update on Booker- spoilers

[hollywood]

comahan said:

Jarrett held the title when the other main event options were like, Monty Brown, a drugged up Jeff Hardy, Kevin Nash, and Rhino. AJ and everyone else that could have main evented in the 05 area when Jarrett had the belt forever were X division guys going after that belt. Besides, Jarrett isnt even active, and hasn't pinned anyone in forever. He lost to Joe in the "fans revenge match" when the Angle announcement was made. He lost the title to Sting @ BFG, let Sting have the pin in the Lethal Lockdown match, and put over Robert Freaking Roode, not in a fluke pin, but Roode legit beat him. Id say hes been fine lately. Just my opinion.

And TNA isn't the sad wrestling Hell that it's non-fans think it is. (Especially for a star like Booker)

HHH cleanly put over John Cena and Batista, twice. And he was champ while RAW had guys like Kevin Nash and Scott Steiner gunning for the belt. Point is, they're pretty much equals in the good deeds/bad deeds department. The difference is, Hunter is definitely a main eventer. And Jarrett never should've been more than a mid-carder.

[Ace Diamond]

Well I don't have a problem with this

so just watch as they have him beat Joe after Roode beats Joe.

[Mozenrath]

hollywood said:

comahan said:

Jarrett held the title when the other main event options were like, Monty Brown, a drugged up Jeff Hardy, Kevin Nash, and Rhino. AJ and everyone else that could have main evented in the 05 area when Jarrett had the belt forever were X division guys going after that belt. Besides, Jarrett isnt even active, and hasn't pinned anyone in forever. He lost to Joe in the "fans revenge match" when the Angle announcement was made. He lost the title to Sting @ BFG, let Sting have the pin in the Lethal Lockdown match, and put over Robert Freaking Roode, not in a fluke pin, but Roode legit beat him. Id say hes been fine lately. Just my opinion.

And TNA isn't the sad wrestling Hell that it's non-fans think it is. (Especially for a star like Booker)

HHH cleanly put over John Cena and Batista, twice. And he was champ while RAW had guys like Kevin Nash and Scott Steiner gunning for the belt. Point is, they're pretty much equals in the good deeds/bad deeds department. The difference is, Hunter is definitely a main eventer. And Jarrett never should've been more than a mid-carder.

I agree, though I cut Jarrett a little bit of slack for being in the main event.

I just think we as fans think we know a LOT more about backstage conflict than we actually do. Most people cite creative as the reason for hating WWE work than the McMahon's or Hunter. They typically speak well of them.

In TNA, there have been workers who openly have trashed Dutch, but I don't hear them bring up Jarrett that often except to say Dutch is kissing his ass.

[comahan]

hollywood said:

comahan said:

Jarrett held the title when the other main event options were like, Monty Brown, a drugged up Jeff Hardy, Kevin Nash, and Rhino. AJ and everyone else that could have main evented in the 05 area when Jarrett had the belt forever were X division guys going after that belt. Besides, Jarrett isnt even active, and hasn't pinned anyone in forever. He lost to Joe in the "fans revenge match" when the Angle announcement was made. He lost the title to Sting @ BFG, let Sting have the pin in the Lethal Lockdown match, and put over Robert Freaking Roode, not in a fluke pin, but Roode legit beat him. Id say hes been fine lately. Just my opinion.

And TNA isn't the sad wrestling Hell that it's non-fans think it is. (Especially for a star like Booker)

HHH cleanly put over John Cena and Batista, twice. And he was champ while RAW had guys like Kevin Nash and Scott Steiner gunning for the belt. Point is, they're pretty much equals in the good deeds/bad deeds department. The difference is, Hunter is definitely a main eventer. And Jarrett never should've been more than a mid-carder.

There is no refuting that HHH is a bigger star than Jarrett, so yea.

But the difference on the other side of the fence is while Jarrett was the champ, its arguable as to whether he was the biggest part of TNA. The X-Division got a lot of Main Events and the title was no doubt up there with the world title. While Trips was the focus of the show. (Which I have no problem with, I LOVED Evolution and have always loved Trips.)

