Midnight Zeus

Where can I find naked pictures of <insert female wrestler's name>?

Sadly, some ex UKFFers were also looking for pictures of naked male wrestlers ::cough::segaboyno::cough::

And some liked to post pictures of naked male footballers - can't think who that was though, hey MM

Do yu want too joyne my baktard wresling fed - itz crazy kool and we doo ace stuff lik jump of tabkles!!!!111two.

Whats the most matches/wrestlers that anyone has plastered down in one post without actually making a single comment on any of them?

Registration_Form ~!

What's your ideal Wrestlemania XX card?

Funny you should mention that but the two most obvious choices have similar names to you - PM Mo or Moj for some good flirty fun.Welcome to the UK Flirting Forum, big boy

Maybe it just appeals to them and no matter what other people think they think he's great. To them his matches are great because they like what he does - pretty much like me and liking 2003 Hogan more than I do 2003 Angle - it's all about what connects with you as an individual and what your personal preferences are.I too like Regal, and though his matches may not get lots of snowflakes that's of little importance to me - I like his facial expressions and his forearm shots and I like it when he calls people W*nkers on a a US show and they have no idea what he's saying. It's the little things as Si said. He offers something different and no matter what the mass say, I rate his matches highly and will continue to do so until the day I no longer enjoy them.There are already 100 wrestlers on the WWE roster wrestling the WWE way - they should adapt to him to give something a little different but until they do its always fun to Regal playing carny with the likes of RVD.

After recently watching his match with Benoit at the Pillman show I am quite bemused that they have never told him to wrestle just like that and put him in programmes with Benoit, Angle, Guerrero etc... Still, his humour stands him above half the roster alone!

Angelfire has done me, saying im not following the Terms and Conditions so nothing of mine is coming up! :( :( and i deleted all the stuff from my computer

Same thing has happened to me - I still have them but I really can't be bothered to upload them somewhere else - they were limited edition viewing only

If Mo enjoys wrestling so much, find me one quote or review from him praising a match or event that's taken place over 10 years ago.

Check out the last Powerslam supplement called 'The Greatest Wrestling Shows of All Time'. Look at all those shows I picked from ROH and CZW.

Freaky coincidence - I was reading this issue on the loo this morning!Mo choices:5) Great American Bash 19894) Super J Cup 19943) Wrestlemania X-Seven2) Dream Slam II1) Dream Slam 1My fave shows of all time, probably change with every passing minute but right now:Summerslam 1989Wrestlemania VIGreat American Bash 1989Starrcade 1989Fighting Spirit Memorial Day PPV 2002 - very odd choice to most but this show just entralled me and got me back into NJPW in a big way.

If people can leave photos of thenmselves it would help me I know that. I have no idea where most of the photos come from which is why I've mainly done people I know as I know where I can get photos of them from!Everybody can be done, fear not - humiliation is just a 20 minute PS session away!

The big difference is that I don't watch those matches thinking "they are a pile of shit in the ring but I love them", I watch them thinking "it's all great"!!If I thought they were bad in the ring then I would agree, that even for myself enjoyment doesn't equal quality. That's not the case though - every match I listed there I love - every part of! I don't love them all for the same reasons and I wouldn't be so naive as to even attempt to rate them on the scale as they are all such different forms of pro wrestling, but make no mistale - this isn't me loving 'Wrestlecrap' because when I watch them I see great wrestling matches, in whatever form it happens to be in.If I thought a match was 'crap in the ring' then I probably wouldn't rate the match and wouldn't get a lot of enjoyment out of it. However, my 'crap in the ring' does not follow any rhyme or reason and certainly doesn't adhere to any conventions you may read of in snowflake discussions. In ring quailty for me can encompass all kinds of matches and for lots of different reasons.For example: I love Nagata v Murakami for completely different reasons to the Doomsday Cage match - rate one on the other's quality scale and it would be crap - vice versa. However, I love both these matches and don't think either are crap - they both appeal to me hugely but in completely different ways.For me enjoyment = quality in pro wrestling and that's what a lot of people find difficult to comprehend and I can understand where they are coming from and I'm not for a second saying my way is right and their way is wrong. I could quite possibly be the only wrestling fan I know who thinks like that, but I do, I always have and I always will and I accept that people may think it's a ridiculous way to assess wrestling but in a world of men pretending to fight in tight fitting trunks, I can handle it!!

yeah but that logic makes Hogan the greatest worker ever Mo :\

Erm, no. Even casual fans can see that Hogan is a poor worker. I speak to many such fans who notice Hogan's lack of athleticism and substandard work in comparison to guys like Rock and Austin. Hogan remains popular largely because of the nostalgia factor, but as figures have shown, he means nothing for ratings and little for drawing crowds at arena shows.

