• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • TV Shows: US
TNA Wrestling on Challenge TV
<<
<
51 of 163
>>
>
decemberboy
10-06-2011
Originally Posted by ags_rule:
“Bottom end? He's the TV champion! People say TNA doesn't listen to the fans - yet Eric Young gets a well-deserved push for getting over with both the internet marks and the live crowds, and the smarks still complain He can do the business in the ring, he's not a Eugene figure. He's more a Mr. Bean character - an idiot with a touch of genius about him! I like him, both as a wrestler and a character, and many others do as well.

Secondly, it wasn't a clean win, so hardly made Anderson look bad, especially as he beat on him with Gunner afterwards.

Thirdly, it got a big pop from the crowd and I'm sure the non-smark viewers at home (of which I'll include myself in) got a lot of enjoyment in seeing the always entertaining Eric Young pull one over the arrogant Ken Anderson.

Fourthly, smarks act as though these booking decisions never happened before. Yeah, it's not like these ever happened during the Attitude Era or anything...I can remember Triple H being pinned by Scotty Too Hotty or someone of equal standing once, when he was the champion.

As usual, smarks reading too far into things - "Oh no, the poor non-internet fans will never want to watch Anderson/Sting now, because Anderson has been made to look 'weak'! Let's ignore the fact that it was entertaining to watch, Eric Young is massively popular with the fans, and it wasn't a clean victory!"

I agree whole-heartedly with an earlier post in this thread that said about how internet fans are ruining wrestling for themselves. Just enjoy it and stop over-analysing it.”

Your post is hardly under-analysing it.
Georged123
10-06-2011
I remember Jim Ross pinned HHH once, around 2003 or 2004 I think. Didnt exactly do him any harm.

Also, Vinny Mac pinned HHH for the WWF title in 1999. The Hurricane pinned The Rock before WM 19, best of all being Kevin Federline pinning John Cena!

One match, one roll-up, one cheap finish has never harmed a guy that hes no longer over.
whedon247
10-06-2011
what did i tell you! outcry over EY win over anderson......

lmao no creativity in any of the smarks
DejaVoodoo
10-06-2011
Originally Posted by whedon247:
“what did i tell you! outcry over EY win over anderson......

lmao no creativity in any of the smarks”

So why is Anderson the No.1 Contender then?
ags_rule
10-06-2011
Originally Posted by DejaVoodoo:
“From a business standpoint, you've just made your PPV main event look weak making people less likely to buy your show. From a casual fan, you may think it's entertaining, but from a TNA financial standpoint, it's bloody stupid.”

There are many reasons why TNA PPVs are underperforming - ranging from too many for a small company, to poor production values, to a lack of an international buying market - but I can guarantee that Mr. Anderson being beaten by Eric Young will not effect the buyrate one iota.

Although if you want to talk about making a PPV main event look weak, go no further than John Cena vs The Miz in an 'I Quit' match

Anderson is No. 1 contender because a) it's the culmination of his 'I want my friggin rematch!' mini-gimmick, and b) He won the battle royal making him the No. 1 contender.

For what it's worth, I actually think Anderson could beat Sting at Slammiversary, and if Angle goes over Jarrett (which I expect he will), then it'll be an Anderson/Angle feud for the title. This also leaves Sting free to start the expected program with Hogan.
whedon247
10-06-2011
Originally Posted by DejaVoodoo:
“So why is Anderson the No.1 Contender then?”

why sould one FREAK loss affect that?

THIS IS NOT A SPORT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DejaVoodoo
10-06-2011
Originally Posted by whedon247:
“why sould one FREAK loss affect that?

THIS IS NOT A SPORT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

It's a predetermined sport. If it isn't why are there titles?
ags_rule
10-06-2011
Originally Posted by DejaVoodoo:
“It's a predetermined sport. If it isn't why are there titles?”

Predetermined sport is an oxymoron. There isn't any element of genuine, in-ring competition - all the fights are done via backstage politics.

It's an entertaining, action soap-opera...really is the best way to describe it tbh.
KOE_9_ASH
10-06-2011
Originally Posted by ags_rule:
“A lot of people read the TNA spoilers on this board, myself included, so that limits the 'live' discussion somewhat.

Although in my opinion, I've always found the idea of commenting on message boards while trying to watch something - be it wrestling, football or a TV show - really rather sad.”

There's no better time to get your first "shock/facepalm" feeling out than as it happens. However, I don't do it... not here anyway.

Originally Posted by DejaVoodoo:
“At some point TNA will have to make money or it will die. Any competent business will not just keep losing money and except it. Panda at some point will say enough is enough. If TNA are successful, Panda aren't going to do that.”

One issue with this: Football Clubs. Owning a football club NEVER makes you money. You're in it just for the enjoyment. It isn't so hard to think that Panda, like Ted Turner, could be in it because they actually LIKE it. And given UFC's off, they'll be the biggest thing on Spike.

