Bigpapa42

I've been to just one. The Supercard of Honor show in Houston at WM last year. It has the awesome Davey Richards-KENTA match, which is still my MOTY, plus Lynn taking the belt from Nigel. It was cool to be there for that, just for how long Nigel held the belt and how obviously messed up he was. I also went to WM and the follow night Raw on that trip and the ROH was the highlight of it.

I'm not quite certain exactly what you're saying here... but I get that you're trying to say TNA can't be anything but pure SE if they want to be successful. This is based on what? Using ROH as a point of comparison isn't particularly accurate. They built a fanbase based on nearly pure wrestling, with a roster very different from what TNA has. They've never had anywhere near the mainstream exposure that TNA managed just by being on Spike for the past few years. Personally, I don't want to TNA to try to emulate ROH any more than I want to see them emulate the WWE. What I do want to see is a compromise in between. A focus on in-ring action, with angles and segments used to drive forward what happens in the ring. Right now, its the opposite. On TV, the matches are usually the after-thought. And I honestly might have less problem with TNA using this approach if they were just honest about. Yet they keep proclaiming ot be "about wrestling" and so different from the WWE. Hypocrisy.

No surprise to me, Tristam, but I think our opinions on TNA are very similar. I have to admit that I am harsh on TNA in terms of critism. But its not because I enjoy hating them (I don't hate them) or want to see them fail. Its the opposite. I truly believe that with the talent they have, TNA can be what the WWE no longer is. They can become what they are aspiring to be and what they proclaim to be. But no matter how much they proclaim it, being about wrestling means they need to actually be about the wrestling. Making backstage segments and repetitive storylines the focus instead of the in-ring action means you aren't about the wrestling. Hypocracy bothers me. At least the WWE is honest about not being about the wrestling anymore. If TNA can actually practice what they preach and make the focus the in-ring wrestling, they will win me as a fan. They will get me buying PPVs regularly, instead of just tuning into the show each week. What they've shown me through the Hogan-era gives me no real reason to believe that will be the case.

Seriously? Is that spoiler a joke? Please let it be a joke. If true, that's unreal.

The great irony of this is that Hogan and Biscoff keep talking about TNA being "real wrestling" and giving the fans "real wrestling"... and yet they want them to in accordance to certain set paradigms. That seems very "Sports Entertainment" to me. I can understand the frustration on the part of Hogan and Bischoff, but did they really have no understanding at all of TNA fans before they came on board?

My thoughts on the PPV... -Hogan seemed surprised by the fan's reaction to the six-sided ring being gone, and that bothered me for some reason. He didn't seem to realize that it meant something to some fans. When you are proclaiming to be "giving the fans what they want", that's worrisome. Though I have to admit I don't really take the Impact Zone fans as fully indicitive of the TNA fanbase by any means. -the debut of Brian Kedrick didn't do a lot for me. Like the guy, but there are already too many ignored talents in the X Division. Decent enough match. -the Morley-Daniels match left a bad taste in my mouth. I've always liked Morley and in a basic sense, I understand why TNA brought him in. Why have him go over a guy who main evented the last pay per view? Why have him rehash an Attitude Era gimmick? It sure didn't seem like the fans were accepting him as the babyface here. I guess I'm just not seeing the long-term upside to Morley going over Daniels here. -I read that ODB popped an implant, the reason that the Best 2 out of 3 Falls match ended in 2 straight falls. Otherwise, I'm not sure why even use the gimmick match. -liked the Mogan-Hernandez vs British Invasion match. Nothing special but it worked. Its a been disappointing that it keeps Morgan and Hernandez in the midcard for now, but at least they should be on-screen and such. -quite liked Wolfe-Pope. Solid match. More than made up for the iffy Pope win on the Monday night Impact. -the Beer Money vs Nash-Waltman match was better than I expected. Stupid end to the match, though. Good win for Beer Money, but a win over Nash-Hall would've meant more as they were the experienced tandem. I'm guessing the "incident" will be used as a stroryline reason to drive Hall and Waltman out TNA. Which leads to me just questioning why they brought in again. Beyond the "Hogan getting them a payday", I just don't see a real purpose to it. Assuming its to emphasize the "we're not doing that anymore" idea, simply doing that again isn't the best way to do it. -Abyss agains Anderson was pretty awful. I like Anderson. I used to like Abyss, before they utterly neutered his character. But it was not a good match. The addition of Anderson is interesting. The hype they gave him is a bit risky, but it could pay off. He needs to produce better matches than this one, however. I also didn't like the use of brass knuckles - yeah, it puts forth Anderson as an obvious heel, but it almost kinda makes him look weak, when he's been hyped as such a major addition and talent. -the main event was good. Not great, but good. The end kinda ruined it for me. Not just the overuse of finishers - something I'm bothered by more and more - but also the Flair interference. TNA continues to be as Sports Entertainment as the WWE, despite their claims about being something different. The heel turn for AJ is interesting, but I'm not sure the fans are really going to treat him as a proper heel at this point. Overall, didn't mind the PPV but it was hardly spectacular. Compared to some of the recent TNA PPVs, it felt a step down.

