|
Post by Tea & Crumpets on Nov 4, 2009 15:38:21 GMT -5
"A hybrid of street & mat fighting skills and Dallas" TNA reference? Since his original ring name in TNA was Dallas? I don't like the short hair but I like the tights. Rather see him busting out some of the ridiculous athletic moves he did in TNA though than a reverse DDT for a finisher. Well, yeah, but that'll come with time. You can't expect him to blow his wad on the big moves in the first match he has on the roster. Evan Bourne did. But I fully agree. I'm just saying I hope he does get to show off what he can do instead of falling into the typical big man syndrome that the likes of Burchill have.
|
|
|
Post by Slingshot Suplay on Nov 4, 2009 16:25:07 GMT -5
didn't kozlov use that move ?
|
|
|
Post by brettappedout (BLM) on Nov 4, 2009 16:40:07 GMT -5
didn't kozlov use that move ? Sort of, Archer swings back, Koz just dropped.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 4, 2009 17:01:43 GMT -5
I dunno, maybe we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss him as a failure based one match. Kofi's first match was botch-heavy, MVP beat a jobber in his first match and I bet the majority crapped all over it. Let's see what happens in the next few weeks before we start declaring the death of his career. Thank you. I'm amazed that smart folks like us would judge somebody off their FIRST televised match. They clearly want to push him and show TNA's underutilized talent what WWE can do for them if they're good hands. Because I thought the repackaging was great. His image was AWFUL before. I'd see him on FCW and think "WWE would never take a guy who looks this bad." Marketing talent between WWE and TNA is a night and day difference, and it's no wonder TNA let him go. They didn't know what they had. I hope they're kicking themselves now. Oh right. Hogan will fix everything, nevermind. He taught Vince how to be a promoter, you know. Everyone judged Braden Walker by his first match. Including WWE themselves. Yeah, WWEs marketing talent is awesome! They gave him short hair and generic tights! Now he looks like every other new guy that debuts, or a WCW Saturday Night jobber. That will turn some heads. As far as underutilized TNA talent goes, you act as if TNA has never pushed or made guys big who WWE dropped the ball on originally. Like oh, Christian, Matt Morgan, Tomko... I never liked Hoyt anyway. I was glad when TNA released him. I hope he finds some success but with that look and this match I wasn't that impressed. I like how EVERY new guy that debuts now just squashes jobbers when they show up for weeks like its still the 80s and that actually impresses anyone. At least when people debut on TNA they are placed into actual angles and storylines and allowed to get by on the merits of their talent rather than how well they can big boot some 130 pound nobody.
|
|
|
Post by Slammy Award-Winning Cannibal on Nov 4, 2009 17:41:05 GMT -5
Everyone judged Braden Walker by his first match. Including WWE themselves. Well, when you have a terrible match and you look like garbage, you're kinda opening the door to being judged. If you think Harris and Hoyt left the same first impression in their respective WWE debut matches, you're out to lunch. Sorry. Yeah, WWEs marketing talent is awesome! They gave him short hair and generic tights! Now he looks like every other new guy that debuts, or a WCW Saturday Night jobber. That will turn some heads. Again I'll say: Hoyt's image was awful before his ECW appearance. That makeover was needed if anybody was to take him seriously in WWE. Yeah, every other new guy that debuts.. like Sheamus, Yoshi Tatsu, Drew McIntyre. etc. Identical. As far as underutilized TNA talent goes, you act as if TNA has never pushed or made guys big who WWE dropped the ball on originally. Like oh, Christian, Matt Morgan, Tomko... No clue when I implied that at any point. But aside from money, you know people are leaving because they feel like they'll actually be used well in WWE. And obviously WWE is guilty of the same thing. Case in point: Rhyno. They never saw any value in him. And Bret Hart put him over in interviews on a regular basis. And why even bring up Christian? He left on good terms and came back after practically a 3 year vacation. I never liked Hoyt anyway. I was glad when TNA released him. I hope he finds some success but with that look and this match I wasn't that impressed. I like how EVERY new guy that debuts now just squashes jobbers when they show up for weeks like its still the 80s and that actually impresses anyone. At least when people debut on TNA they are placed into actual angles and storylines and allowed to get by on the merits of their talent rather than how well they can big boot some 130 pound nobody. It's like I said.. WWE and TNA.. two different companies. WWE knows how to run a wrestling company and TNA doesn't. That is why TNA has had multiple makeovers and it's why Heyman [factually] claims that they don't have a brand. So call me crazy, but I'll give WWE the benefit of the doubt if they don't ALWAYS make your jaw hit the floor because a debut wasn't 10 stars out of 5.
