I'll start off.

- They're ruining Ambrose with that doll garbage and sending him back to midcard.

- Roman Reigns is the perfect fit to be face of the company.

- TNA staying alive helps the wrestling business as a whole.

- If the period between Hogan and Cena had someone as consistently booked at the top as them, the perspective of Cena's booking now would be much different. It skewered the fact that it's the way the company has always booked it's top draw and will always be that way until it eventually dies. 

- People get far too caught up in the names of NXT talent. Names such as The Rock, Steve Austin, Hulk Hogan etc would be laughed at if they were announced today. Strip the talent of their accomplishments and what made them great and the names are terrible. 

- TNA could easily be the best promotion in the world with the right creative minds. 

- I have zero issue with TNA picking up "WWE rejects". Where the fuck are they suppose to go? Indies? Please.

I'm not on the Daniel Bryan hype train.

This is my unpopular Wrestling Opinion from 2011 that still may apply today: Kelly Kelly is da best

Reigns isn't as bad as people say he is.

- As much as I hate TNA. Part of me fears that when they die (not if) WWE's product will just get worse.

- Daniel Bryan will never again win the World Title

- Roman Reigns is the best man to face Lesnar (if not The Rock)

- Seth Rollins will fail his cash-in.

Ambrose isn't a good wrestler.

Cesaro should be the face of the company.

Bobby Fish is one of the most talented wrestlers in the world, and very few people are only just starting to realise it.

I got a lot of them.

John Cena is one of the most talented faces of all time.

Hulk Hogan is mostly responsible for the ignorant opinions about wrestling today.

CM Punk was boring until 2009.

If creative was equally good PG would be better than Attitude Era.

Triple H is one of the best heels of all time.

Davey Richards sucks.

Dolph Ziggler is boring.

Mr. Anderson is the worst active wrestler today.

The Undertaker is one of the most overrated wrestlers of all time.

I got more but I'll stop before I piss people off too much.

When i first started watching WWE i loved Cena and still love him till this day d: (=^_^=)

Roman Reigns should win the rumble

- WWE management has reached TNA management level bad

- TNAs been shitting on WWEs product since the summer

- Cena is midcard level talent, and vastly overrated, especially by WWE. But busts his ass and deserves some credit

- Lashleys TNA title reign will be superior to Brocks WWE WHC reign when alls said and done

- Wrestling hasnt produced a transcendent star since The Rock. Lesnar became transcendent through UFC.

- 90s wrestling is superior to modern day in every way shape and form.

- Politicing is good for the business

- All the major stars politiced, including CM Punk

- fuck Punk for throwing The Rock under the bus for coming back and making him more money

- Daniel Bryan is the only forseeable future transcendent star, and is the most over in the company (though orton may give him a run for his money)


Most of these is facts tbh

The Usos are the most legit tag team we've seen in years.

Triple H was only relevant through HBK and DX.

WWE should stick by their decision and have Roman Reigns beat Daniel Bryan at Fastlane.

CM Punk should never return, he's a traitor and should stay in UFC where he belongs

Eddie Guerrero should have had a lot more title reigns then he actually did

WWE in the early 90's should have trusted Kerry Von Erich, he was a good talent and should have had a lot more success

Undertaker's streak should have ended earlier

Raven was always a great opponent for Undertaker, why it never happened I have no idea

John Cena is rightfully the best wrestler of the modern era and one of the greatest of all time, it's not his fault that booking puts him over every chance they get


(I actually believe some of those, but I'll leave it to you to speculate)

Rikishi does not deserve to be in the Hall O Fame...or at the very least not now.

John Cena is a better wrestler than most people are willing to give him credit for.

Roman Reigns is a better choice for "next big thing" in WWE than most people are willing to admit.  Is he the best choice...no.  Is he the worst choice...NO!  He's got talent and comes from a very prestigious family legacy, who are only second to the McMahons and the Von Erichs.

Owen Hart was always better than his brother Brett.

Randy Orton is not as good as people think he is.  At least not anymore.  I think he's gone stale and needs to either reinvent himself or retire.

Xavier Williams wrote:

WWE should stick by their decision and have Roman Reigns beat Daniel Bryan at Fastlane.

I'm also going to agree with this statement and explain why.  I would've lovedto see Bryan win the Rumble, and I agree he might be a better "face" of the company than Reigns with how over he is.  But Reigns isn't a bad choice, and if WWE caves into the fans for a second year in a row, it'll set a bad example.  It'll let the fans know that all they need to do to get what they want is bitch and moan, which is wrong.  If a child wants ice cream for dinner, do you give it to him because he cries about it long enough?

And here is the unpopular wrestling opinion...fans DO NOT always know who or what is best for wrestling.

