The W
Views: 100969746
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
29.11.14 0241
The W - Pro Wrestling - Good job WWE. And I'm serious.
This thread has 14 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1(12421 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (17 total)
Rad T
Cotto








Since: 19.6.02
From: Pittsburgh

Since last post: 4358 days
Last activity: 4358 days
#1 Posted on
There is going to be some spoiler crap here so don't read this if you don't like spoilers. I don't like spoilers, but I accidently read the Smackdown GM info from some joker's column.

I just wanted to say something to all the WWE employees who read this board, and you're not fooling me, I know you are reading, all none of you. But look, you are doing a good job.

There is like 1% of the wrestling audience that cries about everything. I like to call them the internet. WWE, you are getting these guys mad. First you say you hired Vince Russo, and three internet reporters jumped off a bridge (and still had a fake advertising line in their suicide note promising news on Goldberg showing up on RAW and a nude chicks gallery).

Next you bring in Eric Bischoff, WWE. And now, you bring in Stephanie as the GM of Smackdown.

I think I'm half white and half mark, because I was glad to hear Russo was coming back. I went crazy when Bischoff showed up on RAW. And I am glad that I accidentally read the Stephanie McMahon spoiler, because I realized that it's a good decision.

Maybe it's because I don't care about who holds who down backstage in wrestling politics, or maybe it's because I don't care about a wrestler who has good "workrate", but I like watching wrestling. Stephanie is annoying, but in my eyes, that's why she's a good heel and why she'll be a good GM. But even if she sucks as a GM I'll still watch because I have fun watching wrestling. The day I don't like what I'm watching is the day I quit watching.

That's what I don't get about these internet jokers. Everyone is always crying. Because all smarks have to hate Stephanie and Russo and Doink and Boink and Bud Selig, because let's face it, none of them can book a storyline and none of them are any good at "workrate".

Well, Selig is good at "workrate" but the other four suck.

But it's a law to hate Stephanie, and Russo, and Bischoff. It's a law, a stupid law, but there are stupid laws everywhere. Up here in Pittsburgh you have to cheer Shane Douglas or they'll shoot you.

So WWE if you are reading I'd like to give you a high five. You see, these internet jokers hate everything and always are yelling and stuff, but they keep watching every week and still keep yelling. Well WWE, make them quit. Make Jericho, Benoit, Angle, Mysterio, Lance Storm, Viscera, and all the other great "workers" job to Triple H in one night. At the same time. Make a weekly match on RAW called Undertaker vs. Big Show. Let every Smackdown start with a Stephanie interview. Give X-Pac the world title.

Yeah I like a lot of crap that smarks hate, and even I know all that stuff I just said would suck. But it would be pretty funny, you know? I like a good joke.

But anyway, I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, but if you read it twice I bet you'll get something out of it.

I'll just sum it up by saying Stephanie McMahon as the Smackdown GM and the whole GM angle won't be the failure you think it is. I don't have any evidence to back that up but then again this whole internet news stuff is all based on fake news anyway.

Just enjoy the show once in a while.

Later, punk.

-Rad T

Promote this thread!
Gavintzu
Summer sausage








Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2903 days
Last activity: 2903 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
The WWE has lost something in the neighbourhood of 3 million viewers in the last 18 months or so, including me.

That's a hell of a lot of "smarks" who are bored with the crappy product.

But hey ... good job WWE guys who are reading! Keep up the good work!









Wait a second ... was this post satire? When you say "Make Jericho, Benoit, Angle, Mysterio, Lance Storm, Viscera, and all the other great "workers" job to Triple H in one night. At the same time. Make a weekly match on RAW called Undertaker vs. Big Show. Let every Smackdown start with a Stephanie interview. Give X-Pac the world title.", it sounds like sarcasm.

Rad-T's post is either really really good or really really ... not-good. Damned if I can tell.




(edited by Gavintzu on 17.7.02 2229)


Let me put you in the picture, let me show you what I mean;
The Messiah is my sister, ain't no king man, she's my queen.
AndrewGilkison
Linguica








Since: 20.6.02

Since last post: 3509 days
Last activity: 2784 days
#3 Posted on
Nevermind.

