It's time for TNA to step it up

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

Styles in a not marketable as a main-eventer.

 

I say you're wrong.

 

 

And Jarrett is NOT drawing casual fans. You are now proven wrong.

[Guest Paul H.]

Russo took it too far in his second run and they had too many old people stil not to mention their horrible production values.Not exactly catering to that demographic I mentioned.You cater to these lil' asshole kids and they'll eat it up.

 

SD sucks.

 

Raw slapped Nitro out of existence during the 90's cuz they new who to cater too.WCW was catering towards nerds at the time.

[Guest MikeSC]

They are "unproven" please.

 

You could tell just by looking at them Mike,you really think,that Casual fans would actually would care about Styles?,c'mon now.At least not in the level he's at right now let me tell you.

Why do you suspect casual fans would do ANYTHING but shit on JJ and his shitty promos, horrible ring work, and absurdly lame gimmick?

 

"Fans will shit on AJ"? They might. He definitely is not the most charismatic guy out there.

 

HOWEVER, compare him to TNA's XPac, Jeff Jarrett, and improvement is hard to avoid.

The Truth & Monte would be more beleivable main-eventer when in reality would just be upper-midcarders anywhere else.

You ignore that this is the case with the ENTIRE TNA roster. Jarrett VERY MUCH included.

You have to build up guys with other guys and other than Jarrett & Raven there's nothing to interest a casual fan at first.Jarrett isn't a draw cool,he's had his time,good,but no one else is ready for that spot quite yet.

If JJ is not the guy to do it --- why KEEP him there? Why not stick somebody who happens to possibly be able to generate entertaining matches?

I guarnetee you no one off-line will be intersted in another Style reign..Jarrett will pull MORE than he could today and forever.They need to get back to the Entertainment aspects you wanna be big-league then you gotta sell out.

Jarrett has had basically 2 years of being "The man".

 

Care to discuss their number of buys, attendance for TV shows, etc?

 

JJ's already SHOWN that he can't draw.

The "Solid Foundation" comment:No.It's not neccesary to have a strong WRESTLING product to be a good show or make money.That's a Smark myth.

Name a promotion that didn't.

 

WWE had Austin v McMahon that put the asses in the seats. It was never Sable. It was never Russo's assorted fucking idiotic ideas. It was Austin v McMahon.

-=Mike

[Guest Paul H.]

Austin Vs.McMahon was wrestling to you,Mike?

[Guest MikeSC]

Austin Vs.McMahon was wrestling to you,Mike?

The whole thing was based in wrestling, yes.

 

Again, if people want to see shitty writing, lame T & A, and weak comedy --- they can watch it elsewhere.

 

Heck, the WWF did all of that stuff BETTER after Russo left ---- and that was because the in-ring product was so terrific.

-=Mike

[CubbyBr 0]

Thing is --- if you go back and actually WATCH his work, Russo has never shown an ability to write a coherent storyline. He is unable --- TO WRITE AN ENDING.

 

Go back and rewatch all of his work. His angles usually just fizzle out or go so long that the pay-off is minimal (heck, McMahon v Austin went on far too long for it to be of any use at the very end).

-=Mike

 

The Rock storyline leading up to Survivor Series 98 is definitly and exception. Awesome piece of writing with an incredible swerve payoff that no one saw coming. All the pieces fell into place and it was just a real good story.

 

Heck, the WWF did all of that stuff BETTER after Russo left ---- and that was because the in-ring product was so terrific

 

Not Really.

 

The product became very stale around WM2000 because they stopped pushing new talent, which Russo was a huge advocate of. I'm not saying Russo's stuff was great but he brought WWE its higest ratings and most interest.

 

WWE had Austin v McMahon that put the asses in the seats. It was never Sable. It was never Russo's assorted fucking idiotic ideas. It was Austin v McMahon.

-=Mike

 

You got any proof of that?

 

When I used to go to live events in 1999 I saw just as many Sable signs as I did Austin signs so don't tell me no one showed up to see Sable or Goldust, etc. Austin/McMahon was the main thing, no doubt, but not the only thing.

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

I just want to hear why noone's watching (casual fans) RIGHT NOW. I mean, they already have JJ being pushed as the main guy, so why is noone watching?

[Guest Paul H.]

Styles in a not marketable as a main-eventer.

 

I say you're wrong.

