Fact or Fiction: WrestleMania 26 Special Edition
Hello, all, and welcome once again to FACT or FICTION. Been a little while since we’ve had one of these little shindigs, and the way I figure, there’s no better time than this weekend.
Why this weekend? Well, unless you thought Lords of Pain was a sadomasochism site and got here by accident, you know it’s WrestleMania weekend. What you don’t know is who I am. That’d be YourAyatollah, moderator extraordinaire in the Columns section of the LOPForums. Frankly, though, who I am is unimportant. Allow me to introduce our participants…
Surefire future Columns Hall of Famer, former main page writer, and the guy who used to have my mod gig, Degenerate.
LOPForums Administrator, Straight Edge Society member, and a former columnist in his own right, PEN15.
A fellow Texan, a rising star in the CF, and author of the appropriately titled Money in the Bank, Rey Ca$h.
And, last but not least, a relatively new face in the Columns Forum who seems to be the next step up in internet wrestling writing, author of both Evolving_the_Game and Tuesday's_TNA_Trash, Evolution_of_the_Game.
The rules here are simple. I make a statement/question, and each of these guys make the case for why they feel it to be either FACT or FICTION. Hence the clever title. This time around, we’ll be focusing specifically on topics related to WrestleMania and all that goes along with it. ‘Tis the season, dig?
Let’s get to it, kids.
1) Pro Wrestling Illustrated recently had a piece focusing on the 100 greatest performers in WrestleMania history. Despite such names as Austin and Hogan contending for number one, the Deadman got the duke. FACT or FICTION, The Undertaker deserved his spot at the top of that list.
Degenerate: This is a tough one to choose. Logic would say that The Undertaker undisputedly deserves the top spot, simply for his very impressive winning streak. But does that fact alone count as being labeled the top performer? I say FICTION. I have a few arguments against the whole 'win streak' logic. Winning isn't all that it's cracked up to be in a business where end results are predetermined. There are lots of others who have shined brighter in defeat at Wrestlemania than the Undertaker has in victory. As an example, Shawn Michaels has lost more matches than he's won in Wrestlemania. In the past six years, HBK is 2-4 in his Wrestlemania matches, yet five of those matches were voted Match Of The Year by PWI. The Undertaker has just two of those awards, and the only one stemming from one of his Wrestlemania matches was - yep, you guessed it - against HBK himself.
This brings me to my main point. While 'Taker has had a nice little run in the past couple of years of great Wrestlemania matches against the likes of Batista and Edge, his matches were more often than not after-thoughts to others. Case in point: Even when he main evented Wrestlemania 13, few people would even care to mention that he won the WWE Championship against Psycho Sid that night. That night belonged to Bret Hart and Stone Cold Steve Austin. That's the story of The Undertaker's Wrestlemania career. While he's been consistent for nearly twenty years, I don't view him as the top performer in the history of Wrestlemania. I truly believe that distinction belongs to Hulk Hogan, considering that he was instrumental, perhaps even the main reason, in making Wrestlemania the spectacle it is today, and the undisputed main draw in the first nine events. But that's a long story for another time.
PEN15: FICTION. Shawn Michaels deserves that title. If this was the WWE’s publication, or any other where kayfabe is taken into context, I’d say it is fact. But when you look over the list of the Undertakers Wrestlemania matches, his “performance” only became impressive at Wrestlemania X-7. His matches against ‘Superfly’ Jimmy Snuka, Jake “the Snake” Roberts, Giant Gonzalez, King Kong Bundy, Diesel, Psycho Sid, Kane and Big Boss Man were all average at best. And even since Wrestlemania X-7, there have been clunkers as well. Now, I’m not blaming the Deadman for the lack of performance in those matches, but Shawn Michaels brought more out of lesser opponents for a longer period of time, which led to him getting the bigger matches and opponents.
The title ‘Mr. Wrestlemania’ that Shawn has been given is based on performance more than wins/loss. It is not a kayfabe moniker.
Rey Ca$h: I have the utmost respect for the Undertaker and what he's achieved at WrestleMania. But let me ask you this. If the Undertaker is 17-0 at WrestleMania, how many of those matches were Match of the Year? How many of those matches were Match of the Show? Hell, how many of those matches can you even remember? Enter Shawn Michaels. In this business that we all love, wins and losses aren't as important as "real" sports because we all know that it's scripted. How you win or how you lose can be just as important. And every single WrestleMania that Shawn's participated in, he's stolen the show. Every match he's been apart of at WrestleMania has been great. So, this is a fairly easy answer. FICTION
Evolution_of_the_Game: Well, if it's not him, he's certainly a respectable 1b. to HBK's 1a.
