Segaboyno

I would search for this but the function is broken. Does anyone know the exact details behind Shawn Michaels (allegedly) trying to get out of his WWE contract during the monday night wars so he could join WCW?

After Bret Hart beat him up for real one day in the summer of 1997 he did threaten to go to the venue Nitro was being held at. I don't believe he was ever serious about defecting or went into serious negotiations with WCW but was just trying to save face on that night.

If 'pushing him from behind and pulling his hair' translates to 'beat him up', then you're right.

- Shawn Michaels superkicking Big Dick Johnson during a backstage segment on Raw in February- William Regal's jig with Cryme Tyme- Kennedy's post-match Wrestlemania speech: "Firstly, I would like to thank MYSELF"!

Royal Rumble 2007, mainly because I was there, and Power Slam claimed that it was the best rumble match of all time.

Anyone know who sang tell me a lie for the hbk tribute video?

Fonda Feingold.

In my mind, it's plausible that this was a joint decision of both Chris and his wife. I really know nothing about either of them (although Chris, at least, must have been in a completely different place). We will never know, but it wouldn't surprise me if he wanted to join his friend Eddie Guerrero in heaven.After witnessing Benoit's personality change since Guerrero's death 19 months ago - and witnessing Chris's enthusiasm drop in the following months - it wouldn't surprise me if the recent Mr. McMahon 'death' sequences brought the memories back, and finally sent Chris over the edge.Rather than raise a child in a society where hero's legacies are tarnished, and where people pretend to be dead at the drop of the hat, if they did indeed decide to skip today's existence for a greater existence in heaven, it wouldn't surprise me.The Bibles being placed by the side of his family aren't disturbing 'Blair Witch-esque' symbols in my mind, and indicate that this was a decision related to religion. Even if he was 'crazed' as speculated, the Bible indicates the power of good rather than evil.If his wife was indeed willing to go along with this, it makes sense that she was chosen before their son; as no mother would wish to see the demise of their child. His son was in bed, and showed no signs of suffering. A crazed, out-of-control roid rager would have surely caused more havoc than this.In no way do I condone murdering anyone - let alone members of your own family. However, I've never been in the frame of mind where this could even be an option, and hopefully I never will be. Whilst i'd like to take the moral high ground and say that 'even if any state of mind i'd never consider this kind of thing', every single normal-minded person would say the same. The mind is a strange product.Chris Benoit may well have felt guilt towards his relationship with Eddie Guerrero at the timing of the latters' death. I remember that he told WWE about Guerrero's drug problems, which Guerrero clearly wasn't happy with. Although it was obviously in Guerrero's best interests, Benoit may have still felt guilty about betraying his friends' trust.And at the end of the day, Guerrero - who struggled all through his life with addictions - finished his final years sober and died as a hero. Benoit, on the other hand, was a role model to all throughout his living years, and in a final act which nobody will ever truly understand, tarnished his legacy forever more. It just goes to show that you can make of life whatever you want, and actions long in the past are not truly representative of those in the future.For the record, i've never been a Chris Benoit fan, and so have no reasons to defend him. He was never a role model to me, and there weren't many times he really excited me. But I can tell that he seemed a reasonable human being and has obviously reason to snap.

It has to be Michaels. He had the Montreal fans chanting 'HBK' during his match on Raw this year.

Michaels' performance as the special referee during the Kane/Conway match back in May.I had to check my calendar to make sure it wasn't 1997.

Michaels drenching the McMahons with 'urine'. A far cry from the Austin/McMahon feud, but the fans erupted in a similar fashion.

The Elimination Chamber (New Years Revolution) - having Cena, Masters and Carlito as the final three was ridiculous, but the first 10-15 minutes were quality.Shawn Michaels vs. Vince McMahon (Wrestlemania 22)Money in the Bank II (Wrestlemania 22)The Ladder Match (Armageddon)30-Man Battle Royal (Raw, 18/12) - probably the only match which was unpredictable and kept me entertained throughout. The finish became rather obvious as the match progressed, but it was probably Michaels' finest performance this year.

