LuckyLopez

Yeah, I don't mind it happened once and awhile like tonight. Steiner got the jump on them and had a weapon. He caught them by surprise so I'm ok with it. But that can't happen too often or else they look like pantsies. The faces need to learn to keep an eye out and use what they have. I wouldn't be surprised at all for the Guns and Petey to side with the MEM soon though. With the way Petey and Steiner interacted and their relationship... and the history the Guns have with Nash and the way they interacted with Joe... I think it would make sense for them to play the role of opportunity seekers who deem it smarter to kiss up to the establishment than to fight it. After it all, its what Petey and Shelley have done in the past. And I think you can ally guys like that with the MEM without actually making them members. MEM treat them as lackeys and inferiors and they're ok with it as long as it helps them. I'd prefer it not be done in big nWo like armies but TNA has always loved those huge heel groups like SEX and Planet Jarret.

I still think the Taylor original title win was solid, or at least it had me sucked in and a fan. But since then its just been bland as anything. The only real story she's gotten since that early Kong stuff was the weird Beautiful People feud that had her beat Velvet Sky 3 times in a couple of minutes and then the beauty contest with Angelina Love. It was fine stuff for the BP but it did nothing for Taylor. And besides that she's almost been an afterthought. I mean, she barely even showed up on TV the last month while Roxxi was getting 4 weeks of Rough Cuts and had attacked Kong in the Saed getup. Which is why it seemed so obvious Taylor was going to lose the title because watching Impact the last month that match seemed like it was Kong vs Saed and Taylor was only there because she's champ. But she holds onto the belt again and still got nothing out of it except the idea that she can score opportunistic wins with her ability, which was what they established months ago. I also kind of think she's beat Kong WAY too much. I know some people have a problem with her beating Kong at all but I'm cool with it. I thought it was good to establish someone other than Kim who could beat her and the flukey wins worked IMO. But they've fought like half a dozen times and Kong hasn't managed to score one win? I know the idea is that Taylor is the monkey on Kong's back but it just got to be too much for me. By pure luck Kong should have caught her with a devastating move and scored a win by now. The whole thing would have worked a lot better for me if Taylor wasn't undefeated and something like 7-0 against Kong. Kim only beat Kong a couple of times and it made a lot of sense. Kim was capable but Kong is still Kong. Its one thing to try and convince the audience that Taylor can beat her like Kim can, another to convince us that Kong isn't capable of beating Taylor. Its asking for backlash. If they had given her some character, a half way decent feud post Kong, and a less dominating record against Kong I think she'd be much better off. But as it is I went from being a big fan of her win to being very disappointed she's still champ. I don't think its in any way fair to blame her for the Knockout division being in a lull. It was always going to be tough to come close to Kim/Kong, they lost Kim, they lost Knuckles when they seemed to have plans for her, and the Beautiful People have been great heels but not much in the ring. I'm not sure that Kong destroying Knockouts makes things any different as I really thought they stopped that at the right time before it got old. But Taylor as champ sure does end up being a good symbol of the division being pretty bland and forgettable. Of course most of TNA has been pretty bland and forgettable the last few months, so its not like its really a Knockout problem. TNA could definitely use some fresh stories and could probably use a fresh influx of talent into the Women's, X, and tag divisions. I enjoyed the show well enough but yeah, most of the endings were pretty bland or disappointing. I thought BFG was going to kick off a lot of new stuff including title changes for the X and Woman's belts but Sting as champ is the only thing that feels different out of the show. Maybe TNA intends to get things moving for the live Impact but maybe they're just going to keep coasting with the same stuff that has been pretty bland through the summer.

