TNA epitomized (SPOILER)

[Seth Drakin of Monster Crap]

ddt said:

It's funny.

People were complaining that TNA gave Angle vs. Sting away on free tv instead of on a PPV, saying that putting it on PPV would do better business. Sting and Angle being tag champs will likely lead to a feud between the two, which will lead to PPV matches between the two, which is what people wanted. But still, people are complaining -- this time, that Sting won, and not a "TNA-groomed" wrestler. They want a Sting/Angle feud, but they don't want it to start. If you want it, it has to start off some way -- and we've all seen worse starts to feuds....much, much worse starts.

Then there's the whole "WCW/WWE guys" argument. First of all, will those guys be labeled "WCW/WWE guys" for life, no matter how much time they spend in TNA? Secondly, people complain that McMahon never pushed/pushes "WCW guys"; now they're complaining because TNA is pushing "WCW/WWE guys". So which is it? Should a promoter push only his own guys, or give some push to former members of the promoter's rival?

I'm not saying what TNA is doing is right, but will the complainers please find something to enjoy already? If you are so determined to find faults with TNA, no matter what the company does, then don't watch. Just don't watch.

There are certain guys who even the WWE didnt use at their full potential who could become "TNA guys". Christian Cage, Matt Morgan, among others. Ron Killings is basically a TNA guy now. It's guys who already had their time in the sun like Sting, Jeff Jarrett, Angle, VKM, Team 3D, and the Steiners as well as guys who didnt deserve the push they got to begin with like Andrew Martin who I stick with those ex-WWE/WCW guys.

[JD Turk]

I don't think its a big deal, although I enjoy TNA, there's no use complaining about the decisions they make, simply because their gonna keep making the decisions they want to make, good or bad, so the more you let it frustrate you the worse their ideas are gonna look, so just ignore them, no use gettin all amped up over nothing eh ?

[Monster Heel #2]

ortonsabinrulz said:

I don't think its a big deal, although I enjoy TNA, there's no use complaining about the decisions they make, simply because their gonna keep making the decisions they want to make, good or bad, so the more you let it frustrate you the worse their ideas are gonna look, so just ignore them, no use gettin all amped up over nothing eh ?

I gave up months ago just because I got tired of the horrendous programming. Then once they signed Pacman AND booked a marriage problems storyline in the wake of current events, I'm on a boycott until that company gets an enema. I won't even purchase a damn piece of merchandise from a company that is so lacking in common sense and decency.

[Can you afford to pay me, Gah]

ddt said:

It's funny.

People were complaining that TNA gave Angle vs. Sting away on free tv instead of on a PPV, saying that putting it on PPV would do better business. Sting and Angle being tag champs will likely lead to a feud between the two, which will lead to PPV matches between the two, which is what people wanted. But still, people are complaining -- this time, that Sting won, and not a "TNA-groomed" wrestler. They want a Sting/Angle feud, but they don't want it to start. If you want it, it has to start off some way -- and we've all seen worse starts to feuds....much, much worse starts.

Then there's the whole "WCW/WWE guys" argument. First of all, will those guys be labeled "WCW/WWE guys" for life, no matter how much time they spend in TNA? Secondly, people complain that McMahon never pushed/pushes "WCW guys"; now they're complaining because TNA is pushing "WCW/WWE guys". So which is it? Should a promoter push only his own guys, or give some push to former members of the promoter's rival?

I'm not saying what TNA is doing is right, but will the complainers please find something to enjoy already? If you are so determined to find faults with TNA, no matter what the company does, then don't watch. Just don't watch.

That the point I was making. Who cares if they came from the WWE/WCW/ECW. Sure they do need to push younger guys and that's fine. But so what if the Main Event is two big stars from another company.

So what if they push a lower card WWE guy into a Main eventer. WWE isn't perfect either. Ron Killings was a lower midcarder in the WWE teaming with Roaddogg as K Kwick. Does that mean TNA can't give him a different name and push him? No. They did Push him and I thought he was working. TNA just didn't follow through with it. Otherwise he should be a star.

TNA sign a lot of these major names because either there talented or they wanted ratings with there name.

Christian Cage was a damn good idea to bring in. He left the WWE on his own. Not fired or released. He just didn't resign. He came to TNA and became Champion and he was a damn good champion in his heel run. I don't think anybody should have a problem with Christian as champion because he was great. Matches were great, his promos were great, what isn't there to love?

[Michael Coello]

I think a giant misconception in TNA is that anyone and everyone who was ever released comes to TNA as TNA throws 6 million double dollars at them and they become 7 time world champions or something.

I know a bunch of wrestlers have come in and gotten no belts. The X Division & Tag belts are usually in the hands of the younger talent(with the exception of the last 2 people/teams with the tag belt and one for the X belt) while the World title has the older guys, but not everyone had it. I know way back in the early days, TNA gave World title shots to anyone(BG James, Disco Inferno, Dustin Rhodes) but it's more selective now. Only really puzzling champion was Shamrock, but that's cause I wasn't into TNA back then.

