Recent Posts

As far as you not needing to be a fan of TNA to comment on their product, it shows, because you really dont seem to have a clue what you are talking about. You criticize them for not being able to make new stars or run a wrestling company even though they have consistently built a fanbase from the ground up for seven years and also built plenty of new stars in that time. So you are just flat out wrong. TNA went from obscurity to a national TV deal. They dont know what they are doing? They arent running a wrestling company properly"

As far as giving themselves a style, they have taken the WCW route and given something for everyone. Theres the X Division for fast paced action if you want that, good tag wrestling and a traditional heavyweight division. Any wrestling that relies on one style isn't pro wresting. PW has always been about giving something for everyone. WCW did it, ECW did it, WWE used to do it until they decided to fit everyone into the same mold.

Your arguments are pointless anyway because ECW failed. If TNA wants to concern themselves with developing a "recognizable style" over profitability, THAT would mean they dont know how to run a wrestling company. You are the only one hung up over TNA not "developing a brand" over actually turning a profit and getting TV and advertising deals.

I am done with this argument because it has nothing to do with Hoyt anyway. Its far past my original argument, which is that TNA can make new stars, has, and that Hoyt circa TNA wasn't good enough to be a main eventer. Maybe he is now. I guess we will see.

Survivor Series, Royal Rumble, King Of The Ring...

You cant tell the difference between a PPV where one of the matches is a battle royal and a PPV where three of the matches are a Hell in the Cell match, a type of kmatch that typically only happens once a year between two guys? I am not even discussing the positives or negatives of gimmick PPVs for almost the entirety of the year, just saying it is DIFFERENT from their past MO.

Always happened. Jericho (for example) doesn't have his promos scripted because he doesn't need to. But some guys have always needed their promos scripted for them.

Promos used to be unscripted, I know enough from watching shoots and WWEs own Legends of Wrestling panel to understand that. It wasn't until the early 2000s that almost everyone had their promos prescripted for them, and it shows.

Bret Hart never had a gimmick. After the first few months Diesel had no gimmick. Sid's gimmick was er, what exactly?

Bret Hart certainly had a gimmick. He was the Hitman. The best in the world at technical wrestling. He always wore pink and black, had logos, wore a leather jacket and sunglasses which he gave to kids in the crowd. That is certainly a gimmick.If you dont think he didnt have a gimmick, I guess Steve Austin never had one either. He was just a beer drinking redneck without a gimmick.

Nicknames, ringwear, colors, catchphrases, etc. These all go into your gimmick. Diesel had that, Psycho Sid had that. Vance Archer doesn't. Nor do the majority of guys debuting these days. Its a pretty well known fact which has been repeated time and time again. Anyone I talk to that doesn't watch wrestling anymore? One of their prime reasons is because the guys are basically MMA fighters with generic names and trunks and no personality.

Eh? The WWE had a hardcore division for what? Two years? The Cruiserweight Division lasted a few years longer, but for the main was generally ignored. Gillberg held the title for over fourteen months, and lost it in his first defence.

It added variety and attracted ratings. This is like saying eh, RAW only attracted 5 and 6 point ratings for a few years. So its okay it doesn't now. The real question would be, WHY did it attract such ratings? Perhaps variety and entertainment instead of some guy beating the crap out of another guy in a minute flat with no direction, character or promo work at all.

Back to what it was for the vast majority of the 80s and the early-mid nineties, then.

If the 80s and early nineties still work in any entertainment field, lemme know. Entertainment evolves with the times, man. It doesnt stay mired in what works, because what works 25 years ago will not work today.

Compare year 1985, 1990, 1995 WWE to now, and the only difference is the number of TV shows and PPVs.

So our argument has gone from WWE shifted to what worked in the year 2000 when they were getting huge ratings and PPV buyrates to WWE haven't changed because they are doing what they did in the 80s? Thats a GOOD thing?

I disagree anyway because the 80s didn't have wrestlers trying to blow each other up with fireworks, the 80s had promos in the ring between wrestlers and angles in the ring rather than backstage crap, it also had lots of colorful distinctive characters, and managers. The 80s had an emphasis on tag team wrestling. The 80s had blood.

Todays WWE has none of that.

Same. Its a shame he doesn't have any direct control over anything going on in the company, but I understand why he wouldn't want any of that responsibility either.

Yeah it was odd, that was like the only time JBL had those sorts of recuperative powers as a heel. When he was just Bradshaw though, he was a pretty tough customer.

That sounds more like an opinion than a fact to me.

WWE definitely arent doing the same things they have always done. Gimmick PPVs, Scripted promos, Most guys have generic names with no real gimmick, Most divisions that used to be there gone, PG to the point of no blood. Compare year 2000 WWE to now, it seems very different.

You say they have a sloppy way of building stars yet I am looking at AJ Styles, TNA Champion, Matt Morgan, a guy like Eric Young who has pulled a complete 180 from his past direction and is currently very over, Beer Money, Desmond Wolfe who only debuted a few weeks ago and is already a huge deal.

