The Official TNA Discussion Thread [Archive] - Page 8

thommohawk

02-06-2010, 04:56 PM

cappyboy

02-07-2010, 02:57 PM

In my honest opinion TNA cops far too much harsh criticism, especially when compared to the dross that WWE puts on every week more often than not - and this is coming from someone who was a big WWE fan who grew up watching them.....for me TNA's backstage stuff for the most part isn't bad and the in ring product ranges from the decent to the unbelievable, compared to WWE's mostly boring rarely unbelievable matches. I just don't get how people can slate TNA when it's WWE that I find unwatchable for the most part, but therein lays the crux of the thing, it's all about opinion as opposed to fact.

Agreed. 100% here. And you know who else could be this way if they'd just recognize their full potential? WWE.

It's not that they don't have the talent compared to TNA. They have plenty of talent I'd either like to watch more often or get to know. It's not that they can't put on better material. It's that they lack the willingness to. I know I probably come of as very anti-sports entertainment a lot of the time. But even in the context of that product, they could do a lot better. It's the entertainment part that they seem to lack. They have a rigid definition of it and that doesn't always translate properly to us the fans.

Personally I think Hogan/Bischoff are great for TNA, they know what they're doing since any attention is good attention and the recent growth prove this. TNA previously relying on it's own talent couldn't break 1.1 million viewers all year and suddenly they're up since Hogan and Bisch came in, so there comes a time where you have to man up and admit that TNA needed the help that Hogan and Bisch bring.

You know, I think it's a little early to be saying that. Hogan and Bischoff have only been around for a month so for. They are still laying the groundwork for all their plans and schemes for the company. If things hold together well enough to talk this way in the summer or even better the end of the year, then you might have something. But let's allow the novelty to completely wear off before we go nuts about whether TNA really NEEDED the help.

Not really digging AJ's heel character, liking his alignment with Flair though. Hogan's storylines (all of them lol) seem to be interesting and have legs. For me Joe and AJ need more characterization as they are both kind of bland despite their awesome ability in the ring - think on it both Austin and Maivia did nothing until they both became larger than life Stone Cold and The Rock respectively.

I'm not buying this at all. AJ had become one of the most compelling guys on the roster to me with the evolution they put him through in 2009. From fiery warrior for the Front Line to emotionally beaten to world champion was anything but a bland journey. While I do like the pairing with Flair and agree the heel turn feels rushed, I'd much rather have seen AJ continue to progress along the course he was on. He'd been TNA champion before but not as the fully formed face of the company he was blooming into in the final quarter of 2009. It's usually the Chicken Little critics of TNA who like to invoke WCW comparisions. But I feel like bringing Hogan in when they did and putting the brakes on the progress they had going was a very WCW-ish move. Just as WCW was when they finally closed, TNA was building to a very strong creative period when the brakes were slammed on.

Your point on Joe I might grant you. His road wasn't quite as strong because there wasn't as strong a payoff to his journey as there was AJ's. For all the consternation there was between Joe and AJ when the Nation of Violence thing started, it never came to quite the head it could have. Between Daniels stealing Joe's thunder on the friend struggling with the shadow front and Nation of Violence membership never really growing beyond Joe and Taz, a good deal of meat was missing with the Samoan Submission Machine. I like that they are still exploring the strained friendship between Joe and AJ despite the transfer over to Hogoff. But so much more could have been done on Joe.

Speaking of The Rock, Mr Anderson is the new Rock - very similar characters but Anderson's a better in ring talent. He could well be the dark horse that puts TNA where it wants to be. He is uber entertaining. I only hope RVD and Heyman turn up too.

At least that's what we're supposed to think. I don't know. Maybe Mr. Anderson is the wrestling equivalent of Ozzy Osbourne to me. Maybe like Ozzy, getting in the know late on Anderson cost me the ability to properly appreciate all he really has to offer. He wouldn't be the first boat I missed.

The comparison to The Rock is hard to swallow though. I never had any trouble getting The Rock. I witnessed his evolution so there was never that "what the duck" feeling with him that I get with Anderson. I got why I should care about Rock. I'd seen him as far back as the crowd verbally wishing him dead. My first two thoughts upon seeing the then Mr. Kennedy for the first time where "Man, I thought the Hollys were all out of WWE now." and "Why is this schlump doing Road Dogg's aspiring announcer shtick?" Plus, Rock had the Peter Maivia/Rocky Johnson pedigree to justify him. Anderson was just some random guy I'd happened to see referenced in passing in Promotion Wars. I've just never been able to find a reason to care about Anderson.

Between the heritage and having watched him evolve it was easy to care about The Rock. Anderson just feels like a pale imitation doing what he must to stay afloat in the business. There's nothing to suggest to me he has anything else to help him. I know that probably puts me in a distinct minority. But if I end up bailing on the Hogoff version of TNA, Anderson getting pushed too hard will probably be one of the reasons why.

SaySo

02-07-2010, 09:14 PM

Thursday’s episode of iMPACT! drew a final 1.2 cable rating with 1.6 million viewers — a drop from the previous week’s record high 1.4 rating. The Wrestling Observer is reporting that there was a lot of unhappiness within the company when Thursday’s rating was released.

Blackman

02-08-2010, 10:00 AM

thommohawk

02-08-2010, 01:13 PM

I think lots of the heat on TNA is from early fans (like moi) who are disappointed because TNA is just a shell from what it could potentially be at the moment. Critisizing the promotion might make them want to devote more attention to their priorities.

That said, I did like the Hogan/Flair/Bischoff segments.

Same but again you need to stop and take note for a moment too, look at how far they come in 7 years, and yes they do still have a very long way to go to be sure, but end of the day the wrestling industry and the companies within it are ever changing and morphing and TNA of old vs Hogan's TNA if you will was always on the cards and will be the thing that spurs TNA onto a bigger platform provided Hogan and Bisch don't wreck it, which they won't because Bisch knows what he's doing and Hogan's the most recognized name in pro wrestling. Another thing to take stock of is that we can sit and criticize until the cows come home and in some sense that's all we seem to do lol, but we also have zero idea how to put a weekly wrestling program together outside of TEW and certainly not in the real world.....and for me, I trust Bischoff to bring TNA up and Hogan has the name value, but it's going to take at least 2 years I'd say before we see TNA anywhere near. But I might be wrong.

As for the other guy who mentioned AJ Styles in response to my comment, I wasn't talking about his storylines I was talking about his character. Again think WWE, I gave examples of Stone Cold and The Rock but I'll give another, HBK....and I'm not suggesting for 1 moment that AJ should become a HBK type character that loves himself to the extent of walking out at Wembley with full sized mirrors lol just saying that these wrestlers no matter how awesome they are in the ring they need characterizing properly and again I point you in the direction of The Rock, nobody cared until they repackaged him. Same thing would happen with Cena too except we live in a different age and Vince will keep him face no matter what so long as he's selling merchandise and all that fun stuff.

As for Mr Anderson, if you drop all the prejudice and watch him as is, there's a hell of a lot of Rock in his character. As for AJ, there's a hell of a lot of an in his prime HBK in AJ's in ring ability. All of this is of course just my opinion and the impressions I get from watching TNA and these guys, but it has to be said I'm watching to be entertained, as always, and one thing I'm not doing is critiquing or being judgemental and maybe that's why I'm really enjoying TNA wrestling.

WWE on the other hand I cannot help, they are horrible to watch now. But we all know WWE is the best at entertainment as and indeed whenever Vince chooses to pull his finger out. Which is why I fear somewhat for TNA and the future of the industry because we all know the WWE story when they have competition like in the Attitude Era vs when they have no competition like in the last 10 years just about.

brashleyholland

02-08-2010, 03:52 PM

My take on this, in terms of TNA taking stick for what they do, is that they have to cater to the lowest common denominator.

People who post here talking about wrestling are for the most part hugley passionate wrestling fans, some of whom have followed the industry since before TNA's target audience were born. People here know what they like and have a very specific idea of what makes good wrestling. Be in an intellegent angle or an incredibly athletic match.

WWE is the survivor in this industry - they provide a watered down, entertainment based product with a wide market appeal. They can't cater to the specific wishes of the hardcore fanbase. TNA are (quite rightly) following their lead - they haven't had the same success thus far, so they are trying to emulate what WWE does by having a watered down product that appeals to the broadest range of wrestling fan - mostly kids, teenagers and young adults who will watch the shows and buy the merchendise.

People shouldn't expect a great 'pure' wrestling product or intensely ceribral angles and storytelling because it doesn't sell to the masses. There are countless failed promotions and struggling indy's that are living proof of that. There will always be negativity towards TNA and WWE in a place like this, because they aren't catering to you with their product.

cappyboy

02-08-2010, 04:12 PM

Same but again you need to stop and take note for a moment too, look at how far they come in 7 years, and yes they do still have a very long way to go to be sure, but end of the day the wrestling industry and the companies within it are ever changing and morphing and TNA of old vs Hogan's TNA if you will was always on the cards and will be the thing that spurs TNA onto a bigger platform provided Hogan and Bisch don't wreck it, which they won't because Bisch knows what he's doing and Hogan's the most recognized name in pro wrestling. Another thing to take stock of is that we can sit and criticize until the cows come home and in some sense that's all we seem to do lol, but we also have zero idea how to put a weekly wrestling program together outside of TEW and certainly not in the real world.....and for me, I trust Bischoff to bring TNA up and Hogan has the name value, but it's going to take at least 2 years I'd say before we see TNA anywhere near. But I might be wrong.

You know, I'd like to have had more thoughts here. But can't say much of anything. The run-on sentences killed any sense I had of your train of thought here. W

As for the other guy who mentioned AJ Styles in response to my comment, I wasn't talking about his storylines I was talking about his character. Again think WWE, I gave examples of Stone Cold and The Rock but I'll give another, HBK....and I'm not suggesting for 1 moment that AJ should become a HBK type character that loves himself to the extent of walking out at Wembley with full sized mirrors lol just saying that these wrestlers no matter how awesome they are in the ring they need characterizing properly and again I point you in the direction of The Rock, nobody cared until they repackaged him. Same thing would happen with Cena too except we live in a different age and Vince will keep him face no matter what so long as he's selling merchandise and all that fun stuff.

That's just the thing. I was talking character too. The storylines were one thing. But it was his character development that really had me pumped about AJ. Before he went on the emotional roller coaster that was 2009, AJ Styles was just another guy on the TNA roster to me. I liked him to the level I was supposed to. But to really rally behind him, not so much. By the time he'd won the title at Bound For Glory however, he was my boy. I'd gotten deeply invested in his friendship travails and the whole psychological beatdown he'd suffered at the hands of the MEM and right on down the line. It was because he'd grown so much AS A CHARACTER that I embraced him as the champion and one likely to reign long. He was the gritty, scrappy underdog who'd scratched and clawed his way to the mountaintop. A guy I related deeply to.

As for Mr Anderson, if you drop all the prejudice and watch him as is, there's a hell of a lot of Rock in his character. As for AJ, there's a hell of a lot of an in his prime HBK in AJ's in ring ability. All of this is of course just my opinion and the impressions I get from watching TNA and these guys, but it has to be said I'm watching to be entertained, as always, and one thing I'm not doing is critiquing or being judgemental and maybe that's why I'm really enjoying TNA wrestling.

And what you're asking is the impossible. Believe me, I've tried to watch him as is. I just can't do it because I can't find the HIM in him. The look is pure Holly family. The shtick I still harken back to Road Dogg on. You can try to compare him to The Rock all you want. But The Rock took ownership of his catchphrases and made them feel organic in a way Anderson has never done for me.

Even in the ring there's nothing to make me say "Man, Anderson's coming up. I can't wait to see those insanely high hiptosses." Or the killer aerial skills or whatever ring skill he has that sets him apart. There was nothing fancy about the Rock's trademark moves either. But he was able to make the People's Elbow and the Rock Bottom feel uniquely his. Anderson doesn't do that. He's just a pastiche of all these other people I've seen before. He's like a midcard e-fed wrestler brought to life. That's why I'm so "prejudiced" against him as you put it. I WANT to be able to pull something out of his routine that's distinctly him. I WANT to do what you suggest and take him as he is. It's the fact that there doesn't appear to be anything to find that turns me so far off from him.

WWE on the other hand I cannot help, they are horrible to watch now. But we all know WWE is the best at entertainment as and indeed whenever Vince chooses to pull his finger out. Which is why I fear somewhat for TNA and the future of the industry because we all know the WWE story when they have competition like in the Attitude Era vs when they have no competition like in the last 10 years just about.

Yeah well, I've pretty much gotten used to the WWE issue. I'll look in from time to time and hope to see the talent I like on their roster have a cool match or what not. But what material I do watch of them I take almost as a vaccuum because I know I can't trust them to hold my interest over the length of a show.

thommohawk

02-08-2010, 04:56 PM

Well to tell you the truth I always thought The Rock was overrated as a wrestler and between him and Austin as entertainers I always felt Austin to be more entertaining and the better character...as for Ken Anderson we agree to disagree - Anderson is his own character with the whole entrance and self mic thing, there's a big difference between what he does and what Road Dogg did in his prime.

And besides what makes characters like Anderson and The Rock sink or swim is the entertainment factor brought by the over confidence of their characters which wasn't a problem for either wrestler....the thing with Anderson was that he was wasted in WWE and never recovered. Then of course he was fired for Wellness Policy violations. But had he been given a shot at the top of the card like CM Punk has, then Kennedy would have been the new Rock. The similarities in character are almost uncanny. When you say The Rock was unique, he is, but how much of that was down to WWE and their worldwide exposure and having The Rock in play at the top of the card ? A whole hell of a lot I'd say. Same with Stone Cold too.

Austin was called an average journeyman before Vince and he came up with the Stone Cold character and both him and The Rock basically won the WWF the wrestling war almost single handedly - which just proves the value of entertaining characters because neither were great wrestlers. But given the right character and angles at the top of the card they were both awesome entertainers. Exposure and characters are the key. Also look at Shawn Michaels, he was always a class act in the ring, but it wasn't until he split from The Rockers and became HBK that he really took off.

So all that proves the importance of good characters. Where is all this leading? AJ and Samoa Joe's characters even now are bland. Mr Anderson's character is really entertaining to watch and his interaction with the TNA faithful too, he's brilliant on the mic also, and that's what it's all about. If anyone is going to lead TNA to the top it's him. Because he has that larger than life thing going on that TNA sorely lacks that WWE has in abundance. Same for RVD too if he goes to TNA which he probably will do reading between the lines.

Whether good or bad in the ring the bottom line is it's the larger than life characters that gets people tuning in. There's countless examples of this from the original DX to the nWo, Stone Cold, The Rock etc. But really it's The Undertaker and (ironically) Hulk Hogan who are and have been prime examples of this during the last 20 years.

And for me, AJ is the best wrestler I've seen in a long long time. But as a character he's lacking that larger than life feel which ultimately will seperate him from his rightful place among the likes of HBK and RVD unless corrected and it's purely down to the complete lack of the larger than life factor of his gimmick and nothing more. In my honest opinion.

Bigpapa42

02-08-2010, 06:36 PM

lazorbeak

02-08-2010, 07:25 PM

First, Thom, I actually had to look up dross. Good to know it's the scum that forms on molten metal. What that has to do with wrestling remains an enigma.

Well to tell you the truth I always thought The Rock was overrated as a wrestler and between him and Austin as entertainers I always felt Austin to be more entertaining and the better character...as for Ken Anderson we agree to disagree - Anderson is his own character with the whole entrance and self mic thing, there's a big difference between what he does and what Road Dogg did in his prime.

So wait, Anderson is like The Rock, but his own character and not like the Road Dogg? How can you legitimately argue that both ways? Especially since there's really nothing about him that's like The Rock at all? On the other hand, Road Dogg looked like all those other Armstrong's, but since he had a marketable gimmick he managed to get pretty over. He's accomplished far more than Mr. Kennedy has to this point, too. Sure, his last few years in TNA sucked, but Brad Armstrong is almost 50 years old and was working twice a week; I don't think he was motivated.

And besides what makes characters like Anderson and The Rock sink or swim is the entertainment factor brought by the over confidence of their characters which wasn't a problem for either wrestler....the thing with Anderson was that he was wasted in WWE and never recovered. Then of course he was fired for Wellness Policy violations.

No, he wasn't wasted, he was pushed, then got hurt, then got suspended, then went to film a movie, then got hurt again, etc. Seriously what else could WWE have done with the guy?

But had he been given a shot at the top of the card like CM Punk has, then Kennedy would have been the new Rock. The similarities in character are almost uncanny. When you say The Rock was unique, he is, but how much of that was down to WWE and their worldwide exposure and having The Rock in play at the top of the card ? A whole hell of a lot I'd say. Same with Stone Cold too.

:eek: Wow. Seriously, Kennedy did get his shot. He feuded with Undertaker, he feuded with HBK, two of the top talent groomers in the company. He wrestled Batista at the Royal Rumble for the title in a match that if you sort of squinted looked like Lesnar v. Holly from a few years prior. Were any of those matches "classics"? How many were even "good"? Kennedy had a trial run at the top and he sank. CM Punk had a trial run at the top and he swam. One guy still works for the company: one does not. Not saying Kennedy can't improve, but to argue he just needed an opportunity is completely the opposite of what happened: he had an opportunity and proved he wasn't ready for it.

Austin was called an average journeyman before Vince and he came up with the Stone Cold character and both him and The Rock basically won the WWF the wrestling war almost single handedly - which just proves the value of entertaining characters because neither were great wrestlers. But given the right character and angles at the top of the card they were both awesome entertainers. Exposure and characters are the key. Also look at Shawn Michaels, he was always a class act in the ring, but it wasn't until he split from The Rockers and became HBK that he really took off.

Do you know what an "average journeyman" is? Hint: they don't win rookie of the year their debut year, and they don't win every belt except the world title in 5 years. Anybody who knew anything about the wrestling business could tell you Steve Austin was going to be very, very good as early as 1990. Just because Easy E didn't want to build "old-school" guys didn't mean he wasn't recognized for his ability.

Also you're wrong that WWF won the war because of two guys, and you're also wrong that neither were great wrestlers. Extraordinarily wrong in Austin's case.

And for me, AJ is the best wrestler I've seen in a long long time. But as a character he's lacking that larger than life feel which ultimately will seperate him from his rightful place among the likes of HBK and RVD unless corrected and it's purely down to the complete lack of the larger than life factor of his gimmick and nothing more. In my honest opinion.

So AJ needs a larger than life character? Whose life? Steve Austin got over being himself. Mick Foley got over being himself. Even Ric Flair, who stole Buddy Rogers' gimmick, made it his life. How does married, Christian AJ Styles get over doing a playboy gimmick?

cappyboy

02-08-2010, 07:30 PM

I don't know if I would categorize Austin as an "average journeyman" before his WWE run. He was in WCW for 5 years and held 5 titles in that time. Not the world title, obviously, but I don't personally see an "average journeyman" as someone who spends a lot of their time involved in title feuds, even if for midcard ones. Austin had potential back then and some people saw it. Just not Bischoff. And the promos he cut in ECW were very very good.

Agreed. Stone Cold may be what pushed Austin over the top but your "average journeyman" usually doesn't get a character to successfully cross company lines. Yet Austin did with the Stunning Steve persona. Making it work as a compelling character not only against his mentor Chris Adams in World Class but in high quality teams like The Hollywood Blondes and The Dangerous Alliance in WCW. If memory serves, he's the longest reigning TV champion WCW ever had. Or it might have been the US Title at the time. Was one of the two anyway. "Average journeymen" don't tend to have that on their resume. You can make the case Austin wasn't fully formed until Stone Cold but "average" is being needlessly harsh.

As for the Rock-Anderson comparison... Sorry, I don't see it. I quite like Anderson, but I don't think he's nearly on the same level as Rock, either on the mic or in the ring. There's a reason that Rock was able to seamlessly transition into films. I watched Anderson's one movie and it was painful. You can say both are entertaining, but I think Anderson has a long long way to go before he hits the level of the Rock at his peak.

Agreed. When The Rock was around, he could take lines "if you smell what The Rock is cookin'" and not only strip them of their ridiculousness but make them seem natural. He could take a an elbow drop with some random flourishes or a uranage and make them memorable. They say those who are most creative conceal their sources the best. Anderson doesn't seem to know how to conceal his sources. He clearly wants to be at The Rock's level and he's trying stuff that worked in the past or related variations of it and forgetting to put his own stamp on it.

But I'll tell you what. You want me completely and utterly absorbed in Anderson tomorrow? For all my frustrations with him, it would be really simple. Just have someone, be it another talent or some fictional bloc of faceless fans, calling him out on his trouble bringing anything new to the table. If that charge were levelled against him in character, I'd love to see how he'd react. Would he come up with some catchphrase to counter things proclaiming his authenicity? Maybe he ditches the conceptually bland Mic Check and finds a new move he can make his own and call say the Mold Breaker. Perhaps he starts referring to his knack for making the old new again. Maybe just as folks used to like to framing warning promos in the structure of You Don't Mess Around With Jim by Jim Croce (you know tugging on Superman's cape and all that) maybe he could model a response to the copy cat charge in the terms of Seventh Son by Johnny Rivers. Those lyrics would make a great shtick for an Anderson type character. Maybe references to the differences in invention and perfection. I can't remember hearing of him ever having his authenticity called into dispute. Which would make it so fundamental an attack in-character it would make for great TV.

