The Official TNA / Impact / GFW Discussion Thread

[CQI13]

Same could be said about Hardy or any number of other workers. But given where they were at (TNA), he was big enough there. Should he headline WM? No. Should he headline Bound For Glory? Absolutely.

[PeterHilton]

Same could be said about Hardy or any number of other workers. But given where they were at (TNA), he was big enough there. Should he headline WM? No. Should he headline Bound For Glory? Absolutely.

 

Hyde said it best...

 

Having Jarrett in the main event that time. Not a problem. Having Jarret be the only main eventer at that time by a mile = big problem.

 

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.

[justtxyank]

Same could be said about Hardy or any number of other workers. But given where they were at (TNA), he was big enough there. Should he headline WM? No. Should he headline Bound For Glory? Absolutely.

 

I disagree. How many other big time main eventers are almost never the most over OR most talented in their main event matches?

 

Usually when this happens it is because the guy is being bumped to the main event from the upper midcard to freshen things up. This is where Jarrett has always been best. It was when he was the established top dog, or KING OF THE MOUNTAIN as he likes to say that it becomes a problem.

[CQI13]

For all different tastes, I guess. I've always enjoyed Jarrett (from his time with Owen in WWE) to WCW, to TNA. I despise Hardy, and don't see his appeal. And over/talented is obviously subjective. Bryan Danielson can't be put in a main event match at a big PPV right now for WWE (no matter how talented he is). Send him to TNA or ROH, andhe could certainly main event.

[TommyDreamerFan]

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.

 

He won it when they had too during that bleak time when they had no TV and still needed fans. It's always smarter booking to have a heel champ then a face champ.

 

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...

 

Your right. Guys that bitched about being held down, Joe E. Legend and Chris Harris where held back in TNA and went on to do great things in the WWE. Oh... wait <.<

 

Aj Styles? Daniels? No, they sir, are stronger in the X-Division. AJ at the time was even stating he'd rather be in the X-Division the heavyweight scene. So bassically you had Double J, Jeff Hardy, Kevin Nash, DDP, Raven, Monty Brown, and with some finessing Abyss. Who could you give that belt to long term, who is reliable? It comes down to Double J and Raven, and I would side with Double J because Jarrett can earn more against those guys being faces then Raven could going against them as heels.

 

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.

 

Monty would of left for family issues, just like he left the E, it was by accident but it's a good thing TNA didn't throw their money behind him or his leaving the business would of hurt them.

 

Jeff Hardy was about as reliable lighting a match in a hurricane back then. Then did the best with as they could, booking him in hardcore matches.

 

AJ always was the star of the promotion and the go to guy. He would be the guy I'd put the belt on but homeboy wanted to return to the X-Division.

 

Daniels had just seperated from Elix and didn't have an identity yet. They didn't drop the ball on daniels in 2004, that would come later on, but he became his own man in 2004.

 

Abyss... Very truthful but TNA doesn't ever seem to know what they want to do with him and so he panders back and forth beteewn being their Foley and their Kane. Only now, under Hogan is he really breaking away from both sterotypes and kinda becoming his own. Abyss has always been a great brawler, if Hogan can teach him to better connect with the crowd this will be his paradigm year much like Daniels was in 2004.

 

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?

 

 

Oh relax, we're debating like two star wars geeks, not feuding like Cornette and Russo.

 

First off I think Double J is pretty talented, and I love to hate the guy. I'd love watching the mainevent, cheer on the face and then see what wormy way Jarrett would go about escaping death. Not to mention during that time with Jarrett on top, TNA had a very fine structure too it. Double J was champ, claim TNA was his world, in would come some big star who would nearly beat Jarrett only for Double J to escape by the skin of his teeth.