(edited by AndrewGilkison on 17.7.02 2240)

"Not a great worker, but one hell of a gimmick"
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 109 days
Last activity: 109 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42

    Originally posted by Rad T
    There is like 1% of the wrestling audience that cries about everything. I like to call them the internet.


So, uhhhh, you want to give a source for that number or did you make it up because it fit your argument? I always love when someone tries to say this, and I think to myself "man, I could say that 95% of wrestling fans are 'internet fans' and be just as valid in my argument as these clowns."

And while I'm on it, what the hell is an "intenet fan" anyway? Are there certain guidelines, certain characteristics that all of them display? If a fan misses a show once and looks for a recap of the show online, is he "internet"? Twice? What about if he ONLY reads recaps but doesn't get into discussions of the nature we do on boards like these?



Mean Gene: "You know, I don't think it's a question - Goldberg, I don't think it's a question of who's next, I think it's a question of who's left?"
Goldberg: "No, see, that's where you're wrong. It ain't who's left, it's - WHO'S NEXT?"

"Just how hardcore am I? Well this morning, I drank milk that was two days past the expiration!"
-Norman Smiley

"She is one of them! She's CANADIAN!"
-Stevie Ray
VK Wallstreet
Goetta








Since: 18.6.02
From: New York, NY, USA

Since last post: 4375 days
Last activity: 4374 days
#5 Posted on
It'd be fairly easy to figure out how much of the wrestling audience is made up of "Internet fans." (No, I'm not going to do it. YOU do it!) Get the stats on unique users for some of the major sites. WWE.com doesn't count. Estimate the amount of overlap between the sites, which I'm guessing is a lot -- I mean, I check out more than one site, and I'm sure almost all of you do, too. Then take WWE's TV audience, divide, and voila, you've got the percentage of Internet fans.

Come on, do it! Anybody! I dare you!



¡Azúcar, flores y muchos colores! Estos fueron los ingredientes elegidos para crear a la niñita perfecta. Pero el profesor Utonio agrego accidentalmente otro ingrediente a la formula: ¡la sustancia X! Y así nacieron, ¡las Chicas Superpoderosas! ¡Con sus ultra súper poderes, Bombón, Burbuja y Bellota dedican su vida a combatir el crimen y las fuerzas del mal!
Eradicator
Kolbasz








Since: 4.1.02
From: Chicago

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 6 hours
#6 Posted on
While I won't sit here and defend the WWE's writing, I will say that losing close to three million viewers isn't entirely their fault. Yes, they have alienated some wrestling fans, but I think we all know that wrestling goes in cycles. I think no matter the product the WWE would still be experiencing low ratings today. People are just NOT interested in wrestling anymore. If Goldberg came in tomorrow and Austing came back, and they had the most kick ass story line ever I feel that we would still only get a slight bump in the ratings. The college guys that gathered around the TV in their dorms four to five years ago to watch Nitro have moved onto other stuff and don't give two shits about wrestling anymore no matter what is happening. Bad writing didn't necessarily drive them away- they just got sick of it- just like people get sick of talk shows and reality shows. Look at 2000 when the WWE had their highest ratings, it was not THAT much different than things today. In some cases I think things are better now than back then. Don't believe me? The highest rated match ever was Rock vs. Shane Mcmahon. Today if they put on a match ten times more compelling they would get a quarter of that rating.

I think that everyone that is soooo worried about the ratings, and love predicting doom and gloom just need to take a step back and look at history. Instead of looking back and saying "hey look, WWE is doomed to repeat WCW and go out of business," why can't you look at the WWF in the mid nineties, and realize that this too shall pass. Did we ever think then that there would be a wrestler named the Rock who was also "Hollywood's hottest new action hero?" Who the hell knows what is going to be going on, and who will be the biggest star five years from now- we may not even know his name yet. And If you're still inclined to worry about ratings, just relax and the next big boom will come with time- when the public is ready.

p.s. according to my most recent calculations, the Internet wrestling fanbase consists of exactly 47.3% of WWE's audience.

