|
Post by THE Dinobot on Dec 14, 2006 20:21:34 GMT -5
First of all, the reverse Battle Royal is something that got far more negative criticism then it should have. Much like the King of the Mountain stipulation, it's a simple concept that people make to much of just to make themselves confused about what's going on within the match. Sure, the five man main event from last week show was rushed, but as pointed out by HMark before hand, it may have just been to progress the top storyline(s) in the oh, so important final segment of the show before the pay-per-view.
If most people hadn't a clue that Russo was behind the book currently, there would still be complaints, but they wouldn't be so heavy. That name just draws negativity from the past that some people just won't let go. And maybe that's rightfully so.
Solely based on the year of 2006, the crap factor is dumped more-so in the favor of the WWE. Meaning that as a fan of both.
|
|
|
Post by Kevwhatshisname on Dec 14, 2006 21:06:26 GMT -5
As for WWE, for all the crap they've provided... They have some of the greatest moments in professional wrestling history and one of the greatest legacies to fall back on. TNA has the Flying Elvises, the Johnsons, and a midget playing with himself in a trash can. That's why I'm a harder judge on TNA. Thats the problem with some fans, they will give WWE the benefit of the doubt. So what WWE HAS done great things, but when in the last 6 years? Name me an Stone Cold vs. Vince like angle. WWE has been crap for years but TNA can have a bad ppv and people are counting down the days until Vince kills them. Even though I quoted this guy, I'm not pointing his out. It just seems people rather wait for WWE to be great again than check out anything else, or check it out and lose patience quicker than they would WWE.
|
|
"IcePic" Rick Cobos
Don Corleone
www.ericbischoff.com - some great comedy material!!!
Posts: 2,002
|
Post by "IcePic" Rick Cobos on Dec 14, 2006 21:47:38 GMT -5
Regardless, I usually end up less than impressed each time I watch either company's product, and while they sometimes surprise me by not completely burying the future stars, I always expect the worst after what happened in WCW. I prefer this attitude because guess what? If the worst happens, I expected it, and thus, I'm not disappointed. If the worst doesn't happen, good news, because it's better than I expected, and a pleasant surprise. How could I possibly be disappointed when I actually expect to not got my money's worth?
|
|
Boku AKA Da Green Guy
El Dandy
WC's Resident Pirate Otaku and Official Scapegoat
Always and Forever, Hurricane.
Posts: 8,371
|
Post by Boku AKA Da Green Guy on Dec 14, 2006 22:14:33 GMT -5
As for WWE, for all the crap they've provided... They have some of the greatest moments in professional wrestling history and one of the greatest legacies to fall back on. TNA has the Flying Elvises, the Johnsons, and a midget playing with himself in a trash can. That's why I'm a harder judge on TNA. Thats the problem with some fans, they will give WWE the benefit of the doubt. So what WWE HAS done great things, but when in the last 6 years? Name me an Stone Cold vs. Vince like angle. WWE has been crap for years but TNA can have a bad ppv and people are counting down the days until Vince kills them. Even though I quoted this guy, I'm not pointing his out. It just seems people rather wait for WWE to be great again than check out anything else, or check it out and lose patience quicker than they would WWE. In the last six years? Wrestlemania XX: Beniot and Eddie. And that's just one thing. Edit: And yes the WWE hasn't had an Austin/Vince angle level in quite some time. But again, TNA has never had one. You may called me a blind WWE mark, but I'm just saying how I look at the two. I'm giving TNA my time by fairly watching before deciding like some others have. But if you gave me an either or question, right now I would take WWE.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Dec 14, 2006 22:31:18 GMT -5
I think it also has to do with Vince Russo hate, moreso then TNA. People have been saying that TNA would die and overexaggerate things for a very long time. Kinda like when people say that about the WWE, that it's slowly dying, which it's far from doing so.
I felt the Fight for The Right tournament is just nominated simply because it's disliked, and not because there's anything overly crappy about it. It's the same thing as The Miz. People nominate an annoying weasly heel for being, well, annoying and weasly. It's like nominating Rick Rude because he's arrogant.
I also believe as said above, TNA is made out to be a flawless entity, when it has it's flaws. It's had its flaws long before Russo got in. But just like me with the WWE, there are flaws, but at the end of the day, you watch the show to be entertained, and I feel that with both companies.
|
|
|
Post by thwak is T.hawk on Dec 14, 2006 22:53:03 GMT -5
hell I personally think the worst thing TNA did this year was the jackass angle and that didn't even involve russo.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 14, 2006 23:08:45 GMT -5
That seriously gets annoying, when every 3 months or so, we have "The Worst iMPACT episode ever" because this guy didn't get a win or this guy not finishing the match like they wanted it to. There always seems to be this quota of quality that TNA must always reach because they have to. Also, the association with Russo doesn't help. No matter what, the prejudice happens due to gilt by association. Vince Russo is the devil, Paul Heyman is the savior, BG & Kip James are the worst people on the planet and CM Punk is the greatest thing ever, at least until next week.
|
|
"IcePic" Rick Cobos
Don Corleone
www.ericbischoff.com - some great comedy material!!!
