Dirty Eddie Posted April 30, 2011 Share Posted April 30, 2011 It's called discussion and debate. And you're not my mate, so don't call me that. Thnx. Â When you've stated that you don't consider AJ to be a wrestler, what is the point in continuing the discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Seven Posted April 30, 2011 Share Posted April 30, 2011 What's the point in having any debate where two sides differ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted April 30, 2011 Share Posted April 30, 2011 Did Undertaker and Sara have any kids? Was Taker married before that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Tommy! Posted April 30, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted April 30, 2011 Did Undertaker and Sara have any kids? Was Taker married before that? Â from wiki~ Â Calaway married his first wife, Jodi Lynn, in 1989, and they had a son, Gunner, born in 1993, before the marriage ended in 1999.[citation needed] Calaway married his second wife, Sara, in St Petersburg, Florida on July 21, 2000. The couple had two daughters together: Chasey (born on November 21, 2002) and Gracie (born on May 15, 2005).[citation needed] As of 2007, he and Sara were divorced, and he was romantically linked to fellow wrestler Michelle McCool, whom he married on June 26, 2010, in Houston, Texas[9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Eddie Posted April 30, 2011 Share Posted April 30, 2011 What's the point in having any debate where two sides differ? Â If you don't even consider AJ a wrestler, really, what is the point? Â You've made your mind up he's a monotone gymnast so there is zero point. I'm more than happy to debate back and forth with people on here, but this seems fruitless. I really, really don't care enough about McCool to bother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted April 30, 2011 Share Posted April 30, 2011 Is "Gunner" a popular name in the US? Both Undertaker and Sid have sons with that name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted April 30, 2011 Moderators Share Posted April 30, 2011 It's Gunnar Eudy. Not Gunner. Â But for the record, I thought the Piggy James stuff was decent. She was a fine antagonist in a storyline that was believable as fuck to the target market. We heard what girls were like in school, and seen the states that go to wrestling shows, and it was aimed at that market. It was a decent angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted April 30, 2011 Share Posted April 30, 2011 I never understood the hate for the Piggy James angle either. Heels being heels, and they got their comeuppance. Where is the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted April 30, 2011 Share Posted April 30, 2011 The problem is that Michelle McCool should never have had the upper hand on Mickie in the first place. McCool is a slag who sucked her way to the top and can't wrestle, whereas Mickie is a pure angel who learned her craft and would never stoop to sordid deeds to boost her career or profile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Eddie Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 The problem is that Michelle McCool should never have had the upper hand on Mickie in the first place. McCool is a slag who sucked her way to the top and can't wrestle, whereas Mickie is a pure angel who learned her craft and would never stoop to sordid deeds to boost her career or profile. Â Who exactly are you mocking, considering no-one has said anything like that in this thread? Â Or are you (once again) imagining that someone might say that, then mocking them, just in case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ShortOrderCook Posted May 1, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted May 1, 2011 The 'Piggy James' angle was tremendous. One of the better angles of the last few years. Made some great tv at times, the attack with the grub being particularly good. Â And the payoff was an excellent, under-rated moment. I absolutely loved it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted May 1, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted May 1, 2011 Who exactly are you mocking, considering no-one has said anything like that in this thread? Or are you (once again) imagining that someone might say that, then mocking them, just in case? To be fair that was the general feeling at the time. I remember everyone was up in arms in the wrestling press and the forums about the supposedly horrible treatment of Mickie James. There was a big "there's nothing wrong with her, they are just being cunts to her" type reaction. Which is probably what WWE wanted to come across, so I dont get the hatred for it.  It was a pretty topical angle if I remember. It got a lot of airtime. I bet the Divas would kill for that type of angle at the minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Eddie Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I just find the pre-emptive strike against the "stereotypicals" rather funny, when nobody has said anything like that. Â Personally, I found laycool's whole act to be turn-over TV. Seeing grown adults acting like 7 year old girls was just really, really annoying. Even by WWE/wrestling standards I found it too embarrassing. Saying little rhymes together and all that, i just found it too babyish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Seven Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 But opinions of that sentiment were expressed on this forum in relation to the angle at the time. And McCool has often had derogatory accusations thrown her way when being discussed on Internet forums such as this one. It has been said enough times, repeatedly, for it to be valid here, even if Pitcos is being satirical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted May 1, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted May 1, 2011 Personally, I found laycool's whole act to be turn-over TV. Seeing grown adults acting like 7 year old girls was just really, really annoying. Even by WWE/wrestling standards I found it too embarrassing. Saying little rhymes together and all that, i just found it too babyish. You can find childish bitches like that in any walk of life or entertainment. Whether its Rosey Webster, some clown from the Only Way is Essex of the lasses from the bus stop round our way, a lot of lasses are childish, nasty and at the same time quite eventful. LayCool were heels after all. To me they were a right laugh and entertaining with it. Them being babyish was part of the act which made humanised them into the audience making them think they were just idiots with a nastystreak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.