So what are you saying then Rob, that having an opinion that differs from yours makes me not a fan?
You talk bullshit as usual.
Your whole 'wrestling fans hate things' argument is totally contradicted when you then say they overhyped last years Taker/HBK match.
You say they are wrong for disliking what you like and wrong for liking what you thought wasnt that good.
You dont seem to realise that everyone is entitled to an opinion.
What I am looking for at these events is to be entertained, and the likes of Cena/Batista do not entertain when put in a ring together.
Put them in a ring with someone who can carry them, like Taker or Michaels, for example, and they look a whole lot better.
I have always hated these big guys who are all image and no talent, so how does that make me a 'typical internet fan'?
Simple fact is, I have probably seen more recent shows than you.
Have probably been to more WWE live events than you in recent years.
And have probably been to more indy shows in one year than you have been to in your life.
Does that make my opinion better than yours, no! But what it does do is it makes me want more for my money.
I have seen what can be achieved, and I have seen lazy programs both on tv and on the live indy scene.
WWE's product, for the most part, is damn good.
I'm not like Snarf, who sits there pissing and moaning about WWE, but claims not to watch it.
Hell, I even try to watch TNA from time to time, but it constantly fails to deliver on what it promises.
If they stopped trying to say they were better or different to WWE, while all the while just copying them, it wouldnt be such a problem.
But when you go out of your way to constantly critise WWE then make all the same mistakes, then you are only going to make things worse for yourself.
What you also seem to not understand is that I am not one of these people that thinks that the current WWE product is worse than the old days of the 80s and 90s, as I think thay era for the most part was pretty shoddy.
But I will compare it to the late 90s/early 00s, because the effort that was put in back then was far more apparent, and the talent list of big names was far stronger, and far more natural than the forced Batista/Cena era we have today.
A guy like Jeff Hardy had built up a significant fan following himself, long before WWE pushed him. Ditto for Mysterio, Jericho and even Edge (to a lesser degree), so they are natural stars, yet they always end up taking a backseat to the 'created' talent like Batista, Cena and Randy Orton (although, to give Orton his due, he has since earned his spot).
Back around the turn of the century, you had guys like HHH, Taker, Angle, Austin & The Rock, who were the main guys.
They all had a different degrees of talent, and all were a lot more natural, with probably only HHH who had any degree of being a WWE creation.
I could sit there back in 2000 and happily watch a PPV, and only be critical of the odd match here or there, but now that there is no real competition for WWE, they are very lazy about their shows.
You say your friends were impressed with the Cena/Batista match because of who it was, and that it was good for them, but should that be enough?
Thats like saying we should be impressed with a post by Snarf if its slightly better than normal, just because it is Snarf.
Orton is a perfect example of why those two suck.
He came up at the same time, was shit in the ring and couldnt deliver a promo for shit, but over time he developed in every area where as those two have either gotten no better or are sometimes worse than they were years ago.
Cena could have been the next Rock when he started out, but WWE screwed it up by not only turning him face (people loved his heel persona), but then pushing him too hard to appease the kiddie audience instead of getting him to work on his in ring skills.
Now fuck off, you silly gay dwarf!
