Author Topic: US Division. The Potential  (Read 897 times)

Offline Zuccini

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 374
US Division. The Potential
« Reply #15 on: 19 July 2008, 12:48:19 PM »
exactly. Less injuries aswell. He got paid well in the WWE and was one of the best in the business and made a big mistake in leaving

Offline Mini Kong

  • Ari Gold is GOD!!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1085
US Division. The Potential
« Reply #16 on: 20 July 2008, 05:52:55 PM »
Quote from: Zuccini;8178
exactly. Less injuries aswell. He got paid well in the WWE and was one of the best in the business and made a big mistake in leaving


Well most people don't really care for the money. If you don't enjoy the job you are doing, it's best that you leave the job intstead of staying and causing grief for yourself and everyone else around you. I'm pretty sure that's what Lashley did.

And Back on topic:
 
Tonight Shelton will be facing Matt Hardy. I'm hoping for him to win so he could finally bring back the US title to SD!. Shelton with the title will create great new fueds because for a while it just fet like it was just Matt Hardy and MVP which became stale really quick. Shelton vs. Jeff, Shelton vs. Kennedy, will be fresh and new.
"This is my welcome!"
Shame on TNA for letting go one of the best female wrestlers in the world.


Offline TJChurch

  • Master Of Mayhem
  • Banned
  • ****
  • Posts: 401
US Division. The Potential
« Reply #17 on: 20 July 2008, 11:24:58 PM »
New isn't always good... If it becomes Shelton-Kennedy, make that a Title-vs.-career match they both lose; There's a reason Sb was a last-minute PPV addition, & KK isn't there @ all.

Offline RyPrax

  • FEED. ME. MORE.
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9097
  • FINISH. HIM.
US Division. The Potential
« Reply #18 on: 20 July 2008, 11:35:48 PM »
Quote from: TJChurch;8725
New isn't always good... If it becomes Shelton-Kennedy, make that a Title-vs.-career match they both lose; There's a reason Sb was a last-minute PPV addition, & KK isn't there @ all.


The reason is time constraints not that they're not necessarily over. They already had 7 matches on the card and not everyone can get on it. Hell Kofi isn't even on the card and he's over as hell.

I certainly understand where you're coming from, as Benjamin and Kennedy aren't the most over of talent and both have ruined any semblance of a push they've received, but either way, every promotion needs enhancement talent in every division. I don't think either will ever hold a world title (Maybe Kennedy if he gets over his recent bad luck), but I mean that's no reason to let them go.


Think I'll have a wank over these tomorrow.

Offline TJChurch

  • Master Of Mayhem
  • Banned
  • ****
  • Posts: 401
US Division. The Potential
« Reply #19 on: 20 July 2008, 11:48:11 PM »
Quote from: Prax;8729
The reason is time constraints not that they're not necessarily over.

I'll agree with yours, if you agree it's also mine.
 
Quote from: Prax;8729
They already had 7 matches on the card and not everyone can get on it.

Obviously, but there are criteria they use to decide who does or doesn't make it. (Obviously, the Champ gets there due to the belt... But how did they pick a contender?)
 
 
Quote from: Prax;8729
Hell Kofi isn't even on the card and he's over as hell.

That Champion was on Night Of Champions, tho.
 
Quote from: Prax;8729
I certainly understand where you're coming from, as Benjamin and Kennedy aren't the most over of talent and both have ruined any semblance of a push they've received

That's putting it mildly.
 
Benjamin = Gone from Tag to singles, gold in both, all brands.
 
Kennedy = Lots of fans told me he got worse moving from SD to Raw; I maintain it was due to film editing on his first brand, where he is now again. (Also won MITB, which he then lost during a temp. stop on the other brand.)
 
Quote from: Prax;8729
but either way, every promotion needs enhancement talent in every division.

I'm not up on every word in the language, but I thought "enhance" was supposed to be making it better (which they only due for opponents, not their brand as a whole).
 