 

To be honest, sir, I'm very lax on what I would consider good talent. In my mind if I'm the least bit entertained by the worker in the ring, they're doing something right. Many now a day would say like... JBL wasn't a good champ in 2004 either, and I would disagree. He's no Kurt Angle, he can't have a good match with anyone, but in his brawling element against the people he can have good matches with he's a tremendous worker. Not to mention he came in with a great Rich Texan/Republican gimmick that think would of been very difficult to pull off with anybody else. I don't know if I would of had his reign as long as he did (because Eddie Guerrero is way more talented, and was white hot at the time) but part of the reason why Eddie got the belt taken off him is that the pressure was starting to get to him and in the long run?

 

Well in the long run, it was the unintentionally smarter decision Eddie didn't have the belt because as bad as Eddie's death was for the company can you imagine how horrible it would of been for a PR stand point if the guy holding the belt died? What could you do then? How could anyone else pick up that same strap and be champion if a beloved former champ died? They would have to retire the belt!

 

Yeah I know I've gone off on a tangent oh well. It just seems TNA was doing fine, though it was a tad boring until Vince Russo came along. Then we got some interesting things like the Judas Mesias being Abyss' brother storyline, that was pretty cool, but then we also got gimmick matches galore and it was such a mess. I very much so agree with Lance Storm, Russo is a tremendously good idea man but he's a horrible booker! He needs someone to be his filter.

[TommyDreamerFan]

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.

 

well it certainly didn't help he was infront of the same crowd week in and week out. And I feel it was a waste his reign ended at the King Of The Moutain match that Raven won. Raven should of won the belt clean, imo.

[Hyde Hill]

Vince in the acorn online on wrestlemania and TNA:

 

http://www.acorn-online.com/joomla15/arts/features/53533-after-26-years-wrestlemania-is-still-special-to-wwe-owner.html

 

excerpt on TNA:

 

The wrestling landscape itself has also changed in the last six months. For years WWE battled rival World Championship Wrestling (WCW) in what fans remember as the “Monday Night Wars” because both companies had programs going head to head Monday night. WWE decisively won the war in 2001 with the end of WCW, but this month Total Nonstop Action (TNA) moved its wrestling program to Monday nights directly against WWE’s flagship program RAW.

 

WWE isn’t sweating it though and the ratings have so far backed that confidence up, with millions more preferring WWE programming. Mr. McMahon even goes as far at to say TNA is “not competition.”

 

“We’re in different businesses,” Mr. McMahon said. “We’re in the entertainment business and they’re in the ‘pro wrasslin’ business. It’s different markets. When they moved to Monday nights they threw the kitchen sink at us and only did a fraction of our audience. It doesn’t speak well for the type of product they’re trying to present with the tawdry, blood-soaked action. I don’t think that’s what the culture wants these days.”

 

I think that is what a lot of the culture wants today and is the type of culture that was prevalent when wrestling was at its biggest. Anyways thanks for the press Acorn and Vince if you want wrestling go to TNA lolz.

[PeterHilton]

“We’re in different businesses,” Mr. McMahon said. “We’re in the entertainment business and they’re in the ‘pro wrasslin’ business. It’s different markets. When they moved to Monday nights they threw the kitchen sink at us and only did a fraction of our audience. It doesn’t speak well for the type of product they’re trying to present with the tawdry, blood-soaked action. I don’t think that’s what the culture wants these days.”

 

Hilarious.

[BHK1978]

Vince in the acorn online on wrestlemania and TNA:

 

http://www.acorn-online.com/joomla15/arts/features/53533-after-26-years-wrestlemania-is-still-special-to-wwe-owner.html

 

excerpt on TNA:

 

The wrestling landscape itself has also changed in the last six months. For years WWE battled rival World Championship Wrestling (WCW) in what fans remember as the “Monday Night Wars” because both companies had programs going head to head Monday night. WWE decisively won the war in 2001 with the end of WCW, but this month Total Nonstop Action (TNA) moved its wrestling program to Monday nights directly against WWE’s flagship program RAW.

 

WWE isn’t sweating it though and the ratings have so far backed that confidence up, with millions more preferring WWE programming. Mr. McMahon even goes as far at to say TNA is “not competition.”