Undertaker is undefeated, as we all know, on the grandest stage of them all. But, you can honestly argue that he didn't have any great matches at a WrestleMania until I would say WrestleMania X-Seven vs. Triple H, which I think Taker was making it known that he was back and was on top of his game. He had some decent-to-good bouts with the likes of Diesel, Sycho Sid, Jake "The Snake" Roberts, as well as some pieces of trash against Jimmy Snuka, King Kong Bundy and let's not forget Giant Gonzalez and Big Boss Man. I would say that since X-Seven however, he really stepped his game up at WrestleMania, with really good bouts vs. Triple H, Randy Orton, Batista, Edge, as well as surprisingly solid matches in which he made pretty watchable, like vs. Mark Henry, Big Show & A-Train, Ric Flair and his re-match against Kane... Not to mention his greatest match to date against Mr. WrestleMania (hope that didn't give my answer away) last year. Having said all of that...
I have to say FICTION. I am going to take Shawn Michaels as Numero Uno. HBK has arguably had the best match on every card he's been on since WrestleMania IX. He had the best match on an awful card with Tatanka at IX, tore the house down against Razor Ramon in their legendary Ladder Match at X, took Diesel to limits I'm sure he never knew he had at XI (in what should have been the main event), had the epic Iron Man Match with Bret at XII, ushered in the "Attitude Era" against Austin at XIV, stole the show against Jericho at XIX, had arguably the MOTY in the main event at XX, had an instant classic against Angle at 21, gave Vince his best match to date at 22, had a pretty good match against Cena in the main event of 23, "retired" Ric Flair in one of the greatest pure WrestleMania Moments ever at XXIV, and completely outdid himself last year against the Deadman. Not to mention his days of solid work with the Rockers. HBK truly is Mr. WrestleMania.
2) It's safe to say that Triple H is on the downslope of his in ring career. Sheamus, on the other hand, is young in the game, and is still riding a wave of momentum that is seldom given to a guy of his status. Or complexion. FACT or FICTION, Hunter should do the job for Sheamus at Mania.
Degenerate: I'm on the fence with this one. I'm still not sure if Sheamus will be an integral part of the WWE for years to come, or if he'll be another case of "too much, too soon". On one hand, he's unproven, even with a championship reign under his young belt. Seeing how so many previous 'rising stars' have faded out as quickly as they've arrived, does Sheamus have what it takes to keep him afloat? If Sheamus has no future in the WWE, he really has no business in getting a win over an established megastar.
On the other hand, this might just been the boost that can make Sheamus a legitimate force in the minds of WWE fans all over the world. His WWE Championship reign was portrayed to be a fluke, so a win here would give the Irish dude some credibility. According to all the backstage stuff that I've read that might or might not be true, it seems like Sheamus has been doing all the right things to get ahead in the business. There seems to be quite a bit of potential for him to succeed here.
For all the shit that people have spoken about Triple H over the past decade or so, he has been rather generous in jobbing at the grandest stage of them all, even losing four straight championship matches between 2004 and 2008. A mid-card loss to a wrestler with some upside to grow further and help the company is more likely to be better for the everyone involved in the long haul. I say FACT.
PEN15: FICTION. Hunter lost his first Wrestlemania match against a guy who made his last Wrestlemania appearance. Yet, somehow Triple H prospered afterwards. A single match is just a match. Besides, Hunter could job this Sunday, but then demolish Sheamus the next 7 PPVs and on 29 Raws in 2010 to completely ruin the single victory. And, it goes the other way as well. Hunter can win in Phoenix, but then lose at Extreme Rules and give Sheamus the feud ending victory. So no, he shouldn’t do the job at Wrestlemania. He should do it when it counts most in the storyline, and only the WWE knows how long this feud will last.
