OAO TNA Genesis PPV Thread - November/19th/2006.

[bob_barron 0]

Shut the fuck up.

 

No, you shut the fuck up. He's right. Don't be a dick and put some stuff in spoiler tags

[Guest Coffey]

I'll do what I want and if the mods don't like it, they can ban me or edit my posts. That's their "job" right? I'm not here to lookout for some cry-babies that whine about finding out shit a few days early when reading a goddamn wrestling thread about a wrestling show.

 

...and if you don't like it, you can suck my dick too. The only thing that spoiler tags have done since being installed is give people more reasons to bitch and moan on the internet. This isn't an after school special, we shouldn't have to look out for other faceless mother-fuckers feelings, and it has dick-all to do with "respect."

 

You know what? I don't even care anymore; I'm done. It says something about the state of the forum when fuckin' luke-o is bringing the discussion.

[bob_barron 0]

Coffey should kill himself.

 

I watched Genesis on Sunday and thought it was a solid show. Liked AJ and Daniels' matches, even though I didn't think both had to end in a rollup.

 

I liked Sting v. Abyss until the awful ending. Sting gets chokeslammed into thumbtacks, yet he gets DQed?

 

Joe v. Angle was fine, but it seemed like it was just one long finishing sequence. There was no build, no mat wrestling, no nothing. Just near fall pop for 13 minutes

[luke-o 0]

It says something about the state of the forum when fuckin' luke-o is bringing the discussion.

 

Ouch man, what have i done to you?

[alfdogg 0]

I'll do what I want and if the mods don't like it, they can ban me

Okay.

[cd213 0]

Coffey should kill himself.

 

I watched Genesis on Sunday and thought it was a solid show. Liked AJ and Daniels' matches, even though I didn't think both had to end in a rollup.

 

I liked Sting v. Abyss until the awful ending. Sting gets chokeslammed into thumbtacks, yet he gets DQed?

 

Joe v. Angle was fine, but it seemed like it was just one long finishing sequence. There was no build, no mat wrestling, no nothing. Just near fall pop for 13 minutes

 

I agree with you on the show. MY friends and I enjoyed the show. It was worth the money we had paid for it. I ordered the PPV to be entertained, and I was. Are there things that could have been better, yes, but EVERY PPV even the classics have things that could be better.

 

On Joe vs Angle, I agree with what some people here are saying. You don't want to have that "classic" because you can only go down from there. I know it was being billed as the "Match of the Century" or whatever, but everyone knows that there was going to be at least 1 maybe 2 more matches and you want to be able to pull out all the stops in the final match of the feud, not to start it out.

[Toxxic 0]

Can anyone satisfactorily explain to me why Sting was DQ'd for clotheslining the referee and NOT DQ'd for hanging Abyss upside down by his feet and hitting him with a chair? I mean, not DQ'ing Abyss for chokeslamming him into thumbtacks, OK, I can kind of see that. Sting put the tacks down, Abyss chokeslammed him, the tacks 'just happened' to be in the way. I can see that argument, the argument a James Mitchell might have made at the time.

 

But come on. How can you not be DQ'd for HANGING A MAN UPSIDE DOWN AND HITTING HIM WITH A CHAIR but be DQ'd for shoving a ref harshly? That makes absolutely no sense in my book. If it's no DQ, it's no DQ. If it's not no DQ and you're dead set on having Abyss win by DQ, have him win by it the first time Sting breaks the rules.

 

Anyone with me on this?

[TNABaddboi 0]

Can anyone satisfactorily explain to me why Sting was DQ'd for clotheslining the referee and NOT DQ'd for hanging Abyss upside down by his feet and hitting him with a chair? I mean, not DQ'ing Abyss for chokeslamming him into thumbtacks, OK, I can kind of see that. Sting put the tacks down, Abyss chokeslammed him, the tacks 'just happened' to be in the way. I can see that argument, the argument a James Mitchell might have made at the time.

 

But come on. How can you not be DQ'd for HANGING A MAN UPSIDE DOWN AND HITTING HIM WITH A CHAIR but be DQ'd for shoving a ref harshly? That makes absolutely no sense in my book. If it's no DQ, it's no DQ. If it's not no DQ and you're dead set on having Abyss win by DQ, have him win by it the first time Sting breaks the rules.

 

Anyone with me on this?

 

I think they were trying to sell the story of the referring giving Sting multiple warnings before pulling the trigger, so they could say he was so far removed from his principals that he didn't pull back when he had the chance. The problem with the way they did it though is everything you mentioned. Even if they let all those things go, Sting should have been DQ'ed for putting Abyss through the barbed wire, not shoving the ref. So at least you wouldn't say "he got away with all that other stuff, but they nail him for this!"

[Toxxic 0]

I can see that too, but doesn't that just make the ref a total jackass? "I don't care about the rules enough to stop you from hanging a man upside down and hitting him with a chair, but the moment you touch ME, it's OVER sunshine!"

 

If TNA had a history of limited DQs in title matches but the moment anyone touched the ref they were automatically gone, I could live with this decision, but that foundation has never been laid down.

[HandofFate 0]

Can anyone satisfactorily explain to me why Sting was DQ'd for clotheslining the referee and NOT DQ'd for hanging Abyss upside down by his feet and hitting him with a chair? I mean, not DQ'ing Abyss for chokeslamming him into thumbtacks, OK, I can kind of see that. Sting put the tacks down, Abyss chokeslammed him, the tacks 'just happened' to be in the way. I can see that argument, the argument a James Mitchell might have made at the time.

 

But come on. How can you not be DQ'd for HANGING A MAN UPSIDE DOWN AND HITTING HIM WITH A CHAIR but be DQ'd for shoving a ref harshly? That makes absolutely no sense in my book. If it's no DQ, it's no DQ. If it's not no DQ and you're dead set on having Abyss win by DQ, have him win by it the first time Sting breaks the rules.

 

Anyone with me on this?

 

I think they were trying to sell the story of the referring giving Sting multiple warnings before pulling the trigger, so they could say he was so far removed from his principals that he didn't pull back when he had the chance. The problem with the way they did it though is everything you mentioned. Even if they let all those things go, Sting should have been DQ'ed for putting Abyss through the barbed wire, not shoving the ref. So at least you wouldn't say "he got away with all that other stuff, but they nail him for this!"

 

 

 

No one ever gets DQed for hitting someone with a chair OUTSIDE of the ring. Inside the ring, you'll see a DQ, most of the time. So if you are ok with the logic of the tacks just happening to be where he got chokeslammed, then you could logically say that Abyss just happened to have been upside down when he got hit with a chair. Pretty much anything goes outside of the ring, but once you're inside the ropes, you better play by the rules. Yea, it's pretty silly, but hey...that's the way wrestling works. Now touching or shoving the ref can, as we saw on Genesis, get you DQed. The wrestler is never supposed to touch or push the ref. The ref can let it go for a while, but after repeated occurrences, he has to take control and lay down the law. Yea, it's not the best way to end a PPV match, but if you go to the basics of wrestling, what happened can be logically argued.

[luke-o 0]

No one ever gets DQed for hitting someone with a chair OUTSIDE of the ring.

 

Didnt a WWF commentator say this once at a PPV? And im fairly sure Ventura retorted, "What are you talking about?! Are you saying its ok to shoot someone as long as its outside the ring?"

 

Something like that, my memorys a bit fuzzy at this moment.