 

“We’re in different businesses,” Mr. McMahon said. “We’re in the entertainment business and they’re in the ‘pro wrasslin’ business. It’s different markets. When they moved to Monday nights they threw the kitchen sink at us and only did a fraction of our audience. It doesn’t speak well for the type of product they’re trying to present with the tawdry, blood-soaked action. I don’t think that’s what the culture wants these days.”

 

I think that is what a lot of the culture wants today and is the type of culture that was prevalent when wrestling was at its biggest. Anyways thanks for the press Acorn and Vince if you want wrestling go to TNA lolz.

 

Now I don't think that Vince is worried about TNA, he has no reason to be, but for him to pretty much say that he does not care about them is a lie. I read (And you can all say the tired line of, Do you believe everything you read, because I believe it to be true.) that he and people watching TNA and reporting to him what was going on when they went head-to-head. So he is very much aware of what is going on, even if he wants to play it off as if he doesn't care.

 

For all different tastes, I guess. I've always enjoyed Jarrett (from his time with Owen in WWE) to WCW, to TNA. I despise Hardy, and don't see his appeal. And over/talented is obviously subjective. Bryan Danielson can't be put in a main event match at a big PPV right now for WWE (no matter how talented he is). Send him to TNA or ROH, andhe could certainly main event.

 

I have always enjoyed JJ as well but I agree he should never be THE main heel of the company. He just does not have that it factor.

 

I agree with you on Hardy, I never got his appeal. To me he is nothing more than a bland (personality wise, not wrestling wise) tag team wrestler.

[brashleyholland]

 

"I don’t think that’s what the culture wants these days.”

 

I think that is what a lot of the culture wants today and is the type of culture that was prevalent when wrestling was at its biggest. Anyways thanks for the press Acorn and Vince if you want wrestling go to TNA lolz.

 

Clearly Vince is right, and proven so when you look at his company's balance sheet and ratings compared to TNA. 'The People' don't want 'pro wrasslin' anymore...the YouTube generation want things loud, fast and new.

 

There are so many options for entertainment these days between TV, games, internet, fresh air (LOL, just kidding!!)...if you don't keep peoples atention they just turn to something else. WWE provides short matches, quick transitions, flashy presentation etc. Sure, it's not pro-wrestling as we'd like to to be...but it's 'what the culture wants' these days.

[shawn michaels]

Now I don't think that Vince is worried about TNA, he has no reason to be, but for him to pretty much say that he does not care about them is a lie. I read (And you can all say the tired line of, Do you believe everything you read, because I believe it to be true.) that he and people watching TNA and reporting to him what was going on when they went head-to-head. So he is very much aware of what is going on, even if he wants to play it off as if he doesn't care..

 

Vince is paying attention to them, he's careful. He didn't got where he did by sitting and relaxing without paying attention. But he is doing what he's suposed to by saing he doesn't care. It would be ridiculous for him to admit he's got his eyes on them, especially with the current rating. His current strategy shows inteligence.

 

 

I agree with you on Hardy, I never got his appeal. To me he is nothing more than a bland (personality wise, not wrestling wise) tag team wrestler.

 

I know why some people like him, he atracts the emo type of people (wich i truly dispize,but that's a personal opinion of mine. people like whatever they like,period) as well as a bunch of other trend groups. I have to say i like high flyers (not only high flyers, but i like them) and i have to admit that there's something about hardy that i dispize...oh i wonder what? Wait...i think i already said what it is...

[BHK1978]

I know why some people like him, he atracts the emo type of people (wich i truly dispize,but that's a personal opinion of mine. people like whatever they like,period) as well as a bunch of other trend groups. I have to say i like high flyers (not only high flyers, but i like them) and i have to admit that there's something about hardy that i dispize...oh i wonder what? Wait...i think i already said what it is...