Don't think they comprehended how much the ring meant to some fans.

The guy has a long long history of it. Its not like its been once or twice. Expecting a different result this time for whatever reason just doesn't seem logical to me.... That said, its just a rumor until its confirmed on the show.

Sorry, I forgot the [sARCASM] indicators there. Thought they wouldn't be necessary.

Advertising costs money. Wonder if it just comes to them not wanting to spend the extra, or if they don't focus on that aspect for some reason?

He never showed too much in the ring that I saw, but I have to admit that I liked some of the promos I saw him do in FCW. Not great on the mic, but he seemed to have a bit of charisma. I figured the E could take something of a Batista approach with him - protect him a bit in the ring and get him over by association. He needed a mouthpiece manager who could generate some heat. Which is why I liked them pairing him with Vickie - she's a terrible mouthpiece but she does generate heat. The just never managed to transfer any of that to him (not that they tried, either) and it was over for him once they tried the face turn. I don't really think Escobar had enough to do much for the WWE... But in a way, you could say that same thing of Batista, so....

I've said for awhile that TNA needs to be careful with Lashley, as his focus is on his MMA career. I'm actually surprised that SF is okay with him continuing to wrestle at all... but when he starts getting more serious opponents, he's going to need to run real training camps prior, which means he won't be able to do much in the month leading up to the fight, basically.

Eric Escobar's been "future endevour'd". Guess feuding with Vickie Guerrero isn't a sure way to the top...

Its not that I think its guaranteed to be terrible. And I do understand their intent here. I just don't think its the best way to go about it. Nash is still decent enough in the ring and is still great on the mic. The problem is Hall. Can he still do anything at all in the ring? He seems a mess on the mic so far. Waltman can still go, based on what I've seen of his recent AAA work, but he didn't seem so great on the mic either. Can Beer Money carry Hall & Nash to a pretty good match? Probably. Here's the problem... How many fans are tuning in who haven't paid attention to the past decade, so they are clueless that Hall hasn't been relevant or reliable in a decade, and who don't know that Waltman became so hated by the WWE fans that they've named that type of heat after him? To those fans, things might not need much build-up and seeing Beer Money go over would still be a "wow, they just beat the NWO!" moment. But not so much to everyone else. To everyone else, some build would have made it mean a lot more. The problem with trying to build up - much like the problem with having "The Band" go over so this can be dragged out - is that Hall is notoriously unreliable. Nash doesn't exactly have the greatest reputation at putting over younger talent (even if he has been better about in TNA), so the risk of it not playing out that way - as Peter points out - is high. Put it this way... What feud is likely going to get those new fans to keep tuning in - Nash & Hall against Beer Money Inc, or Beer Money Inc against Motor City Machineguns? The fact-time that Nash & Hall are getting could be given over to MCMG and TNA could be building new stars, in my opinion.

Having the younger guys go over is the only reason to have some of these older guys on there. There is absolutely no reason for Hall & Nash to go over, or the Nasty Boys to go over Team 3-D when that happens. None. The problem I have is what does going over Hall & Nash do for Beer Money? Or a Dudley's win over the Nasty Boys? They didn't build up the Beer Money versus Hall & Nash long enough for him to make it a great payoff to a feud. There's really not that much purpose to in the bigger picture. Yes, it emphasizes the value of the younger talent, but it still seems like going a step backward to move a step and a half forward.

To me, its not "weak" so much as not that appealing. It does have a strong main event, as Styles-Angle is almost certain to be at least a good match. It just becomes less appealing because it happened on TV two weeks ago. The Wolfe-Dinero match could be quite good. The tag title match could be solid. A lot of the rest of the card seems kinda thrown together, but I can see how Abyss-Lashley, Beer Money vs Nash-Hall, or Daniels-Morley could appeal to some people. I can't say they honestly appeal much to me, so there just isn't enough there to intrigue me to drop the money. I also have a bad feeling the "big debut" is not going to be worth the hype. But at the very least, its going to have a strong main event (short of a retarded ending). Still, that's not bad. It was bound to drop, but they kept at least some of the audience from the week before, beyond what they normall draw.

