leggo wrote: » IIRC the match they had was godawful. Just no chemistry, sadly, so giving them time on Mania wouldn't have made sense as much as it would've storyline-wise. Judging someone's HOF candidacy on their booking or position on the card is kinda missing the point IMO. It's like saying that only managers in a workplace are good at their job.
Riddle101 wrote: » Not sure why WWE wants The Shield to wrestle in a Handicap match at TLC. I mean the Miz and Kane being involved is unnecessary. Braun, Sheamus and Cesaro are more than capable of taking them on in a 3 Vs 3 match.
Snakeweasel wrote: » Im thinking 5 on 3 at TLC is to set up AOP joining Shield for 5v5 match at survivor series
beakerjoe wrote: » Why? They have no assocaition with The Shield at all bar their similar attire
Agent Coulson wrote: » Has RVD got one last run in him and would Vince give him one last run?
Riddle101 wrote: » God I hope not. RVD has been dreadful for years imo. His TNA work was embarrassing, and his last WWE run wasn't exactly great either. Maybe at one point RVD could have been a big main event star in WWE, but not now. His time has passed.
Omackeral wrote: » They should've pulled the trigger on him in 2001. He was white hot during the InVasion and the people wanted him to be a star. He could've been on top easily as a tweener or as an out and out face. The reactions he was getting were savage, his look, his moveset, his theme and his connection with the crowd. In a world of fantasy bookings and re-wrote invasions of that day, they let that one slip right through their fingers.
beakerjoe wrote: » I dont think WWE trusted RVD enough to run with him as a top guy. When they went with him in 2006, they were kind of proved right as it wasnt long before he dropped the ball with it. (Though I admire him for taking the rap for his buddy Sabu, very selfless act).
LeeJM wrote: » Dont think I have ever disagreed with anything on this forum as much as I disagree with the above statement.
Mr.Nice Guy wrote: » I'm not sure why. I don't think he will ever get into the WON Hall of Fame which is surely a far more credible one than the WWE version. Readers of the Observer voted him Most Embarrassing Wrestler in the 1997 awards and he was on three occasions a winner of the Worst Gimmick award. When I think of a Hall of Fame wrestler I think of a legend of the business. His father, for example. Dustin Rhodes is nowhere near his father when it comes to legendary status. His stuff in recent times has been utterly forgettable and he's been a glorified jobber the last few years. A good wrestler in many ways whose work I have enjoyed at various points, but to describe him as a Hall of Fame talent? No chance imo.
beakerjoe wrote: I agree, hes far from a WON hall of famer.
ERG89 wrote: » Black Reign on the other hand......
leggo wrote: » Possibly controversial opinion, but like Tough Enough winners, I don't give any credibility to Hall of Fames that are based on fan/journalist votes. HOFs should be peer-selected, based on those who've worked within the industry, because the fact is that we don't have a clue what Goldust is like to work with, what he's like in the locker room, we basically don't have a notion about him beyond what we see in the ring (and the fact that his booking position on the card is being discussed is kinda testament to how skewed that judgement is). Vince handpicking people can be problematic, but as the boss of these people he's infinitely more qualified to make these decisions than a million of us combined who've never spent a day working with the people we discuss. We've every right, as paying consumers, to discuss and debate these wrestlers' careers, but we've no qualification to make any kind of defining judgement call on their work/legacy.