Joejitsu22
Main Eventer
Sexy Baked Potato
Joined on: Sept 15, 2011 8:12:28 GMT -5
Posts: 4,059
|
Post by Joejitsu22 on May 27, 2012 21:49:57 GMT -5
Because that's how most video game companies work, especially on yearly games. Bankruptcy or not, they still have to release video games in the future, they don't just stop working, that guarantees bankruptcy, especially when dealing with one of their top franchises. All companies will start the production schedules at the tail end of the first game in hopes that a sequel will be approved (which is easy to assume in this case with it being said yearly game). And PS2 era? You mean JBI, SYM, HCTP, SvR, and 2k6? Those games were all different from one another. 2007 was very similar, but the first to be on next gen consoles. Seriously dude, you're just trolling at this point. Seriously dude, you're arguments are weak. T*HQ doesn't even have the capital to invest in any new projects these days. We'll wait and see on what WWE 13 is like, but there's zero chance they've been working on it for more than a year, especially when WWE 12 only came out 12 months ago. Oh the irony.... So Max where's your PROOF they only work on games Ina short window of time. Where's your PROOF it was only a roster update. Where your PROOF of any of you claims against thq and their wwe game. Now max, I don't want speculation and recollection I want links and hard evidence.
|
|
|
Post by orton1994 on May 27, 2012 22:14:52 GMT -5
Wb the one that said Orton failed his 3rd test awhile back..but he never failed a second..so how could that even work
|
|
scoobypat
Main Eventer
Joined on: Apr 22, 2006 18:39:00 GMT -5
Posts: 2,442
|
Post by scoobypat on May 27, 2012 22:18:01 GMT -5
The problem is you refuse to acknowledge that argument simply because it proves you wrong. As an actual Journalism student, there is enough evidence that dirt sheets are wrong. You just have some bug up your ass. How about Batista at WM or the night after? That happened right? Plenty of sources reported him returning. Or how about Brock returning at SummerSlam 2005? The Internet wrestling community practically broke then. Or Lesnar vs Taker at WM27, or Taker vs Sting? So one example alone is enough to invalidate a dozen other ones on the other side of the argument? If that's what you're learning in journalism school, you better ask for a refund. 1. No one ever said Batista was going to be on Wrestlemania or have anything to do with WWE. All that was ever reported was that he was in Florida that weekend, doing an appearance for some charity event. 2. Brock actually was in negotiation to return to WWE in 2005, but negotiations fell apart, the two sides went to court, and Brock won. 3. Lesnar and Take worked an angle at that UFC show, the one where they had the stare down. Vince wanted the match to happen, Dana White said no.
4. No one ever said Sting was wrestling Undertaker at Wrestlemania. There were negotiations between WWE and Sting in March 2011, but they didn't get very far and Sting went back to TNA because he didn't want to work the schedule WWE wanted of him. LOL wut? This was no angle, they legitimately do not like each other. Make no bones about it Lesnar had no intention of doing business with the WWE for years to come, then as they say "life comes at you fast", the bottom fell out on his UFC career and he was forced to explore other markets. But if you read or listen to his comments during his tenure in the UFC he was very anti-wrestling and very focused on the UFC. Taker on the other hand has kind of been a wannabe MMA guy for a while, huge fan for ages, has been adding MMA moves to his repertoire for a while, has even said if he was a younger man he might have left wrestling for MMA. Couple in that Taker said that Lesnar made a few comments to people that were unkind about himself and you've got kind of a powder keg, hence their stare down. That was no angle. (See this is me using the power of first hand interviews, crazy right). Secondly yes everyone keeps bringing up the Revolution thing because it literally just happened, this isn't like the first time in ages the dirt sheets dropped the ball it's just the last in a long, long line, which is why people are pointing to it going "look that one just happened." It's like you're standing at an intersection where accidents happen going "No cars ever crash here" Meanwhile a 4 car pile up ensues and your response is, "Okay, besides that one... no car crashes ever happen." It's ridiculous so people aren't even going to bother to cite their stories. And yes, as far as journalism goes, 9/10 right is pretty damn shitty. (And that's a generous stat for dirt sheets). Truthfully it's difficult to give you sources on dirt sheets misreporting because they so quickly delete their pages, but I'll give you something. Firstly the fight between Booker and Batista a few years back at the Summerslam shoot was reported to be a work by both PWI and Wrestling Observer (http://www.wrestleview.com/news2006/1147287803.shtml). It then began to circulate that Booker T actually won this fight, but if you watch Fit Finlay's shoot interview he described the whole ordeal as being over blown and says he wouldn't declare any guy a real winner from the fight. See here's my thing, I like to watch shoot interviews and in these interviews you'll have wrestlers bad mouth wrestlers, wrestlers bad mouth the WWE/TNA, basically they'll say everything... but they all pretty much agree the sheets have no idea what they're talking about. I guess my point is what incentive would these guys have to lie when they go on to tell the real story right afterwards?