Quote from: Prax;8729
I don't think either will ever hold a world title (Maybe Kennedy if he gets over his recent bad luck), but I mean that's no reason to let them go.

My fingers are getting a little tired today; I'll just use your words.
 
Quote from: Prax;8729
Benjamin and Kennedy aren't the most over of talent and both have ruined any semblance of a push they've received

Offline RyPrax

  • FEED. ME. MORE.
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9097
  • FINISH. HIM.
US Division. The Potential
« Reply #20 on: 21 July 2008, 12:03:54 AM »
Quote from: TJChurch;8734
I'll agree with yours, if you agree it's also mine.[/qupte]

I did later on in my post...
 

 
Quote
Obviously, but there are criteria they use to decide who does or doesn't make it. (Obviously, the Champ gets there due to the belt... But how did they pick a contender?)


Criteria:

You're either Batista or you just lost the championship.
 
 
 
Quote
That Champion was on Night Of Champions, tho.


So was every other champion...
 

 
Quote
That's putting it mildly.
 
Benjamin = Gone from Tag to singles, gold in both, all brands.
 
Kennedy = Lots of fans told me he got worse moving from SD to Raw; I maintain it was due to film editing on his first brand, where he is now again. (Also won MITB, which he then lost during a temp. stop on the other brand.)

 
I don't know whether you're agreeing with me or not?

 
Quote
I'm not up on every word in the language, but I thought "enhance" was supposed to be making it better (which they only due for opponents, not their brand as a whole).
 


 In wrestling, enhancement talent is a glorified word for Jobbers.

Quote
My fingers are getting a little tired today; I'll just use your words.


So I take it you agree with my general point?


Think I'll have a wank over these tomorrow.

Offline TJChurch

  • Master Of Mayhem
  • Banned
  • ****
  • Posts: 401
US Division. The Potential
« Reply #21 on: 21 July 2008, 05:17:51 AM »
Quote from: Professor Prax;8741
I did later on in my post...

Not where it could be seen.
 
Quote from: Professor Prax;8741
Criteria:
 
You're either Batista or you just lost the championship.

Not fair to Batista or the company, esp. when we're discussing what is obviously a midcard-@-best Title.
 
Quote from: Professor Prax;8741
So was every other champion...

Matt wasn't in a match as I recall; Nor was SB.
 
Quote from: Professor Prax;8741
I don't know whether you're agreeing with me or not?

You were right, but heavily understating it.
 
Quote from: Professor Prax;8741
In wrestling, enhancement talent is a glorified word for Jobbers.

Not in all cases. (Looking at "Raw 15" mag, Hardys are listed among jobbers... Look at them now, as it says in that mag.)
 
Quote from: Professor Prax;8741
So I take it you agree with my general point?

On the contrary, I was deciding not to waste my time debating when you contradicted your own statement.

Offline RyPrax

  • FEED. ME. MORE.
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9097
  • FINISH. HIM.
US Division. The Potential
« Reply #22 on: 21 July 2008, 05:33:45 AM »
Quote from: TJChurch;8818
Not where it could be seen.
 

 
Not fair to Batista or the company, esp. when we're discussing what is obviously a midcard-@-best Title.


Well I was generalizing to the rest of the belts.
 

 
Quote
Matt wasn't in a match as I recall; Nor was SB.

 
Matt Hardy faced chavo at Night of Champions.

As for Shelton, he wasn't, but there was already a reason to put chavo in a title match and there was only one other midcard title available to SD (the ECW title) and that was the monster match. So you couldn't really have Shelton in any other match anyway.

 
Quote

You were right, but heavily understating it.
 

 
Not in all cases. (Looking at "Raw 15" mag, Hardys are listed among jobbers... Look at them now, as it says in that mag.)


Well I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to, but the term "enhancement talent" is wrestling is used interchangeably with Jobbers. But if you want to use the word "enhance" literally, it still "enhances" the brand or division to have wrestlers on there who aren't world champions. You can't have an entire card of world champions, it just doesn't work that way. You enhance your brand by filling in voids with the proper talent for each division. Everyone from Val Venis to Batista could be classified as an enhancement talent to a certain degree.
 

