|
Post by HMARK Center on Nov 28, 2007 20:52:34 GMT -5
I can't say I'm that thrilled with the decision on this gimmick match, given that they haven't given a reason why somebody will get a "pink slip". If they played up that, I don't know, TNA needs to "start making a couple of cuts", that'd be one thing...but even still, the nature of the match is too random for that to work. I'm sure "TNA management" wouldn't be thrilled if they lost, say, Christopher Daniels to a freak occurrence. I mean, you could say "Management is stocking this match with all wrestlers who measure up as contenders to various titles, so whoever wins will be deserving", but that doesn't account for the damn pink slip. Too unexplained, too underdeveloped, not thought out enough on that gimmick.
Still, though, I won't freak too much about it; during the past couple of months, TNA's done a few goofy things that have really turned out fine due to the fact that the matches have been better than they've been across the entire company since 2005, and a LOT of the roster has gained a lot in terms of personality and/or charm, so they're just flat-out entertaining to watch. It's made anything that seems overly goofy a lot easier to swallow, since the rest of the shows have been at the highest level I've seen TNA since, again, summer 2005 (the "We don't have TV 'til fall" era).
As for Alvarez, I'm sorry, I don't care how widely circulated his newsletter may be, but where the hell does somebody get the sand to slap their blathering, frothing, rage-induced opinions all over their reports and still label themselves a "journalist"? That was a borderline pathetic read.
Ignore the fact that he missed out on some facts concerning the match and what have you, but focus on the fact that he just spent the vast majority of what's supposed to be a "news and notes" section moaning and whining like a thirteen year old mark. That's pretty sad, no matter what company he does it about.
And let's not have arguments about TNA/WWE by saying "Yeah, but WWE is even dumber!" I'm about as far as you can get from being a WWE fan, but there are still objective ways to discuss the pro's and con's of a company beyond "They're just stupid!".
Also, for the record, I'd say this board is much more pro WWE than pro TNA. It's not even close.
|
|
Ace Baretta
Unicron
WE ARE NASHVILLE (May 1, 2010)
Posts: 2,554
|
Post by Ace Baretta on Nov 29, 2007 13:17:12 GMT -5
and what i mean is they knew kaz was ready to move up so they had the tournament. i don't think kaz was that big of a risk. had they tried to have him make a few promos or do mic work against christian it would have been because his talents on mic are not the best. however, they knew he could hang in the ring and designed a tournament to help put him in a position to where it made storyline sense for him to have a hard fought match with christian. that is why the tournament was there. they knew that kaz could hang enough in the ring with christian to really impress and move him up the card. i don't think it was that much dumb luck but what do i know. can you give me a reason why roode feuding with joe is a bad thing? is the only reason because it makes joe not champion? i am sorry i just don't follow the whole "joe is being misused because he isn't champion" theory. the guy is the number one babyface in the company and was used to elevate the standings of a midcard heel. what isn't good about this idea? Eventually people will cease caring about Joe unless he gets the title, at least that's my view of it, maybe I'm wrong, but what the smurf do I know I think wrestling is real. I wish I could think of a precedent wherin somebody after so many booked failing just short of the mark got the title but by then nobody gave a damn, but I can't think of one. Eventually people will stop caring huh? Like they stopped caring about Roddy Piper? And Ted DiBiase? Tommy Dreamer? This list is endless with guys who always seemed to fall short (ok, Tommy won, but I mean, come on, how long was it?). This point here? Sucks. People don't like you BECAUSE you in titles, unless, of course, you aren't a real fan and just like whoever holds the title at a given point. People like you becuase THEY LIKE YOU. Really, it's a plain and simple truth.
|
|
Ace Diamond
Patti Mayonnaise
Believes in Adrian Veidt, as Should We All.
