The Official TNA / Impact / GFW Discussion Thread

[lazorbeak]

He might still be the most know worker in the world for his achievements in the past, but he is definitely not the most over guy nowadays. He isn't a major top draw anymore. it's time for him to face it. And he still had the nerve to ask Vince a few years ago (3 years ago,IIRC) who were the other 11 guys getting HIS money when VInce told hem he was not the only top dog anymore (because now there were at least 11 other guys)? Please...the guy is a leech. A leech that actually thinks he can still try and do...leeching... But getting back to the point: Beeing know is not the same thing that beeing over.

 

Yeah I've had this argument with others who seem to think non-wrestling fans picking Hulk Hogan out of a lineup means he is A* over in TEW terms. But overness isn't based on how many non-fans know who someone is: it's more a measure of what percentage of wrestling fans are willing to pay to see the guy. More non-fans know who Jake Roberts is than Randy Orton, but in the wrestling word Orton is significantly more over.

 

If thousands of fans are willing to pay to see you wrestle, you're pretty over. Hogan could make that argument 16 years ago. Not so much today.

[shawn michaels]

Yeah I've had this argument with others who seem to think non-wrestling fans picking Hulk Hogan out of a lineup means he is A* over in TEW terms. But overness isn't based on how many non-fans know who someone is: it's more a measure of what percentage of wrestling fans are willing to pay to see the guy. More non-fans know who Jake Roberts is than Randy Orton, but in the wrestling word Orton is significantly more over.

 

If thousands of fans are willing to pay to see you wrestle, you're pretty over. Hogan could make that argument 16 years ago. Not so much today.

 

Indeed! I rest my case.

[jesterx7769]

While I am usually the one of the more critical of Impact I have to disagree with you Cappy. I thought this Impact was alot matter because we actually got some solid matches.

 

The KO 6 way match was alot better than I thought it would be and is better than the ambush matches they've been doing,

 

while I wasn't a big fan of the storyline Foley vs JJ was much better that what we have been getting. I agree that it should have been at Lockdown instead so they could build it but it was a good match and not just an angle like I expected

 

the ME was also one of the best under the new regime, dont know how people didnt like it. wasnt much from a heat/storyline but it was still good action.

 

I also disagree w/the crap booking for 7 years comment. If they were really that bad no one would be watching all this time and since they've been on Spike (in any time slot) their ratings have stayed pretty close. They used to have good stuff going on just didnt have any big names or stars, their tag division used to be awesome, the X division used to be awesome, and they had some good characters.

[Hyde Hill]

Went over this already..

 

TNA giving us crappy booking for 7 years = they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

 

Sorry missed that when I first posted it. Don't agree though as this is a new regime.

[PeterHilton]

I also disagree w/the crap booking for 7 years comment. If they were really that bad no one would be watching all this time and since they've been on Spike (in any time slot) their ratings have stayed pretty close. They used to have good stuff going on just didnt have any big names or stars, their tag division used to be awesome, the X division used to be awesome, and they had some good characters.

 

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.

[Hyde Hill]

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!'

 

 

No that is not being overly negative and I meant it more in general on the IWC then specifically between you and Shaga. It is also more the tone of things and the way things are talked about that factor in. Sorry I didn't make that clearer in the first post.

 

 

Edit: Just to make it clear I don't just follow TNA because they are not WWE, I used to just watch the E, then found out about TNA and watched both for a long while, TNA excited me more despite its flaws and now just watch WWE ppv's to see if they are doing anything exciting, and have been following the wrestlemania build. Like I posted before out of ten segments/storylines/matches whatever with the E you get 1 good 8 mediocre 1 bad and with TNA you get 2 good 5 mediocre 3 bad. I enjoy good stuff more then I hate bad stuff and don't really like mediocre so TNA is for me. The frustrating and interesting thing with TNA is that a whole lot of their bad stuff could be so relatively easily solved.

[Self]

I watched the Impact Main Event. It was a solid tag team match. The ring looked really small though. During the heat it looked like Jeff could get to RVD at any point with nothing but a gentle hop. Heel Beer Money also bummed me out. They're boring. Roode's always been a little dull, and Storm is just as bad without his drunken cowboy wackiness. I like both guys. Really good tag team. Just a little dull after dropping their old shtick, and that saddens me.