WWE have been at LEAST as sloppy as TNA in building new guys. Again, I point you to the multitude of guys who have been released after getting pushed and flopping over the past five years. WWE isn't infallible by any means.

Working class guy that likes drinking beer and beating people up.

Working class guy that likes drinking beer and beating people up.

I would say any segments like this are equally moronic.

Everyone judged Braden Walker by his first match. Including WWE themselves.

[/quote]
Well, when you have a terrible match and you look like garbage, you're kinda opening the door to being judged. If you think Harris and Hoyt left the same first impression in their respective WWE debut matches, you're out to lunch. Sorry. [/blockquote]

I thought Walker always sucked except when he was in AMW so it matters little to me. I was just making a point that WWE themseles judge newbies after a couple matches most of the time. How many guys have they dumped in the past 4 years or so because they didnt get over right away? I cant compare Hoyt to Harris since Hoyt beat a jobber in three moves. That wasn't even a wrestling match.

I never saw anything special about him in TNA though, so I doubt anything will change now that he is going to be wrestling the standard WWE big man style of big boot, standing Spinebuster, Pumphandle Slam match over. Especially with him looking to have all the character and look of a really tall Lance Storm.

I will give him as much of a chance as anyone, and it really isn't his fault either, I am just sick of WWEs same tired old formula of debuting anyone. They debut a guy, pretend he has never wrestled before, he beats up some skinny loser in a minute and we are supposed to suddenly be expected to care. Its just not the best way of showing anyone off.

Again I'll say: Hoyt's image was awful before his ECW appearance. That makeover was needed if anybody was to take him seriously in WWE. Yeah, every other new guy that debuts.. like Sheamus, Yoshi Tatsu, Drew McIntyre. etc. Identical.

He looked like Test or Nash, they didnt have any problems getting over with a similar look and it isn't TNAs fault he decided to get an awful tramp stamp, that is all on him. Hes a big guy from Texas...so whats the problem with him having long hair and a beard? Long hair, beard and leather pants worked for Taker, Nash, Test, plenty of others. At least his name wasn't VANCE.

No clue when I implied that at any point. But aside from money, you know people are leaving because they feel like they'll actually be used well in WWE. And obviously WWE is guilty of the same thing. Case in point: Rhyno. They never saw any value in him. And Bret Hart put him over in interviews on a regular basis. And why even bring up Christian? He left on good terms and came back after practically a 3 year vacation.

I brought it up because you made it sound like you were saying WWE knows how to better use guys TNA couldn't. Thus far I wouldn't say that. R Truth hasn't done anything more in WWE than TNA, in fact less since during his TNA career he held titles. Braden Walker got dropped from TNA and went on to do nothing. Gail Kim went from the top womens wrestler in North America to a jobber.

About the only guy you could make a case for is CM Punk, but when he was in TNA he was still learning his craft and he left because they wouldn't let him work ROH, something WWE would have never let him do either.

So thus far I wouldn't say WWE has any great track record for using TNA castoffs. I would definitely say its the other way around. Christian wasn't seen as a main eventer in WWE until he returned from, surprise, a main event run in TNA. TNA was the first place to really give him a chance, in WWE he was never above midcard and usually a comedy heel jobber at best.

It's like I said.. WWE and TNA.. two different companies. WWE knows how to run a wrestling company and TNA doesn't. That is why TNA has had multiple makeovers and it's why Heyman [factually] claims that they don't have a brand. So call me crazy, but I'll give WWE the benefit of the doubt if they don't ALWAYS make your jaw hit the floor because a debut wasn't 10 stars out of 5.

TNA has been in existence 7 years. WWE have been around 57. Do you really expect TNA to be as on the ball now as WWE with a 50 year start in brand recognition and everything else that goes into running a wrestling company? Makeovers? WWE hasn't essentially had a complete makeover in the past few years? Todays WWE is barely recognizable from eight years ago at this point.

I am complaining about the debut because it the same boring old crap. I hope it gets better but I expect Mr. Archer to be squashing jobbers for quite awhile as the announcers shout about how big and strong he is.

Everyone judged Braden Walker by his first match. Including WWE themselves.

Yeah, WWEs marketing talent is awesome! They gave him short hair and generic tights! Now he looks like every other new guy that debuts, or a WCW Saturday Night jobber. That will turn some heads.

As far as underutilized TNA talent goes, you act as if TNA has never pushed or made guys big who WWE dropped the ball on originally. Like oh, Christian, Matt Morgan, Tomko...

I never liked Hoyt anyway. I was glad when TNA released him. I hope he finds some success but with that look and this match I wasn't that impressed. I like how EVERY new guy that debuts now just squashes jobbers when they show up for weeks like its still the 80s and that actually impresses anyone. At least when people debut on TNA they are placed into actual angles and storylines and allowed to get by on the merits of their talent rather than how well they can big boot some 130 pound nobody.