Does Anderson have the foundation to be the next-gen Rock? Absolutely. But the reason The Rock got to be THE ROCK was because he built on that foundation. Anderson seems content to just have it and rest on the work of others. If I could just see him build around what he's got going and be able to say "Now THAT'S where the Ken part comes in", most if not all of my complaints would go away. Until that happens, he's still just a indy-caliber poser and a shell of what he's trying to be.

Stennick

02-09-2010, 09:21 AM

So Kazarian got married and immediately afterwards it comes out he's been fooling around with some adult film star for two years. Apparently Tracy found out before the marriage. Is Tracy still in TNA? She's the won that posed nude right?

thommohawk

02-09-2010, 09:24 AM

justtxyank

02-09-2010, 09:48 AM

Do you know what an "average journeyman" is? Hint: they don't win rookie of the year their debut year, and they don't win every belt except the world title in 5 years. Anybody who knew anything about the wrestling business could tell you Steve Austin was going to be very, very good as early as 1990. Just because Easy E didn't want to build "old-school" guys didn't mean he wasn't recognized for his ability.

I think it is unfair to say he was an average journeyman, but in 1990 there wasn't much reason to think Austin was something more special than Dustin Rhodes who also won ROY and multiple titles in his time in WCW and the WWF. There was also Marc Mero who was a ROY and won multiple titles in WCW and then went on to win a title in the WWF as well.

Austin wasn't average, but he was not pegged as a superstar. Heyman liked him, which speaks well of Austin, but when he got to the WWF he wasn't moving mountains there either. It wasn't until the Stone Cold character that Austin became more than a really good midcarder.

So AJ needs a larger than life character? Whose life? Steve Austin got over being himself. Mick Foley got over being himself. Even Ric Flair, who stole Buddy Rogers' gimmick, made it his life. How does married, Christian AJ Styles get over doing a playboy gimmick?

To be clear, you are asserting that in real life Steve Austin is a beer swigging redneck who doesn't really like anybody, wants to fight everybody, takes orders from no one, has no respect for authority and that Mick Foley is really a deranged lunatic who hears voices? I mean Ric Flair by all accounts really is an egotistical womanizing alcoholic, but I never knew that Austin and Foley were their characters in real life.

Franchise22

02-09-2010, 09:50 AM

I agree with cappyboy that Anderson has a lot of the foundations that The Rock had but again, that's exactly what I was saying all along. He has a lot of core similarities....

ive always thought anderson was a little too similiar to the rock in his delivery (turn off for me) and the way he works in the ring. the way he does the mic check very similiar to the rocks exact movments to the rock bottom. Heck, raw vs smackdown gave him alot of the rocks moves lol
its always bothered me that he was that similiar.

my opinion, im entitled :)

mic check:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjDI09yhT2M

rock bottom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3iuuczmamw&feature=PlayList&p=B886AE79FC1549EC&index=43

Stennick

02-09-2010, 09:55 AM

justtxyank

02-09-2010, 09:57 AM

As for Mr Anderson, if you drop all the prejudice and watch him as is, there's a hell of a lot of Rock in his character. As for AJ, there's a hell of a lot of an in his prime HBK in AJ's in ring ability.

I think I've been pretty clear on this site that Anderson has never appealed to me in anyway. I've never seen the comparison to the Rock as legit. The reason people naturally make that comparison is because of the attitude and the mic work which have similarities in tone and character, but not in delivery. Anderson has always felt forced on the mic to me and has always been bland in the ring. He doesn't have The Rock's look either.

As for AJ-HBK, this is another comparison that gets made and I think it sucks equally. AJ is very flashy and I definitely think he is one of the generation's best workers, but he is no HBK, especially not Prime HBK. AJ still doesn't have the psychology or the selling ability of HBK.

justtxyank

02-09-2010, 10:03 AM

I think Austin is a beer swigging redneck who you could argue did have a DTA attitude after being fired from WCW.

Foley didn't really get "over" being a deranged lunatic. He got over being Mic Foley with a Mankind mask on. Or I should say thats what got him a World Championship.

I haven't paid attention to the rest of the conversation but I'd say yes, just like many people agree that Macho Man is really Macho Man in real life, etc.

Foley got over by being Cactus Jack and then Mankind in the WWF. By the time he became goofy Mankind he was already over, Vince just wasn't sure he could carry a strap.

Stennick

02-09-2010, 10:06 AM

He was over to a degree yes. But he wasn't main eventing or anywhere near the main event outside of being cannon fodder for the Undertaker and a one off against HBK.

justtxyank

02-09-2010, 10:17 AM

He was over to a degree yes. But he wasn't main eventing or anywhere near the main event outside of being cannon fodder for the Undertaker and a one off against HBK.

He wasn't main eventing because he was fat and ugly though, not because of overness. Vince was afraid that Foley would fail as a main eventer. Foley himself has stated this. He said that no matter how crowd's reacted to him, Vince never took him seriously until he went off the HIAC.

Tag01

02-09-2010, 10:20 AM

I like Anderson. I think he brings a lot to TNA, enjoy his Shtick, and think he pretty much has the total package when he's healthy. But he's no Rock. Maybe it's because my time following wrestling closely was during Rock's hayday, but he's my favorite ever; bar none. I liked his matches, I liked his charisma, and his mic work was the best ever.

lazorbeak

02-09-2010, 10:41 AM

To be clear, you are asserting that in real life Steve Austin is a beer swigging redneck who doesn't really like anybody, wants to fight everybody, takes orders from no one, has no respect for authority and that Mick Foley is really a deranged lunatic who hears voices? I mean Ric Flair by all accounts really is an egotistical womanizing alcoholic, but I never knew that Austin and Foley were their characters in real life.

In a word? YES. Steve Austin really is a small-town, accent-having, beer-swilling, wife-abusing guy. Playing off who he actually was made him such an effective heel in the early 90's and such an effective babyface in the late 90's.

Mick Foley has ALWAYS gotten over by being Mick Foley. What does he do? He gives heartfelt promos, he connects to the crowd, and he is willing to do anything to entertain. Mankind, crazy guy was a guy that existed for about a year and a half in 96-97 and didn't do much other than win some fans' respect. It was Mick Foley, crazy hardcore guy who is also fun-loving and goofy that became a world champion and a main eventer.

Maybe you didn't watch enough WWF to know much about the characters, but this isn't exactly esoteric knowledge.

Also if Vince "never took him seriously" prior to June 1998, why did he main event against Steve Austin in April and May, 1998?

justtxyank

02-09-2010, 10:51 AM

In a word? YES. Steve Austin really is a small-town, accent-having, beer-swilling, wife-abusing guy. Playing off who he actually was made him such an effective heel in the early 90's and such an effective babyface in the late 90's.

Fair enough.

Mick Foley has ALWAYS gotten over by being Mick Foley. What does he do? He gives heartfelt promos, he connects to the crowd, and he is willing to do anything to entertain. Mankind, crazy guy was a guy that existed for about a year and a half in 96-97 and didn't do much other than win some fans' respect. It was Mick Foley, crazy hardcore guy who is also fun-loving and goofy that became a world champion and a main eventer.

OK, not going to argue about whether Foley was over before he converted to Goofy.

Also if Vince "never took him seriously" prior to June 1998, why did he main event against Steve Austin in April and May, 1998?

Getting a few main event matches doesn't mean the promoter is taking you seriously as a legit main eventer. Austin could main event against anybody in 1998 and sell out as he was on of the best draws in the history of the business. It's fine if you disagree with me, but Foley has stated this himself that it took him going off the HIAC for Vince to believe in him.

cappyboy

02-09-2010, 12:02 PM

Pardon me, but can you tell me at what point did I (me, myself) say that Steve Austin was a journeyman ? I never said he was a journeyman, I was stating that others considered him a journeyman before the Stone Cold gimmick started. Which they did. And that nobody really cared when he was The Ringmaster. Which they didn't. Which also proves my main point that wrestlers need characterizing properly so that they are larger than life and whether you like it or not it's precisely that what gets people tuning in and as I say look at the difference in Steve and Rocky both before and after they became Stone Cold and The Rock respectively. Night and Day springs to mind in every single respect.

All well and good. But that's not what has been translating. I can't speak for the others. But part of my problem (if it is mine) may be the fact we've been discussing characters that didn't necessarily translate to me as intended in the first place.

Also you keep bringing up my comparisons of Anderson to The Rock like that's the only thing I ever said and as if that was my main point, which of course it's not. I agree with cappyboy that Anderson has a lot of the foundations that The Rock had but again, that's exactly what I was saying all along. He has a lot of core similarities....

Well you been pushing it a bit hard to just say he had core similiarities. You've been talking the guy up like he had achieved or is capable of achieving the Rock's levels of "Rockness" for lack of a better word. And he's no where near it. He's a mimic cutting and pasting pieces of the guys he wants to be into his work and not giving anything that feels organic. Which would be fine if he were in USPW or CGC. But he's not. He's in a company that the second largest in America and a national presence. He needs more going for him if he's going to be worthy of all the hopes and dreams his supporters have for him.

Hyde Hill

02-09-2010, 12:26 PM

Well he is an interesting addition to say the least and has potential/foundation or whatever you want to call it to be a good/great hand. Let's see what he does in TNA but so far the promo's have been decent but not great and the matches kinda bland. Anderson does have his fans/supporters though and he is a decent addition imho.

For the rest about Foley/Austin etc I think what was meant that they reached the hight of their fame and nailed their gimmick when they where an overblown version of themselves or a part of themselves. That's why I was really beginning to dig face champ AJ as he was playing an overblown version of himself and now he is playing the exact opposite. On Anderson's character he shows some potential mainly in some of his E promo's and his online stuff but he doesn't nail it yet.

For the rest discussing Foley and Austing and The Rock let's move it to the WWE thread they need a lot more postings are they are at half of this thread lolz. TNA may not always be great but at least they give you something to talk about good and bad lolz.

thepeopleschamp

02-09-2010, 01:03 PM

cappyboy

02-09-2010, 01:26 PM

TNA may not always be great but at least they give you something to talk about good and bad lolz.

Now this is one point that is completely undeniable. :)

Slagaholic

02-09-2010, 04:15 PM

I'm a huge Rock fan he is one of the top five best on the mic ever imo. As for Anderson he has potintal to be a Legend in wrestling as for saying he's the next Rock thats hard to say I dont think so. I'd say he's more like Austin Idol you might not know who he is but he wrestled some matches with Flair

Mr. Anderson's "potential legend" boat has come and gone, he'll work up to the main event, have a few good matches, and then return to the mid-card for the rest of his career. His character is already hella stale in my eyes.

Franchise22

02-09-2010, 05:47 PM

I'm a huge Rock fan he is one of the top five best on the mic ever imo. As for Anderson he has potintal to be a Legend in wrestling as for saying he's the next Rock thats hard to say I dont think so. I'd say he's more like Austin Idol you might not know who he is but he wrestled some matches with Flair

i dont think hes the next rock, i think hes TRYING to emulate alot of the rocks character, and mannerisms. thats my comparision. he will not be a legend, hes a poor imitation if you ask me.

*flame shield engaged*

cappyboy

02-09-2010, 08:53 PM

I'm a huge Rock fan he is one of the top five best on the mic ever imo. As for Anderson he has potintal to be a Legend in wrestling as for saying he's the next Rock thats hard to say I dont think so. I'd say he's more like Austin Idol you might not know who he is but he wrestled some matches with Flair

Well, the period when Idol was trying to piggyback off of Superstar Billy Graham's character is certainly a valid comparison. But Idol was stronger in ring than Anderson appears to be. I remember him best as the indy teaching veteran at the end of his career and his feud with Ox Baker. As such I loved Austin Idol. But yeah, this does seem like a more likely parallel.

Astil

02-09-2010, 10:54 PM

Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see the Rock, Anderson comparison. I just don't.

Anderson's just a funny dude with a good sense of the "timing" in wrestling. He knows when to yak with fans, to call out the opponent in the match or when to look weak. That's why I like him.

Yeah, Rock knew all that too. So did/does HBK, Austin, Cena, Edge, ect.

He has the Main Event persona without the push, always had, even down in OVW where after one dark match on Smackdown he changed from Mr. Anderson to Mr. Kennedy to "thank Vince". /shrug. He's entertaining, both in ring and out.

Also, on the topic of TNA: WHERE'S MY JEFF HARDY I WAS PROMISED!

CQI13

02-09-2010, 11:12 PM

Did they really promise him? I thought he had only attacked Homicide that one show and hadn't been seen since.

brashleyholland

02-09-2010, 11:44 PM

Did they really promise him? I thought he had only attacked Homicide that one show and hadn't been seen since.

He's still in the opening montage, at least in the UK anyway. I'm assuming it's the same intro they use.

Hyde Hill

02-10-2010, 12:15 AM

According to the reports he is still on contract but until his court date he will not be used so that he can focus 100 percent on that. The days leading up to them signing him there was a strong indication that the case would be thrown out outright but that didn't happen. So in the meantime enjoy the ride and wait for RVD to show up as I think that possibility is getting stronger reading and listening between the lines.

BTW anyone know Hardy's next court date?

Edit PS: Seems Lashley is "legit" gone as he has been removed from the roster page now. Kong is staying though (, for now,) as Hogan, Bubba and she cleared the air but she is still miffed about the pay structure as well it is reported. Still great to see her stay tb we (as fans, followers etc) lost Flash though.

brashleyholland

02-10-2010, 12:50 AM

Kong is staying though (, for now,) as Hogan, Bubba and she cleared the air but she is still miffed about the pay structure as well it is reported. Still great to see her stay tb we (as fans, followers etc) lost Flash though.

I honestly can't see why female wrestlers think they deserve to be paid at the same rate as the men. I realise that comes off as a little sexist and backward...everyone should be equal etc, but in wrestling it is what it is.

In terms of WWE, WCW, TNA and ECW, 99% of the women I've seen are nothing but eye candy, filler or a combination of the two. I see no reason why they should be paid anymore than a male who is 'filler' talent. At the end of the day, you're only worth what interest/revenue you can generate, right? Can anyone honestly say that they tuned into Impact or bought a TNA PPV based on Awesome Kong?

Don't get me wrong, of all the female wrestlers I've seen, she's by far my favourite...but I'm not excited to see her anymore than **INSERT GENERIC MIDCARD WRESTER HERE**.

I'm sure alot of people will think differently, but I relate it to the MMA fans who get up in arms because because winning fighters like Yushin Okami don't get the money/oppertunities of a 1-5 in his last 6 Wanderlei Silva...nobody is paying to see Okami, much in the same way that male wrestlers will always be the draws/earners in wrestling.

Hyde Hill

02-10-2010, 01:01 AM

Sorry should have specified it's not (so much) about female/male but about TNA "original"/ Former WWE difference in pay as it was reported that is. So its possibly about Tara getting a lot more money then Kong which would be ridiculous.

HughBatey4

02-10-2010, 04:08 AM

I honestly can't see why female wrestlers think they deserve to be paid at the same rate as the men. I realise that comes off as a little sexist and backward...everyone should be equal etc, but in wrestling it is what it is.

In terms of WWE, WCW, TNA and ECW, 99% of the women I've seen are nothing but eye candy, filler or a combination of the two. I see no reason why they should be paid anymore than a male who is 'filler' talent. At the end of the day, you're only worth what interest/revenue you can generate, right? Can anyone honestly say that they tuned into Impact or bought a TNA PPV based on Awesome Kong?

Don't get me wrong, of all the female wrestlers I've seen, she's by far my favourite...but I'm not excited to see her anymore than **INSERT GENERIC MIDCARD WRESTER HERE**.

I'm sure alot of people will think differently, but I relate it to the MMA fans who get up in arms because because winning fighters like Yushin Okami don't get the money/oppertunities of a 1-5 in his last 6 Wanderlei Silva...nobody is paying to see Okami, much in the same way that male wrestlers will always be the draws/earners in wrestling.

FAIL!

According to Wrestling Observer Newslettter, when they break Impact into the quarters, the quarters with the Knockouts are the highest or second highest rated segments of the show.

Hive

02-10-2010, 05:17 AM

lazorbeak

02-10-2010, 07:50 AM

I honestly can't see why female wrestlers think they deserve to be paid at the same rate as the men. I realise that comes off as a little sexist and backward...everyone should be equal etc, but in wrestling it is what it is.

In terms of WWE, WCW, TNA and ECW, 99% of the women I've seen are nothing but eye candy, filler or a combination of the two. I see no reason why they should be paid anymore than a male who is 'filler' talent. At the end of the day, you're only worth what interest/revenue you can generate, right? Can anyone honestly say that they tuned into Impact or bought a TNA PPV based on Awesome Kong?

Considering there was nothing about equal pay, yes, this does come off pretty sexist and more than a little ignorant. There was a time last year when I only watched Knockouts segments, because they were the simplest, best-booked, best matches on a given show. Based on the Knockout segment ratings and Awesome Kong's legitimate drawing power, I'd say I'm not alone.

brashleyholland

02-10-2010, 07:55 AM

FAIL!

According to Wrestling Observer Newslettter, when they break Impact into the quarters, the quarters with the Knockouts are the highest or second highest rated segments of the show.

There is a huge, huge difference between what people will tune in for on a free TV show and what they will pay for. As I said before, who here can honestly say that they have paid for a PPV on the strength of seeing Kong, ODB etc.

As the poster above me mentioned, the all female special tanked.

Besides, do you really think that there are a significant number of wrestling fans who tune in *just* for the 15 mins that the women are in the ring?

brashleyholland

02-10-2010, 08:02 AM

Considering there was nothing about equal pay, yes, this does come off pretty sexist and more than a little ignorant. There was a time last year when I only watched Knockouts segments, because they were the simplest, best-booked, best matches on a given show. Based on the Knockout segment ratings and Awesome Kong's legitimate drawing power, I'd say I'm not alone.

I'm not specifically refering to Kong. Chyna back in the day wanted bigger paydays. I also misunderstood what she way complaining about, RE: equal pay with men/equal pay with women from outside the organisation. The site where I read it didn't make that clear.

It's not sexist at all...it has nothing to do with them being women and everything to do with 99% of them not being as popular as other members of the roster, who happen to be male.

How are you quantifing Kong's 'ligitimate drawing power' by the way, is there some sort of graph for that, or are you just making an assumption based on the internet fans getting up in arms because she was going to leave?

Bigpapa42

02-10-2010, 10:52 AM

Rumor that Bobby Lashley is done with TNA, as his profile has been pulled off the website (apparently).

jesterx7769

02-10-2010, 10:58 AM

Good riddens, read that this morning.

Nedew

02-10-2010, 11:55 AM

According to Wrestling Observer Newslettter, when they break Impact into the quarters, the quarters with the Knockouts are the highest or second highest rated segments of the show.

But what on earth does this mean? Are people sitting there waiting for some phone call that says "quick quick, the 15 minutes featuring the women is on now!"? There is no specific quarter of an hour when they feature, so what does that rating prove?

It just makes it appear that less people turn off when they're on, not that they turn on when they are. If i'm flicking through the channels and when i hit BBC1, Antiques Roadshow was on and Fiona Bruce was on fire, sure i'd leave it on, i'd want to know what happened! But that doesn't mean i'm going to tune in week after week for people being set ablaze whilst holding antiquated rubbish.

cappyboy

02-10-2010, 11:59 AM

Rumor that Bobby Lashley is done with TNA, as his profile has been pulled off the website (apparently).

Can't say I'm too unhappy about that. While I did like the the feud with Big Poppa Plump When You Cook Him, all in all he never really brought that much to the table. I will be sadder though if that means no more Krystal on my TV. She'd be an awesome emotionally abusive harridan manager if they'd put her with some of the opener types to make them more interesting. But Bobby? He shouldn't let the door hit him where the Good Lord split him.

CQI13

02-10-2010, 12:02 PM

Ratings are bogus anyway. There's no way to know what people are watching anyway. Nielsen is pretty inaccurate, but accepted as fact.

Daffanka

02-10-2010, 01:00 PM

Rumor that Bobby Lashley is done with TNA, as his profile has been pulled off the website (apparently).

Is there any more to this than TNA dishonoring their word to let him skip wrestling and train for MMA when he needed it?

(At least that's what I heard)

dcxbox

02-10-2010, 01:19 PM

Is there any more to this than TNA dishonoring their word to let him skip wrestling and train for MMA when he needed it?

(At least that's what I heard)

he is still with tna, just not being pushed as part of the company for storyline purposes and the fact that he hasa fight in april. he will porb only wrestle a few times a year.

thepeopleschamp

02-10-2010, 02:36 PM

TNA but out this statment about Destination X being a all X Division PPV

"The past, present, and future collide when the young guns of TNA take center stage in an all X-Division Pay-Per-View! TNA Wrestling presents Destination X LIVE! Sunday, March 21, 2010 on Pay-per-View."

jesterx7769

02-10-2010, 02:44 PM

Please let the dudleys vs the nasty boyz fight each other at the Destination X PPV

brashleyholland

02-10-2010, 03:11 PM

My worry with an all X-Division PPV is that if it does a lower than average number of PPV's it will be used as an excuse by you know who to say "The X-Division doesn't make us money - now someone get me Brutus Beefcake and Randy Savage on the phone!"

March through May is a very busy time for PPV. You have Wrestlemania, Backlash and whatever the May WWE PPV is called. UFC 111-115 and WEC's first PPV. Floyd Mayweather's fight. Three TNA PPV's. Manny Pacquiao's fight. Thats a big shuffle for an X-Division show to get lost in.

justtxyank

02-10-2010, 03:15 PM

I'd actually love to see Macho Man back on tv. Love that guy.

brashleyholland

02-10-2010, 03:23 PM

I'd actually love to see Macho Man back on tv. Love that guy.

