brand watches wiki – rolex watches, omega watches, replica watches

I’m sorry, I heard this from several high profiled users in this section and some other sites so I feel the need to ask. I realized IWC will always cherish any new talent possible, especially the heel ones.

The question is, who in their right mind would believe Undertaker vs Sheamus would be the right follow up of Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels? I’m not trying to offend anyone, but I don’t think Undertaker vs Sheamus would get ‘This is awesome!’ from the crowd or make the crowds stood from start to finish. And by all means, be it status wise or ability wise, Sheamus is nowhere near Shawn Michaels. Not in this lifetime, or the next.

Not to mention, I think we all knew who’s going to win the match. Because if HHH’s best buddy for life couldn’t end The Streak twice, I don’t think his mere workout buddy would.

The Streak lacks big names and credibility thanks to the six nobodies (Giant Gonzales, King Kong Bundy, Big Boss Man, Big Show, A-Train, and Mark Henry), I don’t think we need another no namers to be included on it. The least of all, although the match may not be able to follow Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels TWICE, big name like Jericho would give a bigger credibility.
See? LP23 believe Sheamus vs Undertaker could follow Shawn Michaels vs Undertaker TWICE!

By the time Taker won the match, IWC will accuse him of not putting over Sheamus.
True LP23, The Undertaker has carried so many talents before, but he succeeded on carrying them all?

Undertaker vs Giant Gonzales at WM IX was The Undertaker’s worst match ever.

Undertaker vs King Kong Bundy at WM XI was one of the worst booked matches ever.

Undertaker vs Big Boss Man at WM XV was the worst Hell In A Cell Match ever.

Undertaker vs Big Show & A-Train at WM XIX was one of the worst booked matches ever.

Undertaker vs Mark Henry at WM XXII was the worst casket match ever.

See? No guarantee at all, dude.

And for Red, I have stated Sheamus lacks the ‘big name’ factor.
@Red: Bigger than Jericho?

@LP23: That still counts as failure, 300 pounds or not. Those matches I mentioned are still the living proof of Taker not being able to carry some guys into great matches.
@sharpshooter: I agree with what you’re trying to say. I admit Sheamus got the talent, but what I hate from the possible matchup is he doesn’t have the ‘big name’ factor like I stated.

And more, if Taker does defeat Sheamus, The Undertaker hating bandwagon in IWC will rise again and start cursing Taker for not putting someone over (again). U know, just like what happened after he defeated Punk last year.
@Red: No, but I did.
@Red: OK, if u want it I’ll clarify it for u why I said ‘bigger than Jericho’.

At this point, The Streak isn’t only about the quality of the match, but also the name inside it.

Giant Gonzales over Hulk Hogan, King Kong Bundy over Bret Hart, Big Boss Man over Mankind, Big Show & A-Train over Eddie Guerrero & Rey Mysterio, and Mark Henry over Kurt Angle or Chris Benoit.

I think we all knew Hogan, Bret, Mankind, Eddie, Rey, Benoit, or Angle will ALWAYS be the bigger legends than the six nobodies. But Taker never got the chance to fight them at WM because Vince has always been crazy of giants. Sheamus is the same, at this point his name isn’t bigger than Jericho. Jericho IS a big name, Sheamus’ name isn’t as big as his. And there’s no guarantee Sheamus’ name will ever be as big as his.

Simply put, I want a ‘legit’ big name than a ‘possible’ ones. A-Train was released 6 months after his WM match with Taker, who said Sheamus won’t suffer the same fate as Kennedy?
(Continuation from above):

Or who can guarantee Sheamus will not suffer the same fate as A-Train?

If the honor goes to Sheamus, the another legit big name (Jericho) would miss his chance to be included on The Streak.

It’s not only about the quality, but also the name. Legit ones are always more credible than the possible ones. Not every wrestler is Randy Orton, u know?
@sharpshooter: Eh, I don’t think Jericho would refuse to be a part of The Streak. Before Shawn Michaels wanting to retire, he original plan for WM 26 was for Jericho to face Taker, remember?

BTW, Gonzales, Bundy, and Boss Man are still a waste, whether they go out peacefully or not. The same can be said about Big Show & Mark Henry.
@Red: You want names, here I’ll give you some:

1. Christian (see their match on youtube at RAW on 2001, a damn great match!)

2. Swagger (see their match at RAW last month? Better booking means we could see a greater match. Same as Sheamus, his name isn’t as big as other legit ones, but since we knew how well he worked with Taker so why not? Legit ones over possible ones, dude)

3. Danielson (HBK’s protege. And we all knew how well Taker would work with technical wrestlers. See Summerslam 1997, No Way Out 2006, Wrestlemania XXIV, Wrestlemania XXV, and Wrestlemania XXVI for fruther information).

