TNA - the anti-Paul Heyman affect?

[Lance Uppercut]

I remember another poster here pointed out that it wasn't TNA botching angles and pushes more like it was that TNA seemed like it had this ability to show everybody's true colors without the E's overcontrolling PR team.

Is it us, jaded wrestling fans who's negativity is just radiating from TNA to its workers, or do most of the WWE guys we loved in WWE really do suck/are crazy and we're just now noticing it in TNA?

I think now that the blinders are off, since most of us grew up on the E but kind of hate it cause of what they do, we can now see the faults of our IWC darlings.

Mickie James has been sloppy and botchy for years, but everyone overlooked it cause "she was one of the good divas" and "OMG Laycool is totally burying her and calling her fat". But now that she's TNA everyone's pretty much meh on her. She's pretty much reverted to her hick roots, her matches aren't as interesting, trying to get fans to support her deluded fantasy of being a country singer.

There's too many to list, but everyone's heard the complaints and stories.

Tara
Anderson
The Hardy's (even crazier than we though)
Angle
RVD

[Andrew is Good]

Her and ODB had a great match the other week.

[comahan]

I think Mickie's been fine, and much better in TNA than she was over her last year or two in WWE.

[probable]

Aug 30, 2011 13:43:27 GMT -5 comahan said:

I think Mickie's been fine, and much better in TNA than she was over her last year or two in WWE.

She seems legit less happy on TV though. She was always BEAMING coming out on Raw, but then, I guess the bigger crowds may do that.

[comahan]

Aug 30, 2011 13:52:56 GMT -5 probable said:

Aug 30, 2011 13:43:27 GMT -5 comahan said:

I think Mickie's been fine, and much better in TNA than she was over her last year or two in WWE.

She seems legit less happy on TV though. She was always BEAMING coming out on Raw, but then, I guess the bigger crowds may do that.

She was also a 'happy go lucky' character in late WWE, where shes more of a 'serious country brawler' character in TNA. I mean, you could be right, but im just throwing that out there.

[lildude8218]

I can't help but think back to the constant outrage from people on here who said Katie Lea Burchill was getting completely wasted in WWE and how she was one of the best female workers in America but now I see....not that.

[MrBRulzOK]

TNA simply doesn't know how to hide people's weaknesses and extenuate their strengths.

[Celgress]

Aug 30, 2011 13:43:27 GMT -5 comahan said:

I think Mickie's been fine, and much better in TNA than she was over her last year or two in WWE.

agreed

[Celgress]

Aug 30, 2011 14:33:47 GMT -5 MrBRulzOK said:

TNA simply doesn't know how to hide people's weaknesses and extenuate their strengths.

indeed

[NashMark]

My opinion: It's typical anti-TNA bias distorting some people's views. These people interpret everything TNA does in the worst way possible and blow it way out of proportion.

[MrBRulzOK]

Aug 30, 2011 15:35:03 GMT -5 NashMark said:

My opinion: It's typical anti-TNA bias distorting some people's views. These people interpret everything TNA does in the worst way possible and blow it way out of proportion.

I'm one of the biggest TNAysayers on this board, but I can tell you right now that I have no problem with most of the talents on the roster. Heck, if they were in any other company than I would be more than happy to watch them on a weekly basis. In fact I'd be happy to give them another chance if they just did some sort of overhaul with the product.

It's just the booking that keeps me away.

It's like if you have a group of amazing actors, but for some reason they can only find work with the sleaziest and sloppiest of directors and production companies. Being surrounded by so much taint can be enough to lower your opinion of the people involved there. It may not necessarily be their fault, but when you primarily see them in that sort of environment over enough time then it can eventually lower your opinion of them.

Talent can only get you so far if you don't know how to utilize it effectively. And judging from the past few years TNA clearly has not.

[BrodietheSlayer]

Aug 30, 2011 13:27:38 GMT -5 Lance Uppercut said:

I remember another poster here pointed out that it wasn't TNA botching angles and pushes more like it was that TNA seemed like it had this ability to show everybody's true colors without the E's overcontrolling PR team.

Is it us, jaded wrestling fans who's negativity is just radiating from TNA to its workers, or do most of the WWE guys we loved in WWE really do suck/are crazy and we're just now noticing it in TNA?

I think now that the blinders are off, since most of us grew up on the E but kind of hate it cause of what they do, we can now see the faults of our IWC darlings.

Mickie James has been sloppy and botchy for years, but everyone overlooked it cause "she was one of the good divas" and "OMG Laycool is totally burying her and calling her fat". But now that she's TNA everyone's pretty much meh on her. She's pretty much reverted to her hick roots, her matches aren't as interesting, trying to get fans to support her deluded fantasy of being a country singer.

There's too many to list, but everyone's heard the complaints and stories.

