|
Post by RowdyRobbyPiper on Oct 28, 2013 13:19:53 GMT -5
His demands were that TNA would have to give him complete control and they would have to pay him so much he couldn't turn them down. He stated he would have brought in Bryan Danielson and made him the top guy and that he would have fired everybody over 40, though he has stated in the past that he is willing to have one legend on a roster, ala Funk in ECW. Bryan as a top guy and not being treated in story lines as a "B+" player. I like it.
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,479
|
Post by metylerca on Oct 28, 2013 15:47:35 GMT -5
To anybody saying this wouldn't have worked. Giving Heyman the reigns. Remember that they never did go through with giving Heyman the reigns for TNA. So in that essence, we will never know what could have happened. You can state that TNA "did fine" under Russo and Dutch and Bischoff and Hogan, but doing "fine" only got them to where they are right now. For all we know, there would be a contingent of internet fans who would follow suit to at least see what Heyman had to offer (ala Hogan on January 4th, 2010) and they might have stuck around or left at the drastically different TNA. For all we know, the failed Monday Night Warz 2010 wouldn't have occurred and TNA would be running arenas today as a viable #2, that is more MMA-based. Heyman was also a proponent of MMA in the mid-2000's. Think of how Hard Justice 2005 was built with A.J. being highlighted as this athletic beast who was coming for Jarrett's title with Tito Ortiz as guest referee. If memory serves right, Lockdown 2008 headlined by an MMA style match scored them one of their biggest buyrates they ever got. So in theory, the style works to a niche audience at least. More than their current style works at getting people to fork over money to watch whatever they're limping to the barn with.
And if it "failed" like it may have been destined to, then what? They'd still have the 1.1. They'll always have the 1.1. They would get a 1.1 if all Impact consisted of was Pip farting on a snare drum. They'd get a 1.1 if Impact was just Hogan and Bischoff reading dirt sheets in the ring and laughing at the internet. I don't see how using "IWC God" Paul Heyman in some fashion would be a death knell. And no cynical "Well everybody would still complain (leave me alone!)" would change the fact that whether he was serious or not about coming into power in Florida, Paul Heyman presented new and fresh ideas when talking about TNA. Radically different concepts than what we ended up getting. So I see no harm at all with wondering what might have happened.
And he said he'd have brought in Bryan Danielson? In 2008? I'm so there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2013 16:45:23 GMT -5
I find it amazing that people discredit Bischoff, despite the fact that he built the biggest wrestling promotion in the world in 1996-97 and created the storyline that pretty much started the late-90's boom, yet Heyman is considered a mastermind despite ECW being the Jerry Springer of pro wrestling for a few years (with WWF helping them out). Bischoff has/had his faults, there is no question about that, but what was Heyman's contribution to wrestling? The Attitude Era (if you want to credit Heyman's ECW vision as a launching pad for it) was just as large a part of the decline of pro wrestling in the 2000's than it was for the rise in popularity in the late-90's. Watch Bischoff's WCW in 1996-97 and Heyman's ECW (pick his best two years), and see which one looks dated in 2013. Hint: It's not Bischoff's.
I know people like to point to Smackdown where Heyman had the same six guys wrestle 500 times in a span of a few months, but where exactly is the evidence of Heyman's genius? What has he done to make people believe he would have turned TNA into anything more than what it is now or what it was in 2009? Maybe I'm missing something.
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,479
|
Post by metylerca on Oct 28, 2013 19:36:22 GMT -5
I find it amazing that people discredit Bischoff, despite the fact that he built the biggest wrestling promotion in the world in 1996-97 and created the storyline that pretty much started the late-90's boom, yet Heyman is considered a mastermind despite ECW being the Jerry Springer of pro wrestling for a few years (with WWF helping them out). Bischoff has/had his faults, there is no question about that, but what was Heyman's contribution to wrestling? The Attitude Era (if you want to credit Heyman's ECW vision as a launching pad for it) was just as large a part of the decline of pro wrestling in the 2000's than it was for the rise in popularity in the late-90's. Watch Bischoff's WCW in 1996-97 and Heyman's ECW (pick his best two years), and see which one looks dated in 2013. Hint: It's not Bischoff's. I know people like to point to Smackdown where Heyman had the same six guys wrestle 500 times in a span of a few months, but where exactly is the evidence of Heyman's genius? What has he done to make people believe he would have turned TNA into anything more than what it is now or what it was in 2009? Maybe I'm missing something. For every one that is amazed how Bischoff can be discredited, there is someone equally baffled how his many shortcomings and his huge shortcoming (WCW) get overlooked by these people. He's had 3 years and then some to do something in TNA. How much longer does he need?