Posts: 2,002
|
Post by "IcePic" Rick Cobos on Dec 14, 2006 23:11:21 GMT -5
Paul Heyman is far, far from a savior. He personifies everything that is wrong with the writing team: no accountability, disorganized, not getting storylines turned into the office on time (late by a FEW WEEKS?!?!?!?!), and using the "Vince is castrating my writing" excuse.
|
|
|
Post by James Fabiano on Dec 14, 2006 23:44:26 GMT -5
My question is, if not WWE, and if not TNA, then who? Is there anything else that'll "save" wrestling for us? Or should we just accept that this is no longer the "sport" we grew up enjoying, for various reasons, and look into old tapes and DVDs as our main source of getting something positive out of it? (Heck, I do just that nowadays)
|
|
|
Post by Jason Todd Grisham on Dec 14, 2006 23:58:15 GMT -5
Paul Heyman is far, far from a savior. He personifies everything that is wrong with the writing team: no accountability, disorganized, not getting storylines turned into the office on time (late by a FEW WEEKS?!?!?!?!), and using the "Vince is castrating my writing" excuse. Yeah, now I can understand why Stephanie didn't like him. He did well writing for the bush league ECW promotion, but he can't work for a large company. He was too disorganized and passive agressive and got on everyone's nerves. Not discounting his booking genius, but working at a company like WWE was never well suited for him. He needs to work at a company that works on his terms.
|
|
|
Post by thwak is T.hawk on Dec 15, 2006 0:00:55 GMT -5
My question is, if not WWE, and if not TNA, then who? Is there anything else that'll "save" wrestling for us? Or should we just accept that this is no longer the "sport" we grew up enjoying, for various reasons, and look into old tapes and DVDs as our main source of getting something positive out of it? (Heck, I do just that nowadays) chikara will save wrestling.
|
|
vinniemac
Don Corleone
No Chance In Hell
Posts: 1,967
|
Post by vinniemac on Dec 15, 2006 0:09:40 GMT -5
I've gotta say, ever since Russo took over at TNA, I've noticed a very odd (to me) trend. It seems to me that most people here have a very low tolerance for crap in TNA; much lower than they seem to have for the 'E. An astute and accurate observation on your part. I think that so many here are under the age of thirty and have no litmus test to gage their observations upon. They grew up with the WWF and therefore view it as some kind of standard barer (even though WWF/E has always been the worst - aesthetically - the business has ever offered). If something smaller does the McCrappitude they rag on it. If it doesn't do it WWE style they crap on it. This is regardless of them actually liking WWE programming or having weened themselves away from it. To a much lesser extent, I get the impression that those of us over the age of thirty will either be objective about TNA (since we have perspective and a firm memory of life before the McMonster pillaged the squared circle of mainstream, North American professional wrestling) and hold it to its own standards of criticism, or to a broader scale that does not have the McKool Aid poured into our frame of criticism. Great post, and again, a great observation that was dead on. Same applies to your analysis for the FFYR Russo booking clusterf@#k. In my opinion, the WWE exemplifies the definition (and stands as the embodiment) of all that IS "Wrestlecrap." Talent is wasted, never-should-bes are forced (much more than "pushed") in their talky, tired, clumsy product. Hell, they are even driving away their actual talent. While TNA has its lows it never can match the sucking, festering, wound that is WWE booking: on whole and in part.
|
|
Joekishi
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,490
|
Post by Joekishi on Dec 15, 2006 0:18:48 GMT -5
Actually what i get is, that people are judging WWE just as harsh as they are TNA, the thing is TNA is younger than WWE so it seems like they are judged more harsh
|
|
Boku AKA Da Green Guy
El Dandy
WC's Resident Pirate Otaku and Official Scapegoat
Always and Forever, Hurricane.