I think the "get rid of old guys" thing just gets tossed around in vague theory. I mean, I as much as anyone am baffled as to why the New Age Outlaws have jobs in 2008 but neither is really a problem to the product. BG hypes PPV crowds and Kip is the gay fashion consultant to the Beautiful People. I could argue that putting a young prettyboy with the group might better serve someone better but the role TNA seems to want is basically harmless and probably not coveted by too many. The Dudleyz spent a year out of the tag title picture and have done a lot of work with the likes of the Guns, Lethal, Styles, LAX, Matt Morgan, and (in a silly way) Curry Man/Shark Boy. They've basically fallen into a utility tag role where they play muscle for heels when they need it, do some comedy when TNA wants it done (and while I'd agree TNA does too much comedy with the top of its card there aren't too many in TNA who can pull it off better than heel Bubba), and usually put on an enjoyable brawl. They don't mind making asses of themselves or putting over a young team. I mean, I wanted VKM fired as much as anyone when they were getting pushed or feuding but ultimately if they're not taking up air time or card spots, and are helping TNA out in a variety of ways (like the Dudleyz have) then I don't see the big deal. And at this stage with ROH contracting its guys and WWE signing a lot of indy stars the last few years its not as if TNA can just load in the Briscoes, Aries, Age of the Fall, Sydal, Cabana, KENTA, and anyone else they want if they unloaded everyone over the age of 35. There's a place for guys like the Dudleyz, I think. If TNA were strapped for cash and paying these guys too much then I might agree. And like I said, if they were taking up important spots in shitty roles (as guys like VKM and Black Reign have recently) then I'd agree. But we're at a stage where 2 weeks into his TNA run Mick Foley is a bad direction to go even when he's barely done anything and is regarded by most as one of the better story telling minds in wrestling, better promos, and recently better announcers? And for what its worth I actually think this BFG is pretty basic story orientated. Sting doesn't think Joe has the proper respect for him and others so he wants to teach him some, Joe's fed up with Sting's attitude. Jarrett is angry at the way Angle has conducted himself after he had such high hopes for him, Angle doesn't really care what Jarrett thinks since he deems him done. AJ and Booker simply don't like each other and both have appealed to Christian to why they'd make a better ally, Christian doesn't feel like be pulling at and is frustrated with both of them. Monster's Ball is just a straight up fight between 4 teams who have had various conflicting issues and all want the gold. I mean, personally the stories haven't really sucked me in that much but this build HAS been very simple and straightforward. I think if you look at it TNA really slowed down for BFG and did a similar build as they did for Lockdown. Very simple and straight forward stories, an actual lack of gimmicks amongst the top of the card (When was the last time the top 3 matches on a TNA PPV had no gimmick?), and the top 2 programs (Joe/Sting and Jarrett/Angle) were kept to talking over the last month with no physical altercations. The problem seemed to me that the BFG lineup doesn't have the momentum or appeal that Lockdown had with Joe/Angle where Joe seemed a lock to win the belt, the Lethal Lockdown match built around the deep Christian/Tomko&AJ story, and the red hot Kong/Kim feud. TNA really entered into this month in a lull and with the whole Sting/Jarrett/RESPECT thing having dragged on a bit long during the summer. A little better time management during the summer and I think TNA would have a bit more interest for BFG. Because IMO its actually a fairly compelling card. Some real questions in matches, the chance for some title changes, some matches that could really click, and the over riding story. Which personally I'm expecting/hoping that Christian/AJ/Booker will be a good match that gets the faction stuff rolling (and hopefully gives us an idea of Christian's contract status), Jarrett/Angle will really be very sports entertainment related (given Foley's involvement and JJ's presumed rust) that will really set the path for the faction thing, all of which would allow Joe/Sting to be a simple match free of extra curriculars. (Which again, is basically how they handled Lockdown with the top 2 programs so maybe that's why I'm expecting it despite TNA's love of extras.)

Team 3D DID put people over in that feud. They lost clean to the Guns multiple times and were going to lose the blowoff match. The point was that the Guns were being put over so the blood was just to hammer home the brutality of the match, hopefully adding some extra gravitas to the match and maybe saving a little face for the Dudleyz (who as it turns out were about to spend a couple of months being mocked for their weight and hitting a pair of clowns with fish). I certainly understand why people think that the Guns had a right not to blade, that TNA overreacted to the whole thing, or even how the blood was unnecessary in general. But the feud was done to pretty clearly put the Guns over and raise them up the ladder so I don't get why that's still a matter of contention. And while its purely opinion right up until the end of the match where the Guns disappeared I thought the feud was doing a very good job.

Yeah, the Mongo complaints just seem like piling on TNA or the WCW/TNA connection people love to pull out. Its just a local celebrity who happens to have wrestling ties doing a guest spot. Blink and you wouldn't even know it was happening (I actually did miss that segment on Impact). TNA likes doing these little celeb things just like WWE always has, WCW did, ECW did, and probably every other company that ever existed and was large enough to get anything resembling a celebrity.

