HHH & 'Taker Fined by WWE

First topic message reminder :

he WWE announced on their corporate website at corporate.wwe.com that Triple H and The Undertaker were fined for a chair shot to the head in their match this past Sunday at WrestleMania XXVII. Here is the announcement from their site:

Pursuant to WWE's Concussion policy, the stunt of using a folded metal chair shot to the head is prohibited. Triple H and The Undertaker have both been fined for violating this policy at WrestleMania XXVII. WWE penalizes through fine and/or suspension for violation of this policy, which is unchanged and still in effect.

I wonder if this is just a work like when John Cena was fined for using 'ass'?

Nobody here has defended the use of chair shots, but these guys aren't forced into it, the fact that the chair shot mentioned in the OP actually met with gasps at 'Mania emphasises the point that nobody expects them to happen.

Granted, Foley isn't the best example. But you can't blame chair shots solely for the problems that occured in wrestling, or attribute it solely to the deaths.

In professional wrestling nowadays anybody getting into the business knows what is expected of them, they know the rigours you put your body through and that sometimes praise and thanks is hard to come by, yet, these people still walk into the business, they still get crashed through tables, or thrown into a barrier, anybody who turns to steroids, drugs or pain pills and pretends they didn't know what to expect is either a liar or an idiot. Guys like Cena prove you can make it to the top and be clean cut. taking steroids doesn't increase your personality.

Crips, i highly doubt that during your life have you seen chair shots to the head and shook your head in disgust. You're coming across with a holier than thou attitude. Do you expect people to just forget what they have seen? Should we look back at the spots we remember and shake our head in disbelief? Or judge anyone and everyone who allowed it to happen?

I personally don't have a problem with a chair shot to the head if its done well (WM27)and done only when the occasion truly calls for it, I also find it amusing when i see people judge others for enjoying it while they themselves wont switch off from the morally dysfunctional sport that is Pro Wrestling, complete hypocrissy IMO

the-gaffer wrote:I personally don't have a problem with a chair shot to the head if its done well (WM27)and done only when the occasion truly calls for it, I also find it amusing when i see people judge others for enjoying it while they themselves wont switch off from the morally dysfunctional sport that is Pro Wrestling, complete hypocrissy IMO

That's a mentality that I addressed in my post, ie "if you don't like it, don't watch". The reason I don't agree with that is because, if I stop watching, and everyone who cares about wrestlers' safety stops watching, how does that solve the problem? It's like saying "if you don't like nuclear weapons, don't buy them".

I think it's sad that I'm being accused of being judgmental and high and mighty simply because people disagree with something. Why is it that a well thought out opinion expressed with good spelling and punctuation gets people's backs up? I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm just expressing an opinion, one which most of you disagree with. I do think it's disgusting that people enjoy stiff unprotected chairshots to the head (this is the point where someone replies by saying "but Undertaker put his hands up", completely missing the entire point I'm making). That is how I feel. Like I said, I'm sorry if it offends anyone, and I realise that to say it is "disgusting" might get your back up if you enjoy them, but that's the best word I can think of to describe how I feel about it. I used to enjoy them very much when I was younger and wasn't aware of the repercussions; now I am aware of the damage it causes, I no longer get any pleasure from it. Whether others aren't aware of the damage, or just don't care, is your personal choice.

And seriously, if you just enjoy chair shots and don't care what the repercussions are, I'd respect that more than talking in circles and getting defensive.

King Beer wrote:Thrown into a barrier

I've noted this happenning a lot more lately...Maybe the barrier throw is the new chair shot?

Jammy31 wrote:

King Beer wrote:Thrown into a barrier

I've noted this happenning a lot more lately...Maybe the barrier throw is the new chair shot?

And poopy is the new suck it.

And cutting to a break when the wrestlers are outside the ring is the new blading.

Davieswasacrippledtart wrote:

the-gaffer wrote:I personally don't have a problem with a chair shot to the head if its done well (WM27)and done only when the occasion truly calls for it, I also find it amusing when i see people judge others for enjoying it while they themselves wont switch off from the morally dysfunctional sport that is Pro Wrestling, complete hypocrissy IMO

That's a mentality that I addressed in my post, ie "if you don't like it, don't watch". The reason I don't agree with that is because, if I stop watching, and everyone who cares about wrestlers' safety stops watching, how does that solve the problem? It's like saying "if you don't like nuclear weapons, don't buy them".

