Deleted
Joined on: Sept 20, 2024 20:02:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2014 5:28:52 GMT -5
50 minutes?
Gonna have to call BS on that one Rock......
|
|
|
Post by Emerald Enthusiast on Sept 14, 2014 5:53:57 GMT -5
Lol at the Rock jabs. Nothing about how courageous it was finishing the match with such a severe injury. Consider who suffered the injury and it's easy to see why this board wouldn't give him credit. Now, if it were CM Punk who suffered the injury, there'd be 20 pages to this thread talking about how tough Punk was for finishing the match and how he's the greatest thing ever. The truth about the situation is that Rock came back and proved he was bigger star than anyone in WWE at the time. Even a middle-aged Rock outworked the less-athletic Cena in the ring and he filleted Cena on the mic. He clearly exposed WWE as an out-of-touch, confused organization that no longer made larger-than-life stars like him. For those who don't remember Rock's heyday or who really like Cena or the current product, it was likely a bitter pill to see Rock outshine everyone else and leave again.
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Sept 14, 2014 6:11:08 GMT -5
The truth about the situation is that Rock came back and proved he was bigger star than anyone in WWE at the time. The Rock didn't have to come back to prove he was a bigger star than anyone in WWE. He's one of the biggest movie stars in the world and one of the biggest stars from wrestling's last boom period. Everybody already knew he was a bigger star than anyone else in wrestling. That was why everybody was so disappointed when he came back and sucked. Lol. So silly.
|
|
|
Post by sitruC on Sept 14, 2014 6:39:36 GMT -5
I can smell what The Rock is cooking...
BS.
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Sept 14, 2014 6:51:22 GMT -5
I can smell what The Rock is cooking... BS. "But I'll eat some anyway..."
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 20, 2024 20:02:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2014 7:07:28 GMT -5
So can we talk about CM Punk from after WM 29 until the Rumble? That was the definition of not even trying. He can blame his schedule or his poor little spot or whatever he wants but HE didn't put any effort in for nearly a full year. Or can we over look him not putting anything into that run? You can look at it however you want. I agree he wasn't giving his full effort but he still managed to entertain me more than any other person on the roster. And you can't just ignore SS13 either, that was a 5 star match. And Punk still worked every week and could have a good match so... Actually it got ****1/2 and what made that match was Lesnar. Punk did nothing noteworthy in that match. Brock could have told that same story with anyone else. Hell, he told it with Cena TWO TIMES and both of those matches were infinitely better than that Punk match. And Rock worked sporadically and made more of a difference in WWE's business than Punk ever did/ever will so... I can smell what The Rock is cooking... BS. "But I'll eat some anyway..." Jesus Christ, that segment.
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Sept 14, 2014 8:54:03 GMT -5
The truth about the situation is that Rock came back and proved he was bigger star than anyone in WWE at the time. The Rock didn't have to come back to prove he was a bigger star than anyone in WWE. He's one of the biggest movie stars in the world and one of the biggest stars from wrestling's last boom period. Everybody already knew he was a bigger star than anyone else in wrestling. That was why everybody was so disappointed when he came back and sucked. Lol. So silly. I have to agree with this. Especially the so silly part. I was so ready for Rock to own him on the microphone but was so severely disappointed. The Rock's stuff doesn't hold up over time and he was incredibly cheesy. I knew CM Punk would best Rock on the microphone but Cena doing it surprised me.
|
|
|
Post by BrIaNMeRcY on Sept 14, 2014 9:52:08 GMT -5
The Rock didn't have to come back to prove he was a bigger star than anyone in WWE. He's one of the biggest movie stars in the world and one of the biggest stars from wrestling's last boom period. Everybody already knew he was a bigger star than anyone else in wrestling. That was why everybody was so disappointed when he came back and sucked. Lol. So silly. I have to agree with this. Especially the so silly part. I was so ready for Rock to own him on the microphone but was so severely disappointed. The Rock's stuff doesn't hold up over time and he was incredibly cheesy. I knew CM Punk would best Rock on the microphone but Cena doing it surprised me. One of The Rock's biggest faults is Dwayne Johnson just wasn't "The Rock" anymore. One of the hosts of a wrestling podcast I listen to even said, he just wasn't at the level people expect him to be. As unpolished CM Punk was, his mic work overshadowed the polished nature of The Rock. I though some of John Cena's mic work was good and was even a couple of notches above The Rock. Hell, they even had Brian Gewirtz writing The Rock's material. Did they deliver a home run, not at all. The build towards both Cena/Rock matches sucked and both matches nearly put me to sleep. I am shocked nobody mentioned the lack of chemistry both Cena and Rock had. The chemistry between the two just didn't want to exist at all.
