PeterHilton

Tag match was TV worth, but they needed a hotter opener. I liked the Legact three way if only because of how insanely over Orton was MITB was a letdown to be honest. Not horrible, but only a couple of memorable spots. Trips/Sheamus was a slow starter, but ended strong. I though that the match could;ve really gotten Sheamus over if he'd kicked out of at least one Pedigree.

They're idiots. As long as the WWE doesn't mess with the way he works and turn him into a 'fan-friendly' character, Orton is the top face in the company after Cena.

HOLY **** Orton is over.

Already asked and answered. Today.

Because it would be a mosntrous money maker and it's one of the last 'dream matches' the WWE has left...Cena vs Taker would be my guess as to how the streak ends.

HOLY SH*T! You know what the problem is...I don't think you understand how misleading your posts are or are misreading how people are responding. Let me explain: This was the initial post Remi responded that saying JBL was a good worker because he can be carried doesn't really make him a good worker. Your response completely ignored that and then mentioned two other guys who were poor workers (but they'd have a great match with JBL!) and then talked about him working with Batista. And then strangely enough how somehow his matches with JBL (which were brawls) would suck because Batista needs to be carried (as if somehow Sandman and New Jack don't) DO YOU SEE WHY I'M FRUSTRATED TALKING TO YOU? No. Because I hate you.

The List Now: Men: Abyss AJ Styles Alex Shelley Amazing Red Brian Kendrick Brutus Magnus Bubba Chris Sabin Consequences Creed D'Angelo Dinero Daniels It hurts..but I think it's obvious he's never going to be a major player in TNA and he'd have an epic return to ROH Desmond Wolfe Don West Doug Williams Dr. Stevie Eric Bischoff Eric Young Generation Me (for some reason, listed as one person on the Roster page) Hernandez Homicide Hulk Hogan James Storm Jay Lethal Jeff Hardy Jeff Jarett Jeremy Borash Jesse Neal Jimmy Hart Kazarian Kevin Nash Kiyoshi Kurt Angle Matt Morgan Mr. Anderson Nasty Boys (Again, listed as one person) Orlando Jones Raven Rhino Rick Flair Rob Terry Rob Van Dam Robert Roode Samoa Joe Scott Hall Sean Waltman Shannon Moore Shark Boy Sting Suicide Team 3D (Weird. Wonder why Sabin and Shelley got separate pages, then...) Tomko Women: Angelina Love Christy Hemme Daffney Hamada Lacey von Erich Madison Rayne ODB Sarita So Cal Val Tara Taylor Wilde Velvet Sky

I think the hard truth is that to get the most out of the roster, you HAVE to cut some talent. Not everyone can be a main eventer. You want to book concise, straightforward, well thought out storylines then you probably have to get down to 30-35 active guys. That means you probably have to release some long time favorites like Hernandez, Daniels, Joe, Team 3D, Rhino, etc...

I've saidthis before: they need to cut the roster. Maybe in half. It's great to have all that talent, but TNA literally has too many guys for them to really focus on anybody for an extended length of time. They 're trying to pay attention to so much, that the booking of the whole roster suffers. And yes..I know that if you cut 30 people or so you'd be releasing some very good, very talented individuals. But the storytelling would become more concise and the product would improve tenfold.

You missed the point: hardcore environment aside, you just said that JBL could get carried to a good match by two guys who were even worse workers than he was and had to be carried by wither their opponent or -more often - the type of match they wee in. Jack and Sandman could really ONLY put on good matches in overbooked hardcore spotfests. (Which had their appeal at the time, don't get me wrong) It sort of completely defeats your argument. And it goes back to the point that it's hard to take your assessmentof TNA seriously. Because we just don't see the same things when we watch a wrestling match.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA...WTF?????

Fair enough. Although I wasn't trying to say the simplified storylines was abad thing. The WWE is doing straightforward and predictable...but they're doing it well and it's working.

I think the thing s m 82 is pointing out is that the IWC actually spends a lot of time hammering TNA for its storylines. I mean..you're making great points overall, but i don't see the IWC leaping to defend TNA's stories in the way you've maybe implied.

Yup.

Kinda sorta agree...except that if what they really wanted was short games, transitions, and a product directed towards short attention spans then TNA is IT. It's seventeen things jammed into every quarter hour segment. I think a simplified product and straight forward storytelling is where the WWE excels. You can tune out for a few weeks, come back, and you know exactly where you left off. It's brain candy. TNA demands that you tune in ..and I don't know if you have that large a dedicated audience any more.

