Board logo

Brock gone along with Goldberg after Mania?
promoter2003 - 3-8-2004 at 05:25 PM

"There's a shakeup going on involving Brock Lesnar, and Bill Goldberg may not be the only WWE superstar who could have his last match for the foreseeable future at WrestleMania. According to numerous sources, both wrestlers and a few friends of Lesnar's outside the wrestling business, Brock has not been a happy man backstage lately. Lesnar is said to be very upset that he had to fly all the way to South Africa "just to wrestle Hardcore Holly" instead of being used in a higher profile match on the tour. Lesnar, who has a long term deal with WWE (said to be seven years long), reportedly doesn't feel he is being protected properly for the long term by the promotion.

Lesnar was also said to be upset that he was programmed to wrestle Undertaker after WrestleMania. Lesnar doesn't feel, since he is supposed to be a long term money player for the company, that he should be "fed to the Deadman." Lesnar is not alone in his feeling there either, as a lot of Smackdown wrestlers hate the fact Taker is coming back in his old persona since it means that he doesn't have to sell for people any more (due to the nature of the character). There was already a concern among many Smackdown workers that Taker gets too big of a push for an aging talent when the brand is in dire need of pushing new, young workers at the top of the cards. He is viewed by many on the Smackdown roster as "our HHH", in that he beats everyone, is always pushed at the top and has a huge amount of power backstage. Taker's calling of his pay per view match with John Cena, where Taker, as described by one Smackdown wrestler, "gobbled up Cena like Cena was a job boy" has wrestlers upset and concerned about his return.

Lesnar and McMahon apparently had a very tense discussion last week and Lesnar has told a few other wrestlers he might just take some time off after WrestleMania to cool down. According to one wrestler Lesnar considers a friend, "even with his own airplane, the travel is burning him out, and this South Africa trip was handled all wrong."

As of right now, the company is not making any post Mania plans for Lesnar. I have been told the company has removed Lesnar's name from all voiceovers on upcoming shows after Mania but he is scheduled to work on the UK tour later this month since he was previously advertised on it."

credit: Dave Scherer/PWInsider

I have to agree with Lesnar. He has been made to look weak against lesser guys like Holly and Gunn. At least he is smarter than Angle was at this stage of the game. Look how they killed off his heat from 2001 through silly comedy and weak storylines. Angle's current stuff is picking up again. Of course, I also see where Vince would be loyal to Taker and the character as its one of his best creations. I'm just shocked to see UT was going to face Brock again! Enough already! I guess Kane will get his ass handed to him on sunday and that'll be the end of him.

I see might think Brock is getting a big head, but I see it as the silly notion that everyone has to be built on the same level which doesn't really create mega-stars like Austin, Flair, LOD, or Hogan in their prime. The Rock is the only exception, but he was pushed like a monster in his first year as well and I think if he wasn't doing movies his pops would not be the same as monday's. Some guys should simply be pushed as above other wrestlers to stand out with the masses.


folby - 3-8-2004 at 05:49 PM

quote:
Taker's calling of his pay per view match with John Cena, where Taker, as described by one Smackdown wrestler, "gobbled up Cena like Cena was a job boy"
Wrong. That match did wonders for cena. Everyone remembers the game he talked going in, and people noticed that he almost lived up to it. They didn't repeat "Took taker to his limit" on the air a thousand times for no reason.

If this is true, Brocks a whiny little bitch. Yes, he flew to South Africa to wrestle Holly. Did he job to holly? Did he wrestle Funaki? Did the fly him in a crate? And why did he fly to africa to wrestle holly? Because the company wanted him to. Imagine that, doing what the company asks you to because *gasp* it's your job. (Along with not complaining about it afterwards.) What, did Brock expect to main event for seven years straight? Brock went over taker in his rookie year in a hell in a cell match. I'd say Brock owes taker a little something for that.

They didn't kill angle's heat with comedy and lesser fueds. No matter what they did with him, his in-ring performance made the crowd understand that he mattered. Brock just has to do the same thing. (And stop whining about it.)


doublee - 3-8-2004 at 06:15 PM

It is probably not the worst thing in the world if he takes some time off. It sounds more like burnout than anything else. The guy has been going strong the past two years without any signficant down time. Most of us can attest to when we get burnt out at work or what have you we look for any little thing to complain about, and any little thing irritates us beyond no end.