I loved his rap album :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIsnvlkhkqI&feature=related

DaMegaFish

02-10-2010, 03:52 PM

Please let the dudleys vs the nasty boyz fight each other at the Destination X PPV

Only if its Ultimate X.

Hyde Hill

02-10-2010, 04:31 PM

They are already slated for Against All Ods. Although I get the joke. BTW the all knockout show was on dec 31 of course it will get lower ratings. Don't think the X-Division will get buried if it gets a low buy rate as all TNA ppv's get a relativly low buyrate that aren't BFG, Lockdown or Slammiversary. Not as low as some reports but their conversion is pretty bad compared to the E. Also it will probably be more X-Division themed more then anything else and a lot of their main event draws can fit in the division.

thommohawk

02-11-2010, 06:57 PM

My worry with an all X-Division PPV is that if it does a lower than average number of PPV's it will be used as an excuse by you know who to say "The X-Division doesn't make us money - now someone get me Brutus Beefcake and Randy Savage on the phone!"

And in that event he'd be perfectly within his rights to do so, he's running a popularity contested business essentially, and right now he's going after 2 things - getting people talking about TNA end of story, and also the ratings improvement eventually leading up to TNA evolution - if X Division doesn't make money but Savage and Beefcake do then he's right to go with them, I personally would hate it on so many levels as X Division is one of the chief reasons I tune into TNA amongst others but it is a business fueled by popularity if truth be told, that's why WWE's product is boring as hell to watch yet beats TNA in ratings and money - because it's a business fueled by popularity and that's how Vince runs it. Cena is a perfect example. Likeable guy but he wouldn't have had a job in the Attitude Era let alone be a main eventer. But these days he's popular with the mass market. Can't fault Vince or Hogan.

RVD to TNA!

Bigpapa42

02-11-2010, 07:22 PM

And in that event he'd be perfectly within his rights to do so, he's running a popularity contested business essentially, and right now he's going after 2 things - getting people talking about TNA end of story, and also the ratings improvement eventually leading up to TNA evolution - if X Division doesn't make money but Savage and Beefcake do then he's right to go with them, I personally would hate it on so many levels as X Division is one of the chief reasons I tune into TNA amongst others but it is a business fueled by popularity if truth be told, that's why WWE's product is boring as hell to watch yet beats TNA in ratings and money - because it's a business fueled by popularity and that's how Vince runs it. Cena is a perfect example. Likeable guy but he wouldn't have had a job in the Attitude Era let alone be a main eventer. But these days he's popular with the mass market. Can't fault Vince or Hogan.

RVD to TNA!

Not sure what Attitude Era you watched, but he most certainly would have done well in the WWE during that period. He's good on the mic, has a good look, and puts on watchable matches (repetitive or not). I'm no huge fan of Cena, but he would have done fine in the Attitude era. If someone like Roaddog could get over with a catchphrase and innuendo, I have no doubt Cena could have done so as well.

brashleyholland

02-11-2010, 08:25 PM

And in that event he'd be perfectly within his rights to do so, he's running a popularity contested business essentially, and right now he's going after 2 things - getting people talking about TNA end of story, and also the ratings improvement eventually leading up to TNA evolution - if X Division doesn't make money but Savage and Beefcake do then he's right to go with them, I personally would hate it on so many levels as X Division is one of the chief reasons I tune into TNA amongst others but it is a business fueled by popularity if truth be told, that's why WWE's product is boring as hell to watch yet beats TNA in ratings and money - because it's a business fueled by popularity and that's how Vince runs it. Cena is a perfect example. Likeable guy but he wouldn't have had a job in the Attitude Era let alone be a main eventer. But these days he's popular with the mass market. Can't fault Vince or Hogan.

I understand what you're saying in terms of going with what makes money. It's not a charity and at the end of the day if having Beefcake and Savage vs The Nasty boys for the full two hours every week makes money and gets ratings - go with the old men.

My point is; Hogan has a history of getting his buddies on board; thats the only reason the Nasty Boys have been on my TV screen the past few weeks. Cards need substance other than the main draws and personally, I'd rather watch X-Division guys filling up the midcard than Brian Knobs and co. wobbling through painfull chunks of TV time.

My fear was that a low rated X-Division PPV could lead to Nasty Boys vs Morley and Beefcake opening my Impact as opposed to MCMG vs Generation ME.

UkWrestleFan

02-12-2010, 05:31 AM

Not sure what Attitude Era you watched, but he most certainly would have done well in the WWE during that period. He's good on the mic, has a good look, and puts on watchable matches (repetitive or not). I'm no huge fan of Cena, but he would have done fine in the Attitude era. If someone like Roaddog could get over with a catchphrase and innuendo, I have no doubt Cena could have done so as well.

Gotta agree here. Infact, I'd say he'd have been more suited to the Attitude era, especially as a heel. I reckon a foul mouthed, young punk of a Cena would've been great back then.

And, I'd like to know what thommohawk bases his claim on. Man, if you're gonna make such a bold statement then you need to give reasons and back it up.

cappyboy

02-12-2010, 08:53 AM

Okay, back to stuff that isn't hypothetical history.

Anybody watch the whole Hogan scenario last night and still think he's not to be trusted? I know we're suppose to be shocked that the Hulkster turned around and waffled The Band. But man I saw it coming a million miles away. As soon as Hall and Waltman started acting like they'd turn things over to Hogan, I knew he'd waffle them. I'm not convinced for one minute Angle or TNA's story world can trust him. Any more than I believe The Band really turned its back on Kevin Nash. I still smell a huge setup. It's been years since Hogan's been the altruistic hero type even in the story world of wrestling. And Kevin Nash's been playing mind games as recently as a month and half ago jerking Mick Foley around. It feels so much like they are trying to resurrect the NWO. Except by getting invited in this time rather than pulling the hostile takeover. I could just be paranoid and overthinking because I'm too smart for what the writers want me to be. But can anyone here really blame me?

masterded

02-12-2010, 10:59 AM

Hyde Hill

02-12-2010, 11:10 AM

Hogan was poor at times but the rest of the promo work was fine to very good imho. I was very much entertained by the whole show except the predictable finish and thus anticlimacticle, the pipe down nerds sign guy, adding Bisch as ref and just giving away two slots in the tourney . Good wrestling all-round and good flow to the show though.

And Cappy isn't that the whole idea of intrigue? Not knowing what will happen and or how they will get there? I know Russo isn't a good finisher of storylines but until we get it so far it is fairly interesting and can see the appeal for some fans (not me).

jesterx7769

02-12-2010, 11:24 AM

It was an alright show, better than last weeks. If they end up unmasking Abyss in the long haul I think most of us will be upset.

Wasn't surprised at all by Hogan (hes the face of the company they werent going to turn him heel when you have Bischoff) however i wouldnt be surprised if they did it at a later date, meaning this gives them an excuse to hire Hall and Waltman now "come on Hulk sign them so we can face them in a real match (Angle & Nash)"

I actually liked the tag match with Wolfe/Hernandez/Angle/Anderson only thing I didnt like about it was I thought Hernandez looked like he didnt belong with those guys.

Pope/Jordan, not huge fans of both but dont understand the Pope/Jordan storyline. Forgive me if my time table is off but, two weeks ago you have Jordan beat Pople b/c of a knee, last week you have Pople beat the champ cleanly, then this week you have Pope beat Jordan to "get revenge" but it got him into the tournament so its not like they will be facing each other at the PPV, I could see them having Jordan interfere maybe but then once again, what was the point of him beating Styles if he is put back down the card to feud with Jordan? (who I despise)

X-Division match was decent, that rolling german is sweet, havent seen it before. would like to see them use the british stable more though.

Overall decent like I said, really really really wish some of the old TNA stuff was around now that its getting attention (Team Canada, Petey Williams, The Naturals, AMW, Raven i get he's old but his segments were always interesting)

Hyde Hill

02-12-2010, 11:28 AM

Jordon got a victory on Pope to establish him as he was "new" and pope had an excuse as he was "injured" coming into the match and now pope has defeated him cleanly while Jordon still looked a threat. Jordon established and Pope moving on to bigger and better things is my guess and if that was the goal it was well executed. Still don't like Jordon though although he looked pretty decent in this last match.

cappyboy

02-12-2010, 11:43 AM

And Cappy isn't that the whole idea of intrigue? Not knowing what will happen and or how they will get there? I know Russo isn't a good finisher of storylines but until we get it so far it is fairly interesting and can see the appeal for some fans (not me).

Actually I think this question might be better addressed to Masterded. I'm not the one who was suggesting TNA Creative might not know what they are even doing. I'm trying to play along with what I suspect is intrigue on the part of Hogan, Nash, and the Band by taking the threat of it seriously.

Hyde Hill

02-12-2010, 11:56 AM

Yeah sorry got a little mixed up there and an eventual Hogan heel turn would work depending on how they execute it.

masterded

02-12-2010, 12:20 PM

Actually I think this question might be better addressed to Masterded. I'm not the one who was suggesting TNA Creative might not know what they are even doing. I'm trying to play along with what I suspect is intrigue on the part of Hogan, Nash, and the Band by taking the threat of it seriously.

Yeah sorry got a little mixed up there and an eventual Hogan heel turn would work depending on how they execute it.

In that case. I don't have a problem with me not knowing where it is going. I just don't think they know what they are going to do yet or at least are 100% sure of what they are going to do. Plus what are the odds Hall can behave well enough to even make it to some kind of payoff (I say that as a Hall fan)?

cappyboy

02-12-2010, 01:12 PM

I just don't think they know what they are going to do yet or at least are 100% sure of what they are going to do. Plus what are the odds Hall can behave well enough to even make it to some kind of payoff (I say that as a Hall fan)?

And it's a fair point. I'm trying to go by what I see and how my gut reacts to it. But I could be 100% wrong with what they have in mind. Knowing some of the personalities involved, it wouldn't surprise me at all if you ended up being right. I don't like the idea. I'd prefer it not to be true. But I can't discount it.

justtxyank

02-12-2010, 01:15 PM

Hogan trying to act like a 20 year old drives me crazy.

jesterx7769

02-12-2010, 01:54 PM

Hogan trying to act like a 20 year old drives me crazy.

buts its crack a lackin jack, crack a lackin this is the in place to be brother, i have a tattoo and come out to a crappy remake of the nWo music!

djthefunkchris

02-12-2010, 03:13 PM

Thought someone might like to here from a "non" TNA fan, although I've been rooting for them.

I watched the whole episode, and I liked it. From Tara and Love to the end with Angle. I liked it alot more then I thought I would. I promise you this though, I called just about everything that happened on the show, so much that I thought maybe I wrote it or something. Made me like it even more.

Match's that ended with someone actually winning! That was probably the single thing that I hated about TNA before. Jarret not getting in the competition, loved Bischoff during that. Love that they are playing off the internet fans, with Kurt Angle telling people, Hogan is in it for himself. Like Nature Boy and AJ together. Thought he sounded just like Ric Flair on more then one occasons.

pate

02-12-2010, 05:51 PM

This was my favorite episode of the Hogan era, but I still greatly prefer the two or so months before the new guard came in.

Blackman

02-13-2010, 10:49 AM

Last week's episode was good I guess. Some decent segments, a few good matches and nothing really boring. Perhaps i'll continue to watch anyway. :)

I expected crap and I got some entertainment. Awesome. :p

QFresh

02-13-2010, 10:52 AM

I didn't think it was all that bad, but I think they really use Bischoff way too much. He's on basically every second segment. But this weeks show was pretty good. and I could be wrong, but in the opening segment, Hogan referred to Eric Young as the Global Champion... Is that not Rob Terry, and if it is Rob Terry, when did it happen?

Hyde Hill

02-13-2010, 10:55 AM

At the time of the taping EY was the global champ, Terry became global champ during their tour of the UK which happened after the taping. Big announcement on Monday! Oh whatever could it be? lolz

SaySo

02-13-2010, 02:59 PM

Reports are surfacing that last night’s edition of TNA iMPACT! brought in approximately 1.61 million viewers. This is a slight improvement over last week’s 1.60 million viewers. If this number holds, we can expect this week’s episode of iMPACT! to score a final 1.2 rating.

brashleyholland

02-13-2010, 07:34 PM

I thought they would have made a bigger deal of Morgan and Hernandez being in the tourney. It seemed very thrown together. You'd have thought TNA would have made something of announcing that they would face off with each other in the first round, and maybe had them on opposite side of that tag match to create a bit of tension.

I thought Hogan's promo at the start was rubbish...just really bland. "You fans are great, you make TNA great"...he might as well stand there and say "I'm the good guy, cheer for me, crack-a-lack-a-jack BROTHER!!". There was just no substance to it, and it's the same thing every week.

The ending was...meh. I didn't for one second think that Hogan was with Hall and Co (I'm sure I'm not on my own there), so it just didn't work for me.

Not sure where they are going with Easy E reffing the main event. Would be nice if aligns Eric with Flair and AJ and he was revealed to be the mastermind behind the screwing of Angle. Could lead to a reluctant partnership between Angle and Joe vs AJ, Flair, Bischoff and the Band. Just specualating too far ahead now though.

Really like the Pope. Am hoping that he gets a bigger role moving forward. Same with Wolf. Same with Williams and Magnus.

Even that graphic of the Nastys for their PPV match this Sunday was too much of the Nastys for me. Hoping they're gone soon. That said, I don't see what else they have for Team 3D now that they are the good guys again.

All in all I thought it was a decent show - not the best I've seen since Jan, but not the worst either.

jesterx7769

02-13-2010, 08:34 PM

You bring up a good point about the tag division and how weak it is which is why I think they brought in the Nasty Boyz. It's unfortunate since it used to be their strong point. I think its pretty clear too that Morgan and Hernandez aren't a long term team.

BTW, why is Morgan packaged so dumb with his little robe with genes on it, and the blue print? I've hated that since they gave it to last year. hes big, make him some sort of vigilante taking heels out! And carbon foot print? (if thats what it is)

cappyboy

02-13-2010, 09:26 PM

BTW, why is Morgan packaged so dumb with his little robe with genes on it, and the blue print? I've hated that since they gave it to last year. hes big, make him some sort of vigilante taking heels out! And carbon foot print? (if thats what it is)

Becuase they are pushing him as a potential face of the company and he's "the DNA of TNA". Which a pretty good catchphrase considering how crappy the "TNA" name is for them. If they were booking him your way, I don't know I'd be as interested in him. It would be much more stereotypical than his current persona is. They way things stand, I've really enjoyed Morgan's development. Making him this cliched vigilante type you talk about would be a step backward at this stage.

Hyde Hill

02-13-2010, 11:03 PM

Plus his Carbon Footprint is his secondary finisher although he hasn't used the hellevator in a while now. At least his Big Boot is a lot better then the one Sheamus uses hehe.

On the tag division they actually have a solid amount of pretty good teams they just haven't been booked a lot atm because the regime change is focusing on brining in their new talent and alligning them the way they want etc. Same with the X-Division and to a lesser extent the Knock Outs.

cappyboy

02-14-2010, 08:53 AM

On the tag division they actually have a solid amount of pretty good teams they just haven't been booked a lot atm because the regime change is focusing on brining in their new talent and alligning them the way they want etc. Same with the X-Division and to a lesser extent the Knock Outs.

Very much agreed. One of my big beefs with the Internet is they want what they want, they want it nownownow and that'll all they seem to care about. I'm not a big fan of how the tag teams are letting largely lost in the shuffle at the moment. But it is significant that the regime shift is still gelling and that some stuff has to be expected to suffer during that. If the tag teams and the X Division guys are still getting short shrift at Christmastime, that will be time to complain. But it's like the Main Event Mafia. There's a finite life cycle for all the confusion and you gotta let it be during that life cycle. You try to rush the transition or act like it never happened the results will end up all the worse.

For all their negatives as personalities, this is one prop I will give Hogan and Bischoff with their handling of TNA. They are acting like they get it this time around. Whether their new direction will ultimately be worth the time I can't say. But at least they seem to have a better grasp on the process of setting it than they've had in the past.

Hive

02-14-2010, 10:00 AM

So.... are they going to push Mr. Anderson as the #1 contender already tonight, you think?

cappyboy

02-14-2010, 10:27 AM

So.... are they going to push Mr. Anderson as the #1 contender already tonight, you think?

I hope not. Someone really needs to give that guy's character some texture before he can ever be watchable as champion. I'm rooting for Angle to win that match. No idea on who I want to win it all. But I know I'd prefer Anderson not to get out of the first round.

Hyde Hill

02-14-2010, 10:29 AM

So.... are they going to push Mr. Anderson as the #1 contender already tonight, you think?

Unlikely as he is a) a heel and b) stuck at the airport (literally). I am hoping for the Pope but all are good as long as it is not Foley.

Edit: Disregard B as he has apparently made it.

haloed

02-14-2010, 10:57 AM

Anybody getting the show tonight? I'm kind of on the fence about getting it.

justtxyank

02-14-2010, 11:33 AM

I'd like to but I don't want to pay for it.

PeterHilton

02-14-2010, 03:06 PM

Y'know..I've ordered the last four but there's absolutely no way I'm ordering this one.

There are possibly some great matches in that tourney, but there's no way I'm throwing money at a company with a PPV that has Team 3D vs The Nasty Boys.

No ****ing way.

NicoTheUnique

02-14-2010, 03:37 PM

What is TNA doing in buys now adays?...

Since i dont think this PPV will sell that much...Nobody her can say "I'm so hyped up about Nasty Boys vs Team 3D"
The only reason i accept that is that Matthew will get more botch footage :P
Lots and Lots of it

Bigpapa42

02-14-2010, 03:48 PM

justtxyank

02-14-2010, 04:08 PM

Actually I want to buy it in part for the NB vs 3D.

SaySo

02-14-2010, 04:48 PM

Knockouts earnings?

Though they may be big stars on television and draw relatively high ratings, that doesn't necessarily translate into big checks for the stars of TNA's Knockouts division.

In light of Awesome Kong's contractual dispute with TNA Wrestling, multiple sources have noted that the average pay for a female performer in the organization is between $200 to $400 per appearance. However, it's widely assumed that Christy Hemme and Lisa Marie Varon (a/k/a Tara) make more money due to their past ties with World Wrestling Entertainment with sources believing that Kong makes slightly more than $400 per shot, which is considered a "high end salary" in the No. 2 wrestling organization in the world.

It's interesting to note that a female performer who made the "high end salary" of $400, exclusively appeared on television, and appeared on every single television event held over the course of a calendar year would only garner $26,000 at most. Although, that number comes in before one figures in road expenses, wardrobe expenses and taxes. Regarding travel, TNA solely covers airfare, leaving talent to cover the rest including lodging. Also note, there is no downside guarantee, thus meaning talent only get paid when they are used.

With that being said, TNA holds live events most weeks and permits talent to seek independent bookings, thus allowing them to garner more money. Furthermore, television exposure greatly increases a wrestler's booking fee, most especially for talent previously not seen on national television.

Regarding Kong, TNAWrestlingNews.com reports that she has asked for a raise on several occasions but company officials have apparently not honored her request despite her lofty standing on television. Kong reportedly blew up last spring when she found out that then newcomer Brutus Magnus was being paid more than her.

It was reported recently that Kong has regularly vented backstage about the company spending frivolously on newcomers. Since then, multiple sources have confirmed that she was very upset with Ric Flair's wife being treated to limousine service on the company's dime at a recent show. TNA never grants limo service to its female performers.

It is believed that Kong has several years remaining on her contract with TNA. She refused to appear on the company's recent UK tour and at time it was widely assumed that she was upset with Bubba the Love Sponge's controversial remarks concerning the country of Haiti. However, multiple sources say the issue has since been resolved and that her ongoing problems with the organization are related to pay.

The primary reason Gail Kim left TNA for World Wrestling Entertainment was due to the significant discrepancy between the amount of money being offered by both companies. According to multiple sources, Kim did not want to leave TNA, but felt she had no choice but to bolt for WWE due to the massive difference in pay.

masterded

02-14-2010, 05:25 PM

If I was at home I think I would order it, though online for $14.99 (as I only have basic cable so no PPV). Edit: never mind as it is not available in the US (due to contracts with PPV companies) So I guess I wouldn't as I don't think it will be good enough to bother going to a cousin or friends house who has PPV and trying to get people to throw in some money for It and some pizza.

So Nastys vs 3D is going to be bad, but I am also guessing it will be short.

Abyss Foley will also be bad with the only thing that could help it at all would be if right before it starts Bischoff announces it is now a hardcore match (would fit with the storyline). Even then though that would depend 100% on the spots, which have been pretty bad in most of Foleys matches in TNA. I think Abyss wins.

Angle Anderson should be a good match. I could see it going either way though I hope Angle wins, as I don’t care to see Anderson Abyss 2. If Anderson does win though it will be a tainted win.

Morgan Hernandez should be okay for a big guy vs big guy match. I see Morgan taking it as The Carbon Foot Print is the only finisher the 2 have that one could for sure do to the other (with the hellavator having no chance and the border toss seeming unlikely).

Pope Wolfe may end up the best match of the tournament if it gets time (and if one of them vs Angle isn’t the final). Have no idea which one takes it.