Anyway, the point to why this discussion started was if the situation in TNA than he was on Raw. In Bookers case (BOOKERS case, not the average indy guys case) he will be treated like GOLD in TNA. So for that reason I have no doubt that for Booker, personally, on most levels aside form having a larger audience, is in a better situation in TNA. He's getting guys like Abyss, Lethal, Christian Cage in his fed, and he will be payed very well for doing only about 6 dates a month.

[Limey]

Booker's still got loads of mileage left. He's a great addition.

Also, why do we want him to be called King Booker over Booker T?

I just thought Booker T had more ring to it.

Plus, it gives Mike Tenay the opportunity to say "Formerly known as Booker T, it's Booker T!!!"

[Aaron E. Dangerously]

ddt said:

Great, another former WCW/WWE guy. Another mound of dirt to bury the new talent.

Booker's never been the burying, politics-playing guy, by all accounts. Look for him to get a good run against Sting or, um, some other face heavyweight, then go down and start putting some guys over, then retire.

[Ace Diamond]

aaronedangerously said:

ddt said:

Great, another former WCW/WWE guy. Another mound of dirt to bury the new talent.

Booker's never been the burying, politics-playing guy, by all accounts. Look for him to get a good run against Sting or, um, some other face heavyweight, then go down and start putting some guys over, then retire.

We say that now, but just remember how Sting was supposed to put over Christopher Daniels

[comahan]

Well, that was supposedly the bookers rushing to fit sting into another feud, not Sting refusing to lose. If what you said is a shot at the bookers refusing to have Booker lose in the future, i wont argue. But if its about how Sting and Booker just dont want to job, then I disagree.

[big nasty]

the spinnereeno?

[Ace Diamond]

comahan said:

Well, that was supposedly the bookers rushing to fit sting into another feud, not Sting refusing to lose. If what you said is a shot at the bookers refusing to have Booker lose in the future, i wont argue. But if its about how Sting and Booker just dont want to job, then I disagree.

It was about the booking team, not the wrestlers. I know Booker and Sting are good about wanting to elevate the younger guys.

[Lance Uppercut]

aodpilot said:

aaronedangerously said:

Booker's never been the burying, politics-playing guy, by all accounts. Look for him to get a good run against Sting or, um, some other face heavyweight, then go down and start putting some guys over, then retire.

We say that now, but just remember how Sting was supposed to put over Christopher Daniels

Let's not forget the locker room hero Kurt Angle.

I swear there's something int he water over in the TNA locker room. Or they see that they're big fish in a smaller pond and try to create some backstage power as early as possible. Not that I think Sting's doing anything particularly horrible backstage.

[kitsunestar]

kiddobradley said:

Why would WWE own his name? They would likely own "King Booker", but his legal name is Robert Booker Tio Huffman, so he can easily use at least the Booker part still.

If not, maybe we'll get a weird Black Machismo like gimmick, where he teaches people.

King Booker T Washington!


"Tell me he didn't just say that!"

WWE owns "John Cena", and that's Cena's real name, so I can see them keeping Booker from using the name if Booker was capricious enough to sign it away.

[slasher911]

Cue the retarded "take *THAT* WWE!!!11" Tenay and West mark outs in 10....9....8....

[wolfmoon103100]

it just makes TNA look like WWE rejects.

[hollywood]

I still just want to see how Booker would compare the way WWE and TNA put shows together. I can just see him coming into TNA after being used to WWE's methods, and seeing the TNA creative crew and their ideas, and just staring at them wide-eyed an open-mouthed.

[Limey]

hollywood said:

I can just see him coming into TNA after being used to WWE's methods, and seeing the TNA creative crew and their ideas, and just staring at them wide-eyed an open-mouthed.

To be completely frank, I don't. Booker has been in a lot of mid-south indie wrestling territories, and WCW itself, and they don't really operate that differently from TNA (and I don't mean that TNA is doomed to go down like WCW, hear me out). From the interviews that I've seen from WCW wrestlers as part of the Alliance, they were pretty shocked to find out the amount of politics and no-saying in the booking process of WWE once they got bought out.

Booker would find TNA's booking familiar.