|
|
PenguinDeluxe
Main Eventer
20 Refs and Counting
Joined on: Dec 19, 2006 21:22:54 GMT -5
Posts: 4,932
|
Post by PenguinDeluxe on May 27, 2012 22:21:19 GMT -5
The problem is you refuse to acknowledge that argument simply because it proves you wrong. As an actual Journalism student, there is enough evidence that dirt sheets are wrong. You just have some bug up your ass. How about Batista at WM or the night after? That happened right? Plenty of sources reported him returning. Or how about Brock returning at SummerSlam 2005? The Internet wrestling community practically broke then. Or Lesnar vs Taker at WM27, or Taker vs Sting? So one example alone is enough to invalidate a dozen other ones on the other side of the argument? If that's what you're learning in journalism school, you better ask for a refund. 1. No one ever said Batista was going to be on Wrestlemania or have anything to do with WWE. All that was ever reported was that he was in Florida that weekend, doing an appearance for some charity event. 2. Brock actually was in negotiation to return to WWE in 2005, but negotiations fell apart, the two sides went to court, and Brock won. 3. Lesnar and Take worked an angle at that UFC show, the one where they had the stare down. Vince wanted the match to happen, Dana White said no. 4. No one ever said Sting was wrestling Undertaker at Wrestlemania. There were negotiations between WWE and Sting in March 2011, but they didn't get very far and Sting went back to TNA because he didn't want to work the schedule WWE wanted of him. You're absolutely right. That's not the issue. The issue is sites reporting these things as facts that never actually happened. Just shut up and leave, you're clearly alone in this and are too stupid to live. And if it sounds like I'm being nasty, it's because I want this thread to get locked because you completely ruined the ing point of it.
|
|
|
Post by comintogetcha on May 27, 2012 22:23:21 GMT -5
Seriously dude, you're arguments are weak. T*HQ doesn't even have the capital to invest in any new projects these days. We'll wait and see on what WWE 13 is like, but there's zero chance they've been working on it for more than a year, especially when WWE 12 only came out 12 months ago. Oh the irony.... So Max where's your PROOF they only work on games Ina short window of time. Where's your PROOF it was only a roster update. Where your PROOF of any of you claims against thq and their wwe game. Now max, I don't want speculation and recollection I want links and hard evidence. What does this have to do with the argument at hand? I'm tired of talking about WWE Video Games. The same development team that worked on WWE 12 worked on the previous years game, is it not reasonable to assume that they are likely only working on one project at a time? WWE 12 wasn't just a roster update, they rebuilt the whole thing, and they only do that every couple of years. Play the PS2 games, many of them are just roster updates with a couple new match options. My assumptions that WWE '13 will be just a roster update are based on A. T*HQ's past history with the license. B. The fact that WWE 12 was a great game, and there is very little that they would need to improve upon. C. T*HQ is on the verge of bankruptcy, and it is unlikely that they would have a significant amount of capital to invest in R&D at this point. I believe these are all reasonable assumptions to make based on what little evidence we have available to us at this juncture. Given the fact that there isn't a whole lot of facts and evidence on which we can draw conclusions from, all we really have is speculation and past history with which to use.
|
|
|
Post by comintogetcha on May 27, 2012 22:35:00 GMT -5
So one example alone is enough to invalidate a dozen other ones on the other side of the argument? If that's what you're learning in journalism school, you better ask for a refund. 1. No one ever said Batista was going to be on Wrestlemania or have anything to do with WWE. All that was ever reported was that he was in Florida that weekend, doing an appearance for some charity event. 2. Brock actually was in negotiation to return to WWE in 2005, but negotiations fell apart, the two sides went to court, and Brock won. 3. Lesnar and Take worked an angle at that UFC show, the one where they had the stare down. Vince wanted the match to happen, Dana White said no.