I think the finales ends up Angle Morgan with Angle getting screwed some how in the end or Anderson Morgan, which ends up a coin flip with a small edge to Morgan as the champ is heel.

AJ Joe should be a good match with the only thing hurting it being that it almost seems like a lock that AJ wins with a screw finish. Though up until that point it should be gold.

jesterx7769

02-14-2010, 06:03 PM

Kong can moan about pay all she wants but if TNA isn't paying her X what else is she going to do? Women's wrestling isn't as popular period, at least the men have more options. She should quit moaning and hope WWE calls her.

haloed

02-14-2010, 07:34 PM

Impressive match between Morgan and Hernandez. Hernandez's delay vertical suplex on Morgan was really impressive, must of held Morgan up atleast 30 seconds.

Slagaholic

02-14-2010, 10:01 PM

I am in The Pope's Congregation. I've been marking for him for ages.

lazorbeak

02-15-2010, 12:53 AM

So was this show nearly as bad as it looks on paper? Angle eliminated in the first round? The title match not going on last? The Duds and the Nastys going almost 11 minutes with the Nastys going over?!?

Not sure if I like the somewhat rushed Pope push, either. If he's your guy, build him up over a few months while having AJ go over guys like Matt Morgan or Hernandez or Abyss: established babyfaces who are credible threats for a little guy like Styles. Then once both guys are built up, people will care about a title match. But as much potential as Pope has, what has he done in TNA? He had a good match with a very good wrestler in a losing effort.

BHK1978

02-15-2010, 12:57 AM

Let me say this, I did not see the PPV but I just read the writeup.

The Nasty Boys vs. 3D went for almost 11 minutes!:eek:

As Dr. Phil would say, "What were they thinking?"

I am no fan of the Dudleys (never really liked them going back to their days in the real ECW) but they should in no way shape or form lose to the Nasty Boys.

Glad to see Jimmy Hart back, sadly I am not sure if he will be as good as he was in the 80's. I think he will probably be bland like he was in the 1990's.

jwt13

02-15-2010, 06:23 AM

Hive

02-15-2010, 06:52 AM

Not sure if I like the somewhat rushed Pope push, either. If he's your guy, build him up over a few months while having AJ go over guys like Matt Morgan or Hernandez or Abyss: established babyfaces who are credible threats for a little guy like Styles. Then once both guys are built up, people will care about a title match. But as much potential as Pope has, what has he done in TNA? He had a good match with a very good wrestler in a losing effort.

Still, what else do they have for main event material? They can't do Angle-Styles forever. And Dinero has what Hogan is looking for; charismatic both in the ring and outside of it. He's good both in the ring and on the mic.

thommohawk

02-15-2010, 09:45 AM

Still, what else do they have for main event material? They can't do Angle-Styles forever. And Dinero has what Hogan is looking for; charismatic both in the ring and outside of it. He's good both in the ring and on the mic.

And so is Ken Anderson. TNA have plenty of talent for the main event spots, plenty. The thing is they have nobody who can compete at WWE level main eventer for TNA and why is this ? Because TNA isn't at WWE's level just yet in terms of size, rep, money or exposure....stop hating on TNA people, it's nowhere near as bad as WWE's product recently.

And the guy commenting on lazor beak is right, the beak makes no mention of Sheamus.....

I yknow, actually watched the TNA PPV and it wasn't bad at all but then no TNA PPV I've watched has ever been terrible, WWE on the other hand....I just can't stomach them anymore, as well I shouldn't because their product right now is oriented to the mass market casual and younger audience. But TNA is moving to Monday nights starting March 8th and is going live every second Monday, so that'll be good for us since both will be pushing to compete.

Hyde Hill

02-15-2010, 10:04 AM

What has Dinero been doing? He has been getting over that is what! Despite his spotty win/loss record. He has been built up pretty strongly and they have 2 months to build him up even more before he faces Styles.

Apart from the negative star 3D vs Nasty match it was a decent but not great ppv.

Like the fact that they have moved the railings back somewhat so there is room on the outside of the ring again. Now just to end the ramp earlier again and it is a great ring setup. Plus JB is back as an interviewer!

Most matches where decent but none where really great which is a shame as they had potential. I get putting the title match on as second to last in order for time between each round of the tourney but it would have been better to put another match there and cut the 3d vs nasty boys match in half.

And is it me or have they gone for a slower match style allround eg closer to the E's? I really liked the faster pace they had although a bit slower couldn't hurt but they have gone a bit overboard imho. Plus has Abyss gained weight? I know he was always big but he seemed bigger then usual. Fan reaction was weird as in sometimes very hot and sometimes very cold for basicly the same stuff and please get rid of Bubba Army sign guy as he sometimes distracts from the matches.

lazorbeak

02-15-2010, 10:05 AM

Like the E did Sheamus :rolleyes:

So because some other company makes a bad decision means TNA gets to make worse decisions? Also TNA doesn't have the exposure WWE does so it's not a very good comparison anyway.

Still, what else do they have for main event material? They can't do Angle-Styles forever. And Dinero has what Hogan is looking for; charismatic both in the ring and outside of it. He's good both in the ring and on the mic.

I just listed alternatives: Morgan/Styles could be a pay per view main event if Angle and the other guys also have something to do.

And the guy commenting on lazor beak is right, the beak makes no mention of Sheamus.....

Weird that I don't talk about what other companies need to do right when talking about the subject of the thread, right?

Hyde Hill

02-15-2010, 10:09 AM

Agree with ya there Lazor when someone does something wrong it doesn't matter if the competition does the same thing as well or even worse it is still both wrong. You can only do that if someone would have said it like:

Hah another WWE reject getting overpushed in TNA what has he done to get a title shot! Nothing! Another reason why WWE is so far superior to TNA!!

Then it is fair to point out Sheamus.

thommohawk

02-15-2010, 10:10 AM

Weird that I don't talk about what other companies need to do right when talking about the subject of the thread, right?

That doesn't usually stop you deviating slightly from the subject thread as if it all isn't linked anyway! :rolleyes:

Oh yeah and to the people who doubted me before about my comments on Cena and the Attitude Era, come on people, he barely floated to the surface in recent history so what chance would he have had when The Rock and Stone Cold were running the show and most other mid carders were well in their prime and much bigger draws than Cena? He'd have sunk quicker than Just Joe at WWF Mania taping and you all know that's true, so I have to ask what Attitude Era the current WWE fanboys were watching, because I lived it and loved it in my early teens.

You have to remember that back then you had Kane, Edge, Gangrel, X Pac, Val Venis and Triple H in the mid-to-upper midcard and all were either in their prime or just reaching their peak and all were a lot more interesting characters to watch than the blandness that is John Cena - he gets tolerated now only because women and children love him and Vince shoved him down our throats, but back then he'd have been eaten alive and spat out the back door end of story. Wrong guy, wrong time had it been 1998 and as hypothetical as it is you all know I'm right on that one.

Wrestling Century

02-15-2010, 10:10 AM

Sweet! Dinero vs Styles at Lockdown! Now I just hope that that match doesn't get changed.

thommohawk

02-15-2010, 10:26 AM

Sweet! Dinero vs Styles at Lockdown! Now I just hope that that match doesn't get changed.

It will, guaranteed - it'll probably wind up a 5 man free for all between AJ, Pope, Angle, Joe and Anderson - or a triple threat match between AJ, Pope and Joe - either way multi man title match inside a cage and if it is a triple threat then you can bet Angle vs Anderson and Morgan vs Hernandez singles matches will also be on the card. Also don't be surprised to see RVD make an appearance.....I'm still waiting for Sid and Goldberg to show up. Anyone here think JR will sign with them ? I think he just might....I hope he doesn't though, personally I can't stand him and think he's overrated.

Hyde Hill

02-15-2010, 10:34 AM

No it wont as they always have a 4 on 4 with Lethal Lockdown in the semi main. And the Cena rant was in the wrong thread.

jesterx7769

02-15-2010, 10:48 AM

I highly doubt JR will sign with TNA, his posts have been pretty adament he has a bunch going on outside of wrestling and wouldnt be hurt if his wrestling days were done. I also dont see TNA spending the money for another announcer when they are doing fine as is.

infinitywpi

02-15-2010, 10:53 AM

I watched Pope/Wolffe... kinda faded in and out for a few matches, finally passed out during Abyss/Foley... woke up to see Bischoff slugging Flair. This isn't a knock on the show, I have the flu... from what I saw, decent show tho.

CQI13

02-15-2010, 10:57 AM

That doesn't usually stop you deviating slightly from the subject thread as if it all isn't linked anyway! :rolleyes:

Oh yeah and to the people who doubted me before about my comments on Cena and the Attitude Era, come on people, he barely floated to the surface in recent history so what chance would he have had when The Rock and Stone Cold were running the show and most other mid carders were well in their prime and much bigger draws than Cena? He'd have sunk quicker than Just Joe at WWF Mania taping and you all know that's true, so I have to ask what Attitude Era the current WWE fanboys were watching, because I lived it and loved it in my early teens.

You have to remember that back then you had Kane, Edge, Gangrel, X Pac, Val Venis and Triple H in the mid-to-upper midcard and all were either in their prime or just reaching their peak and all were a lot more interesting characters to watch than the blandness that is John Cena - he gets tolerated now only because women and children love him and Vince shoved him down our throats, but back then he'd have been eaten alive and spat out the back door end of story. Wrong guy, wrong time had it been 1998 and as hypothetical as it is you all know I'm right on that one.

Nobody shoves anything down your throat, you choose to swallow. And Cena, as he was when he first started would have been pretty big in the Attitude Era (when he used to come out with B-Squared). Current incarnation? Probably not. But current Kane wouldn't have compared with Attitude era Kane. And Gangrel? Really?

PeterHilton

02-15-2010, 11:16 AM

Dinero is a stud and they should run AJ/Dinero for at least two PPV's because Pope/Flair promos would be epic.

Oh yeah and to the people who doubted me before about my comments on Cena and the Attitude Era, come on people, he barely floated to the surface in recent history so what chance would he have had when The Rock and Stone Cold were running the show and most other mid carders were well in their prime and much bigger draws than Cena? He'd have sunk quicker than Just Joe at WWF Mania taping and you all know that's true, so I have to ask what Attitude Era the current WWE fanboys were watching, because I lived it and loved it in my early teens.

You have to remember that back then you had Kane, Edge, Gangrel, X Pac, Val Venis and Triple H in the mid-to-upper midcard and all were either in their prime or just reaching their peak and all were a lot more interesting characters to watch than the blandness that is John Cena - he gets tolerated now only because women and children love him and Vince shoved him down our throats, but back then he'd have been eaten alive and spat out the back door end of story. Wrong guy, wrong time had it been 1998 and as hypothetical as it is you all know I'm right on that one.

You're being ridiculous.

One, you have to sort of assume Cena wouldn't play the same character he is now specifically BECAUSE the generic, bland, good guy was either never used or used as a comedy character during that time period. So this version of Cena wouldnt be what we got...he'd be something else entirely.

And based on his early work as the white rapper and during the first stages of his face turn, he'd fit in fine if they used him as an anti-hero type.

Also...by what possible measure most other midcarders during that time period bigger draws than Cena? He's been the biggest star in the US for what...5 years? 6 years? I get that YOU don't care for the product, and I think Super Cena is boring as hell, but you can't just toss the man aside and say 'o well he would never have drawn back then' because based on everything we've seen of his career, you're completely wrong

When his career is done, Cena - for better or worse - is going to be seen as one of the top 5 draws in WWE history. There's not a single midcarder that was around during the Attitude Era that would get a whiff of that.

jesterx7769

02-15-2010, 11:26 AM

White Rapper Cena would have been huge in the attitude era, he was somewhat controversial when he first did it (remember the parking lot match with Eddie for the U.S. title that made him? yeah, WWE doesn't do those matches anymore) imagine if they actually let him try to be offending as the rapper gimmick, did i love it? is he my favorite? of course not, but as everyone is saying, the evidence is there he would have succeeded, good mic work, good look/physique, he would have fit right in.

Hive

02-15-2010, 11:46 AM

I just listed alternatives: Morgan/Styles could be a pay per view main event if Angle and the other guys also have something to do.

What makes Morgan a better main eventer than Dinero, though?

Hyde Hill

02-15-2010, 11:47 AM

Ehm TNA Thread guys not WWE please move it as that thread needs more posts lolz.

And yeah JR is superfluous to TNA's needs imho. Better then Tenay? Sure, big enough improvement and necessary? Nope.

Hyde Hill

02-15-2010, 11:49 AM

What makes Morgan a better main eventer than Dinero, though?

I don't think he meant way better in terms of skills etc but Morgan has been established more then Dinero so far in terms of win/losses and to a lesser extent exposure. Still both are good choices and Dinero vs AJ should be good.

jesterx7769

02-15-2010, 12:05 PM

I think Styles win out for a little bit anyways in order to solidify his heel character and Ric Flair, doesnt make much sense to have Styles change to a d*ck with Flair only for a month so I think he will hold the title for at least two/three more months.

thommohawk

02-15-2010, 12:32 PM

I'm sorry my mistake I must have missed (shoot now who was it now..) oh yeah you guys back in 2007 ripping and hating on John Cena because of how untalented he is - gotta love the interwebz peeps change their beliefs like they change their underwear....

Seems funny how people say oh the rapper gimmick would have worked yak yak yak, the rapper gimmick clearly didn't work this time around so what chance would it have had back then? And besides it doesn't mask the fact that Cena isn't a talented main eventer and is nowhere near the stars of that era, though it's the WWE machine hard at work again....had Cena been the rapper in the Attitude Era if he hadn't been released he'd have maybe been a midcarder at best. Though I don't believe he'd have been given the opportunity whereas that's one good thing about WWE being the only horse in town at the time and the brand extension initially, it gave them an opportunity to give workers a chance to shine who may not have had it otherwise - Bradshaw and Cena being the 2 biggest profits of this move. You might not like me but credit where it's due what's right is right and no amount of fanboyism can change that.

justtxyank

02-15-2010, 12:32 PM

Hyde Hill

02-15-2010, 12:49 PM

justtxyank

02-15-2010, 12:51 PM

Yeah that was an example of breaking disbelief and shouldn't be done. For the rest though they are quite enthusiastic and have good chants imho. The bubba army sign guy is more annoying and distracting imho and at the same time he doesn't seem to be into the product at all.

Yeah the chants are normally awesome you're right. Like during basically every TNA match where someone jumps off a rope and the crowd starts a "This is awesome!" chant or "TNA! TNA! TNA!". The TNA crowd is pathetic. They are trying to get themselves over like the old ECW crowd and it's painfully obvious. I can't wait until the day TNA never puts on a show for those guys again.

Hyde Hill

02-15-2010, 01:08 PM

Live press conference with chat in 22 minutes I am signed up under Hyde_Hill anyone else watching and/or commentating?

Link: http://www.tnawrestling.com/news/item/1702-tna-wrestling-live-online-broadcasts

Hyde Hill

02-15-2010, 01:10 PM

djthefunkchris

02-15-2010, 01:15 PM

Yeah the chants are normally awesome you're right. Like during basically every TNA match where someone jumps off a rope and the crowd starts a "This is awesome!" chant or "TNA! TNA! TNA!". The TNA crowd is pathetic. They are trying to get themselves over like the old ECW crowd and it's painfully obvious. I can't wait until the day TNA never puts on a show for those guys again.

After the last show, the only turn-off to me is the crowd right now. I'm hoping they fix that somehow, as it does not help, at least not for me. I really want to enjoy this show, and I'm rooting for them as much as anyone, but drop the crap already. Your not ECW, there will never be another ECW, and over the top chants make the match's worse then what they would have been.... If someone sings a karaoke song good, not bad, but pretty good, you don't want someone yelling "OH MY GAWD! THIS IS AWESOME!" when it was clearly not awesome. Makes the guy/gal singing look worse then if everyone would have just reacted normally (clap and cheer).

CQI13

02-15-2010, 01:16 PM

I do think it's ridiculous that people chant the name of the promotion when someone does something cool/dangerous. How about chanting the name of the person?

And thom...a lot of the people back then weren't "talented" as far as in ring. Because they don't need to be. A gimmick can take you pretty far. Also, the style they work nowadays is completely different than before (more toned down), so unless someone worked on both, it can't be said that they wouldn't have been successful (and chances are, if they have worked both, they've been around long enough to be considered successful).

Not sure why ECW is held in such high esteem either (as for wrestling or fans), but different strokes.

What has Morgan done lately? I haven't really been following, but I remember he was getting a push. Anything come of it?

Hyde Hill

02-15-2010, 02:12 PM

Well it's now really official Impact on Monday's and live every other Monday as expected. Hope this increases viewership for wrestling as a whole. And if the ratings dissapoint no real harm in going back to Thursday imho.

MattitudeV2

02-15-2010, 02:14 PM

lazorbeak

02-15-2010, 02:22 PM

What makes Morgan a better main eventer than Dinero, though?

Like I said in my first post on the subject, if Dinero is eventually a main eventer, that's fine, but he hasn't actually done much of anything: he feuded with Suicide, he split a couple of matches with Desmond Wolfe. If you build him up for awhile, you give him exposure so fans actually want to see Dinero get a run with the belt.

Morgan, while he may or may not be "better," makes great fodder for putting over a champion like AJ because he would likely be willing to put AJ over clean and make him look great, and has the size and natural look that AJ gains credibility as a champion when he goes over. Since he's been floating around the upper midcard since the whole Main Event Mafia thing, he has more experience and exposure in the company.

I don't think he meant way better in terms of skills etc but Morgan has been established more then Dinero so far in terms of win/losses and to a lesser extent exposure. Still both are good choices and Dinero vs AJ should be good.

Yes, this is pretty much the gist of it. I just wish TNA didn't seem to be in such a colossal hurry to get where they're going. Hogan may have been a huge jerk in the 90's, but he seemed to understand the value in building fans up for a program (Sting vs. Hogan was built up for how long and got Wrestlemania-level buyrates). Present-day Hogan seems to be in a hurry to get the guys he wants where he wants them to be.

justtxyank

02-15-2010, 02:22 PM

Different strokes for different folks I guess. The this is Awesome or TNA chants just shows support for the product imho. Better then the What! You S*ck! or Boo/Yeah stuff imho.

The "What" chants are very stupid as well, but we are talking about TNA not the E.

The fans in the Impact Zone detract from the product.

cappyboy

02-15-2010, 02:30 PM

They are trying to get themselves over like the old ECW crowd and it's painfully obvious.

:: cries into face::

Wrong. A hundred million times wrong. They are doing what they know. Between ECW and Ring of Honor and maybe some various other indy places, think how long fans have been doing the This Is Awesome or the promotion's name as a chant. Many of the fans in a TNA crowd may not go back far enough with wrestling to know what chants were like before the ECW style stuff. Look at the ultra-annoying What thing. It's been so long ago folks may not know why it's done anymore or how it got started. All they know is that it's done and it's part of the experience to do it. It's like bringing a sign to support your favorite.

You may have individual geek pockets trying to get themselves over. But the crowd as a whole? Ridiculous. I would be floored if that was even a consideration to the majority of the ECW crowd that did get over. From what I could tell when I had the stomach to observe for long enough, the ECW crowd was totally spontaneous. If by some stroke the TNA crowd is actively trying to get over in large enough percentages to debunk everything I've just said, then you can put them right next to Jeff Hardy in the Man, I Just Don't Get It file.

justtxyank

02-15-2010, 02:33 PM

:: cries into face::

Wrong. A hundred million times wrong. They are doing what they know. Between ECW and Ring of Honor and maybe some various other indy places, think how long fans have been doing the This Is Awesome or the promotion's name as a chant. Many of the fans in a TNA crowd may not go back far enough with wrestling to know what chants were like before the ECW style stuff. Look at the ultra-annoying What thing. It's been so long ago folks may not know why it's done anymore or how it got started. All they know is that it's done and it's part of the experience to do it. It's like bringing a sign to support your favorite.

You may have individual geek pockets trying to get themselves over. But the crowd as a whole? Ridiculous. I would be floored if that was even a consideration to the majority of the ECW crowd that did get over. From what I could tell when I had the stomach to observe for long enough, the ECW crowd was totally spontaneous. If by some stroke the TNA crowd is actively trying to get over in large enough percentages to debunk everything I've just said, then you can put them right next to Jeff Hardy in the Man, I Just Don't Get It file.

I am specifically referring to the group of fans in the Impact Zone that start a lot of these chants. You could call them a geek pocket. They have a name for themselves. They call themselves "The Crucial Crew" and make a point to wear specific clothing, specific signs, etc. so that they are recognizable on television. Their chants are about making themselves part of the show, not about showing true appreciation for the product they get to witness.

Edit: And unfortunately it is this group of outspoken fans that generally start the chants and control how a crowd reacts to things.

cappyboy

02-15-2010, 02:39 PM

I am specifically referring to the group of fans in the Impact Zone that start a lot of these chants. You could call them a geek pocket. They have a name for themselves. They call themselves "The Crucial Crew" and make a point to wear specific clothing, specific signs, etc. so that they are recognizable on television. Their chants are about making themselves part of the show, not about showing true appreciation for the product they get to witness.

Edit: And unfortunately it is this group of outspoken fans that generally start the chants and control how a crowd reacts to things.

So essentially I misread and it's time to offer my mea culpas for that. Correct?

justtxyank

02-15-2010, 02:42 PM

So essentially I misread and it's time to offer my mea culpas for that. Correct?

