comahan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by comahan on Jun 18, 2007 16:20:33 GMT -5
Can the same 3 or 4 people who ruin every thread about tna like..... stop. Or not do it in every thread at least? Its the same arguments from both sides every time, it never gets anywhere, and makes both sides look bad.
|
|
JerryArr: Hat!
Mephisto
That which does not kill me makes me stranger.
Posts: 679
|
Post by JerryArr: Hat! on Jun 18, 2007 16:55:02 GMT -5
It was, in my opinion, a typical TNA pay per view for the most part. Take that how you want to.
Angle was my last choice to win the KOTM, and not even having AJ or Joe QUALIFY was bad. The other matches were decent enough (except the 3D/SteiNimal and VKM matches, natch) though. I agree with other posters here when they said that more TNA homegrown talent (read: Joe, Daniels, not having Storm get pinned by a football player) should have went over.
And that opening sequence was crap. Way crap.
|
|
|
Post by slasher911 on Jun 18, 2007 17:37:50 GMT -5
Oh, without a doubt, TNA does have workrate and consistency on their side. No argument there. It just seems like some people (not you) choose not to notice the huge change in the WWE's level of quality on their PPVs. I don't think they've had a single bad PPV in 2007 thus far, and I actually tend to enjoy their undercards slightly better lately.
Now you're just being absurd. Vince has been in and out main-events and feuds for 10 years now. Steve Austin, The Undertaker, Triple H, Mick Foley, The Rock, Big Show, Bobby Lashley, Shane McMahon - the list goes on and on. Just because he's not a full-time active wrestler, doesn't mean he's not one.
And technically, yes, Dennis Rodman and Mean Gene Oakerland could be considered wrestlers (since they were....you know....uhhh, wrestling). Now when one of them is constantly in and out of main-events and headlining feuds for 10 years, and becomes one of the most memorable heels in wrestling history, come call me.
I'm obviously referring to Impact, which has been plagued by the problems I've mentioned.
Errrr, they are. I don't think I've been in one debate with someone and NOT have them mention that Benoit should be the champion. Except now that Cena has been consistently putting on great matches (which has shocked the hell out of me), and Edge (who the IWC loves) is the World Champion, the *****ing has diminished. Benoit also wants to focus on putting over younger guys.
Apples and oranges I guess. I've always seen Austin get the credit for the explosion in popularity for professional wrestling (I don't think I know a single person who started watching wrestling because of the nWo). The nWo was a huge deal, undoubtably, but most people will tell you they started watching because of Austin vs. McMahon. Most of the people who cared about the Hogan turn were already fans to begin with, while Austin drew people in.
|
|
MichaelRBoh
Unicron
cowpee changed gimmick
Posts: 3,301
|
Post by MichaelRBoh on Jun 18, 2007 17:39:34 GMT -5
it was 2 stars. i voted 4 by accident. 1 day later i can barely remember anything from the ppv which would never happen for a wwe ppv. all i remember is frank wycheck wrestled and kurt angle won the the belt and some annoying stuff with the never ending fued of eric young (one of the worst gimmicks ever) and robert roode. i want to see tna suceed but they are just low on the food chain right now behind ufc and wwe
|
|
|
Post by MGH on Jun 18, 2007 17:40:02 GMT -5
Great wrestling, solid matches, not gimmick heavy out the ass. I give it a 4.
I'd go higher than that, but two of the matches bored me to death and I didn't like some of who won. Particularly Backlund/Shelley and Sting/Daniels.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Jun 18, 2007 17:47:45 GMT -5
Well, actually, that senior-citizen non-wrestler hasn't been champ for a month. That doesn't change the fact that on a WWE PPV a senior citizen non-wrestler defended a world title for a show that is supposed to be 'hardcore.' That might have something to do with him making himself the focus of his show for the past ten years since Montreal. And from the people I talk to WWE fans are sick to death of him. Their ratings and PPV buyrates would suggest otherwise. And no matter how much people insist they hate him, when Vince cuts any sort of promo, people listen. WWE consistently outdraws TNA in every way. Their ratings are higher. Their buyrates are higher. Their merchandise sells more. Their shows draw more. Their performers garner more media attention. Granted, that's mostly due to WWE being an established promotion that's decades old. But the fact of the matter is, (and this is coming from someone who's not a WWE fan) TNA still just isn't as good.