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Oct 28, 2013 20:01:56 GMT -5
I find it amazing that people discredit Bischoff, despite the fact that he built the biggest wrestling promotion in the world in 1996-97 and created the storyline that pretty much started the late-90's boom, yet Heyman is considered a mastermind despite ECW being the Jerry Springer of pro wrestling for a few years (with WWF helping them out). Bischoff has/had his faults, there is no question about that, but what was Heyman's contribution to wrestling? The Attitude Era (if you want to credit Heyman's ECW vision as a launching pad for it) was just as large a part of the decline of pro wrestling in the 2000's than it was for the rise in popularity in the late-90's. Watch Bischoff's WCW in 1996-97 and Heyman's ECW (pick his best two years), and see which one looks dated in 2013. Hint: It's not Bischoff's. I know people like to point to Smackdown where Heyman had the same six guys wrestle 500 times in a span of a few months, but where exactly is the evidence of Heyman's genius? What has he done to make people believe he would have turned TNA into anything more than what it is now or what it was in 2009? Maybe I'm missing something. Bischoff blew it and his opportunity to repair his reputation has ended in disaster, that's why people discredit him. To get the success he had, he mortgaged the company's future, he gave a lot of people contracts they had no business being on and gave quite a few of them clauses which led to the place becoming unbookable for the people who had to clean up his mess. He was responsible for WCW beating the WWF for a year or so, but he's equally responsible for the decline after, more so than Russo in my opinion. Heyman, I have spent a lot of time arguing what he did to wrestling is just as bad as Bischoff's legacy, however, at least he would have given us a far more consistent and watchable show over the past 3 years and we would have been spared Aces and 8's and Brooke Hogan.
|
|
SOR
Unicron
Posts: 2,611
|
Post by SOR on Oct 28, 2013 20:12:17 GMT -5
The reason Heyman is incredibly popular is because ECW was an original and fresh idea that was different at the time. He basically hit the lottery and is a one trick pony.
Someone above said Heyman just let the talent do what they want and to an extent that's correct. Raven said he and Sandman were the ones who booked the Raven/Sandman feud. Raven/Dreamer was done by Raven. I don't doubt he's a creative guy but the talent did have a lot of say in what happened.
And look at all the failed angles and characters Heyman tried as well.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Oct 28, 2013 23:29:26 GMT -5
To anybody saying this wouldn't have worked. Giving Heyman the reigns. Remember that they never did go through with giving Heyman the reigns for TNA. So in that essence, we will never know what could have happened. You can state that TNA "did fine" under Russo and Dutch and Bischoff and Hogan, but doing "fine" only got them to where they are right now. For all we know, there would be a contingent of internet fans who would follow suit to at least see what Heyman had to offer (ala Hogan on January 4th, 2010) and they might have stuck around or left at the drastically different TNA. For all we know, the failed Monday Night Warz 2010 wouldn't have occurred and TNA would be running arenas today as a viable #2, that is more MMA-based. Heyman was also a proponent of MMA in the mid-2000's. Think of how Hard Justice 2005 was built with A.J. being highlighted as this athletic beast who was coming for Jarrett's title with Tito Ortiz as guest referee. If memory serves right, Lockdown 2008 headlined by an MMA style match scored them one of their biggest buyrates they ever got. So in theory, the style works to a niche audience at least. More than their current style works at getting people to fork over money to watch whatever they're limping to the barn with. And if it "failed" like it may have been destined to, then what? They'd still have the 1.1. They'll always have the 1.1. They would get a 1.1 if all Impact consisted of was Pip farting on a snare drum. They'd get a 1.1 if Impact was just Hogan and Bischoff reading dirt sheets in the ring and laughing at the internet. I don't see how using "IWC God" Paul Heyman in some fashion would be a death knell. And no cynical "Well everybody would still complain (leave me alone!)" would change the fact that whether he was serious or not about coming into power in Florida, Paul Heyman presented new and fresh ideas when talking about TNA. Radically different concepts than what we ended up getting. So I see no harm at all with wondering what might have happened. And he said he'd have brought in Bryan Danielson? In 2008? I'm so there. Really? You're gonna play the "wait and see" card