Originally Posted by Georged123:
“I remember Jim Ross pinned HHH once, around 2003 or 2004 I think. Didnt exactly do him any harm.”

April 18th, 2005. Two weeks later, HHH was beat by Batistia at Backlash.

At least EY vs. Anderson makes sense. Who in their right minds books JR vs. HHH in a No-DQ match!?

It's not a "freak" loss at all. In fact, I'd say EY is twice the wrestler Anderson ever will be. The problem there is that Anderson is ex-WWE and trumps on entertainment value, charisma and mic ability. Although EY isn't far off that standard, in my opinion.
Kaos
10-06-2011
I get were DejaVoodoo is coming from.

I personally don't have a problem with EY pinning Anderson before the PPV. I mean, it was fun, it didn't make Anderson look weak, Anderson was acting like an idiot. Its not like he was doing a bad ass thing and was made to look weak, he was pretending to be retro Sting and got pinned by someone that was annoyed at him.

Personally though I don't think the ME has been played up well enough though. I mean with all the other stories running in TNA at the moment I think the title match has gone under the radar in the build up to the PPV. So for me it looks weaker then something like Angle v Jarrett just because it hasn't been built up enough since the last PPV and when Anderson became the number 1 contender.

As for impact itself, I have been enjoying it recently. I really liked the Crimson/Hardy and Kendrick/Kaz matches. Happy to see Shelley back on TV . Plus I am really loving Xplosion.
KOE_9_ASH
10-06-2011
Apparently, Bischoff doesn't like the Anderson/Sting storyline, which is probably why it's not being pushed as well as, say, Jarrett/Angle. I've enjoyed it though. Been a change.

Someone told me today that Bischgan has become tired of Russo's "creativity" lately. Along with Jarrett getting frustrated also, Russo would be out on his ear soonish...
JCR
10-06-2011
Originally Posted by whedon247:
“why sould one FREAK loss affect that?

THIS IS NOT A SPORT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Wins and losses matter. Goldberg was over because he never lost. Brock was over because he never lost. Hogan lost clean twice in the 1990's IIRC (Once to Warrior and once to Piper, who, by the way, also almost never lost clean- and was over).

Thinking wins and losses don't matter is one of TNA's big mistakes. Because they do.
Ghost World
10-06-2011
Originally Posted by JCR:
“Wins and losses matter. Goldberg was over because he never lost. Brock was over because he never lost. Hogan lost clean twice in the 1990's IIRC (Once to Warrior and once to Piper, who, by the way, also almost never lost clean- and was over).

Thinking wins and losses don't matter is one of TNA's big mistakes. Because they do.”

It's a mistake Russo made in WCW, and it's a mistake WWE makes too. One of those things that has made it harder for fans to actually engage with anything.
JCR
10-06-2011
Originally Posted by KOE_9_ASH:
“Apparently, Bischoff doesn't like the Anderson/Sting storyline, which is probably why it's not being pushed as well as, say, Jarrett/Angle. I've enjoyed it though. Been a change.

Someone told me today that Bischgan has become tired of Russo's "creativity" lately. Along with Jarrett getting frustrated also, Russo would be out on his ear soonish...”

As I've said before, the most notable thing about that Dixie youshoot interview is she said over and over and over again that Russo will never be sacked. She is close friends with him apparently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW7rS02l3o4
jamespondo
11-06-2011
I agree in general with win/losses playing a factor in getting and keeping people over and pushing towards the PPV. But the 80's and early 90's is a world away in wrestling terms. The game changed with the introduction of Nitro, then again with Raw is War, Thunder, Smackdown and now Impact. Now we expect a serialised format with star vs. star matches, and not too much predictability.

The superhero pushes existed mostly during the era of jobber matches and limited PPV's. It is very difficult to do that now without people turning against them or getting bored by the predictabilty. On the otherhand is can be done on special ocassion, proving very effective -- Batista very rarely suffered a loss between 2005 and 2008, as did John Cena during the same period.
decemberboy
11-06-2011
Originally Posted by jamespondo:
“The superhero pushes existed mostly during the era of jobber matches and limited PPV's. It is very difficult to do that now without people turning against them or getting bored by the predictabilty. On the otherhand is can be done on special ocassion, proving very effective -- Batista very rarely suffered a loss between 2005 and 2008, as did John Cena during the same period.”

It's no coincidence that those two are last bona fide 'superstars' WWE created.
ben_122
11-06-2011
Originally Posted by KOE_9_ASH:
“
One issue with this: Football Clubs. Owning a football club NEVER makes you money. You're in it just for the enjoyment. It isn't so hard to think that Panda, like Ted Turner, could be in it because they actually LIKE it. And given UFC's off, they'll be the biggest thing on Spike.


.”