The feud wasn't intended to set up a comedy feud for the Dudleyz, though. That may have been the direction they were headed but the Guns and Lethal were clearly being put over (against a higher caliber of opponent than they had ever faced in TNA) with the feud. If the Guns felt that they were just going no where after the feud so it was pointless, so be it. But the on screen booking seemed to suggest otherwise as did the rumors on the web. By all accounts the Guns WERE getting a push that was stalled thanks to their decision to refuse TNA's request. And really, even though Lethal's TNA career didn't do so well after that TNA did seem to WANT to do something good with him with the Dutt/Val stuff. It just wasn't any good. So the feud wasn't meant to make Team 3D strong, they already were. The blood was merely to add to the match, the Guns' performance, and to make the battle look larger to maybe save some face for the Dudleyz in taking the loss. The Guns did cut fat jokes on the Dudleyz but I really don't see how that ruins the drama of a feud. Every one from HHH to Jericho to Edge to Cena mocks their opponents during their feuds. Comedy happens to be a strength of Shelley and was the reason he started getting over in TNA in the first place with the Paparazzi stuff. So I actually thought that them letting the Guns cut promos on Team 3D was a good thing. I certainly understand your point about the full blown comedy that guys like 3D and Angle sometimes get into but this wasn't that. It was just the mocking that so routinely takes place in wrestling to make the heels look like fools. Most of that feud was built on the Dudleyz attacks on X wrestlers, the Guns finding ways to get revenge, and the variety of matches they competed in. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Guns SHOULD have bladed. If they don't want to, they don't want to. I certainly wouldn't (but again, I wouldn't want to do most of what they do) and I certainly wouldn't suggest a wrestler doesn't have the right to refuse. And I have no idea if TNA had made a fair or reasonable case or if they had a right to assume the Guns would do it. But I think the request was 100% reasonable. Blood happens in the midcard and these were midcarders. The feud was built on violence even if there were elements of comedy mixed in (unlike the feud that followed for the Dudleyz that was built on comedy even if there were elements of violence mixed in). And when booked in Street Fight with a legendary hardcore team to blow off a 4 month feud blood seems perfectly reasonable to me. It was the Guns right to refuse and right or not it was TNA's right to stop pushing them when they proved "uncooperative." But I personally have no doubt that if they had bled they would have saw an increased push and a tag title program in the last 8 months (especially since the division was up in the air for the next few months before LAX took the gold back and then Beer Money formed).

There was a barb wire match between Abyss and Judas Mesias booked for that show but it was lower on the, pre taped, and (if I remember correctly) kinda tame and forgettable. I also think it was Judas' last match in TNA after his injury had stalled the angle and he then returned to a dead feud that had lost all interest. If I remember correctly there was so little interest and heat on that match that he was basically gone from TNA before it even aired. I just went back and read some of the notes and posts from that time on this board and I don't see anything about the Guns objecting because of that match. Just them objecting and some theorizing that Shelley had vowed never to blade and that they were both students of D'Amore who doesn't like to blade. But I have no idea if any of that is true and certainly something could have been said. That being said I think the case remains the same as it did that day. Since we have no idea how TNA or the Guns handled any of this it doesn't seem terribly reasonable to judge the decision. You can easily interpret it as TNA making a very common request of the Guns that seemed logical from the feud and then passing, or the Guns making a very reasonable denial of something TNA just expected them to do without ever talking about it. Its all a matter of opinion but the classification of that feud as a forgettable joke now just seems like hindsight to me. While the feud dragged a bit longer than I thought it should (as many TNA feuds do) and there was a very questionable sidetrack with Devine winning the X Title that was a feud I largely enjoyed and definitely remember getting a lot of positive talk about. After a long time of being boring that was the first time I really remember enjoying the Dudleyz in TNA with them getting some of their heel ability going. MCMG were hot and were booked very strong against the Dudleyz and most figured they were headed for the tag belts after. The feud was largely built on the Dudleyz waging brutal assaults on the Guns, Lethal, and other X wrestlers. The whole thing was basically the first heel run for Team 3D in TNA and turned them around in my eyes, while also raising Lethal and the Guns up. Of course that all amounted to nothing when the Guns went into the doghouse and Lethal lost all momentum with the horrible Val/Dutt story. But at the time I definitely had very little complaint about that feud and... I don't know. It just seems like its become an instinct to look back on any past TNA story and just say "Yeah, horrible booked, every looked bad, no one cared" whether its true or not. And this feud is probably easy to do that with since the Guns ended up doing nothing for the 8 months that followed. But classifying the feud as a bunch of jokes and an occasional attack on Sharkboy doesn't seem to fit with my memory of the Guns going through a bunch of tables, Team 3D trying to break their hands before the Ultimate X match, Devine looking like he might be dead a number of times, and one really cool segment where the Guns and other X guys put the Dudleyz through tables (at least I remember them coming out with the tables... I THINK they put the Dudleyz through them). Actually I've been trying to remember what the "candy shop" that was a key venue was and I have remembered it as AFTER the MCMG feud. MGFanJay's comments sound as if he's confusing the Curry Man/Shark Boy feud that followed with the MCMG feud that caused them to have to "make weight" and led to months of a feud that was almost entirely joke.

