April 15, 2013
March 19, 2013
March 3, 2013
February 23, 2013
British student, doing American & Canadian Studies at the University of Birmingham.
I'm a big time fan of WWE, bad movies, retro gaming and music. Talk to me about music - any kind of music. Whatever you're into, it is either gonna be a passion of mine or a genre I wish I knew more about.
You can follow me on twitter: http://www.twitter.com/TheRamblingElf
I appreciate it when colleagues on here (fellow writers as well as commenters, an under-rated yet integral part of this site) add me on LinkedIn: http://lnkd.in/8njxZb
Please visit my blog. The theme is unusual or amusing signposts and notices. We accept submissions! http://herearesomefunnysignposts.blogspot.co.uk/
Also, if you're a metal fan, check out my weekly online radio show! Details can be found here, along with links to MP3s from all our old shows (just click the "about" tab for the links): https://www.facebook.com/MetalSocRadio. Please give the page a "like", too, I really, really appreciate it if you could do that!
That's odd, If I got to her page it says we're not connected. Not sure.
Just accepted your thing on LinkedIn. Yes, those sites make you realize how small the world really is. What friend are you speaking of on LinkedIn? For some reason her name isn't ringing a bell. Send me the link of whoever it is. Keep in touch.
There is currently a dangerous troll on the loose. Read the bottom part of my bio for more details.
ER is approaching...you've given any thought on what you want to wager?
You are very far off.
Did you vanish?
True, you can argue that giving the guy 10 title reigns really makes him look like this unstoppable guy but unless of course, you can just argue that it means that guy also lost 10 times as well. Personally, I feel longer title reigns are more prestige because it means you were a strong champion that hardly ever lost, as opposed to losing it all the time and then just win it back again only to lose again the next time you defend it.
Multiple title reigns look impressive, but what good is it if most of those were only 2 weeks-1 month? After Punk had a near year long title reign, it looks as if the WWE is returning to their old roots of hot potato. Do you think titles changing hands too often devalues the prestige? I argue that it does unless it actually progress the story and not just having titles change just for the sake of it.
Alright. So what kind of deal should we make? But first let's pick a match to deal on.
He's at a stage where he should NEVER win another world title because he doesn't need it anymore and in a way, he's above the title now. But he's 36, he still has at least 5 years to go. I can't see him going without a title for more than a year, as well as not challenging or being in the main event anymore. Unless he decides to take a part time schedule where he'll only challenge wrestlers for the title but not win them and still be in the main event but like for the big things. He can take the Hogan schedule he had back in the 80's.
I'm glad you brought that up. 'cause I've always wondered about this what do you think is more important, long title reigns or multiple title reigns?
Actually I was thinking we choose one match from the card and we give our predictions as to who we think will win. The loser must do something to honor the winner. Eh?
Actually we make a bet on a match from the card as to who we think will win. What the best is can be decided later.
I've actually been seeing more ideas emerge for this match as to what could happen, and I think the only logical thing to do is to have this match end in a draw. That way there's no loser, Ryback looks strong, and Cena keeps the title from having another short reign again. Though if what you said is true, I can see Ryback taking the title from him at the next PPV, and then see Cena win it back AGAIN at the next. It pains me to see them trying to make Cena catch up to Flair with all these short pointless title reigns.
Yeah. I see from your predictions you weren't that off. In fact, that's a good thing since they're booking wasn't as predictable as we all thought it'd be (though except for the HHH/Lesnar bout). The ppv buildup could be better, but I feel the buildup is def better than Wrestlemania's as well as the actual card. Is it bad if a ER is looking better than Wrestlemania?
I agree. I told you right everything about that match felt awkward and forced, like something happened prior to their match and it showed in their performance. It was basically a finisher spot fest. ER on the other hand is looking pretty interesting. The Rybacl/Cena card is the most interesting since both men CANNOT afford a loss (Ryback because of his heel turn and Cena because he just won the title). I'm hoping for Cena to win only because I don't want him to have another short title reign (this way he'll cheat and break Flair's record in no time) but I think as long as Ryback dominates the entire match (like 95% of most of Cena's matches), he should still be fine as long as he gave Cena a tougher time. The rest of the matches already look predictable as it is.
I have an idea to make things a little more "interesting" if you're up for it.