4. Rey Mysterio (see Royal Rumble 2010. And remember? Legit big name over possible big name).
@sharpshooter: Fast powerhouses? Maybe u might want to watch Diesel vs Taker at WM 12 or Sid vs Taker at WM 13 as well, those 2 matches are really underrated it’s not even funny.

And I catch your drift. The only think I’m inclined to disagree is ‘the big name’ factor. I will always prefer legit ones over possible ones.

And about the variety on The Streak, I think The Streak has enough variety. From legends, youngsters, veterans, to nobodies, The Streak got them all. Let’s add more ‘legends’ to it, no?
@Red: I stated it clear enough on number 2.

Didn’t you believe Sheamus name will be bigger in one year? Why couldn’t Swagger be the same?
@sharpshooter: Wow, this conversation is really tiring yet amusing (^^).

Yeah, we can’t see the future. I can’t deny that, we’re no fortune tellers. That’s why the ‘legit ones’ are better than the ‘possible ones’. You’re right, maybe no one can change my mind for the time being, but I’m pretty open for things.

I don’t hate Sheamus by all means. I admit he’s talented and I don’t mind Taker feuding with him, but just not at Wrestlemania. There was one hit (Orton) alright, but there was also five misses (the six nobodies). I don’t want to see Taker taking the risk and slot for another victim only to see the sixth miss.

I mean, why can’t we have Taker vs legends at WM but Taker vs Sheamus at somewhere else? Look at Mankind, Lesnar, and Kennedy. Taker never faced any of them at WM (and never will) yet look how far he pushed them.

If anything, I’m all for Sheamus vs Taker at Survivor Series or Summerslam. But definitely not at WM.

Legit ones over the possible ones.

Answer by |Y|onkers |R|oyal |V|iper
Undertaker/Sheamus? Eww, Hell no.

I would like to see Undertaker/HHH next year. I feel that Taker’s last few WM Matches should be really high profile and have the potential to follow up both HBK/Takers.

I don’t think Sheamus should be added to the list because it’s too obvious and too early.

Read Full Post »

Cause I’m an Undertaker fan, I’ll look this feud from Taker’s perspective. Personally, I think the overall feud is better than Taker vs Austin and Taker vs Mankind. I know Austin is a sacred name in both WWE & IWC, but you have to face it. No Taker vs Austin matches were considered ‘the best’ at all. Their feud was worshipped simply because it happened during the peak of Attitude Era. Their encounters were very typical of heel vs face and their Summerslam 1998 was flat out overrated. Sorry for saying this, but even Taker vs Batista at WM 23 was a better quality match than Taker vs Austin at SS’98.

As for Mankind, I think the Taker/Mankind matches were mainly overrrated. The Buried Alive was good, it wasn’t great, but the match type is what made the match stand out rather than the actual match itself. The Hell in A Cell between Taker/Mankind, reminded me of a car crash. It was all about bumps and can you top this. The best match I’ve ever seen between the Undertaker and Mankind was at King of the Ring 1996. That was an awesome match. All of their other matches, even the infamous Boiler Room brawl match between the Undertaker/Mankind at SummerSlam 1996 was insignificant, nothing special at all. It just raised the bar of what gimmick matches in the future should be like.

Taker and Shawn have incredible chemistry and you can see it ever time they wrestle. They may have different views, different ways of life, but inside that ring they are all pro. Their match at Ground Zero was mesmerizing. That was truly a great match. I think it is even better than their Hell in A Cell Match from Badd Blood. Both men knew what they were doing and wrestled at a slow tempo pace, which made the match even more fun and entertaining to watch. That should have been match of the year right there. Even if the match ended in a no contest it still should have been a match of the year candidate.

