|
||||||||
TNA Wrestling on Challenge TV (Part 2) |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#3926 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 17,297
|
Quote:
I do think the Spud storyline was scrwed up.
They spent about a year building up to it even when TNA was off air they were feuding on Twitter. Then they threw it away in a quick Impact match. Spud should have won to to finish it. fmkk- giv eit up man, its obvious you hate tna,you and your buddies have invaded this thread like the nwo when tna might go out of business imminently but nowhere to be seen beforehand when the thread topic was the actual shows |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#3927 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,354
|
Doesnt Destination America want Angle as champ so if Carter won the belt it wouldnt be doing TNA any favours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3928 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 36,992
|
Quote:
Doesnt Destination America want Angle as champ so if Carter won the belt it wouldnt be doing TNA any favours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3929 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 17,297
|
Quote:
Yes they want Terrell as KO champ to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3930 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 36,992
|
Quote:
nothign wrong with that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3931 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 17,297
|
Quote:
Apart from the fact she is crap she makes the Bellas look like Aja Kong.
i dont feel the need to see T&A like did when i was a teenager but some appealing to the opposite gender does not do her character any harm! |
|
|
|
|
|
#3932 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 36,992
|
Quote:
shes pretty hot,like her new style promos and can wrestle, had some good matches with gail kim last year
i dont feel the need to see T&A like did when i was a teenager but some appealing to the opposite gender does not do her character any harm! She along with Dollhouse are the worse female wrestlers in TNA history even The Beatuful People are/were better good god even Lacey Von Eric was better That is what annoys me to at one time the KO division was great the best thing in TNA on it's worse day it was 1000X better than the Divas Division on it's best. Now they are doing everything they once (rightfully) mocked WWE for. I don't think she's a looker either her smile looks like a shark hit by Joker Gas. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3933 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 17,297
|
she looks a bit like the lead from big bang theory.
and i think shes a good wrestler. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3934 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 31,653
|
Can nobody defend TNA without reverting to
'Woe is TNA'? Are we really still playing this card? |
|
|
|
|
|
#3935 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 36,992
|
TNA is odd
Usually when a business starts they learn from their mistakes and grow they lrean what fans/customers like and dislike and improve what they dislike. TNA is now worse than it was when it started and rather than improve what fans didn't like they kept it the same and made what they did like worse. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3936 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 966
|
Quote:
Can nobody defend TNA without reverting to
'Woe is TNA'? Are we really still playing this card?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3937 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 17,297
|
Quote:
I see your 'woe is TNA' card (cool card. Would it have Dixie crying on it?) and I raise you a 'bunch of WWE fanboys & WWE shareholders with no interest in TNA beyond seeing it fail coming over here citing unsubstantiated negative rumour & non-specific TNA is bad / badly run FUD as faux concern' card. And that card has your face on it. YOUR FACE
![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3938 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 31,653
|
Quote:
I see your 'woe is TNA' card (cool card. Would it have Dixie crying on it?) and I raise you a 'bunch of WWE fanboys & WWE shareholders with no interest in TNA beyond seeing it fail coming over here citing unsubstantiated negative rumour & non-specific TNA is bad / badly run FUD as faux concern' card. And that card has your face on it. YOUR FACE
![]() TNA is badly run, that comes from people have worked there!!! WWE thread is full of rumours being discussed, that's largely what talking about wrestling is, discussion on rumour. I find it sad that after 13 years in business, the only response to criticism is WWE fan boys. its hardly surprising Dixie has been able to coast it for so long What also has my face on it is the 'watched a company having any shred of individuality stripped away to become a shell of its self. Great talent sidelined to home ex-WWE talent in an attempt to gain relevance and every time it fails dismally.' card. Right now, my concern is for the employees. I couldn't care less about Dixie or the brand. Seemingly, neither can Dixie |
|
|
|
|
|
#3939 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,163
|
Quote:
I'm not dismissing your view, I just don't agree with it. The "historical significance" angle is subjective and in my opinion only being adopted by yourself because it results in a negative appraisal of TNA.
Quote:
TNA can't help it if the wider wrestling world has refused to hire their stars, take on their ideas or engage with them. In fact I think freezing TNA out and starving it of recognition (and hence legitimacy) may well have been a deliberate WWE policy. That's addressing your point, right?
