Big Show/Mix (tag champs) defeated Morrison/R-Truth.
Orton defeated DiBiase and Rhodes in a triple threat match.
Jack Swagger won the money in the bank ladder match.
This is the greatest Wrestlemania 2010 results thread ever!
2,000 points!
HHH defeats Sheamus
Rey defeats Punk
Jericho (champ) defeats Edge
Michelle McCool, Maryse, Layla, Alicia Fox & Vickie Guerrero defeat Mickie James, Kelly Kelly, Eve, Gail Kim & Beth Phoenix
I wonder what the odds are of Taker defeating HBK, and HBK returning out of "retirement" 3 weeks later...
Cena defeats Batista (champ)
I wonder what the odds are of Taker defeating HBK, and HBK returning out of "retirement" 3 weeks later...
Actually I'd give it 6 months or so, as I think the plan has been for him to take time off after WM, like last year.
Cena defeats Batista (champ)
CHAIN GANG REPRESENTIN', YO!
At the end of the day, if the match is anywhere near as good as last years, I couldnt care less if they retire him then unretire him.
Only mistake they could make is let HBK win, as the streak needs to be ended by an up comer if it ends at all.
Match has been good so far.
Taker defeats HBK.
Another great match.
saw it. liked it! thought the whole show was actually pretty good. nothing spectacular, but very good overall. ...except for maybe the bret hart segment, which was 100% shit.
"your family is going to turn on you ha ha ha".
BOOOOOOOOOOOO
15 minutes of beating vince with a chair
BOOOOOOOOOOOO
bret literally sitting down on a chair in the ring to bide time
BOOOOOOOOOOOO
universally speaking, i think wrestling fans top comic book fans in the contest of "fans that hate their own product"
second only to kristogar's parents
second only to snarf's parents
Overall the show wasnt as good as it should have been, but was far from bad.
The Sheamus/HHH match wasnt that great.
The Rey/Punk match was over before you could blink.
The divas match was fucking awful.
Batista/Cena was no better or worse than expected.
Vince/Bret wasnt great, but anyone who expected more, is an idiot.
Everything else was good to great.
meh, i think all the matches were good.
sheamus / hhh was better than expected. sure, hhh wins, but hopefully sheamus gets a bump from the mere mention. he held his own and remains a powerful heel.
rey/punk ended well, and even with the loss, i think punk continues to get over big.
the divas match was... a divas match. actually, for what it was, i thought it was pretty decent, everyone pulling off a finisher, some eddie moments, etc. garbage, of course, but better than it could have been.
batista / cena was great. for an older bigger guy, i think batista can move pretty damn well. i can't believe how many people hate cena with that intensity still. i loved the ending where he just piles on to a group of "i hate cena" shirt wearing guys, who were stunned into smiling.
taker / hbk was better than last year's (which i think was overhyped) and as great as you could hope for, i think.
the vince / bret stuff was dreadful. the fact that it lasted so long, and the whole family turn... thing... made the segment way, way, way worse than expected.
You obviously have low expectations if you think all the matches were good.
Apart from anything else, at Wrestlemania, they should be more than just 'good'.
Its no surprise that you liked Batista vs Cena as its just Ultimate Warrior vs Hogan all over again.
What the hell has Batista being able to move got anything to do with it? I can move, but that doesnt make me a wrestler, and it certainly doesnt make him a wrestler either. The guy has about two moves in his repetoir, and both of them suck.
universally speaking, i think wrestling fans top comic book fans in the contest of "fans that hate their own product"
When have I said I hate it?
You really need to learn to read.
Being critical of subpar matches on what is supposed to be the spectacle of the year, is not hating it.
Hating Cena and Batista is not hating wrestling, because they are not wrestlers (much like their original inspirations, Warrior and Hogan).
Of course though, I forgot, you have never been critical of anything ever.
Of course though, I forgot, you have never been critical of anything ever.
i accept you as a giant homo (just as you repeatedly accept a number of giant homos) but i'm still critical of some of your less-than-stellar retorts.
that aside, i just don't understand what you're looking for in these wrestling events. it often doesn't sound like you're being critical, and instead sounds like you're a standard internet fan (read: pariah). if you're not a fan of cena and/or batista, and negatively critical of their talents, then i'd think you'd be impressed by their performances last night, where they exceeded expectations.
i don't watch wrestling all that much anymore, so maybe i'm not the best judge, but i watched the show with a number of super smart wrestling fans who are just as gay for the events as you are, if not gayer, and each of them knew to give credit when it was due. cena and batista are far from their favorites, but they were impressed with the match. sure, they were impressed
because it was cena and batista, but that's the whole point.
it has nothing to do with picking favorites. sure, i like hogan, but i'll be the first (or last, as the rest of this forum races towards it) to admit he has shit matches. similarly, i hate hbk, but really thought he put on a great show last night, as he has in many matches prior.