Peter was absorbing his power from Sylar the same way he absorbs everyone's power (and presumably already had it since S1). Sylar was just using the watch to help him understand how to use it. After all, Sylar was presumably using the power for awhile without even realizing it fixing clocks and it wasn't until he met and attacked another person with powers that he realized he saw something and there was more to his skill than just good watch fixing ability. So the watch was just the project Peter had to focus his ability and figure it out, not unlike his practice sessions with Claude. Peter presumably would need to do the same thing Sylar does to look at the brain and get powers that way. But he has his own power absorbing ability so no need. Instead the power would seemingly be used to see "how things work" in general and Peter wanted it to be able to "see" the "big picture" and figure out how to save the world. Its like an internal version of the "string theory" that Hiro and Peter from the future have used to try and figure out what they have to change to "fix" the future. In the meantime he could use it to fix toasters and car engines if he needs a job. I think.

In fairness it was the blowoff to a months long feud that was MCMG's big break in TNA and which the Dudleyz had made them look pretty good. At the time we all figured it was the move that rose them up the card and to the tag titles before the bleeding thing derailed that. I think whether the Guns refusing was grounds for punishment comes down to reasonable expectations. Should the Guns have presumed they would bleed at some point? Should TNA have presumed that the Guns would bleed in their win to make the Dudleyz look good? Were the Guns wrong to steadfastly refuse? All that probably depends on internal stuff so who knows? I know bleeding a hardcore blowoff match with the Dudleyz doesn't strike me as an unreasonable request. I wouldn't want to cut myself open or let someone else do it but then again I wouldn't want to jump off a ladder either or go through a table either. I'm also of the opinion that the Guns left the doghouse awhile ago (since they're domination of the X Cup) and have just been treading water since. I don't think TNA is "punishing" them anymore. I just don't think they have them in their current stories so they're stuck wrestling matches with guys who have something cooking and putting them over. The one match in recent memory that just seemed out of left field was losing to BG James and Eric Young but that seemed to be what started this losing streak and the frustration that is building to a heel turn. My guess is TNA has plans for them post-BFG as part of this big story but until then they're just cooling their heels and TNA figures they might as well put others over and slow play this heel turn.

They seemed to be out of the doghouse for the X Cup where they were winning consistently. I suppose you can theorize that beating non-TNA wrestlers was somehow insignificant to the punishment TNA was giving but it seemed like it had ended. Since then they've been losing but its clearly at least got a point as they're telling the story of MCMG's heel turn and presumably a role in this big "RESPECT" war judging from Tenay's commentary of it this past week. Its gone on for AWHILE but honestly, a story beging dragged out much longer than it seemed to need be isn't really an isolated thing for TNA, especially over the last few months. And yeah, the story was that TNA was upset that the Guns would refuse to blade in the blowoff with a feud with Team 3D. The idea seemed to be "You were chosen to feud with the Dudleyz and go over them. You didn't expect to bleed?" So instead they were basically written out of the blowoff match they won and Lethal took the full stage.

But they were countering that at the same time with Arn, Benoit, and Mongo rejecting him. Jarrett was being arrogant about Flair's endorsement and was condescending to the rest of the Horsemen. Arn a favorite himself and Benoit becoming a big favorite against Sullivan. So it was ind of mixed bag WCW was selling Jarrett with. It wasn't like Flair was just pushing JJ straight and the fans were rejecting it. JJ was basically playing a heel and everyone besides Flair was down on him. And having Debra as his only other fan probably didn't help either.