Posts: 8,371
|
Post by Boku AKA Da Green Guy on Dec 15, 2006 0:22:22 GMT -5
I've gotta say, ever since Russo took over at TNA, I've noticed a very odd (to me) trend. It seems to me that most people here have a very low tolerance for crap in TNA; much lower than they seem to have for the 'E. An astute and accurate observation on your part. I think that so many here are under the age of thirty and have no litmus test to gage their observations upon. They grew up with the WWF and therefore view it as some kind of standard barer (even though WWF/E has always been the worst - aesthetically - the business has ever offered). If something smaller does the McCrappitude they rag on it. If it doesn't do it WWE style they crap on it. This is regardless of them actually liking WWE programming or having weened themselves away from it. To a much lesser extent, I get the impression that those of us over the age of thirty will either be objective about TNA (since we have perspective and a firm memory of life before the McMonster pillaged the squared circle of mainstream, North American professional wrestling) and hold it to its own standards of criticism, or to a broader scale that does not have the McKool Aid poured into our frame of criticism. Great post, and again, a great observation that was dead on. Same applies to your analysis for the FFYR Russo booking clusterf@#k. In my opinion, the WWE exemplifies the definition (and stands as the embodiment) of all that IS "Wrestlecrap." Talent is wasted, never-should-bes are forced (much more than "pushed") in their talky, tired, clumsy product. Hell, they are even driving away their actual talent. While TNA has its lows it never can match the sucking, festering, wound that is WWE booking: on whole and in part. So because I'm 19, my point isn't valid? I'm sorry, but that argument sucks. Just because I'm under thirty doesn't mean I have no idea what quality stuff is.
|
|
vinniemac
Don Corleone
No Chance In Hell
Posts: 1,967
|
Post by vinniemac on Dec 15, 2006 0:32:24 GMT -5
So because I'm 19, my point isn't valid? You said THAT. Not I. For your sake I'll elaborate. Here's what I am saying: statistically you probably grew up with the WWF. If you were lucky, you might have been able to enjoy WCW, though you were 14 when it went under and certainly not of an adult mindset (and likely, understanding of the business) that you would have had if you were, say, 26 back then. Maybe, if you're lucky, you might have watched ECW and GWF. What I said was that people who grew up with two major promotions (if lucky, some only had access to the WWF depending on their market) most likely come from a very narrow, WWF/E bias. And yes, that sucks. WWF/E sucks. People who view them as the be-all/end all suck, imo too. Now, if you want to paint yourself in a negative light: go ahead. I didn't do that. I simply stated an opinion/ observation. That wasn't the argument. In fact, it was an OBSERVATION based on the board's demographics (members are predominetly under the age of 25) and takes them into consideration when the rampant TNA bashing goes on (as opposed to the sparse WWE bashing). What sucks, is when people try to put words in other people's mouths; so to speak. I never said that. However, since you brought that argument up, I'll play Devil's advocate and lay this on you: Just because you're under thirty doesn't mean that you do, either.EDIT: judging by your sig, I can see that this may hold true: - I miss Pirate Burchill - Undertaker is one of the greatest wrestlers ever - JBL is entertaining - Tatanka's return=Awesome - Jake Roberts can do no wrongI think your reaction is more out of McProtectionism than bogus insinuations of agism.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 15, 2006 0:41:32 GMT -5
Actually what i get is, that people are judging WWE just as harsh as they are TNA, the thing is TNA is younger than WWE so it seems like they are judged more harsh Oh, I'm not saying WWE doesn't get crapped on by a lot of people here; quite the contrary, the night of, and the day after, December to Dismember, you'd think the board had it's collective dog run on over on Christmas Eve by a drunken Vince McMahon. The difference is that, while the WWE definately gets flack around here, it feels like it takes next to nothing to set a ton of people off here when it comes to something negative happening in TNA. Meanwhile, Vince can give us a couple of the worst pay per views in recent memory, people can go on about how he made 2006 a "year to be embarrased by wrestling" (or however they're phrasing it in the Gooker sticky), but it seems like he's allowed to "get away with" a lot more. You may be right, though; TNA, being a younger company, obviously doesn't have the history/nostalgia factor of the WWE, so that can easily play a part.
|
|
KLRA
El Dandy
Halt. I am Reptar.
Posts: 7,591
|
Post by KLRA on Dec 15, 2006 0:51:07 GMT -5
See the reason I stopped ragging on WWE in general for a while was because I feel into the smark trap of looking for everything WRONG with a show than for what was GOOD on it. Then the 'E just got me to literally stop caring either way about their product.
For TNA, I have been REALLY enjoying TNA lately as everything that is happening in TNA I have been loving. Yes, some of the stuff isn't exactly straight forward, but hey, we're always complaing about Vince "insulting our intelligence" so the moment that we're requiered to put a small amount of thought into something, it becomes, "OMG! I BE SO CONFUZZLED! WTF HAPPENED?! BOO RUSSO! BOO RUSSO! SMELLS LIKE RUSSO CRAP!"
I personally am tired of people just irrationally hating on Vince Russo in TNA. It's making almost zero sense, because the guy is doing a great job, and you can't prove the guy is "killing the product" unless you inflict a CRAP load of bias into the argument.
|
|
Boku AKA Da Green Guy
El Dandy
WC's Resident Pirate Otaku and Official Scapegoat
Always and Forever, Hurricane.