here? And you know what? No. We know. And we wouldn't have gotten "genius" heyman, with new and fresh ideas. It was "too old for this s***" Heyman, who just didn't care, and just wanted to get paid. Not exactly the best amopshere for a person to come up with ideas, now is it. And the ideas he was shilling were not at all interesting, any way you try to justify it. They sucked. And Danielson? well, it's personal here, but f*** Danielson. No talent piece of s***. I wouldn't piss on him if her were on fire. The fact that in a sea of great and interesting talent, he was seen as the King made me shake my hand, If Heyman got in and made Whitey McBlandrson the franchise star, I would have quit watching, said "f*** you" to TNA and never watch another show again. And I don't like him very much, either.
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Oct 28, 2013 23:35:01 GMT -5
And Danielson? well, it's personal here, but f*** Danielson. No talent piece of s***. I wouldn't piss on him if her were on fire. The fact that in a sea of great and interesting talent, he was seen as the King made me shake my hand, If Heyman got in and made Whitey McBlandrson the franchise star, I would have quit watching, said "f*** you" to TNA and never watch another show again. And I don't like him very much, either. I'm sorry for your loss since Danielson must have killed your father based on this response.
|
|
Glitch
Grimlock
Not Going To Die; Childs, we're goin' out to give Blair the test. If he tries to make it back here and we're not with him... burn him.
Watching you.
Posts: 12,787
|
Post by Glitch on Oct 29, 2013 0:42:44 GMT -5
The reason Heyman is incredibly popular is because ECW was an original and fresh idea that was different at the time. He basically hit the lottery and is a one trick pony. Someone above said Heyman just let the talent do what they want and to an extent that's correct. Raven said he and Sandman were the ones who booked the Raven/Sandman feud. Raven/Dreamer was done by Raven. I don't doubt he's a creative guy but the talent did have a lot of say in what happened. And look at all the failed angles and characters Heyman tried as well. All these things you say about Heyman seem to easily match Bischoff. I could almost swear you're talking about bischoff . In fact the major difference between the two is that Heyman doesn't blame everyone but himself for failures, doesn't stick to the same old ideas/be a one trick pony, and doesn't stick himself and friends in storylines over the other talent.
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,479
|
Post by metylerca on Oct 29, 2013 0:54:22 GMT -5
To anybody saying this wouldn't have worked. Giving Heyman the reigns. Remember that they never did go through with giving Heyman the reigns for TNA. So in that essence, we will never know what could have happened. You can state that TNA "did fine" under Russo and Dutch and Bischoff and Hogan, but doing "fine" only got them to where they are right now. For all we know, there would be a contingent of internet fans who would follow suit to at least see what Heyman had to offer (ala Hogan on January 4th, 2010) and they might have stuck around or left at the drastically different TNA. For all we know, the failed Monday Night Warz 2010 wouldn't have occurred and TNA would be running arenas today as a viable #2, that is more MMA-based. Heyman was also a proponent of MMA in the mid-2000's. Think of how Hard Justice 2005 was built with A.J. being highlighted as this athletic beast who was coming for Jarrett's title with Tito Ortiz as guest referee. If memory serves right, Lockdown 2008 headlined by an MMA style match scored them one of their biggest buyrates they ever got. So in theory, the style works to a niche audience at least. More than their current style works at getting people to fork over money to watch whatever they're limping to the barn with. And if it "failed" like it may have been destined to, then what? They'd still have the 1.1. They'll always have the 1.1. They would get a 1.1 if all Impact consisted of was Pip farting on a snare drum. They'd get a 1.1 if Impact was just Hogan and Bischoff reading dirt sheets in the ring and laughing at the internet. I don't see how using "IWC God" Paul Heyman in some fashion would be a death knell. And no cynical "Well everybody would still complain (leave me alone!)" would change the fact that whether he was serious or not about coming into power in Florida, Paul Heyman presented new and fresh ideas when talking about TNA. Radically different concepts than what we ended up getting. So I see no harm at all with wondering what might have happened. And he said he'd have brought in Bryan Danielson? In 2008? I'm so there. Really? You're gonna play the "wait and see" card here? And you know what? No. We know. And we wouldn't have