I think it's sad that I'm being accused of being judgmental and high and mighty simply because people disagree with something. Why is it that a well thought out opinion expressed with good spelling and punctuation gets people's backs up? I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm just expressing an opinion, one which most of you disagree with. I do think it's disgusting that people enjoy stiff unprotected chairshots to the head (this is the point where someone replies by saying "but Undertaker put his hands up", completely missing the entire point I'm making). That is how I feel. Like I said, I'm sorry if it offends anyone, and I realise that to say it is "disgusting" might get your back up if you enjoy them, but that's the best word I can think of to describe how I feel about it. I used to enjoy them very much when I was younger and wasn't aware of the repercussions; now I am aware of the damage it causes, I no longer get any pleasure from it. Whether others aren't aware of the damage, or just don't care, is your personal choice.

And seriously, if you just enjoy chair shots and don't care what the repercussions are, I'd respect that more than talking in circles and getting defensive.

So now you're aware of the repercussions it means that others who aren't so vocal don't share your same views?

I don't find them hilarious, nor do i show mock outrage when one of them is used as a spot in a PPV. I don't look back over history and judge people who remember them for not realising the dangers it could have.

People have a right to 'enjoy' it, they enjoy the spectacle, the spot, the fact that nobody saw it coming; this is, after all, Sports Entertainment. Undertaker and HHH were; and are, fully aware of the risks associated with this kind of thing, if they chose to do it at thier own risk then who are we to judge? They put their bodies on the line, they pay the fine, they get the plaudits for putting on an enjoyable match.

You seem to be in a loop of your own here Crips.

I am not accusing you of being high and mighty and judgemental purely based on the fact that I disagree with you.

I am being judgemental of you and accusing you of being High and Mighty because you appear to have swept everyone that posted a link to a chair shot as being sick and disgusting. I don't know how many times I have to say that I agree chair shots should be banned and frankly I couldn't care less. It doesn't seem to change your mind. I posted links to chair shots, therefore I am obviously doing it because I derive pleasure from said chair shots.

Nonsense. It was relevant to the OP and provides evidence of brutality behind the shots and highlights why they should be banned.

You accuse me of "talking in circles and getting defensive" and seem to have decided that I should admit to enjoying chair shots despite knowing the repercussions. You don't know me or my opinions but are forcing your impression of me on to me. You are being judgemental of me on the basis of copied links. Why don't you get off of your high horse and realise that you are guilty of exactly what you are accusing us of.

Chair shots should be banned. That doesn't mean that we are not allowed to copy links to them.

I just wanted to say that I posted a chairshot link on here as a purpose to demonstrate how brutal it can be if not taken correctly. At the start of this thread, I said I was entertained by it, (dont get me wrong, when one gets pulled out of nowhere like Taker/HHH at WM27, it's the shock of seeing it thats exciting) but having seen a few of the other chair shots through the links, I now know just exactly how dangerous and hazardous they can be to the superstars, and I now respect the decision of the WWE to ban them.

I have alot of memories of the use of the chair in wrestling matches. Undertaker tombstoning Hulk Hogan onto a chair to win the title, Edge and Christian performing the 'con-chair-to', The Rock pumelling Mankind to make him say 'I Quit', RVD drop kicking a chair into his opponents face.

Like gaffer says, when used correctly in unique ways, and back in the day when heels used them to 'cheat to win', it was innovative and fresh. However looking at the Rob Terry chair shot i do agree with crippled, theres just no need for unprotected shots with that kind of force.

Jammy31 wrote:I just wanted to say that I posted a chairshot link on here as a purpose to demonstrate how brutal it can be if not taken correctly. At the start of this thread, I said I was entertained by it, (dont get me wrong, when one gets pulled out of nowhere like Taker/HHH at WM27, it's the shock of seeing it thats exciting) but having seen a few of the other chair shots through the links, I now know just exactly how dangerous and hazardous they can be to the superstars, and I now respect the decision of the WWE to ban them.

You don't need to justify yourself, Jammy.

Mr H wrote:However looking at the Rob Terry chair shot i do agree with crippled, theres just no need for unprotected shots with that kind of force.

Then it is not just Crips that you are agreeing with. Like I've said...I said it was impressive that he was able to remain standing after that...I didn't say I was condoning the actions and I derived no pleasure from the shot. But you can't deny that when they were pushing someone as "The Freak" taking a shot like that can only emphasize that reputation.

I would also say that Homicide botched it slightly...he almost appears to throw the chair rather than control the shot.