(edited by Eradicator on 18.7.02 0809)


Yes, indeed I can dig it, Sucker.
Rad T
Cotto








Since: 19.6.02
From: Pittsburgh

Since last post: 4358 days
Last activity: 4358 days
#7 Posted on

    Originally posted by Gavintzu

    Wait a second ... was this post satire? When you say "Make Jericho, Benoit, Angle, Mysterio, Lance Storm, Viscera, and all the other great "workers" job to Triple H in one night. At the same time. Make a weekly match on RAW called Undertaker vs. Big Show. Let every Smackdown start with a Stephanie interview. Give X-Pac the world title.", it sounds like sarcasm.

    Rad-T's post is either really really good or really really ... not-good. Damned if I can tell.




    (edited by Gavintzu on 17.7.02 2229)



It's a little of both. You can take my comments either way you want. But here are the facts I was trying to get through with the post:

I do like the WWF, and I think it's still entertaining.

I agree that there are some big problems, but they are not as bad as the "insiders" make them out to be.

I think the Bischoff/Stephanie GM thing is a good direction for the company.

And to that Bucsfan joker, the "1%" audience is sarcasm. Of course I don't have any evidence on that number, but you probably read the Torch or some wrestling site's newsboards. So when did you start caring about evidence?

Honestly in my opinion, I'd say that about 20-25% of the wrestling audience is at least a weekly reader of internet wrestling stuff.

-Rad T
WyldeWolf1
Boerewors








Since: 20.6.02
From: Florida

Since last post: 4468 days
Last activity: 4468 days
#8 Posted on

    Originally posted by Rad T
    But anyway, I don't know what the hell I'm talking about


Well, you got ONE thing right!

The WWE apparently knows they're not doing a good job (they've said as much on air), so I guess you're alone on this one.



WyldeWolf1
The Man of 1,007 holds, making him 3 holds better than Chris Jericho!
Rad T
Cotto








Since: 19.6.02
From: Pittsburgh

Since last post: 4358 days
Last activity: 4358 days
#9 Posted on
I'm the only one so far who thinks the Stephanie thing was a good idea, so maybe you are right.

But at least I'm not one of those nerds that follows everything the "big name" internet guys say.

-Rad T
Ffej
Boudin rouge








Since: 15.1.02
From: Flatwoods, KY

Since last post: 2359 days
Last activity: 668 days
Y!:
#10 Posted on
Rad T, I believe you said "Steph was annoying, but thats what makes her a good heel." No, it doesn't work like that. A good heel is a heel that the fans love to hate (see Triple H of '99-2000). A good heel makes people want to tune in just in the hope their favorite face beats them up. A good heel is the guy you hope with all your heart someone will shut up in a fun mark way.

A bad heel is a heel that causes viewers to turn the channel. Steph is a bad heel. She is "turn the channel" annoying, not "we love to hate her" annoying. When a heel drives 3 million viewers away, I think its time pull the plug. But for some odd reason the WWE doesn't see it.

Anyway, thats my take anyway. I like the storyline possibilities of the GM thing, but think Steph was the wrong person for Smackdown. Plus I am sure given their recent track record the WWE will fumble this storyline as well.

If I were booking I would have done everything in my power to get Mick Foley on Smackdown. He is the perfect foil for Bischoff and the mainstream fans love him. The WWE lost a lot of fans when he left.

Long live Foley in our hearts and at our bookstores.



WIENER OF THE DAY! July 6, 2002!

I think if you are in the passing lane, and not passing, your license should be revoked, and you should be forced to ride the bus until you promise to never delay the rest of us again.
--George Carlin
Rad T
Cotto








Since: 19.6.02
From: Pittsburgh

Since last post: 4358 days
Last activity: 4358 days
#11 Posted on
No I didn't say that. I said IN MY EYES that is what makes her a good heel. Maybe that's not what you think or what anyone else thinks...but that is what I think.

-Rad T
Net Hack Slasher
Banger








Since: 6.1.02
From: Outer reaches of your mind

Since last post: 3626 days
Last activity: 2046 days
#12 Posted on

    Originally posted by Rad T
    I'm the only one so far who thinks the Stephanie thing was a good idea, so maybe you are right.

    But at least I'm not one of those nerds that follows everything the "big name" internet guys say.