|
|
|
Post by I Like Your Poetry on Nov 4, 2009 17:54:14 GMT -5
5 pages of people judging a man off one match consisting of a slap, a push through the ropes, and one Scoop Slam Neckbreaker.
He's not a technician, but I'll give him the benefit of a doubt. It's not like he actually made me cringe like the "Hands On My Hips" dude.
|
|
Krimzon
Crow T. Robot
This guy is the man!
R.I.P. Deadpool
Posts: 43,870
|
Post by Krimzon on Nov 4, 2009 18:21:51 GMT -5
This is pro wrestling in 2009. A wrestler's first impression is REALLY important and can make or break them. If they have an uninspired first impression, it'll be hard for people to get behind them. See Kizarny, Braddock, Scotty Goldman, Tyler Reks, Gavin Spears, Braden Walker, DJ Gabriel, etc. Guys like CM Punk, Kofi Kingston, & Evan Bourne all had fantastic debuts that really hooked some people. They can't have a guy that can do what Hoyt can go out there and do next to nothing in his debut. EVERYBODY needs to impress on their first time out. No excuses.
People that remember Hoyt from TNA are let down the most. We know he can be a decent talent in the ring, but after watching the immense lack of effort by all parties during his debut, we can't help but to judge him. It was awful. Everything about his debut was as forgetfully unimpressive as it could've been. The WWE is using the same tired, old formula that they've been using for decades when it comes to debuting big men. Times are different and they NEED to change with them. Would it kill them to debut a guy and put him in a good, competitive match with somebody that's not utterly worthless? Even if he doesn't win, he could still impress. Evan Bourne lost his first match and people loved him because he didn't look like a complete waste of time.
Everybody says "you can't judge a guy off of his first match." Bullshit. How often are we wrong when a guy has a dreadful debut and we say they won't last long/amount to anything?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2009 18:27:46 GMT -5
Even Bourne had a good debut? He was given a jobber entrance against Shelton then beaten like a normal local athlete The Major's had an uninspring debut and now Zack Ryder's doing well and Hawkins is training in FCW Elijah Burke had a good debut with Terkay now both are gone Kofi's debut was a botchfest because his first jobber sucked Mike Knox's debut was as Kelly's jealous boyfreind now he's doing well Hell Batista blew at first now he's one of the biggest stars in the E
|
|
|
Post by I Like Your Poetry on Nov 4, 2009 18:30:15 GMT -5
This is pro wrestling in 2009. A wrestler's first impression is REALLY important and can make or break them. If they have an uninspired first impression, it'll be hard for people to get behind them. See Kizarny, Braddock, Scotty Goldman, Tyler Reks, Gavin Spears, Braden Walker, DJ Gabriel, etc. Guys like CM Punk, Kofi Kingston, & Evan Bourne all had fantastic debuts that really hooked some people. They can't have a guy that can do what Hoyt can go out there and do next to nothing in his debut. EVERYBODY needs to impress on their first time out. No excuses. People that remember Hoyt from TNA are let down the most. We know he can be a decent talent in the ring, but after watching the immense lack of effort by all parties during his debut, we can't help but to judge him. It was awful. Everything about his debut was as forgetfully unimpressive as it could've been. The WWE is using the same tired, old formula that they've been using for decades when it comes to debuting big men. Times are different and they NEED to change with them. Would it kill them to debut a guy and put him in a good, competitive match with somebody that's not utterly worthless? Even if he doesn't win, he could still impress. Evan Bourne lost his first match and people loved him because he didn't look like a complete waste of time. Everybody says "you can't judge a guy off of his first match." Bulls***. How often are we wrong when a guy has a dreadful debut and we say they won't last long/amount to anything? I remember people shat all over the Rocky Maivia and Randy Orton debuts.
|
|
Krimzon
Crow T. Robot
This guy is the man!
