kane Knight]

Yeah, using documented information is the same thing as passing off opinion and wishful thinking as fact.

I'd love to see you and Warrior feud. It'd be hilarious. Incoherent as fuck, but HI-Lar-ious.

[Indifferent Clox]

the king is coming

[Skippord]

Alright I am going to E-Cock Slap the next person to make a long quotey post

[Skippord]

Or E-Cradle Shock them

[Corkscrewed]

I'm not going to waste much more time arguing with you, because honestly, I have better things to do. But c'mon... you can't honestly say that Rey's consistently safer. Everything in wrestling has a risk. Rey could injure himself if he slips on a 619. His springboard hurricanrana can give a severe neck injury if taken wrong or botched. He does a moonsault, which itself can harm people if taken or done wrong.

I think it all comes down to this: you feel that Rey is performing better than all the other Cruisers, but I don't really see it... at least not as drastically as you imply. Again, you constantly preach innovation, but Rey's been doing the same moves he's done for the past four years.

Why didn't anyone else bring the moves he did to the WWE? Because he was among the first Cruisers! He had the benefit of establishing his moveset first! Out of the original WWE stock of Cruisers, you've only got Rey, Chavo, Helms, and Funaki left.

And here's your game back at you:

See the trouble with this is that TNA does not have this kind of budget.

How do you know this? Have you seen it? Do you work for TNA? How do you know they don't have money stockpiled somewhere, or reserve funds to use on big stars? This information isn't found on the TNA site, so how can you argue this?

Finally, your continued assertion of the crowd mentality reduces wrestling fans to little kids. It's like bullying, where a few kids pick on one guy, then the rest of the class joins in because they don't know better. So if wrestling fans don't know better, how can they actually like Cena, as you originally argued? You can't say that the booers are only a bunch of sour apples, and most everyone else really likes Cena, then turn around and say they don't know any better. If they don't know any better, how can you say they like him in the first place?

[Skippord]

Alright thats it Corky E-Cradle Shock

[Blitz]

Originally Posted by Vermaat Cruiserweights are liabilities if they are allowed to do crazy moves that are only acceptable on indies that don't care for what their wrestlers do. Vince McMahon cares about his wrestlers, that's why he stopped them from making these moves and is hoping that they can come up with safer moves like rey DOES.

Did you watch Saturday Night's Main Event? I guess Vince doesn't care about his son then, letting him take a superplex off a laddder to the outside through 2 tables.

Have you ever seen the Canadian Destroyer? Looks like it could kill you, but I've yet to hear about anyone getting seriously hurt from it. Because Petey Williams, and the guys he does the move to, know what they are doing. What makes move dangerous are the guys executing them, not the actual moves themselves. Sure, a powerbomb off the top rope is riskier than a vertical suplex, but it's about conditioning and training.

For God's sake, Triple H tore his quad walking across the ring. Should WWE ban walking?

[Skippord]

No they should just ban Vince McMahon,Kevin Nash,and HHH from walking

[ddpBANG]

Kevin Nash can't walk... hear he's injured again.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Blitz Did you watch Saturday Night's Main Event? I guess Vince doesn't care about his son then, letting him take a superplex off a laddder to the outside through 2 tables. Have you ever seen the Canadian Destroyer? Looks like it could kill you, but I've yet to hear about anyone getting seriously hurt from it. Because Petey Williams, and the guys he does the move to, know what they are doing. What makes move dangerous are the guys executing them, not the actual moves themselves. Sure, a powerbomb off the top rope is riskier than a vertical suplex, but it's about conditioning and training. For God's sake, Triple H tore his quad walking across the ring. Should WWE ban walking?

The best part is, making wrestling safer hasn't reduced the number of injuries in wrestling. Not significantly, anyway. in short, making wrestling safer has not made wrestling safer.

Go figure.

But the thing is, professional, trained atheletes in good shape are a bad thing.