Then there are the odd fans like me who think Hogan is damn great and even though he may be slower than most active wrestlers still rate him and his matches as some of the best ever and love practically everything he does!There are still very few matches that in mind are better than Hogan v Rock and Hogan v Warrior - matches that have the effect on me are the reason I watch wrestling. These two matches in my mind are in the top 10 greatest ever matches that I have seen, of course Michaels v Undertaker from Badd Blood is in that top 10 as is Nagata v Murakami, Survivor Series 1988 10 tag team match, Midnight Express v Southern Boys, Nagata/Iizuka v Kawada/Fuchi, Doomsday Match and Chamber of Horrors Match - a nice eclectic mix which will no doubt befuddle most - not decided what the 10th match would be, possibilities: Muto v Chono, Nagata v Takayama, Steamboat v Savage - who knows?The best thing of all is that no matter how many times people throw things like psychology, workrate, selling, mobilty and all that jazz at me, I still think those are the best matches ever - now I think about it, maybe Zeus/Savage v Hogan/Beefcake could fill the 10th spot, sounds good to me.

It's all incredibly subjective to what makes a person tick - if a person doesn't see the shortcomings of a wrestler that others do see then that person ca rate them as the best without a second thought.You can take me as an example - I have been watching HBK for 15 years and I think he is the best ever - I don't see any of the shortcomings people come up with and because of that I see him as the best. I also think Zeus was one of the best heels ever - 99.9% of people would say that Zeus was pants and had bad matches but his act as the unstoppable monster pushed the right buttons with me I loved every second of his time in the WWF. Now to me he's better than someone like RVD who has never connected with me at all.I think I'm getting into the enjoyment/quality issue here even though I didn't want to! It all comes down to the fact that for me enjoyment = quality. The more I enjoy a wrestler or a match the higher quality I think it is. The one think I look for in wrestling is entertainment/enjoyment - the more I am entertained/gain enjoyment from a match or a wrestler the higher quality I rate him or that match.For example, I think the Hart Foundation v Bolsheviks from Wrestlemania VI was better than Shane McMahon v Kane from the last WWE PPV. Why?- I don't care for either Shane McMahon or Kane but I did like the Hart Foundation. - The feud between Shane and Kane doesn't interest me because of who is involved and the sillyness of the angle.- I did care about the tag scene around Wrestlemania VI and this match progressed the Hart Foundation as the #1 contenders.- The Bolsheviks easy to dislike as they were effectove heels so I liked seeing them get beaten in 30 seconds or however short it was.There is nothing in the Kane v Shane match that appealed to me - not the performers, not the storyline, not the style of match - nothing! That is why in my mind I rate the Hart Foundation v Bolsheviks as a better match.Now I understand that's very subjective to my own personal tastes but that's how I believe wrestling reaches out to people - probably no 2 people in the world see exactly the same match when they watch wrestling.The big determining factor for me is that I put a much much much bigger weighting on a wrestler's positives than his negatives. That's how I personally can rate certain matches and wrestlers above other matches and wrestlers that no doubt make people think I am two sandwiches short of a picnic! However, to me that substantiation makes perfect sense and I stand 100% behind it.Hey, as bizarre as the way I watch wrestling and my beliefs and idiologies - you can't accuse me of not substantiating my opinions - however strange the reasoning may be!!I think I have rambled way too much now and I can't even remember what the question was or the first 75% of what I have just written!

Shawn has clear selling deficencies, Bret never did, neither did Austin

But to people who don't notice or don't care about those 'deficiencies' that side of the argument is null and void.I, for example, have never had a problem with HBK's selling so that's one side of HBK's matches that I never knock him for and that's one reason why I will rate his matches as being better than someone like yourself who does notice and care about those apparent 'deficiencies'.

lol we'll have to revisit the old enjoyment factor here I think Steve

Noooooooo - not again! I posted to death about the enjoyment/quality issue in this thread: http://www.ukff.com/index.php?showtopic=32643 - give me at least a seven day break before we have another round!The thing we are forgetting is that no matter how many people argue for and againsh Michaels, Hart, Austin or whoever, Zeus is without a doubt the greatest professional wrestler to ever enter a wrestling ring - now you can't have a problem with his selling, surely?

Shawn has clear selling deficencies, Bret never did, neither did Austin

But to people who don't notice or don't care about those 'deficiencies' that side of the argument is null and void.I, for example, have never had a problem with HBK's selling so that's one side of HBK's matches that I never knock him for and that's one reason why I will rate his matches as being better than someone like yourself who does notice and care about those apparent 'deficiencies'.