R.I.P. Deadpool
Posts: 43,870
|
Post by Krimzon on Nov 4, 2009 18:32:39 GMT -5
This is pro wrestling in 2009. A wrestler's first impression is REALLY important and can make or break them. If they have an uninspired first impression, it'll be hard for people to get behind them. See Kizarny, Braddock, Scotty Goldman, Tyler Reks, Gavin Spears, Braden Walker, DJ Gabriel, etc. Guys like CM Punk, Kofi Kingston, & Evan Bourne all had fantastic debuts that really hooked some people. They can't have a guy that can do what Hoyt can go out there and do next to nothing in his debut. EVERYBODY needs to impress on their first time out. No excuses. People that remember Hoyt from TNA are let down the most. We know he can be a decent talent in the ring, but after watching the immense lack of effort by all parties during his debut, we can't help but to judge him. It was awful. Everything about his debut was as forgetfully unimpressive as it could've been. The WWE is using the same tired, old formula that they've been using for decades when it comes to debuting big men. Times are different and they NEED to change with them. Would it kill them to debut a guy and put him in a good, competitive match with somebody that's not utterly worthless? Even if he doesn't win, he could still impress. Evan Bourne lost his first match and people loved him because he didn't look like a complete waste of time. Everybody says "you can't judge a guy off of his first match." Bulls***. How often are we wrong when a guy has a dreadful debut and we say they won't last long/amount to anything? I remember people shat all over the Rocky Maivia and Randy Orton debuts. Yeah, but at least some creative effort was put into them. And come on. Those are 2 3rd generation prodigies.
|
|
|
Post by Slammy Award-Winning Cannibal on Nov 4, 2009 19:02:04 GMT -5
Yeah, but nothing. I think everyone on this forum can agree there is no exact formula to success in WWE. Jeff Hardy.. what are you gonna say about him? He was an endless jobber that grew into a credible tag team wrestler to wrestling sensation. Hunter Hearst Helmsley, anyone? Isaac Yankem DDS. Edge? A wrestler's first impression means jack squat in them succeeding over time. I think some people imagine the WWE Creative to go like this: "So XYZ Wrestler. How's his development been so far?" "He's been doing well. He's listening, he's got a good attitude, his character is solid and he's learning at an incredible rate." "But how was his debut?" "Um...." " How was his debut?" "It was OK, I guess. Could've been a lot better. However, he--" "Release him." "But sir, he's really grown wi--" "I said RELEASE HIM." "Sigh. As you wish, sir."
|
|
|
Post by I Like Your Poetry on Nov 4, 2009 19:04:42 GMT -5
I remember people shat all over the Rocky Maivia and Randy Orton debuts. Yeah, but at least some creative effort was put into them. And come on. Those are 2 3rd generation prodigies. Fine..then Edge. He both pretended to snap and actually snapped a Boricua's neck.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 4, 2009 19:31:21 GMT -5
Everyone judged Braden Walker by his first match. Including WWE themselves. [/quote] Well, when you have a terrible match and you look like garbage, you're kinda opening the door to being judged. If you think Harris and Hoyt left the same first impression in their respective WWE debut matches, you're out to lunch. Sorry. [/blockquote] I thought Walker always sucked except when he was in AMW so it matters little to me. I was just making a point that WWE themseles judge newbies after a couple matches most of the time. How many guys have they dumped in the past 4 years or so because they didnt get over right away? I cant compare Hoyt to Harris since Hoyt beat a jobber in three moves. That wasn't even a wrestling match. I never saw anything special about him in TNA though, so I doubt anything will change now that he is going to be wrestling the standard WWE