I cannot see him walking away from the WWE entirely. As mentioned he has a long-term deal and I seriously doubt he could make the same amount of cash on the Indie circuit. While he would be a huge draw I doubt they could match the royalties and endorsements that he draws in the WWE.


promoter2003 - 3-8-2004 at 06:38 PM

Brock does seem to be whining about travelling a bit I can't argue that. I can't argue that Taker also gave a huge win to Brock in the hell in a cell. However, look how much Taker has been given in his years in the federation(and yes I know they have given him crap like Mabel and Gonzales). That was his first real job imo where the other guy was just booked to look superior(let's not forget Taker was in pain and medication in storyline, so he still was booked as not being 100%).

Hogan gave UT a big win in his "rookie" season as well(the rematch was a very tainted win for someone like Hogan). Who else has Taker given a big rub too? No one! Not even his "brother" Kane. Brock went over Hogan, Rock, and Flair before UT(and even then it took two matches). So, it was just in line with what the company wanted and he would come off like a jerk to not give the job to Brock since those three guys who are bigger legends put in work to groom Brock Lesnar. I don't think UT is owed anything in terms of a job because he always wins.

Even Hogan didn't get his job from Ultimate Warrior who was suppose to be the new young lion just like Lesnar is pushed now. Lesnar has been doing what is asked of him. He put over Eddie in a way I'm sure the other main event veterans wouldn't have. He went past 5 minutes with Holly for crying out loud which is ridiculous. Not to mention running away like a jobber in the storylines. He has not been booked well ever since the title match with Benoit on television. That was the last time I felt Lesnar was pushed how he originally should be pushed. His current "feud" with Goldberg is weak(not Berg's fault imo) and focuses on Austin who isn't his challenger.

I really didn't see anything wrong with the Cena/Taker feud. Scherer is just being the typical net writer who has to bash the normal top line guys with the glass ceiling stuff. Brock should expect to main event matches for years to come because they need him to. It's like Hogan in 1984-1985 or Austin in 1998-1999. Austin said himself they need to stick with a direction with Lesnar instead of changing his character constantly because that makes fans not know how to relate to his character. I don't see how Lesnar has problems with guys like Gunn and Holly when he put away legends. It doesn't make sense. It's like putting Holly and Gunn on the same level as Benoit as a challenger.

It does go back to not creating a roster on smackdown strong enough to be a serious threat to Brock. There is no reason for Holly to be main eventing championship matches on a big four ppv. As for Kurt Angle I think they did botch him some right after SummerSlam 2001. He was head and shoulders with Austin, but soon after they turned him into a stone cold wannabe. He later dropped down the card after the 911 push. He regained his past stature with his title defense against Benoit last year. Let's not even talk about his 1st title reign. I think this current Angle should have been the character from all along.


markout - 3-8-2004 at 06:58 PM

I think if there really is a problem, it will all get worked out by the time WM rolls around. The WWE just can't afford not to have Lesnar around. While I don't necessarily agree that jobbing Brock to the Undertaker is a good idea, I don't think it will kill any of his "heat". All that would likely do is set up a Taker/Eddie or Taker/Angle title match while Brock is still free to feud with guys like Cena or a returning Edge. Admittedly, SD isn't in quite the shape that it was a year ago at this time, but Brock still has viable feud options and will never be too far out of the title picture.

Hell, he could always jump to RAW and get held down by the real HHH as opposed to SD's version. (that was sarcasm)


Shaggy - 3-8-2004 at 07:07 PM

They should have made Lesnar vs Goldberg a retirement match - IWC fans wouldn't "know" the outcome anymore and the mainstream fans wouldn't know what was going to happen for other reasons and it would have added certain sizzle to their match.

The ending could have had Austin stunner both and count a double pin - Austin has heat with both afterall.

I've recently read a qote that was attributed to Lesnar, to paraphrase he said "If I could get similar money elsewhere, I'd retire from wrestling due to the heavy travelling schedule". Now the travel schedule is brutal - all major sports athletes have an off-season and touring bands have years off the road. Ever since Brock jumped on to the WWE roster he has been a top guy and has been on the go non-stop. He's bought a private plane in hopes that would help with the travelling, and that's getting him heat with the boys i the back. I think time off would do him wonders, as I don't think the WWE wants another Nathan Jones situation.

The WWE is going international touring now more than ever. Usually quick whirlwind trips that see talent flying from city to city never even checking into hotels. And they have to be back for Raw or Smackdown tapings - that's brutal. I've travelled over to Europe on a few occasions, and I don't think I'd make that flight for anything less than a month-long stay.