|
|
|
Post by thestinger on Jun 18, 2007 17:48:41 GMT -5
Apples and oranges I guess. I've always seen Austin get the credit for the explosion in popularity for professional wrestling (I don't think I know a single person who started watching wrestling because of the nWo). You do now. In addition to myself, each of my friends who watches wrestling (or watched in the 90s) was because of the nWo. And I won't lie, a few of them started watching WWF two years later because of Steve Austin becoming a top guy, but I think the dates back up my view. And I guess you're consistent. I said that if Vince is a wrestler then so are Rodman and Mean Gene, and you agree. So we're actually on the same page for the first time, to an extent. Oh and impact has NOT had three minute spotfests without clean finishes in months. That is what I'm saying. Supposedly Jarrett himself demanded longer matches. Obviously some things on the show got screwed up while he was focusing mostly on his sick wife.
|
|
|
Post by slasher911 on Jun 18, 2007 17:52:21 GMT -5
You do now. In addition to myself, each of my friends who watches wrestling (or watched in the 90s) was because of the nWo. And I won't lie, a few of them started watching WWF two years later because of Steve Austin becoming a top guy, but I think the dates back up my view. Probably just has to do with "allegiance" then. None of my friends (and myself included) were really into WCW. Just couldn't get into Nash or Hogan that much. Austin swept over us like wildfire though. I'll give you that. They do seem to be trying to give the wrestlers more time, but Impact still doesn't seem to click at all.
|
|
|
Post by thestinger on Jun 18, 2007 17:54:19 GMT -5
WWE consistently outdraws TNA in every way. Their ratings are higher. Their buyrates are higher. Their merchandise sells more. Their shows draw more. Their performers garner more media attention. I actually don't have to respond to this. You post already includes my response! Granted, that's mostly due to WWE being an established promotion that's decades old. But the fact of the matter is, (and this is coming from someone who's not a WWE fan) TNA still just isn't as good. I couldn't possibly disagree more, obviously. If TNA put their title on Dixie or hadJim Cornette's limo blow up I would NEVER watch that promotion again. Ever.
|
|
|
Post by thestinger on Jun 18, 2007 17:57:04 GMT -5
Probably just has to do with "allegiance" then. None of my friends (and myself included) were really into WCW. Don't forget: in 1996 WCW had a FAR more talented roster, of which just about everyone agrees. They had a undercard that included, Benoit, Malenko, Booker T, Mysterio, Jericho and I could go on and on. WWF had Billy Gunn (today the worst thing in TNA!)
|
|
|
Post by slasher911 on Jun 18, 2007 18:04:58 GMT -5
Probably just has to do with "allegiance" then. None of my friends (and myself included) were really into WCW. Don't forget: in 1996 WCW had a FAR more talented roster, of which just about everyone agrees. They had a undercard that included, Benoit, Malenko, Booker T, Mysterio, Jericho and I could go on and on. WWF had Billy Gunn (today the worst thing in TNA!) WWF in 1996 was a ****hole, absolutely. But while the wrestling was amazing in WCW, not many of their characters were that interesting. The thing with Austin was - he was a great character, AND he could wrestle, which seemed to appeal to a greater range of people than the nWo. '97 was damn good though (more focus on Austin, D-X, etc.), and '98-99 ruled in every way possible. I don't think ANY mainstream promotion could top WWF's roster in 2000-2001 though.
|
|
|
Post by thestinger on Jun 18, 2007 18:15:48 GMT -5
'97 was damn good though (more focus on Austin, D-X, etc.), Uhm didn't that faction include the notoriously sucky Billy Gunn? And X-Pac? And Chyna? Austin drew crowds though -- that's for sure. I don't think ANY mainstream promotion could top WWF's roster in 2000-2001 though. Of course not. The same people who made WCW better during the 90s (Jericho, Benoit, Booker) were there. Vince may have driven away 80% of the people who were watching wrestling during the monday night wars but he had no competition. For years it was Vince or nothing. And don't forget most fans preferred nothing. That's why I think it's silly for Hollywood to point out that "Their ratings are higher. Their buyrates are higher. Their merchandise sells more." I never said otherwise. I just doubt WWE is capable of putting on a match as good as Sabin vs. Senshi or LAX vs. Styles & Daniels were.
|
|
comahan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by comahan on Jun 18, 2007 18:18:18 GMT -5
'97 was damn good though (more focus on Austin, D-X, etc.), Uhm didn't that faction include the notoriously sucky Billy Gunn? And X-Pac? And Chyna? Austin drew crowds though -- that's for sure. That was 1998. 97 was HBK, HHH, Chyna.