At Badd Blood 1997, Taker and Shawn both put on a clinic. Being Hell in a Cell, the first match of that kind, people were looking to see if both men, especially Shawn since he was calling himself the Showstopper, the Icon, and the Main Event at that time, would be able to deliver and live up to his moniker. Well he did. So did Taker. Both men told a compelling story and it had the right amount of wrestling and storytelling mixed together. The story being would Shawn Michaels be able to defeat the Giant, the man from the darkside. Would David be able to defeat Goliath. If you recall correctly this all started at SummerSlam 1997. Shawn was referring the match between Bret Hart, challenger, and the Undertaker champion. Towards the end of the match, Bret spat in Shawn’s face, Shawn grabbed a chair, swung it, and unintentionally hit the Undertaker. Bret won the match and the Title. Undertaker seeked revenge after the man that swerved him. This culminated into their match at Ground Zero, which lingered into Badd Blood. To prevent outside interference from DX, Triple H, Chyna, and Rick Rude the officials made the Hell in a Cell Match so their would be an clear winner. So Shawn and Taker delivered a wrestling climax for twenty five to thirty minutes. That bump that Shawn took where the Undertaker kicked his hand from the top of the hell in a cell was truly a OMG moment that made sense to include in the match. Foley’s bumps were unnecessary, made no sense whatsoever. Shawn’s made great sense. That’s why I say that Taker/Shawn have better chemistry because the stuff they did make sense. Foley just wanted a reaction without a logical method behind it. Anyway, Shawn went on to win the match, thanks to interference from the newly debuted Kane, but that still doesn’t take away from the match, one of the best in the history of the WWE, by two of the greatest performers in the history of WWE, Shawn Michaels and The Undertaker.

Overall, I think the Taker/Shawn matches have better wrestling. I think both guys have better chemistry in the ring. Both wrestlers just click and always deliver whenever they perform together. The Taker/Mankind matches are good storyline wise and the matches are unique. However, I think Taker and Shawn have great matches all the time and they did it again at Wrestlemania 26 (although the commentating took something away from the classic).

And moreover, Taker got 2 Wrestlemania classics with Michaels. How many Wrestlemania classics does Taker got with Austin and Mankind?

What about u and why?

Answer by Chaos (Thank You Shawn)
All their fued were good. Undertaker and HBK have some special when they wrestle together. They always could put up a good match. Back in 1997 or 1998 when they had that Hell in a Cell match, it was excellent. One of the ONLY 5 stars match ever to happen in WWE. 11 years later, they got the match of the year for their match at Wrestlemania. What way to finish HBK’s storied career off then to have the man who he put up his best matches against (Undertaker) retire him? They have yet ANOTHER good match at Wrestlemania 26.

Read Full Post »

Personally, I think Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels overall feud (1997, 1998, 2009-2010) is better than Taker vs Austin and Taker vs Mankind. I know Austin is a sacred name in both WWE & IWC, but you have to face it. No Taker vs Austin matches were considered ‘the best’ at all. Their feud was worshiped simply because it happened during the peak of Attitude Era. Their encounters were very typical of heel vs face and their Summerslam 1998 was flat out overrated. Sorry for saying this, but even Taker vs Batista at WM 23 was a better quality match than Taker vs Austin at SS’98.

As for Mankind, I think the Taker/Mankind matches were mainly overrrated. The Buried Alive was good, it wasn’t great, but the match type is what made the match stand out rather than the actual match itself. The Hell in A Cell between Taker/Mankind, reminded me of a car crash. It was all about bumps and can you top this. The best match I’ve ever seen between the Undertaker and Mankind was at King of the Ring 1996. That was an awesome match. All of their other matches, even the infamous Boiler Room brawl match between the Undertaker/Mankind at SummerSlam 1996 was insignificant, nothing special at all. It just raised the bar of what gimmick matches in the future should be like.

Taker and Shawn have incredible chemistry and you can see it ever time they wrestle. They may have different views, different ways of life, but inside that ring they are all pro. Their match at Ground Zero was mesmerizing. That was truly a great match. I think it is even better than their Hell in A Cell Match from Badd Blood. Both men knew what they were doing and wrestled at a slow tempo pace, which made the match even more fun and entertaining to watch. That should have been match of the year right there. Even if the match ended in a no contest it still should have been a match of the year candidate.