    -Rad T



Okay now you hit a nerve. You know what's more annoying then the "nerds" you describe. The pompous poster that talks down to everyone because he goes against the grain. Don't know if you noticed, but the 'smarts' have been dead on right recently. WWE has noticed it or haven't you noticed the repeated "new era's/reboots" that seems to be going on every few weeks... You like Stephanie, fine. But don't tell me I'm some internet follower when I think she is absolutely horrible as a "top" level wrestling character.

Some examples with Stephanie. Let's look at her being the figure head of ECW/Alliance. IT first looked like Paul brought back ECW and that arena in Seattle with "real" fans marked out like crazy. Steph half a show later Steph came being the true leader and it seemed like the air was taken out of the arena. IWC and myself screamed "why Stephanie? she's horrible. Heyman should be in that position" I'm sure you and Vince both said "what do they now Steph is great". Invasion came and went and DIED. Funny how they made Paul Heyman cut the last TV promo on Vince before Survivor Series to try to save the PPV and get some buyrates instead of the Invasion "figure head"

How about recently when they did a broke up Steph/HHH without bringing a third party into the there spotlight. Then pretty much having the World Title main-event at WrestleMania of "Watch Triple H finally get his hands on Stephanie". Myself and most of the IWC screamed "Why are they doing this?" and it turned out to be one of the heatless main-events in WrestleMania history. I guess there were 80,000 nerds/smarks in that stadium that night right? Oh no it can't be, Hogan was cheered.

How about the WWE/NWO era. I did disagree with some of the net hacks because I thought they should bring in Hogan because of his name but I saw no upside on Nash or Hall. But bringing in a 7 year old gimmick, and hasn't had any effect in the last 4 years, with Hall &Nash both in there 40s. With one of them who can't get his head on straight and the other one who act's like he's 20 but his body is so broken down when he's in there he looks like he's 60. And neither is as popular as they or Vince thought they were. Your damn right I came on here saying it was a bad move bringing in Hall and Nash. So rose colour glasses Rex were you surprised when Hall was fired, Nash is horrible and broken down. I sure wasn't!

I certainly think if Vince or someone in WWE is reading this they should contact you. From what Paul Heyman said during his Smackdown Promo right before Survivor Series. Vince loves people kissing his and looking at the piece of crap and saying it looks like the Mona Lisa. Which is exactly what they are doing when saying that Stephanie should be a focus point of any major wrestling storyline.





I don't get it, everyone loves rats, but they don't want to drink the rats milk?
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3512 days
Last activity: 3506 days
#13 Posted on
"People are just NOT interested in wrestling anymore. If Goldberg came in tomorrow and Austing came back, and they had the most kick ass story line ever I feel that we would still only get a slight bump in the ratings. The college guys that gathered around the TV in their dorms four to five years ago to watch Nitro have moved onto other stuff and don't give two shits about wrestling anymore no matter what is happening. Bad writing didn't necessarily drive them away- they just got sick of it- just like people get sick of talk shows and reality shows."

This is a very telling comment--but I don't think it's just because the college guys "got sick of it." I think it's because wrestling *as a whole* as been going down the tubes lately. You can't just blame the WWE for its recent woes, you HAVE to go back to the last days of *WCW* and see how they single-handely RUINED a good show called Nitro and forced those types of crowds to start hating it and move on to something else. A lot of them didn't move on to the WWE (because of its different style) and those who have are, well, putting up with all these problems that the WWE is having now that they don't have any more competition. So I really think it's what has been happening in the entire industry for the past few years, not just the WWE. You can just as easily blame Bischoff for screwing up a good thing as you can McMahon. (And YEAH! Now they're on the same show!) Add 9/11 to the mix and you have a lot less interest in wrestling today.

I think this is just the best overall explanation for what has been going on. So how do you regenerate interest? As the other thread said, do you go back to "shock value"? Unfortunately I think that is where they COULD be heading, but I also think another organization (NWA-TNA?) is going to have to get TV time in order for wrestling to build that college crowd fan base again. The question is will McMahon finally realize that competition is good, that is allows you to say "Look at how OUR product is different." That's the big question.