No. You probably weren't aware that there was a group of wrestling fans that were so stupid they would give themselves a name and intentionally try to be famous for being the cool fans on a staged wrestling show. I don't think anyone should have to apologize for not knowing something that stupid was really, well, real.

If I told you "hey, there is this group of young adults who go to every taping of a fake sporting event, wear specific clothing, bring specific signs, chant specific things, boo specific things, etc. all with the intent of being recognized by other fans of this staged event" would you believe me?

lazorbeak

02-15-2010, 02:48 PM

Cappy, did you not get the open letter from the guy that wears suits to every TNA taping?

Hey guys. I'm one of the hardcore TNA fans who you see regularly on iMPACT! and TNA PPV. You probably recognize me as the guy who wears a shirt and tie to the shows.

I've seen a lot of posts claiming that the biggest thing wrong with TNA right now is us, the loyal fans in the iMPACT! Zone.

I'd like to give you a little perspective on things. There is a group of about 12-20 of us who are at every show we can attend (Collectively known as the "Crucial Crew", which is why you see us throw up the 'c' hand signal). And we DO NOT like the direction this company is going. Therefore, we express our displeasure in hopes that management will listen. Why? Because we LOVE TNA, and will not stand idly by while it gets raped by Hogan and his boys. If we were season ticket holders for a sports team, this would be expected, would it not?

Last night at Genesis was a major event in the growing war between the TNA loyalists and the Hoganites. I can tell you that very real battle lines are being drawn within the organization, and the conflict will get a lot worse.

Again, we LOVE TNA. So when a man who built his career and reputation on WWF Sports Entertainment comes in, changes the things that make TNA unique and basically tells us that the TNA model is broken and that "the smart marks in the front" (read Hogan's IGN interview) don't matter, aren't representative of mainstream America and so should be ignored- Yeah, we're gonna be pissed.

Last night was remarkable in that for the first time ever a TNA producer came down into the pit where we stand, grabbed my friend by the shirt and actually threatened to ban us from the building if we didn't stop with the "vulgarity and the negativity". From reports, this heat came directly from "Dixie and Terry who were pissed that we didn't put Morely over during his match with Daniels. Are you kidding? This happened during the Pope v Wolfe match, and totally killed the crowd. If you were wondering why the crowd was so dead during what was a great wrestling match, that's why.

Here's the thing though... We've become friends with a lot of the wrestlers, and they all love our energy, enthusiasm and passion, and have and continue to support us. The production crew, who takes heat directly from the top, HATE us, most likely because they are all afraid for their jobs.

Also, all of the Bubba Army idiots and other Hogan marks are now in the iMPACT! Zone and act like the complete tools they are. Oh, but THEY don't get scolded like 5-year olds, even though they are the most offensive people there.

I saw hundreds of people walk out on the show last night, something i've NEVER seen at a PPV. Things are getting weird. Hopefully, Bischoff and Russo are smart enough to use this tension to create compelling TV, but from my perspective, it seems like TNA is dying right before my eyes.

Want some compelling TV? Wait until the entire pit revolts and empties into the ring on live TV. The way things are going, this is not altogether inconceivable.

Rest assured, the Crucial Crew will fight to the end for the TNA we know and love!

A dozen guys putting themselves over by chanting cute crap like "AJ's married" and flashing hand-signs for the name they gave themselves as they whine about being told what to do when they don't buy tickets, which makes the season tickets metaphor especially incorrect.

justtxyank

02-15-2010, 02:50 PM

Wow. I'd forgotten exactly how bad that statement was Lazor.

They make it hard to enjoy TNA for me.

jesterx7769

02-15-2010, 02:51 PM

I wonder if they would attend every tapping if it was weekly and they had to pay $20 to get in. Where did you find that btw?

Hyde Hill

02-15-2010, 02:52 PM

This is a better representation on what they are about:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/theshoot/2010/01/22/the-shoot-episode

About 77 minutes in.

justtxyank

02-15-2010, 02:52 PM

I wonder if they would attend every tapping if it was weekly and they had to pay $20 to get in. Where did you find that btw?

It was posted at wrestlezone, among other places I believe. Like I said though, this group wants desperately to be a part of the show and they actually think of themselves as being "over" with the wrestlers. LMFAO

justtxyank

02-15-2010, 02:53 PM

This is a better representation on what they are about:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/theshoot/2010/01/22/the-shoot-episode

About 77 minutes in.

Want to summarize as I can't listen to audio on this computer?

cappyboy

02-15-2010, 02:54 PM

No. You probably weren't aware that there was a group of wrestling fans that were so stupid they would give themselves a name and intentionally try to be famous for being the cool fans on a staged wrestling show. I don't think anyone should have to apologize for not knowing something that stupid was really, well, real.

If I told you "hey, there is this group of young adults who go to every taping of a fake sporting event, wear specific clothing, bring specific signs, chant specific things, boo specific things, etc. all with the intent of being recognized by other fans of this staged event" would you believe me?

Sorry dude. Thanks for trying. But you're letting me off easy. Once you mentioned "The Crucial Crew" the excuse you're trying to give me flew out the window. I have sadly seen that reference often enough on here that I should have tied it in. So mea culpa for misreading. I saw a broader meaning than you intended and leapt before I looked.

justtxyank

02-15-2010, 02:55 PM

Sorry dude. Thanks for trying. But you're letting me off easy. Once you mentioned "The Crucial Crew" the excuse you're trying to give me flew out the window. I have sadly seen that reference often enough on here that I should have tied it in. So mea culpa for misreading. I saw a broader meaning than you intended and leapt before I looked.

Haha OK well fair enough then. :)

Hyde Hill

02-15-2010, 03:10 PM

Want to summarize as I can't listen to audio on this computer?

Basicly saying they are very enthusiastic fans and that the whole name "the crucial crew" was started as a joke and that they got heat for chanting sit down Brooke (, which they meant as a joke,) during Daniels vs Morley plus not chearing for Morley and turning their back on his win and where told they would be thrown out if they didn't stop it. The whole story about the Bubba army not getting in at the jan 4th edition which caused some friction. ( Not their fault). The fact that the production crew themselves asked them to go into the pit because they where so enthusiastic and that it is not their intent to get over for themselves and just to support the product.

And yeah I agree sometimes they go to far as with the "overrated" at Anderson and "You Still Suck" at OJ or the you are married (, which wasn't that audible,) But all in all they are quite enthusiastic and support the product in a way I feel increases it.

Bassicly they are just very big fans and want TNA to do well and sometimes they do go a bit overboard because of it. But the guy giving the interview has himself gone to the production crew and asked them what they would prefer.

And again atm for me the Bubba Sign guy is way more annoying.

This is from memory listening to it some time ago, if ya get the chance please listen to it.

As long as they don't break the suspension of disbelief (you are married) or overtly harm the product ( turning back, Overrated) I see no harm.

justtxyank

02-15-2010, 03:23 PM

haloed

02-15-2010, 03:26 PM

I really enjoyed the PPV last night for the most part. It wasn't the greatest show but it was good. I actually marked out for Dinero's win at the end of the show and the crowd loved it. The crowd went crazy when he kicked out of the Mic Check at the end. Good stuff.

Dinero at the top is a good move imo, he's over with the crowd and can work a good match and he's a face.

Morgan wouldn't of worked anymore with Styles being heel and Morgan appearing to be turning heel after the way he won his match and how he acted last night.

Overall a good show, loved to see J.B. back and Mr. Anderson was a lot better in the ring for this PPV than his debut, Foley and Abyss was interesting. Although Abyss has become the most easily beatable guy on the roster with the way Anderson went over him, just try to take his mask off and he'll protect it at all costs. But enjoyed the show for the most part.

Oh and I'm sure I'm in the minority but I really didn't mind the Nasty Boys against Team 3D.

Moe Hunter

02-15-2010, 03:58 PM

I forgot to mention this here, but when Styles was cutting a promo about girls recently the crowd started crapping on him with a "You are married" (or something like that) chant. To me that is a perfect example of that small group of TNA fans hurting the show. The chants are fine (though overdone) but when you are doing it intentionally to hurt the product it is ridiculous.

Am I the only one who notices that AJ wears his wedding ring around his neck? It's kind of plain, public knowledge that he's married. I'm not going to blame the crowd for bringing it up, even if they are obnoxious in general.

Hyde Hill

02-15-2010, 04:48 PM

To be fair here Hyde, you are a TNA loyalist. I am someone who isn't a committed fan of either company at this point explaining to you the things that turn me off of TNA. You think they add to the product, so I'm happy for you that your enjoyment is enriched. Mine is harmed though and the fans, and the atmosphere of the Impact Zone in general, help make TNA look minor league to me and turn me off.

Yeah I am a fan of TNA and I like some of the chants. That goes towards the different strokes as I said before. I just think the "crew" has possibly been given a worse rep then they deserve.

PeterHilton

02-15-2010, 04:48 PM

Seems funny how people say oh the rapper gimmick would have worked yak yak yak, the rapper gimmick clearly didn't work this time around so what chance would it have had back then? And besides it doesn't mask the fact that Cena isn't a talented main eventer and is nowhere near the stars of that era, though it's the WWE machine hard at work again....had Cena been the rapper in the Attitude Era if he hadn't been released he'd have maybe been a midcarder at best. Though I don't believe he'd have been given the opportunity whereas that's one good thing about WWE being the only horse in town at the time and the brand extension initially, it gave them an opportunity to give workers a chance to shine who may not have had it otherwise - Bradshaw and Cena being the 2 biggest profits of this move. You might not like me but credit where it's due what's right is right and no amount of fanboyism can change that.

You are literally clueless.

There is not a single factual statement anywhere in this mess. If the rapper gimmick didn't work, how did he get over? Why was he getting as much fan support on SD in his feuds with Angle and Lesnar as those two - despite the fact they were far more established than he was?

The reason Cena GOT HIS MONSTER PUSH IN THE FIRST PLACE was because the gimmick worked. How do you not realize that?

I hate derailing the thread over and over, but you are making anti-Cena/WWE statements that have literally zero basis in fact. Zero. This is like something you would read on tnawrestlingnews forums. I don't even particularly like John Cena but these posts are frickin stupid and I can't help myself.

PeterHilton

02-15-2010, 05:19 PM

Back on topic...I love the move to Monday Nights.

The announcement today was a geek out moment. Not because i expect them to 'beat the WWE' , but because of the incredible amount of trust Spike is showing in the company. It's a great sign for TNA.

thommohawk

02-15-2010, 05:23 PM

You are literally clueless.

There is not a single factual statement anywhere in this mess. If the rapper gimmick didn't work, how did he get over? Why was he getting as much fan support on SD in his feuds with Angle and Lesnar as those two - despite the fact they were far more established than he was?

The reason Cena GOT HIS MONSTER PUSH IN THE FIRST PLACE was because the gimmick worked. How do you not realize that?

I hate derailing the thread over and over, but you are making anti-Cena/WWE statements that have literally zero basis in fact. Zero. This is like something you would read on tnawrestlingnews forums. I don't even particularly like John Cena but these posts are frickin stupid and I can't help myself.

Oh shut up, if Cena's rap gimmick was such a roaring success then why did they change it ? Exactly. Stop splitting hairs just to big yourself up like you know jack all, you like to think you do but you really don't. You just like to talk a good game. See that's the thing about smarks they think they know the lot about wrestling and yet they aren't the ones producing and promoting wrestling oustide of their little TEW games I said it before, it's laughable.

I also said Cena got his monster push because of the brand extension creating opportunities for workers that otherwise stood no chance, Bradshaw is another success story too. But both had no chance in the Attitude Era. Bradshaw actually proved this as he was far from main event or entertaining back then, yeah he had the APA thing going on with Farooq but he wasn't nearly as entertaining as he was as the JBL character.....as I said the WWE without competition and with a brand extension thrown in that does 1 thing - creates opportunity for workers to main event that otherwise wouldn't have gotten a look in - so don't you feel like an insignificant ass now ? Yes, you do - you probably look like Zak Gowen in the real too, I'd feel insignificant if I looked like you as well. But of course I'm a smark too so I'm perfect, I don't think I know everything and I don't claim to be holier than thou - see the irony ? LOL. 1 word thing, interweb forums and forumite posts = promos. Same with Youtube too. It's all fake as hell.

Hyde Hill

02-15-2010, 05:28 PM

plz move this to the WWE section. Just say check wwe for comment thommo/peter whatever.

PeterHilton

02-15-2010, 05:29 PM

Oh shut up, if Cena's rap gimmick was such a roaring success then why did they change it ? Exactly. Stop splitting hairs just to big yourself up like you know jack all, you like to think you do but you really don't. You just like to talk a good game. See that's the thing about smarks they think they know the lot about wrestling and yet they aren't the ones producing and promoting wrestling oustide of their little TEW games I said it before, it's laughable.

I also said Cena got his monster push because of the brand extension creating opportunities for workers that otherwise stood no chance, Bradshaw is another success story too. But both had no chance in the Attitude Era. Bradshaw actually proved this as he was far from main event or entertaining back then, yeah he had the APA thing going on with Farooq but he wasn't nearly as entertaining as he was as the JBL character.....don't you feel like an insignificant ass now ? Yes, you do - you probably look like Zak Gowen in the real too, I'd feel significant if I looked like you as well. But of course I'm a smark too so I'm perfect, I don't think I know everything and I don't claim to be holier than thou - see the irony ? LOL.

Awesome.

The gimmick changed after he won the world title because they were transitioning him to be the face of the Raw brand. He needed to be more marketable. His superman push coincided with the family friendly thing.

He became Vince's new Hulk Hogan. Similar push. Similar character. Similar marketing.

He became the world champion with the rapper gimmick. You couldn't sell t-shirts to little kids with that gimmick, though. Simple as that.

The gimmick worked fine. You're mistaken.

jesterx7769

02-15-2010, 05:29 PM

Seriously dude, if you just want to argue with people that will reach no end go take it into the WWE thread. I got sucked in early as others have but its not fair to the people talking about TNA. Your responses are getting more heated as it goes on including taking shots at one legged people which means the thread is probably on the verge of being closed which I dont think people talking about TNA want.

I don't like the move to Monday night but I understand why they are doing it. They know they aren't going to knock WWE off but they are hoping the "war" will generate ratings and get them to the point they can make money off their shows. However WWE is trying not to acknowledge them at all but TNA keeps poking hoping WWE will mention them which will help TNA more than hurt since the people that dont know TNA wil go online and look them up the moment Vince talks about them in a press conference/release

PeterHilton

02-15-2010, 05:33 PM

I don't like the move to Monday night but I understand why they are doing it. They know they aren't going to knock WWE off but they are hoping the "war" will generate ratings and get them to the point they can make money off their shows. However WWE is trying not to acknowledge them at all but TNA keeps poking hoping WWE will mention them which will help TNA more than hurt since the people that dont know TNA wil go online and look them up the moment Vince talks about them in a press conference/release

Here's the thing:

The test run on Monday night seemed to show that there's an audience out there that will ONLY watch a Monday Night War type set-up. It seemed like a lot of the old time fans came back just for the one-off.

If you can get those people watching on a regular basis, TNA wins viewers just by showing up on Monday.

thommohawk

02-15-2010, 05:48 PM

Hey guys I started off by talking about TNA.....I'm sure I got onto the whole Cena thing because of something stupid that someone said in trying to prove me wrong except they fail, cuz I'm never wrong since I'm a smark....yeah...whatevs.....exactly....so TNA ?

I'm all for the move to Monday, it had to happen eventually, and nothing but good can come of this as it's competition for market share. As for whether TNA is ready - it's called a snowball effect. The concept should be familiar, this will lead to other things and from there get bigger and bigger as momentum builds and it's a slow process with regular spurts of growth....this move to Monday means 1 thing straight away - RVD to TNA. And by default of course, growth for TNA.

Bigpapa42

02-15-2010, 05:50 PM

I understand the move to Monday nights and all that... I get the reasoning behind... I'm not eveng oing to say its a bad move... But I think TNA just lost me as a regular viewer.

I want to see TNA succeed. I would love to see another Monday Night War, with each side spurring the other on to bigger and better. But that "hope of something better" is basically all that's kept me going since Hogan took over. I have seen zero that makes me think TNA is "getting better" - at least what I consider "better", as I know that's very subjective. Which is not to say its all bad or anything, but I honestly feel like the two months or so of Russo right before the Hogan era was better... and given that I didn't think that was amazing, its not a great reflection. On Thursday nights, TNA got me as a viewer by default - rarely was there something else on to watch instead. On Mondays, that's no longer the case. WWE Raw tends to range from painful to watchable, much like I find TNA does... I simply have more faith in the WWE being on the positive end than I do with TNA.

I hope this works out for TNA. I truly hope they succeed, and leave Vince scrambling. But they now have to win my viewership. Good luck.

Hyde Hill

02-15-2010, 06:00 PM

thommohawk

02-15-2010, 06:01 PM

Oh well keep a good thought lol, and keep the faith too....I've got all the faith in the world in Bisch and Hogan.....I mean just look in the last 2 months they've signed Ken Anderson, Ric Flair, Jimmy Hart, Nasty Boys (all names peeps know of) and they gone live on Monday which has now extended to every second Monday with a taped show in the Mondays between....and I'll call it now the signing of RVD in the next week or two....so as you can see TNA is growing like crazy under Bisch and Hogan, and they've suddenly become more interesting away from the actual wrestling too, speaking of which the wrestling is still great. You also have to remember where they were a few months back, with TNA homegrown talent topping the card, 6 sided ring etc and yet they never broke 1.1 million viewers on taped shows on a Thursdays....look at them now. Moved to Mondays, going live every second Monday, roster improvements, major star power - at what cost ? 6 sided ring and a slight shift in focus ? I'll take it every day of the week....some perspective is needed here, yeah Nasty Boys suck but so does John Cena but they are both big names.....

Bigpapa42

02-15-2010, 06:11 PM

A well channel surfing and I think its called Tivo or dvr? And while I am in agreement that the last pure Russo months where better right now TNA is in a state of flux so I am giving them time to get out of that and if it is still Nasty Boys in the ring and Foley/Flair/Hogan/Bisch/Hall/Pac for a very large part out of it then I am outta there.

Except if they sign RVD lolz.

Channel surfing occasionally, maybe. PVR, yes. I will PVR it and will try to watch it afterward. But I tend to PVR a lot of stuff on Sunday/Monday, which means it wont' be a priority. And my PVR auto-deletes after a few days, so if I don't get to it in time, so be it. I may still see it, but I won't go out of my way to make an effort. If TNA had convinced me in the past 6 weeks, or manges to in the next month, then maybe. But otherwise, I see what I see and miss what I miss.

I've given the Hogan-era the benefit of the doubt. They are just doing very little to convince me. As I said, its not all bad. But there's just so much that bugs me. Did we really need 3 Mr. Anderson promos last night? Not only did the Nasty Boys match get 12 minutes, but they went over, meaning we get another one down the road. I just don't see things "improving"... and again, realizing that my idea of "getting better" won't be the same as yours or the next person, and obviously not the same as Hogan and Bischoff.

thommohawk, did you really just compare the Nasty Boys to John Cena in terms of popularity? Seriously? Wow.... You may want to re-examine what what your criteria is for a "big name" in the wrestling business.

PeterHilton

02-15-2010, 06:19 PM

I've given the Hogan-era the benefit of the doubt. They are just doing very little to convince me. As I said, its not all bad. But there's just so much that bugs me. Did we really need 3 Mr. Anderson promos last night? Not only did the Nasty Boys match get 12 minutes, but they went over, meaning we get another one down the road. I just don't see things "improving"... and again, realizing that my idea of "getting better" won't be the same as yours or the next person, and obviously not the same as Hogan and Bischoff.

I actually feel very similarly. I actually like big chunks of what they're doing. I agree with most of who they've decided to push ( Dinero, Morgan, Wolfe, ), I like AJ with Flair, I love that Angle is being used as a real central part of the shows..

but the "mistakes" they've made are just so glaring that it stops me from being invested.

Nedew

02-15-2010, 06:21 PM

Watching the announcement video, couple of humorous Hulk gaffes. Having to clarify that Bob Carter's not dead, calling Dixie Disney...

Interesting how he made the point about "from a wrestler's point of view... not the corporate, business point of view, which i realise now is the most important...", maybe he realises he played the politics a bit too much back in the day.

thommohawk

02-15-2010, 06:24 PM

thommohawk, did you really just compare the Nasty Boys to John Cena in terms of popularity? Seriously? Wow.... You may want to re-examine what what your criteria is for a "big name" in the wrestling business.

Dude you have a brain yes ? Please engage it before you post.....I said Cena sucks just like the Nasty Boys do, and yes I said they both big names, which they are. Unlike say Nigel McGuiness, who I'd heard of but never seen until he came to TNA as Desmond Wolfe (and he's my hero lol i think he's brilliant) - but he isn't a big name. Or a real draw. Yet. That's my point. It's star power.

Bigpapa42

02-15-2010, 06:34 PM

I actually feel very similarly. I actually like big chunks of what they're doing. I agree with most of who they've decided to push ( Dinero, Morgan, Wolfe, ), I like AJ with Flair, I love that Angle is being used as a real central part of the shows..

but the "mistakes" they've made are just so glaring that it stops me from being invested.

Yeah, its so hit and miss. Its feels... muddled... not well planned... I don't know a better way to describe.

There is some stuff that I'm not a huge fan of but I understand - like putting Flair with Styles. But other stuff... I just don't see the reasoning...