gotten "genius" heyman, with new and fresh ideas. It was "too old for this s***" Heyman, who just didn't care, and just wanted to get paid. Not exactly the best amopshere for a person to come up with ideas, now is it. And the ideas he was shilling were not at all interesting, any way you try to justify it. They sucked. And Danielson? well, it's personal here, but f*** Danielson. No talent piece of s***. I wouldn't piss on him if her were on fire. The fact that in a sea of great and interesting talent, he was seen as the King made me shake my hand, If Heyman got in and made Whitey McBlandrson the franchise star, I would have quit watching, said "f*** you" to TNA and never watch another show again. And I don't like him very much, either. Pretty sure you went from Michael Coello, resident TNA fan to Sinister1, board heel with this post. I didn't say 'wait and see' with Heyman. I merely explained the possibilities of his side of the coin. Heyman would have brought drastic change to a company that seemed on the verge of breaking out in one direction or the other. We don't know, and as much as you like to think of yourself as an authority on all things TNA (you've had this board gimmick for as long as I've been a member here, you even once posted a long winded apology for it a few years back), you can't just be dismissive of Heyman because you don't like him. That goes against argumentative logic. State a case outside of "well he clearly didn't care, he would only be there to collect a check!" because that can sum up Hogan and Bischoff and the Nasty Boys and just about any castoff TNA would hire that made the idea of axing the oldtimers so attractive to a lot of people, but you seemed to not have a problem with that either. Any way you can try to justify those being good ideas, especially with the benefit of hindsight, they all sucked too. See? Other people have opinions too. And as for your Bryan Danielson rant, I agree with the above poster who is sorry for whatever elicited that response. The guy is excellent in the ring and good on the mic. If you've never seen his series with Nigel or his WWE series with Punk and Shield, you're missing out. It almost discredits your pro-TNA viewpoint to openly state your hatred for one of the best things going in professional wrestling, whilst defending one of the more loathed properties in professional wrestling. You have your taste, others have theirs, I have mine. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I don't want this to escalate into a flame war or anything, so I'll be the bigger man and move on. Paul Heyman never outright said his plan for TNA. He only gave ideas and concepts of what he would do in the big picture. And if introducing new talent to a national stage, spending 5 years focusing solely on making them huge stars and then unleashing the hungry young talent to run loose is a bad thing, then what the hell are we asking for from our wrestling product? What we ended up getting from TNA was washed up has-beenes (credit: Jericho, Chris) using terrible names because they didn't even own the rights to the characters that they were most known for. Outside of a few shiners such as Bully Ray, Rhino and I'd say RVD until after he lost the world title, none of those WWE-washouts were worth focusing the entire show on the old guard in lieu of giving A.J./Joe/AMW/Daniels/Kazarian and McGuinness the spotlight. Their characters became perennial "these guys are the future of TNA!" archetypes. They were the "future of TNA" for so long, that most of them are getting past their prime now. Rather than having Joe spend 4 years on top of the company giving his best years to main events as a featured player (that even the most die hard of TNA fans were clamoring for), he was relegated to just being a guy. Rather than showcasing the talents of AJ Styles and Chris Daniels, one became the guy who apparently NEEDED to be taken to the next level and every storyline with him was all about making him the star, instead of just showing his talents and letting them speak for themselves. The other was Christopher Daniels, just another guy according to the Hulkster. The list goes on and on. And if knowing back when Heyman supposedly entertained the idea of coming to TNA that the young up and comers would be the focus of the company, I almost wish the powers that be in TNA would have called his bluff and at least seen what he had. He'd have been cheaper than Hogan and would have had radically different ideals than anything ever done on a large national scale in wrestling history. And if it failed then, they'd still have the 1.1. And theoretically speaking, all of those for Heyman in TNA would have egg on their face, much like those who insisted Hulk Hogan coming to TNA would be the big next step that would get TNA to the promised land.