DMC

(edited by DMC on 18.7.02 1243)


"And win, lose, or draw, trust me. I'm gonna respect myself in the morning, and you're gonna respect me." -Arn Anderson
ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 81 days
Last activity: 3 days
#14 Posted on
There is a lot of oversimplication sometimes in threads like these. For example, some want to blame Stephanie and Stephanie alone for chasing off 3 million viewers. That's just too simplistic. If that was the case, during the time she disappeared, ratings should have popped back up, since people were only not watching because she was on TV. But they didn't. And I've never seen evidence that people DO turn the channels when Stephanie is on TV. Shouldn't the quarter-hour ratings reflect that?

Did I like the Wrestlemania Triple H, Steph, Jericho angle? No. Would it have better if they just trusted Jericho to be able to hold up his end of the match? Yes. Would that have made a difference in current interest? I doubt it. Also, would Paul H. been a better leader than Steph in the ECW angle? Probably. Would it have worked if Paul was leader, but everything else played out exactly as it did? No. Would current interest be significantly different if Paul was leader of the ECW during that angle? Probably not.

The mainstream gets tired of things after a while (I'm amazed that some people think that wrestling is immune to things that effect every other portion of the industry). Who Wants to Be a Millionaire was a popular show. Now it's not even on in prime-time. Why? Did they change anything? No. People just got tired of it after a while, was the uniqueness of the gimmick had worn out. Survivor at one time was the most popular show on TV. Now it's not even the most popular show on Thursdays. Why? Did they change anything? No. People just got tired of it after a while, the uniqueness of the gimmick had worn out. (I know the show is still popular, but it is in decline, and I suspect it will continue to decline the longer they keep it on)

So what about WWE. Why were people watching? Was it because of work-rate? Was it because of great wrestling? Was it because Stephanie was on only in limited doses? No. It was because of Austin vs. McMahon. An angle that a lot of people could relate to, especially the common man. But you know what. People just got tired of it after a while, the uniqueness of the gimmick had worn out.

So I would say, the only thing that will significantly change ratings and business is another hot, unique angle like the nWo or Austin/McMahon. But that's a LOT easier said than done. You don't come up with those types of angles everyday. And you're probably not even sure you've got one until you've tried it and it works. So I think the only thing you can do is just tried to put on a show that entertains most of the current audience, and then every once in while take a chance with a big angle that you think might be the hot one. But be aware, you could probably look stupid every once in a while, as angles that you thought were going to be great fall flat on their face when they fail to capture the public's fancy. The main thing is be patient, and don't go for quick fixes. Because there is probably not that many people that are just on the verge of watching wrestling, if only the right certain thing happens on a particular Monday. Most are gone, and really don't care what happens. So even if that hot angle is found, results won't happen instantly. They will have to be built over time.
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3512 days
Last activity: 3506 days
#15 Posted on
However, ges, trying out a hot angle during this whole "post WCW" era greatly involved McMahon laying down his ego and trying to create something that would have been cool and would have brought back all the old WCW fans. All he has shown since is that will never happen. So he has to be partly to blame for the recent "blah" wrestling on TV.

I do agree though that part of the spike in ratings and popularity that wrestling had in the mid-to-late 90s was largely a fad thing. And just like Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, it faded too. But for awhile people wanted to see this new "attitude" wrestling, it was hot for awhile, but it got old and passed. I just think it could have stayed around a lot longer if WCW didn't end up loosing their mind and put boring crap on TV which caused them to shut down. After that, attitude wrestling became passe and without competition, the biggest thing the WWF could have done was this invasion thing. We all know where that has gone now though. So WCW and WWE have both blown it for wrestling.

DMC

(P.S. Follow me on this--after having watched A Beautiful Mind last night, I see a possible description of 90s wrestling as a "Nash Equilibrium". Both products, WWF and WCW, basically attempted to copy eachother, so they were always pretty neck and neck, or at least switched places here and there, as far as ratings went. They both followed the same basic format, doing no more or no less, because doing so would have been harmful to the corporation. Does this fit at all, or like John Nash and I too going crazy?)

(edited by DMC on 18.7.02 1529)


"And win, lose, or draw, trust me. I'm gonna respect myself in the morning, and you're gonna respect me." -Arn Anderson
Rad T
Cotto








Since: 19.6.02
From: Pittsburgh

Since last post: 4358 days
Last activity: 4358 days
#16 Posted on

    Originally posted by Net Hack Slasher

      Originally posted by Rad T
      I'm the only one so far who thinks the Stephanie thing was a good idea, so maybe you are right.