mmm...flavor text
Posts: 36,043
|
Post by Ace Diamond on Nov 29, 2007 13:36:59 GMT -5
Eventually people will cease caring about Joe unless he gets the title, at least that's my view of it, maybe I'm wrong, but what the smurf do I know I think wrestling is real. I wish I could think of a precedent wherin somebody after so many booked failing just short of the mark got the title but by then nobody gave a damn, but I can't think of one. Eventually people will stop caring huh? Like they stopped caring about Roddy Piper? And Ted DiBiase? Tommy Dreamer? This list is endless with guys who always seemed to fall short (ok, Tommy won, but I mean, come on, how long was it?). This point here? Sucks. People don't like you BECAUSE you in titles, unless, of course, you aren't a real fan and just like whoever holds the title at a given point. People like you becuase THEY LIKE YOU. Really, it's a plain and simple truth. Well you've made a good point, and I don't like people soley on whether or not they have belts, it just feels like Joe should be in the main event but is constantly made to look otherwise or "just out of their league" for one reason or another.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Nov 29, 2007 13:40:13 GMT -5
Eventually people will stop caring huh? Like they stopped caring about Roddy Piper? And Ted DiBiase? Tommy Dreamer? This list is endless with guys who always seemed to fall short (ok, Tommy won, but I mean, come on, how long was it?). This point here? Sucks. People don't like you BECAUSE you in titles, unless, of course, you aren't a real fan and just like whoever holds the title at a given point. People like you becuase THEY LIKE YOU. Really, it's a plain and simple truth. Well you've made a good point, and I don't like people soley on whether or not they have belts, it just feels like Joe should be in the main event but is constantly made to look otherwise or "just out of their league" for one reason or another. This remains my biggest gripe with TNA. I could honestly give a damn if Joe ever holds a title. It just seems like he's clearly portrayed at a level that's solidly beneath the likes of Angle, Nash, Sting, and so on.
|
|
Ace Diamond
Patti Mayonnaise
Believes in Adrian Veidt, as Should We All.
mmm...flavor text
Posts: 36,043
|
Post by Ace Diamond on Nov 29, 2007 13:57:42 GMT -5
Well you've made a good point, and I don't like people soley on whether or not they have belts, it just feels like Joe should be in the main event but is constantly made to look otherwise or "just out of their league" for one reason or another. This remains my biggest gripe with TNA. I could honestly give a damn if Joe ever holds a title. It just seems like he's clearly portrayed at a level that's solidly beneath the likes of Angle, Nash, Sting, and so on. Exactly my thoughts. Hell Robert Roode is apparently at one point a threat to him. How does that work?
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Nov 29, 2007 14:01:09 GMT -5
This remains my biggest gripe with TNA. I could honestly give a damn if Joe ever holds a title. It just seems like he's clearly portrayed at a level that's solidly beneath the likes of Angle, Nash, Sting, and so on. Exactly my thoughts. Hell Robert Roode is apparently at one point a threat to him. How does that work? I absolutely loathe Robert Roode, so I really can't offer a fair opinion here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Nov 29, 2007 14:03:34 GMT -5
This remains my biggest gripe with TNA. I could honestly give a damn if Joe ever holds a title. It just seems like he's clearly portrayed at a level that's solidly beneath the likes of Angle, Nash, Sting, and so on. Exactly my thoughts. Hell Robert Roode is apparently at one point a threat to him. How does that work? Cheapshots, Dirty Tricks, using Ms. Brooks as a shield = Threat?
|
|
|
Post by poi zen rana on Nov 29, 2007 14:20:46 GMT -5
This remains my biggest gripe with TNA. I could honestly give a damn if Joe ever holds a title. It just seems like he's clearly portrayed at a level that's solidly beneath the likes of Angle, Nash, Sting, and so on. Exactly my thoughts. Hell Robert Roode is apparently at one point a threat to him. How does that work? everyone cheats to beat joe. how is joe not a main eventer. please name some babyfaces who are above him. sting? he only got a shot at the title AFTER joe. as soon as the sting feud was over who is kurt angle feuding with again? joe. he IS main event. he and kurt were tied at one match a piece. then kurt went ahead one. then as everything was on the line kurt couldn't beat joe and had to cheat. joe wasn't pushed down the card for fighting roode anymore than christian was. is christian not a top player in tna? remember christian also feuded with an undercard member, thing is he LOST. joe is definitely in their league. there is no question.
