Joined
·
125 Posts
Two matches that could have been huge but in the end, both executed poorly.
Your thoughts.
Your thoughts.
fpalm. Orton Vs HHH > lesnar vs goldberg and hart vs mcmahon. lesnar vs goldberg was terrible but watchable and hart vs mcmahon should never have happened period.Hart vs McMahon is worse. But at the same time, I think Goldberg vs Lesnar was better than Triple H vs Randy Orton.
Orton vs HHH at WM25 was horrible. Now it may have been better than Lesnar/Goldberg but not by as much as it seems you insist.fpalm. Orton Vs HHH > lesnar vs goldberg and hart vs mcmahon. lesnar vs goldberg was terrible but watchable and hart vs mcmahon should never have happened period.
Neither. There have been many way worse matches.Two matches that could have been huge but in the end, both executed poorly.
Your thoughts.
I think a lot of people understood Bret couldn't go anywhere. The problem was just like Lawler/Cole this year is the match went got WAY too much time and was brutal to watch. Hart/McMahon should have just been five minutes tops just like Lawler/Cole should have been.Bret-McMahon couldn't have been huge because Bret couldn't TAKE BUMPS. I don't understand why people don't seem to get that. The guy could frigging DIE if he gets hit in the head. So what's the solution? Have him beat the shit out of McMahon with a chair. He was really laying into him too. LOL. Geeks are mad because he wasn't out there pulling off Russian legsweeps like it's 1992. Get realistic.
Exactly, plus all the pre-match garbage with McMahon making all the Harts lumberjacks, and then Bret making some convoluted double turn back against McMahon. I mean the audience didn't know and didn'd care who half of those lumberjacks were.I think a lot of people understood Bret couldn't go anywhere. The problem was just like Lawler/Cole this year is the match went got WAY too much time and was brutal to watch. Hart/McMahon should have just been five minutes tops just like Lawler/Cole should have been.