The WWE needs to do something about the schedule - whether it be taping Raws and Smackdowns abroad to lessen the break-neck schedule and flying or even give the talent an "off season" from June to mid August. Wrestling doesn't have any re-run appeal, so they'd have to fill their timeslot otherwise - however another Tough Enough could easily fill one of the slots(on UPN) and Spike would probably work with the WWE on some other programming as well for the Raw slot.


Bonestein - 3-8-2004 at 07:25 PM

I agree. It's time for the WWE to consider some kind of off-season. You know, it only would have to be 2 weeks, it could make all the difference to let the talent all relax at one time for 2 weeks. Even a month, the tv schedule should be able to be filled for 4 weeks with whatever. Just simple "Best of 2004" or whatever, show an old PPV, something. It would be nice if they did it right after Wrestlemania though, just because that seems to be the time when storylines should wrap up, the end of their year. Maybe next year.


Jodrell - 3-8-2004 at 07:31 PM

Yea, I've always wondered why the WWE don't just tape RAW or Smackdown while they're away on tours - the crowds always seem stoaked as they don't get to see it live very often.

I guess the only problem would be the fact that it wouldn't be live in the US . . . but shown AS live it would only be a few hours back if done on a Monday night in the UK for example.


maestrom4 - 3-8-2004 at 07:45 PM

Off-season? I would just give all of the cry babies a very long off-season. This is a product of the new generation of spoiled wrestlers who are ruining the product. They have had everything handed to them, so naturally now they demand to get top billing. Let'em go I say. I'd much rather watch people who are busting their ass then those who I affectionately labled cry babies before. Maybe I would even come back to watching full time.

- the 'stro


The Bad Guy - 3-8-2004 at 07:55 PM

Hey, just like there's no crying in baseball,
THERE'S NO OFF SEASON IN WRESTLING, DAMNIT!

Now, taping a couple of weeks at once to allow more time to recuperate after overseas tours, that's perfectly reasonable, so long as they don't start going to wacky WCW level taping 3 months of TV at once bullshit.


doublee - 3-8-2004 at 08:37 PM

I have always been an advocate of an 'off-season' of sorts. I do not think the WWE should close up shop for months at a time during the year, but I do think they should rotate guys off of the road for stretches at a time. Giving extended time off helps keep guys healthier and keeps them mentally fresh. Too many guys fight through nagging injuries that balloon into something worse. Just look at how much better Undertaker was after his layoff several months back. He looked trimmed down and like he was ready to roll.

These guys are expedted to do twice as much as Hogan ever did back in the 80s. They have to do foreign tours every three or four months. They have to work house shows exdept for a very select few. The spots they perform are light years ahead of the stuff that was being done 10 years ago. These guys are on the road upwards of 250 days out of the year. We have more PPVs now than they ever did back then. Today's star has to work twice as hard to make it as the fans expect twice as much as opposed to when we grew up.

I would say that most guys are busting their butts out there these days. Vince is not shy about cutting guys loose or holding them down the card if they are not pulling their weight.


AriestheRam - 3-8-2004 at 09:05 PM

You know it sounds to me like Lesnar is just road weary and some time off would do him good. Maybe after he beats Goldberg at Mania Heyman could give him a vacation as a reward for proving Smackdown was the superior brand. Hell if Lesnar has a private jet two weeks in The Bahamas or Hawaii with his wife should be a pretty easy thing to set up.

And as far as an offseason and what to put on Spike during the usual RAW slot, how about OVW? It could give some of the wrestlers down there a chance to get exposed to the audience so there is some background when they show up in WWE.

And that concludes post #200.


Atrains_Caboose - 3-8-2004 at 09:13 PM

I dont see anything wrong with giving the boys "vacation" time. Much like we workers get vacation time.

I dont think that after a year in the WWE, two weeks vacation is so much to ask for. I dont think after 5 years in the WWE, 3 weeks vacation is too much to ask for. Its not too much for the average Joe, why not for them?

There would obviously have to be rules set up, just like in the common work place. Such as not having too many wrestlers off at the same time. Seniority gets first pick to vacation time. Possibly limiting wrestlers from taking time off during "peak" season (6 - 8 weeks prior to the Big 4 PPV's).