|
|
comahan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by comahan on Nov 29, 2007 14:29:17 GMT -5
Exactly my thoughts. Hell Robert Roode is apparently at one point a threat to him. How does that work? everyone cheats to beat joe. how is joe not a main eventer. please name some babyfaces who are above him. sting? he only got a shot at the title AFTER joe. as soon as the sting feud was over who is kurt angle feuding with again? joe. he IS main event. he and kurt were tied at one match a piece. then kurt went ahead one. then as everything was on the line kurt couldn't beat joe and had to cheat. joe wasn't pushed down the card for fighting roode anymore than christian was. is christian not a top player in tna? remember christian also feuded with an undercard member, thing is he LOST. joe is definitely in their league. there is no question. Yea, I dont get that, Joe has easily been their biggest babyface since Angle turned heel, and was up there with Angle when he was face. He took a backseat to another face for a few months, thats just how it works. Joe in a short feud with Roode is no different than Triple H being in a program with Umaga (yes, Umaga had a great match with Cena and lost, while Roode had a very good match with Jarrett and won, point is, neither are Main Eventers). Neither are at the top of PPV cards for those matches, but theyre still the biggest face on the roster (you can make arguments for taker, but im talking Raw)
|
|
Joekishi
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,490
|
Post by Joekishi on Nov 29, 2007 14:35:26 GMT -5
Regardless of his look, I just never bought into the Joe hype like others. He made the x-division into the jobber division.
He and Angle had some of the most lackluster main events in TNA, and I just don't ever buy him as somebody viably competing with angle, hanging with the outsiders, or other things he does.
I got into him again when he was in that blood fued with Christian, but set him back down to his craptacular fued with Angle and it just i don't know.
Nothing clicks with Angle/Joe which is just weird.
|
|
comahan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by comahan on Nov 29, 2007 14:44:19 GMT -5
Regardless of his look, I just never bought into the Joe hype like others. He made the x-division into the jobber division. He and Angle had some of the most lackluster main events in TNA, and I just don't ever buy him as somebody viably competing with angle, hanging with the outsiders, or other things he does. I got into him again when he was in that blood fued with Christian, but set him back down to his craptacular fued with Angle and it just i don't know. Nothing clicks with Angle/Joe which is just weird. At least IMO, the Angle/Joe matches weren't lackluster at ALL. They might not have been the 9-Star epics everyone thought they would be, but they were still great nonetheless. Especially the second one. Note: I know this doesnt mean a lot to most people, me included, but since its the most used basis for match quality, i thought id post it. Meltzers Ratings for Joe/Angle Matches: 11/19/06 Kurt Angle vs. Samoa Joe ****1/4 12/10/06 Samoa Joe vs. Kurt Angle ****1/4 1/14/07 Samoa Joe vs. Kurt Angle (30 Minute Iron Man) ***1/2 8/12/07 Samoa Joe vs. Kurt Angle ***1/4 Now, the 8/12 match was the Hard Justice debacle with the un-swerviest swerve ever, but other than that, I pretty much agree with his ratings. (maybe just flat 4 the first match, instead of 4 1/4.)
|
|
Joekishi
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,490
|
Post by Joekishi on Nov 29, 2007 15:24:08 GMT -5
I don't care what Meltzer rated it. His opinion isn't important to me. So why should i take his ratings seriously when his criteria for good wrestling is way different than mine.
The matches had no epic feeling to it, the matches lacked that intensity and personal investment, and the matches lacked a flow and feeling of urgency. Even the iron man match.
I just don't like their series of matches one bit.
Angle has better matches against everybody else but Joe, and vice-versa.
which is weird to me personally.
|
|
comahan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by comahan on Nov 29, 2007 16:22:09 GMT -5
I realize that. I didn't expect you to. Which is why I added the note. I just felt you presented what you said as if everyone knew they were lackluster and agreed that they were bad.
I disagreed, and gave an example of someone else who disagreed. I'm not trying to say you're wrong or anything, I hope you didn't take it like that.
I will agree that they seem to have better matches with other people, and better overall chemistry with a lot of other people. That is weird.
|
|
Joekishi
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,490
|
Post by Joekishi on Nov 29, 2007 16:24:51 GMT -5
That's what I'm saying
Chemistry is really hard to find in anything.
Angle/Joe just don't have chemistry
They both have had amazing matches with Jay Lethal though.
|
|