4. No one ever said Sting was wrestling Undertaker at Wrestlemania. There were negotiations between WWE and Sting in March 2011, but they didn't get very far and Sting went back to TNA because he didn't want to work the schedule WWE wanted of him. LOL wut? This was no angle, they legitimately do not like each other. Make no bones about it Lesnar had no intention of doing business with the WWE for years to come, then as they say "life comes at you fast", the bottom fell out on his UFC career and he was forced to explore other markets. But if you read or listen to his comments during his tenure in the UFC he was very anti-wrestling and very focused on the UFC. Taker on the other hand has kind of been a wannabe MMA guy for a while, huge fan for ages, has been adding MMA moves to his repertoire for a while, has even said if he was a younger man he might have left wrestling for MMA. Couple in that Taker said that Lesnar made a few comments to people that were unkind about himself and you've got kind of a powder keg, hence their stare down. That was no angle. (See this is me using the power of first hand interviews, crazy right). And yes, as far as journalism goes, 9/10 right is pretty damn crapty. (And that's a generous stat for dirt sheets). Truthfully it's difficult to give you sources on dirt sheets misreporting because they so quickly delete their pages, but I'll give you something. Firstly the fight between Booker and Batista a few years back at the Summerslam shoot was reported to be a work by both PWI and Wrestling Observer (http://www.wrestleview.com/news2006/1147287803.shtml). It then began to circulate that Booker T actually won this fight, but if you watch Fit Finlay's shoot interview he described the whole ordeal as being over blown and says he wouldn't declare any guy a real winner from the fight. See here's my thing, I like to watch shoot interviews and in these interviews you'll have wrestlers bad mouth wrestlers, wrestlers bad mouth the WWE/TNA, basically they'll say everything... but they all pretty much agree the sheets have no idea what they're talking about. I guess my point is what incentive would these guys have to lie when they go on to tell the real story right afterwards? The Undertaker and Brock stare down at UFC was most certainly an angle, do you honestly think that cameras JUST SO HAPPENED to catch the entire thing, and something like that would just happen spontaneously? Lolwut indeed. If you like to watch shoot interviews, you'll quickly find that wrestlers A. Forget a lot of important stuff about their careers. B. Are their own biggest marks. and C. Embellish on EVERYTHING. Seriously, you can listen to five different shoot interviews from five different wrestlers and ask them all about the same thing, and you'll get five totally different accounts most of which contradict one another. Wrestlers make crap up on Twitter all the time! This is especially true with older guys that were brought up with the mindset of having to "protect the business", and guys that are still desperate to one day come back and work for WWE again in some capacity and don't want to burn any bridges. Wrestling my have evolved, but most of these guys still have that carny mindset of having the work the marks (us). Plenty of real media outlets like Newspapers and TV Stations are completely inaccurate and publish false crap all the time, look it up yourself www.aim.org/You're absolutely right. That's not the issue. The issue is sites reporting these things as facts that never actually happened. Just shut up and leave, you're clearly alone in this and are too stupid to live. And if it sounds like I'm being nasty, it's because I want this thread to get locked because you completely ruined the ing point of it. And as for you sir, unfortunately there is no nice way for me to put this, but quite frankly you're a moron.
|
|
PenguinDeluxe
Main Eventer
20 Refs and Counting
Joined on: Dec 19, 2006 21:22:54 GMT -5
Posts: 4,932
|
Post by PenguinDeluxe on May 27, 2012 22:45:22 GMT -5
Oh the irony.... So Max where's your PROOF they only work on games Ina short window of time. Where's your PROOF it was only a roster update. Where your PROOF of any of you claims against thq and their wwe game. Now max, I don't want speculation and recollection I want links and hard evidence. What does this have to do with the argument at hand? I'm tired of talking about WWE Video Games. The same development team that worked on WWE 12 worked on the previous years game, is it not reasonable to assume that they are likely only working on one project at a time? WWE 12 wasn't just a roster update, they rebuilt the whole thing, and they only do that every couple of years. Play the PS2 games, many of them are just roster updates with a couple new match options. My assumptions that WWE '13 will be just a roster update are based on A. T*HQ's past history with the license. B. The fact that WWE 12 was a great game, and there is very little that they would need to improve upon. C. T*HQ is on the verge of bankruptcy, and it is unlikely that they would have a significant amount of capital to invest in R&D at this point. I believe these are all reasonable assumptions to make based on what little evidence we have available to us at this juncture. Given the fact that there isn't a whole lot of facts and evidence on which we can draw conclusions from, all we really have is speculation and past history with which to use. He said you didn't cite your sources. You said that's not the point. Yet that's all you've been harking on. You sir, beyond any doubt, are the moron. People, just stop replying now, obvious troll is getting obvious.