|
|
|
Post by rustyy on Sept 14, 2014 9:52:19 GMT -5
You can look at it however you want. I agree he wasn't giving his full effort but he still managed to entertain me more than any other person on the roster. And you can't just ignore SS13 either, that was a 5 star match. And Punk still worked every week and could have a good match so... Actually it got ****1/2 and what made that match was Lesnar. Punk did nothing noteworthy in that match. Brock could have told that same story with anyone else. Hell, he told it with Cena TWO TIMES and both of those matches were infinitely better than that Punk match. And Rock worked sporadically and made more of a difference in WWE's business than Punk ever did/ever will so... "But I'll eat some anyway..." Jesus Christ, that segment. Well I base my opinions on my thoughts not someone else's so 5 stars. And if it's so easy to have a good match with Lesnar why did Triple H have 3 bad ones? No one could have told that story because it was all about Heyman and Punk and the emotion between them. And great, a movie star drew more money than a wrestler, should he get a cookie? I also don't base my opinions on people on who draws the most. And unless you have stock in WWE you shouldn't either, it's silly.
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Sept 14, 2014 9:55:59 GMT -5
And if it's so easy to have a good match with Lesnar why did Triple H have 3 bad ones? This one's easy: He didn't.
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Sept 14, 2014 10:03:08 GMT -5
I like Cena, I like Rock, I did not like that match. Any longer would have been overkill.
|
|
|
Post by rustyy on Sept 14, 2014 10:03:08 GMT -5
And if it's so easy to have a good match with Lesnar why did Triple H have 3 bad ones? This one's easy: He didn't. Oh please, one was okay but the other 2 were terrible. The cage match made Brock look like a bitch and a retired triple h whipping him at Mania was god awful. The crowd was dead for WM too because it had to follow An infinitely better match the crowd loved. They had no business having 3 matches. One was enough. Everyone wants to see Brock have new fresh stuff, not people he should have faced 12 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Sept 14, 2014 10:07:37 GMT -5
This one's easy: He didn't. Oh please, one was okay but the other 2 were terrible. Well I base my opinions on my own thoughts not someone else's.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 20, 2024 20:02:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2014 10:09:49 GMT -5
Actually it got ****1/2 and what made that match was Lesnar. Punk did nothing noteworthy in that match. Brock could have told that same story with anyone else. Hell, he told it with Cena TWO TIMES and both of those matches were infinitely better than that Punk match. And Rock worked sporadically and made more of a difference in WWE's business than Punk ever did/ever will so... Jesus Christ, that segment. Well I base my opinions on my thoughts not someone else's so 5 stars. And if it's so easy to have a good match with Lesnar why did Triple H have 3 bad ones? No one could have told that story because it was all about Heyman and Punk and the emotion between them. And great, a movie star drew more money than a wrestler, should he get a cookie? I also don't base my opinions on people on who draws the most. And unless you have stock in WWE you shouldn't either, it's silly. So you want me to answer with my opinion, but you only care about your own---so why ask that question in the first place? Two of the three weren't bad at all and I'd actually put that cage match over the Punk match pretty soundly. And frankly, when an ego is in play (Hunter's), that's going to get in the way of matches that had potential to be good (see: Hunter/Goldberg..oh wait you're probably going to argue that Goldberg couldn't be carried aren't you?) Also, the story of Punk/Lesnar was Punk trying to go through Brock to get to Heyman. The problem with that match is that though they wanted you to focus on Punk vs. Heyman, the story was delivered in a way that it was secondary to Lesnar smashing Punk. LESNAR SMASH is a story that he can tell with anyone. Go back and watch the match, it was "all about" Punk and Heyman like Vince vs. Shane at X-Seven was "all about" Vince and Linda. It was an underlying theme to the match, not the main narrative. They seldom reference Punk/Heyman in any real meaningful way, the entire match becomes about Brock beating the crap out of Punk and again, Lesnar can tell that exact story with anyone and it would be just as good. Oh please, one was okay but the other 2 were terrible. The cage match made Brock look like a bitch and a retired triple h whipping him at Mania was god awful. The crowd was dead for WM too because it had to follow An infinitely better match the crowd loved. They had no business having 3 matches. One was enough. Everyone wants to see Brock have new fresh stuff, not people he should have faced 12 years ago. I think you're starting to confuse your opinion with fact. You'd almost have a point, except facing Hunter WAS new and fresh because they never had one on one matches. Just because you think the time limit expired on it doesn't change the fact it was a new match. Oh please, one was okay but the other 2 were terrible. Well I base my opinions on my own thoughts not someone else's. My brother.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 20, 2024 20:02:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2014 10:14:20 GMT -5
I think he is over exaggerating. I'll simply say kudos to finishing the match, and for trying to have a good match.
