Jump to content

Warrior Fan

Warrior Fan

Member Since 05 Nov 2013
OFFLINE Last Active Private

In Topic: BREAKING: Roman Reigns Suspended

25 June 2016 - 04:03 PM

Ramm Junge, on 25 Jun 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:Ramm Junge, on 25 Jun 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:Ramm Junge, on 25 Jun 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:Ramm Junge, on 25 Jun 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:Ramm Junge, on 25 Jun 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:Ramm Junge, on 25 Jun 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:Ramm Junge, on 25 Jun 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:Ramm Junge, on 25 Jun 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:Ramm Junge, on 25 Jun 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:Ramm Junge, on 25 Jun 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:Ramm Junge, on 25 Jun 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:

 

Warrior Fan, on 24 Jun 2016 - 6:42 PM, said:Warrior Fan, on 24 Jun 2016 - 6:42 PM, said:Warrior Fan, on 24 Jun 2016 - 6:42 PM, said:Warrior Fan, on 24 Jun 2016 - 6:42 PM, said:Warrior Fan, on 24 Jun 2016 - 6:42 PM, said:Warrior Fan, on 24 Jun 2016 - 6:42 PM, said:Warrior Fan, on 24 Jun 2016 - 6:42 PM, said:Warrior Fan, on 24 Jun 2016 - 6:42 PM, said:Warrior Fan, on 24 Jun 2016 - 6:42 PM, said:Warrior Fan, on 24 Jun 2016 - 6:42 PM, said:Warrior Fan, on 24 Jun 2016 - 6:42 PM, said:

I understand that Vince is a crazy guy that has almost no limits but what I'm getting at is the fact that these things have all been done in on-air story lines. Violating the wellness policy has no correlation with what is actually happening on the main product; that's what you're failing to understand. You don't seem to understand that Roman not being on TV is bad for them. When Cena is injured, they try to rush him back as soon as possible because of how important he is for them. Every week he's not on TV is another week they dread; it's no different for Reigns. They want Reigns on TV and pretending he violated the wellness policy and having him off of TV in hopes fans would like him makes no sense because that has never been the case in the past; ever. You think Vince would suspend everyone else no matter how big they are but not suspend Reigns? Thirty days away from the company in the midst of a story line concerning Ambrose and Rollins? Does that really make sense to you?

 

You're taking something that's a major part of their public image and applying it to story lines and I don't understand why you don't see the issue in that. When WWE addresses the public, their wellness policy is one of those things they want people to know is a major part of who they are and that's it's a serious matter to them. How can you acknowledge that top wrestlers like Randy Orton and Jeff Hardy were suspended despite being major stars at the time but refuse to believe that Reigns was suspended? This isn't a conspiracy.

 

Can you provide links to these intentional shots to the head because I have yet to see one. I don't mean accidental where the person taken the shot didn't move in time but measured and calculated shots to the head like back in the Attitude Era and original ECW days in which there's no question that was their intention. A chair shot to the back that may happen to hit a person on the head isn't what I'm talking about. I'm not not going to get into rumors because it wouldn't get anywhere. The facts are that top stars in the past have been suspended in the past for violating the wellness policy, why do you think this is any different? Why do you think they would mock the very thing that's a major part of their corporate image in which they have shareholders to answer to? Why do you think they would choose a ridiculous story that has no history of being successful and not being able to have their golden child on TV for thirty days (not to mention him being right in the middle of a main event story line leading into the next PPV as well as missing scheduled live events)? I'm sincerely curious to know the answers to these questions.

 

A video posted by WWE where shows clearly that Dean shots Seth to the head:

Bruh, you didn't saw Money in the Bank 2016? There were at least 2 more moments where wrestlers got shots to the head. Of course, they had their hands up for protection, but still...

 

Why would you think I will answer to your questions about my own opinion? I answered so far to many of them and all you did was to still not agree with me. I have my own opinion, such as you have your own. I didn't tried to change your opinion, while YOUR ISSUES seams to be about me not changing my own opinion. Just because my opinion is so different than yours, I do not have a reason to explain everything to you. And if you like the questions-game, I'll play it too:

 

Where's the logic of taking Natalya off from the TV so much time, and then make to her a great return only to job to Charlotte?

Where's the logic of firing Damien Sandow?

Where's the logic of taking CM Punk off of TV, and then fire him on his wedding day?(yeah, old, so what?)

Where's the logic of making Lana getting in love with Dolph Ziggler while she was Rusev's REAL LIFE girlfriend?