 
Quote
On the contrary, I was deciding not to waste my time debating when you contradicted your own statement.


My original point was that Shelton/Hardy was added last minute not because either competitor isn't over, but because the bookers weren't certain whether there'd be time for the match so the put it off just in case. Good booking in my opinion, as opposed to rushing the card and ending up with a short and pointless match if there wasn't time.

I then proceed to say that they're not the most over of talent, which isn't a contradiction to the point where I say that a late addition match doesn't mean that they aren't over, just that they aren't as over as the main eventers... which is obvious, since they aren't main eventing.

So I'd love for you to attempt to point out a contradiction.


Think I'll have a wank over these tomorrow.

Offline TJChurch

  • Master Of Mayhem
  • Banned
  • ****
  • Posts: 401
US Division. The Potential
« Reply #23 on: 21 July 2008, 05:57:55 AM »
Quote from: Professor Prax;8825
Well I was generalizing to the rest of the belts.

But then make it a point to give, explain, & expect specifics on that belt (it seems), & certainly on many wrestlers...
 
Quote from: Professor Prax;8825
Matt Hardy faced chavo at Night of Champions.
 
As for Shelton, he wasn't, but there was already a reason to put chavo in a title match and there was only one other midcard title available to SD (the ECW title) and that was the monster match. So you couldn't really have Shelton in any other match anyway.

Could've had this exact match booked at NoC... Chavo was only in any Title hunt, as I recall, due to his connections to La Familia, which was an SD HW Title-related storyline. If it's about the Titles available to each brand, I'd believe Edge was defending his, so put Shelton in a Title match, & let Edge's match takle care of his storyline (which no doubt also included his belt/belt run, etc.).
 
Quote from: Professor Prax;8825
Well I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to, but the term "enhancement talent" is wrestling is used interchangeably with Jobbers.

It can be used for other reasons, or you can use "jobbers" & other words/phrases. (Much like Trump hasn't got rights to "you're fired", wrestling as a biz/industry doesn't have rights to the definitions or usage of a word or phrase.)
 
Quote from: Professor Prax;8825
But if you want to use the word "enhance" literally, it still "enhances" the brand or division to have wrestlers on there who aren't world champions.

Not if the wrestlers aren't even decent enough to deserve a career in 1 of the bigger companies. Non-wrestling math: Adding negatives doesn't make the result more-positive.
 
Quote from: Professor Prax;8825
You can't have an entire card of world champions, it just doesn't work that way.

Then why were we just discussing a "Night Of Champions" that appears to be a yearly event by the same company annually?
 
Quote from: Professor Prax;8825
You enhance your brand by filling in voids with the proper talent for each division. Everyone from Val Venis to Batista could be classified as an enhancement talent to a certain degree.

True; But note your use of the word "proper"... Guys like KK do not properly enhance any show they're on (yet, that I've seen).
 
Quote from: Professor Prax;8825
My original point was that Shelton/Hardy was added last minute not because either competitor isn't over, but because the bookers weren't certain whether there'd be time for the match so the put it off just in case. Good booking in my opinion, as opposed to rushing the card and ending up with a short and pointless match if there wasn't time.
 
I then proceed to say that they're not the most over of talent, which isn't a contradiction to the point where I say that a late addition match doesn't mean that they aren't over, just that they aren't as over as the main eventers... which is obvious, since they aren't main eventing.
 
So I'd love for you to attempt to point out a contradiction.

You asked for it? You got it. You first said,
 
Quote from: Professor Prax;8825
Benjamin & Kennedy aren't the most over of talent, & both have ruined any semblance of a push they've recieved.

After which you said,
 
Quote from: Professor Prax;8825
I don't think either will ever hold a world title (Maybe Kennedy if he gets pver his recent bad luck), but I mean that's no reason to let them go.

