|
Post by thestinger on Nov 28, 2007 13:29:53 GMT -5
I'm not much of a fan of the match in general. While I disagree with this guy's decision to include "witty" comments and opinions with his news, I don't really disagree with his thoughts. Pro Wrestling isn't real so there aren't rankings. There's a 'number one contender' for each title, and then everyone else who can earn a title shot with a single specific victory in some cases. To me it's exciting that even Sharkboy could get a shot at the world title (as long as it's NOT Sharkboy obviously). So I'll probably be very interested in this match, and hope one my favorites like Christopher Daniels gets a world title shot. It's a long shot, but now, it's not impossible. If it happened for Kaz, it can happen for just about anyone. The firing thing, is just inexplainable. The only way this story ISN'T the stupidest thing TNA has done in a year is if the announcers put over the fact that it's horrible TNA management is firing a talented wrestler for no good reason. And then there's some resulting storyling where someone in TNA management is evil and rigs the match so the person they hate most is fired. "Firing" storylines in wrestling are ridiculous, unless the person is actually leaving the company. Otherwise everyone knows they'll be back in three weeks.
|
|
KEJB
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,302
|
Post by KEJB on Nov 28, 2007 13:33:09 GMT -5
And who is the worst at telling his employees that "YOU'RE FIRED!!!" and then we see them a month later??
|
|
|
Post by thestinger on Nov 28, 2007 13:37:01 GMT -5
Yeah, but it's stupid when that happens. TNA should be better than that crap.
Firing angles are just plain dumb unless the wrestler is retiring or leaving the company.
It was dumb when Macho lost a retirement match against Warrior in WWF. It was dumb when Nash lost a retirement match in WCW.
They're just stupid. The crowd should yawn instead of cheering or booing when the 'firing' occurs. We should hold up signs at every impact saying, "I just saw ------ Backstage!!"
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Digby Stamp on Nov 28, 2007 15:21:28 GMT -5
It seems that the wounds of WCW going out of business haven't quite healed for some people...
That said, justifying this upcoming pole match with "BUT WWE IS EVEN DUMBER!" doesn't cut it. TNA are putting on a good show. But not a great one. And it's lame matches like this one that hurt their cause as much as anything. They try so damn hard to try to differentiate themselves from every other wrestling organization ever that they end up booking all these ass-backwards matches and stipulations as if to say "Hey! Look over here! We're unique!".
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Nov 28, 2007 15:28:22 GMT -5
I shouldn't be surprised with this match, quite honestly. TNA always does something stupid every time I think they're finally improving.
They've had a few good shows. They signed Booker T. It was high time they finally did something stupid, as always.
Fortunately, this is just one match, and hopefully it won't affect much....wait...it affects every title...@#$%
|
|
|
Post by poi zen rana on Nov 28, 2007 15:40:13 GMT -5
I shouldn't be surprised with this match, quite honestly. TNA always does something stupid every time I think they're finally improving. They've had a few good shows. They signed Booker T. It was high time they finally did something stupid, as always. Fortunately, this is just one match, and hopefully it won't affect much....wait...it affects every title...@#$% yes it affects every title but i thought the only bad part of the match was that it was a pole match? i thought that is what everyone was complaining about. i doubt naming 3 contenders for titles is going to be a bad thing in the long run. just look at it the same as the fftr tournament, cheesy starting match that paved the way for some good matches along the way by opening up new opportunities for people that storyline wise would have no reason to be working together yet. i am not big on pole matches but i don't think this means tna is dying like wcw. i think it just means 10 minutes of their next pay per view could be handled better. honestly with how good the pay per views have been lately i don't mind having one match that i am not pumped to see. that is just me however.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Nov 28, 2007 15:45:41 GMT -5
I shouldn't be surprised with this match, quite honestly. TNA always does something stupid every time I think they're finally improving. They've had a few good shows. They signed Booker T. It was high time they finally did something stupid, as always. Fortunately, this is just one match, and hopefully it won't affect much....wait...it affects every title...@#$% yes it affects every title but i thought the only bad part of the match was that it was a pole match? i thought that is what everyone was complaining about. i doubt naming 3 contenders for titles is going to be a bad thing in the long run. just look at it the same as the fftr tournament, cheesy starting match that paved the way for some good matches along the way by opening up new opportunities for people that storyline wise would have no reason to be working together yet. i am not big on pole matches but i don't think this means tna is dying like wcw. i think it just means 10 minutes of their next pay per view could be handled better. honestly with how good the pay per views have been lately i don't mind having one match that i am not pumped to see. that is just me however. I'm not complaining about it being on a pole. To be honest, adding poles won't make it any worse than it already is anyway. It'll just make it stink like Russo even more. And TNA is hardly dying. They're doing just fine. They're not growing their fanbase (at all), but they're a long way from shutting their doors.
