Hunter's Torn Quad

Because you've never said something in the heat of the moment, right?

If it was WWE, they wouldn't have put Scott Hall in the main event of the PPV. No, they'd feud the known alcoholic with the guy who's gimmick is drinking beer... At least they had the good sense to put Hall's match in the midcard rather than actually put him in a main event program.

If it was WWE, they wouldn't have put Scott Hall in the main event of the PPV. Not only that, they wouldn't have given a live mic to someone who was pissed off.

You are correct. Impact averages around 1 million viewers, while PPV's get around 20,000 buys. These numbers are widely known and available and are reported on regularly, so quite how someone can seriously think more people watch the PPV's than watch Impact is quite the mystery.

There was no such contract stipulation. However, either Jarrett or Spike did want the NWA title on the company's biggest name going into their debut on Spike. Whoever wanted things that way, it was Jarrett's call to put the NWA title on himself.

Mr Kennedy talks about his part in the Signature Pharmacy deal One of the drugs Kennedy was ordering was Anastrozole:

http://forum.portaldovt.com.br/forum/index...showtopic=69481 Apparently, Antonio Rodrigo Noguiera will take on Tim Sylvia at UFC 81.

Someone posting on the F4W board, taking his information from someone at the event, says the trios tournament has been canceled or postponed because not all the wrestlers have arrived.

I didn't mention it the first time, but after watching the History of TNA feature, I have to ask who in their right mind thought Cheex would be a good idea?

Has anyone else here watched the History of TNA DVD? It's no Rise and Fall of ECW when it comes to being up front and open about the problems the company faced, and still faces. One of the biggest marks against it is that Jerry Jarrett barely gets a mention at all, when the company was his brainchild to begin with. I think 'Jerry' gets mentioned maybe three times in the whole documentary, with his importance to TNA completely ignored. Bob Ryder is as slimy as ever, not missing a chance to put himself over. The biggest problem with the documentary is how the problems of TNA are greatly downplayed, with only a brief 45-second mention of how the original backers to TNA pulled their support, and no mentioned at all made that TNA was just days away from closing up. It's also not helped by Jeff and Dixie talking about TNA like it's a success just because they survived their first year when few people gave them a chance. There's spin and then there's this. It's a well put together documentary, but it really gets hurt by the level of spin combined with the lack of openness and honesty, especially when the real story is so well known. I wouldn't say avoid the documentary, but it's nothing you need to go out of your way to see. Your best best is to skip to the bonus matches.

If Joe wasn't part of TNA, I'd say he would have had a better then 50/50 shot of getting the title, because he'd make a perfect foreign heel for NOAH. As it is, he'll probably get put over huge in the body of the match but end up losing.

It would make it more interesting if anyone could buy into the stipulation or if it was going to lead to anything good. Stipulations mean nothing in TNA, and they never lead to anything good. Any title run off of that would be short-term at best, and wouldn't do anyone any good. And with how Joe's been booked this year, I don't know how anyone could get excited about Joe winning the title, because TNA booking has done very little to instill any faith in Joe. And I say that as a big fan of Joe. Now, if Joe gets rehabbed for a few months and TNA are serious about putting the title on Joe for a good run, it might be different.