      But at least I'm not one of those nerds that follows everything the "big name" internet guys say.

      -Rad T



    Okay now you hit a nerve. You know what's more annoying then the "nerds" you describe. The pompous poster that talks down to everyone because he goes against the grain. Don't know if you noticed, but the 'smarts' have been dead on right recently. WWE has noticed it or haven't you noticed the repeated "new era's/reboots" that seems to be going on every few weeks... You like Stephanie, fine. But don't tell me I'm some internet follower when I think she is absolutely horrible as a "top" level wrestling character.



I'm not referring to people's opinions and to be honest with you I wasn't talking about anyone in this thread or on this board, because I don't know everyone. It wasn't meant to offend you. The followers I was talking about were the people on message boards and in columns posting exact thoughts from the "expert" writers. You want an example? One day some writer says John Cena looks like Sting and could be the next Sting. The same day you have people everywhere, message board posters, columnists...saying John Cena is the next Sting. Those were the followers I was talking about, and it was an extra line I threw in which had nothing to do with the opinions of the posters in this thread.

I don't think I'm right for liking something and I don't think you're wrong for not liking it. Opinions aren't right or wrong. I think Stephanie as the GM is a good idea, and Net Hack Slasher is saying I'm wrong for thinking Stephanie is entertaining, and you go as far as to say I should be contacted by WWE for pretty much saying the WWE's "crap looks like Mona Lisa". I'll respect your opinion. But you are trying to prove me wrong when I say she is entertaining. It's just my opinion. And I'm the pompous poster?

To be honest with you I think the Stephanie/Jericho/Triple H storyline before Wrestlemania 18 sucked, but I still think Stephanie can be entertaining. And I think hiring Bischoff and Stephanie as GM's could be a good angle.

-Rad T



KilljoyTX
Longanisa








Since: 29.1.02
From: DallasTX

Since last post: 4497 days
Last activity: 4497 days
#17 Posted on

    Originally posted by DMC
    (P.S. Follow me on this--after having watched A Beautiful Mind last night, I see a possible description of 90s wrestling as a "Nash Equilibrium". Both products, WWF and WCW, basically attempted to copy eachother, so they were always pretty neck and neck, or at least switched places here and there, as far as ratings went. They both followed the same basic format, doing no more or no less, because doing so would have been harmful to the corporation. Does this fit at all, or like John Nash and I too going crazy?)

    (edited by DMC on 18.7.02 1529)



Absolutely. The Golden Era of Wrestling was great because of the rivalry. Coke/Pepsi, McDonalds/BurgerKing, Microsoft/Apple, McAfee/Symantec, Parkay/margarine, TastesGreat/LessFilling. Even better, we got to see the corporate espionage via the dirt sheets.

I started watching the Von Erichs when I was a pre-teen, and watched the cartoon WWF in the early 80's. I stopped watching when I "grew up", but then when I happened to turn the channel one day and saw the "takeover" in the WCW, I became instantly intrigued as an adult. Then I found out that people were publishing what was happening backstage, and -that- soap opera hooked me. That IS why I watched, and why I marked out for the Invasion, since it at least had the appearance of being adversarial again.

Competition keeps you on your toes, and makes both sides perform at a higher level. Now that we have a non-binary system again, the future is much dimmer.

P.S. Stephanie doesn't make me change the channel. It just makes me mute the T.V.




Bruce Wayne: "We've met."
Selina Kyle: "Have we?"
Bruce: "Sorry, I mistook me for someone else."
- Batman Returns
Pages: 1Thread ahead: Amusing 1993 Flashback
Next thread: I wonder...
Previous thread: SmackDown! Report
(12421 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
I don't know what he looked like, but it sounds like his old ECW look, so I'd say the deal is he went back to the old ECW look that he managed to get over (or almost get over, if you wanna' be jaded about it) with.
- eviljonhunt81, Justin 'Nothercastoff (2003)
The W - Pro Wrestling - Good job WWE. And I'm serious.Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.476 seconds.