Rey Ca$h: When HHH did that promo talking about how he was the young upstart that lost to the Ultimate Warrior in a minute and a half, I knew instantly that Sheamus would win. Lets face it folks, Sheamus isn't that bad. He's got a look, he can sell for a big man, he's got size, recognizable moves, and a distinct gimmick (aside from Finlay's being the exact same). He's here to stay whether you like it or not, and he's being groomed by one of the best. Hunter has nothing to lose by doing the job, and it only intensifies their feud through Extreme Rules. Trips does the job here. FACT
Evolution_of_the_Game: I have mixed feelings on this one and could go either way, honestly. Triple H (despite what anybody thinks) has made a living of putting guys over at WrestleMania, and in turn has built some of the top guys in the business, and elevated other guys to higher levels. Until you have stepped in the ring with "The Game" you haven't done anything. He has been the measuring stick in the company for pretty much the last decade or so. He really knows how to put guys over (when he wants to). However, I am not entirely sure he will or even if he should put Sheamus over. My gut feeling was that Triple H would do the job, but honestly, the fact that Sheamus is facing Triple H at a WrestleMania and the fact they have built the guy so strong, especially lately, gives me my doubts. I just don't think it hurts his progress at all if he loses a hard-fought battle to Triple H, so I am saying FICTION. By the way, I cringe every time I hear Michael Cole or Jerry Lawler say that Sheamus has had arguably the most impactful first year in the company... Really? I guess they weren't around to see Kurt Angle or Brock Lesnar, or hell, even a young Undertaker, just to name a few.
3) With all the recent shuffling of WWE's PPVs, perhaps the most talked about move was giving Money in the Bank it's own show, thus making this more than likely the last year we'll see it at WrestleMania. FACT or FICTION, this was a bad move on WWE’s part.
Degenerate: Right off the bat, I'll say that I think this is total FICTION. True, the Money In The Bank match was rapidly becoming one of the most anticipated matches to look forward to at Wrestlemania, and with good reason. It's usually one of the most exciting and memorable matches on the card. Also, it's the only thing that was giving Shelton Benjamin an excuse to be included in the card. Don't know if that's a good thing or not, though.
But really, if you come to think of it, what's the true allure of the Money In The Bank match? It's not the match itself - It's the anticipation of when and where the winner of the match will cash in their title shot. Regardless of when the match is held, this won't change. As long as the match is contained within this Pay-Per-View only (a la Elimination Chamber) and not used more than once per year, I think this is a smart move by the WWE, and that a lot of people will purchase and enjoy the new Pay-Per-View. Everyone except Shelton, who will lose his Wrestlemania pay-day. Poor, poor Shelton.
PEN15: Once again, FICTION. It’s so easy to shit on this idea from the start, but when you look at the potential of the event, it makes a lot of sense. I’m not expecting the WWE to reach to potential that I am imagining, but the fact that they could do so much with the show is enough to say it is not a bad decision.
In fact, none of these gimmick PPVs are bad ideas. The problem wasn’t the idea, but the execution. And with every gimmick PPV we’ve seen, they’ve become better. The WWE has managed them well, ironed out the kinks. Hell in a Cell sold amazingly, but was a terrible show in general. But by the TLC and Elimination Chamber shows, they knew how to book the card right and fit the already existing storylines into it.
So at Money in the Bank, I don’t think it’s theoretically impossible for the WWE to construct an event that fits around the angles and feuds at the time, while using the gimmick to sell the show. Plus, I like the idea of 2 guys walking around with briefcases for contracts. I like the idea of the Wrestlemania winner cashing in and winning, only to hear the second briefcase winner’s music hit to take that guy out. I like how it will elevate more talent into the main event, if only by one extra person in 2010.
The gimmick PPVs will most likely play themselves out. But I predict at least one will stick around. The Royal Rumble is the perfect example. It started as a random battle royal match on the USA network. The next 3 years it was shown on PPV as another random match. In 92, it became a WWF championship match, and then every year since then it became the match to determine the #1 contender at Wrestlemania.
But it all started as a gimmick PPV, and it evolved over time into what it is today. The Money in the Bank PPV could be no different.
Rey Ca$h: I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority here who thinks this is a good move. In business, stagnancy is the worst thing that can happen to you. WWE has had the same PPVs for a while now, and it's always good to switch them up every once in a while. And in this ADD culture we live in, it's good to have a drawing point to your PPV so that everybody has something to tune in for. Money in the Bank (which also happens to be the name of my columns on www.lopforums.com [/cheap plug]) is a huge draw. I have no doubt that Vince and the cronies....er writers will come up with a new clusterfuck to tickle all of the spot lovers fancies and put as many people on the WrestleMania card as possible. But it's a great BUSINESS move. FICTION
Evolution_of_the_Game: Fact. I have no idea how WWE can honestly try and have a MITB PPV, it just seems a little much to me, then again so is having 10 men in this year's MITB match. My first thought was that maybe they could have this year's winner cash in at the new MITB PPV, and on the same night have a seperate MITB match, where the winner of that match could cash in at WrestleMania, but that takes away from the unpredictability of the cashing in experience. My big fear about them doing this, is them having like 3 MITB matches, one for the WHC, another for the WWE Title, and the 3rd for the usual "briefcase", hell even having two of these matches on the same card is over-kill. Not to mention, the point is to build young guys who haven't reached the mountain top, and you just know Vince will be tempted to throw established main-eventers in there when the PPV does finally roll around. All-in-all I think it's a terrible idea.