It wouldn't be because then at least people would be fighting over a shot at the World title, the biggest championship in the promotion. If you add the, right now, midcard tag titles and the X-Division titles, it dilutes the match. In all this debate, I don't think we've mentioned the biggest stupidity, and that's nobody buys for a second that whoever gets the pink slip is getting fired, or it's even going to mean anything in terms of a strong storyline, because stipulations mean nothing in TNA. If the pink slip was going to lead to something meaningful, it would actually add some real drama. As mentioned, it improves the problem because then they'd fighting over a guaranteed shot at the most important itle in the company. I'd agree with that, but as also mentioned, stipulations mean nothing in TNA. If someone really was going to get fired, or they were going to be put into a strong storyline that people could get behind where they'd fight to get their job, it wouldn't be that bad. I'd just rather luck play a minor part rather than a major part. It just seems like a long line of gimmick matches for title shots, because TNA are constantly having gimmick matches and they all run together after a while. In this instance? It's a silly match with a stipulation that nobody buys or can take seriously. If the stipulation meant something, things might be different. I'm all for calling this one a draw, because we appear to be arguing different sides of the same coin. Is Alvarez reaction over the top? Possibly. But I'd counter that by saying if TNA weren't consistently making boneheaded decisions, the reaction would probably have been more tempered. I don't think the TNA World title is meaningless, and I don't think I said it was. I do, however, think it would mean more if challengers were decided in normal matches where the better man won clean in the middle, and gimmick matches like this one were used once a year.

At least with a ladder match or Ultimate X, you could get a great match out of it filled with memorable spots and big moves for the highlight reel. As I've already said, it's not the necessarily the the person getting the title shot that does the damage, but the manner in which it's given. With BTC, you're trying to beat someone fast as you can. With the Rumble, you're trying to outlast 29 other men and actively throw them over the top rope. And with MitB, you're at least getting some big spots as guys try to grab a briefcase that guarantees them a World title match. With this, you're not trying to pin anyone. You're not trying to throw someone over the top rope. And you're not even fighting for a guaranteed shot at the World title. You're trying to open a random briefcase the fastest and you're not even guaranteed a World title match. At least if it was just three empty cases and one case with a guaranteed world title match, it wouldn't be so dumb a match. Of course the title shots are cheap and easy to come buy in this one. You just have to get lucky and open the right briefcase. How about having to beat someone in the middle of the ring? It's not this one gimmick match on it's own that makes the title and the title shot worthless, it's that it's the latest in a long line of gimmick matches to determine a title contender, and it all adds up. That is the stupid part. If this was a once-a-year deal, on TV, it wouldn't be so bad. But TNA seem to think that they've got to constantly come up with 'creative' ways to a solve a problem, when the simplest solution is the best solution.

It's the whole premise that a guy can win a title shot just by opening a briefcase. Sure, he has to get someone worn down first, but it's not like his ultimate goal is to pin him, make him submit or throw him over the top rope and defeat him directly in some fashion. He just has to open a briefcase, and he gets a title shot. The whole idea is absurd. Handing out random title shots isn't necessarily a bad idea, but the manner in which that title shot is handed out can be. It's a story, yes, but it's a stupid one for a possible title shot at what is meant to be your company's biggest championship. The story is in theory the same as if it was a Battle Royal, but the manner in which that story is being told is stupid. A Battle Royal would at least tell you who the best competitor is. This match is going to tell you who can open a briefcase the fastest and be the luckiest. I agree that setting up a title shot as a prize isn't a strange or a bad thing, and I wouldn't say otherwise. My issue is just with the manner in which it's being given out. A title looks better if the people chasing at are either established stars or credible wrestlers on the way up. If someone that nobody takes seriously gets a shot at a title, nobody takes the match seriously, and that's never a good thing for a title. Titles are meant to be important and mean something, so they can be used to draw interest and money. Look at boxing, for example. How many of the current 'world' titles mean anything? None. Why? Because nobody buys any of the fighters worthy of being a world champion. Then why not have more races like this to determine contenders or champions? The match is stupid because nobody could take it seriously. And I already said why it's devaluing the titles. It's not about ignoring the wrestler is risking his career, it's about not caring that he's doing so because he's not been portrayed as anybody worth caring about. Sure, a midcard comedy act like Eric Young will have his fans, but for the most part, nobody is really going to care if he's around or not. Eric Young not being around isn't going to make one iota of difference in the grand scheme of things, because you can make a midcard comedy act out of almost anyone. But put a big name in that same position, and the attitude of the majority of fans canges, because he is someone to care about and he is someone who would make a difference if he's gone. Of course the prize still has meaning, but it's no good having a major prize on the line if the match is so stupid and the booking so flawed that the match isn't anything special.