At Badd Blood 1997, Taker and Shawn both put on a clinic. Being Hell in a Cell, the first match of that kind, people were looking to see if both men, especially Shawn since he was calling himself the Showstopper, the Icon, and the Main Event at that time, would be able to deliver and live up to his moniker. Well he did. So did Taker. Both men told a compelling story and it had the right amount of wrestling and storytelling mixed together. The story being would Shawn Michaels be able to defeat the Giant, the man from the darkside. Would David be able to defeat Goliath. If you recall correctly this all started at SummerSlam 1997. Shawn was referring the match between Bret Hart, challenger, and the Undertaker champion. Towards the end of the match, Bret spat in Shawn’s face, Shawn grabbed a chair, swung it, and unintentionally hit the Undertaker. Bret won the match and the Title. Undertaker seeked revenge after the man that swerved him. This culminated into their match at Ground Zero, which lingered into Badd Blood. To prevent outside interference from DX, Triple H, Chyna, and Rick Rude the officials made the Hell in a Cell Match so their would be an clear winner. So Shawn and Taker delivered a wrestling climax for twenty five to thirty minutes. That bump that Shawn took where the Undertaker kicked his hand from the top of the hell in a cell was truly a OMG moment that made sense to include in the match. Foley’s bumps were unnecessary, made no sense whatsoever. Shawn’s made great sense. That’s why I say that Taker/Shawn have better chemistry because the stuff they did make sense. Foley just wanted a reaction without a logical method behind it. Anyway, Shawn went on to win the match, thanks to interference from the newly debuted Kane, but that still doesn’t take away from the match, one of the best in the history of the WWE, by two of the greatest performers in the history of WWE, Shawn Michaels and The Undertaker.

Overall, I think the Taker/Shawn matches have better wrestling. I think both guys have better chemistry in the ring. Both wrestlers just click and always deliver whenever they perform together. The Taker/Mankind matches are good storyline wise and the matches are unique. However, I think Taker and Shawn have great matches all the time and they did it again at Wrestlemania 26 (although the commentating took something away from the classic). Plus, Taker showed his respect to HBK twice ON AIR just in the span of two days, after ending his career.

And moreover, Taker got 2 Wrestlemania classics with Michaels. How many Wrestlemania classics does Taker got with Austin and Mankind?

What about u and why?

Answer by Chad Bat
Shut up, who’s gonna read all that

Read Full Post »

Cause I’m an Undertaker fan, I’ll look this feud from Taker’s perspective. Personally, I think the overall feud is better than Taker vs Austin and Taker vs Mankind. I know Austin is a sacred name in both WWE & IWC, but you have to face it. No Taker vs Austin matches were considered ‘the best’ at all. Their feud was worshipped simply because it happened during the peak of Attitude Era. Their encounters were very typical of heel vs face and their Summerslam 1998 was flat out overrated. Sorry for saying this, but even Taker vs Batista at WM 23 was a better quality match than Taker vs Austin at SS’98.

As for Mankind, I think the Taker/Mankind matches were mainly overrrated. The Buried Alive was good, it wasn’t great, but the match type is what made the match stand out rather than the actual match itself. The Hell in A Cell between Taker/Mankind, reminded me of a car crash. It was all about bumps and can you top this. The best match I’ve ever seen between the Undertaker and Mankind was at King of the Ring 1996. That was an awesome match. All of their other matches, even the infamous Boiler Room brawl match between the Undertaker/Mankind at SummerSlam 1996 was insignificant, nothing special at all. It just raised the bar of what gimmick matches in the future should be like.

Taker and Shawn have incredible chemistry and you can see it ever time they wrestle. They may have different views, different ways of life, but inside that ring they are all pro. Their match at Ground Zero was mesmerizing. That was truly a great match. I think it is even better than their Hell in A Cell Match from Badd Blood. Both men knew what they were doing and wrestled at a slow tempo pace, which made the match even more fun and entertaining to watch. That should have been match of the year right there. Even if the match ended in a no contest it still should have been a match of the year candidate.

At Badd Blood 1997, Taker and Shawn both put on a clinic. Being Hell in a Cell, the first match of that kind, people were looking to see if both men, especially Shawn since he was calling himself the Showstopper, the Icon, and the Main Event at that time, would be able to deliver and live up to his moniker. Well he did. So did Taker. Both men told a compelling story and it had the right amount of wrestling and storytelling mixed together. The story being would Shawn Michaels be able to defeat the Giant, the man from the darkside. Would David be able to defeat Goliath. If you recall correctly this all started at SummerSlam 1997. Shawn was referring the match between Bret Hart, challenger, and the Undertaker champion. Towards the end of the match, Bret spat in Shawn’s face, Shawn grabbed a chair, swung it, and unintentionally hit the Undertaker. Bret won the match and the Title. Undertaker seeked revenge after the man that swerved him. This culminated into their match at Ground Zero, which lingered into Badd Blood. To prevent outside interference from DX, Triple H, Chyna, and Rick Rude the officials made the Hell in a Cell Match so their would be an clear winner. So Shawn and Taker delivered a wrestling climax for twenty five to thirty minutes. That bump that Shawn took where the Undertaker kicked his hand from the top of the hell in a cell was truly a OMG moment that made sense to include in the match. Foley’s bumps were unnecessary, made no sense whatsoever. Shawn’s made great sense. That’s why I say that Taker/Shawn have better chemistry because the stuff they did make sense. Foley just wanted a reaction without a logical method behind it. Anyway, Shawn went on to win the match, thanks to interference from the newly debuted Kane, but that still doesn’t take away from the match, one of the best in the history of the WWE, by two of the greatest performers in the history of WWE, Shawn Michaels and The Undertaker.