Tara
Anderson
The Hardy's (even crazier than we though)
Angle
RVD

I think it's kind of true, as a previous poster stated, TNA is NOT very good at hiding weaknesses/bringing out strengths the way Paul Heyman/ECW was, which is really bad for TNA, as they need someone in charge who IS able to do that. TNA needs to lead with their best foot forward, as they're not going to get the slack that WWE has earned over the years.

Another part of it IS the booking.....I mean, as much as people say that TNA should sign (Insert WWE/ROH/Indy Name here), what would be the point, as within a month or two, that person would just be another face in the crowd, so to speak. Russo's "Even Playing Field" philosophy kind of fails here, as there DOES have to be some sort of pecking order in order to make STARS.

And a final part of it is the talent themselves.....wrestlers like RVD, Matt Hardy, Samoa Joe, ect. seem like they're just phoning it in because they ARE. They realize that no great change is going to happen in TNA as long as the current people in power stay in power, so, they're just doing what a lot of the guys in WCW did towards the end.....collect those paychecks and do the minimum effort to get by....and hope that when TNA inevitably dies that WWE will show interest in them.

So, I think everyone is at fault here, but the main problems still go back to TNA itself, how it's run, and who runs creative. Because you can have the best actors in the world, but if you have no clue on how to use them, your creative project will FAIL. Pure talent will only get you so far.

[gnr123]

TNA seems to be the place where people expose themselves. Angle for being a medicore wrestler, Anderson for being a piece of s*** worker, The Hardy's for being complete wrecks and uncaring of fans and the company as a whole. It's like, when your in WWE, your flaws are hidden becuase there's alot more better talent in WWE that you can work with, in TNA, you just do what you want (as evidence "let me be me.") Angle need's people to carry him to good matches becuase if there's somebodsy who is not a good worker, it turns into a snoozefest.

There's also the every 3 week annual heel/face turn, the old irrelevant men facing eachother, the nonsense storylines, and Immortal. TNA need's complete overhaul of management and personal, get Dixie out of there beucase she's just a "mark," get somebody who know's what to do (and no, not Paul Heyman) and create a top face. Become the altenative, don't care and take pot-shots at WWE (the whole "Wrestling Matters," campaign was only becuase WWE rebranded) and become TNA, or Impact Wrestling, or whatever the hell their calling themselves. You have to try and become as big as WWE to even become a threat, because right now their not even a blip of Vince McMahon's radar. Putting billboard's out of WWE headquaters, having commercials during WWE, moving to Mondays for 2 months, doesn't do anything.

And, off topic, but what the hell is the Paul Heyman affect? What, taking a drunk and putting him out as a drunk, having a guy botch like his life depends on it? Seriously, Heyman has nothnig to do with today's wrestling. If anything, both Heyman in ECW, and Bischoff with WCW and TNA both are the anti-McMahon affect. Having a top face, support characters, legends to put over the young talent. Seriously, where is Heyman's and Bischoff's first companys, in WWE's video library.

[Deleted]

Aug 30, 2011 14:33:47 GMT -5 MrBRulzOK said:

TNA simply doesn't know how to hide people's weaknesses and extenuate their strengths.

I disagree.

Other than trying to turn AJ Styles into Ric Flair in 2010 (AJ simply doesn't have the charisma for that), TNA has been pretty good at letting their talent shine with their own personalities. Pushing them properly is a different story.

For example, Pope's strength is his ability on the mic. So back when they actually wanted to push him (2010 basically), they let him shine on the mic. Motor City Machine Guns are not very good talkers (at least from what I have seen), but they were pushed as the best tag team in wrestling without having to talk on the mic. Bully Ray is playing a classic coward bullying heel almost to perfection because that's probably an extension of his personality and his strength is his mic ability. I could go on.

TNA has a ton of faults, but for the most part, they are letting their talent be themselves (with exceptions like Robbie E) and not trying to turn them into characters or trying to have them play roles they cannot play.

I would say TNA's problem is their booking and yo-yo pushes. Their characters and talent is top notch, IMO. If Pope, Morgan, Joe, AJ, Roode, Storm, etc, were main eventing with the same characters they currently have, would people be upset about that? Of course not. Their characters and personalities are not the problem. It is the person writing their storylines.

(insert Vince Russo smiling picture.....)

[cabbageboy]

I think some of this is that most of these guys don't care at all about being in TNA, thus the lazy nature is revealed and bad habits show up. Some people like the Hardys were alredy sinking ships when WWE let them go. RVD had been largely inactive for 3 years when he signed with TNA. If WWE saw anything in Anderson they wouldn't have cut him with zero fanfare. And Angle? The guy is a ticking time bomb that WWE was probably wise to cut. At least in TNA he can wrestle more or less part time and not kill himself.

[Lance Uppercut]

Aug 30, 2011 16:35:31 GMT -5 gnr123 said:

And, off topic, but what the hell is the Paul Heyman affect? What, taking a drunk and putting him out as a drunk, having a guy botch like his life depends on it? Seriously, Heyman has nothnig to do with today's wrestling. If anything, both Heyman in ECW, and Bischoff with WCW and TNA both are the anti-McMahon affect. Having a top face, support characters, legends to put over the young talent. Seriously, where is Heyman's and Bischoff's first companys, in WWE's video library.