 

Was it me or did it look like he wasn't feeling it at the end of last Monday's show? I mean Eric Young and RVD looked like they were happy to be out there. However, Jeff looked like he was thinking whatever.

[shawn michaels]

Was it me or did it look like he wasn't feeling it at the end of last Monday's show? I mean Eric Young and RVD looked like they were happy to be out there. However, Jeff looked like he was thinking whatever.

 

I believe it was something more like this: "God i have to enjoy this while it lasts because i'm going to jail!" However, his jail thoughts got the better and that's why he looked that way.

[jesterx7769]

he was grabbing his head wasn't he? I'm not 100% sure on that just going off memory but i thought when Young was talking he was grabbing the back of his head kinda grimmacing thinking things were over/just about over since he already celebrated then young lifted up their arms and RVD looked happy when Jeff clearly did not play to the camera or crowd like he usually does so he might have hit his head funny on the Swanton

[PeterHilton]

Clearly Vince is right, and proven so when you look at his company's balance sheet and ratings compared to TNA. 'The People' don't want 'pro wrasslin' anymore...the YouTube generation want things loud, fast and new.

 

There are so many options for entertainment these days between TV, games, internet, fresh air (LOL, just kidding!!)...if you don't keep peoples atention they just turn to something else. WWE provides short matches, quick transitions, flashy presentation etc. Sure, it's not pro-wrestling as we'd like to to be...but it's 'what the culture wants' these days.

 

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.

[crownsy]

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.

 

I agree, but i will say, i think there is something to be said for logical, well paced storylines.

 

One thing i hate is the swerve for the sake of the swerve. I think TNA suffers from that immensely.

 

Example: CM punk heel turn was evident from the first promo he gave after cashing in MITB on hardy. We all knew he was turning heel. it was a predictable, well paced storyline that followed a logical progression.

 

It was also great, and led to punk being on of the best heels in the company.

 

Now, the way i read the IWC, some would argue that's bad storytelling, because in the abstract, it suffers from every thing they propose to hate about the WWE.

 

- Predictable

- saw it coming a mile away

- no "shock" moment, really.

 

Now compare that with TNA's heel turn on sting, for example. Is it sudden? sure. has it had "shock" moments? you bet.

 

It also suffers from the fact that i flat out don't care about it. TNA's booking staff has given me no reason to. Sting just showed up, kicked RVD's rear end, and now does the same every once in awhile.

 

Now, i know the IWC response "it will be explained later, right now it's a cliffhanger"

 

Bull, it's bad booking.

 

Have you ever read a story where it threw the climax in your face and then promised to explain it in due time? those storys better be told in phenominal style, or they are disjointed and jarring.

 

I just don't think TNA really understands how to involve people in there story lines long term. use, WWE is quite often predictable, but when you do a storyline as tight as they generally do, so what?

 

MAss effect 2, to go completely random for a comparison, is predictable as all hell. That game didn't suprise me once.

 

But, it told the story well, involved me in it, and made me care about the characters.

 

No one randomly turned on me for no reason. everything that happened was well told and made sense. that's good storytelling.

 

Just booking a random swerve or turn, to me, is not "exciting" or edgey it's silly. I wouldn't do it in TEW, i don't enjoy it in the real world.

 

 

 

TNA has alot of high end talent, but they need to learn how to book it, quickly. Otherwise they will stay as that "other" promotion forever.

 

those are my random musings, anyway.

[Bigpapa42]

crownsy, if I could rep you right now, I would.

[Wrestling Century]

crownsy, if I could rep you right now, I would.

 

What does "rep" mean?

[PeterHilton]

crownsy, if I could rep you right now, I would.

 

Yup.

[Bigpapa42]

What does "rep" mean?

 

Its forum-speak for "add to reputation". Some forums give users the ability to give positive (and sometimes negative) reputation to people based on agreeing or disagreeing with their posts.

[Wrestling Century]

Its forum-speak for "add to reputation". Some forums give users the ability to give positive (and sometimes negative) reputation to people based on agreeing or disagreeing with their posts.