Listen, we all bitch and complain about work all the time. When things get a little rough, we complain about it. Its human nature. Most of us probably have pretty good jobs that probably entail us sitting at a desk most of the day at a computer. Construction works have an "off season" that lasts 5 months (well here in Canada anyway).

These guys work their asses off day in and day out. They deserve a break. An off season of a couple of months? No. Two weeks vacation for services rendered? Most definately.

[Edited on 3-8-2004 by Atrains_Caboose]


Operation Pajama Pants - 3-8-2004 at 09:35 PM

they will never have an off-season cuz 2 months off no programming and no live shows and no PPVs equals millions in lost renevue.


and as far taker goes, maybe it's just that i'm a taker fan, but i dont think any one watching is gonna say "i dont buy *wrester A* as champion cuz he couldn't beat taker."


maestrom4 - 3-8-2004 at 10:27 PM

I'm not sure why so many people here are in favor of an offseason. Where I work we don't take a few weeks off all of a sudden. Joe might take a week in August, Greg in April, and then Maestro takes one in July. My point I guess is everybody deserves a week off here and there. There is no need to give everyone the same weeks off. Except all of the people I think suck, they should all have a lot of weeks off.

maestro


Atrains_Caboose - 3-8-2004 at 10:32 PM

Agreed Maestrom. I think an off season is a bad idea. Like Pajama Pants said, thats millions in lost revenue. But I dont think that the WWE will lose too much if HHH goes on vacation for two weeks. Heck, is is off every few months for his "injury du jour" anyway.


SuperRob - 3-8-2004 at 10:41 PM

The answer seems easy to me. When Lesnar beats Goldberg, he takes Goldberg's spot on the RAW Roster which leaves Lesnar's spot open for Taker.

Everybody happy.


Antelope - 3-8-2004 at 10:52 PM

quote:
Originally posted by SuperRob
The answer seems easy to me. When Lesnar beats Goldberg, he takes Goldberg's spot on the RAW Roster which leaves Lesnar's spot open for Taker.

Everybody happy.


Except for all the people who actually watch Smackdown to see good wrestling and are now denied both Benoit AND Lesnar.

As for the “off-season” – hey I appreciate what these guys go through, but what is all this garbage about how today’s wrestlers work so much harder and have to do so much more then guys in Hogan’s era. More then Hogan? Maybe. But Hogan was a different beast. You try telling a guy like Ric Flair or Greg Valentine or Terry Funk how much harder today’s wrestlers have it and you’re likely to get smacked in the face. They have to do overseas tours? Big deal. These guys used to wrestle every night a week, sometimes doing 2 matches a day – and these were 30-60 minute matches, not the 10 minute specials guys do these days.

I’m not saying it’s not a tough life, because it is, but seriously, guys have busted ASS for this sport for years. If you get tired and you need time off, fine, take it, but don’t be surprised when you’re not #1 anymore on your return. Flair was the world champ for ten years because he never took time off EVER. Angle learned this lesson this past year as he was on the absolute top when he took his first ever time off in early 03, and it has taken him almost a year to get back to being the true top man once again.


doublee - 3-8-2004 at 11:05 PM

When I say twice as much I am referring to the extent at which they put their bodies at risk for injury. Back in the 80s guys did not take many chair shots and maybe went through a table once a year. You did not have hard core matches, ladder matches or TLC matches back then. We rarely go through an entire SD! or RAW where a guy does not take a chair shot, get thrown into the ring post, or get thrown into the steps. Stuff like that is routine these days, whereas it was not 10-15 years ago.

I did not necessarily mean that today's guys have to bust their butts any harder than the guys of yore, but they are expected to do a lot more high impact wrestling than Hogan or Flair did when they were breaking into the business.


Jodrell - 3-8-2004 at 11:24 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Atrains_Caboose
I dont see anything wrong with giving the boys "vacation" time. Much like we workers get vacation time.


Sounds like a good idea to me - this could help stories out somewhat by giving poeple time off to really sell beatings . . . would have worked well for HHH to have had a couple of weeks off after being dropped 20feet in a car by Stone Cold rather than just turning up the next night on RAW.


maestrom4 - 3-8-2004 at 11:28 PM

Actually, scrap all of the seperate roster bullshit cut the deadweight and crybabies (see above post) then maybe i'll be happy. But that's another argument for another post

- maestro


Lorraine - 3-9-2004 at 12:04 AM

Unless a performer is truly burned out or injured, I doubt very many of them would be willing to take time off. It's too easy to get lost in the shuffle while appearing on the shows-- very few wrestlers are going value a week or two at home over a push.