|
|
|
Post by El Cokehead del Knife Fight on Oct 29, 2013 1:49:39 GMT -5
The reason Heyman is incredibly popular is because ECW was an original and fresh idea that was different at the time. He basically hit the lottery and is a one trick pony. Someone above said Heyman just let the talent do what they want and to an extent that's correct. Raven said he and Sandman were the ones who booked the Raven/Sandman feud. Raven/Dreamer was done by Raven. I don't doubt he's a creative guy but the talent did have a lot of say in what happened. And look at all the failed angles and characters Heyman tried as well. Heyman also booked OVW in 2004 and Smackdown in 2002-2003, both periods were they were considered to be great television.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Oct 29, 2013 6:01:58 GMT -5
Argue their credentials all you want, but the fact is Heyman had a long term plan he was upfront about with goals and time frames. The Bischoff-Hogan regime was always one more change, one more expenditure and we will have "it". Never stating what "it" was so later they could claim they got it. The Monday night war wasn't a failure it got us the press we wanted, it wasn't about ratings. They remind me of carnival fortune tellers so vague and yet descriptive enough to sound like they know what they are saying. There is a pot of gold around the corner and everyone will get rich as long as a few other people are willing to make the neccesary sacrifices and when the gold never shows up those guys didn't sacrifice enough, it was because the new guys couldn't get it done jack or the Hogan exposure wasn't enough or the best of them, the fans ruined it.
|
|
SOR
Unicron
Posts: 2,611
|
Post by SOR on Oct 29, 2013 9:26:15 GMT -5
The reason Heyman is incredibly popular is because ECW was an original and fresh idea that was different at the time. He basically hit the lottery and is a one trick pony. Someone above said Heyman just let the talent do what they want and to an extent that's correct. Raven said he and Sandman were the ones who booked the Raven/Sandman feud. Raven/Dreamer was done by Raven. I don't doubt he's a creative guy but the talent did have a lot of say in what happened. And look at all the failed angles and characters Heyman tried as well. All these things you say about Heyman seem to easily match Bischoff. I could almost swear you're talking about bischoff . In fact the major difference between the two is that Heyman doesn't blame everyone but himself for failures, doesn't stick to the same old ideas/be a one trick pony, and doesn't stick himself and friends in storylines over the other talent. I guess if you don't know a lot about WCW and didn't watch you could assume Eric was a one trick pony just for nWo but every story line etc was written by WCW staff not the wrestlers. As for Heyman blaming nobody else. Hilarious. Watch the WWE documentary where he blames EVERYONE for ECW's failures. Some notable ones: 1. Claims Eric Bischoff is an ass because Eric stole ECW talent. 2. Claims that ECW died because TNN never advertised them despite the fact Heyman shot himself in the foot trying to play hard ball with them. 3. Blames the PPV company, Activision video game company and a number of other places for late payment of wrestlers etc etc 4. Blames WWE for taking Taz and Dudley Boys just before ECW debuts on TNN. As for Heyman not sticking to the same tricks. He's never had an opportunity to. Do you think if he gets 100% control over TNA he isn't bringing in guys like Dreamer and Raven to help out or work? He definitely is. The reason Heyman is incredibly popular is because ECW was an original and fresh idea that was different at the time. He basically hit the lottery and is a one trick pony. Someone above said Heyman just let the talent do what they want and to an extent that's correct. Raven said he and Sandman were the ones who booked the Raven/Sandman feud. Raven/Dreamer was done by Raven. I don't doubt he's a creative guy but the talent did have a lot of say in what happened. And look at all the failed angles and characters Heyman tried as well. Heyman also booked OVW in 2004 and Smackdown in 2002-2003, both periods were they were considered to be great television. Apart from a few hot angles 2002-2003 Smackdown wasn't that great. RAW was definitely doing better in that time period. I'll give him credit for the rise of Lesnar, A decent feud between Angle and Benoit and Taker/Brock in late 2002. Remember this is the same time period that had Dawn Marie Vs Torrie Wilson and a lot of other "controversial" garbage. OVW I know nothing about.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Oct 29, 2013 9:48:26 GMT -5
