WWE News: Jim Ross Shoots on the Rock's Mystery Hater
Over the last few weeks, the wrestling world was abuzz with the anonymous WWE superstar that had some very harsh comments regarding The Rock and his return to the company.
Many WWE personalities have voiced their opinions on this mystery superstar and their comments, but now the greatest announcer in WWE history has put in his two cents on the matter.
According to wrestlinginc.com, on a recent episode of Legends of Wrestling on WWE Classics on Demand—which can be viewed here—Ross shared some of his thoughts on this unknown superstar and what he/she said about The Rock.
Here are some excerpts:
"Young guys on the roster, or the Internet guys, or anybody else that says, "Well, how does it effect the current roster that The Rock's going to come back and have key spot and he's not on the road everyday?" I want to say, you people have got to be kidding me. You got to be kidding me. Do you understand what The Rock has done for this business? His family has done for this business? And he's coming back as a major movie star, to get back in the ring and be physical. You think The Rock's going through the motions?" Ross says.
"He can't. It's not in his DNA. The Rock's DNA is "I'm coming back to put boots in asses. I will not be embarrassed. I will not call it in. I will not phone it in. I will kick some ass." The Rock has respect for this business, will have an amazing WrestleMania that we will be talking about for years to come because he is a stallion. And he loves this business."
Ross is on point when it comes to what The Rock has done for the business of professional wrestling and his legacy in the WWE.
If this anonymous WWE superstar is ever revealed, then he or she might be headed for the unemployment line.
Richard Boudreau has been a Syndicated Writer for the Bleacher Report since December 2011. He strives to write in a professional manner, and to ensure on the subject of professional wrestling, readers get the most up to date and informative information.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?