|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jan 23, 2007 23:54:10 GMT -5
I honestly don't think you can count ROH in a big three. Heck I don't even know if TNA would be in a big two. It's more like big one and then first and second runner up. Though I dig all three.
|
|
|
Post by CMPunkyBrewster on Jan 23, 2007 23:56:31 GMT -5
i don't know if any of them are over rated, but they definitely are sometimes put on pedastals they don't deserve to be on. i don't think any are actually better than the others. they all have good points, and bad points. it just depends on what you prefer.
ROH- best actual wrestling in the u.s. however, their characters and interviews lack imagination most of the time.
tna- good wrestling in a variety of styles and decent characters and talkers (the best all around promotion of the 3 in my opinion, but not my favorite). but they rely to heavily on wwe refugees to make a name for themselves instead of building their own stars.
wwe- best characters and talkers. on the flipside, their wrestling suffers due to their focus remaining too much on the talking/character development and not enough on whether the wrestler is good in the ring.
so there you have it. none of them are any better or worse than the other 2, but just very different.
|
|
"IcePic" Rick Cobos
Don Corleone
www.ericbischoff.com - some great comedy material!!!
Posts: 2,002
|
Post by "IcePic" Rick Cobos on Jan 23, 2007 23:59:24 GMT -5
In defense of ROH's lack of imagination in character development, sometimes the KISS method works best for certain wrestlers.
As for TNA, the one thing that I DO appreciate about that company is that while the in-ring product is not as good as years past, they at least do have more of a focus on it, much more than WWE; sometimes, I really don't care to listen to the commentators explain the backstory of the match for 10 minutes, as I am more concerned with the actual match.
|
|