What ideas have TNA actually had though? What stars have they actually built for themselves? Its kinda addressing my point, but in the usual 'poor old TNA never stood a chance in the big bad world' kinda way.Quote:
TNA's audience dwarfing RoH is an objective fact.
Well, it was. Who knows who has more TV viewers now seeing that ROH is on Sinclair and Destination America? At least they draw a paying audience.Quote:
I enjoy and engage with constructive criticism of TNA. I do a lot of it myself - for example, I think the recent move to a more wrestling pure product and away from trashier sports entertainment has been a mistake, as reflected in declining ratings. I don't rate Abyss. I think they should just give up on PPV instead of making almost non-cannon ones. I think they should do anything they can to stop making OnO PPVs. I think Aries should have been champ for most of the past two years. I have loads of criticisms of TNA! But they're specific and constructive. Whereas smark "criticisms" of TNA are invariably concern trolling: But none of this has anything to do with the arguments I've made or the discussion I'm wanting to have. My opinions are my own and I have made constructive criticism and praise of TNA in the past on this thread. Just because it happens to be more damning than your analysis doesn't mean it can just be lumped in with the 'haters' who you seek to dismiss. It's frustrating that TNA supporters keep going back to this well of 'smarks' and 'haters' and OMG Meltzer hates us' stuff without actually being able to provide a proper defence of the company. A company which I think it's pretty hard to argue against the accusation that it's very poorly run.a) Unsubstantiated negative backstage rumour regurgitated from Meltzer. b) General, unsubstantiated, non-specific claim that TNA's TV product is "bad", the company is "badly run". etc. It's impossible to engage with stuff like that because it's non-specific, destructive, and transparently about creating negative vibes around the company and willing it to fail. That's why 'haters' is a perfectly appropriate term. These people have no genuine interest in or desire to honestly apprise TNA. It's basic "spectrum vs C64" playground fanboyism and only worth engaging insofar as calling it out for what it is. Quote:
fmkk- giv eit up man, its obvious you hate tna,you and your buddies have invaded this thread like the nwo when tna might go out of business imminently but nowhere to be seen beforehand when the thread topic was the actual shows
Quote:
Can nobody defend TNA without reverting to
'Woe is TNA'? Are we really still playing this card? |
|
|
|
|
|
#3940 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 31,653
|
Quote:
game over
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#3941 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 966
|
Oh come off it, when you think nobody's looking over on the other thread you post pointless mean little digs at TNA all the time. It's part of how your little group bonds I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3942 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,163
|
What is this little group? I'm not aware of any formal arrangements.
Also, there's clearly more to this Jarrett thing beyond a one off match. But I can't quite work out exactly what it is. There are a good few possibilities. Is the match for the title? |
|
|
|
|
|
#3943 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 31,653
|
Quote:
Oh come off it, when you think nobody's looking over on the other thread you post pointless mean little digs at TNA all the time. It's part of how your little group bonds I think.
And i don't make digs when i think nobody is looking. its an internet site, how do you even do ? |
|
|
|
|
|
#3944 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 966
|
My position has always been that TNA is pretty much as well / badly written as WWE, no more no less. It's WWE with much lower production values & wrestlers allowed bigger movesets.
I've "argued" this countless times. But guess what? Whenever I post something on this thread appraising the actual TNA TV product, either positively or negatively, it gets completely ignored! Why could that be? Because your little gang doesn't actually watch TNA! So you're unable to engage in any kind of measured, constructive, useful debate regarding it. As I said, you're here to throw shade, nothing more. It's painfully obvious. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3945 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,163
|
Quote:
My position has always been that TNA is pretty much as well / badly written as WWE, no more no less. It's WWE with much lower production values & wrestlers allowed bigger movesets.