|
|
|
Post by rustyy on Sept 14, 2014 10:45:29 GMT -5
Well I base my opinions on my thoughts not someone else's so 5 stars. And if it's so easy to have a good match with Lesnar why did Triple H have 3 bad ones? No one could have told that story because it was all about Heyman and Punk and the emotion between them. And great, a movie star drew more money than a wrestler, should he get a cookie? I also don't base my opinions on people on who draws the most. And unless you have stock in WWE you shouldn't either, it's silly. So you want me to answer with my opinion, but you only care about your own---so why ask that question in the first place? Two of the three weren't bad at all and I'd actually put that cage match over the Punk match pretty soundly. And frankly, when an ego is in play (Hunter's), that's going to get in the way of matches that had potential to be good (see: Hunter/Goldberg..oh wait you're probably going to argue that Goldberg couldn't be carried aren't you?) Also, the story of Punk/Lesnar was Punk trying to go through Brock to get to Heyman. The problem with that match is that though they wanted you to focus on Punk vs. Heyman, the story was delivered in a way that it was secondary to Lesnar smashing Punk. LESNAR SMASH is a story that he can tell with anyone. Go back and watch the match, it was "all about" Punk and Heyman like Vince vs. Shane at X-Seven was "all about" Vince and Linda. It was an underlying theme to the match, not the main narrative. They seldom reference Punk/Heyman in any real meaningful way, the entire match becomes about Brock beating the crap out of Punk and again, Lesnar can tell that exact story with anyone and it would be just as good. Oh please, one was okay but the other 2 were terrible. The cage match made Brock look like a bitch and a retired triple h whipping him at Mania was god awful. The crowd was dead for WM too because it had to follow An infinitely better match the crowd loved. They had no business having 3 matches. One was enough. Everyone wants to see Brock have new fresh stuff, not people he should have faced 12 years ago. I think you're starting to confuse your opinion with fact. You'd almost have a point, except facing Hunter WAS new and fresh because they never had one on one matches. Just because you think the time limit expired on it doesn't change the fact it was a new match. Well I base my opinions on my own thoughts not someone else's. My brother. I thought you were using Meltzers stupid star ratings, that's why I said that. Because I don't swear by his opinion like most do. Lol Hunter fresh and exciting. Maybe the first match but after he had his arm "broken" that feud lost everything. And I'm staring to think you're in this to put Punk down, the cage match where H had Brock begging to stop and screaming and had to have Heyman help him was better than Brock/Punk? The story had every one in that arena on their feet, much better overall than every single Hunter/Brock match. And Punk was by far Lesnars best match since being back. Or let me guess, you think the Big Show match was better? Because Brock Smash! And I don't treat my opinions like facts, you can agree or not. I really don't care. And Goldberg/Hunter sucked too. Thanks to both of them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 20, 2024 20:02:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2014 10:59:32 GMT -5
So you want me to answer with my opinion, but you only care about your own---so why ask that question in the first place? Two of the three weren't bad at all and I'd actually put that cage match over the Punk match pretty soundly. And frankly, when an ego is in play (Hunter's), that's going to get in the way of matches that had potential to be good (see: Hunter/Goldberg..oh wait you're probably going to argue that Goldberg couldn't be carried aren't you?) Also, the story of Punk/Lesnar was Punk trying to go through Brock to get to Heyman. The problem with that match is that though they wanted you to focus on Punk vs. Heyman, the story was delivered in a way that it was secondary to Lesnar smashing Punk. LESNAR SMASH is a story that he can tell with anyone. Go back and watch the match, it was "all about" Punk and Heyman like Vince vs. Shane at X-Seven