I have stated several times now that I don't think head shots should be used....unprotected or otherwise.

I'll be honest in that I posted the 'Taker chairshot to Maven because at the time, i remember thinking "WHAT A CHAIRSHOT".. in the same way I gasped when I saw Dynamite kid performing his diving headbutt on satoru sayama (the move that harley race came out and said he regretted "inventing" in the aftermath of the Benoit tragedy and incidentally the move that is always cited as contributing to Dynamite not being able to feel anything from the waist down these days) and in the same way my mouth still hits the floor when I watch Fokey and Taker in KOTR 1998, which is probably the closest (hopefully anyway) we'l come to seeing someone being thrown to his death on National TV. To be fair, I can see where Crips is coming from, but if we were to take this line of argument to an extreme, then surely we're all guilty because we watching wrestling, because after all it is the industry that has ended the lives of so many young men and women; be that because of drugs abuse, steroids or just an accumulation of bumps over an active career. Not to mention all the moves that have led to paralysees of wrestlers all around the world.

For the record, I think it's a good thing that chairshots aren't used now, in the same way I think it's a good thing that no-one else was ever flung off the top of a cell or that the WWE don't use barbed wire ropes like in the old japanese "death matches" etcetcetc.

Alot of the more recent ones have come from TNA, who pretty much have no regard for their stars and would happily allow Hogan to fornicate with his own daughter if it proved a ratings winner.

King Beer wrote:Alot of the more recent ones have come from TNA, who pretty much have no regard for their stars and would happily allow Hogan to fornicate with his own daughter if it proved a ratings winner.

And Vince McMahon wouldn't??

Enforcer wrote:

King Beer wrote:Alot of the more recent ones have come from TNA, who pretty much have no regard for their stars and would happily allow Hogan to fornicate with his own daughter if it proved a ratings winner.

And Vince McMahon wouldn't??

Not now he wouldn't.

But that's down to WWE being in a PG era. You can't criticise TNA for being willing to do something that WWE would have done (and still would with a different target audience).

My opinion stands whether it is entertainment or not, whether it is their own choice or not. I’ve already said how I feel about that. I don't think we're all a million miles apart here except for those who just don't care about wrestlers' health at all. But it does get my goat when people are dishonest.

Which brings me to you David, I have found your posts on this topic to be dishonest and deceiving. You sound like a politician. The conversation undoubtedly went in a certain direction even if you did not intend for it to go that way (people were clearly sharing videos of chairshots for others to enjoy, and it is dishonest to deny that), and you didn’t sound like someone calling for chairshots to be banned when you said the following: “I love the way the blood starts trickling down. That was when they were really pushing him as "The Freak"...played so well in to that persona. Taking a shot like that and still standing is impressive.”. And yet you are also denying that you took pleasure from that chairshot? Make your mind up.

I feel I have made my opinions perfectly clear. Therefore I shall step away from this discussion now...

Enforcer wrote:But that's down to WWE being in a PG era. You can't criticise TNA for being willing to do something that WWE would have done (and still would with a different target audience).

I can criticise TNA. Mainly because it's full of people who were close to the people who have died in the business from the things that have been discussed. And the fact they never learn, despite having 2 of the most influential and dare i say it 'successful' people in the business at it's helm.

At least WWE learns, moves with the trends and adjusts it's programming accordingly.

I'm not denying there is a lot to be critical of, it was just using that specific example that I found strange as VKM's interest in incest stories is well documented!

WWE does adjust and move and for a lot of older fans they miss what it used to do and TNA is trying to fill that gap.

Davieswasacrippledtart wrote:My opinion stands whether it is entertainment or not, whether it is their own choice or not. I’ve already said how I feel about that. I don't think we're all a million miles apart here except for those who just don't care about wrestlers' health at all. But it does get my goat when people are dishonest.

Which brings me to you David, I have found your posts on this topic to be dishonest and deceiving. You sound like a politician. The conversation undoubtedly went in a certain direction even if you did not intend for it to go that way (people were clearly sharing videos of chairshots for others to enjoy, and it is dishonest to deny that), and you didn’t sound like someone calling for chairshots to be banned when you said the following: “I love the way the blood starts trickling down. That was when they were really pushing him as "The Freak"...played so well in to that persona. Taking a shot like that and still standing is impressive.”. And yet you are also denying that you took pleasure from that chairshot? Make your mind up.