I'm not going to waste much more time arguing with you, because honestly, I have better things to do. But c'mon... you can't honestly say that Rey's consistently safer. Everything in wrestling has a risk. Rey could injure himself if he slips on a 619. His springboard hurricanrana can give a severe neck injury if taken wrong or botched. He does a moonsault, which itself can harm people if taken or done wrong.

Every single move can hurt someone. That is true. Even a punch can get someone injured in the WWE. However some moves are more dangerous then others and some moves have a much higher injury rate then others. People have been hurt often by the piledriver, that is why it is restricted. I haven't seen anyone get hurt by the 6-1-9 yet, so that move has a LOW injury rate and is thus safe.

Yes, Rey has been doing the same moves, but he brought them into the WWE when no one else was doing them and I often see him find creative new ways to use them against opponents. He is especially cool against big guys cause he finds innovative ways to take it at em!

And Rey was not the first cruiser. Before Rey there were many more like Funaki, Taka, Christian, Essa Rios, Jerry Lynn and others and they didn't pull out moves like Rey Mysterio did. They had all the chances to do all these moves if they could, but they did not. Choice? Ability? We do not know.

How do you know this? Have you seen it? Do you work for TNA? How do you know they don't have money stockpiled somewhere, or reserve funds to use on big stars? This information isn't found on the TNA site, so how can you argue this?

I don't know for sure, but I can make an assumption based on the fact that TNA does not seem to be able to sign big stars and as we know Big Stars cost big money, so I make an assumption, that since they are not signing big stars, they probably do not have the money for them. Also, TNA is a small company and cannot get a good timeslot. If they had good money reserves, I am sure they would be given a better timeslot.

Finally, your continued assertion of the crowd mentality reduces wrestling fans to little kids. It's like bullying, where a few kids pick on one guy, then the rest of the class joins in because they don't know better. So if wrestling fans don't know better, how can they actually like Cena, as you originally argued? You can't say that the booers are only a bunch of sour apples, and most everyone else really likes Cena, then turn around and say they don't know any better. If they don't know any better, how can you say they like him in the first place?

This still works if you understand what I am saying here. I am saying that these people do like Cena. They like him as a face but there are those in the crowd who legitimately do not like Cena, a small group of angry fans that in general, don't like many stars. Thus, when they exert their influence on the Cena fans, a lot of the Cena fans buckle not because they don't know better, but because their psychology is weak and they give in to what others around them are doing. They like Cena, but they also like to go with the crowd. They don't take the business seriously because serious fans will cheer cena.

Did you watch Saturday Night's Main Event? I guess Vince doesn't care about his son then, letting him take a superplex off a laddder to the outside through 2 tables. Have you ever seen the Canadian Destroyer? Looks like it could kill you, but I've yet to hear about anyone getting seriously hurt from it. Because Petey Williams, and the guys he does the move to, know what they are doing. What makes move dangerous are the guys executing them, not the actual moves themselves. Sure, a powerbomb off the top rope is riskier than a vertical suplex, but it's about conditioning and training.

HBK was the one doing the move to Shane. Is the spot dangerous? Yes, but I am sure Shane trained for it before and HBK is one of the safest workers in the business. Vince cares for his workers, but there is an amount of risk in wrestling in everything you do. But Vince knows HBK is very safe so the risk was minimized.
I agree about the guy making the move being a factor, but some moves are just unsafe no matter who does them.

Walking across the ring did get HHH injured, but overall, in wrestling, walking across the ring has a lot injury rate.

The best part is, making wrestling safer hasn't reduced the number of injuries in wrestling. Not significantly, anyway. in short, making wrestling safer has not made wrestling safer. Go figure. But the thing is, professional, trained atheletes in good shape are a bad thing.

But who knows? If Piledrivers were still around, who knows how many more Wrestlers could have gone out with serious neck injuries? That decision has reduced neck injuries I believe, because I have not seen as many wrestlers out with neck injuries as from the era when piledrivers were common.

And I think profoesional trained athletes in good shape are a good thing.

[Shadow]

I think I can give a valid and concise opinion of everyone of Vermaat's posts.

Mr. Vermaat, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.