[PeterHilton]

Sorry missed that when I first posted it. Don't agree though as this is a new regime.

 

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.

 

No that is not being overly negative and I meant it more in general on the IWC then specifically between you and Shaga. It is also more the tone of things and the way things are talked about that factor in. Sorry I didn't make that clearer in the first post.

 

Again..fair enough.

[Linsolv]

Now, on one hand, I'm new to this whole wrasslin' thing. Secretly, I've only been watching for about 2 years (And strangely, it started with TNA, in the middle of this whole MEM business...)

 

But after watching a year or so of the E's wrestling, I am gonna say that if there is one thing I have to give TNA credit for, it's making me care about **** that I wish they'd leave off of RAW.

 

Women's wrestling? Hell, I even like TNA's eye candy better, never mind thinking that occasionally there might be some decent talent of the female persuasion (Hamada, I'm looking at you. You get a gold star.)

 

Tag matches? More fun. Instead of seeing wrestlers who are really singles wrestlers working tag events, you see singles wrestlers doing singles wrestling, and tag wrestlers doing tag wrestling. Which is why Alex Shelley, my personal favorite regardless of what his turn is, will never get the singles push I irrationally believe he deserves.

 

...

 

But yeah, their storylines can get confusing and convoluted, and really quite stagnant, as well.

[TommyDreamerFan]

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.

 

Okay, name something in 2004 that was crappy that was the fault of TNA? The only two things I remember was DDP refusing to job to Monty Brown and the idea of using Macho Man... at all. *shudder*

 

The only thing wrong with TNA back then is that they didn't have any storyline then JJ is the champ, TNA is his world. Here comes someone from WCW/WWE! They nearly win the title but Double J narrowily escapes defeat. And I should state, I'm a fan of Jarrett, I've been a fan of him since his match against Monty Brown where he made Monty look like a complete badass. Maybe he used politics to stay on top or not, I don't know, I do know is I can't think of anyone on the roster in 2004 that should of had the belt EXCEPT maybe Raven. Which really, they were about equally talented back then so no bid deal.

[cappyboy]

While I am usually the one of the more critical of Impact I have to disagree with you Cappy. I thought this Impact was alot matter because we actually got some solid matches.

 

Vanilla and chocolate I guess. But if Monday's going to an indication of how they treat the second hour, those solid matches are going to be second-hand info to these eyeballs.

 

the ME was also one of the best under the new regime, dont know how people didnt like it. wasnt much from a heat/storyline but it was still good action.

 

Well, that's nice but I can't speak to that. Because of the haphazard way they promoted the second hour, I couldn't tell you what that main event even was. With what they made known was going to happen, I had no reason to stick around once it became clear that Terry was facing Tomko. With it sounding like Jarrett vs Foley was the main event, no reason to believe either man was actually going to lose, and them failing to emphasize this main event whatever it was, what reason was there for me to believe the second hour was going to be watchable? I couldn't find any and that's why I'm playing contrarian here.

 

You could have had a thirty minute classic Styles v Wolfe title defense. But if you hide that light under a bushel like they did with this main event, that's bad programming. Especially if the lead-ins are as unappealing as Terry vs Tomko and Jarrett v Foley appeared to be. The best main event in the world won't help you if you can't keep people watching long enough to enjoy it.

[jesterx7769]

I won't argue with you and I agree and understand how you couldnt get to the good parts since the first part of the show wasn't anything special then a Terry/Tomko match is understandably a turn off and like you said they never announced the main event until there were 20 minutes or so left in the show. This is actually why I DVR Impact (and RAW) so things don't seem so drawn out and I don't have time to get upset during commercials as the only one I watched Live in awile was there first Live Monday Impact and I felt it was brutal sitting through without able to speed things up

[jesterx7769]

http://pwinsider.com/article/46189/potential-timeslot-change-for-tna-impact.html?p=1

 

The 4/5 Impact is listed as being from 8-10, as the article says there is no TNA confirmation if this is a one week thing or permanent but I think alot of people here have said they think going 8-10 would be beter, all the hype of competition but going on an hour earlier.

[Slagaholic]

Should have been done from the start.