So I was saying that 1 cancels the other out; If the latter isn't enough of a reason to let them go, WWE can use the fact that they aren't the most over of talent, & have ruined/misused most (if not all) pushes they've been given.

Offline RyPrax

  • FEED. ME. MORE.
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9097
  • FINISH. HIM.
US Division. The Potential
« Reply #24 on: 22 July 2008, 05:04:31 AM »
Quote from: TJChurch;8831
But then make it a point to give, explain, & expect specifics on that belt (it seems), & certainly on many wrestlers...


check...
 

 
Quote
Could've had this exact match booked at NoC... Chavo was only in any Title hunt, as I recall, due to his connections to La Familia, which was an SD HW Title-related storyline. If it's about the Titles available to each brand, I'd believe Edge was defending his, so put Shelton in a Title match, & let Edge's match takle care of his storyline (which no doubt also included his belt/belt run, etc.).
 


Regardless of who should've been in the US title match at NoC, Chavo was, because he had storylines to tie-up (la Familia stuff) and Shelton was on Smackdown for a whopping 6 days and only 1 taping. So ya that wouldn't make sense.

 
Quote
It can be used for other reasons, or you can use "jobbers" & other words/phrases.


Nope, enhancement talent is the word used for filler/jobber talent in wrestling, and not much else.


Quote
(Much like Trump hasn't got rights to "you're fired"


Wrong again, he has trademarked that phrase.

Quote
, wrestling as a biz/industry doesn't have rights to the definitions or usage of a word or phrase.)


Words and phrases can be trademarked just as much as anything else... That's 3 in a row buddy, you're out.

 
Quote
Not if the wrestlers aren't even decent enough to deserve a career in 1 of the bigger companies.


Well that's your opinion, I would argue that anyone employed by a big company adds something to the product, otherwise they wouldn't be employed. Val Venis adds little to the actual product himself, but he's a mentor backstage to young guys and when they need someone to do the job in a squash he's willing to do the job.

So whether you're doing it by wrestling in the mid card or jobbing in dark matches, you're still "enhancing" the product, because every brand needs both mid carders and jobbers alike.


Quote
Non-wrestling math: Adding negatives doesn't make the result more-positive.

 
Adding Two negatives = a positive. ;)

 
Quote
Then why were we just discussing a "Night Of Champions" that appears to be a yearly event by the same company annually?

 
What does that have to do with what i said?

 
Quote
True; But note your use of the word "proper"... Guys like KK do not properly enhance any show they're on (yet, that I've seen).

 
That's your opinion. Ken Kennedy has his fans.

 
Quote
You asked for it? You got it. You first said,
 

 
After which you said,
 

 
So I was saying that 1 cancels the other out; If the latter isn't enough of a reason to let them go, WWE can use the fact that they aren't the most over of talent, & have ruined/misused most (if not all) pushes they've been given.


That's not a contradiction in the slightest. Val Venis will never be a world champion, should the fire him?

What about Chuck Palumbo? Jamie Noble? Hardcore Holly? Kane? Matt Striker? Jim Duggan? Paul London? Brian Kendrick? Snitsky? Cryme Tyme? Santino? BVD? Carlito?  FINLAY!?! All these guys should be fired because they'll never win a world title?

Please, this is the nature of the entire argument before this point, every brand needs their enhancement talent, their wrestlers that won't win championships necessarily, at least for the most part, but could still have a use on the show.

So no, just because they might never be world champions doesn't mean they're prime candidates for firing.


Think I'll have a wank over these tomorrow.

Offline TJChurch

  • Master Of Mayhem
  • Banned
  • ****
  • Posts: 401
US Division. The Potential
« Reply #25 on: 22 July 2008, 08:38:14 PM »
Quote from: Professor Prax;9008
check...

Checked it, & found you hadn't done it?
 