Also, over the last few years, they've had the weeks between/around Christmas and New Years.

And last, is it fair to trim the work hours (and pay) of roadcrew, cameramen, etc who do just as much traveling (and most likely do it for far less pay) just because some of the talent is burnt out?


Atrains_Caboose - 3-9-2004 at 12:08 AM

quote:
And last, is it fair to trim the work hours (and pay) of roadcrew, cameramen, etc who do just as much traveling (and most likely do it for far less pay) just because some of the talent is burnt out?


Well thats business. I worked at a company that had a "shut down" for 4 weeks in the summer. We had to take 3 weeks vacation and the other week non-paid. Why? Because the owner decided that he wants to go to his Florida mansion every summer for a month and didnt trust anyone to "run" his company in his absence. Its not right, but what can you do. Poor cameramen et all, but if you dont like it, get another job. Business is business.


Endo - 3-9-2004 at 12:19 AM

I like the idea of "vacation" time, but wrestlers will get lost when they go on vacation. Or they'll just get worse booking, since the fed gets to keep on rolling. Offseasons started for weather reasons; too cold for baseball, too hot for football. Wrestling has no "bad season", and as long as it remains the product it is today and always has been (a rigged contest for our amusement), there's no basis for a limited season to begin with.

As for Lesnar, he sounds burned out. does wrestling Holly make you weak? No, losing to Holly makes you weak. When you're the champ, you take on all comers and beat them. Now as for Taker, it'll be fun to watch the DeadMan gimmick again, and this will probably be the last run for Calloway, so let's give him a send off rather than complain about him "holding down talent." For some reason I don't see them slapping the belt on UT for any length of time, other than the obligatory "thank you" strap holding.


SuperRob - 3-9-2004 at 01:51 AM

I just had a thought.

Wrestling Hardcore Holly made him look weak, but his begging McMahon for a match, on his knees, crying ... that he has no problem with???

WTF is wrong with Lesnar?


promoter2003 - 3-9-2004 at 02:18 AM

Oh, I would not say today's stars have it harder then 10-15 years ago. Yes, there is perhaps more stiff work with chairs and whatnot, but that is not done to the extent of the ppv shows on a weekly basis. I clearly remember Hogan coming to Maple Leaf Gardens on a MONTHLY basis. In fact, there would be 2-3 shows a night every day of the week including the Christmas schedule. I think some are forgetting these guys get the Christmas holidays. In the 80's I remember Tunney would hold special tourneys on boxing day. These guys had to actually wrestle on boxing day. I don't think they do that nowadays. An off season would do wonders for both the talent and the creative team, but I also see why they don't do it. As we know when wrestling is hot it's hot and when it's cold it's cold. Taking a break during its hot periods could cost them some serious cash. I think Taker should get a nice run this year under his old school guise, but why not feud him with people we haven't seen with. You got Orton as an example. The legend killer against the legend. If Hogan had to help out in 2002, I think Taker should to. It makes no sense for Lesnar to job back to Taker. What for? They are pushing that there is a new beginning upon us and jobbing the future stars to Taker is counterproductive and I am a mark for old school Taker.


microplay_24 - 3-9-2004 at 02:22 AM

I think the fed could do one of 3 things to lighten the touring schedules:

a) ACTUALLY cut down on the touring dates, and give the roster a lesser load to deal with.

b) Give each brand an alternate week to do house shows (ie: have the RAW roster do tours one week, and the SD! roster do tours the next, and just have them alternate every other week).

c) Maybe have 2 weeks off at exactly the 6-month mark of the year, in which case there can be recaps of each brand and their respective show on all the actual storylines that went down leading up to the half-way mark of the year.

Just some ideas, as the touring schedules really do seem to be a little too much for the roster…after all, they have NO off season.


chucky_13 - 3-9-2004 at 06:22 AM

Brock sucks and he's a little baby boy who has to have everything handed to him. Now he thinks he is better and he should get whatever he wants. Yeah IMO he sucks. He used to be ok but now he sucks.


promoter2003 - 3-9-2004 at 06:41 AM

I wonder if this is the new work again? This info comes out the week of Mania when a group of fans know Goldberg is in the same kind of situation. Kudos, to the company if it is as it sure would help lower the chances of Lesnar getting cheered on sunday.


fsolomon75 - 3-9-2004 at 07:22 AM

I also wonder if this was floated around so it actually adds suspense to the Brock-Goldberg match? Just a thought...