Where's the logic of making Rusev, Alberto Del Rio, Sheamus and Wade Barrett looking so weak, while The League Of Nations could have been an extremely powerful force in WWE period?

Where's the logic of not letting Cody Rhodes to turn as Cody Rhodes again on TV?

Where's the logic of depushing Paige so much as she looks so weak on screen?

Where's the logic of kipping Kane inside a wrestling ring with a staph infection?(again, old news, but so what?)

Where's the logic of not wanting China as a HOF until she died?(here Triple H may have been involved too, I can't disagree)

 

And those are some of the recent ones I remember, with the exception of 2 of them, which were actually important.

 

You mean Dean Ambrose pushing the MIB suitcase into Rollins elbow? That's not what we're talking about and that can hardly be considered contact. We can clearly see Ambrose hitting Rollins elbow and if you watch the moment in real time, it's more like Ambrose barely shoves the suitcase into Rollins elbow which is a spot that has always been around. You might have to watch it again. When I say chair shots to the head, I mean this (and no, it doesn't have to be this hard but there has to be no protection and it has to be calculated and intentional): https://www.youtube....h?v=UfbFgyfZTUI

No, I didn't see certain matches like Titus and Rusev and didn't watch all of the main event so unless these happened in those matches, I've never seen what you're claiming and you're claiming there were at least 2.

 

So I'm not allowed to try to question and understand your opinion because it's your opinion? We're not talking about a scenario in which you say "John Cena is the best wrestler of all time", that's totally different than "The Montreal Screwjob was a work" or in this case, "Roman Reigns is off of TV because they want the fans to like him". It's not based on personal taste and it's something that we can evaluate. I assumed this was a forum in which people could respond to others take on things and question them regardless of it being their opinion. If you say "in my opinion, dinosaurs never roamed the earth and fossils were placed there to trick us", I'm not allowed to respond to that or is there just a limit on how many questions I can ask?

 

Actually not really, you'll respond to my question and then when I follow up on your response you'll just ignore it such as when I said that no wrestler has gained anything from violating the wellness policy and you said Adam Rose and I refuted this claim, you never responded to it. Other times you'll acknowledge that a point I made is valid and that's the end of that such as with Randy Orton. If Randy Orton being suspended on more than one occasion is valid then why does that point just evaporate as if it was never made? Other times you don't respond to valid points such as having Reigns off of TV for 30 days despite being their golden boy in the midst of a main event angle and the resulting loss in profit as well as missed lived events that he is (or was) scheduled for. You don't respond to these things.

 

The funny thing about your questions are that I have very interesting theories behind the majority of them but I'm sure those questions weren't asked with the intention of me actually answering them although I can share my theories if you want me to. The questions you've asked also aren't questions that you've given your own take on either; they're simply "why did this happen, huh?" as opposed to "I think Sandow was fired because the WWE hates his beard, what do you think?". You see the difference? I'm not playing a "game" but if you're going to get upset and/or offended because we're having a discussion concerning why I think you're wrong then I'll just leave this alone.


In Topic: BREAKING: Roman Reigns Suspended

24 June 2016 - 11:42 PM

 

No, Adam Rose had fans that stood up for him because what he was suspended for was authorized by his doctor; It had nothing to do with fans thinking he was cool because he was taking something WWE didn't approve of. Again, many wrestlers have been busted and suspended and it has done nothing for their careers. Also, much like John Cena, WWE would never have the patience to leave Roman Reigns off of TV for an entire month. They'd much sooner lie and say that Reigns beat up ten guys in a bar than say he violated their wellness policy if they wanted him to look "cool". The wellness policy was put in place after the Benoit incident, it's not something they take lightly and the fact that Orton has been suspended numerous times despite being their golden boy (after Cena of course) says a lot. You're talking about ridiculous story lines, most of which were not in the recent past which is why I made sure to write "recent" but nonetheless these are on-air ridiculous story lines. I emphasize on-air story lines.

 

I apologize, I don't mean any disrespect but quite a bit of what you wrote I'm having a hard time understanding. The ones that I can understand still don't make any sense. What does Titus O'Neil being suspended for grabbing Vince have to do with this? What does Reigns looking strong have to do with anything? I'll go back to Randy Orton, the WWE has a fondness for Randy Orton that goes beyond my understanding but regardless, they love him. He has been suspended on more than one occasion and at one time, they were afraid to even put the title on him because if he had gotten another strike, he'd have to vacate the title. I'm using Orton as an example to emphasize my argument, the wellness policy is something they take serious and even Reigns isn't immune from it. Reigns being off TV takes away sales which takes away profit and above everything else, it makes their wellness policy look like a work which it isn't.The wellness program has a page focused on it on their company website which I can link you to if you like.