|
|
|
Post by comintogetcha on May 27, 2012 22:46:46 GMT -5
What does this have to do with the argument at hand? I'm tired of talking about WWE Video Games. The same development team that worked on WWE 12 worked on the previous years game, is it not reasonable to assume that they are likely only working on one project at a time? WWE 12 wasn't just a roster update, they rebuilt the whole thing, and they only do that every couple of years. Play the PS2 games, many of them are just roster updates with a couple new match options. My assumptions that WWE '13 will be just a roster update are based on A. T*HQ's past history with the license. B. The fact that WWE 12 was a great game, and there is very little that they would need to improve upon. C. T*HQ is on the verge of bankruptcy, and it is unlikely that they would have a significant amount of capital to invest in R&D at this point. I believe these are all reasonable assumptions to make based on what little evidence we have available to us at this juncture. Given the fact that there isn't a whole lot of facts and evidence on which we can draw conclusions from, all we really have is speculation and past history with which to use. He said you didn't cite your sources. You said that's not the point. Yet that's all you've been harking on. You sir, beyond any doubt, are the moron. People, just stop replying now, obvious troll is getting obvious. Yeah, you're right, so why do I keep feeding him? Maybe you should try a little harder next time so you aren't so obvious?
|
|
|
Post by orton1994 on May 27, 2012 23:04:58 GMT -5
He said you didn't cite your sources. You said that's not the point. Yet that's all you've been harking on. You sir, beyond any doubt, are the moron. People, just stop replying now, obvious troll is getting obvious. Yeah, you're right, so why do I keep feeding him? Maybe you should try a little harder next time so you aren't so obvious? You're the troll dude.
|
|
|
Post by comintogetcha on May 27, 2012 23:06:53 GMT -5
Yeah, you're right, so why do I keep feeding him? Maybe you should try a little harder next time so you aren't so obvious? You're the troll dude. No, actually I'm not, I've posted articulate and fact based arguments, except for the silly discussion about WWE 13, that's just my own biased opinion, I admit it may not have any basis in reality. What has anyone else here done?
|
|
scoobypat
Main Eventer
Joined on: Apr 22, 2006 18:39:00 GMT -5
Posts: 2,442
|
Post by scoobypat on May 27, 2012 23:11:08 GMT -5
LOL wut? This was no angle, they legitimately do not like each other. Make no bones about it Lesnar had no intention of doing business with the WWE for years to come, then as they say "life comes at you fast", the bottom fell out on his UFC career and he was forced to explore other markets. But if you read or listen to his comments during his tenure in the UFC he was very anti-wrestling and very focused on the UFC. Taker on the other hand has kind of been a wannabe MMA guy for a while, huge fan for ages, has been adding MMA moves to his repertoire for a while, has even said if he was a younger man he might have left wrestling for MMA. Couple in that Taker said that Lesnar made a few comments to people that were unkind about himself and you've got kind of a powder keg, hence their stare down. That was no angle. (See this is me using the power of first hand interviews, crazy right). And yes, as far as journalism goes, 9/10 right is pretty damn crapty. (And that's a generous stat for dirt sheets). Truthfully it's difficult to give you sources on dirt sheets misreporting because they so quickly delete their pages, but I'll give you something. Firstly the fight between Booker and Batista a few years back at the Summerslam shoot was reported to be a work by both PWI and Wrestling Observer (http://www.wrestleview.com/news2006/1147287803.shtml). It then began to circulate that Booker T actually won this fight, but if you watch Fit Finlay's shoot interview he described the whole ordeal as being over blown and says he wouldn't declare any guy a real winner from the fight. See here's my thing, I like to watch shoot interviews and in these interviews you'll have wrestlers bad mouth wrestlers, wrestlers bad mouth the WWE/TNA, basically they'll say everything... but they all pretty much agree the sheets have no idea what they're talking about. I guess my point is what incentive would these guys have to lie when they go on to tell the real story right afterwards? The Undertaker and Brock stare down at UFC was most certainly an angle, do you honestly think that cameras JUST SO HAPPENED to catch the entire thing, and something like that would just happen spontaneously? Lolwut indeed. If you like to watch shoot interviews, you'll quickly find that wrestlers A. Forget a lot of important stuff about their careers. B. Are their own biggest marks. and C. Embellish on EVERYTHING. Seriously, you can listen to five different shoot interviews from five different wrestlers and ask them all about the same thing, and you'll get five totally different