Zack_Crash wrote:

Xavier Williams wrote:

WWE should stick by their decision and have Roman Reigns beat Daniel Bryan at Fastlane.

I'm also going to agree with this statement and explain why.  I would've lovedto see Bryan win the Rumble, and I agree he might be a better "face" of the company than Reigns with how over he is.  But Reigns isn't a bad choice, and if WWE caves into the fans for a second year in a row, it'll set a bad example.  It'll let the fans know that all they need to do to get what they want is bitch and moan, which is wrong.  If a child wants ice cream for dinner, do you give it to him because he cries about it long enough?

And here is the unpopular wrestling opinion...fans DO NOT always know who or what is best for wrestling.

I like this point, and agree with you for the most part. However I do feel like the fans are more than just children, they are paying customers and have the proper outlet to make requests/demands. Especially since the guy the fans want is one of the greatest all around workers of the modern era.

I just cant see anything wrong with fans demanding bryan even if it does hijack shows. I mean that seems to be the only way to make WWE give them what they want.

I agree that WWE should stand by their shit and keep Reigns in the main event. However it seems theyve cockteased the fans too much at this point to not have Bryan in the title match too. It would almost be like rubbing it in fans faces.

Also, to your point about the fans not always knowing whos best for business. I can see that logic, but I also think the fans can make whoever they want to work, work. Without their money WWE dies, if fans pour money into a guy they want everyone benefits. In any event youre right the fans can get behind the wrong guy like a Goldberg or a Diesel, but in this case I think Daniel Bryan is the right guy

The current WWE product, as far as in-ring is concerned, is far better than ROH.

I'm enjoying TNA more than other promotions at the moment.

Methuselah wrote:

Zack_Crash wrote:

Xavier Williams wrote:

WWE should stick by their decision and have Roman Reigns beat Daniel Bryan at Fastlane.

I'm also going to agree with this statement and explain why.  I would've lovedto see Bryan win the Rumble, and I agree he might be a better "face" of the company than Reigns with how over he is.  But Reigns isn't a bad choice, and if WWE caves into the fans for a second year in a row, it'll set a bad example.  It'll let the fans know that all they need to do to get what they want is bitch and moan, which is wrong.  If a child wants ice cream for dinner, do you give it to him because he cries about it long enough?

And here is the unpopular wrestling opinion...fans DO NOT always know who or what is best for wrestling.

I like this point, and agree with you for the most part. However I do feel like the fans are more than just children, they are paying customers and have the proper outlet to make requests/demands. Especially since the guy the fans want is one of the greatest all around workers of the modern era.

I just cant see anything wrong with fans demanding bryan even if it does hijack shows. I mean that seems to be the only way to make WWE give them what they want.

I agree that WWE should stand by their shit and keep Reigns in the main event. However it seems theyve cockteased the fans too much at this point to not have Bryan in the title match too. It would almost be like rubbing it in fans faces.

Also, to your point about the fans not always knowing whos best for business. I can see that logic, but I also think the fans can make whoever they want to work, work. Without their money WWE dies, if fans pour money into a guy they want everyone benefits. In any event youre right the fans can get behind the wrong guy like a Goldberg or a Diesel, but in this case I think Daniel Bryan is the right guy

I wasn't saying wrestling fans were children.  That was just me giving an example of how caving into the demands of another just because they cry long enough is not good.

And you're right that as paying customers fans have the right to make their opinions known and heard.  But as you said, that doesn't give them the right to hijack shows, which I feel is the norm rather than the exception.  This is where I have problems with certain fans.  If people were just simply displaying their disagreement in what I feel is a more healthy way, like on internet or just a simple chant during parts and NOT the whole show, but still accepting things as they are, I feel there wouldn't be a problem.  But hijacking shows I feel is not only disrespectful to WWE (both the wrestlers and backstage people) but also deprives other fans of an enjoyable experience.

Bryan is a good bet for WWE, and the fans are right in this regard.  But WWE needs to learn to stick by its decisions, even if the unpopular ones and fans just have to accept that Bryan cannot always be in the main-event.  That's the same problem they have with Cena.  

Anyway, to keep this thread going, another unpopular wrestling opinion is...

Andre The Giant was not that good of a wrestler.  Sorry, but he wasn't.  Watch some of his old matches and tell me differently.  I honestly feel Big Show is a better bigman wrestler than Andre.  Andre got over for two reasons.  1.)  Back then a guy his size was such an attraction, and wrestling still being a territory thing, you didn't see a guy that big everyday.  And 2.)  Because he was so beloved backstage.  Not saying he didn't earn his legacy, I'm just saying he isn't as good a wrestler as history remembers him.

TNA is getting better

As I hate to admit it but if TNA dies so will any competition WWE actually had.

Wrestling sucks, and it has sucked since Eddie died.