 

Yes, at one time wrestlers were allowed to take drugs and hit each other over the heads with chairs and work even if any qualified doctor would say otherwise etc but that time is long gone and as I've mentioned, even the top stars haven't been immune since the policy has been put in place. I get that people want to believe that anything that happens with Reigns is to make him look "cool" but you also have to take all things into consideration.

 

All right, I'll take it slowly this time. First of all, is alright, you didn't offended me with that, since I don't speak English very well.

 

Second of all, I gave to you all of those examples, to show to you that when WWE, or ehm, Vince McMahon haves something in his head, and he really wants to apply, it doesn't matter how stupid or embarrassing it looks, he will do it. He is the boss, and even if his decision looks like a 5 years old's decision, he will still apply it, because he can. Of course, for him are no more consequences, because people are still buying his products. And this thing also applies when he wants to push somebody, even if most of the fans don't want. And as you could see from SOME of the examples(even if passed decades since then), he will do anything in his power to push somebody HE wants.

 

As for your example with Randy Orton, I have to agree with you at one point. I have no idea how WWE accepted so many bad stuffs from him. This whole thing with "the 3'rd generation" isn't a good answer(of course, you didn't said that, but at one point, in 2009, as I believe, this was his re-pushing TV reason) because Cody Rhodes, Ted Dibiase Jr., Manu and many others didn't really "made it". Randy may be a miracle there. LOL

 

Uhm, as I see, wrestlers are starting again to hit each other on the head. They are doing rarely, that's true, but still, it happens again. And I can't make a statement, but I also can bring rumors, that actual wrestlers still do use drugs. And as much as you or anybody would want to believe that WWE doesn't allow drugs using, they do actually allow this thing, but in a limited way. And I make reference to the illegal drugs. But again, those are just rumors I bring, so you have all the rights to criticize me for those (apparently) fake rumors.

 

I understand that Vince is a crazy guy that has almost no limits but what I'm getting at is the fact that these things have all been done in on-air story lines. Violating the wellness policy has no correlation with what is actually happening on the main product; that's what you're failing to understand. You don't seem to understand that Roman not being on TV is bad for them. When Cena is injured, they try to rush him back as soon as possible because of how important he is for them. Every week he's not on TV is another week they dread; it's no different for Reigns. They want Reigns on TV and pretending he violated the wellness policy and having him off of TV in hopes fans would like him makes no sense because that has never been the case in the past; ever. You think Vince would suspend everyone else no matter how big they are but not suspend Reigns? Thirty days away from the company in the midst of a story line concerning Ambrose and Rollins? Does that really make sense to you?

 

You're taking something that's a major part of their public image and applying it to story lines and I don't understand why you don't see the issue in that. When WWE addresses the public, their wellness policy is one of those things they want people to know is a major part of who they are and that's it's a serious matter to them. How can you acknowledge that top wrestlers like Randy Orton and Jeff Hardy were suspended despite being major stars at the time but refuse to believe that Reigns was suspended? This isn't a conspiracy.

 

Can you provide links to these intentional shots to the head because I have yet to see one. I don't mean accidental where the person taken the shot didn't move in time but measured and calculated shots to the head like back in the Attitude Era and original ECW days in which there's no question that was their intention. A chair shot to the back that may happen to hit a person on the head isn't what I'm talking about. I'm not not going to get into rumors because it wouldn't get anywhere. The facts are that top stars in the past have been suspended in the past for violating the wellness policy, why do you think this is any different? Why do you think they would mock the very thing that's a major part of their corporate image in which they have shareholders to answer to? Why do you think they would choose a ridiculous story that has no history of being successful and not being able to have their golden child on TV for thirty days (not to mention him being right in the middle of a main event story line leading into the next PPV as well as missing scheduled live events)? I'm sincerely curious to know the answers to these questions.


In Topic: BREAKING: Roman Reigns Suspended

24 June 2016 - 05:08 AM

 

 

You're really fast man, haha. I just saw it and wanted to post it. xD

 

I believe is a WWE's trick. I don't know why, but that's what I feel. I mean, they MUST do something to make Roman cool with his fans. With this violation, Roman still played the good guy and accepted his mistakes, unlike other wrestlers. Hmm...