I've "argued" this countless times. But guess what? Whenever I post something on this thread appraising the actual TNA TV product, either positively or negatively, it gets completely ignored! Why could that be? Because your little gang doesn't actually watch TNA! So you're unable to engage in any kind of measured, constructive, useful debate regarding it. As I said, you're here to throw shade, nothing more. It's painfully obvious. And I would say that there are often times when TNA has had much worse writing than WWE. For example, during the Immortal run in 2011 where Anderson was top babyface, last year when Dixie was all over TV with her heel stable and MVP's heel stable and I am sure there are other examples I can think off. WWE has had some terrible writing too, but I would say that they are in more of a bland holding pattern than anything. I'm also not sure about the point on wrestlers being allowed bigger move sets. Most of the matches follow a similar formula I would suggest. And being very similar to WWE should actually be a damning indictment of what is supposed to be an alternative promotion. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3946 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 31,653
|
Have to say, slightly upset at being demoted from a clique to a little group
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3947 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 966
|
This is fun, isn't it? We are all still having fun right? Just wanted to check.
I don't want to argue really. TNA definitely allow talent bigger movesets. You're not going to see a brainbuster onto a chair in WWE. However, you're not going to see the Levi's Stadium in TNA. It's swings and roundabouts. Actually, that would be a good match type. I think you can point to abysmal writing in both promotions. Some TNA writing is very good though, like the Spud / EC3 angle recently. Also, when WWE really wants to break out its writing A-game, they can be great too, like the current Kevin Owens / Cena feud. So yeah. The main difference is that TNA looks like it was filmed in a broom cupboard after most of the brooms made an excuse to leave. And WWE looks like it was filmed in a shiny space station in the future where all human emotion has been deemed unhygenic, and is patrolled by futuristic space cops who taser you for expressing a thought not pre-approved by the corporate board of directors. So yeah, swings and roundabouts. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3948 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 36,992
|
Quote:
What is this little group? I'm not aware of any formal arrangements.
Also, there's clearly more to this Jarrett thing beyond a one off match. But I can't quite work out exactly what it is. There are a good few possibilities. Is the match for the title? |
|
|
|
|
|
#3949 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 31,653
|
Quote:
My position has always been that TNA is pretty much as well / badly written as WWE, no more no less. It's WWE with much lower production values & wrestlers allowed bigger movesets.
Quote:
I've "argued" this countless times. But guess what? Whenever I post something on this thread appraising the actual TNA TV product, either positively or negatively, it gets completely ignored! Why could that be? Because your little gang doesn't actually watch TNA! So you're unable to engage in any kind of measured, constructive, useful debate regarding it. As I said, you're here to throw shade, nothing more. It's painfully obvious.
That's not true. When was the last time you spoke about TNA's product? You say the "little gang" (by the way, quite pathetic to call a few people that speak regularly a gang) doesn't watch, I can say I do watch. Not with any level of regularity but I do watch. Why could that be? Because I'm not that interested in what they are offering right now. It's also the reason I've stopped watching Raw through to the end, I still haven't watched the final two hours of MITB. What is painfully obvious is that you have no rebuttal at all to the idea TNA is poorly run. It's also painfully obvious that you have no actual answer to the shareholder question I've asked now, probably three times, but you will keep posting it and then choose to not answer the quite fair question IMO. And whilst I'm asking questions, wouldn't it be fair to name the people in the "little gang" rather than hiding behind a very obscure reference to a group of people? |
|
|
|
|
|
#3950 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 31,653
|
Quote:
This is fun, isn't it? We are all still having fun right? Just wanted to check.
I don't want to argue really. I don't want to argue either, I just think it would be fair to answer some of the points put to you. Quote:
TNA definitely allow talent bigger movesets. You're not going to see a brainbuster onto a chair in WWE.
Thank god.Quote:
However, you're not going to see the Levi's Stadium in TNA.
And does anybody expect that? Quote:
I think you can point to abysmal writing in both promotions. Some TNA writing is very good though, like the Spud / EC3 angle recently. Also, when WWE really wants to break out its writing A-game, they can be great too, like the current Kevin Owens / Cena feud.
Very very true. Quote:
So yeah. The main difference is that TNA looks like it was filmed in a broom cupboard after most of the brooms made an excuse to leave. And WWE looks like it was filmed in a shiny space station in the future where all human emotion has been deemed unhygenic, and is patrolled by futuristic space cops who taser you for expressing a thought not pre-approved by the corporate board of directors. So yeah, swings and roundabouts.
I don't believe that is the main difference at all. Maybe WWE comes across as corporate because it's ran as a corporation?
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:04.