You know, I think it sums up the issues I'm having with TNA-era Hogan perfectly. TNA is moving forward and creating the future of wrestlling... by relying stars and storylines from the 90s... Maybe its just a transition period, but its one that I find frustrating and very contradictory. I understand the idea of the new regime wanting a "reset" and an immediate change of things that weren't working. But I do think it can be hard for viewers in regard to continuity. Not that wrestling has great continuinty, but its also shouldn't ignored entirely. And a lot of it comes down execution. I don't really have any issue with a Hogan-JJ storyline with Jarrett as a heel... I'm just not thrilled with its execution thus far.

Yeah, those were fine "insider" references. I have issue with overt ones, where it makes no sense unless you get what they're referring to - like some of the stuff Russo used to do in WCW. But the ones on the show last night were not like that.

That's fine. I liked the finish. I just disliked that they used it on a short, unimportant match. Whether it would have been them actually letting Nigel and Joe have a decent match (given that TNA is "about the wrestling" and all) or save it for a PPV, I just think they could have made a lot better use of that kind of finish. I don't see the possible upside to having Hall & Nash go over Beer Money, especially as Hall is rumored to only be contracted until the PPV. Unless Hall leaves and Nash finds a new partner to continue the feud with... but if that's the intent, why bring in Hall at all? As for the Jarrett-Hogan angle, much like the segment this week, it just feels sloppy to me. Disjointed somehow. Maybe I just expected more out of two guys who are good on the mic and have so much experience in the business. If I'm not mistaken, Hogan said last week that Jarrett's status as minority ownership stake in TNA had been taken away and given to Hogan... it doesn't work that way. If Hogan just meant that JJ's authority within TNA had been taken away, fine, but state it logically. So far, its hard to tell who is supposed to be the face and heel in the storyline. And Jarrett doing a complete 180 and now being against all the TNA talent.... an about-face of that size needs justification to me. Its not as if its impossible to justify, but giving it none just makes it seem like an abrupt adjustment of the character rather than an evolution. The writing and the promos need to be careful and sharper, I think. It feels like I'm hating on everything in TNA at this point. Quite honestly - TNA is doing what its always done for me - teasing me with some "good" stuff and then annoying me with negatives.

I question more and more why I watch now. Hall and Nash on the PPV. Awesome. I loved them in 1996. They were great. So instead of watching this PPV and cringing, I'll watch some of their work from back then. Thanks anway. The Jarrett-Hogan-Bischoff segment was so messy. Just Jarrrett and Bischoff trying to out-shout each other, yet no real emotion. It felt sloppy as Jarrett seemed off the mark. It didn't start well, with Jarrett yelling at Hogan that no, its his turn talk... then giving Hogan a chance to talk... Downhill from there... A McGuiness-Joe match should be awesome, especially when it has a pretty cool ending. Except, of course, when its a 4-minute match which absolutely wastes a cool finish. All about the wrestling, TNA... Right... How many months was Tomko stalking and attacking AJ for? How many promos did they run for Tomko through the show. For a 5 minute main event here where AJ wins clean. What a waste. If the Hogan regime didn't want to do anything with the angle, find a way to drop it better than that. I just don't get it sometimes...

Joe. Yeah, it wasn't done particularly well, in my opinion. While I like the basic idea, I didn't think it did much when they did in the summer, so I don't really have much hope it would be different now.

Uh, didn't we just try going this route in August through October?

Yeah. Its not even so much the Nasty Boys themselves that bugs, but rather what they are preventing (other, young, better talent from being on TV) and why they are there (friends with Hogan). No. I won't tune out just because of the Nasty Boys, or what's behind them being on TNA. But its rapidly convincing me that the Hogan-era of TNA won't be any "better" (what I consider "better", at least) than the pre-Hogan era. And that's what is making me want to tune in less and less.

Same. It quite bugs me that the Nasty Boys are getting notable TV time. I don't hate them, I just don't see why teams like Beer Money and the MCMG are barely getting face time, but the Nasty Boys are getting several segments. Actually, I know why - because they're buddies with Hogan. Which means Hogan is just playing the same old political games and putting himself (and his buddies) all over.

The info I read said that a copmlaint was filed by a 15 year old and that they are investingating whether it warrants a criminal compliant or not.