Which is good, because he'd know how to handle any curveballs that TNA might try and throw at him with his experience in the business. He'd be able to tell you what wouldn't work, and since he's worked with the type of audience that TNA are used to booking for, he'd know it, and chances are they'd believe him.

Hope that made sense.

[hollywood]

limey said:

hollywood said:

I can just see him coming into TNA after being used to WWE's methods, and seeing the TNA creative crew and their ideas, and just staring at them wide-eyed an open-mouthed.

To be completely frank, I don't. Booker has been in a lot of mid-south indie wrestling territories, and WCW itself, and they don't really operate that differently from TNA (and I don't mean that TNA is doomed to go down like WCW, hear me out). From the interviews that I've seen from WCW wrestlers as part of the Alliance, they were pretty shocked to find out the amount of politics and no-saying in the booking process of WWE once they got bought out.

Booker would find TNA's booking familiar.

Which is good, because he'd know how to handle any curveballs that TNA might try and throw at him with his experience in the business. He'd be able to tell you what wouldn't work, and since he's worked with the type of audience that TNA are used to booking for, he'd know it, and chances are they'd believe him.

Hope that made sense.

Fair enough. But, like every other golden opportunity TNA's had, I can't help but think, "Okay, so how will they screw this one up?"

[Cry Me a Wiggle]

wolfmoon103100 said:

it just makes TNA look like WWE rejects.

How so? Booker wasn't fired. He chose TNA over the WWE.

Were Jericho and the Radicals considered WCW rejects when they jumped back during the Monday Night Wars? I just don't understand the idea that once you wrestle for Vince McMahon, you're not supposed to wrestle anywhere else.

[metylerca]

thebigwiggle said:

wolfmoon103100 said:

it just makes TNA look like WWE rejects.

How so? Booker wasn't fired. He chose TNA over the WWE.

Were Jericho and the Radicals considered WCW rejects when they jumped back during the Monday Night Wars? I just don't understand the idea that once you wrestle for Vince McMahon, you're not supposed to wrestle anywhere else.

Truth is, WWE won the war with WCW; therefore WWE is the best brand there is as far as revenue and success in the history of wrestling. The Monday Nite Wars were a time where switching brands meant competition; but not in this case. TNA is not competition to WWE; WWE doesn't acknowledge TNA one bit on the air, while TNA does many of times. Booker was at his peak, IMO, in WWE; so all people who refer to him as a WCW guy really were the same crowd who were anti-WWE and pro-WCW during the Monday Nite Wars.
TNA has a cluttered roster, and a spectacular main event scene at the moment, and adding in another ex-WWE guy will only push other people down and i'm sure many will deny that.

When you wrestle for Vince, you're at the top of the mountain, because even one who jobs week in, week out on Smackdown will have more accolades than someone who jobbed every week on Impact.

Truth be told, its just the opposite arguement from both sides that makes the whole thing unbearable.

[Mozenrath]

metylerca said:

thebigwiggle said:

How so? Booker wasn't fired. He chose TNA over the WWE.

Were Jericho and the Radicals considered WCW rejects when they jumped back during the Monday Night Wars? I just don't understand the idea that once you wrestle for Vince McMahon, you're not supposed to wrestle anywhere else.

Truth is, WWE won the war with WCW; therefore WWE is the best brand there is as far as revenue and success in the history of wrestling. The Monday Nite Wars were a time where switching brands meant competition; but not in this case. TNA is not competition to WWE; WWE doesn't acknowledge TNA one bit on the air, while TNA does many of times. Booker was at his peak, IMO, in WWE; so all people who refer to him as a WCW guy really were the same crowd who were anti-WWE and pro-WCW during the Monday Nite Wars.
TNA has a cluttered roster, and a spectacular main event scene at the moment, and adding in another ex-WWE guy will only push other people down and i'm sure many will deny that.

When you wrestle for Vince, you're at the top of the mountain, because even one who jobs week in, week out on Smackdown will have more accolades than someone who jobbed every week on Impact.

Truth be told, its just the opposite arguement from both sides that makes the whole thing unbearable.

Well said.