Dude you have a brain yes ? Please engage it before you post.....I said Cena sucks just like the Nasty Boys do, and yes I said they both big names, which they are. Unlike say Nigel McGuiness, who I'd heard of but never seen until he came to TNA as Desmond Wolfe (and he's my hero lol i think he's brilliant) - but he isn't a big name. Or a real draw. Yet. That's my point. It's star power.

Engaged my brain... and I still don't see the comparison. Hate Cena all you want (I'm no huge fan), but the guy is easily the most recognizable active wrestler in terms of mainstream exposure. Non-fans recognize him. Whereas the Nasty Boys are a moderately successful (four notable title reigns) tag team that hasn't been consistently active in a major promotion for nearly 15 years. See why I think there's a bit of difference there? And if having a couple of appearances on Hogan Knows Best makes the Nasty Boys "stars", then I would argue a 10-second cameo for McGuiness/Wolfe plus being the champion for 18 months of the third biggest wrestling promotion in the US does the same.

lazorbeak

02-15-2010, 06:34 PM

Awesome.

Pete, don't bother arguing with it: just view profile, add to ignore list, and move on.

I like the move to Mondays, but I just have to wonder what TNA does differently than WWE at this point. Yes they have some great workers, but their product gets more similar to WWE by the day.

PeterHilton

02-15-2010, 06:43 PM

Pete, don't bother arguing with it: just view profile, add to ignore list, and move on.

I like the move to Mondays, but I just have to wonder what TNA does differently than WWE at this point. Yes they have some great workers, but their product gets more similar to WWE by the day.

I don't know that they need to be different to be successful. Not 'reinvent the wheel' different, anyways. That seems to be part of the problem with the writing team actually; they're trying to do too much.

Sure they killed the six sided ring, and the X Division is a joke but they do have one thing going for them that means a lot to me as a fan: If you line up the rosters side by side TNA has more guys I'm willing to pay to watch wrestle.

That's huge. If they could present a coherent product TNA could be very successful on Monday nights.

jesterx7769

02-15-2010, 06:57 PM

I hate they ruined Williams and got rid of him, the canadian destroyers is definitley the type of different they need. I remember the first TNA I watched (waaay back now) I saw Styles do his springboard reverse DDT and was amazed.

Comradebot

02-15-2010, 07:56 PM

You know what annoys me about TNA?

Their recent and utter lack of Scott Steiner. So what if he's a way over the hill steroid junkie? He cut the best promos in wrestling history.

Where would we be without his math promo, the "I'm Hungry" promo, or him reminding us about Hiro-Jima and the time The Pearl Harbor bombed the Germans.

jesterx7769

02-15-2010, 08:43 PM

Slagaholic

02-15-2010, 09:10 PM

So because some other company makes a bad decision means TNA gets to make worse decisions? Also TNA doesn't have the exposure WWE does so it's not a very good comparison anyway.
What's so bad about Sheamus? Is he not over as a heel? This BS where you have to build a guy up for months before putting them in the main event picture is silly. Pope is probably one of the 5 most over faces with TNA fans, plus he has a gimmick and the charisma to get him over with casual fans.

I just listed alternatives: Morgan/Styles could be a pay per view main event if Angle and the other guys also have something to do.
Morgan is in the middle of a heel turn, don't you think they should take the tag titles off him before putting him in a Heavyweight Title Match? Working a Hernandez/Morgan program will get both wrestlers over and then in some PPV down the road have them both involved in a 3 or 4 way match for the title. From there you can do whatever you want with them since they're solidified as main eventers. You can't just toss Morgan in the main event, have him lose yet again in a very short period of time (he wouldn't beat Styles the first time around) and then expect him to sell tickets if he's in another main event. Have him turn full on heel, drop the titles, have him battle Hernandez for a few months, and then go from there.

Slagaholic

02-15-2010, 09:16 PM

I've given the Hogan-era the benefit of the doubt. They are just doing very little to convince me. As I said, its not all bad. But there's just so much that bugs me. Did we really need 3 Mr. Anderson promos last night? Not only did the Nasty Boys match get 12 minutes, but they went over, meaning we get another one down the road. I just don't see things "improving"... and again, realizing that my idea of "getting better" won't be the same as yours or the next person, and obviously not the same as Hogan and Bischoff.
I agree with you on Mr. Anderson, but I gotta say I kinda like the Nasty Boys going over, albeit not in 12 minutes. I feel like the Nasty Boys and Dudleyz will be going at it consistently until they have a big time hardcore match to blow off the feud. That's the only reason I think the Nasty Boys went over.

PeterHilton

02-15-2010, 09:49 PM

What's so bad about Sheamus? Is he not over as a heel?

No. He isn't.

I mean..he's marginally over in that the audience knows they "should" boo him, but not really..

The Pope however IS over and TNA should ride him for all he's worth because, with their booking, that won't last long.

Astil

02-15-2010, 10:09 PM

No. He isn't.

I mean..he's marginally over in that the audience knows they "should" boo him, but not really..

The Pope however IS over and TNA should ride him for all he's worth because, with their booking, that won't last long.

I disagree. The live RAW I went to people were chanting for AND aainst Sheamus. He was hot. Maybe it's not being conveyed on TV but he's getting crowd reaction big time.

PeterHilton

02-15-2010, 10:13 PM

Well Raw just ended with Sheamus destroying the two biggest faces in the company. And the heat was exactly what I would call 'deafening'

So, no...it's not coming across on TV.

Hive

02-16-2010, 06:54 AM

Orlando Jordan has no business going over Samoa Joe. Wtf was that about? Why Hogan brought him in is beyond me...

Hyde Hill

02-16-2010, 07:24 AM

plz warn if you are going to spoil some of us like surprises. Best to put them in white text using colors and then say highlight to read like so:

This is a spoiler

Self

02-16-2010, 07:44 AM

I actually watched last week's Impact... well most of it. I turned off after the pretty damned cool AJ/Flair/Joe verbal confrontation. In my defence, I genuinely thought that was the end of the show.

1) Where's Sean Morley?
2) Why does Orlando Jordan have the same gear and haircut as The Pope? If they're trying to make Pope into a star, they shouldn't have a doppleganger dress exactly like him.
3) I like Mr. Anderson. He's such a colossal jerk.

Needs more MCMG/Young Bucks action though.

cappyboy

02-16-2010, 09:29 AM

I actually watched last week's Impact... well most of it. I turned off after the pretty damned cool AJ/Flair/Joe verbal confrontation. In my defence, I genuinely thought that was the end of the show.

Agreed. That should have been the ending. When I was debating characters a while back, this is one of the reasons I agreed with the guy that Joe's needs more juice. When he does have a moment that should be high drama, that fact gets cut off at the knees. AJ is the world champion. If he's having a confrontation with a former best friend who's upset over his personality, that should trump all as far as show placement goes. To turn that into a false ending does Joe no favors. You have two men who've held THE TNA belt whose friendship has collapsed and are getting to a massive clash over said belt because they can no longer get along. And somehow the Hogan stuff is more important? That is the kind of junk thought that leads to questions as to whether a Hogan/Bischoff directed TNA will be worth the time in the long term.

1) Where's Sean Morley?

Good question. Of the "lesser lights" that got brought in by Hogan, he's definitely my favorite. I wasn't so sure about the producer gimmick but I was willing to ride along because it seemed like a natural career evolution for him and it explained his card game with The Beautiful People so well. Heck, the right relationship between Morley and TBP could have really shaken up the Knockout division by turning TBP face and having their perennial targets go heel when they lacked sympathy for the abuse Morley was putting Madison and Velvet through. Maybe Lacey Von Erich could have been the in-story springboard for Morley's introduction to the girls. Using him as a weapon to destroy them from within for not having the blue blood she does.

2) Why does Orlando Jordan have the same gear and haircut as The Pope? If they're trying to make Pope into a star, they shouldn't have a doppleganger dress exactly like him.

I don't get why they have him at all. I know who Orlando Jordan is. But because I do, that means I don't get Who The Heck he is. Jordan isn't somebody you bring in with any fanfare. He isn't someone I would even have considered bringing in at all. The dude is a nobody. And the Pope is right. He does look like Whoopi Goldberg on testosterone.

3) I like Mr. Anderson. He's such a colossal jerk.

Gotta disagree here He wants to be a colossal jerk. But that's his problem. He merely wants to be. I know what his gimmick is supposed to be. But the gimmick I always get off of him is that of a poser. He wants to be Road Dogg. He wants to be The Rock. He wants to be Michael Buffer. He wants to be world title material. He wants to be a colossal jerk. He wants so badly to be all these other things it's painfully obvious that the last thing he wants to be is the one thing that would help him be all these things. He wants to be anything and everything other than himself.

It's sort of like the negative version of how I see AJ Styles or Eric Young. You can say all you want that AJ's current gimmick is that of Ric Flair's protege and that Eric Young's is leader of World Elite/Social Climber. Both those are just sub-gimmicks to me. AJ's gimmick that I respond to is Rags To Riches. Up by the bootstraps as it were. And in that context, this new sub-gimmick works better than if you see it as his only gimmick. He's fully blossomed into the champion of a company that's fully blossomed and he's trying to revel in the fact by associating himself with a master champion and a master partier in Ric Flair. Not quite understanding or appreciating as Joe and Daniels and others try to remind him that he got to this mountaintop by his own blood, sweat and tears. By being the hungry AJ he's set aside. Without the long term gimmick as framework, I can see why this current Styles wouldn't work for people. But AJ's not used to holding a belt quite as valuable as he has now so I can see how that would go to his head.

With Young, the long term gimmick I respond to and embrace is Self Improvement. He's gone from self-conscious comedy joke to snippy young rebel to champion who's credible enough to run his own crew and consult with the big guns. Taken by itself, Eric's Social Climbing Stable Leader gimmick may seem totally incompatible with his skills and lead people to wonder why the company bothers with him. But treated as a sub-gimmick, it's all part of his maturation process. One that's still on-going and you just don't know whether that will lead to him getting to the top or if it will groom him into a gate-keeping company guy. But he appears to be going someplace good for him. As such, there's the possibility at any moment he could decide he's outgrown the need for World Elite and come back to the company fold. We saw last week he now has the confidence to where he can jump in and interject on a legend the stature of Hulk Hogan if necessary in his mind. Where that's going to take him becomes much more compelling if you take the long term view of EY and what his gimmick really is compared to the subgimmick that comprises his surface.

If TNA Creative even understands some of the long term gimmicks they have going with guys like AJ Styles and Eric Young, they need to give Anderson a self improvement gimmick like Young has had. Maybe not as dramatic a version. But a rounding into form all the same. Anderson really needs layering if he's to have meaning at the world title level. Otherwise, he's eventually going to be seen through and end up another woulda coulda shoulda guy.

Needs more MCMG/Young Bucks action though.

Oh definitely. That match was speed wrestling at its coolest. At the rate they are waiting to get the rematch lined up and staged, the Bucks are going to lose all their momentum from that win and folks are going to forget that new Generation Me name. Which would be a shame after the show they put on with the Guns. I get why it's happening. Time of change and all that. But if TNA's not careful. they will be wondering how they missed out on these guys after they put being in the right place at the wrong time behind them.

Hive

02-16-2010, 09:30 AM

plz warn if you are going to spoil some of us like surprises. Best to put them in white text using colors and then say highlight to read like so:

This is a spoiler

My bad, I thought last night's Impact went out live.

Self

02-16-2010, 10:51 AM

I see what you mean about Kennedy. I haven't watched enough to get the full picture. I liked his promo with Angle, putting his arm around Christie, but maybe if I saw more I'd agree with you.

... and because I'm bored; how I would have booked Young Bucks vs MCMG.

Week 1: Young Bucks beat MCMG. Guns clearly underestimate them and are caught with pants down.
Week 2: Young Bucks beat MCMG again. Longer, more competitive.
Week 3: Alex Shelley beats Matt Jackson
Week 4: Chris Sabin beats Nick Jackson... if they can do it in singles, surely...
PPV: Young Bucks beat MCMG again, live on PPV. What the hell?

From there, you have the MCMG confused and irritated, stumped as to how these two little buggers are so AWESOME as a team. Even more awesome than they are. MCMG on commentary for Bucks squashing X-teams. Throw in a 6-man tag somewhere. MCMG going on pre-taped road trips to the Jacksons' home town, to discover their roots (both teaching us who Matt & Nick... sorry... Max and Jeremy... are, while doing comedy). Eventually, MCMG start attacking, run ins, cheating. Being actual heels. 10 minutes per Impact... tops.

alden

02-16-2010, 10:56 AM

From what i understand sheely is hurt and that is why the guns are not on the show right now. As for generation next *get use to it people ;)* i have no idea. I love the guns though. they are such a great tag team but i really see the x guys being pushed to the side :(.

jesterx7769

02-16-2010, 11:24 AM

I liked when Sabin was on his own competing for the X division title and I thought Shelly as the paparazzi was great and it seems like his charisma carry's Sabin's lack of. I saw Shelly live twice and he is the most live charismatic worker I have ever seen (includes Jericho who lots of people credit) his playing to the crowd, actions, facial expressions, all when he isnt even in the ring, everything is awesome. Just wish he was bigger size wise so he could main event.

But i know MCMG have gotten over and lots of people like them, thats just my personal preference :)

cappyboy

02-16-2010, 11:28 AM

thommohawk

02-16-2010, 02:49 PM

Engaged my brain... and I still don't see the comparison. Hate Cena all you want (I'm no huge fan), but the guy is easily the most recognizable active wrestler in terms of mainstream exposure. Non-fans recognize him. Whereas the Nasty Boys are a moderately successful (four notable title reigns) tag team that hasn't been consistently active in a major promotion for nearly 15 years. See why I think there's a bit of difference there? And if having a couple of appearances on Hogan Knows Best makes the Nasty Boys "stars", then I would argue a 10-second cameo for McGuiness/Wolfe plus being the champion for 18 months of the third biggest wrestling promotion in the US does the same.

Dude you still owned yourself, attempt spin all you like it just doesn't compute mate....all you're doing is proving my point. I said Cena sucks like the Nastys do and yet they are both name talent in the business as compared to say McGuiness (Wolfe), they were the only comparisons I made between the two. And I'll say it again as much as I love Desmonde Wolf (or Nigel McGuinness) he is not a name talent in the business because he doesn't yet have star power like Cena and the Nasty Boys do.

Am I saying the Nastys are as over as Cena these days or ever ? Hell no. But even a 5 year old can work that out and realize that's not what I was saying....

jwt13

02-16-2010, 03:40 PM

Dude you still owned yourself, attempt spin all you like it just doesn't compute mate....all you're doing is proving my point. I said Cena sucks like the Nastys do and yet they are both name talent in the business as compared to say McGuiness (Wolfe), they were the only comparisons I made between the two. And I'll say it again as much as I love Desmonde Wolf (or Nigel McGuinness) he is not a name talent in the business because he doesn't yet have star power like Cena and the Nasty Boys do.

Am I saying the Nastys are as over as Cena these days or ever ? Hell no. But even a 5 year old can work that out and realize that's not what I was saying....

Do u like trying to start arguments really you keep saying the same stuff even after people have told you why what you are saying is wrong so just post no more if you think your always right please. I mean this is a unbiased fourm just cause someone dosn't agree with doesn't mean you jump on the border line insulting them. OK? You got? Good

cappyboy

02-16-2010, 04:07 PM

Do u like trying to start arguments really you keep saying the same stuff even after people have told you why what you are saying is wrong so just post no more if you think your always right please. I mean this is a unbiased fourm just cause someone dosn't agree with doesn't mean you jump on the border line insulting them. OK? You got? Good

You know man, I'm going to play both sides here. I agree he's wrong. But not for the reasons everyone's been trying to shout him down with. The flaw he's got going for him is that neither Cena or the Nasty suck as badly as people tend to want to believe. Are any of them all that great in the cold in-ring sense of the term? Not in the least. But they aren't asked to be. Cena, Knobbs and Saggs all do what's asked of them well enough that I'm not going to complain about it. If anything, I'd be more upset if the Nastys WERE perceived to be any good in the ring. It'd be a case of "Why have they been stuck with such a crap gimmick all these years when they are so much above it?"

But at the same time, I understand why he's so worked up. He's been saying all along that both Cena and the Nastys were big names. Nowhere have I seen him suggest that the Nastys were AS big as Cena. That I agree would be lunacy. But as far as what he actually said, he's right. The Nastys are a big enough tag team that your wrestling knowledge has to be really limited to have not heard of them at least in passing. And the analogy of the Nastys to Wolfe is right on too. The Nastys have been the Nastys for more years than some of us on this board have been alive. Wolfe hasn't been going by Wolfe for six months yet.

All that said, Brother Thommohawk, you do really need to chill out. Even if a few people on a message board are misreading you and trying to set you straight where you don't need it, it's not worth getting worked up about it. The best of us do it. I've been guilty of it myself on occasion. But the negative energy is ultimately a waste. If you feel the need to keep nursing and rehearsing this situation, maybe you could try doing it by re-reading what you wrote to start all this mess and see if you might make it translate more clearly. That would be more constructive than continuing to stick up for yourself at this point.

Hyde Hill

02-16-2010, 04:17 PM

I've been guilty of it myself on occasion

Ken Anderson? Although you don't rant as soon as his name comes up you have to point out you don't like/rate him for some reason lolz. (Intended as joke not criticism)

jesterx7769

02-16-2010, 04:23 PM

Cappy, JW, I just added him to my ignore list :) I dont need to see cussing and name calling in a childish abusive manner time after time.

Was anyone else dissapointed by the big news conference though? I was expected them to throw in at least something small since the move to Monday nights was far from a secret to anyone thats been remotley following them since Hogan took over.

PeterHilton

02-16-2010, 04:25 PM

The flaw he's got going for him is that neither Cena or the Nasty suck as badly as people tend to want to believe.

Oh no..the Nastys really are that bad.

In their prime, they were an acceptable midcard brawler tag team that didn't bring anything to the table, but certainly didn't embarass themselves out there.

But that was literally decades ago.

RIGHT NOW every second they are on TV is an insult to the viewing audience. Moreso than Bubba the Love Sponge they are an example of Hogan stacking the card with his friends for his own selfish purposes.

Remember this when they beat Morgan & Hernandez for the tag belts.

dvdWarrior

02-16-2010, 05:25 PM

Oh no..the Nastys really are that bad.

Maybe it was just me, but both the Nasties look REALLY out of shape... Knobs looked like he was about to have a stroke during a promo...

:(

Hyde Hill

02-16-2010, 06:00 PM

Yeah and their promo work has been the "highlight" so far. That match and the beat downs they did where horrible, just horrible. And bringing them in because they are/where a known tag team is not reason enough when you already have team 3D could easily get the James gang again as well as the Steiners and you have the Outsiders. All of them ( even Hall) better workers and names then the nasties. Not to mention the fbi, impact players hell even the Bashams.

Bigpapa42

02-16-2010, 06:59 PM

But at the same time, I understand why he's so worked up. He's been saying all along that both Cena and the Nastys were big names. Nowhere have I seen him suggest that the Nastys were AS big as Cena. That I agree would be lunacy. But as far as what he actually said, he's right. The Nastys are a big enough tag team that your wrestling knowledge has to be really limited to have not heard of them at least in passing. And the analogy of the Nastys to Wolfe is right on too. The Nastys have been the Nastys for more years than some of us on this board have been alive. Wolfe hasn't been going by Wolfe for six months yet.

I understood he wasn't trying to say they were necessarily on equal levels of "big". My point was simply that on a scale of "notability" of workers, there is a massive gap between where John Cena is and where the Nasty Boys are (and ever were). The Nasty Boys are a whole lot closer to McGuiness than Cena. As for having "heard of them in passing", the exact same arguement could be made for McGuiness - any fan with any knowledge outside of the big two promotions should have heard of him before TNA (18 months title reign for #3 promotion in US, etc).

I guess my issue is that if you are going to call the Nasty Boys "big stars" based on midcard status of 15 years ago, then pretty much anyone who appeared with much regularity on the WWE or WCW in the past 15-20 years gets the label. And I have issue calling the likes of Marcus Bagwell or Marc Mero "big stars", at least within the same context of some of the more over workers of a given generation.

It would be like saying Stone Cold Steve Austin and Koko B Ware were both big stars...

cappyboy

02-16-2010, 07:03 PM

Oh no..the Nastys really are that bad.

In their prime, they were an acceptable midcard brawler tag team that didn't bring anything to the table, but certainly didn't embarass themselves out there.

But that was literally decades ago.

RIGHT NOW every second they are on TV is an insult to the viewing audience. Moreso than Bubba the Love Sponge they are an example of Hogan stacking the card with his friends for his own selfish purposes.

Remember this when they beat Morgan & Hernandez for the tag belts.

Sorry dude. But you're not convincing me. I haven't seen anything that suggests to me they are really laboring that badly. Now maybe I'm being a mite generous and making allowances because I don't expect them to be in perfect condition and they are holding up more like I'd expect considering how long they've been away from the marquee level. Or it could be because they've always taken guff for sucking even in that prime when they were " an acceptable midcard brawler tag team that didn't bring anything to the table, but certainly didn't embarass themselves out there" as you put it. Or them representing a time I found more consistently enjoyable than the decade we just left.