was "all about" Vince and Linda. It was an underlying theme to the match, not the main narrative. They seldom reference Punk/Heyman in any real meaningful way, the entire match becomes about Brock beating the crap out of Punk and again, Lesnar can tell that exact story with anyone and it would be just as good. I think you're starting to confuse your opinion with fact. You'd almost have a point, except facing Hunter WAS new and fresh because they never had one on one matches. Just because you think the time limit expired on it doesn't change the fact it was a new match. My brother. I thought you were using Meltzers stupid star ratings, that's why I said that. Because I don't swear by his opinion like most do. Lol Hunter fresh and exciting. Maybe the first match but after he had his arm "broken" that feud lost everything. And I'm staring to think you're in this to put Punk down, the cage match where H had Brock begging to stop and screaming and had to have Heyman help him was better than Brock/Punk? The story had every one in that arena on their feet, much better overall than every single Hunter/Brock match. And Punk was by far Lesnars best match since being back. Or let me guess, you think the Big Show match was better? Because Brock Smash! And I don't treat my opinions like facts, you can agree or not. I really don't care. And Goldberg/Hunter sucked too. Thanks to both of them. Meltzer's star ratings are stupid, yet you're saying a match is five stars? If the star ratings are stupid, why use them yourself? Lesnar vs. Cena, take your pick. Both better than the Punk match. Extreme Rules match had a better crowd, both matches told a better story. For someone who "doesn't treat his opinions like facts", you're pretty adamant that you're right here. "Punk was by far Lesnar's best match since being back", as if you're asserting that your opinion is right. I'm starting to think you're a biased CM Punk fan. I mean, I've been disagreeing with you from the start of our little discussion and you've done nothing but try to assert that Punk vs. Lesnar was some sort of all time classic match when clearly I'm not going to agree. The match was good, but not that good. It was Brock Smash~! with an opponent that is fun to watch get beat up, that's it. By the way, he had the rely on Heyman in the SummerSlam match as well, arguably in a more critical manner than he did in the cage with Hunter. That's a huge flaw with that match, but the precedent had already been set. Oh, and then there was the whole, "Or let me guess, you think the Big Show match was better?" thing. Yeah, you're not trying to act like your opinion is superior AT ALL. "AGREE WITH ME, OH WAIT YOU PROBABLY THINK THIS THING I THINK SUCKS IS GOOD HUH? REPLY SAYING YOU DO MAN, I'M SITTING RIGHT HERE WAITING TO SAY YOU'RE WRONG MOTHER ER BECAUSE MY OPINIONS AND STUFF". Jesus, I feel like I'm on Indy in 2007 when SEH would cry whenever someone said anything remotely negative about Tyler Black.
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Sept 14, 2014 11:03:49 GMT -5
the cage match where H had Brock begging to stop and screaming and had to have Heyman help him was better than Brock/Punk? Yup. So was the first Lesnar-Cena match. Punk vs Brock is sitting pretty at number three though, so it's above the Big Show match, the latest Cena match and two of the HHH matches.
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Sept 14, 2014 11:07:58 GMT -5
Brock/Punk was so good because both guys brought it. I'm in the camp that agrees that Punk basically slept walked through his final run of Payback-Royal Rumble 2014 but the ONE night that I felt he was on his game was at WrestleMania.
I agree that the Triple H/Brock series wasn't very good. SummerSlam and WrestleMania were both bores but Extreme Rules was good. The first two HHH matches and the Brock/Taker matches were his only ones that I thought weren't good since his return.
Back to the point though, to try and say that Brock/Punk could've been done with anyone is something I can't buy into.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 20, 2024 20:02:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2014 11:20:33 GMT -5
The banter between them backstage sounds better than the matches.
|
|