And as much as the Horsemen were faces Jarrett basically feuded with them even as he was a member. It wasn't like WCW presented a face and the fans rejected it. He insulted all the Horsemen and called them Flair's lackies. He brawled with Arn, Benoit, and Mongo. He stole Debra from Mongo and only got into the Horsemen by her cheating on his behalf against Mongo. The only time I remember him really being booked as a face was the 2 weeks or so that he and the Horsemen were Piper's team for that 3-way WCW vs nWo vs Piper thing. And then he and Debra full fledged turned heel on the Horsemen. So I don't remember a time when he ever really got booked as a real face. At least that wasn't it except maybe for a few weeks here or there.

I'm not sure if that metaphor is apt but I'm pretty sure it doesn't apply to the question. Your metaphor suggests that the consumer sees both products and chooses the superior one. Which would seem to support Joseph's belief that TNA isn't "invisible" to fans like many claim. A better metaphor might be to take a product like "Kleenex" or "TiVo." Those are brand names but are routinely used to describe a product. The brand has grown large enough and present enough that when people are speaking of tissues they often say "Kleenex" regardless of whether they are using them. There are other brands of tissues and quite possibly ones that you'd prefer or appreciate just as much. And you might even grab them. But "Kleenex" remains the most present idea for many and thus will be what most go for. I'm not even sure that's a very good metaphor but I couldn't think of a better product. Point is, it seems undeniable that WWE is a force that no other wrestling company can match in terms of cultural relevance. Its been around forever, its responsible for all of the culturally significant terms and people (Hogan, Austin, Rock, "Lay the Smackdown", "Wrestlemania", crotch chops, etc). It is a multi million (billion?) dollar machine that just keeps rolling along and has held the world of wrestling (at least in America) for at least 20 years. WCW challenged it once but when that was done WWF/E was the sole survivor and that just increases the idea of it. It has the biggest stars by pure virtue of them being stars of the biggest company. It has the best production values which makes all other wrestling look worse in comparison. It routinely forces its way into the mainstream with folks like Trump and Mayweather. WWE is an idea and a machine. Its why they can launch ECW at 10 PM on Sci Fi and draw better ratings than WSX on MTV or TNA on Spike. The WWE brand carries weight and the one thing WWE has always done well is promote. TNA on the other hand has never been good at promoting, but even if they were better they'd still be fighting an uphill battle to become known and to be seen as more than just a "bush league." While wrestling fans that are really clued in may know about TNA that doesn't mean that the millions of WWE fans who follow it and not much else are. They may know the name but whether they know where to find it or watch it is another thing. But for "casual fans", no, I don't know that they do know TNA. But I'm also not sure how much of that is TNA's fault since I think WWE is just a juggernaut that can't be topped any time in the foreseeable future.

Yeah, that seems to be a pretty ambitious jump to conclusion. Just because he re-signed before them doesn't mean he was made priority. Logically it means that TNA is negotiating with all of them but Nash (and Team 3D) were the easiest to negotiate with. Kong and the Knockouts probably have some good bargaining power given how successful they've been but TNA's also probably hesitant to give them all "big" money and throw off the pay scale. So those are probably real negotiations. Christian is said to be considering WWE so there's a 3rd party involved and Christian has to take his time fielding the offers and playing leverage. Nash and Team 3D re-signing quickly is probably a simple matter WWE or the indies never really being big options so they took the early offers and it was done. Not that TNA threw its biggest effort in them over Kong or Christian.

Any word why she quit? I was trying to find some news on that, havent had any luck so far. In part it's because there are plans to split up LAX and she isn't happy about it. She wouldn't even do the angle to write her out, hence her not even being shown on camera. I thought the story was that she got an acting gig that conflicted with TNA and wanted a pay raise to stick around and turn it down? It sounded like the same idea as the Gail Kim incident and the bunch of other Knockouts who were hired a year ago coming up for renewal. Of course Salinas isn't even a wrestler so within that category she seems about as undeserving for a pay raise as any of them.

I can absolutely see how you can rip TNA apart for doing that. As it was about as transparent and obvious a "clue" or "tease" as possible. But in order to be "false advertising" it really does seem like you have to "advertise" Foley a bit more than just a very heavy implication. Which is certainly how I'd categorize that, at least in my mind. But the way they did it WAS about as close as you can get without saying "Foley will be at the PPV." I'm not sure the point of arguing what amounts to semantics and I'm not sure why the need to declare it "false advertisement" or not is enough to warrant enraged arguing and insults, especially when everyone seems to agree it was deceptive and worthy of criticism. Its just a fight over the term used to criticize TNA with. I definitely anticipated Foley from it and was disappointed to not see him. I never felt he was "promised" so I didn't feel ripped off, but he was clearly teased and to that end it felt empty. Especially after Angle said he had a surprise for Jarrett and nothing came of it.

