Originally posted by JustinShapiroGoodness gracious me. If they sign him, I'd say he'd be the worst guy they've brought back who's not Tatanka and possibly Jamal. Seriously, Test and Palumbo work squared circles around him.
I wasn't just talking about workrate, though. Shannon Moore works six-sided rings around him, but I don't really have any desire to see Shannon Moore, nor will the E ever do anything with him. Meanwhile, I never saw the appeal of Test on any level.
Originally posted by DestrucityI never saw the appeal of Test on any level.
Cool theme song?
You Titan babies who haven't seen O'Haire's WCW work need to give him a chance.
Of course if you have, and you still don't like him fair enough.
I think the possibility of a NBT reunion sans Mike Sanders (who even TNA puzzlingly refuses to use) is a shame.
Well WWE (2002) and TNA (2003) actually used him for a little while. I found this on Obsessed with Wrestling and its something I have never heard before:
# >>WWF Developmental Talent: -Mike Sanders signed a WWF Developmental contract and was assigned to Les Thatcher's Heartland Wrestling Association.. -February 13, 2002 - HWA: Mike Sanders & Lance Cade defeated Val Venis & Steve Bradley for the HWA Tag Team titles.. -Mike Sanders becomes one of the bookers in HWA.. -Mike Sanders was released by WWE because it was said they had no plans to call him up to the main roster.. ~~~However, there are rumors that he was blackballed by Paul Heyman..
See, if they had somehow gotten Sanders on contract I could understand people being pleased. He had good schtick, and wasn't a half-bad wrestler to boot.
And Johnny, I did bear witness to O'Haire's WCW work. He was a hot-tag specialist, the Billy Gunn to Chuckie P's Road Dogg. He had a nice swanton and some crazy facial expressions, but c'mon. Let's not go overboard here. Me, I'd rather see Nathan Jones back before O'Haire. Sure, he was a goof in the ring, but he was also a genuine freak with a great backstory and a funny Aussie accent.
To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires, and lights, in a box.-Edward R. Murrow