big man style of big boot, standing Spinebuster, Pumphandle Slam match over. Especially with him looking to have all the character and look of a really tall Lance Storm. I will give him as much of a chance as anyone, and it really isn't his fault either, I am just sick of WWEs same tired old formula of debuting anyone. They debut a guy, pretend he has never wrestled before, he beats up some skinny loser in a minute and we are supposed to suddenly be expected to care. Its just not the best way of showing anyone off. Again I'll say: Hoyt's image was awful before his ECW appearance. That makeover was needed if anybody was to take him seriously in WWE. Yeah, every other new guy that debuts.. like Sheamus, Yoshi Tatsu, Drew McIntyre. etc. Identical. He looked like Test or Nash, they didnt have any problems getting over with a similar look and it isn't TNAs fault he decided to get an awful tramp stamp, that is all on him. Hes a big guy from Texas...so whats the problem with him having long hair and a beard? Long hair, beard and leather pants worked for Taker, Nash, Test, plenty of others. At least his name wasn't VANCE. No clue when I implied that at any point. But aside from money, you know people are leaving because they feel like they'll actually be used well in WWE. And obviously WWE is guilty of the same thing. Case in point: Rhyno. They never saw any value in him. And Bret Hart put him over in interviews on a regular basis. And why even bring up Christian? He left on good terms and came back after practically a 3 year vacation. I brought it up because you made it sound like you were saying WWE knows how to better use guys TNA couldn't. Thus far I wouldn't say that. R Truth hasn't done anything more in WWE than TNA, in fact less since during his TNA career he held titles. Braden Walker got dropped from TNA and went on to do nothing. Gail Kim went from the top womens wrestler in North America to a jobber. About the only guy you could make a case for is CM Punk, but when he was in TNA he was still learning his craft and he left because they wouldn't let him work ROH, something WWE would have never let him do either. So thus far I wouldn't say WWE has any great track record for using TNA castoffs. I would definitely say its the other way around. Christian wasn't seen as a main eventer in WWE until he returned from, surprise, a main event run in TNA. TNA was the first place to really give him a chance, in WWE he was never above midcard and usually a comedy heel jobber at best. It's like I said.. WWE and TNA.. two different companies. WWE knows how to run a wrestling company and TNA doesn't. That is why TNA has had multiple makeovers and it's why Heyman [factually] claims that they don't have a brand. So call me crazy, but I'll give WWE the benefit of the doubt if they don't ALWAYS make your jaw hit the floor because a debut wasn't 10 stars out of 5. TNA has been in existence 7 years. WWE have been around 57. Do you really expect TNA to be as on the ball now as WWE with a 50 year start in brand recognition and everything else that goes into running a wrestling company? Makeovers? WWE hasn't essentially had a complete makeover in the past few years? Todays WWE is barely recognizable from eight years ago at this point. I am complaining about the debut because it the same boring old crap. I hope it gets better but I expect Mr. Archer to be squashing jobbers for quite awhile as the announcers shout about how big and strong he is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2009 19:43:21 GMT -5
Alexis Laree,Jethro Holliday and Antonio Banks could both easily be considered better used by WWE than TNA Contrarily Elijah Burke,Daivari and Stevie Richards can be easily said to be better used in TNA Everybody has guys they use better or worse than others
Big Guys debut they squash people in WWE TNA's done it as well with Monty Brown and Matt Morgan Also what's wrong with the name Vance?
