Sad times as I'd have loved for my daughter to see him live, she's a big fan
FU OS for not responding.
Didn't even know he had it tbh. I only watched Raw this week because I was curled up in the foetal position with food poisoning and was bored waiting for the World Cup match to start.
I thought it was pretty decent, with Heyman basically telling him it doesn't matter if he can beat 2000-era The Rock, 1996-era HBK or 2007-era Cena -- 2015 Brock is something completely different.
Haha that Summerslam 93 Luger v Yokozuna match is one of the funniest in history. Luger in there celebrating with all the babyfaces in the roster with confetti and balloons falling from the rafters, even though he hadn't even won the title
Bryan was still fine. He's the ultimate good guy babyface anyway so him being complimentary is fine.
Haha yeah, no doubt the Rumble was done to gauge the crowd. But you've gotta think that at SummerSlam they planned on Luger just being the man to eventually take it at Mania. Otherwise the count-out just makes no sense.Haha that Summerslam 93 Luger v Yokozuna match is one of the funniest in history. Luger in there celebrating with all the babyfaces in the roster with confetti and balloons falling from the rafters, even though he hadn't even won the title
It's a good comparison actually. Luger was Hogan's guy ala Batista in 2014 and the crowd wanted the smaller guy in Bret/Bryan. I think Vince made the Rumble a draw because he wanted to gauge the crowd a bit more anyway. Became clear after that that Bret was the guy the audience wanted.
btw. Good that WCW gave him the torture rack, which was gun.
Yeah, this was silly imo. It would be more apt if he was actually saying this about Lesnar, not Reigns. Reigns has done nothing to come close to justifying being spoken of in these terms. He's been a singles competitor for less than a year ffs.
Grand total of 2 ppv matches as a singles competitor, I think. Absolutely absurd.
Yeah, very fair call. I saw it more being about Heyman selling Lesnar on-screen, while the writers wanted it done in such a way that it talked up Reigns too. It was waaaay OTT but I think the concept was solid enough -- portray Lesnar as an unparalleled beast while also trying to get Reigns over somehow. The only way to do that was for Heyman to build up Reigns, put then put Lesnar over him -- "you can beat any man, but Lesnar's not a man"
Yeah, I get the logic, I just think they overdid it really badly. It would have made sense for Heyman to go down the "you have great potential young man" route. That would have been easier to swallow, though still somewhat dubious for me, but him basically saying that Reigns was an atg in not so many words was just...well it came across as a bit desperate. When you need to resort to that sort of thing to get someone over it's pretty much an admission that they really aren't over. It's a bit like something Uppercut said in another thread: "the more you say 'I'm not a racist', the less likely it is to be true".