Hilarious.

Not a huge fan of Goldberg but I agree, his return is pointless unless he gets in the ring. And if he's pushed right...using lots of his WCW run footage...I think he's a draw, too You could headline a PPV with Goldberg/Cena pretty easily.

Ummmm..the interviews I've seen about that time period would say that yes, their combined checks would've been more. But that was a rare case. My point is that for what you pay two guys, the return on investment didn't justify it. A solid well-known even semi-main event tag team doesn't draw any more fans thatn a solid well-knwon semi-main event singles guy. All i'm sayin' :D:);):) <---- so no one takes this too seriously

Hyde said it best... Jarett as an established heel was fine. When he completely dominated the company for years, even after no one gave a rat's ass what he did any more? That was moronic.

Looking back on it now though, those big names didn't draw a crowd. So it was all pointless. Jarrett could be a fun heel in portions. It was the fact he dominated the storylines for years and years even after the crowd had turned on him... I'd even argue that after Christian signed, he still played the "I'm the bigger name" card. Because a lot of those episodes of Impact after Christian's title win were still focused on Jarrett and the feud with Sting. By the end, he'd completely worn out his welcome and he was getting a lot of bad heat from the crowd.

Love this conversation... Just wanted to throw in that, from a cost standpoint, a company is paying two guys to get the same revenue that a really over singles wrestler can give them. Take the Road Warriors for instance: legendary team, proven draw, headlined shows for JCP, AWA, promotions in Japan...but did they draw twice as much as someone like Flair? or Dusty Rhodes? Because they made around as much and you had to pay BOTH Hawk and Animal. From a cost effectiveness stadnpoint, focusing on midcard names and using the tag division to develop younger guys makes more sense (similar reasoning is why manager aren;t around as much). It sucks because we'll probably never see a really great tag divsion again in the WWE. But that money is a big driver.

You just asked me to name something wrong with TNA in 2004 then named about 5 different instances where they screwed up. Raven NOT winning the belt back then after the feud they had and how over he was with the crowd was one of their biggest mistakes. Seriously.."Maybe he used politics to stay on top or not.." ? Does anyone honestly have any doubts about that still? And that "Jarrett was the only one worth giving the belt" excuse is a pile of crap and it always has been. you can't KNOW he was the only one worth giving the belt to because nobody else ever got a push. Sort of a circular logic isn't it... As Remi pointed out earlier, maybe if TNA had pushed their talent back then they'd have have become BIGGER NAMES NOW. Daniels, Abyss, AJ Styles, Monty Brown, Jeff hardy..they were all on the roster. Maybe if you push them in 2004 and don't use a glorified midcard nobody like Jarreett as a crutch, then you don't have to constantly bring in washed up names and competition cast-offs in 2010. I'm sorry..but you are awful to have a conversation with on this because you have total blinders on. You're even a Jarrett fan...there's no way for you to have any kind of objective opinion about what this company is doing. EDIT: that last sentence probably sounds like more of a personal attack then I meant..but dammit how do I talk to someone who even defends the Planet Jarrett Era?

Fair enough. But then that brings up the history of this new regime and whether - based on that - they deserve any benefit of the doubt. Again..fair enough.

If we were to go back over the history of TNA - especially during the Planet Jarrett Era - and actually go over the storylines and how the played out, I would say that the majority of the time what you would see is A LOT of crap booking. I'll use the classic anti-WWE argument: "just because people watch doesn't mean it was good." TNA fans are notoriously loyal, there's always been a segment that watch specifically because it's not the E, and the viewers for both the weekly PPV shows and the stuff on FSN were both incredibly bad. TNA has failed upwards. Seven years of crappy booking highlighted by brief flashes of brilliance.

The 'blind loyalty' remark was to Slagaholic and his idea that it was irrational for people to make decisions based on a company's past. This 'benefit of the doubt' concept seems to be a running theme amongst TNA supporters. In any other line of entertainment I can imagine, if I were to make a critical comment about a company's future prospects of delivering a good product based on the failures of the past ("Why would I buy the next Madden? EA only ever updates the roster..") it would make perfect sense. In wrestling, that's being 'overly negative' and I'm supposed to believe the better approach is 'c'mon guys..LET'S GIVE IT A CHANCE!'