As for Heyman not sticking to the same tricks. He's never had an opportunity to. Do you think if he gets 100% control over TNA he isn't bringing in guys like Dreamer and Raven to help out or work? He definitely is. Both were signed by TNA anyway, Raven was with Dr. Stevie then joined Dreamer in the ECW angle around the time that Heyman was in negotiations.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Oct 29, 2013 9:59:03 GMT -5
Yes, they should have. Hogan has given them nothing of use.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Oct 29, 2013 10:56:51 GMT -5
Really? You're gonna play the "wait and see" card here? And you know what? No. We know. And we wouldn't have gotten "genius" heyman, with new and fresh ideas. It was "too old for this s***" Heyman, who just didn't care, and just wanted to get paid. Not exactly the best amopshere for a person to come up with ideas, now is it. And the ideas he was shilling were not at all interesting, any way you try to justify it. They sucked. And Danielson? well, it's personal here, but f*** Danielson. No talent piece of s***. I wouldn't piss on him if her were on fire. The fact that in a sea of great and interesting talent, he was seen as the King made me shake my hand, If Heyman got in and made Whitey McBlandrson the franchise star, I would have quit watching, said "f*** you" to TNA and never watch another show again. And I don't like him very much, either. Pretty sure you went from Michael Coello, resident TNA fan to Sinister1, board heel with this post. I didn't say 'wait and see' with Heyman. I merely explained the possibilities of his side of the coin. Heyman would have brought drastic change to a company that seemed on the verge of breaking out in one direction or the other. We don't know, and as much as you like to think of yourself as an authority on all things TNA (you've had this board gimmick for as long as I've been a member here, you even once posted a long winded apology for it a few years back), you can't just be dismissive of Heyman because you don't like him. That goes against argumentative logic. State a case outside of "well he clearly didn't care, he would only be there to collect a check!" because that can sum up Hogan and Bischoff and the Nasty Boys and just about any castoff TNA would hire that made the idea of axing the oldtimers so attractive to a lot of people, but you seemed to not have a problem with that either. Any way you can try to justify those being good ideas, especially with the benefit of hindsight, they all sucked too. See? Other people have opinions too. And as for your Bryan Danielson rant, I agree with the above poster who is sorry for whatever elicited that response. The guy is excellent in the ring and good on the mic. If you've never seen his series with Nigel or his WWE series with Punk and Shield, you're missing out. It almost discredits your pro-TNA viewpoint to openly state your hatred for one of the best things going in professional wrestling, whilst defending one of the more loathed properties in professional wrestling. You have your taste, others have theirs, I have mine. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I don't want this to escalate into a flame war or anything, so I'll be the bigger man and move on. Paul Heyman never outright said his plan for TNA. He only gave ideas and concepts of what he would do in the big picture. And if introducing new talent to a national stage, spending 5 years focusing solely on making them huge stars and then unleashing the hungry young talent to run loose is a bad thing, then what the hell are we asking for from our wrestling product? What we ended up getting from TNA was washed up has-beenes (credit: Jericho, Chris) using terrible names because they didn't even own the rights to the characters that they were most known for. Outside of a few shiners such as Bully Ray, Rhino and I'd say RVD until after he lost the world title, none of those WWE-washouts were worth focusing the entire show on the old guard in lieu of giving A.J./Joe/AMW/Daniels/Kazarian and McGuinness the spotlight. Their characters became perennial "these guys are the future of TNA!" archetypes. They were the "future of TNA" for so long, that most of them are getting past their prime now. Rather than having Joe spend 4 years on top of the company giving his best years to main events as a featured player (that even the most die hard of TNA fans were clamoring for), he was relegated to just being a guy. Rather than showcasing the talents of AJ Styles and Chris Daniels, one became the guy who apparently NEEDED to be taken to the next level and every storyline with him was all