I used Heyman as an adjective because he's most well known for hiding a person's flaws and accentuating their positives and making their wrestlers look better than they were.

[HMARK Center]

It's an interesting question; I think when it comes to booking characters, TNA's alright at letting guys utilize their strengths, by and large.

Where TNA fails to emphasize strengths/cover weaknesses, however, is simply in it's choices of match ups.

Too often, TNA booking feels like guys are paired off into matches, and sometimes even into feuds, based on tosses at a dart board. This is NOT the way to plan things out in wrestling.

If you're going to pair two guys together, you need to make sure they're two guys who can play off one another well: on the mic, in the ring, etc. etc. Samoa Joe and the Pope may both be good workers, very good characters, and capable talkers (and in Pope's case a very charismatic one), but does that mean they necessarily mesh well together? It's incumbent upon the booker to think that throw and figure that out before tossing them into a feud or high profile match together.

[Deleted]

Aug 30, 2011 17:53:29 GMT -5 cabbageboy said:

I think some of this is that most of these guys don't care at all about being in TNA, thus the lazy nature is revealed and bad habits show up. Some people like the Hardys were alredy sinking ships when WWE let them go. RVD had been largely inactive for 3 years when he signed with TNA. If WWE saw anything in Anderson they wouldn't have cut him with zero fanfare. And Angle? The guy is a ticking time bomb that WWE was probably wise to cut. At least in TNA he can wrestle more or less part time and not kill himself.

Jeff was good in TNA prior to his incident with Sting. He had good matches with Angle, RVD, Styles, Beer Money, etc, and his heel persona (while foolish to turn him heel) was pretty well played. I don't think "letting him be himself" effected his work from a character standpoint. It was more his real life drug addiction that messed him up.

RVD was always sloppy and repetitive, but in TNA he is older and going through the motions (as opposed to 2001-2006 in WWE when he was younger and a little more interested). I don't think there is much TNA can do with him, other than maybe turn him heel and give him a fresh look. I always thought RVD should have played the cocky "I'm too cool for this place" heel character in TNA. Would have been better than his babyface run.

Anderson is being himself, and that is both good and bad. I thought his heel work pre-Hardy feud in 2010 was excellent. Once he uttered the word "asshole" and turned face he never recovered.

[HMARK Center]

Aug 30, 2011 18:14:48 GMT -5 @conebone69 said:

Aug 30, 2011 17:53:29 GMT -5 cabbageboy said:

I think some of this is that most of these guys don't care at all about being in TNA, thus the lazy nature is revealed and bad habits show up. Some people like the Hardys were alredy sinking ships when WWE let them go. RVD had been largely inactive for 3 years when he signed with TNA. If WWE saw anything in Anderson they wouldn't have cut him with zero fanfare. And Angle? The guy is a ticking time bomb that WWE was probably wise to cut. At least in TNA he can wrestle more or less part time and not kill himself.

Jeff was good in TNA prior to his incident with Sting. He had good matches with Angle, RVD, Styles, Beer Money, etc, and his heel persona (while foolish to turn him heel) was pretty well played. I don't think "letting him be himself" effected his work from a character standpoint. It was more his real life drug addiction that messed him up.

RVD was always sloppy and repetitive, but in TNA he is older and going through the motions (as opposed to 2001-2006 in WWE when he was younger and a little more interested). I don't think there is much TNA can do with him, other than maybe turn him heel and give him a fresh look. I always thought RVD should have played the cocky "I'm too cool for this place" heel character in TNA. Would have been better than his babyface run.

Anderson is being himself, and that is both good and bad. I thought his heel work pre-Hardy feud in 2010 was excellent. Once he uttered the word "asshole" and turned face he never recovered.

Agreed; I remember ordering the PPV where he faced Pope in a tournament final, he was fantastic in the heel role then.

[Vice honcho room temperature]

Aug 30, 2011 18:14:02 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

It's an interesting question; I think when it comes to booking characters, TNA's alright at letting guys utilize their strengths, by and large.

Where TNA fails to emphasize strengths/cover weaknesses, however, is simply in it's choices of match ups.

Too often, TNA booking feels like guys are paired off into matches, and sometimes even into feuds, based on tosses at a dart board. This is NOT the way to plan things out in wrestling.

If you're going to pair two guys together, you need to make sure they're two guys who can play off one another well: on the mic, in the ring, etc. etc. Samoa Joe and the Pope may both be good workers, very good characters, and capable talkers (and in Pope's case a very charismatic one), but does that mean they necessarily mesh well together? It's incumbent upon the booker to think that throw and figure that out before tossing them into a feud or high profile match together.

To be fair sometimes you don't know if a match could work until you book. And sometimes you think its going to be great and the matches just fizzle. Sure its on them to abort the feud if its that bad.