There is a huge difference between hating Shawn Michaels and taking offence when someone claims him to be the "greatest wrestler ever~!!!!1111111 masterclass!" when there are 50 better wrestlers

It's this kind of 'My opinion is fact' attitude that gets people's backs up.If I think Shawn Michaels has had better matches than anyone else and can give reasons why, which I and many others, have done time and time again - why is us calling him the best ever so wrong?I'd have thought common sense would have kicked in at some point and a little though bubble would have appeared and in it would be:"I see from what these people are saying that they don't look for the same things in a wrestling match that I do and that the things that I hold up as the important parts of a match are in fact to different to what I think. That is why they think Shawn Michaels is the best, and I can understand that based on what they like to see in a match as that's exactly what Shawn does. I personally like to see different things in a match, I think I'll write a post and say why I think Bret Hart is better and I'll outline what I like to see in a match so they can understand why I like Bret better."Alas you just swear like a trucker and revert back to the, 'my opinion is fact' mode - shame.

It's hard sometimes because the most vocal people on the net tend to be the negative nay sayers and a lot of staisfied fans probably can't be bothered to post in threads like this because they get insulted, attacked and basically told that they are watching wrestling in the wrong way and they should be watching it under some set of rules that only the super smart fans seem to know about it.It's gratifying to see some people who like myself seem to just thoroughly love this bizarre industry that has brought us all together.Me and Mo may have had our differences in the past over opinions and trivial matters but deep down we are just a couple of fans who love to be entertained - yay us I say, we get what we want out of wrestling.

Using that logic, if one "enjoys" American Pie more than Citizen Kane, then American Pie is a better film than Citizen Kane. Don't you see how flawed that logic is?

Not at all - I'm talking about an individual's perception of art which is completely dependant on what that individual looks for in that piece of art.If a person ranks inuednos and teen angst hilarity above a deep storyline and moving performances then that person is well within their right to say American Pie is better.This applies to wrestling too - not everyone looks at wrestling the same way or wants the same thing. If a person says they thought the match was great because they love high flying moves and high octane action, and rate these more than selling and psychology then, much the movie analogy, they are well within their right to say the first match is better and be correct, using the pre-requisites they have in their mind.You can't apply pre-requisite requirements to art and expect everyone to adhere to them and then tell people the way look at that is wrong - it's all subjective to what a person wants and gets from that piece of art - movies, wrestling and whatever else.I personally don't look that deeply into wrestling matches and things like lack of selling and psychology will probably pass me by - now you are telling me I'm wrong for saying a match like HIAC 1 is a MOTYC because I don't analyse matches like you - that's just arrogance on your behalf to expect everyone to watch wrestling with the same pre-requistes and reuirements as yourself.I stand by my original judgment of HIAC 1 being MOTY and being better, for me, than Steve Austin v Bret Hart. I liked the fued more, I liked HBK way more than either Hart or Austin and the match got me far more involved and gave me far more pleasue than Austin v Hart. Now on what level could I possibly rate Austin v Hart better if I rate everything that I want from a wrestling match more in the HBK match? I don't watch wrestling matches in the same way as you and I don't care about the same things so why would I ever even attempt to rate matches on the same scale as you? I rate matches on what I like to see not on how anyone thinks I should rate matches, hance I can say HIAC 1 is better than Austin v Hart because it gave me what I want in a wrestling match more than what Austin v Hart did.

Hart is so overrated in my opinion, I enjoyed HBK matches far more than Hart matches, Hart V Austin at WM was good, nowhere near the level of HBK V Taker @ IYH 18

Enjoying them more does not make them better wrestling matches.

That's hugely open to interpretation in my opinion as far as wrestling is concerned.As pro wrestling is not scored by judges to a pre requisite set of parameters then the quality of a match to an individual can indeed be measured on the enjoyment gained from that match.Pro wrestlers put on a match to entertain, that's the core catalyst of the industry, not as a select few would have you belive to gain more snowflakes than another match.As far as I'm concerned if I enjoy wrestling match A more than I do match B then match A is better, end of story. Nay sayers will of course come up with the old argument of story, psychology, selling, smartness of worker, etc.. blah blah, but wrestling is, I believe, an art and as such the individual entertainment/joy/pleasure gained from that specific peice of art can indeed be subsequently used as a guage of a quality with that individual.You might say enjoying them doesn't make them better and in your case that may be true, but until you view wrestling through the eyes of someone who does equate entertainment to quality then your nay saying counts for very little when arguing that persons substantiation.The way I have, do and will always look at wrestling is to be entertained - the more a match entertains me the better it is - for me, there is no need to go any deeper than that and it is that philosophy that has kept me a wrestling fan for some 25 odd years and will surely do me well for the next 25 odd years!

Certainly got my MOTY, loved it!Awesome story, original concept, gripping action, shocking debut and re-watch value of 2 or 3 times a year ever since - can't ask for more, well I can't anyway!As for HBK's peak - I'd say this period was up there with the best of his stuff as his DX character was so damn great at the time - add that to great matches and I'd probably say this was my favourite period of Michaels ever.