Drunknow - 3-9-2004 at 01:32 PM

[Edited on 3-9-2004 by ModSquad]


ModSquad - 3-9-2004 at 01:59 PM

Look! It's the asshole who wrote:

quote:
99% of people on OnlineOnslaught are idiots. And that's just the columnists!

10,000% of message board posters on OnlineOnslaught are fucking retards. 10,000%.

There are a few cool people on OnlineOnslaught, but even they are retards because they have very annoying signatures.

...

I'm not saying you should get a social life so much as I'm saying you're fucking retarded idiots. You pieces of shit.



Why did you come back? You were one of the few people who was told to go away and actually DID it, without being banned. Obviously I overestimated you.

And now you're back with a signature that might fall on either side of "Completely Fucking Moronic" and "Making Fun of Rick and OnlineOnslaught." Either way, fuck off.


madiq - 3-9-2004 at 03:08 PM

I knew this would happen. The depleted Smackdown roster, the cycling through main eventers as champ, without building up new rivalries along the way has kind of caught up to Brock. Like it or not, he is the new Hogan. And while I think that he is charismatic enough to play running scared, (after all, he did it for Holly) he needs a program where neither guy completely dominates the other. Undertaker, in my opinion, isn't a good fit for Smackdown anymore. RAW has a slew of "damaged goods" performers who have jobbed enough to not have their characters hurt by being squashed by the Dead Man, and Taker should go there. A HHH-Taker feud at some point would be TONS more interesting than Lesnar-Taker AGAIN.

That said, Brock might be burned out, and might need a break. And here's an important point: With more main eventers, guys should be able to take a month off, refreshed, revitalized, and ready to work, with someone else filling in. Let's remember, it was during the Undertaker layabout that Guerrero got his spot to shine.

And a part of me does wonder about The New Work. Most of us assume that Goldberg will lose, but now, with this controversy, the result isn't so clear. And that's how they like it...


OO Kyle - 3-9-2004 at 08:13 PM

I almost feel silly telling you folks to consider the source, but really-

Consider the source.


metallikid - 3-10-2004 at 12:59 AM

Don't believe everything you read. Maybe its just me but this sounds like horse shit to me.


maclen - 3-10-2004 at 06:17 PM

So now that Brock said he wants to be a football player, how will the lame duck main event be handled? It would be funny if Austin stunnered both, and then Bob Holly came to beat up on both, then have Edge clean house.

I suck at this....

maclen


StratDweller - 3-10-2004 at 07:49 PM

They get two weeks off at christmas.

I am sure if Brock needed a couple of weeks off to recharge, WWE would have happily granted him the time.

They should sue him for breach.


Shaggy - 3-10-2004 at 09:16 PM

This sounds too outlandish to be fake, under the truth is stranger than fiction category. That being said - I'll believe it when I see it.

As far as any breach of contract - people retire from their contracts all of the time. Broch Lesnar is retirning from Pro-Wrestling, no harm - no foul.

With Bill Goldbergs string of absences and now this - if at all true, the WWE would be better off making it a retirement match and have the end come when Austin stunners both and thus reitres both. Or they could just cancel the match.


MrJustinB - 3-10-2004 at 09:31 PM

I havea question for the doubters, namely Kyle. What source would you believe? If ByteThis said that Brock was considering football, would that be enough? Do you actually need Brock to come to your house and tell you?

I'm not one that beleives the sheets generally. But, my senses aren't being spiked on this one. There's a lot of sources picking it, and saying the same thing.


markout - 3-10-2004 at 09:35 PM

A lot of sources may be picking the same source. You know how the sheets work...one site reports something and ten others copy it without giving credit. Suddenly everyone has this supposed information from different sources so it seems credible.

Like Kyle said...consider the source. Consider it closely.


MrJustinB - 3-10-2004 at 10:37 PM

So, if the source was WWE, you'd buy it?


OOMatt - 3-11-2004 at 01:26 AM

SABLE?!

Oh, Brock, nonononoNO! Your wife was even kind of attractive!

Ugh.

Didn't she give you any useful career advice?


ModSquad - 3-11-2004 at 02:49 AM

People seem to be posting the same things in this thread and the other "WTF?--New Lesnar Rumors" thread. So to save folks some time from having to hold the same argument in two places, I'm closing this thread.

If people REALLY need it to be open (and I don't know why you would), I can reopen it.