4) Every year when Hall of Fame time rolls around we see the discussions about whether the Macho Man Randy Savage will finally be inducted. I wouldn't bet the house on it anytime soon, personally. However, FACT or FICTION, Savage is the most glaring omission from the HoF roster.
Degenerate: No, no, no, no, no. This is easy: FICTION. Look, I love 'Macho Man' Randy Savage, and he definitely deserves a spot in the Hall of Fame, no doubt about it. His Intercontinental Championship run as a heel was epic (and third-longest ever, just 40 days less than Honky Tonk Man's vaunted run), and his two WWE Championship runs came during an era when Hulkamania was still the biggest draw in the company. But there are at least three others, off the top of my head, who are more deserving to be in the Hall Of Fame than Savage.
Bruno Sammartino and Bob Backlund had only three championship reigns between them, but those three reigns were for a combined 20 years (about 14 for Sammartino, about 6 for Backlund). Even if it was in "ye good ole days" of the World Wrestling Federation, those are credentials that simply cannot be overlooked. The other person, which might be a bit controversial because his career was so short, is none other than The Rock. Not only did he have seven championship reigns, he was - not coincidentally - a central figure during the period when the professional wrestling business was at its highest peak. Any of those men are more deserving than Randy Savage.
PEN15: FICTION, because the most glaring omission in my mind is Vince McMahon. After Vince, then it might be Macho Man.
Rey Ca$h: It depends. Are you an old school fan? If so, you'll probably say Bruno Sammartino. If you're a new school fan, you'll probably say Dwayne "Don't Call Me The Rock" Johnson. But the correct answer is the Macho Man, Randy Savage. He was the 2nd biggest star in the Hulkamania years in wrestling. He was the biggest star after the Hulkamania years in the WWE. He had a few great years in WCW. He had quite possibly the hottest wife in the history of the business. He was crazy as all fuck. He had great catchphrases. And most importantly, he told you to "Snap into a Slim Jim. OOOOOOOOOHHH YEAH!" And I'm pretty sure you all did it. For that alone, he should be in somebody's Hall of Fame. FACT
Evolution_of_the_Game: I believe this is a resounding FACT. While I have been clamoring for Owen Hart to get in forever now, I realize that his wife has a lot to do with him not being in, at least I assume that is the case. But, all that being said, how in the fuck is Randy Savage not in? I mean, Hulk Hogan was the draw but Randy Savage was the backbone of the company for most of those years, and he usually had the best matches on the WrestleMania card, sort of a poor-man's Mr. WrestleMania (not trying to slight Savage at all with that remark). Savage has arguably more WrestleMania moments than just about anybody not named Shawn Michaels. He's also one of the more underrated and forgotten greats of our time, in my opinion.
5) WWE typically places a title match in the main event spot at Mania, even when there's another match on the card that is arguably bigger and more anticipated. Unless Lawrence Taylor is involved and Salt n Pepa are available. FACT or FICTION, as genuinely perhaps the most anticipated and exceptionally well built up match in WrestleMania history, Undertaker v. Shawn Michaels should close the show this year.
Degenerate: The HBK - 'Taker matchup is definitely the one that has garnered the attention of all the Internet fans, from what I see. And why not? Whenever there are two bonafide legends in the ring, it's always an attention-grabber. This match is obviously worthy of being the last match of what seems to be a spectacular show. My main gripe about this would be the fact that we're pretty sure what the outcome of this match will be. If 'Taker wins as expected, we'll be treated to what I believe will be a somewhat heart-wrenching "goodbye" from Shawn Michaels. It would be a memorable way to end the show, but I don't feel comfortable having Wrestlemania 26 close in such a tearful setting. I know I'll be crying like a little schoolboy when it's over, but I digress.