Plus, people act like guys like The Steiners or Sting or Jarrett or Tomko don't fit into the "We Are Wrestling" thing. It's not like they play tiddlywinks or monopoly in the ring. They wrestle!

[Palatial Regalia]

lionheart said:

(2) Sting d. AJ Styles, Christian Cage and Samoa Joe to become the new TNA Tag Team Champion along with Kurt Angle.

A four-way match for a single belt representing one half of a tag team championship. Two of those four guys are ex WWE/WCW guys, and one of them wins.
The only thing that would make it even more TNA-ish is if the belt was on a pole.

Serious question? Has there ever really been a ...on a pole match in TNA?

[Mozenrath]

sinister1 said:

I think a giant misconception in TNA is that anyone and everyone who was ever released comes to TNA as TNA throws 6 million double dollars at them and they become 7 time world champions or something.

Free Vash! Vash to ROH!

[Michael Coello]

protoroc said:

lionheart said:

A four-way match for a single belt representing one half of a tag team championship. Two of those four guys are ex WWE/WCW guys, and one of them wins.
The only thing that would make it even more TNA-ish is if the belt was on a pole.

Serious question? Has there ever really been a ...on a pole match in TNA?

During this reign of Russo? 1(Cage vs Sting: Nightstick on a Pole due to Cage attacking Sting with said nightstick the past week).

During the first Russo reign? A think there were a few, but not a lot.

[Rocky Van Heineken]

Why would you consider AJ Styles a WCW guy? He wrestled a few matches on Thunder with Air Paris. Did people consider Mick Foley a WWF guy when he was Cactus Jack in WCW and ECW?

[ICBM]

You know I keep reading things about how people "used to love" TNA but don't like what it's become. I used to like the E but don't like what it's become. The bottom line is no matter what we post here WWE and TNA are successful wrestling promotions. TNA is about 6 weeks from a two hour show. NO NETWORK WILL GIVE A SHOW 2 HOURS UNLESS IT CAN PUT ON A GOOD SHOW!!!! Likewise WWE continues to garner big ratings, merchandise sales and PPV buys in the wake of a tragedy that threatened all wrestling with another steroid witch hunt. ROH to give it it's due can be what ECW was to WWE and WCW in 1997-1999. I just don't dig how TNA gets a bad rap from alot of folks for what? Being successful? Will you utrn on ROH if it gets a deal and starts market research and bends it's show toward that?

[Seth Drakin of Monster Crap]

sinister1 said:

protoroc said:

Serious question? Has there ever really been a ...on a pole match in TNA?

During this reign of Russo? 1(Cage vs Sting: Nightstick on a Pole due to Cage attacking Sting with said nightstick the past week).

During the first Russo reign? A think there were a few, but not a lot.

You forgot about that match between Rhino and Christian Cage where a weapon you could use in the steel cage match was hanging on several poles.

[Deleted]

icbm said:

You know I keep reading things about how people "used to love" TNA but don't like what it's become. I used to like the E but don't like what it's become. The bottom line is no matter what we post here WWE and TNA are successful wrestling promotions. TNA is about 6 weeks from a two hour show. NO NETWORK WILL GIVE A SHOW 2 HOURS UNLESS IT CAN PUT ON A GOOD SHOW!!!! Likewise WWE continues to garner big ratings, merchandise sales and PPV buys in the wake of a tragedy that threatened all wrestling with another steroid witch hunt. ROH to give it it's due can be what ECW was to WWE and WCW in 1997-1999. I just don't dig how TNA gets a bad rap from alot of folks for what? Being successful? Will you utrn on ROH if it gets a deal and starts market research and bends it's show toward that?

Two hour deal, Schmoo hour deal. TNA is going out of business because I personally don't like it [/IWC]

Obviously they're setting up Sting-Angle for BOF. Which whether anyone likes it or not, is the biggest mony match right now.

[The Line]

icbm said:

You know I keep reading things about how people "used to love" TNA but don't like what it's become. I used to like the E but don't like what it's become. The bottom line is no matter what we post here WWE and TNA are successful wrestling promotions. TNA is about 6 weeks from a two hour show. NO NETWORK WILL GIVE A SHOW 2 HOURS UNLESS IT CAN PUT ON A GOOD SHOW!!!! Likewise WWE continues to garner big ratings, merchandise sales and PPV buys in the wake of a tragedy that threatened all wrestling with another steroid witch hunt. ROH to give it it's due can be what ECW was to WWE and WCW in 1997-1999. I just don't dig how TNA gets a bad rap from alot of folks for what? Being successful? Will you utrn on ROH if it gets a deal and starts market research and bends it's show toward that?