Posts: 8,371
|
Post by Boku AKA Da Green Guy on Dec 15, 2006 0:55:16 GMT -5
So because I'm 19, my point isn't valid? You said THAT. Not I. For your sake I'll elaborate. Here's what I am saying: statistically you probably grew up with the WWF. If you were lucky, you might have been able to enjoy WCW, though you were 14 when it went under and certainly not of an adult mindset (and likely, understanding of the business) that you would have had if you were, say, 26 back then. Maybe, if you're lucky, you might have watched ECW and GWF. What I said was that people who grew up with two major promotions (if lucky, some only had access to the WWF depending on their market) most likely come from a very narrow, WWF/E bias. And yes, that sucks. WWF/E sucks. People who view them as the be-all/end all suck, imo too. Now, if you want to paint yourself in a negative light: go ahead. I didn't do that. I simply stated an opinion/ observation. That wasn't the argument. In fact, it was an OBSERVATION based on the board's demographics (members are predominetly under the age of 25) and takes them into consideration when the rampant TNA bashing goes on (as opposed to the sparse WWE bashing). What sucks, is when people try to put words in other people's mouths; so to speak. I never said that. However, since you brought that argument up, I'll play Devil's advocate and lay this on you: Just because you're under thirty doesn't mean that you do, either.EDIT: judging by your sig, I can see that this may hold true: - I miss Pirate Burchill - Undertaker is one of the greatest wrestlers ever - JBL is entertaining - Tatanka's return=Awesome - Jake Roberts can do no wrongI think your reaction is more out of McProtectionism than bogus insinuations of agism. Look I realise that WWE isn't the land of milk and honey, and I have known that for a long time. I'm sicken by some of the crap that WWE has spawned and forced down my throat. As for WCW when I was 14, I stopped watching wrestling for a while during my teens. I continued watching wrestling in 2000/2001. Besides, I never really liked WCW as a whole. Now I never had the access that many of you older posters had, nor the ability to really enjoy matches. But I did watch an ECW pay-per-view one time. Sadly, I wasn't fond of it at the time. I'm going to admit that freely, why? Because I was a mark. A WWE one no less. But I fail to see how that effects me today because I have researched back and actually enjoyed past & present promotions other than WWE. It's just like how smarks call marks dumb for not being smarks. Are you really going to fault me and the other younger crappers for being younger & less experienced than you? Smacks of elitism. As for the sparse WWE bashing comment... Where are you going? I see the bashing as about equal if not more leaning towards the "WWE is dying" comments I hear all the time. As for my sig, those are things I enjoy. If I had more room, I would put things like: Shark Boy rules Hard Gay should be WWE champ Jerry Lynn needs to come back to the ring. etc. And besides, I am a WWE fan. I'm not sorry about me being a WWE fan or being younger than you, and I don't agree with your comments about me being a blind Mcmahon supporter. Now you may attack me for whatever reason, but I really don't care what you think of me. P.S. I could insult you for your sig just as much as you could for mine. But it doesn't really mean anything in this discussion.
|
|
vinniemac
Don Corleone
No Chance In Hell
Posts: 1,967
|
Post by vinniemac on Dec 15, 2006 1:10:52 GMT -5
Look I realise that WWE isn't the land of milk and honey, and I have known that for a long time. I'm sicken by some of the crap that WWE has spawned and forced down my throat. I look at it as the land of Michaels & Hunter, rather than the land of milk and honey. Maybe the land of McAss and oiled up fat guys, too. I'd argue you really enjoyed matches. "Enjoyment" changes over time and what a person "enjoyed' from something in 1983 and what they enjoy it for 23 years later might mature or even change slightly. Hell, it can reverse. I'm not arguing enjoyment. I won't begrude anyone of that. However, you did mirror my point about access/exposure to things outside of the WWE and even WCW. It does generate a completely different frame of reference for people, and my argument was that people who grew up knowing only/mostly WWF product tend to fall into that age group, and based on that tend to hold WWF as a standard: a standard I think they place upon TNA which is both unfair and counter productive. A lot of the TNA bashing comes from this, rather than as TNA fans concerned about TNA product. Fault it? Not really. However, put it in perspective? Definitely. It died a long, long time ago. About the time Hogan came in, right after the WWWF dropped one of the W's. However, I don't hear what you hear. I hear the opposite, though WWE really are killing their house show and PPV business their own selves. TNA hardly has an impact (pun intended) on them.... Yet. And that's why you screamed agism a few posts back?
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 15, 2006 1:15:24 GMT -5
Guys, you're both giving pretty good arguments, so keep it civil. I wouldn't be pleased if I had to commit seppuku on my own thread here, m'kay?
|
|