In any case, while most people are fawning over this potential five-star match, it seems like everyone is forgetting that the two championship matches should also be excellent matchups. Chris Jericho is the truly the best at what he does, and Edge can obviously get the job done in big match scenarios at Wrestlemania. And despite all the negativity towards Batista and Cena's wrestling ability, I feel like they can provide a highly-entertaining matchup if given the time, which I think they'll have. Seeing that both current champions are heels, it's more than likely that’one of them will lose. Why not let the fans go home happy? That's usually what Wrestlemania has always been about. If both championship matches were plain awful, I wouldn't have any issues with a huge non-title match to end the show. But this isn't the case. FICTION.
PEN15: FACT. I know there will be purists talking about how the titles should mean the main event. But I think the final match should be the one with the most drama to it.
John Cena is a great wrestler while using as few moves as possible because he’s one of the best dramatic wrestlers in the WWE. He makes everything matter much more. That is his best talent in the ring. That’s why he main events so many shows.
But this year, the drama is in the HBK vs Undertaker rematch. It was why Hogan vs Rock II headlined No Way Out 2003. IT is why Hogan/Mr. T vs Piper Orndorff headlines the first Wrestlemania.
When you look at the failed Wrestlemania main events, it had very little to do with in ring quality. Wrestlemania X-8 was a mess, not because Jericho vs HHH sucked, but because the fans cared more about Hogan vs Rock. They didn’t think to save any energy for HHH vs Jericho because it didn’t matter to most of them. Consciously or subconsciously.
Now, this doesn’t mean that no one cares about Batista vs Cena. But I don’t feel it will out-drama HBK vs Taker II.
That being said, I expect to see the WWE Title match finish the show, and no one will be let down by the match. But I think the idea that the idea of “the title match must end the show” is complete elitist horseshit.
Rey Ca$h: Put it like this. For all you MMA or Boxing fans out there, could you fathom seeing a grudge match come on after the biggest title fight of the evening? No. In the WWE, the most important thing should be the titles, and the WWE title at that. Taker/Michaels II will undoubtedly be a classic. But it doesn't have the fate of the biggest prize at the center of it, as well as include the two biggest stars in wrestling today. At your biggest show, you always showcase your biggest prize at the end. It's an honor that has been around forever. FICTION
Evolution_of_the_Game: I almost always disagree with this statement, but in this circumstance, I am going FACT and I honestly hope and expect this to be the case. Let alone the fact that we are witnessing one of the greatest WrestleMania Moments ever no matter who wins, but combine that with the fact that our alternative is Cena-Batista (which will get booed out of the fucking building and nobody will care about the match, as Cena will get beat up for 3/4 of it before "miraculously" coming back for the win), as we all know good and damn well Jericho-Edge isn't gonna be the main event. So, by default, and the fact this has the potential to be a legendary match, I have to say this is true.
6) Speaking of the Deadman again, WrestleMania means it's time for The Streak to be defended. Some people feel that it should be sacrificed to put someone over like never before, while some feel that it should remain intact for the duration of Taker's career. I think we all know which side of that fence Your Ayatollah falls on. It’s the one with the tombstones. So, FACT or FICTION, The Undertaker's Streak should never be ended.
Degenerate: For years people have been saying the 'Taker should end his streak. The problem is: to who? People usually have one major argument here - to end the streak with a hot newcomer who can greatly benefit from the immediate status bump that will result in this. Can you simply imagine what defeating The Undertaker at Wrestlemania would do for someone like The Miz, Jack Swagger or Sheamus? Not only will they be known in history at the one who figured out 'Taker in Wrestlemania, but the instant credibility to this person's career will be off the charts. However, I seriously question if it's more beneficial in the long haul to have 'Taker lose at Wrestlemania after his first win more than twenty years ago.
Like I said, the immediate reaction will be humongous. But what about the future? As we've seen so many times in the past, having a huge push towards super-stardom doesn't always equate to getting anywhere. See guys like Brock Lesnar, who left the company in the middle of what would've undoubtedly been a stellar pro wrestling career. Or someone touted as the future, like Mr. Kennedy, who went from winning Money In The Bank to being fired in short order. It's a huge risk to end something that will most likely never be duplicated ever again, just to get someone over now. If this were the year 2000, I would say that The Streak should end. But after so much time, it's really not worth it to end The Streak to anyone. So FACT, The Undertaker should remain undefeated at Wrestlemania for the rest of his career.
