|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Nov 6, 2009 19:13:04 GMT -5
Shouldn't it be on the line against someone other than Primo once in a while? It's like they're not ready to have him beat anyone important so the "not going to lose again in 2009" has restricted him to wresting Primo Colon all the time. It's annoying. It does Swagger no favours at all.
|
|
|
Post by King Silva on Nov 6, 2009 19:20:31 GMT -5
I kinda forgot about his "I won't lose for the rest of 2009" gimmic. I agree that he should face tougher opponents because beating Primo all the time isn't that impressive.
|
|
|
Post by mnm213 on Nov 6, 2009 19:21:27 GMT -5
I'm not sure if they're still going with that, but for the record, he lost to Cena in Dublin houseshow, not that it will count but yeah. I believe he's 5-0 now, and 4 of those wins was against Primo.
|
|
|
Post by Sam on Nov 6, 2009 19:23:37 GMT -5
I'm not sure if they're still going with that, but for the record, he lost to Cena in Dublin houseshow, not that it will count but yeah. I believe he's 5-0 now, and 4 of those wins was against Primo. Yeah, they won't count house show results as it would be kinda pointless. But yeah, he does need to face someone different than Primo.
|
|
|
Post by MichaelTheMartian on Nov 6, 2009 19:25:08 GMT -5
Is it 09 for the whole year? Because he has lost to Christian and stuff :?? Or do you mean on RAW.
|
|
|
Post by Jimmy on Nov 6, 2009 19:26:59 GMT -5
Yeah they've pretty clearly shelved it in favor of the 'stalking Eve' angle which I think is incredibly stupid. Not the Eve angle, but that only a few weeks in they're already ignoring a potentially big winning streak angle.
|
|
|
Post by Byron F'N Saxton Fan on Nov 6, 2009 19:28:34 GMT -5
Yeah they've pretty clearly shelved it in favor of the 'stalking Eve' angle which I think is incredibly stupid. Not the Eve angle, but that only a few weeks in they're already ignoring a potentially big winning streak angle. If I had a chance to go undefeated against Team Superstars or try and hook-up with Eve, I'd go for the latter not the former.
|
|