Reviewing the Review: Fast Lane 2015

You may also like...

15 Responses

  1. M.R. says:

    This should’ve been a SNME instead of a PPV

  2. james gracie says:

    “but there comes a point where he(Ziggler) stops being over and starts being a loser”

    STARTS being a loser? He’s already a loser. Talk about wasted potential after Survivor Series this could go down as one of WWE’s biggest screwups of all time.

  3. Thomas Hall says:

    If you notice, he’s doing some stuff differently, including the Flying Goat. It’s more of a shove now with no head collision.

    The thing with a concussion is each time you get one, it makes it easier to get another one. When you start racking them up, you get them more and more often. With the neck, it could be good for a long time, but there’s really no way of guaranteeing that it’s going to hold up through the next match.

    • M says:

      I think you and this “Larry” (I wonder who that could be…) may have to just agree to disagree on this issue. I think what “Larry” was trying to get across was that most injuries as severe as the neck injury has that consequence of the injured body part not being able to ever fully recover. In most other physical sports this would be treated as either the injured person would be made to recover to a state where they can actually compete with confidence no matter what the opposition, or be forced to retire. You’re not going to see a pitcher come back from shoulder surgery and be medically cleared to throw, only to play every game except against San Francisco. They’d play every game, or stay out injured.

      “Larry” isn’t going to be convinced by the second paragraph either. You can replace the words “concussion” and “neck” with tons of stuff and it will still hold true.
      i.e. “The thing with a neck/shoulder/finger/knee/ankle/groin/back/concussion injuries is each time you get one, it makes it easier to get another one. When you start racking them up, you get them more and more often. With the neck/shoulder/finger/knee/ankle/groin/back/concussion, it could be good for a long time, but there’s really no way of guaranteeing that it’s going to hold up through the next match.”
      You wanted Orton v Lesnar, didn’t you? Think of how many shoulder issues Randy’s had over the years and how easily that thing would pop out after taking one German with slightly too much weight on one side, hell, Roman Reigns hasn’t taken that many bumps on his bad back since he came back has he? Certainly not as many as he’ll take in the Lesnar match.

      You and Mr “Larry” have differing philosophies regarding injuries that’s all.

  4. Ted says:

    Triple h wasn’t even the fourth reason wwe won the Monday night war. Good recap kb though I don’t agree about reigns he’s still not ready and having everybody ensorse him isn’t going to make it so. He had a good match yes but who doesn’t with Bryan? In fact here’s a crazy idea why not just use Bryan?

    • Thomas Hall says:

      I say the following not in defense of Reigns.

      The main reason I think they aren’t going with Bryan is his neck. I more than understand not wanting to risk him out there as the top guy when his neck could go at any moment.

      • Larry says:

        Because of this, are they afraid his neck will not hold up to scratch in a physical match? If that’s the case then surely they shouldn’t have had him return until after Wrestlemania, to both get the neck to its optimal health and so he doesn’t take all the heat away from the Reigns monster push right?

        If you can wrestle a match after returning, you should be able to wrestle a match against any opponent, that’s why I think the Bryan neck excuse isn’t valid.

        • Thomas Hall says:

          That’s REALLY oversimplifying it. His neck could be fine one night and then mess up soon after that. Just because it’s fine one night doesn’t mean a single bump won’t knock it back out of whack.

        • Larry says:

          That’s the exact same reason why people with concussion problems like Corey Graves have to retire from wrestling, so I’m just asking why it would be different when it’s Daniel Bryan’s neck, since according to the “he might get injured again” line he may as well just retire from wrestling if it’s actually that much of an issue. It’s even the same kinds of shots that would trigger something bad happening.

    • ted says:

      “I say the following not in defense of Reigns.

      The main reason I think they aren’t going with Bryan is his neck. I more than understand not wanting to risk him out there as the top guy when his neck could go at any moment.”

      interesting but two things

      1. This company has never cared about injuries despite what they say.

      2. Steve Austin wrestled with a neck made of paper clips for years.

      This is nothing more than McMahon thinking he knows better, and well in the past he’s been right. He’s not exactly batting a thousand these days.

      • Thomas Hall says:

        1. I’m not saying they’re worried about Bryan. I’m saying they’re worried about what happens to them if he goes down again.

        2. Austin is a bit different case than Bryan for a few reasons.

      • ted says:

        1.I suppose you could make that argument.

        Would you willing to say this whole Reigns thing is a enormous mistake? Not that Reigns is a bad wrestler or doesn’t have promise. Rather that trying to tell your fans what to like rather than listening to them is a bad idea?

        This mode of everyone being sacrificed to make Reigns is clearly not working.

        Is it that important to be Vince to be right that he would sacrifice money? That he would allow there to be 70 thousand people booing or worse not reacting to this supposed new Cena? Make no mistake that’s what the company is going for with Reigns.

        • Thomas Hall says:

          Not enormous no. I will however say they’ve done just about everything wrong in this story that they could do while still having a coherent goal in mind. You’re right on the fans not wanting to cheer Reigns. He’s clearly been the chosen one whether the interest is there or not.

          I don’t think the fans are going to boo him in unison. I’m worried they’re going to be indifferent, which is the worst thing you can be to a big name.

  5. BudDakota says:

    One disagreement I have with you. While Triple H has many flaws, to say it is laughable that he was a main reason wwf won the Monday night war is not that ridiculous. He led the hottest group in some very well done segments and matches over the entire point of the war when WWF turned the tide. He then was the topo heel in the company over wcws last year and a half. I mean he was never the top guy during that point but to not give him any credit seems like blind Triple H hate to me. If not him who obviously Rock and Austin were the top guys but those two were far from the only reasons for WWF’s success during that period. Give credit where credit is due.

    • Thomas Hall says:

      When you have Austin, Rock and McMahon around, HHH is a stretch. By the time he got to the top in early 2000, the war was all but over already.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.