accounts most of which contradict one another. Wrestlers make crap up on Twitter all the time! This is especially true with older guys that were brought up with the mindset of having to "protect the business", and guys that are still desperate to one day come back and work for WWE again in some capacity and don't want to burn any bridges. Wrestling my have evolved, but most of these guys still have that carny mindset of having the work the marks (us). Plenty of real media outlets like Newspapers and TV Stations are completely inaccurate and publish false crap all the time, look it up yourself www.aim.org/You're absolutely right. That's not the issue. The issue is sites reporting these things as facts that never actually happened. Just shut up and leave, you're clearly alone in this and are too stupid to live. And if it sounds like I'm being nasty, it's because I want this thread to get locked because you completely ruined the ing point of it. And as for you sir, unfortunately there is no nice way for me to put this, but quite frankly you're a moron. Taker was being interviewed by a guy who does purely MMA interviews, Lesnar walked by, they had a quick exchange, it's not that mind blowing of a coincidence. But by all means take your expert break down on camera placement over the facts that I had laid out for you above which took into account both mens own opinions. That's you're problem (and that of dirt sheets over all), you're under the impression that your opinion on a subject some how carries more weight then the actual ing guys involved. I mean did you just read what you wrote? You're taking the supposed second hand word of wrestlers to guys like Meltzer over them actually telling it to a camera, HOW DOES THIS MAKE SENSE? Wrestler tells dirt sheet information... must be true. Wrestler tells camera information... LOL FORGOT THE STORY/OWN BIGGEST MARK I mean do you see the shear idiocy of this crap?
|
|
|
Post by comintogetcha on May 27, 2012 23:29:43 GMT -5
The Undertaker and Brock stare down at UFC was most certainly an angle, do you honestly think that cameras JUST SO HAPPENED to catch the entire thing, and something like that would just happen spontaneously? Lolwut indeed. If you like to watch shoot interviews, you'll quickly find that wrestlers A. Forget a lot of important stuff about their careers. B. Are their own biggest marks. and C. Embellish on EVERYTHING. Seriously, you can listen to five different shoot interviews from five different wrestlers and ask them all about the same thing, and you'll get five totally different accounts most of which contradict one another. Wrestlers make crap up on Twitter all the time! This is especially true with older guys that were brought up with the mindset of having to "protect the business", and guys that are still desperate to one day come back and work for WWE again in some capacity and don't want to burn any bridges. Wrestling my have evolved, but most of these guys still have that carny mindset of having the work the marks (us). Plenty of real media outlets like Newspapers and TV Stations are completely inaccurate and publish false crap all the time, look it up yourself www.aim.org/And as for you sir, unfortunately there is no nice way for me to put this, but quite frankly you're a moron. Taker was being interviewed by a guy who does purely MMA interviews, Lesnar walked by, they had a quick exchange, it's not that mind blowing of a coincidence. But by all means take your expert break down on camera placement over the facts that I had laid out for you above which took into account both mens own opinions. That's you're problem (and that of dirt sheets over all), you're under the impression that your opinion on a subject some how carries more weight then the actual ing guys involved. I mean did you just read what you wrote? You're taking the supposed second hand word of wrestlers to guys like Meltzer over them actually telling it to a camera, HOW DOES THIS MAKE SENSE? Wrestler tells dirt sheet information... must be true. Wrestler tells camera information... LOL FORGOT THE STORY/OWN BIGGEST MARK I mean do you see the shear idiocy of this crap? You would think the fact that Meltzer is the lead MMA analyst for Yahoo Sports and Dana White tweets about the stuff he writes ALL THE TIME, would be enough to establish his credibility, but apparently not with you people. When has Taker ever given an interview on the subject? Hell, when as Taker ever given much of an interview at all, I don't think I've heard more than a couple words from the guy outside of WWE like ever. Brock was in on the work, obviously he's going to deny it, that's PART OF THE WORK. If you don't deny it, it's not a work. Clearly the dynamics of professional wrestling elude you.
|
|
|
Post by K5 on May 27, 2012 23:42:05 GMT -5
meltzer is credible, it's fascinating how anyone would perceive him as otherwise.
and i agree with mark about the lesnar/taker incident. it may not of been lesnar's intention, but taker knew damn well what he was doing and vince would've had intent in it as well.