|
|
|
Post by poi zen rana on Nov 28, 2007 15:52:26 GMT -5
well besides the poles and the fired clause which are pretty minor to me i like it. i don't think it taints the belts by having a match to name contenders to all the belts. it is a wrestling program. of course people should wrestle for the opportunity to wrestle. it keeps the focus on wrestling, when they could be giving away title shots based on who kicked the other's father in the head and so forth.
i don't think it's the best match and will probably be low on my interest level for that card but i am excited about how they use this to set people up for pushes.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Nov 28, 2007 15:58:06 GMT -5
well besides the poles and the fired clause which are pretty minor to me i like it. i don't think it taints the belts by having a match to name contenders to all the belts. it is a wrestling program. of course people should wrestle for the opportunity to wrestle. it keeps the focus on wrestling, when they could be giving away title shots based on who kicked the other's father in the head and so forth. i don't think it's the best match and will probably be low on my interest level for that card but i am excited about how they use this to set people up for pushes. I won't see it anyway, so it doesn't matter. Can't order PPVs at my house.
|
|
|
Post by MGH on Nov 28, 2007 16:02:21 GMT -5
Jesus Christ, calm the hell down. Get your facts straight too, it ISN'T the main event.
Might want to skip iMPACT! for a couple of weeks before his f***ing head explodes.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Nov 28, 2007 16:05:22 GMT -5
Jesus Christ, calm the hell down. Get your facts straight too, it ISN'T the main event. Might want to skip iMPACT! for a couple of weeks before his smurfing head explodes. lol That's what I said earlier. This is one angry online journalist!
|
|
|
Post by metalmike on Nov 28, 2007 16:19:49 GMT -5
Love how he says that it makes the titles worthless. How about thinking there so valuable its worth the 25percent risk of getting fired?
|
|
Joekishi
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,490
|
Post by Joekishi on Nov 28, 2007 16:21:56 GMT -5
Like titles mean anything in WWE. The US title is treated with lots of respect, as is the world title, the ECW title, and the WWE title. This whole "WWE makes titles unimportant" BS needs to stop as they have booked most of their titles strongly. Though the IC, womens, tag, and cruiser title get treated like more of an after thought, the other titles are kept relevant enough so that fans know who the champs are. TNA/Indy fans seem to be the most defensive of fans.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Nov 28, 2007 16:41:24 GMT -5
I don't get the hate over the pole. Seriously, it's nothing more than a ladder match with 2 differences.
-No Ladder -Corner instead of suspended
I don't see the big damn deal. A Ladder match can be considered great, but a pole match cabn't when it has the same mechanics, the same basics, and the same spots?
Sure, it can get stupid when you add dumb things to it, like Viagra or a uncooked chicken or Judy Bagwell, but so far, the few pole matches in TNA haven't been outlandish at all.
Lockdown Pole Match- Choose either something to help you escape better or help you attack your opponent.
Cage vs Sting in a Nightstick on a Pole match: Cage attacks Sting with the nightstick at the last show, it's a equalizer.
|
|
|
Post by slasher911 on Nov 28, 2007 18:18:56 GMT -5
Uhhhh, because one needs a ladder to be reached and the other is just hanging there from a pole? Ladder matches are exciting because the ladder itself adds a whole new dimension to the match. Pole matches are boring because it's just right there. I could literally just jump up the turnbuckle and get it. People see wrestlers go up and down the turnbuckles every match, so why would it excite them now? Because there's a pole there? And no, you can't do the same spots, or atleast not with the same effect. "Moonsault from the top of the ladder!!" - YAY!! "Moonsault from the top rope!!" - Yaaaaay?