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 4, 2009 19:56:23 GMT -5
Alexis Laree,Jethro Holliday and Antonio Banks could both easily be considered better used by WWE than TNA Contrarily Elijah Burke,Daivari and Stevie Richards can be easily said to be better used in TNA Everybody has guys they use better or worse than others Big Guys debut they squash people in WWE TNA's done it as well with Monty Brown and Matt Morgan Also what's wrong with the name Vance? That is true and I wouldn't dispute it. It was the same for WCW and WWF. To be honest with MVP, he was really new to the business and not under contract though, so I cant really say TNA didn't use him WELL. Also, TNA dropped the ball with Monty Brown, but the way his career went eventually it probably didn't matter since he would have ended up retiring either way. Its not that I have a problem with the big guy debuting and squashing guys, I have a problem with WWE having them do it for months with no direction or storyline and then wondering why people dont care. Theres a world of difference between something like a Snitsky or Umaga debut and this. Whats wrong with the name Gunner Scott?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2009 20:00:07 GMT -5
Alexis Laree,Jethro Holliday and Antonio Banks could both easily be considered better used by WWE than TNA Contrarily Elijah Burke,Daivari and Stevie Richards can be easily said to be better used in TNA Everybody has guys they use better or worse than others Big Guys debut they squash people in WWE TNA's done it as well with Monty Brown and Matt Morgan Also what's wrong with the name Vance? That is true and I wouldn't dispute it. It was the same for WCW and WWF. To be honest with MVP, he was really new to the business and not under contract though, so I cant really say TNA didn't use him WELL. Also, TNA dropped the ball with Monty Brown, but the way his career went eventually it probably didn't matter since he would have ended up retiring either way. Its not that I have a problem with the big guy debuting and squashing guys, I have a problem with WWE having them do it for months with no direction or storyline and then wondering why people dont care. Theres a world of difference between something like a Snitsky or Umaga debut and this. Whats wrong with the name Gunner Scott? Gunner Scott was an inside joke cause he liked to Hunt wasn't it? Well he's only had the one match so far Hell the only guy who's still really yet to have a feud in WWE today is Chris Masters who just seems content to occasionally squash Santino If L/Vance is still doing three move squashes a month from now I'd agree completly But the whole spree of Jobber Squashing with no storyline seems to have died with Ricky Ortiz's release
|
|
|
Post by Slammy Award-Winning Cannibal on Nov 4, 2009 20:20:55 GMT -5
TNA has been in existence 7 years. WWE have been around 57. Do you really expect TNA to be as on the ball now as WWE with a 50 year start in brand recognition and everything else that goes into running a wrestling company? Makeovers? WWE hasn't essentially had a complete makeover in the past few years? Todays WWE is barely recognizable from eight years ago at this point. You're confusing brand recognition with branding. WWE has ALWAYS had a clear focus on how to run a wrestling company. They are essentially doing the exact same thing they've always done. But TNA has no distinct style and no brand. the old ECW had a very clear brand: the style, the tone, the product.. everything about it made it a unique brand. and TNA has never had one and my point was that it unfortunately speaks to their sloppy way of building stars and in turn building their company. Which brought me back to my point that Vance Archer, the ECW version, is better packaged than the Lance Hoyt of TNA.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 4, 2009 20:28:50 GMT -5
TNA has been in existence 7 years. WWE have been around 57. Do you really expect TNA to be as on the ball now as WWE with a 50 year start in brand recognition and everything else that goes into running a wrestling company? Makeovers? WWE hasn't essentially had a complete makeover in the past few years? Todays WWE is barely recognizable from eight years ago at this point. You're confusing brand recognition with branding. WWE has ALWAYS had a clear focus on how to run a wrestling company. They are essentially doing the exact same thing they've always done. But TNA has no distinct style and no brand. the old ECW had a very clear brand: the style, the tone, the product.. everything about it made it a unique brand. and TNA has never had one and my point was that it unfortunately speaks to their sloppy way of building stars and in turn building their company. Which brought me back to my point that Vance Archer, the ECW version, is better packaged than the Lance Hoyt of TNA. That sounds more like an opinion than a fact to me. WWE definitely arent doing the same things they have always done. Gimmick PPVs, Scripted promos, Most guys have generic names with no real gimmick, Most divisions that used to be there gone, PG to the point of no blood. Compare year 2000 WWE to now, it seems very different. You say they have a sloppy way of building stars yet I am looking at AJ Styles, TNA Champion, Matt Morgan, a guy like Eric Young who has pulled a complete 180 from his past direction and is currently very over, Beer Money, Desmond Wolfe who only debuted a few weeks ago and is already a huge deal. WWE have been at LEAST as sloppy as TNA in building new guys. Again, I point you to the multitude of guys who have been released after getting pushed and flopping over the past five years. WWE isn't infallible by any means.
|
|
|
Post by Slammy Award-Winning Cannibal on Nov 4, 2009 21:39:15 GMT -5
I've never said WWE is infallible. Of course they screw up. They've screw up far more than TNA... they've had 50 more years to do it.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Nov 4, 2009 22:17:30 GMT -5
lousy opening. His look makes him look like an evil version of one of the guys from Scrubs His stare was intense sure, but his moves weren't. He came across more as an oppurtunist than anything. His finisher is weak. He should use a pumphandle slam or the running big boot if he really wants to come across as nasty.
|
|