All I know is I found it a lot more insulting to my intelligence that I was thought to want interviews being done by someone as tedious as Bubba The Love Sponge. The dude was alright on Hogan's celebrity wrestling show. But that was a goof. A guy like Bubba who's a bit of an acquired taste fit in that marginal scene. But why anyone would think he'd fit a nationally televised promotion not named ECW is beyond me. The Nasty Boys are about as far removed from their prime as the industry as a whole is from the Attitude era. Which is the only time having a guy like Bubba around would have made lamentable sense to me

The Nastys can still serve something of a positive purpose even if they are there by cronyism. They have knowledge of how to survive at the upper echelons of the biz despite not being terribly special to pass on. If they are willing to of course. Provided they don't linger or upstage too much modern talent, I'm okay with that. I'll even take that title victory over Morgan and Hernandez you threaten as long as it's a transitional move. Morgan and Hernandez are quite frankly slumming it at this point and shouldn't be wasting their time on tag belts. Leave those for the full time units like the Motor City Machine Guns and Beer Money. Morgan and Hernandez should both should be jockeying for position to get at AJ Styles. If getting them back on that track takes the Nastys standing in the gap while management decides on a long term championship team, so be it. Makes as much sense as lumping a couple main eventers who are just about completely made into a midcard tag title scene.

Now don't go crazy and think I am or have ever been a huge Nasty Boys fan. Your description of their prime pretty much hit it on the head. But as a short term band aid in what is hopefully their last run, I'll take them on my screen. Especially if it keeps insomnia aids like Mr Anderson. and Orlando Jordan off. If the Nastys are still around in the fall, my standards for where they ought to be will most likely rise considerably. But I'm not going to waste my energy on that until I have to. For now, they are short term attractions and I will treat them as such. Lessened expectations and all.

PeterHilton

02-16-2010, 07:13 PM

Sorry dude. But you're not convincing me. I haven't seen anything that suggests to me they are really laboring that badly. Now maybe I'm being a mite generous and making allowances because I don't expect them to be in perfect condition and they are holding up more like I'd expect considering how long they've been away from the marquee level. Or it could be because they've always taken guff for sucking even in that prime when they were " an acceptable midcard brawler tag team that didn't bring anything to the table, but certainly didn't embarass themselves out there" as you put it. Or them representing a time I found more consistently enjoyable than the decade we just left.

Yeah, I think you answered your own points.

I don't make allowances for an act that I wasn't that interested in when they were in their prime. And I don't really see them as representing a better period in wrestling.

I don't see them as a benefit because the fact that they're going to go over any of the teams on the roster will send a negative message. Both backstage to the wrestlers who have to put over those two (now) talentless mounds of goo and to the fans watching. Because there's really no way to convince me that the number of 'Nasty Boys-nostalgia fans' outweigh the number of people who see them as an utter joke.

Also..I may have missed it, but what do you think of Ken Anderson? You're being a little subtle imo :p

cappyboy

02-16-2010, 07:56 PM

I understood he wasn't trying to say they were necessarily on equal levels of "big". My point was simply that on a scale of "notability" of workers, there is a massive gap between where John Cena is and where the Nasty Boys are (and ever were). The Nasty Boys are a whole lot closer to McGuiness than Cena. As for having "heard of them in passing", the exact same arguement could be made for McGuiness - any fan with any knowledge outside of the big two promotions should have heard of him before TNA (18 months title reign for #3 promotion in US, etc).

And now I think you're exaggerating more to try and defend your point than he was. The Nastys in their prime were champions in their tag division multiple times over. At a time when wrestling in general was much more visible in general than it is now. That alone would put them at equal distance from Wolfe as it would Cena. Your attempt to make the case for Wolfe/McGuinness is all well and good. But you touched on a key factor just by reverting to his indy name. He's now under a name that bears no relation to the one that "any fan with any knowledge outside of the big two promotions" would know. And he's only had this current handle for a handful of months. Therefore having to stop and ask if he really is him or just looks like him would be perfectly rational behavior.

And that's not even to mention the difference between what being the number 3 promotion now and during the Nastys prime even means. When the Nastys were at the top of their game, that number 3 promotion was either on an easily accessible channel a la Global or strongly syndicated like ECW was. RoH may be the number 3 company but they are on a comparablyfringe station in HDnet. Heck, you can make the case that TNA being on Spike makes them less visible as the number 2 today than the number 3 was when the Nastys were regular title material.

Then there's the little factor that despite main eventing with Kurt Angle a few times that Wolfe/McGuiness is only just starting to build his national resume and has yet to put a belt of any kind on it. Not saying Wolfe isn't good or isn't eventually going to be a marquee star on a consistent basis. I have every confidence he will. He certainly has the skill set to ultimately eclipse Knobbs and Saggs. But his stature has yet to even approach that of the Nastys. I appreciate you're trying to get this line of discussion in balance. That's a good thing and I applaud that impulse. But it's not really necessary in this siutation to demonstrate absurdity by being absurd yourself.

I guess my issue is that if you are going to call the Nasty Boys "big stars" based on midcard status of 15 years ago, then pretty much anyone who appeared was much regularity on the WWE or WCW in the past 15-20 years gets the label. And I have issue calling the likes of Marcus Bagwell or Marc Mero "big stars", at least within the same context of some of the more over workers of a given generation.

It would be like saying Stone Cold Steve Austin and Koko B Ware were both big stars...

And I'd agree with that idea. I'd have no problem calling a Bagwell, Mero, or Ware a big star in the same breath as I referenced an Austin or Cena as such. Would Austin or Cena or whomever be vastly bigger? Certainly. And I'd make sure I clarified that point if it were necessary. But while guys like Bagwell, Mero and Ware may have been mostly midcarders in their time, they were midcarders on bigger platforms than anybody not in WWE has today. The same would go for the Nastys. Perhaps even more so considering the titles they held and how often they were in contention for them.

I understand where you're trying to go and I sympathetize with the spirit of what you're saying. But it's apples and oranges. Times are different now. The industry's weaker and visibility outside of WWE has declined dramatically. That has to be taken into account if any point on the topic is be truly pointy.

Slagaholic

02-16-2010, 08:02 PM

Spoiler Alert
TNA is going to start a bisexuality angle involving Orlando Jordan, a dude, and a gal.

alden

02-16-2010, 09:14 PM

That was only one "segment" their has been no evidence that it is a storyline yet.

Bigpapa42

02-16-2010, 09:32 PM

And I'd agree with that idea. I'd have no problem calling a Bagwell, Mero, or Ware a big star in the same breath as I referenced an Austin or Cena as such. Would Austin or Cena or whomever be vastly bigger? Certainly. And I'd make sure I clarified that point if it were necessary. But while guys like Bagwell, Mero and Ware may have been mostly midcarders in their time, they were midcarders on bigger platforms than anybody not in WWE has today. The same would go for the Nastys. Perhaps even more so considering the titles they held and how often they were in contention for them.

I understand where you're trying to go and I sympathetize with the spirit of what you're saying. But it's apples and oranges. Times are different now. The industry's weaker and visibility outside of WWE has declined dramatically. That has to be taken into account if any point on the topic is be truly pointy.

Yes, I am exaggerating. And yes, factors like the name change and that the #3 spot is no longer as important or big are involved. But I'm exaggerating because I feel like the fact that the Nasty Boys have been utterly irrelevant in the wrestling business for well over a decade is being relatively ignored.

It is apples and oranges indeed. I've always felt that context matters. It matters when you are applying labels. When you go "big picture" when applying those labels, they lose their value. When virtually every worker in the WWE or TNA is called a "big star" because, when compared to all the unknown indy workers out there, its true... it becomes facetious and without value. And if Kurt Angle and Amazing Red are both "big stars", how do you then differentiate between their value to TNA?

Anyway, its obviously just different perspectives.

Slagaholic

02-16-2010, 09:46 PM

That was only one "segment" their has been no evidence that it is a storyline yet.

Apparently they're already recruiting others to create a faction.

jesterx7769

02-16-2010, 09:51 PM

It's pretty clear they are trying to be "Cool and edgey" since WWE is very PG so it doesnt surprise me, doesn't really dissapoint me either as I dont put it past them...is that bad?

alden

02-16-2010, 09:56 PM

I am a little surprised givin spikes audience. Unless they are going to try to put him over as a heel ala chuck and billy.

Bigpapa42

02-16-2010, 09:56 PM

It's pretty clear they are trying to be "Cool and edgey" since WWE is very PG so it doesnt surprise me, doesn't really dissapoint me either as I dont put it past them...is that bad?

Another shot-work storyline, given Jordan's rumored (is it just rumored?) predilections... If it was done well, I'd have no issue with it, really. But I think its a tough kind of storyline to do well...

alden

02-16-2010, 09:58 PM

Yes i do believe jordan lives a what is the pc term for it now a day? I think it would work as jordan would not make a joke out of it.

PhenomenalPat

02-16-2010, 10:22 PM

SPOILER ALERT!

Hulk Hogan will step back into the ring for the March 8th TNA Impact! It'll be Hulk Hogan & Abyss -vs- Ric Flair & AJ Styles

jesterx7769

02-16-2010, 10:25 PM

Another shot-work storyline, given Jordan's rumored (is it just rumored?) predilections... If it was done well, I'd have no issue with it, really. But I think its a tough kind of storyline to do well...

it isn't rumored, the whole thing really came to light with pictures him kissing guys on his myspace

brashleyholland

02-16-2010, 10:44 PM

it isn't rumored, the whole thing really came to light with pictures him kissing guys on his myspace

Fair play to him...I think we all agree that the best characters in wrestling are an extension of someones real personality, so as long as they don't turn him into some horrendously camp homosexual, I'm willing to run with it.

alden

02-16-2010, 11:24 PM

Fair play to him...I think we all agree that the best characters in wrestling are an extension of someones real personality, so as long as they don't turn him into some horrendously camp homosexual, I'm willing to run with it.

That is why i think it would work. I don't see jordon willing to make a joke out of his life style. Just as i don't see kanyon willing to play a over the top homosexual charactar. I would love to see a bad ass wresting who just happens to be bi. could work.

PeterHilton

02-16-2010, 11:35 PM

That is why i think it would work. I don't see jordon willing to make a joke out of his life style. Just as i don't see kanyon willing to play a over the top homosexual charactar. I would love to see a bad ass wresting who just happens to be bi. could work.

Not to sound completely insensitive, but I honestly don't think that sounds realistic.

Orlando's sexuality is his business. But in the world of wrestling, especially in a fed like TNA, his personal preferences won't be dealt with class or dignity or even basic common decency.

Him being bisexual is one thing. His on-air character is something completely different,

This is going to be treated as a joke and for shock value.

brashleyholland

02-17-2010, 01:34 AM

Not to sound completely insensitive, but I honestly don't think that sounds realistic.

Orlando's sexuality is his business. But in the world of wrestling, especially in a fed like TNA, his personal preferences won't be dealt with class or dignity or even basic common decency.

Him being bisexual is one thing. His on-air character is something completely different,

This is going to be treated as a joke and for shock value.

I agree that there's no way in hell that he's going to be a bad ass wrestler who just happens to be gay or bi. This is wrestling after all; nobody is expecting anything particularly 'high-brow' from it.

Lets face it, the majority of wrestling fans are about as ready for a gay/bi face character as 1800's America was for a black President.

I guess what I'm hoping is that the character wont be some prancing stereotype - "Ooooooh, you can give me a piledriver *anytime* wink-wink". I think a 'sexual predetor' type character could work really well and would allow him to play of his orientation to make people uncomfortable, without chasing men round with a bottle of oil begging to be greased up :-p

Slagaholic

02-17-2010, 01:42 AM

It can be done for both shock value, a joke, and not offensively.

If TNA is to hope to keep wrestling fans they have no chance of surviving. They need to create new fans, this is a shot at a different demographic (not just gay) and will cause people to watch it, and thus generate new fans. Right now TNA is thinking "no publicity (outside of steroids) is bad publicity."

Maybe I'm a bit too hopeful, and I'm completely wrong.

Self

02-17-2010, 01:45 AM

Maybe it's just because I'm not American, but I don't see the problem with a bad ass gay character. Sure, it'll be hard to get over at first, but how will wrestling audiences learn to evolve if wrestling promotions don't teach them? Wrestling shouldn't be waiting for the fans to be 'ready' and following trends. It should be setting them. When I was growing up, 'gay' was the biggest insult in the world. The epitome of wrong. There were a few positive gay role models on TV, but none on the shows that my age group watched. If wrestling had one bad ass gay (or bi) character who wasn't made out to be a prancing fruitcake, maybe things would have been different. Maybe we'd have been more tolerant.

Although, sadly, I think you're all right in saying TNA and WWE wouldn't have the patience or subtlety to handle such a character. I maintain that in other hands, it could and should be done.

Slagaholic

02-17-2010, 01:51 AM

brashleyholland

02-17-2010, 02:02 AM

This is why I want Rob Terry to be his "partner"

Oh god, I can see it now...

"Oh, so *that's* why they call you 'Big Rob'...honey you can 'invade' me anytime..."

Slagaholic

02-17-2010, 02:19 AM

Both just scored wins over guys higher in the card, plus with Terry separating from the Invasion you get an immediate feud that isn't contrived.

lazorbeak

02-17-2010, 02:55 AM

Ugh, wasn't the bisexual OJ idea considered and rejected circa Smackdown 2005? Yup, wikipedia confirms OJ pitched the idea of him, Trinity, and some dude he knows as a bisexual angle but WWE future endeavored him. Jeez, OJ, got any other ideas besides "hey what if my gimmick was that I occasionally sleep with my bro?" Seriously I have a great gimmick for OJ: He dates a white woman and then MURDERS her. So edgy and relevant. Also he wrestles in black gloves. Then he runs over Joe in his Bronco.

Maybe it's just because I'm not American, but I don't see the problem with a bad ass gay character. Sure, it'll be hard to get over at first, but how will wrestling audiences learn to evolve if wrestling promotions don't teach them? Wrestling shouldn't be waiting for the fans to be 'ready' and following trends. It should be setting them. When I was growing up, 'gay' was the biggest insult in the world. The epitome of wrong. There were a few positive gay role models on TV, but none on the shows that my age group watched. If wrestling had one bad ass gay (or bi) character who wasn't made out to be a prancing fruitcake, maybe things would have been different. Maybe we'd have been more tolerant.

Although, sadly, I think you're all right in saying TNA and WWE wouldn't have the patience or subtlety to handle such a character. I maintain that in other hands, it could and should be done.

First, no, it's never been the job of wrestling to set trends. Ever. Wrestling has always been a pretty reactionary business. The faces always reflect the values of the fans, not the other way around. If they don't, the crowd will treat them like heels (die, rocky, die). It's a business dependent on selling what the crowd wants to pay for, not what's good for them if they'd open their minds.

Second, a "gay" bad-ass just wouldn't ever work, unless the guy was so buried in the closet the fans had no idea (maybe if the promotion had a large gay audience, since faces reflect the fans). Wrestling is largely spectacle based: there are certain identifiers people see and immediately think "hey this guy is a tough bastard" and there are identifiers people see and they think "hey this guy is probably gay." The two are such a fundamental disconnect (in the average person's mind, at least) that it's basically impossible to play a character even implied to be homosexual without getting a lot of heat. See: Adrian Adonis, Goldust, Too Much, or Chuck & Billy for details. Since there's some amount of homo-eroticism in wrestling anyway, it's important for the fans to recognize a wrestler isn't gay so that they can more easily identify with them. How many times do young wrestling fans have to defend the notion that two men fresh out of the shower grappling in swimsuits is totally not homosexual? The gay wrestler makes a liar out of that kid, and the kid hates the wrestler for it. The wrestling fan already has to explain away Hogan's mustache (and yellow tights), Shawn Michaels coming out to "Sexy Boy" and posing in Playgirl, and Justin Bradshaw wearing chaps without pants. How much does it muddy the waters if one of those guys is gay?

Because wrestling is market-based and so reliant on visual identifications, I don't think you're going to see a successful out of the closet babyface in a major promotion. Challenging viewer expectations is really not the job of professional wrestling. It's the job of critically acclaimed premium channel cable shows.

Self

02-17-2010, 03:23 AM

You have points. Not ones that sway me a massive amount, but several solid points. I do disagree with the idea that "Challenging viewer expectations is really not the job of professional wrestling. It's the job of critically acclaimed premium channel cable shows." Personally I believe that pro wrestling could and should be striving to be on par with the sophistication of those shows.

As for the gay thing. I'm not saying it would be easy. I'm not saying it would definitely work. I'm not even saying the reward is worth the risk. However, I'd like to see it attempted.

Back on topic, PhenomenalPat's spoiler astounds me. Ridiculous.

Slagaholic

02-17-2010, 03:36 AM

Self, I know you don't know me, but I love you.

Hyde Hill

02-17-2010, 04:08 AM

CQI13

02-17-2010, 08:40 AM

I'm surprised people aren't blaming Russo for that OTT storyline.

cappyboy

02-17-2010, 09:59 AM

Yes, I am exaggerating. And yes, factors like the name change and that the #3 spot is no longer as important or big are involved. But I'm exaggerating because I feel like the fact that the Nasty Boys have been utterly irrelevant in the wrestling business for well over a decade is being relatively ignored.

And I definitely sympathetize. If this were like 1995 and you were talking about Chief Jay Strongbow, I might even agree with you. Much as I liked the guy as a little kid. The thing there is how relevant has the wrestling business in general been over that decade period? It's shrunk mightily. Look at where WCW was shown in 2000. They were on TNT and TBS. Both stations that were regular parts of the basic package we all got as cable customers. TNA as number 2 is not in such a fortunate position. Being on Spike, some of us get them in our basic packages and others see them looking down the hill at us from the gated community that is digital. And RoH being on HDnet is even more likely to be in the gated digital community than Spike is. Syndication has pretty well died off which means less reach for aspiring number 3's. If the business were in a greater position of strength, I'd take it more seriously that the relative importance of the Nastys was being ignored. But as things stand it doesn't feel as drastic. I hate having to say that because on a better landscape, you'd be 100% right. But facts are stubborn things and beggars can't be choosers. Hopefully, this'll all be water under the bridge come the summer. If the Nastys are still around when the next school year starts, you can expect my perspective to be shifting dramatically.

justtxyank

02-17-2010, 10:29 AM

Even though TNA is the number 2 company in America, they are not the equivalent of WCW, even in its dying days.

thommohawk

02-17-2010, 11:11 AM

Do u like trying to start arguments really you keep saying the same stuff even after people have told you why what you are saying is wrong so just post no more if you think your always right please. I mean this is a unbiased fourm just cause someone dosn't agree with doesn't mean you jump on the border line insulting them. OK? You got? Good

Promo time; I am always right, and what you just said given the negative energy and arrogance in your post it's smacks just a little of hello pot, I'm kettle. Well kettle, pot doesn't care, just stop talking and pour the damn tea already.....

@ cappy boy, on a serious note I hear what you're saying and I can assure you that I'm always chilled on internet forums it's just people mistake a rant or tirade or hell even specific reasons for opinion as being irate or something except I never get angry on forums lol, I don't take them seriously half of the time because there's more important things in life and I have a little something called perspective. Hence my promo above to whoever that was lol. But in all seriousness I have to applaud you, because that is how you state an opinion. Rights and wrongs but above all, and this concept seems to be mostly wasted on forums, you stated what you said respectfully. So now I'm doing the same in kind.

If everyone did that then 8 out of 10 interweb "fights" just wouldn't happen, people wouldn't get banned anywhere near as often, and trouble makers and pot stirrers wouldn't have their favorite bone to play with.....

Even though TNA is the number 2 company in America, they are not the equivalent of WCW, even in its dying days.

You're right there, TNA isn't the equivalent of WCW even in it's dying days - TNA is a hell of a lot better. In my opinion. I can certainly see the similarities though. Tenay, Sting, Bischoff, Hogan, Russo, Southern wrestling company etc.

CQI13

02-17-2010, 11:43 AM

I think what he meant was that WCW was BIGGER even its dying days.

And on the whole OJ thing, to paraphrase the late great Gary Hart:

You push who the people want to see, not who you want to push.

I personally don't see the point of that segment, even more if it becomes a storyline. But whatever.

Hyde Hill

02-17-2010, 11:59 AM

Well Gary Hart bless his sole isn't completely correct there as in the current landscape of things it doesn't wholly work that way. Most people only know what they want to see after they see it so if you don't even give a guy/story time and or exposure who is to say?

Also if you want to build new stars interest at first is always lower (overness) and then by exposing them and then getting wins over established talent they get more over if they have the talent. And this is the central thesis of TEW and is what it mimics best and is the most true.

What Gary refers to is the territorial days where you could have two headliners go at each other for years and sometimes bing in "big" stars from other territories. Those days are over and dead.

If you follow that mantra too strictly TNA for instance would be all Hogan, Sting, Flair, Foley, 3D, Nash etc.

On a semi related note and what is true about that statement is you always have to book out of the marks perspective eg the audience you want to reach and I think that point is sometimes lost on these boards and what smarks always seem to forget. I consider this community mainly "educated" smart marks and that is a big difference.

On the size of TNA, bigger then the original ECW in its hayday in numbers but still a significant chunk smaller then WCW in its dying ones.

cappyboy

02-17-2010, 12:01 PM

I think what he meant was that WCW was BIGGER even its dying days.

Indeed. So by extension, their midcarders may have been just midcarders. But because the stage was bigger, they were still better known and thus bigger stars than the midcarders in today's number 2, TNA. Ditto fairly recent signees a la Desmond Wolfe just jumping up to today's number 2 for that matter.