about making him the star, instead of just showing his talents and letting them speak for themselves. The other was Christopher Daniels, just another guy according to the Hulkster. The list goes on and on. And if knowing back when Heyman supposedly entertained the idea of coming to TNA that the young up and comers would be the focus of the company, I almost wish the powers that be in TNA would have called his bluff and at least seen what he had. He'd have been cheaper than Hogan and would have had radically different ideals than anything ever done on a large national scale in wrestling history. And if it failed then, they'd still have the 1.1. And theoretically speaking, all of those for Heyman in TNA would have egg on their face, much like those who insisted Hulk Hogan coming to TNA would be the big next step that would get TNA to the promised land. Oh, I'm sorry my personal opinion is wrong and makes me a "heel". I already knew my opinion of Danielson when he was still in ROH at his "best". And I'm glad I never saw that cluster f*** of a fanbase of his in TNA, cause the one from ICP's invasion was the same thing and I couldn't stand them, either. And just cause you can go "Oh, Hogan would have done the same thing!" still doesn't make it a good idea. If Hogan's run was a horrible abortion by the board logic, and you are saying it would have not been any different than Hogan if Heyman was signed, logic dictates his run would have been a abortion of a run, too. Plus, if he was asking for the moon, how exactly would it have been cheaper? The dude was basically trying to pull and one and done so he and his family can be set for life. You don't think he would have asked for Hogan and Bisch numbers as well to do that? And while you can dream of AJ and Joe and Daniels having 5 star matches with sugar plums in the buffet line, the fact is that, under Heyman's own logic, that would not have happened. Daniels was 40 at the time, so he would have been gone, or not done much. Joe and AJ are late 30's, and would have been gone at the end of that 5 year build up to actually do a single thing.
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Oct 29, 2013 11:14:48 GMT -5
Ummm...no. Joe and AJ would have still been around. AJ would have been 33 in 2010 while Joe was 31.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Oct 29, 2013 11:38:04 GMT -5
Being fair- the "don't trust anyone over 40!" booking problem wasn't the bigger problem. At the very least, Heyman "does" have a good eye for talent to replace anyone he brought in, could get cheaper replacements- what TNA REALLY needed, and either way, you get a 1.1.
Having said that, though, the real problem that would make me say "HELL NO!" to Heyman being booked was his plan to make TNA more like UFC. We've already seen the weakness of bringing MMA guys to TNA now- they won't "BE" TNA guys, they'll be Bellator guys who Spike TV makes TNA sponsor and advertise on Impact. And as for the in-ring style being MMA-oriented...that would not be great. I hear that and I think "We would have gotten ROH's Clone Wars feud in TNA", with that being the best case- at worst case, Eddie Edwards and Davey Richards probably would have bought in if Heyman said "for the blowoff match, shoot.
I could possibly see new talent brought in, simply because most of the roster- smark darling and hated alike, are so worn out the roster needs a total overhaul, but an MMA-based TNA would have probably been dire.
|
|
SOR
Unicron
Posts: 2,611
|
Post by SOR on Oct 29, 2013 19:24:42 GMT -5
I never understood the "TNA is going to get 1.1 anyway!" argument.
You think people won't tune out if TNA puts in shit talent that they hate? The IWC won't leave because they love hating on it but your casual TNA fans are gone if Hardy, Sting, Angle, Anderson etc leave.
Hell, I'd probably be gone if TNA didn't mix big name former WWE guys that I recognize and like with guys like AJ Styles.
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Oct 29, 2013 19:28:50 GMT -5
I never understood the "TNA is going to get 1.1 anyway!" argument. You think people won't tune out if TNA puts in shit talent that they hate? ...Honestly? I really do believe that in my heart of hearts. I don't what is going on in these people's lives but I truly believe that, no matter the occasion, there are at least a million people that will give up their Thursday night to watch TNA. These people have been through several highs and the lowest of lows. Whether it be out of actual enjoyment or just to mock it, I couldn't tell ya. Obviously, this is all hypothetical and it's not like there is an effective way to prove it but that's my two cents.
|
|