Quote from: Professor Prax;9008
Regardless of who should've been in the US title match at NoC, Chavo was, because he had storylines to tie-up (la Familia stuff) & Shelton was on Smackdown for a whopping 6 days & only 1 taping. So ya that wouldn't make sense.

1] As I said before, La Familia was involved in 1 of the main events, if not the main-main event... So no need to use that for Chavo, too.)
 
2] Half the things WWE does, or even considers, don't make sense.
 
3] As for Shelton, WWE makes last-minute changes to storylines all the time. (See: Kennedy... Vince's son, MITB, etc.)
 
Quote from: Professor Prax;9008
Nope, enhancement talent is the word used for filler/jobber talent in wrestling, & not much else.

"Not much" is not "nothing"... As I said, it could be for other reasons. (Depends, for part, on persons/situation/etc.)
 
Quote from: Professor Prax;9008
Wrong again, he has trademarked that phrase.

He & Vince were actually all over the 'Net in the same stories when he tried (pre-Battle of Billionaires), & it wasn't done.
 
Quote from: Professor Prax;9008
Words & phrases can be trademarked just as much as anything else... That's 3 in a row buddy, you're out.

For people (Trump, etc.), but not to a business... And 3 things that can't be proven or disproven doesn't knock-out anyone.
 
Quote from: Professor Prax;9008
Well that's your opinion,

Which is no worse or less-correct than anything you've said.
 
Quote from: Professor Prax;9008
I would argue that anyone employed by a big company adds something to the product, otherwise they wouldn't be employed

Esp. in these days of corporate problems, bankruptcies, etc., some people can stay around as long as they don't make obvious mistakes... Or in WWE's case, aren't in the public eye much at all.
 
Quote from: Professor Prax;9008
Val Venis adds little to the actual product himself, but he's a mentor backstage to young guys & when they need someone to do the job in a squash he's willing to do the job.

Nobody's gonna argue they need to toss Val/Sean right now.... Though as for the mentoring, ask Austin or Kennedy himself how many guys he's talked to for help that aren't even on the payroll. (Austin recently said he thought KK had listened to too many.)
 
Quote from: Professor Prax;9008
So whether you're doing it by wrestling in the mid card or jobbing in dark matches, you're still "enhancing" the product, because every brand needs both mid carders & jobbers alike.

But enhancing/jobbing still makes someone a lot more valuable when they do it on ECW than in FCW.... Not to mention a lot of the wrestlers WWE has in development every year that they release, & publicly announce the release of, without them ever reaching TV.
 
Quote from: Professor Prax;9008
Adding Two negatives = a positive. ;)

There's a strike against you; Neg. 1 plus itself isn't a Pos.
 
Quote from: Professor Prax;9008
What does that have to do with what i said?

You said you couldn't have a card full of Champs, & that "it doesn't work that way", so I pointed-out the yearly night where every match is a Title match, which WWE obviously thinks works enough for them (or they wouldn't have done it 2x.)
 
If you don't know/understand what you say, or what my responses to you have to do with what you say, you force people to give-up. (Same thing as the contradictions, in a way.)
 
Quote from: Professor Prax;9008
That's your opinion. Ken Kennedy has his fans.

Yeah, & while I disagree with them, I have nothing against them. (That's 1 reason I often wonder about wrestling debate; We all see the same matches for the most part, & see talent or a lack thereof in the same person.... Some of that, though, is what makes wrestling harder to debate other sports, since unlike golf for instance, it always includes 2 people, & 1 could be carrying the other.)
 
Quote from: Professor Prax;9008
That's not a contradiction in the slightest. Val Venis will never be a world champion, should the fire him?
 
What about Chuck Palumbo? Jamie Noble? Hardcore Holly? Kane? Matt Striker? Jim Duggan? Paul London? Brian Kendrick? Snitsky? Cryme Tyme? Santino? BVD? Carlito? FINLAY!?! All these guys should be fired because they'll never win a world title?