I'm not sure the PPV thing is any kind of back track in business plan based on money or attendance. If I remember correctly the plan was for TNA to hold 8 PPVs outside Orlando in 2008. Against All Odds (SC), Destination X (Virginia), Lockdown ("Boston"), Slammiversary ("Memphis"), Victory Road (Houston), Hard Justice (NJ), No Surrender (Ontario), and BFG (Chicago) makes 8. TNA announced a fairly specific plan for 2008 as far as number of house shows and road PPVs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Nonstop..._note-Marvez-14 Running the last 2 PPVs of the year in Orlando seems less like a "surprise" and more like TNA following the business plan they laid out over a year ago. I'd expect that come 2009 they'll do 8 or more shows again, I would think they'd go for more what with the profitable strides they've made this past year and the acquisition of Foley, although the iffy PPV sales could slow them down. They've done the "Live from Toronto" thing a bunch of times. Lockdown wasn't in Boston. Slammiversary wasn't even in Tennessee, let alone Mississippi. And BFG is apparently not in Chicago according to Wiki. Its a habit that has amused me for awhile and I was half expecting Hard Justice to come "Live from New York City!" or "Philadelphia!"

I don't think it actually has been since Wednesday. Rules got defined by WWE, question over. I'm just kind of bummed that my post got quoted and now I notice that I started some thought there at the end of the 1st paragraph that I never finished. I hate when I say "I'll go back to finish that thought" and never do.

That's kind of a weird criticism though, isn't it? I mean, how long could the Knockouts division be about Kim/Kong? She was the first champ in Oct '07 and held it until January. She feuded with Kong from around Dec '07 to April '08. Then she started feuding with the Beautiful People and was back working with Kong last month after 2 or 3 months apart. They've even got a big match set for Impact. Realistically Kong and Kim can't be the focus of the Knockouts division forever. They were for the first 6 months or so of the division and are the main reason it was so strongly established. But you need new challengers and champions too. Kim was never pushed aside and forgotten. When ODB started feuding with Kong Kim was right there with her. When she stopped feuding with Kong and the Challenge/Taylor story started she went right into a story with the Beautiful People. She and Love got a built up match recently on PPV and the whole feud has brought her back to Kong and allied with Taylor. It almost seems like a trap TNA is stuck in. Because Kim and Kong were what made this division as long as Kim isn't directly in the title hunt people seem to think they're doing something wrong. And Kong wasn't a featured player for 2 or 3 weeks this summer and people started to ask what TNA was doing. Other stars HAVE to shine eventually and that means pushing both ladies aside at times. I don't know that there's a real way to avoid that. But TNA's never really dropped them out of the mix like some of the B players like Traci or Roxxi so they seem to be going out of their way to keep Kim and Kong around the top even when others are getting the spotlight. If its true it sucks for TNA's division but having no idea what happened makes it hard to judge. I think TNA can be fine without her but she's a loss, especially because of this rich history she's formed with Kong. But if it allows someone else to shine I guess it isn't all bad, and if she can help out WWE's divisions then there you go.

I think his point just was that using Goldberg as the example of why the name doesn't matter seems silly since Goldberg was really a unique case as far as look, gimmick, and booking. If Gavin Spears or Scott Goldman had the same sort of truly impactful path that Goldberg had, yeah, their names probably wouldn't matter. But assuming they don't get super pushes based on physical superiority the comparison doesn't really work. They'll probably get a lesser push than Goldberg. That being said I'm not sure the name matters much anyway. Personally I just find it stupid that WWE insists on doing this stuff. If the fear of having 2 guys with the same name is really the issue that's just insulting and stupid. And whatever the reason it strikes me as silly to divorce a guy from his past, especially a guy like Colt Cabana who could have debuted on SD last night and then sent a SD viewer to the web to do a search for "Colt Cabana" that would turn up a lot more than "Scott Goldman." But for whatever reason WWE seems to want to ignore what happens outside of their "Universe." That being said I don't think "Gavin Spears" is THAT bad all things considered. But WWE does tend to pick strange names for these guys which I can only presume they think will be "memorable."