 

Ahhh. Good to know.

[shawn michaels]

I agree, but i will say, i think there is something to be said for logical, well paced storylines.

 

One thing i hate is the swerve for the sake of the swerve. I think TNA suffers from that immensely.

 

Example: CM punk heel turn was evident from the first promo he gave after cashing in MITB on hardy. We all knew he was turning heel. it was a predictable, well paced storyline that followed a logical progression.

 

It was also great, and led to punk being on of the best heels in the company.

 

Now, the way i read the IWC, some would argue that's bad storytelling, because in the abstract, it suffers from every thing they propose to hate about the WWE.

 

- Predictable

- saw it coming a mile away

- no "shock" moment, really.

 

Now compare that with TNA's heel turn on sting, for example. Is it sudden? sure. has it had "shock" moments? you bet.

 

It also suffers from the fact that i flat out don't care about it. TNA's booking staff has given me no reason to. Sting just showed up, kicked RVD's rear end, and now does the same every once in awhile.

 

Now, i know the IWC response "it will be explained later, right now it's a cliffhanger"

 

Bull, it's bad booking.

 

Have you ever read a story where it threw the climax in your face and then promised to explain it in due time? those storys better be told in phenominal style, or they are disjointed and jarring.

 

I just don't think TNA really understands how to involve people in there story lines long term. use, WWE is quite often predictable, but when you do a storyline as tight as they generally do, so what?

 

MAss effect 2, to go completely random for a comparison, is predictable as all hell. That game didn't suprise me once.

 

But, it told the story well, involved me in it, and made me care about the characters.

 

No one randomly turned on me for no reason. everything that happened was well told and made sense. that's good storytelling.

 

Just booking a random swerve or turn, to me, is not "exciting" or edgey it's silly. I wouldn't do it in TEW, i don't enjoy it in the real world.

 

 

 

TNA has alot of high end talent, but they need to learn how to book it, quickly. Otherwise they will stay as that "other" promotion forever.

 

those are my random musings, anyway.

 

I'm sorry, but i will have to ask this...are you serious? Especially in some parts where you talk about the IWC?

[Wrestling Century]

Is Spike showing a replay of Impact today?

[jesterx7769]

No.

[crownsy]

I'm sorry, but i will have to ask this...are you serious? Especially in some parts where you talk about the IRC?

 

what parts do you think are unreasonable or im "not serious" on?

 

in my experience, the main points the internet community hammers the WWE on is that they are:

 

-predictable

- no shock moments to story lines

- story-lines are simple, not complex enough

 

in addition of course, to the whole PG thing

 

 

my only point was that those three things are not dispositive of horrible storytelling in and of themselves. Alot of great movies/books/ whatever entertainment you want to name is predictable as sin.

 

TNA's booking crew, to me, is far, far, far to fond of the "oh snap!!!" booking moment, with little or no storytelling to explain the workers motivation.

 

They also, as i said, tend to tell the story backwards to forwards. they do the swerve, looking to shock the audience, then pretend it's good storytelling to spend the next parts of the story hinting as to why on god's green earth the worker would do what they did.

 

To me, that type of storytelling, while valid, requires exceptional storytelling talent. I don't think TNA's booking crew is capable of that level of storytelling.

 

So, to me, as someone who WANTS tna to do well, thats an issue they need to address.

 

MAke me care about a storyline, involve me in it as a viewer. don't just go...

 

"OH SNAP RVD!!! .... and now STING hits him with a bat, completely out of nowhere!! why? who knows, but it's good booking because we surprised you!!"

 

tune in next week, were mabey if your lucky we will tell you what the hell we are doing with this worker and why he would betray every face value we set him up with over the last few years! or mabey we'll just put this story on the back burner for 2 weeks! That's the kind of great action we bring you here on impact"

 

and expect me to give a damn about your show on a weekly basis.