PEN15: I always try to find a clever way to not answer with fact or fiction in the first word. But I guess I’m not that clever.
Oh wait, I did it here!
FICTION. This is a fake sport, with fake wins and fake losses. What does it gain the Undertaker to retire undefeated at Wrestlemania? He will already go down in time as a Hall of Famer and legend. An icon perhaps. The streak adds to it, but he is not the streak. The streak is a figment of the imagination of those in charge.
Sometime down the line I feel it will be smart to have Undertaker lose to some. I’m not saying it has to be a young kid on his way to the top like a Drew McIntyre. Nor do I think it should be an established superstar like Shawn Michaels. There is a common ground. Someone who hasn’t achieved main event greatness yet, but has a bright future nonetheless.
Of course I am talking about CM Punk.
Well, right now, CM Punk fits the description of the guy who should win it. Everyone from the fans, the IWC and the WWE sees his potential. But he has yet to cross the line into full main event status. This victory would do it. By Wrestlemania 27, someone else might fit that description. Also, I think it would be fine to have Undertaker retire, and then be called out at Wrestlemania by someone, and lose. He can retire undefeated at Wrestlemania, but lose in a comeback match. You would get the best of both worlds there.
Fuck the streak, and fuck the Undertaker. I hope HBK pins him Sunday because I much rather see that lazy eyes balding fuck on my screen than the Deadman continue his 3 minute entrances to boring matches where he can’t keep up anymore.
Your Ayatollah‘s Note: That last paragraph, there, just physically hurt my heart a little bit. If I had the stroke to ban you, sir, I would. On behalf of all the Deadman devotees out there, ouch.
Rey Ca$h: I hate the damn streak. I hate that it's capatilized like it's important. I hate the meaning behind it. I hate everything about it. It diminishes the best big man worker of all time. Do you think about Mark Calloway being the man who played the best gimmick of all time? No. Do you think about Mark Calloway being the best big man worker of all time? No. You think of Mark Calloway being undefeated at WrestleMania. Did he earn those wins? If the win is scripted, I say no. Most of his matches are forgettable. Remember his matches with Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka, Diesel, King Kong Bundy, Giant Gonzalez, Ric Flair, or A-Train and the Big Show? No? Me neither. Thank you Wikipedia. He's great, and he seems to raise his game at the biggest show of them all, when he wants to... The streak has run it's course. It was never intended to get the Undertaker over. He did that himself. It was intended to be a thank you for his loyalty, and a means to put over the person who ended it. It will end ladies and gentlemen. Everything, unfortunately, must. Vince, if you love your business and you appreciate what Mark Calloway has done for you over the years, please...I'M BEGGING YOU...END THE STREAK!!!
Oh yea, to answer the question…FICTION
Evolution_of_the_Game: Man, for a long time I was of the belief it shouldn't end unless it was a young guy that they wanted to build the future around, like a Brock Lesnar or Randy Orton, or hell even a Ted DiBiase, but honestly, why is The Streak the only thing that anybody talks about when it comes to Undertaker? He is the best big man of all time, and he revolutionized what a big man was in the industry. Never had we had the combination of size, athleticism and sheer striking ability like we had with the "Deadman." I don't think we appreciate just how good he was, and still is capable of being today on his best days, when the spotlight is on. I don't think it's fair that his only legacy is the Streak. He has accomplished a lot, and he should be remembered more for the rest of his career than the Streak. I am going to have to say FICTION. For one, how exciting is it if we already know he is going to win his WrestleMania match every year? Two, what good does it do for him or the company for him to retire with that intact? Him losing at WrestleMania, at least in his final match, only helps make money for the company and elevate somebody else to an instant main-eventer, or it gives somebody instant heat like nobody before. Honestly, he shouldn't retire with it intact. Would I be mad if he did, however? Not at all.
Alright, that’ll just about do it. Many thanks to all these guys for agreeing to participate, and many thanks to you for taking the time to check it out. For the record, my personal picks would be FACT, FACT, FICTION, FICTION, FACT, FACT.
When you get a spare few minutes and want some more of what you just read, swing on down to the Columns section of the LOPForums. You’ll find stuff from most of these guys floating around in there, as well as the proverbial shit ton more from some of the best wresting writers on the internet.
Again, I’m YourAyatollah, and I thank you all kindly for reading. Enjoy WrestleMania, folks, and until we get together to hopefully do this again, take care of yourselves out there in the really real world. Much love, kids. Later.