Since when is explaining the reasoning behind your argument 'psychoanalyzing'? You could always try to counter. That is, if you don't mind psychoanalyzing.

Because instead of doing something to, you know, earn a title shot, the guy just has to pick one of three suitcases. How meaningful can a title shot be if the guy just has to open a briefcase? There is a difference between the cocky heel handing out title shots to lesser wrestlers and the promotion doing so. One tells a good story, that of the cocky heel choosing lesser opposition to avoid a real challenge, and the other one doesn't. It tells the story of a promotion that considers title shots so meaningful, that they're willing to give them out at random, to people who might not have done anything to earn them. Because it makes the chance of winning the World title mean a lot less than it did before. It doesn't help if they run a storyline with, say, Samoa Joe running through the members of the Angle Alliance to get a title shot at Kurt, and then out of nowhere TNA randomly give Eric Young a title shot for no reason. If TNA can give title shots at random, why not give one to Joe? Because at least then they'd be fighting with other wrestlers and trying to eliminate them from the ring. It would be some kid of competition. This match is basically a race to open a briefcase first. At least the winner would have done something to earn his shot, namely avoiding elimination while eliminating others himself. It's one thing if the big storyline is the top babyface risking his career to get that title match against the top heel. It's another if you've got a crew of midcarders and comedy acts doing the same. Who cares if any of them is risking their career? A wrestler risking his career for a title shot only means something if the people care about the wrestler taking the risk, and even then, doing that angle with one person means a hell of a lot more than doing with a bunch of people at once.

Well to be fair, Brian screwed it up himself. Especially in his last wwe Run and getting kicked out of memphis for a year. I just remember Honky saying in a shoot interview that Lawler was never there for Brian when he was a kid and that he deserted Brian and his mom. Also that Lawler was especially hard on Brian in the locker room and stuff. Not trying to defend Lawler for running out on his family or anything, but he pretty much had to be hard on Brian in the locker-room, especially in Memphis, otherwise people would have thought Brian was getting things handed to him. The story Honky tells in one of his shoots was that Brian was five minutes late to a taping, when they were fining people for such things, and Lawler was going around to agents telling them that Brian was late and they should fine him.

HHH did feud with Benoit and Angle after his feud with Jericho. Angle wasn't considered a legit main event wrestlers prior to HHH feuding with him, despite winning the KOTR. He was coming off getting squashed by Undertaker the previous PPV. That whole Stephanie/HHH/Angle triangle did a lot for Angle, despite it ending pretty bad. You're right. It turned him into a super geek that nobody could take seriously. Angle wasn't considered a legit main event before feuding with HHH, and he wasn't considered one after. The Angle/HHH feud generated a lot of interest from the fans, it was no question one of the best feuds in the WWF that year, despite it having a shitty ending. People would tune in each week trying to figure out what would happen next. It was great TV, and from my understanding it was apart of the reason that made Vince decide to put the belt on Angle. It was the best storyline of the year up until the finish, at which point all the momentum built up was pissed away and meant nothing. No good having the best storyline of the year if the ending is so ass backwards it destroys everything that's been built up.

HHH did feud with Benoit and Angle after his feud with Jericho. Angle wasn't considered a legit main event wrestlers prior to HHH feuding with him, despite winning the KOTR. He was coming off getting squashed by Undertaker the previous PPV. That whole Stephanie/HHH/Angle triangle did a lot for Angle, despite it ending pretty bad. You're right. It turned him into a super geek that nobody could take seriously. Angle wasn't considered a legit main event before feuding with HHH, and he wasn't considered one after.

You mean the Raw where Hunter called him a sawed off midget, and then pinned him clean in the main event, even though either of the APA could have easily taken the fall instead? That wasn't putting Jericho over. Not in the slightest.

Article