Well, for one, never say never. (5 years ago, who would've seen Rey as a Heavyweight Champ? Khali?) Besides, some of them have talent, but just the same problem as Rey had, according to some: Not being a Heavyweight physically, or being in the HW Division. The creation of a SD Women's belt tells me that such things could change at any time.
 
Quote from: Professor Prax;9008
Please, this is the nature of the entire argument

I say "debate" (@ least in this post), but you say "argument", & make things against me ("3 in a row... you're out), etc... That may be part of the reason we've been having problems/having this back-&-forth bettwen just us in this thread so much.
 
Quote from: Professor Prax;9008
before this point, every brand needs their enhancement talent, their wrestlers that won't win championships necessarily, at least for the most part, but could still have a use on the show.

True, but that last part is wherein the difference lies; Some people, for 1 reason or another (their fault or not), don't have uses on certain shows.
 
Quote from: Professor Prax;9008
So no, just because they might never be world champions doesn't mean they're prime candidates for firing.

No, but we could make a list just as long (perhaps) of the people who were not "prime candidates for firing", & WWE has done it anyway. (Let's not turn a blind eye to people like Charlie Haas who have been re-signed, & still not done much on the average week-to-week basis.

Offline RyPrax

  • FEED. ME. MORE.
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9097
  • FINISH. HIM.
US Division. The Potential
« Reply #26 on: 23 July 2008, 09:01:44 AM »
Quote from: TJChurch;9148
Checked it, & found you hadn't done it?
 
1] As I said before, La Familia was involved in 1 of the main events, if not the main-main event... So no need to use that for Chavo, too.)


So because 1 out of 5 guys in a stable was being used in an entire PPV, there was no need to use another of them in a match? that makes no sense.

 
Quote
2] Half the things WWE does, or even considers, don't make sense.


I'm pretty sure they draw the line at giving a ppv title match to someone who has no build-up on the show he was drafted and is barely over, as opposed to someone who has a reason to receive a title shot (connections with the GM).
 

Quote
3] As for Shelton, WWE makes last-minute changes to storylines all the time. (See: Kennedy... Vince's son, MITB, etc.)


In all your examples someone got suspended for a wellness violation (or injury in other cases), no one was injured now.
 

 
Quote
"Not much" is not "nothing"... As I said, it could be for other reasons. (Depends, for part, on persons/situation/etc.)


Semantics... besides, in this entire exchange you've yet to mention one other context is used under.

So no, you're wrong, enhancement talent is used to describe filler talent and jobber talent.
 

 
Quote
He & Vince were actually all over the 'Net in the same stories when he tried (pre-Battle of Billionaires), & it wasn't done.

 
Actually it is trademarks by the parent company of the guy who produces the apprentice (Mark Burnett), there's just a lot of opposition to it and the topic kind of died. But it is trademarked, look it up.

 
Quote
For people (Trump, etc.), but not to a business... And 3 things that can't be proven or disproven doesn't knock-out anyone.

 
You're fired is trademarked to a business...

 
Quote
Which is no worse or less-correct than anything you've said.
 
Esp. in these days of corporate problems, bankruptcies, etc.,


WWE is in no risk of any of those things.


Quote
some people can stay around as long as they don't make obvious mistakes... Or in WWE's case, aren't in the public eye much at all.


So you're saying that if someone in WWE doesn't add to the product, but no one notices, then that's the reason they aren't fired? that makes no sense... how would they not notice if they aren't being used on television or in matches?

In WWE, NOT being in the public eye is VERY noticeable.
 

 
Quote
Nobody's gonna argue they need to toss Val/Sean right now.... Though as for the mentoring, ask Austin or Kennedy himself how many guys he's talked to for help that aren't even on the payroll. (Austin recently said he thought KK had listened to too many.)

 
So basically you admit that someone can add to the company whilst adding little to the product on TV.

 
Quote
But enhancing/jobbing


Ah, so the words ARE used interchangeably...

Quote

still makes someone a lot more valuable when they do it on ECW than in FCW.... Not to mention a lot of the wrestlers WWE has in development every year that they release, & publicly announce the release of, without them ever reaching TV.