I feel I have made my opinions perfectly clear. Therefore I shall step away from this discussion now...

Did I not explain that quote in previous comments Crips? Oh wait, yes, I did. Does the blood trickling down the front of his head and the fact that he was able to remain standing not play in to that "freak" persona perfectly? Yes it does. Does the fact I loved the aftermath and impact of the chair shot mean I took pleasure in the act of the chair shot? No. In fact you have quoted one thing and ignored the first one...

Re: HHH & 'Taker Fined by WWE
by David Tails Yesterday at 2:27 pm

.I personally think the worst chair shot I've seen in recent was on TNA.

The chair shot that Homicide delivered to Rob Terry was insane..

So I state that it is probably the worst chair shot I have seen. In what way can you possibly twist that to say I am condoning the action.

See this is why I am calling for you being holier than thou crips. Again you claim I am being dishonest. I said that it was the worst shot I've seen, when the video was posted I then went on to discuss the impact that had. You don't know anything about me and my opinions. I have given my opinions. What you infer from that is your own choice. I know my intentions you do not. Or perhaps I'm wrong. You do give off the impression that you think that you know everything there is to know about wrestling. Perhaps you actually believe that you know everything about everything.

Does that mean if someone posts a video of Foley being launched off the roof of the cell that I am not allowed to say that I love the maniacal look on his face when he finally comes round? Would that be condoning the throw? Again, no. That would be discussing the aftermath of an event.

Before you judge me...read the ENTIRE thread and see where I am coming from. I may not have the same wrestling knowledge as you, but I am not an idiot.

Enforcer wrote:I'm not denying there is a lot to be critical of, it was just using that specific example that I found strange as VKM's interest in incest stories is well documented!

WWE does adjust and move and for a lot of older fans they miss what it used to do and TNA is trying to fill that gap.

Agreed but the incest angle was what 10? 15 years ago?

Older fans miss the old style attitude era and i wouldn't say TNA was anywhere near offering that level of programming. I would certainly suggest that if the want to re-create something then they use their own homegrwon talent, rather than the has beens from WWE.

TNA, the company who involves the real life children of a real life alcoholic in their storylines in an attempt to boost ratings. The company who allows one of their employees to perform in the main event of a PPV whilst being off his face on drugs.

Nothing suprises me with TNA. God only knows what lengths they'd go to.

Mr H wrote:TNA, the company who involves the real life children of a real life alcoholic in their storylines in an attempt to boost ratings. The company who allows one of their employees to perform in the main event of a PPV whilst being off his face on drugs.

Nothing suprises me with TNA. God only knows what lengths they'd go to.

See i agree on all counts.

This thing with Jeff Hardy has me worried. The fatc they are planning to exploit his issues and use them as a storyline spells disaster.

A few years ago i would've had Kurt Angle or Scott Hall down to actually die in the ring although i now firmly believe it will be Hardy.

King Beer wrote:

Enforcer wrote:I'm not denying there is a lot to be critical of, it was just using that specific example that I found strange as VKM's interest in incest stories is well documented!

WWE does adjust and move and for a lot of older fans they miss what it used to do and TNA is trying to fill that gap.

Agreed but the incest angle was what 10? 15 years ago?

Older fans miss the old style attitude era and i wouldn't say TNA was anywhere near offering that level of programming. I would certainly suggest that if the want to re-create something then they use their own homegrwon talent, rather than the has beens from WWE.

Paul and Katie Burchill?

Hero wrote:

King Beer wrote:

Enforcer wrote:I'm not denying there is a lot to be critical of, it was just using that specific example that I found strange as VKM's interest in incest stories is well documented!

WWE does adjust and move and for a lot of older fans they miss what it used to do and TNA is trying to fill that gap.

Agreed but the incest angle was what 10? 15 years ago?

Older fans miss the old style attitude era and i wouldn't say TNA was anywhere near offering that level of programming. I would certainly suggest that if the want to re-create something then they use their own homegrwon talent, rather than the has beens from WWE.

Paul and Katie Burchill?

That was a rumour though, nothing was ever confirmed, unlike the Steph angle. Even so that's still like 4 years ago?

King Beer wrote:You don't need to justify yourself, Jammy.

I know, just wanted to make sure I wasnt going to be pulled into this

Jammy31 wrote:

King Beer wrote:You don't need to justify yourself, Jammy.

I know, just wanted to make sure I wasnt going to be pulled into this

Not at all, you're entitled to your opinion mate.