Do you really think people who own football clubs aren't in it to make money? Same with TNA.
whedon247
11-06-2011
Originally Posted by JCR:
“Wins and losses matter. Goldberg was over because he never lost. Brock was over because he never lost. Hogan lost clean twice in the 1990's IIRC (Once to Warrior and once to Piper, who, by the way, also almost never lost clean- and was over).

Thinking wins and losses don't matter is one of TNA's big mistakes. Because they do.”

shock wins can be great,especially when its a character like EY

but you dont want to enjoy yourself, you want a sport

stop watching pro wrestling,it isnt for you buddy
DejaVoodoo
11-06-2011
Originally Posted by ags_rule:
“Predetermined sport is an oxymoron. There isn't any element of genuine, in-ring competition - all the fights are done via backstage politics.

It's an entertaining, action soap-opera...really is the best way to describe it tbh.”

Maybe so, but you need to get people to buy into the "sport" aspect of it. Otherwise why would you buy a PPV. That's been a problem for TNA, as people say I'll just watch Impact for free.

For years, wrestling has worked on the premise that your are paying to see one guy kick the other guys backside, or your seing a guy going after a title etc.
DejaVoodoo
11-06-2011
Originally Posted by whedon247:
“shock wins can be great,especially when its a character like EY

but you dont want to enjoy yourself, you want a sport

stop watching pro wrestling,it isnt for you buddy”

Shock wins can be good, but this isn't one of them.

Eric Young is treated as a goof. Having him beat your no.1 contender before a PPV is stupid and reduces him as a threat to Sting's title in the eyes of mainstream viewers. If he can't beat EY, he has no chance with Sting?

Looking at how TNA's ratings have reduced last week and this week in the States, down to a 1.0, would suggest that people aren't gripped by TNA's storylines at the mo.
whedon247
11-06-2011
im not here to educate you, your beyond help.
jamespondo
11-06-2011
Originally Posted by decemberboy:
“It's no coincidence that those two are last bona fide 'superstars' WWE created.”

Absolutely. I bet Batista's successor Randy Orton has not been pinned on more than 5 occasions in the last 12 months. So being a superhero is still quite relevant when it comes to creating megababyfaces.

I can certainly see the argument in TNA not exactly giving inspiring build to the payoff (PPV). But then I think WWE are just as guilty. I think it's down to the TV fomat mentality from the likes of Russo and Gerwirtz, McMahon going senile and Dixie just being very much out of her depth as a wrestling promoter. The likes of Jim Ross, Pat Patterson, Gerry Brisco etc had a better grasp of booking towards the payoff, due to the 1970's wrasslin' mentality. But all of them have taken a backseat.
DejaVoodoo
11-06-2011
Originally Posted by whedon247:
“im not here to educate you, you're beyond help.”

God help me
DejaVoodoo
11-06-2011
Originally Posted by jamespondo:
“Absolutely. I bet Batista's successor Randy Orton has not been pinned on more than 5 occasions in the last 12 months. So being a superhero is still quite relevant when it comes to creating megababyfaces.

I can certainly see the argument in TNA not exactly giving inspiring build to the payoff (PPV). But then I think WWE are just as guilty. I think it's down to the TV fomat mentality from the likes of Russo and Gerwirtz, McMahon going senile and Dixie just being very much out of her depth as a wrestling promoter. The likes of Jim Ross, Pat Patterson, Gerry Brisco etc had a better grasp of booking towards the payoff, due to the 1970's wrasslin' mentality. But all of them have taken a backseat.”

No doubt. WWE isn't doing brilliant stuff either.
KOE_9_ASH
12-06-2011
Originally Posted by ben_122:
“Do you really think people who own football clubs aren't in it to make money? Same with TNA.”

If they're in it to make money, they're idiots. Currently, football is not a business you can make money in, unless you invest heavily and get promotion after promotion then sell up as it enters the Premier League.

It's a passion. And it seems that, like Ted Turner LOVED WCW and was forced to sell by AOL, Dixie's dad bought her TNA, and she loves that. I can't see it ever being sold off unless a ridiculous amount was offered by someone other than Vince McMahon.

Originally Posted by DejaVoodoo:
“Shock wins can be good, but this isn't one of them.

Eric Young is treated as a goof. Having him beat your no.1 contender before a PPV is stupid and reduces him as a threat to Sting's title in the eyes of mainstream viewers. If he can't beat EY, he has no chance with Sting?”

Treated as a goof. Excellent wrestler. Superb entertainer, but not World Champion calibre.

I think after weeks of Anderson getting his own way, it was about time someone brought him down a peg. And, if anything, it'll motivate him to give Sting his full attention and not rip him off.

Quote:
“Looking at how TNA's ratings have reduced last week and this week in the States, down to a 1.0, would suggest that people aren't gripped by TNA's storylines at the mo.”

Aren't they up against the Basketball? Not giving excuses, but hell, if Blackburn Rovers were playing one night that TNA was on, I'd pick the football over TNA.
<<
<
51 of 163
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map