BellaOnline Forums Sports Wrestling Batista and Booker T

Mikieboy. Now you are looking forward to Batista coming back even more. Maybe THAT'S the real reason it is being played up. Ok, so Book and Batista got into a fight. Next? Please tell me they arn't pinning B's come back on a behind the scenes scuffle that may, or may not have been a work?

And as far as Patty saying that WWE is not handling it right by suspending, or at least fining the participants, I agree. If this WAS a shoot, then WWE promoting it is sending the wrong message to the Wrestlers. Maybe Randy Orton is sitting at home with a sly smile on his face over this one.

~Chris <img src="/images/graemlins/king.gif" alt="" />

Mickieboy and Se7en. Rut ro. What's this? Quality? Come on, say it. Q U A L I T Y. Ohhh, I bask in all my TGO glory...lol

I think Randy is wondering why he is home suspended and two guys who supposedly broke the cardinal rule of never physically harming another worker in anger and never embarrassing the company are getting interviews and pushes.

If Randy was suspended for his attitude, why wasn't Batista?

More evidence that this is trumped up by WWE in their crazy attempt to turn a possible negative into a positive or at least a rating.

What about Matt Hardy, Edge, and Lita? They fired the one who got screwed over ........ oh wait....that was Lita.....my bad.....

-Martman

LOL

But in that case, it was a sexual thing and not endangering the welfare of top workers.

We all know people will mess around and no one should step in (IMHO) at the workplace and say "You can't do that" even if it is sleazy and slimy like this was.

With a fist fight, that is just pure unprofessionalism at its worst and something WWE should not condone and certainly not embellish. If people are allowed to fight than where will the trust be in the ring? It could get very, very dangerous if the guys re allowed, even encouraged, to work out their differences with their fists rather than their brains.

I seriously, honestly think this is a work. It has to be. Now, as far as Randy getting the wrong message in all this, he is, if it was a shoot. BUT, at the same time Randy's behaviour was something getting out of hand for a long while. Maybe WWE decided that Batista and the Book hadn't walked that proverbial line long enough to warrant true sanctions. But, playing it up like they did and actually pushing the issue, it has to be a work. Has to.

~Chris <img src="/images/graemlins/king.gif" alt="" />

It shouldn't matter if they were walking the line or not. If they were honestly fighting then they should be suspended. Scott Hall was fired for many of his drunken behaviors, Orton was suspended for what people speculate as his attitude so if they don't suspend Batista and Booker T for fighting then what kind of a message are they sending?

Its ok for some people to act the fool but not others?

No, it has to be a work or Vince would be showing favoritism and other WWE wrestlers who were suspended for the same or less behavior would have an open door for a lawsuit to get their suspension lifted and if they were on unpaid suspension then can can sue for money lost as well.

Not that they would actually sue the WWE because they would soon find themselves on the outside of the company looking in but they have a legitimate grievance anyway.

Its a work to set up a feud between King Booker and Batista but I cant figure out why. They should be working on a feud angle for Batista and Mark Henry

with the imminent return of Batista and the fans really looking forward to it what better way to get them more hyped up about it that to work something like this.
Can't see them letting anyone away with it, especially after Orton being suspended and they wouldn't advertise it anyway, they would have kept it under wraps..

All your points are so right but in wrestling there is favoritism and there is a double standard. Batista was ticking off Booker not Vince or Trips or anyone in power (Johnny Ace is a big suspender/firer if you tick him off).

In wrestling there simply is no recourse. You can't sue because you were fired/suspended/fined and someone else wasn't. This is not a union and never will be if WWE has their way. Essentially you do what they say, you are in or out of favor with the top guys and they judge everything on a case by case basis. What is Ok for one is grounds for firing or suspension for another.

In Randy's case, he was apparently given many warnings and fines first.

I have heard of nothing like that leading up to this incident with Batista. Nor have I heard he had an attitude.

I believe there was a scuffle. Happens a lot but they just don't make it into a ground breaking news story. I don't believe there was a fight like they say. If there is no angle between the two that doesn't mean it wasn't something to generate a buzz. But it seems odd that the spin is Batista is disrespectful unless he is turning heel or something.

Who knows? WWE is just so inconsistent that you can't believe anything they say anymore.

No, it isn't ok Amadeus. Far from it. If someone does something against company policy, then reprecussions should be swift. What I was alluding to is that WWE has a habit of letting bad behaviour go on for quite awhile before they do something about it. So, if Booker and Batista have one transgression, albeit a big one, it doesn't suprise me that they didn't get into trouble. And, of course, this is all contingent upon if this was a work or a shoot.

~Chris <img src="/images/graemlins/king.gif" alt="" />

If they push Booker and Batista having a fight, then why not publicize Tammy Sytch and her s*** sandwich, Amy Weber's harrassment, Billy Silverman, and everyone else who has ever been in a fight? What about Randy? Let's talk about what he did. "The fans NEED to know." Wutta load. I'm sure it's a work, because WWE has always been anti-letting anyone know about things in advance, and even on the old call-in shows, they would avoid anything that even SOUNDED like it would be a discussion of what is real and what isn't. Despite the fact that Vince does a lot of things that corporate CEOs would never do (go on TV, and simulate having extra-marital affairs, be vulgar, be blasphemous, strip and have men kiss his bare [censored], etc.), that's not Vince, that's "Mr. McMahon". Playing up a backstage fight smacks of Russo-style-fool-the-intenet kind of booking.
--
Shadow Fire Promotions, Inc.
"Your Chicago Source For Wrestling"
Visit us on the web at [url=BellaOnline ALERT: For anti-spam reasons, we restrict the number of URLs allowed in a given post. You have exceeded our maximum number of URLs.