So, because TNA and WWE are successful, we are required to like them?(I'm not trying to sound condescending, I'm just trying to see if thats what you meant)

And Gabe has stated that the only way he'd get a TV deal is f the channel gave them lots of money and didn't care about the product being put on TV, so its likely not going to happen anytime soon, short of their series of PPVs.

[Dave the Dave]

kiddobradley said:

I'm convinced this is all an elaborate ploy to make us all wish for Jarrett as champ again.

I was thinking that too. TNA stopped being good about when Jarrett lost the belt....coincidence? I guess we'll see.

[Monster Heel #2]

icbm said:

You know I keep reading things about how people "used to love" TNA but don't like what it's become. I used to like the E but don't like what it's become. The bottom line is no matter what we post here WWE and TNA are successful wrestling promotions. TNA is about 6 weeks from a two hour show. NO NETWORK WILL GIVE A SHOW 2 HOURS UNLESS IT CAN PUT ON A GOOD SHOW!!!! Likewise WWE continues to garner big ratings, merchandise sales and PPV buys in the wake of a tragedy that threatened all wrestling with another steroid witch hunt. ROH to give it it's due can be what ECW was to WWE and WCW in 1997-1999. I just don't dig how TNA gets a bad rap from alot of folks for what? Being successful? Will you utrn on ROH if it gets a deal and starts market research and bends it's show toward that?

TNA is getting a two hour deal because it bends over backwards for SpikeTV executives and they've been fairly successful in reaching a plateau in terms of the audience. And my use of the term "fairly" is quite generous. Nobody in TNA has been elevated in terms of being a top legit star, the television is nowhere near can't-miss levels, nobody is being booked to their strengths, morale is down the toilet, no major increase in the important numbers (Nielsen ratings, PPV buyrates, well, maybe attendance, but I doubt it) has been made.

It's been five years since TNA was created, and with the exception of a couple pieces of merchandise in retail stores and being on television, has been very disappoining in terms of meeting expectations of gaining popularity and interest.

[Deleted]

TNA is getting a two hour deal because it bends over backwards for SpikeTV executives and they've been fairly successful in reaching a plateau in terms of the audience.

Thanks for joining the board, Spike TV executive.

It's nice that you let us know why you gave TNA two hours.

[Monster Heel #2]

brentreznor said:

TNA is getting a two hour deal because it bends over backwards for SpikeTV executives and they've been fairly successful in reaching a plateau in terms of the audience.

Thanks for joining the board, Spike TV executive.

It's nice that you let us know why you gave TNA two hours.

If TNA had ignored SpikeTV's request to obtain "familiar talent" and to quit having man-on-woman violence on Impact, then TNA would not be getting a two hour deal.

[Can you afford to pay me, Gah]

brentreznor said:

icbm said:

You know I keep reading things about how people "used to love" TNA but don't like what it's become. I used to like the E but don't like what it's become. The bottom line is no matter what we post here WWE and TNA are successful wrestling promotions. TNA is about 6 weeks from a two hour show. NO NETWORK WILL GIVE A SHOW 2 HOURS UNLESS IT CAN PUT ON A GOOD SHOW!!!! Likewise WWE continues to garner big ratings, merchandise sales and PPV buys in the wake of a tragedy that threatened all wrestling with another steroid witch hunt. ROH to give it it's due can be what ECW was to WWE and WCW in 1997-1999. I just don't dig how TNA gets a bad rap from alot of folks for what? Being successful? Will you utrn on ROH if it gets a deal and starts market research and bends it's show toward that?

Two hour deal, Schmoo hour deal. TNA is going out of business because I personally don't like it [/IWC]

Obviously they're setting up Sting-Angle for BOF. Which whether anyone likes it or not, is the biggest mony match right now.

Yea it should be Money but then again that what was set about Angle and Joe last year but TNA Screwed that up. Plus it would drawn a lot more money if it was the first match ever. But TNA already screwed that up by having one already on free TV. That basicly like the WWE doing Rock and Hogan on Raw instead of Wrestlemania.

Angle and Sting could of and should of been much bigger then it's going to be. It would be huge money if there first one on one match was at that PPV. Sure they can get two hours and so forth but making money is what TNA can't do because they are not marketing there product right.

Look how WCW booked Starcade 97 match with Sting and Hogan. That's how you book a match that makes money and it did. The payoff WCW got from that was amazing.

Look at WWE with Wrestlemania. There is a reason why they can pack Football arena and have 70,000 people for that show and a near million more watching on PPV. Of course that spend a crapload of money promoting the event. But again Payoff at the end is what matter and WWE is amazing at getting people to buy into it and have the matches they want to see.

TNA never has had a match were it was hype so well it got fans paying to see it in a big sum. Twice they should have had it. Sting and Angle first match ever. Angle and Joe if they built it longer then two month. Angle second TNA PPV should never been against Joe. There first match should been after at less a 6 month of hitting and hyping. So money will spend money in a large way to see it.