[Linsolv]

Main event was a tag match between Hardy/RVD and Beer Money (I think? Can't remember if it was Beer Money or not). Good match. Incidentally, you called the Foley/Jarett match wrong, too, but I was thinking they would do that too.

 

Instead,

Jarrett

won.

[Hyde Hill]

Yep it was BEER! .... MONEY! man your memory Sorry About Your Damn Luck! lol It Pays To Be Roode.

[Linsolv]

Can't stand Storm. Well. I can, he's not Santino, but I like Roode a lot better and I really don't know why he's been stuck in tag wrestling for like, 2-3 years. Stuck fighting for a midcard belt, at least. Maybe if tag belts were important...

[Hyde Hill]

Before Beer Money they where both doing pretty well in singles. I like both of them personally but I like a strong tag scene as well. My idea was always to bring in Harris and make them a new age freebirds so a duo could do the tag scene and the other one could go singles and they would rotate that.

 

And how can you not like Storm, just this theme alone makes him awesome:

 

 

I am not a big country fan but that song rocks. And yes I know its a rip of electric rodeo but so what.

[PeterHilton]

Okay, name something in 2004 that was crappy that was the fault of TNA? The only two things I remember was DDP refusing to job to Monty Brown and the idea of using Macho Man... at all. *shudder*

 

The only thing wrong with TNA back then is that they didn't have any storyline then JJ is the champ, TNA is his world. Here comes someone from WCW/WWE! They nearly win the title but Double J narrowily escapes defeat. And I should state, I'm a fan of Jarrett, I've been a fan of him since his match against Monty Brown where he made Monty look like a complete badass. Maybe he used politics to stay on top or not, I don't know, I do know is I can't think of anyone on the roster in 2004 that should of had the belt EXCEPT maybe Raven. Which really, they were about equally talented back then so no bid deal.

 

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?

[jesterx7769]

 

As Remi pointed out earlier, maybe if TNA had pushed their talent back then they'd have have become BIGGER NAMES NOW.

 

 

This. While I liked more of their product than I do I def. agree with Jarrett which TNA FINALLY fixed with Christian (who got his huge pop for it) but maybe if TNA had put the belt on Monty Brown or Abyss or Rhyno or Hoyt or Killings and giving them a serious run they would be more over now, even if they would have pushed Roode straight to the main event after Team Canada (maybe have him buy his way to a title shot since he was all about money with Tracy as a manager) instead any of those people that got some success (or the belt) lost it to people Like Jarrett who's Dad founded the company.

[Hyde Hill]

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.

[Blackman]

Not pushing their main talent was indeed the biggest mistake. But they had to bring in some 'big names' to draw the crowd. Their problem was that those 'big names' took up all screen time, leaving little to none for the X-division stars to ply their trade.

[CQI13]

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?

 

I actually enjoyed what I saw of it (only through PPV DVDs). I still remember when he fought Rhyno (not sure if it was when he won the belt or not), Jarrett is set up to be hit by the gore. The crowd is going nuts, and at the last minute, Jarrett busts out the guitar and breaks it over Rhyno's head. Crowd totally deflated, lots of booing. And what does Jarrett do? He starts mocking them! I found that to be hilarious.

[PeterHilton]

Not pushing their main talent was indeed the biggest mistake. But they had to bring in some 'big names' to draw the crowd. Their problem was that those 'big names' took up all screen time, leaving little to none for the X-division stars to ply their trade.

 

Looking back on it now though, those big names didn't draw a crowd. So it was all pointless.

 

I actually enjoyed what I saw of it (only through PPV DVDs). I still remember when he fought Rhyno (not sure if it was when he won the belt or not), Jarrett is set up to be hit by the gore. The crowd is going nuts, and at the last minute, Jarrett busts out the guitar and breaks it over Rhyno's head. Crowd totally deflated, lots of booing. And what does Jarrett do? He starts mocking them! I found that to be hilarious.

 

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.

[justtxyank]

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.

 

 

Jeff Jarrett was always a good midcard-upper midcard heel. He just wasn't big enough or talented enough or unique enough for me to buy as a true superstar main eventer. He's solid in the ring and really his matches are never bad, but they are never awesome either. (At least because of him) If you think of a great match with him in it you are thinking of a match with a superior worker.