WWE TV Thread 20

skbucks1985 · Post #1961 » by **skbucks1985** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:12 am

Okay, well good thing this is an angle because if this was totally legit them giving him the 'what' treatment would be really bad

whysoserious · Post #1962 » by **whysoserious** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:12 am

Shane-O-Mac is back!

Post #1963 » by **studcrackers** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:13 am

HOLY F*CKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

skbucks1985 · Post #1964 » by **skbucks1985** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:14 am

HOLY ****

iMoreland · Post #1965 » by **iMoreland** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:14 am

SHANE O'MAC

Post #1966 » by **studcrackers** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:18 am

safi wrote:
studcrackers wrote:
safi wrote:
Yeah, I don't get upset by guys getting inducted in either. And I'm also no fan of this character either. I think inducting Koko B. Ware has created a precedent where basically anyone can get inducted. I was talking to a friend who'd just finished Hardcore Holly's book (which I've also read) and he was at times brutally candid and said things, especially about HHH, that probably weren't the best for a future relationship with WWE. And he mentioned that this could hurt his chances of getting into the HOF and at first thought I thought career mid-carder Hardcore Holly isn't a HOF'er, but he's more deserving than Koko B. Ware or The Godfather.

idk what case holly has over the godfather

For one, his tenure was almost twice as long, 15 years vs 8. But also, Holly wrestled Brock in a main event for the title once and I thought Hardcore Holly was really good when the Harcdore Title was really hot as one of the top guys in that division. The Godfather was all just that gimmick because I can't remember a single match or feud The Godfather ever had. The only thing I actually remember is when he was Papa Shango and made Ultimate Warrior throw up.

well, i assume he's being inducted for his entire career.

Post #1967 » by **Latrell** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:20 am

Shots fired by Shane ! lol

iMoreland · Post #1968 » by **iMoreland** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:24 am

These 3 can cut a damn good promo together

Post #1969 » by **studcrackers** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:25 am

his kids have some of the whitest names

skbucks1985 · Post #1970 » by **skbucks1985** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:25 am

Shane's kids have the whitest names ever

Vandal Savage · Post #1971 » by **Vandal Savage** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:26 am

Is this commercial free edition.

Post #1972 » by **studcrackers** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:29 am

what'd he say?

Post #1973 » by **Latrell** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:29 am

Undertaker vs Shane. LOL

iMoreland · Post #1974 » by **iMoreland** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:30 am

WOOOOAHAHAA

Post #1975 » by **studcrackers** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:30 am

Vandal Savage · Post #1976 » by **Vandal Savage** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:31 am

lolwut

Post #1977 » by **Stanford** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:32 am

Dunno what Shane is talking about. WWE's stock is solid.

whysoserious · Post #1978 » by **whysoserious** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:32 am

As soon as I heard Vince say he'd choose the opponent I thought of Taker, but are they really sending Taker out like this and can Taker even handle Hell in a Cell matches anymore?

Still glad to see Shane back. It would have been a good opportunity for Vince to bring in someone new or put KO in the match or heck, give him the Wyatts where they lose, McMahon dresses them down and they turn face and take Shane's side.

skbucks1985 · Post #1979 » by **skbucks1985** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:33 am

Well, I guess we know what our WM main event is

Shemy · Post #1980 » by **Shemy** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:33 am

Unless Shane McMahon plans on doing insane spots off the top of the cell then that match makes no sense