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!
Rob Kamphausen Administrator cobra kai
15000+ posts 03/29/10 10:49 PM Reading a post
Forum: Sports and Wrestling
Thread: Wrestlemania 2010 results
i love how riled up you can get
you're like a giant, fiery ball of ginger!
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.
critiquing and being critical is far different from being cynical and whiney. i'm not saying you can't find fault or take issue with certain things, i'm just noticing how, in general, it seems that you (and many others) find a lot of bad in wrestling; or at least comment on in it a lot. now, before you get all huffy, let me clarify that (1) that doesn't mean you don't talk about good things and (2) that doesn't mean you're not allowed to talk about the bad things. it just seems, to me, that wrestling fans in general (or at least those with internet access) complain with great frequency about what they continue to watch.
the only on-the-level comparison i can think of is comic book fans who bitch and moan, but continually come back for more. see; GL DCMB forum, circa 2002.
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.
for the record, if snarf made a good post, i
would be impressed. i keep waiting.
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.
that sounds like a fair point. i just don't seem to get that much from your posts on wrestling. it often seems moreso like you're continually watching something you loathe (which, actually, still sounds like what you're doing with TNA)
i know you're also a giant movie fan. and, from what i've seen of your movie reviews, you're actually quite light-hearted or liberal about what you appreciated. you're willing to enjoy films based on what they are. so, when some studio spews out the recent punisher movies, or even the kane movie, to tie the concepts together, you're not holding them to oscar standards, and can actually enjoy them; perhaps on the basis of "what were you expecting?"
Movies is different.
When I watch movies with different mindsets.
When I just want disposable fun, I will watch an 80s action movie or whatever, because I am not in the mood for something heavy or groundbreaking.
When I watch something a bit more 'deep', I watch something thats got some meat on its bones, with actors who I know are going to bring something to the role.
That said, there are actors I cannot stand because they are the Cenas of the acting world. Guys like Jim Carrey. A guy that was shoved down our throats while he was flavour of the month, and I hated pretty much everything he did.
And then theres Adam Sandler, a guy who will do a good film, and then he will do a mediocre film.
When I watch a wrestling, I want to watch a wrestling show.
There is only one mindset.
When I watch a film, I am watching a single entity, and can choose to avoid watching anything wih Jim Carrey in, but if I want to watch a good wrestling match, I have to watch all the dross that goes on around it as well, as its all intertwined.
TNA I watch sparingly these days because the product is so bad, and is just rehashing all the old shit that was bad in the old days.
It wouldnt be so bad if it was the good stuff, but its not.
I have watched it a sum total of 3 times this year to at least give it a chance to see if there is improvement, and there hasnt been so far, so I dont watch it.
WWE though has enough going for it to keep me tuned in.
Like most things though, the bad stuff is really bad, which is why it gets talked about so much, while the good stuff is rarely higher than what is expected, which is a damn shame.
And this is why I get so riled up, as you put it, about wrestling.
Cause I want it to be what it can be.
I dont want it perfect, but I could live with the Cenas, Batistas and Hogans of this world, if there was a similar level of investment in the rest of the show as they put into guys like them.
Take WM for instance.
My complaint was that the Rey/Punk match was too short, not that it was bad, yet you totally failed to read what I said, and defended it as a good match.
That may be the case, but why was it so short?
Why not give equal time to a match like that?
Why make it a throwaway match that nobody is going to be talking about, when it had so much more potential than the Cena/Batista match?
Its very similar to what Jericho has said about RVDs debut on TNA.
Here you have a guy the fans have been clammoring to see, and they go and put him in a match that lasts five seconds, the proceeds to have him beat down.
It didnt make sense.
If you know what the fans want, why give them so little of it?
And just to give you some persective that its not just typical wrestling fans who were not impressed with WM as a whole, I have since spoken to people who dont read news sites, dont know the ins and outs of whats going on, and they thought the show was pretty shit other than the Taker/HBK match.
I have also spoken to some wrestlers that I know, and they are of the same opinion.
Funnily though, I disagree with them.
I dont think it was shite, I think it was less than it should have been, but had enough redeeming moments to raise it from being called shite.
hm. that was a solid answer i'll agree with.
...this isn't any fun.
fuck you!
eat shit, gay lord cock sucker kamphausen
And the balance has been restored.
Rob Kamphausen Administrator cobra kai
15000+ posts 03/29/10 10:49 PM Reading a post
Forum: Sports and Wrestling
Thread: Wrestlemania 2010 results
AFLAC!