Overall, I think the Taker/Shawn matches have better wrestling. I think both guys have better chemistry in the ring. Both wrestlers just click and always deliver whenever they perform together. The Taker/Mankind matches are good storyline wise and the matches are unique. However, I think Taker and Shawn have great matches all the time and they did it again at Wrestlemania 26 (although the commentating took something away from the classic).

And moreover, Taker got 2 Wrestlemania classics with Michaels. How many Wrestlemania classics does Taker got with Austin and Mankind?

What about u and why?

Answer by goleafsgophan
i didnt read that but all there ppv matche where great

Read Full Post »

IWC Question&Answer:

Okay, for this case we got two big examples here. First is Wrestlemania X-8 when WWE didn’t put Hulk Hogan vs The Rock as the main event. The match killed the crowd and the main event between Triple H vs Chris Jericho turned to be boring as hell.

And last year at Wrestlemania XXV, Shawn Michaels vs The Undertaker blew the whole arena and owned the crowds for the next two matches. Not even half the crowds seemed to care about Cena going against Edge & Big Show and some people were even walking out during Triple H vs Randy Orton.

And by the way thing goes, I think it’s safe to say Shawn Michaels vs The Undertaker II at Wrestlemania XXVI is receiving the biggest attention from both IWC & WWE Universe ever since The Rock vs Stone Cold at Wrestlemania X-7. Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels II has now become more important than either World Title matches.

For Edge and Jericho the feud is based on Jericho taking the piss out of Edge’s injury. Is THAT the storyline for a ME feud? No, don’t think so.

Vince is picking on Cena because Cena likes Bret. Is that the storyline you want for your ME fued? Sure it’s Bret, but still, no, not really.

No disrespect to the rest of WWE roster, but Shawn Michaels & Undertaker are on a different league from all of them. TWO of THE most respected Legends in professional wrestling history squaring off in what is likely to be the best rematch ever (even if it doesn’t live up to last years, the rematch will still be epic although for now I think they will outdo themselves), in a match where either a career or a life’s work comes to an end. Either way, Taker/HBK II will be the end of an era in pro wrestling. The emotional scale of this match will be off the freakin’ chain. People are going to be torn apart trying to guess who’s going to win, and then be torn even further when they try to decide who to cheer for. The ongoing war in IWC between Shawn Michaels’ fans and The Undertaker’s fans proved that.

Obviously a lot of guys like to moan about HBK circa 1990-1998 and haven’t forgiven him for stuff he did over a decade ago. Others like to **** on Taker and his streak, because they don’t like Vince’s booking decisions. These are both really **** reasons to want either guys careers to end, but sadly there will be people chanting for HBK to lose, and there will be people who want the Deadman to lose. For those, like me, who respect these men for damn near crippling themselves for our amusement for the past 2 decades, regardless of what and who they might have held back along the way, March 28th is going to be filled with emotion. I’ve said that if the Undertaker retired (and i do think the streak ending would signify his career ending), I’d give up with wrestling entirely. You might call that sad, but hey, **** you. Imo, Mark Callaway is the only reason to spend £15 a month on a wrestling PPV, which is all i watch in terms of wrestling now anyway. Once he’s gone, i really have no reason to keep watching. I’m loyal to the Phenom and the Phenom only, so I’d hope HBK loses, but damn at the same time, he doesn’t deserve to lose.

To sum it up, I think it’s a given if this match doesn’t get to be ME it will only kill the crowds again and that would surely make Edge vs Jericho & Cena vs Batista pale in comparison. And I bet no one here wants to Cena vs Batista part 2 and part 3 at WM 27 and 28 because Vince’s disappointment of his two top stars. And no one here wants to see Edge vs Jericho without reactions from the crowds. But at the same time, world titles main eventing Wrestlemania is a tradition. So, what do you have to say about this?