Guys like Wolfe and Pope clearly have the advantage in upside. If they don't do anything stupid, they should eventually be able to far exceed the Nasty Boys in name power as their achievements will be fresher. But they need to achieve at this level first. The opportunities are there. Wolfe and Pope and so on just gotta grab them.

justtxyank

02-17-2010, 12:02 PM

You're right there, TNA isn't the equivalent of WCW even in it's dying days - TNA is a hell of a lot better. In my opinion. I can certainly see the similarities though. Tenay, Sting, Bischoff, Hogan, Russo, Southern wrestling company etc.

I wasn't talking about the product.

PeterHilton

02-17-2010, 12:05 PM

Here's my take on OJ: if he were an established character who happened to be bi, then fine.

But if the defining aspect of his character is his sexuality and the way he uses it to his advantage or whatever, then the only way it works is if he's a feel. Because wrestling fans aren't going to 'root' for that.

And that actually works for a heel character btw. He'd be black Adrian Adonis or whatever.

CQI13

02-17-2010, 12:13 PM

Hyde, what you mention in the second part of the post is how I believe he explained it. He did clarify (and I probably should have as well) by giving the example that if you're pushing wrestler A as a face, and he's getting crapped on; but wrestler B is getting cheered, you should push wrestler B (even if it wasn't your original intention) because the fans aren't buying into wrestler A. So what you said about booking for marks is what he meant it seems.

PeterHilton

02-17-2010, 12:14 PM

Indeed. So by extension, their midcarders may have been just midcarders. But because the stage was bigger, they were still better known and thus bigger stars than the midcarders in today's number 2, TNA. Ditto fairly recent signees a la Desmond Wolfe just jumping up to today's number 2 for that matter.

Going back to your Nasty Boys point: they were bigger stars THEN but considering how long they've been completely out of the limelight do you think it's fair to think they carry the same name value?

I mean...really? I'd have to see demographics and numbers that show that TNA's audiences skews to failry old crowd (TV-wise) to believe that the Nasy Boys carry any sort of significance to the fans watching.

justtxyank

02-17-2010, 12:57 PM

The Nasty Boys may have been awful at the ppv (I didn't get to see it) and they may not be relevant, but let's please stop undermining what they used to be. The idea that they were never talented or never over is ridiculous. They were a very good brawling tag team and they were over all the way through about 1996. It wasn't until Sags got hurt and Knobs started going solo that I grew to loathe seeing him on my television.

cappyboy

02-17-2010, 03:10 PM

Going back to your Nasty Boys point: they were bigger stars THEN but considering how long they've been completely out of the limelight do you think it's fair to think they carry the same name value?

I mean...really? I'd have to see demographics and numbers that show that TNA's audiences skews to failry old crowd (TV-wise) to believe that the Nasy Boys carry any sort of significance to the fans watching.

Not as such. But at least they HAVE a name to have value with. Pope and Wolfe are just now trying to build theirs. Wolfe's only been Wolfe a handful of months. Pope's only been The Pope what? Six months or so? If something disasatrous happened to their careers at the next Impact, how long would folks remember that Nigel McGuinness had been once Desmond Wolfe? Assuming they even knew who "Nigel McGuiness" was to start with. Or that Elijah Burke and "The Pope" D'Angelo Dinero had been the same guy? Strong as it once was or not, The Nasty Boys have an established brand. If Wolfe or Pope went elsewhere tomorrow, they wouldn't have one to take with them. It's not like they are Matt Morgan who's had the same name all along. That more so than anything like demographics is why I've been giving the nod to the Nastys.

Hyde Hill

02-17-2010, 03:30 PM

The thing is with the Nasties is that I get the whole name value thing but there are so many better options out there with either a greater or same level of name value and even more skilled in and or out of the ring. Some are in TNA at this moment and some have been. That's my biggest gripe with them. My gripe will be even bigger if they are still around by this summer and haven't jobbed/lost in a feud to as many people as they can. And yeah their PPV match was really really really really bad almost Sharmell vs Morasca level.

thommohawk

02-17-2010, 04:31 PM

I wasn't talking about the product.

Well at the risk of sounding hypocritial, you should make yourself clearer because it sounded to me as though you were talking about the product and nothing more, especially seeing as how you never mentioned the structure of the company or size comparison to WCW, you simply said TNA not the equivalent of WCW in it's dying days - yeah, in what context ?? If you make a vague statement like that then expect to be misinterpreted.

TNA aren't as big as WCW or as rich, but that has a lot to do with the times, the state of the industry, the backers of TNA, and yes the booking of the talent and excitement of the programming. But the product itself despite the similarities is a lot better than WCW was especially in it's dying days. Goldberg and an in his prime Sting aside. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it lol.

To some extent you can have the best product in the world and yet you can't plan success, try as you might. A perfect non-wrestling related analogy would be the Nintendo Wii, hated with a passion by "proper gamers" but some like it, yet it's basically already won the console war in terms of money made despite not really being a modern console in terms of HD, it's basically a Gamecube v2.0 and much to the chagrin of real gamers (and PS3 and 360 fanboys), it's sold like wild fire to the casual market.

But getting back to wrestling, does anyone else find it coincidental that TNA are now on permanently on Monday's and live on the fortnightly, and all of a sudden apparently a bunch of top WWE talent are retiring after Wrestlemania - including Undertaker, HBK and Rey Mysterio as well as 1 other person apparently who I'm going to assume is Batista - how many of them will do the dirty and end up in TNA ?? That's what it's going to take to kick off this Monday Night War - the stealing of legit talent. Which is harder than it used to be since WWE have the non compete clause in effect for this very reason. But between the Wellness Policy and "retirement" there are ways I suppose. But it's who's willing to do it ? And is there any loyalty in life and business ? Nah. If the big names go to TNA it's because of 1 thing, the limited schedule whilst having a clear purpose again in HBK and Taker's case. I can see those two in TNA this summer if they can afford them, but saying this they could afford Angle and Hogan so why not....RVD will be there soon enough too.

justtxyank

02-17-2010, 04:35 PM

Well at the risk of sounding hypocritial, you should make yourself clearer because it sounded to me as though you were talking about the product and nothing more, especially seeing as how you never mentioned the structure of the company or size comparison to WCW, you simply said TNA not the equivalent of WCW in it's dying days - yeah, in what context ?? If you make a vague statement like that then expect to be misinterpreted.

TNA aren't as big as WCW or as rich, but that has a lot to do with the times, the state of the industry and the backers of TNA. But the product itself despite the similarities is a lot better than WCW was especially in it's dying days. Goldberg and an in his prime Sting aside. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it lol.

Well, at the risk of mocking your intelligence, may I please suggest you read the context of the post I was responding to? The poster was comparing the networks that were showing TNA vs the networks that were showing WCW in 2000 despite both being the number 2 company in North America. I pointed out that this is not a good comparison because even though both were/are the number 2 promotion in their respective time frame, WCW was a much larger company with a more prestigious national (heck, global) brand than TNA.

I think anyone who read my post following the post before it would realize I was talking about size, company prestige, etc. as opposed to the product. Please, start following along if you want to get along here.

thommohawk

02-17-2010, 04:58 PM

Well, at the risk of mocking your intelligence, may I please suggest you read the context of the post I was responding to? The poster was comparing the networks that were showing TNA vs the networks that were showing WCW in 2000 despite both being the number 2 company in North America. I pointed out that this is not a good comparison because even though both were/are the number 2 promotion in their respective time frame, WCW was a much larger company with a more prestigious national (heck, global) brand than TNA.

I think anyone who read my post following the post before it would realize I was talking about size, company prestige, etc. as opposed to the product. Please, start following along if you want to get along here.

Oh well pardon me for not keeping up to date with all your posts from 3 days ago that are probably about 5 pages old now. I respond to what I see when I come online and respond to the things said. It's not my fault you were vague. Blame yourself and don't shoot the messenger. Nice attitude too, maybe one day you'll be able to do promo's half as good as me. ;)

Think I'm not good at promo's ? Want to contest it ? Think of this, it's too easy for me to say something and get heat. Clearly I have a natural talent for winding people up and making them dislike me. You don't help yourselves though half of the time and neither do I, the difference is that I really don't care. I say what I want, when I want. You show me respect and I will show you respect back. That's a two way street. And I'm more than happy to say so is acting like a prick to someone. Especially the holier than thou hypocrites. ;)

Hive

02-17-2010, 05:50 PM

If the big names go to TNA it's because of 1 thing, the limited schedule whilst having a clear purpose again in HBK and Taker's case. I can see those two in TNA this summer if they can afford them, but saying this they could afford Angle and Hogan so why not....RVD will be there soon enough too.

Are you in all seriousnes saying you could see those two, who are among the most loyal company boys WWE has, jump to TNA? Why on earth would they do that? They already have the light schedules and I doubt TNA would pay them more. Why suddenly become disloyal to WWE for no good reason?

cappyboy

02-17-2010, 05:50 PM

The poster was comparing the networks that were showing TNA vs the networks that were showing WCW in 2000 despite both being the number 2 company in North America. I pointed out that this is not a good comparison because even though both were/are the number 2 promotion in their respective time frame, WCW was a much larger company with a more prestigious national (heck, global) brand than TNA.

Which is another way of saying what I brought the comparison up to demonstrate. The contraction of the industry of a whole between the time WCW was number 2 and today when TNA is.

lazorbeak

02-17-2010, 06:01 PM

Well Gary Hart bless his sole isn't completely correct there as in the current landscape of things it doesn't wholly work that way. Most people only know what they want to see after they see it so if you don't even give a guy/story time and or exposure who is to say?

Hyde, what it means is if the crowd is cheering for the New Age Outlaws throwing Cactus Jack in a dumpster, don't try to sell the crowd that they're heels. It's not about not building up new stars or whatever, it's about recognizing what the crowd wants and giving it to them. It's what wrestling is about.

Like I said in an earlier post, the babyfaces in a wrestling company reflect the ideals of the fans that cheer for them. So if your crowd is a bunch of kids and old folks who want nostalgia, TNA should start booking the Hulk Hogan/Kevin Nash title match we've all been waiting for.

It's why, in the territory days, you couldn't just bring in a guy and use him as your top face. He's an outsider, someone different. It's still true today, territories or no. TNA tried to push Sean Morley as a babyface, but the crowd saw him as an outsider and Daniels as their guy.

justtxyank

02-17-2010, 06:12 PM

Which is another way of saying what I brought the comparison up to demonstrate. The contraction of the industry of a whole between the time WCW was number 2 and today when TNA is.

I'm not going to respond to that child, but I will to you.

I see what you are saying, but my point is that TNA is not a good reference by which to measure the industry. They are #2 by default, not because they are actually big.

When WCW went out of business in 2001, the wrestling industry was still peaked. The second biggest promotion would have been what, World Wrestling All Stars or something silly like that? But, just like with TNA, they were only second because the only real competitive Number 2 company in the last 20+ years was gone.

The industry is down right now, but TNA doesn't prove that. They are a growing regional/cult promotion that benefits from having a wealthy owner. WCW could come back tomorrow and they would instantly be the second biggest company just because of brand power. That was what I was trying to illustrate.

Hyde Hill

02-17-2010, 06:29 PM

Hyde, what it means is if the crowd is cheering for the New Age Outlaws throwing Cactus Jack in a dumpster, don't try to sell the crowd that they're heels. It's not about not building up new stars or whatever, it's about recognizing what the crowd wants and giving it to them. It's what wrestling is about.

Like I said in an earlier post, the babyfaces in a wrestling company reflect the ideals of the fans that cheer for them. So if your crowd is a bunch of kids and old folks who want nostalgia, TNA should start booking the Hulk Hogan/Kevin Nash title match we've all been waiting for.

It's why, in the territory days, you couldn't just bring in a guy and use him as your top face. He's an outsider, someone different. It's still true today, territories or no. TNA tried to push Sean Morley as a babyface, but the crowd saw him as an outsider and Daniels as their guy.

Well it is kind of upto interpretation and I included that part of the interpretation in my op. The thing is it was in direct reference to OJ implying that it is useless to give him a push because people don't want to see him. What I replied in that sense is if you don't push/ give exposure to someone how will you know if people will actually like him etc?

If it was more in the vein of give the marks what they want that is also true but that statement without the clarification that the op gave and you did here more extensivly could also be interpreted as only show the known names and only those, implying you can't get the fans to want someone.

Lazor I completely agree with your statement above but as it doesn't conflict with what I posted, just a portion of it and that portion was a possible interpretation of Hart's statement which I pointed out and didn't think was true.

cappyboy

02-17-2010, 06:40 PM

I'm not going to respond to that child, but I will to you.

I see what you are saying, but my point is that TNA is not a good reference by which to measure the industry. They are #2 by default, not because they are actually big.

When WCW went out of business in 2001, the wrestling industry was still peaked. The second biggest promotion would have been what, World Wrestling All Stars or something silly like that? But, just like with TNA, they were only second because the only real competitive Number 2 company in the last 20+ years was gone.

The industry is down right now, but TNA doesn't prove that. They are a growing regional/cult promotion that benefits from having a wealthy owner. WCW could come back tomorrow and they would instantly be the second biggest company just because of brand power. That was what I was trying to illustrate.

You know, man, you're probably right in every word you just said here. Problem is TNA is what we have to work with at the moment. So it doesn't particularly matter whether they are number 2 by default or because they are actually big. Either way they are the point of reference.

thommohawk

02-17-2010, 06:48 PM

Are you in all seriousnes saying you could see those two, who are among the most loyal company boys WWE has, jump to TNA? Why on earth would they do that? They already have the light schedules and I doubt TNA would pay them more. Why suddenly become disloyal to WWE for no good reason?

Well if their schedules are so light then why are they retiring ? Did you ever consider they might have nothing to prove at WWE for being there so long and achieving literally all they could there and are bored with it - thus at this point in their careers jumping ship to help achieve something good for the business that they devote their lifes to AND get an even more relaxing schedule, instead of months off and months on.

Plus TNA is closer to home for both HBK and Taker so it's also a lot less travel. There's no loyalty in life or business and at this point all them workers I mentioned will be looking after number one at this point - and right now TNA is a very nice proposition for workers in the sweet spot. Which Taker and HBK are. You seem to assume money and loyalty are the be all and end all but they really aren't. Natural boredom plays a part too. Or mental fatigue at being somewhere for so long despite achieving all you can there.

It sounds ludicrous at first, but give it a chance and you'll realize that it's not such a preposterous assertion after all. After all did you ever think you would ever see Eric Bischoff walk through the doors of WWE and on to Monday Night Raw working for Vince McMahon ? My point exactly. Stranger things have happened.

I see what you are saying, but my point is that TNA is not a good reference by which to measure the industry. They are #2 by default, not because they are actually big.

When WCW went out of business in 2001, the wrestling industry was still peaked. The second biggest promotion would have been what, World Wrestling All Stars or something silly like that? But, just like with TNA, they were only second because the only real competitive Number 2 company in the last 20+ years was gone.

The industry is down right now, but TNA doesn't prove that. They are a growing regional/cult promotion that benefits from having a wealthy owner. WCW could come back tomorrow and they would instantly be the second biggest company just because of brand power. That was what I was trying to illustrate.

You have a point here, except it's all hypothetical to suit you obviously. If WCW came back tomorrow they'd be a sub division or brand of the WWE so the #2 thing wouldn't fly as they'd be an extension of the #1....also for classic WCW "of old" to come back tomorrow, yes they'd instantly be #2 BUT that would also mean a time paradox as Tenay, Sting, Hogan, Bischoff, Flair, Booker T and a few others can't be in 2 places at once or indeed ever be in TNA as they'd be erased from existence because the buyout never happened, Benoit comes back to life as the brilliant grappler he was and the murder suicide never happened, and now that I think about it sounds like a great wish despite it meaning TNA never existed. So you obviously see the flaw in the logic even if it does have some hypothetical credence but it's still like saying something like if i was 10 years old again tomorrow I could beat you in a race to to the top of that hill - but it has no baring nobodies reality except one of the alternate ones.....hence in our reality it's hypothetical theory.

And I have to disagree with your opinion on TNA not being global. They are global they do overseas tours, they have some of the biggest names in wrestling history and the some of the biggest minds, they have monthly PPV, a weekly 2 hour tv timeslot which has now moved permanently to Monday nights where they'll go live half of the time having since had huge success for them in going live on a previous Monday night and being the first company in almost 10 years to go head to head with the all conquering WWE - that's pretty global, at least it is in my opinion. Your only case for TNA not being global is that they hold their shows in the impact zone. Whereas I've just listed about 5 reasons for them genuinely being global.

PeterHilton

02-17-2010, 07:00 PM

Well if their schedules are so light then why are they retiring ?

Where exactly is the news of their impending retirement?

jesterx7769

02-17-2010, 07:07 PM

With Shawn's injuries I dont see him wrestling post WWE, if he wants just a part time manager or something role I imagine WWE will be glad to keep him on in that regard. When Taker hangs it up I expect him to take some time off, realize he's bored, then become a backstage road agent since he's so well respected.

RVD however, will hopefully go to TNA, I also expect at least one of the guys that gets fired after being on NXT to end up in TNA by the end of the year

sabataged

02-17-2010, 09:16 PM

Even though TNA is the number 2 company in America, they are not the equivalent of WCW, even in its dying days.

EXACTLY!

TNA in it's current state is more of a ECW than a WCW. They don't have the resources or fan base that WCW had. Even WCW was still going on the road doing house shows and drawing major crowds.

Slagaholic

02-17-2010, 11:56 PM

ECW was an indy promotion with a TV deal. I think TNA's a step above that. I'll say they're in the middle between ECW and WCW.

sabataged

02-18-2010, 12:15 AM

ECW was an indy promotion with a TV deal. I think TNA's a step above that. I'll say they're in the middle between ECW and WCW.

I would agree with the middle comment. But if I were to pick between the two TNA is closer to ECW status then they are WCW status.

For me it would be something like ROH > ECW > TNA > WCW > WWE but its really apples/oranges because of the different times.

Slagaholic

02-18-2010, 01:22 AM

I would agree with the middle comment. But if I were to pick between the two TNA is closer to ECW status then they are WCW status.

For me it would be something like ROH > ECW > TNA > WCW > WWE but its really apples/oranges because of the different times.

Exactly, TNA rose to prominance in concurrance with the decline in wrestling's post-Invasion popularity, plus they have less money to spend. What makes it hard for me to choose either/or on whether it's more like WCW or ECW is the financial security. TNA pays their bills, and to my knowledge pull in a profit, ECW did not. To me that's as huge difference as the difference in popularity and exposure.

HughBatey4

02-18-2010, 01:51 AM

Exactly, TNA rose to prominance in concurrance with the decline in wrestling's post-Invasion popularity, plus they have less money to spend. What makes it hard for me to choose either/or on whether it's more like WCW or ECW is the financial security. TNA pays their bills, and to my knowledge pull in a profit, ECW did not. To me that's as huge difference as the difference in popularity and exposure.

Fail. Just because they turn a profit does not mean they are popular, nor does it have anything to do with exposure. As far as we know, TNA spends less money than WCW, which is why it is easier for TNA to make profit. Regardless of size of a company, which one if easier? Making profit with a budget of $1,000,000 or $5,000,000? Obviously the first one. Example, Mom and Pop Video Rental stores are turning a profit, while Movie Gallery filed bankruptcy. Obviously Movie Gallery has more exposure and is more popular than a local video store. Yet they are bankrupt.

Popularity/Exposure does not equal Profit. That's just an incorrect statement that you made.

Nedew

02-18-2010, 01:55 AM

Fail. Just because they turn a profit does not mean they are popular, nor does it have anything to do with exposure. As far as we know, TNA spends less money than WCW, which is why it is easier for TNA to make profit. Regardless of size of a company, which one if easier? Making profit with a budget of $1,000,000 or $5,000,000? Obviously the first one. Example, Mom and Pop Video Rental stores are turning a profit, while Movie Gallery filed bankruptcy. Obviously Movie Gallery has more exposure and is more popular than a local video store. Yet they are bankrupt.

Popularity/Exposure does not equal Profit. That's just an incorrect statement that you made.

It would be an incorrect statement if that's the statement he made. But it wasn't.

He was purely talking about finances there, and saying profitable and unprofitable is as big a difference as popular and unpopular.

In your words, fail.

HughBatey4

02-18-2010, 02:01 AM

It would be an incorrect statement if that's the statement he made. But it wasn't.

He was purely talking about finances there, and saying profitable and unprofitable is as big a difference as popular and unpopular.

In your words, fail.

Disagree. It might be a big difference when it comes to the business world. However, in wrestling, companies aren't remembered for their amazing business skills. Companies are remembered for great storylines, innovations, and impact on the entire industry.

Care to compare TNA with ECW?

ECW popularized hardcore in America, introduced lucha/cruiser/X-division style wrestling to America, introduced crash TV to the world of wrestling, and completely changed the way the indy scene is viewed.

TNA has done....nothing. They have innovated one match type (Ultimate X), and that is it. TNA will be a footnote in history, mostly due to Hogan's involvement. I can describe to you the contribution of TNA to the world of wrestling in one sentence. Quote me.

"TNA was a glorified indy promotion that signed a bunch of washed up and/or drug addicted wrestlers, along with some talented cruiserweights, and got a TV slot on Spike TV before signing Hulk Hogan, who promptly ran the company into the ground."

The End...

And Vince McMahon lived happily ever after, being the victor of 3 wrestling wars in his lifetime.