 
I haven't mentioned in developmental in a single post in here, so I don't know what you're getting at. We're talking about dark matches and mid carding on the main product.

 
Quote
There's a strike against you; Neg. 1 plus itself isn't a Pos.

You said you couldn't have a card full of Champs, & that "it doesn't work that way", so I pointed-out the yearly night where every match is a Title match, which WWE obviously thinks works enough for them (or they wouldn't have done it 2x.)


I said World Champions, not just champions.

And they only do Once a year...


 
Quote
If you don't know/understand what you say, or what my responses to you have to do with what you say, you force people to give-up. (Same thing as the contradictions, in a way.)
 


When they have nothing to do with what I was saying in the previous post in a lot cases, and your sentences are seldom properly structures, it's often difficult to follow.

 
Quote
Yeah, & while I disagree with them, I have nothing against them. (That's 1 reason I often wonder about wrestling debate; We all see the same matches for the most part, & see talent or a lack thereof in the same person.... Some of that, though, is what makes wrestling harder to debate other sports, since unlike golf for instance, it always includes 2 people, & 1 could be carrying the other.)


Simple as, a wrestler wouldn't be in the biggest company unless they had some sort of talent (unless they're hired for a specific reason, like Khali). If someone goes through the indys, WWE developmental, years on smackdown on the undercard and then on the upper midcard on RAW, as well as having to go through the adversities of injuries and wellness violations, and he's still employed by the company on television (although admittedly less than before), he must still be doing something wrong, even if you think he has no talent and no worth. he obviously does if people are still cheering him and he's still employed.

I see where you're coming from to a certain extent though. In normal sports, the talent is blatantly visible. You either do well or you don't. In wrestling, there are just so many other factors, and I guess you can get away with being carried for a while.

But not for as long as Kennedy has been around, no way you can argue that. You might consider yourself a bit of an armchair booker to a certain extent, but the guys at WWE are professionals, especially the road agents, if they thought Kennedy wasn't pulling his weight, they would've noticed and taken action (and they have, he's used less). But like I said, that in no way, shape, or form means he has no talent.

It's just that some people (you, and others on this forum) are harsher on the talent and product than others.

 

 
Quote
Well, for one, never say never. (5 years ago, who would've seen Rey as a Heavyweight Champ? Khali?) Besides, some of them have talent, but just the same problem as Rey had, according to some: Not being a Heavyweight physically, or being in the HW Division. The creation of a SD Women's belt tells me that such things could change at any time.


Granted, but I knew Khali would have a run the moment he stepped into WWE, unless they were going to use him for one or two feuds and get rid of him. If he was going to stick around, he needed a title run to look legitimate.

Mysterio? Although I didn't think they would actually give a cruiser the heavyweight title, he was way too over not to push him to the main event at least.

Regardless of the "never say never" rule, there are still guys in the wrestling industry and WWE specificially who will never win the championship unless some sort of catastrophe occurred, so I refute your hypothesis.



 

 
Quote
I say "debate" (@ least in this post), but you say "argument", & make things against me ("3 in a row... you're out), etc...


Definition of Debate from dictionary.com:    to engage in formal argumentation or disputation with (another person, group, etc.)


Think I'll have a wank over these tomorrow.

Offline TJChurch

  • Master Of Mayhem
  • Banned
  • ****
  • Posts: 401
US Division. The Potential
« Reply #27 on: 24 July 2008, 03:16:28 PM »
Since you like looking definitions up, look up "like to hear yourself talk", & tell me what the 'Net version is of what you've done a long time in this thread.
 
Also, look up the word "opinion", & see the description of half the things we've been posting for a while. Then, look up "wrong", & see a desc. for a lot of what's been posted.
 
Finally, look-up the word/phrase "somebody else", & see a desc. of who should post next in this thread. (Forum activity in threads is enhanced when it's more than the same 2 folks posting the same things ad nauseum back-&-forth.)