stratusfaction23
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jan 29, 2002 17:18:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,007
|
Post by stratusfaction23 on Apr 1, 2022 21:17:16 GMT -5
It breaks my heart how bad Finn Balor is treated.
Angel Garza has potential to be the next big latino star, he has the talent and charisma.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Apr 2, 2022 0:57:27 GMT -5
After 40 years of awful booking that has prevented the company from achieving success, WWE creative finally did something right with the battle royal finish and pushed a young guy over one of their 40+ year old relics.
Then immediately they mess it up by having Ricochet (born 1988) bury Angel (born 1992) and Humberto (born 1995).
The youngest person in any match should win the match, it’s booking 101. But I guess you can ignore booking 101 if you’re a megalomaniac who doesn’t care about the future and just wants to trick Disney into buying your company before your show gets cancelled.
|
|
robbutler01
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 10, 2013 15:10:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,267
|
Post by robbutler01 on Apr 2, 2022 6:34:26 GMT -5
After 40 years of awful booking that has prevented the company from achieving success, WWE creative finally did something right with the battle royal finish and pushed a young guy over one of their 40+ year old relics. Then immediately they mess it up by having Ricochet (born 1988) bury Angel (born 1992) and Humberto (born 1995). The youngest person in any match should win the match, it’s booking 101. But I guess you can ignore booking 101 if you’re a megalomaniac who doesn’t care about the future and just wants to trick Disney into buying your company before your show gets cancelled. Not sure if this a sarcastic post about 40 years of awful booking and failing to achieve success so sorry if it was? What about the golden 80s era or the attitude era - seemed pretty successful?? I agree its important to book and make new younger stars but surely you dont actually think the youngest person should always win not the one that most over, the best or anyone of the other logical reasons why people win? I'm sorry but winning due to being younger makes no sense at all. By that logic undertaker would have lost his wrestlemania streak before it really became a thing to triple h as he was younger at mania 17, big show and a train at 19, orton at 21, Mark Henry at 22 etc and I hope that they never put garza against reigns or lesnar lol!!! Might also make the rumble a bit predictable if you have all the date of births to hand too lol
|
|
|
Post by rkmo: 9 Month Warning on Apr 2, 2022 8:40:51 GMT -5
I'm thinking in the next year to Reigns will go Thanos and chase the midcard titles. According to this new logic, RIC should overcome Head Cheese. And Charlotte is destined to lose to whatever teeny bopper WWE has left on payroll.
A certain someone has worked themselves into a shoot, brother.
|
|
|
Post by CM Tusk on Apr 2, 2022 11:48:36 GMT -5
Not a fan of Balor losing twice in one night.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Apr 2, 2022 13:47:09 GMT -5
After 40 years of awful booking that has prevented the company from achieving success, WWE creative finally did something right with the battle royal finish and pushed a young guy over one of their 40+ year old relics. Then immediately they mess it up by having Ricochet (born 1988) bury Angel (born 1992) and Humberto (born 1995). The youngest person in any match should win the match, it’s booking 101. But I guess you can ignore booking 101 if you’re a megalomaniac who doesn’t care about the future and just wants to trick Disney into buying your company before your show gets cancelled. Not sure if this a sarcastic post about 40 years of awful booking and failing to achieve success so sorry if it was? What about the golden 80s era or the attitude era - seemed pretty successful?? I agree its important to book and make new younger stars but surely you dont actually think the youngest person should always win not the one that most over, the best or anyone of the other logical reasons why people win? I'm sorry but winning due to being younger makes no sense at all. By that logic undertaker would have lost his wrestlemania streak before it really became a thing to triple h as he was younger at mania 17, big show and a train at 19, orton at 21, Mark Henry at 22 etc and I hope that they never put garza against reigns or lesnar lol!!! Might also make the rumble a bit predictable if you have all the date of births to hand too lol Good points, well made. I think maybe sometimes a wrestler I like loses and I just get upset about it but I don’t want to admit that (because I don’t want anyone to think I think wrestling is real), so I pretend it’s because there’s a secret law of wrestling booking that the younger wrestler is always supposed to win, and that creative have broken that sacred rule. Don’t even get me started on the Rumble. That’s another one where I complain about the result being too predictable or too unpredictable depending on whether I like the winner or not. Realistically, I basically just get worked constantly and try to make up booking rules for why my upset is valid.
|
|
|
Post by k5 on Apr 2, 2022 16:03:46 GMT -5
After 40 years of awful booking that has prevented the company from achieving success, WWE creative finally did something right with the battle royal finish and pushed a young guy over one of their 40+ year old relics. Then immediately they mess it up by having Ricochet (born 1988) bury Angel (born 1992) and Humberto (born 1995). The youngest person in any match should win the match, it’s booking 101. But I guess you can ignore booking 101 if you’re a megalomaniac who doesn’t care about the future and just wants to trick Disney into buying your company before your show gets cancelled. Not sure if this a sarcastic post about 40 years of awful booking and failing to achieve success so sorry if it was? What about the golden 80s era or the attitude era - seemed pretty successful?? I agree its important to book and make new younger stars but surely you dont actually think the youngest person should always win not the one that most over, the best or anyone of the other logical reasons why people win? I'm sorry but winning due to being younger makes no sense at all. By that logic undertaker would have lost his wrestlemania streak before it really became a thing to triple h as he was younger at mania 17, big show and a train at 19, orton at 21, Mark Henry at 22 etc and I hope that they never put garza against reigns or lesnar lol!!! Might also make the rumble a bit predictable if you have all the date of births to hand too lol you're getting worked, dude is trolling as per usual
|
|