Answer by Moshi Man
whats ME supposed to mean. and yes it will over shadow everything so that match should be last

Read Full Post »

could be the raw gm and a heel?

I know Shawn has been telling in all the interviews that he won’t return to wwe but just like the Bryan Daneilson firing was made to seem so convincing by the wwe it could be another storyline to shock the IWC?
And as Michael Cole read by the email that the gm never liked Bret Hart!?

PS: It would be a non wrestling role so it won’t be like Shawn is back in the ring

BQ: Do you miss Shawn Michaels?

Answer by Thє Uηdєαd Titαη (Y!A Maƒïä)
I think it’s going to be Vince McMahon as the anonymous GM, then he is going to bring back the guest host concept. It would make sense because the GM hates Bret Hart, and ironically Vince was attacked by Nexus right at the time the whole mystery GM thing started. WWE also is planning for some guest hosts this October so I think it’s Vince. And honestly, I hope I’m wrong.

BQ: I was starting to get over it, but then I watched WWE Classics on Demand with my cousin, and I watched the feud between DX and the McMahon’s, and it made me really miss him.

Read Full Post »

IWC Question&Answer:

Mine’s on the left:

Star if u think Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels WM 26 WS feud is IWC’s best feud ever.

Answer by Ariel
yup

Read Full Post »

IWC Question&Answer:

You know, being labeled by IWC as ‘The New Shawn Michaels’ & ‘Future Mr. Wrestlemania’ and all.

Answer by [ndc] the man of few words
3

Read Full Post »

I already know that Shawn Michaels is retired but let’s say he returns to the Smackdown brand. If he made a shocking return and defeated Christian for the World Heavyweight championship, would you still be mad and complain about Christian’s 2 day title reign.

Also, don’t say stuff like

“HBK will never do that. He does not whine like Randy Orton”
“That will never happen”
“Vince doesn’t like HBK”
“HBK is not greedy and selfish”

No, no, no, none of that sh*t. Just tell me if you would be upset or not.

BQ: Same with Daniel Bryan. Would you be upset if he won the WHC from Christian?
BQ2: Do you think Randy Orton vs Christian was a pretty good match on Smackdown?

Answer by You can’t block what you don’t understand
I think that it would be the same result. People would have still been mad. The fact that Christain just got the belt and then he had to give it up to Randy Orton for whatever reason I mean he didn’t even have it for a full week. That’s why the company is on the road it’s on and we will be hearing what went wrong with WWE just like WCW in the next 10 years.

Read Full Post »

NONE of you guys liked Shawn Michaels until after he retired . NONE of you acknowledged that he’s one of the greatest superstars of all time until AFTER he retired and you saw all his accomplishments throughout his career . I hear people say all the time ”Shawn Michaels is the greatest wrestler of all time” . Please . You all are fake Shawn Michaels fans and it’s a shame that you only praise a wrestler until AFTER he retires .

Thoughts ?

BQ : What’s your favorite Shawn Michaels match ? Too hypocritical to answer ?
2 answers in 15 minutes ? God damn, you people are braindead . Let’s see how many of you hypocrites answer a troll question or a user question in the next few minutes instead of this true wrestling question . Retards .
Red Sexy Cerebral Phenom : Yes, I shouldn’t of said all of you . How about a large majority ? EVERYONE HAPPY NOW ? No need to get piped up .
Answers 5# and 6# : Shut the hell up . I am far from a troll . If you can’t respect my opinion, that makes lesser of a wrestling fan in my book . READ THE DAMN QUESTION, I SAID A LARGE MAJORITY . EVERYTHING ISN’T ABOUT YOU, MY FRIEND . DID I SAY ”ISN’T ___ A FAKE SHAWN MICHAELS FAN” ? I DIDN’T SAY ANY NAMES, I SAID A LARGE MAJORITY .

Don’t you ever call me an a*shole .
@ Dass : Thanks for admitting that you’re not a fake Shawn Michaels fan .
Red Sexy Cerebral Phenom : I’m not going to argue with you over some words . EVERYONE : Read the whole question please . LARGE MAJORITY .
LOL, ”what are you going to do, cry like a baby b*tch” ? You can’t win the argument so you resort to dissing me . NICE .

Answer by Krowe
Boy you betta check yo self fore you wreck yo self
HBK vs HHH three stages of hell

Read Full Post »