I don't think there's a chance the WWE as a PG product would make up a story concerning someone being suspended for violation of the wellness policy for the sole purpose of making him a bigger star. I really think people give the WWE way too much credit when they do things right and more times than not, assume what they hope to be true. The WWE has a track record that reflects a company that stumbles into success; Usually what you see is what you get. Case in point, if CM Punk is gone for months, it's most likely because him being fired wasn't a work and in this case, if Reigns is suspended for violating the wellness policy, it's probably because he really did violate the wellness policy.

 

well i see what you mean but i really don't see wwe as being strictly PG anymore. we've been seeing more and more blood here and there, we hear the swearing going unfiltered so it seems wwe is trying to move away from being too pg although it's still there.

 

True, I wouldn't say they were "strictly PG" either although the blood is almost always a wrestler being busted hard way. The issue with what they're doing is that they're trying to cater to very young kids and adults simultaneously which can be a bit of a problem. If I was a parent, I personally wouldn't let my 4 or 5 year old child watch WWE if it had profanity because kids are sponges around that age but at the same time, this is also the age group the WWE wants to target.


In Topic: BREAKING: Roman Reigns Suspended

24 June 2016 - 03:08 AM

 

 

 

 

You're really fast man, haha. I just saw it and wanted to post it. xD

 

I believe is a WWE's trick. I don't know why, but that's what I feel. I mean, they MUST do something to make Roman cool with his fans. With this violation, Roman still played the good guy and accepted his mistakes, unlike other wrestlers. Hmm...

I don't think there's a chance the WWE as a PG product would make up a story concerning someone being suspended for violation of the wellness policy for the sole purpose of making him a bigger star. I really think people give the WWE way too much credit when they do things right and more times than not, assume what they hope to be true. The WWE has a track record that reflects a company that stumbles into success; Usually what you see is what you get. Case in point, if CM Punk is gone for months, it's most likely because him being fired wasn't a work and in this case, if Reigns is suspended for violating the wellness policy, it's probably because he really did violate the wellness policy.

 

What makes me to think that is a work, is because they tried to push him so hard in the last months, even in news and pools. Damn, they said he haves the best catchaphrase, or something like that. I have no idea what that was. And again, SOMETHING, I DO NOT REMEMBER IT!

Second of all, I never believed that CM Punk's fire was a WWE work. I mean, he worked really hard to arrive at a level, where WWE just liked to turn on him. Yes, he was and still is the longest WWE champion in the last decade, but he lost against The Rock, against a guy who at that time was acting and not wrestled. A guy who only came back, to win the title from CM Punk to give it to John Cena 2-3 months later. Where was the logic? Ego. There was the logic, in their ego.

Anyway, like I said, what WWE did now with Roman, I will still believe that is a job. And that's my own opinion.

 

I was just using CM Punk as an example to say that what you see is what you get. Think about it, when is the last time the WWE has legitimately swerved (not the WWE network show) everyone? I agree, they have been trying very hard to make Reigns likable but I can't see WWE lying about someone violating the wellness policy even if it was for an angle; they take their wellness policy really serious. Also, there's nothing cool about violating the wellness policy. The fans have never rallied behind someone that failed a drug test so what reason would the WWE have to lie about something like this? What has the WWE done in the recent past to make you think they would even try something like this?

 

Adam Rose was suspended for 60 days because of a failed drug test. He had the balls to confront WWE on twitter, so fans standed up for him.

Now Roman Reigns is suspended for 30 days because of a failed drug test. He recognized his fail on twitter, like a good guy, after months of hard work, and interviews where his money winning was the best thing at the end of the day, as he declared in one interview.

As far as I know Vince McMahon, he would've have a wrestling match against God, only to show his true power. Oh wait, he actually did that. He "wrestled God" at a time.

He actually made a whole TV drama on internet to make his son rise in people's eyes, while he actually blamed him, and then showed his true love.(Here I don't make a remark that he hates his son, he actually loves him, but my remark is how far he can go for the show)

He "escaped from jail", he "died", he played with many lives(Edge-Lita-Hardy; Rusev-Lana-Dolph; CM Punk-AJ Lee-Kane; etc).

Those are some of the insane things which normal persons won't even be able to think at, but he was not only thinking, he actually made them.

He made some talents to play awful characters on screen, just because he didn't wanted them to be better than his awful "talents" who played great characters.

He suspended Titus O Neil, because this guy touched him on screen and made a joke to him in an "innapropiate moment".

He showed some fake pools only to make Roman to look strong.

He made a group of 4 best guys to job to Roman Reigns.

He made Roman to never lose a match clean, only 1 time against Big Show and 1 time against Seth Rollins. As a note, to lose clean, means 1 vs 1 normal match without interference or some dirty moves during the match.