But how long has TNA been running?

How long had WWF/E been running at that point?

I'd go with it being more than just rumour, they did imply it a few times on air with 'What Katie wants, Katie gets' in 2008.

Enforcer wrote:But how long has TNA been running?

How long had WWF/E been running at that point?

It's a bit different isn't it. Bischoff and Hogan know the business, as does Jarrett.

TNA isn't a brand new concept, it's not run by people who are new to the business. You would think, given all the knowledge they have within the company and the experiences gained from ECW, WWF, WCW that they would know what issues to avoid and put itself above the WWE in terms of how it looks after it's talent and it's ability to deal with issues. Fact is they don't.

I'd go with it being more than just rumour, they did imply it a few times on air with 'What Katie wants, Katie gets' in 2008.

Meh, that could imply alot of things, maybe she wanted a puppy.

Chairshots are always going to be about in wrestling - whether they should be or not. CZW and TNA will be using them for the foreseeable future. I believe they are rightfully outlawed in the WWE at present, however if they are going to happen there is a 'right' way to do it. The one on Sunday was a perfect example - hands up and HHH leading with the flat of the chair to spread the impact. The real problem is with some of the ones above - Rob Terry having a chair flung at his head is not condonable in any way - and the general lack of care from one professional to another. Although it wasn't a chair shot, think back to the Mass Transit incident with New Jack - disregard for another human like that is why chair shots can be disastrous. Luckily HHH and Taker are two seasoned pros who would be the first you'd choose to be trusted with a stunt like that.

Totally agree, like I said tho, while I don't want to see headshots all the time I do believe that in the right situation they not only add to the story but also add to the specticle and if and when it is done it should be done like it was Sunday

whatwindturbine wrote:Chairshots are always going to be about in wrestling - whether they should be or not. CZW and TNA will be using them for the foreseeable future. I believe they are rightfully outlawed in the WWE at present, however if they are going to happen there is a 'right' way to do it. The one on Sunday was a perfect example - hands up and HHH leading with the flat of the chair to spread the impact. The real problem is with some of the ones above - Rob Terry having a chair flung at his head is not condonable in any way - and the general lack of care from one professional to another. Although it wasn't a chair shot, think back to the Mass Transit incident with New Jack - disregard for another human like that is why chair shots can be disastrous. Luckily HHH and Taker are two seasoned pros who would be the first you'd choose to be trusted with a stunt like that.

Didn't TNA actually ban headshots with chairs after the botch by Hardy on Anderson?

I'm trying to remember. They constantly have run-ins and brawls and it's hard to remember if I have seen any headshots since then. I know they still have chair shots....but do they have headshots? I'm not so sure.

the-gaffer wrote:Totally agree, like I said tho, while I don't want to see headshots all the time I do believe that in the right situation they not only add to the story but also add to the specticle and if and when it is done it should be done like it was Sunday

I think we can all agree - which looked difficult on this thread! - that whether or not we think chairshots are justifiable, Sunday's was exactly how they should be performed.

Two top pros, you wouldn't expect anything else

when you got a 500 pound man knocking wrestlers out with his fist which connects to the chin which is connected to the face and which is connected to the head lol.

seems like its dbl standards to me.

surly some one getting knocked out would be far more dangerous then a chair shot to the head? Thats if he does actually knock them out?

whats your thought on the banned chair shot to the head?

chair shots to the head may not be seen to be ethical, otherwise kids at home or school may hit each other with chairs, which may lead to health issues occurring in the future.

How can a company fine someone who's immediate family owns the company who's issuing the fine? It'd be like a father asking his son for half his pocket money back only to give him double the next week

I'm sure it's just a token gesture so they can try and counter any complaints. Who knows...they may have issued the statement and not actually give them the fine.

Davies is your main concern here wrestlers saftey? If so then how could you realistically watch the WWF/E for as long as you have knowing what we all know without switching off? Its OK sounding like a paragon of virtue fighting the good fight however despite you claiming to watch in order to highlight a wrestlers plight, continuing to watch only continues to support the product

what about this ?? Worst Ever!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nshhUcjvdLk&feature=fvwrel

David Tails wrote:I'm sure it's just a token gesture so they can try and counter any complaints. Who knows...they may have issued the statement and not actually give them the fine.

I'd be very surprised if they were fined at all, to me it's as you put it DT - a token gesture - to keep the sponsors happy. If they were fined at all it would have been an insignificant (to them) sum.