So, just because he doesn't say "only" the mid-match title reigns will be official, even though he doesn't say they will be? No, I never said they WOULD be official. I think Enigma could easily be right. But Adamle and WWE.com don't seem to have said anything to clear up the issue one way or another. The only way to figure it out seems to be to make presumptions about WWE would or wouldn't do ("WWE wouldn't make their world titles look like the Hardcore title"), assume some sort of weird meaning to seemingly simple phrases ("The title switching hands doesn't mean the title will officially change hands"), or reading into syntax of a website that routinely refers to a silver/steel belt as "gold" ("the lowercase c is indicative of I have no idea which way is right and I think you can read it either way. But I've seen Enigma post the positive statement that it IS one way at least twice in a condescending form that leaves no room for debate. So if he does have a clearer message that is harder to argue I'd just be curious to see it. Because right now the match rules just seem unclear to me while he seems positive about it.

It is very odd that he went from tag jobber to world title contender in 1 month without really beating anyone of note or winning anything terribly impressive (unless that's what the BR ends up being but Show seems to be the only contender in it and I suspect the win comes in a screwy heel way with help from Zeke). But I suspect most will forgive this odd hotshotting and simply be pleased that Kendrick has the spot no matter how he got it. It irks me a little, but I'll probably forgive it too.

Right. That's how I read it. Nowhere in Adamle's speech or the WWE writing did they say that someone couldn't be the "official" Champ during the match and then lose it. They merely said that the final guy to have it will be the Official Champion. Which he will in either scenario. Some people just seem to be hearing/reading "only" in these explanations that isn't actually there. Adamle's speech taken literally does not eliminate the possibility of several title changes. And WWE.com clearly says that it is possible. Enigma's interpretation seems to only exist if you presume things that we have not been told and ignore certain things WWE has said as mistakes despite no evidence to the contrary. Again, unless there's something clearer I haven't seen. EDIT: Presuming the title does change hands several times I would guess that Shelton or MVP winning it momentarily (pinning someone not HHH) and HHH winning it back at the end is a strong outcome. That would allow MVP or Shelton to call themselves former champions while everyone understands the context in which that statement is made (pinning someone other than the champion in a chaotic "scramble" and holding it for only minutes). I would think they could also give Hardy a little token win so they can call him a former champion even if they don't want to actually give him the title and risk a problem. Given his past with HHH it could play in and MVP/Benjamin could cost him the title at the end of the match to fuel that feud. But I don't know. The idea of the title changing hands several times doesn't really bother me in the RAW match because all challengers are former champions. So it would just be padding their reigns and that doesn't seem much worse than HHH's 2 hour reign (and I kinda don't care about the number of reigns). But the SD one is kinda weird in that all 4 challengers have never been champion. So if the title does change hands several times it means one of Hardy, MVP, Shelton, or Kendrick will walk in never having been champ and walk out 20 minutes later as a "former World Champion." Which seems very odd to me in a way that calling Kane a "2 time World Champion" wouldn't.

And more importantly why does that statement preclude the man who scores a pinfall during the match who is apparently "champion" and for which "the title changed hands" from also being recognized officially as World Champion? I have no idea whether Enigma is right or wrong. But if he is then it makes the inclusion of the phrase "the championship can change hands several times" kind of... confusing and apparently inaccurate. It seems like you either need to presume that's a poor and confusing writeup and that truth is something else... or take it at face value and accept that the titles can change hands several times. WWE.com routinely references the ECW title as "gold" so I'm more than willing to believe its just a careless and confusing writeup. But I just don't see what proves that to be the case.

I realize you're quite confident in that but since WWE.com's writeups mention "the title changing hands" with each pinfall and refers to anyone who gets a pinfall as "the champion" I think there remains quite a bit of confusion on this issue. I have no seen ANY writeup that said only the final guy is the champ. I've seen the "official" wording. It does seem odd. Largely because how is one a "champion" if he's not "official"? Exactly what is an "unofficial champion"? I see that "officially" part at the end. What I don't see is anything that says "only the man to hold the title will have been recognized as Champion." When you say that the title will change hands and call any winner of a pinfall/submission the "champion" that says to me that there are title changes. If there's a clearer description I'd love to see it.