 

BTW, do you believe that some of the actual or past wrestlers never used drugs? Especially those banned substances they talk about? And actually during their career in WWE? They did, and WWE said nothing to them. Why? Because WWE needed them and still need them. The drug fail test is just a bullsh*t from time to time, to can suspend some of the wrestlers for totally another reasons. I have worked many time with people, and I saw what kind of things can happen. Some bosses are opened to close their eyes to some people, because they actually need them, it doesn't matter what those employers do.

 

No, Adam Rose had fans that stood up for him because what he was suspended for was authorized by his doctor; It had nothing to do with fans thinking he was cool because he was taking something WWE didn't approve of. Again, many wrestlers have been busted and suspended and it has done nothing for their careers. Also, much like John Cena, WWE would never have the patience to leave Roman Reigns off of TV for an entire month. They'd much sooner lie and say that Reigns beat up ten guys in a bar than say he violated their wellness policy if they wanted him to look "cool". The wellness policy was put in place after the Benoit incident, it's not something they take lightly and the fact that Orton has been suspended numerous times despite being their golden boy (after Cena of course) says a lot. You're talking about ridiculous story lines, most of which were not in the recent past which is why I made sure to write "recent" but nonetheless these are on-air ridiculous story lines. I emphasize on-air story lines.

 

I apologize, I don't mean any disrespect but quite a bit of what you wrote I'm having a hard time understanding. The ones that I can understand still don't make any sense. What does Titus O'Neil being suspended for grabbing Vince have to do with this? What does Reigns looking strong have to do with anything? I'll go back to Randy Orton, the WWE has a fondness for Randy Orton that goes beyond my understanding but regardless, they love him. He has been suspended on more than one occasion and at one time, they were afraid to even put the title on him because if he had gotten another strike, he'd have to vacate the title. I'm using Orton as an example to emphasize my argument, the wellness policy is something they take serious and even Reigns isn't immune from it. Reigns being off TV takes away sales which takes away profit and above everything else, it makes their wellness policy look like a work which it isn't.The wellness program has a page focused on it on their company website which I can link you to if you like.

 

Yes, at one time wrestlers were allowed to take drugs and hit each other over the heads with chairs and work even if any qualified doctor would say otherwise etc but that time is long gone and as I've mentioned, even the top stars haven't been immune since the policy has been put in place. I get that people want to believe that anything that happens with Reigns is to make him look "cool" but you also have to take all things into consideration.


In Topic: BREAKING: Roman Reigns Suspended

23 June 2016 - 06:46 PM

 

 

You're really fast man, haha. I just saw it and wanted to post it. xD

 

I believe is a WWE's trick. I don't know why, but that's what I feel. I mean, they MUST do something to make Roman cool with his fans. With this violation, Roman still played the good guy and accepted his mistakes, unlike other wrestlers. Hmm...

I don't think there's a chance the WWE as a PG product would make up a story concerning someone being suspended for violation of the wellness policy for the sole purpose of making him a bigger star. I really think people give the WWE way too much credit when they do things right and more times than not, assume what they hope to be true. The WWE has a track record that reflects a company that stumbles into success; Usually what you see is what you get. Case in point, if CM Punk is gone for months, it's most likely because him being fired wasn't a work and in this case, if Reigns is suspended for violating the wellness policy, it's probably because he really did violate the wellness policy.

 

What makes me to think that is a work, is because they tried to push him so hard in the last months, even in news and pools. Damn, they said he haves the best catchaphrase, or something like that. I have no idea what that was. And again, SOMETHING, I DO NOT REMEMBER IT!

Second of all, I never believed that CM Punk's fire was a WWE work. I mean, he worked really hard to arrive at a level, where WWE just liked to turn on him. Yes, he was and still is the longest WWE champion in the last decade, but he lost against The Rock, against a guy who at that time was acting and not wrestled. A guy who only came back, to win the title from CM Punk to give it to John Cena 2-3 months later. Where was the logic? Ego. There was the logic, in their ego.

Anyway, like I said, what WWE did now with Roman, I will still believe that is a job. And that's my own opinion.

 

I was just using CM Punk as an example to say that what you see is what you get. Think about it, when is the last time the WWE has legitimately swerved (not the WWE network show) everyone? I agree, they have been trying very hard to make Reigns likable but I can't see WWE lying about someone violating the wellness policy even if it was for an angle; they take their wellness policy really serious. Also, there's nothing cool about violating the wellness policy. The fans have never rallied behind someone that failed a drug test so what reason would the WWE have to lie about something like this? What has the WWE done in the recent past to make you think they would even try something like this?