|
|
Hiroshi Hase
Patti Mayonnaise
The Good Ol' Days
Posts: 30,755
|
Post by Hiroshi Hase on Nov 28, 2007 18:32:47 GMT -5
Like titles mean anything in WWE. The US title is treated with lots of respect, as is the world title, the ECW title, and the WWE title. This whole "WWE makes titles unimportant" BS needs to stop as they have booked most of their titles strongly. Though the IC, womens, tag, and cruiser title get treated like more of an after thought, the other titles are kept relevant enough so that fans know who the champs are. TNA/Indy fans seem to be the most defensive of fans. I dunno, WWE fans rank right up there sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Nov 28, 2007 18:41:08 GMT -5
Uhhhh, because one needs a ladder to be reached and the other is just hanging there from a pole? Ladder matches are exciting because the ladder itself adds a whole new dimension to the match. Pole matches are boring because it's just right there. I could literally just jump up the turnbuckle and get it. People see wrestlers go up and down the turnbuckles every match, so why would it excite them now? Because there's a pole there? And no, you can't do the same spots, or atleast not with the same effect. "Moonsault from the top of the ladder!!" - YAY!! "Moonsault from the top rope!!" - Yaaaaay? Both have something suspended with a cable or something to avoid getting it off easy, and both have a bunch of guys fighting to get there for the prize. It's not as easy as going to the pole and getting whatever is there. You have to climb the thing first, and then you go into the traditional "Will he grab it before someone else knocks him off." thing. same thing happens in ladder matches. Both have the same suspense to it. It's only a small enhancement between the two.
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Digby Stamp on Nov 28, 2007 18:59:17 GMT -5
Uhhhh, because one needs a ladder to be reached and the other is just hanging there from a pole? Ladder matches are exciting because the ladder itself adds a whole new dimension to the match. Pole matches are boring because it's just right there. I could literally just jump up the turnbuckle and get it. People see wrestlers go up and down the turnbuckles every match, so why would it excite them now? Because there's a pole there? And no, you can't do the same spots, or atleast not with the same effect. "Moonsault from the top of the ladder!!" - YAY!! "Moonsault from the top rope!!" - Yaaaaay? Both have something suspended with a cable or something to avoid getting it off easy, and both have a bunch of guys fighting to get there for the prize. It's not as easy as going to the pole and getting whatever is there. You have to climb the thing first, and then you go into the traditional "Will he grab it before someone else knocks him off." thing. same thing happens in ladder matches. Both have the same suspense to it. It's only a small enhancement between the two. I have to disagree. There was a reason that Shawn Michaels vs. Razor Ramon at Wrestlemania was a Ladder Match, and not a Title Belt on a Pole Match. And why we've seen several TLC matches instead of TPC matches. Plus, it's way cooler when a guy says that he's master of the ladder, as opposed to master of the pole.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Nov 28, 2007 19:10:08 GMT -5
Both have something suspended with a cable or something to avoid getting it off easy, and both have a bunch of guys fighting to get there for the prize. It's not as easy as going to the pole and getting whatever is there. You have to climb the thing first, and then you go into the traditional "Will he grab it before someone else knocks him off." thing. same thing happens in ladder matches. Both have the same suspense to it. It's only a small enhancement between the two. I have to disagree. There was a reason that Shawn Michaels vs. Razor Ramon at Wrestlemania was a Ladder Match, and not a Title Belt on a Pole Match. And why we've seen several TLC matches instead of TPC matches. Plus, it's way cooler when a guy says that he's master of the ladder, as opposed to master of the pole. I'm not saying that Pole matches need to replace Ladder matches. I'm saying that Pole matches get a bad reputation when they aren't that different from the much lauded Ladder matches.
|
|
Ace Diamond
Patti Mayonnaise
Believes in Adrian Veidt, as Should We All.
mmm...flavor text
Posts: 36,043
|
Post by Ace Diamond on Nov 28, 2007 19:56:55 GMT -5
I have to disagree. There was a reason that Shawn Michaels vs. Razor Ramon at Wrestlemania was a Ladder Match, and not a Title Belt on a Pole Match. And why we've seen several TLC matches instead of TPC matches. Plus, it's way cooler when a guy says that he's master of the ladder, as opposed to master of the pole. I'm not saying that Pole matches need to replace Ladder matches. I'm saying that Pole matches get a bad reputation when they aren't that different from the much lauded Ladder matches. I would like to point out that for the various reasons mentioned yes, they are much that different.
|
|