|
|
|
Post by thestinger on Jun 18, 2007 18:20:36 GMT -5
If you say so. Last time I watched Vince's show the team that Shawn Micheals was part of was the Rockers. And everyone used to laugh at how pathetic they were.
|
|
|
Post by slasher911 on Jun 18, 2007 18:26:59 GMT -5
'97 was damn good though (more focus on Austin, D-X, etc.), Uhm didn't that faction include the notoriously sucky Billy Gunn? And X-Pac? And Chyna? Austin drew crowds though -- that's for sure. Yeah, back when they didn't suck massive balls (eh, Gunn on the other hand...), and they had Triple H and Michaels as their life-blood. I'm still not sure how they managed to go from the New Age Outlaws ("good") to VKM ("my eyes are bleeding"). I actually liked X-Pac though (even in TNA). X-Pac & Kane were terribly underrated together. That's the thing though - most people have forgotten that the WWE is VERY capable of giving us amazing wrestling (although the wrestling lately has been far from bad) when they want to. If TNA were to ever get their act together and come at the WWE hard, then us wrestling fans would be in for a world of back-and-forth wrestling insanity. And I still say the Jeff Hardy/Johnny Nitro series was as good as any series in TNA.
|
|
|
Post by thestinger on Jun 18, 2007 18:33:52 GMT -5
That's the thing though - most people have forgotten that the WWE is VERY capable of giving us amazing wrestling (although the wrestling lately has been far from bad) when they want to. Of course they COULD produce amazing wrestling if they wanted to. They have Chris Freakin Benoit! However, the powers that be (Vince and his little girl) have absolutley no interest in putting on a wrestling show. They choose to produce a soap opera about a wrestling show much like 30 Rock is a sitcom about a sketch comedy show. Like all soaps there are 'fights' to add suspense to the storylines, but the "characters" Vince thinks are good will always go over wrestlers like Benoit.
|
|
|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Jun 18, 2007 18:55:11 GMT -5
I give it *** but, would go to *** and half. It was an okay show with okay matches (and a great X Division Title match) that was made better by the crowd being so into it.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Backlund on Jun 18, 2007 19:40:37 GMT -5
I gave it a 2.5 on the scale.
I haven't watched TNA in a long time, so I don't really claim to be an expert and I can understand if some people fault me for not having the storylines behind the matches. I stopped watching because Impact stopped being remotely interesting, but my friend continues to watch and let me know he was purchasing the PPV and I could come watch for free.
I wouldn't say anything was necessarily bad (except booking), but it just struck me as very "so-so". My personal opinion is that the KOTM is so contrived and illogical, it's not an enjoyable match to watch. There were also a number of absolute clunkers like the VKM and Team 3D's respective matches and please keep Wycheck out of the ring (no one outside of that area really cares about him anyway). The booking issues have been discussed to death, so I'll let them be. The hardcore match was a bit more comical than it was brutal, as the spots were pretty goofy at times.
I'm not trying to be a "TNA hater" or whatever the term is, but as a guy who hasn't watched in a few months, I'm not coming back based on this PPV.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Jun 18, 2007 22:10:39 GMT -5
But the fact of the matter is, (and this is coming from someone who's not a WWE fan) TNA still just isn't as good. I couldn't possibly disagree more, obviously. If TNA put their title on Dixie or hadJim Cornette's limo blow up I would NEVER watch that promotion again. Ever. You really like to point out that Vince was a world champ. He was the "world" champion on what's essentially a glorified version of Velocity. The ECW belt has less prestige than the Women's Title. On the other hand, Jeff Jarrett is Vice-President in TNA, if I'm not mistaken. And he had no problem making himself the World Champion of the promotion more than anyone else on the roster.
|
|
|
Post by kingoftheindies on Jun 18, 2007 22:14:39 GMT -5
that has been going on for awhile but that has a lot to do with starting story lines (Serotonin, Austin Starr) and then not doing anything with them for months at a time.
However, I think you have to give credit where credit is due in a couple areas...
Black Machismo-Lethal has done a great job in his role, and is over.
Sabin has done a good job as a heel.
Styles has been gold as the goofy heel.
LAX is... well their LAX and can't get booed.
So TNA is not doing horrible. I just stand by my belief that way too many people are being over critical of TNA. I enjoyed the ppv more than the 3 WWE ppvs I've seen, and the WWE board was drooling all over those ppvs.
|
|