|
|
Joejitsu22
Main Eventer
Sexy Baked Potato
Joined on: Sept 15, 2011 8:12:28 GMT -5
Posts: 4,059
|
Post by Joejitsu22 on May 28, 2012 2:08:27 GMT -5
No, actually I'm not, I've posted articulate and fact based arguments, except for the silly discussion about WWE 13, that's just my own biased opinion, I admit it may not have any basis in reality. What has anyone else here done? pot....kettle....black.... do me a favor and look up hypocrisy....
|
|
Fury
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jan 21, 2007 21:19:09 GMT -5
Posts: 4,257
|
Post by Fury on May 28, 2012 2:31:07 GMT -5
Meltzer obviously has had sources within the wrestling business and is right most of the time, the problem with him and the other dirt sheets is from what I've heard he posts stuff without corroborating it and it can lead to people feeding him BS and he'll still report it.
Taker/Brock was most certainly not a work and it's laughable to think otherwise. There was absolutely zero percent chance that that match was ever going to happen at Wrestlemania due a little thing called Brock's UFC contract. I have to laugh at claiming it was all too convenient. Taker was conducting an interview with Jon Anik (a respected MMA reporter, who has nothing to do with WWE) about his thoughts on MMA and how he thought he could do in MMA as well as Brock Lesnar. To think that Vince McMahon sent Taker to an MMA event to have an angle with a UFC star that occurred during an interview with a commentator from a then entirely independent source in order to create buzz that would be seen by a small amount of people is absolutely absurd. Especially considering White shot down all rumours immediately because Brock was never in a million years going to work Mania that year.
It's time like this I wish TRW would tell Max to shut up again to watch him tuck his head in between his tail again.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on May 28, 2012 6:14:46 GMT -5
The worst one was that Eddie Guerrero was still alive and was going to return at Wrestlemania 22.
|
|
|
Post by bennet07 on May 28, 2012 9:45:09 GMT -5
that 2/21/11 was gonna be undertaker and sting because 2=2/1=1+1
|
|
Spoder Juan
Main Eventer
Joined on: Oct 18, 2011 21:36:12 GMT -5
Posts: 1,367
|
Post by Spoder Juan on May 28, 2012 9:53:16 GMT -5
Trish is 36 and Lita is 37.... I take them
|
|
|
Post by comintogetcha on May 28, 2012 10:43:37 GMT -5
Here's the final word. The majority of the news posted on the "dirtsheet" websites requires a paid subscription to access. Since I'm going to guess that none of you actually pay for subscriptions to these sites, you likely don't even have a clue as to what is being reported in the first place. I'm also going to guess that the majority of you rely on second hand copy and paste sites like Wrestlezone, Bleacher Report, Rajah, amongst others, and assume these sites are reporting accurately, or that they themselves are reporting the news (they aren't). These sites steal news from legitimate sources, often times uncredited, and then either take it totally out of context, of completely twist the original words as they were said or written and turn them into something else completely. This is why I always tell people not to post news from these sites, because they are not primary sources, and they are often times wrong. Thus, when these copy and paste sites post inaccurate news, many of you are unable to distinguish between legitimate news posted on legitimate sites, and the BS crap posted on the sites you frequent, and thus assume that it's all crap, which is a false assumption. So in conclusion
|
|
|
Post by K5 on May 28, 2012 10:48:53 GMT -5
Taker/Brock was most certainly not a work and it's laughable to think otherwise. There was absolutely zero percent chance that that match was ever going to happen at Wrestlemania due a little thing called Brock's UFC contract. I have to laugh at claiming it was all too convenient. Taker was conducting an interview with Jon Anik (a respected MMA reporter, who has nothing to do with WWE) about his thoughts on MMA and how he thought he could do in MMA as well as Brock Lesnar. To think that Vince McMahon sent Taker to an MMA event to have an angle with a UFC star that occurred during an interview with a commentator from a then entirely independent source in order to create buzz that would be seen by a small amount of people is absolutely absurd. Especially considering White shot down all rumours immediately because Brock was never in a million years going to work Mania that year. you think it's that crazy that vince would send one of his larger stars to stir some controversy with a former employee and internationally known name? really? i don't think brock was in on it or dana, but i think taker was sent there with that in mind. i mean, brock didn't give two shits when he saw taker, taker kept digging at him about 'considering' something. i find it laughable that you'd think that kind of meeting would just 'happen' to go down on camera. no way hosay, haha
|
|