WWE at it's worst (ie. 2006) is still far superior to anything else going.

Shawn Fucking Michaels.

Vincent Kennedy McMahon.

RE: Lister's Triple H post.If a heel loses cleanly right at the start of his main-event push, then there's no reason for fans to care about seeing him beaten.Then add in the fact that the people he lost to were McMahon, Big Show etc. - which is bad enough anyway - but if he lost cleanly, then it'd have been career suicide.You're right in saying that main event heels these days (such as Edge, Orton, Booker) don't get the same kind of treatment; which is probably why they've never reached the lofty heights of Triple H (which i'm sure you'll state is Triple H's doing - and it may well be).Let's face it, without these kind of pushes, stars simply can't be born. Rock/Austin/Hogan didn't make a career out of losing cleanly on a weekly basis, and it's only by protecting these characters that fans will ever take them seriously.

In my opinion, the best match betting at this stage is USA to beat Ghana, at 11/10.USA would win this easily anyway; the fact that it'll be the last game and they'll be chasing Czech Republic makes it all the more convincing.

Another bet that seems to look good is Germany/Costa, Under 2.5 goals @ 2.2. 5 of the last 6 openers have been under.

In all fairness, 6 random games from previous years gone by really has no effect on the here and now.Any given game can finish at any scoreline (within reason), so to back any particular game based on previous results is entirely ludicrous - especially when Germany and/or Costa Rica weren't even involved in all of them!If I were a betting man (which I am), i'd go for 4-0 to Germany. A contest between France and Senegal four years ago won't be influencing my decision/logic.

Is there a website where you can request odds without having to walk into a shop?I'm keen to learn what the odds are of USA defeating Brazil at the last 16 stages.

It's not a silly bet because I won on an identical bet several weeks prior. Please tell me how that is silly?Edit: You know what? Don't bother responding. I really can't be bothered. As far as i'm concerned, I won a couple of hundred quid, and then got flamed for being a "crazy" better. When trying to justify this absurd comment, I myself became a "flamer" trying to start an argument. You posted a photograph of yourself winning money, which was nothing to do with comments. This place is full of retards quite frankly. Bye!

Since when was I accusing you of never winning anything?!It's the other way around you nemrod!I couldn't care less if you won $1000 (which i'm sure you spent wisely).But my point is that when i won

You'll be buried in Vegas with this kind of approach.

As I said, i've won

Could someone explain the 'trebles' thing to me, please?

I don't know why, but I will.If you bet on just one result, it's a single. If you bet on two results, it's a double. And if you bet on three results, it's a treble.However, if you choose 10 teams, it's called an accumulator. However, within these 10 teams, there are a potential of 120 different trebles eg. Teams 123, 124, 125, 126, 238 etc.I normally put on about

Thats assuming you win all the time when betting, which doesnt happen. So the flipside to your statement is "You bet small, you lose small. You bet big, you lose big". Just like you sticking a tenner on that crazy 10-fold Premiership acc.Trying to claim that betting big is much better because "theres so much more to be had" is a ridiculous statement, IMO. Youre trying to put over that theres no difference between betting big and betting small, only that betting big has much more to gain. You failed to mention the fact that bets lose, therefore you lose miles more.

My point is that if you bet bigger, you obviously do lose more when you lose, but you also win more when you win, so it evens itself out in the end. For instance, I could put on fifteen

What you need to do is spend a while finding the best accumulator odds, and then lay about

Totesport were the only firm to pay out on 4th place in that race, should have put the bet on with us

Totesport is an absolute shambles of a betting website.Anyway, i've got a 10-team Premiership accumulator:- Everton- Arsenal- Blackburn- Bolton- Man City- Man Utd- West Ham- Tottenham- Liverpool- ChelseaA

Heads up on Arsenal-Wigan tomorrow night. Wenger has named Henry, Bergkamp, Van Persie, Reyes, Pires and Campbell in the squad, and has confirmed that TH14 and SC23 are starting. Ladbrokes' odds of 8/11 for Arsenal to qualify for the final are reasonable, to say the least.