 

 

And Jarrett is NOT drawing casual fans. You are now proven wrong.

1.TNA hasn't been focusing on casual fans or have they.

 

2.Styles doesn't deserev to be anywhere near a main-event.He needs to be slapped down in to the x-divison,tag,whatever.On a Prime-time show(that is the goal) no one will buy a guy like Styles in the ring for the belt.

 

3.I guarentee you more people know Jarrett than whas his fuck..

 

TNA needs to start acting big-league if they wanna be the next promotion.There not gonna do that by appeasing to the Internet..

[Guest Paul H.]

Austin Vs.McMahon was wrestling to you,Mike?

The whole thing was based in wrestling, yes.

 

Again, if people want to see shitty writing, lame T & A, and weak comedy --- they can watch it elsewhere.

 

Heck, the WWF did all of that stuff BETTER after Russo left ---- and that was because the in-ring product was so terrific.

-=Mike

1.For a year or so they did no wrong using and altering left-over story-lines and what happned after that?A silly ass Heel-turn by Austin,McMahon-Helsmley faction,Undertaker/Kane Tag champs and fucking Rikishi ran was the mystery driver.LAME.When the Radicals popped up the wrestling quota JUMPED and the entertainment value(money) DROPPED. FACT.

 

2.You just described what american wrestling is.WCW focused away from that and still got raped when McMahon started catering once again to his core audience.Who are fans,of blood,t&A,Violence,cursing,comedy,etc..Wrestling fans=Fans of mindless entertainment.

 

No one tunes into see USA VS.Canada skinny-guy flop-a-thon and if they do they are the minority.

 

 

3.Boss Vs.Employee is not rooted in an athletic competion,Mike.They took an everyday situation from TV series and took it to Wrestling & it worked.Entertainment put WWF on the map and brung it back from the grave.

[Guest MikeSC]

1.TNA hasn't been focusing on casual fans or have they.

They tried your way. They failed, miserably. And JJ refusing to job to Raven after having about 6 guys interfere killed the company.

2.Styles doesn't deserev to be anywhere near a main-event.He needs to be slapped down in to the x-divison,tag,whatever.On a Prime-time show(that is the goal) no one will buy a guy like Styles in the ring for the belt.

Clearly, nobody buys JJ as the champ, either --- but, since the head booker is JJ's biggest (hell, ONLY) fan, he keeps getting recycled.

3.I guarentee you more people know Jarrett than whas his fuck..

I'll bet otherwise. In fact, I'll bet that JJ is VERY similar to Hogan in one way --- he turns away more fans than he "draws".

TNA needs to start acting big-league if they wanna be the next promotion.There not gonna do that by appeasing to the Internet..

TNA's tried your way (remember when Lollipop went topless? Hell, remember when they had dancing girls?) and it bombed.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

1.For a year or so they did no wrong using and altering left-over story-lines and what happned after that?A silly ass Heel-turn by Austin,McMahon-Helsmley faction,Undertaker/Kane Tag champs and fucking Rikishi ran was the mystery driver.LAME.When the Radicals popped up the wrestling quota JUMPED and the entertainment value(money) DROPPED. FACT.

Actually, they IMPROVED on everything. They finally did SOMETHING with Edge & Christian, which Russo couldn't do a thing with. They got the Hardy Boys over, which Russo couldn't do. They got Angle over, which Russo would not have done had he been around. They got Jericho over as a serious performer, which Russo couldn't do.

 

And WWF was INFINITELY more entertaining in 2000 (best promotion in history in 2000) than it was in 1999. It was funnier, the shows were FAR better to watch, etc. And Austin's heel run was gold, whether you like it or not.

2.You just described what american wrestling is.WCW focused away from that and still got raped when McMahon started catering once again to his core audience.Who are fans,of blood,t&A,Violence,cursing,comedy,etc..Wrestling fans=Fans of mindless entertainment.

Actually, WCW tried that when they got Russo --- and when it bombed, they blamed Standards & Practices because Russo's way DOES NOT DRAW anymore. He is the Sabu of booking.

No one tunes into see USA VS.Canada skinny-guy flop-a-thon and if they do they are the minority.

Nobody tunes in for ANYTHING with TNA. And, please note, USA v Canada has been one of Russo's calling cards for YEARS.

3.Boss Vs.Employee is not rooted in an athletic competion,Mike.They took an everyday situation from TV series and took it to Wrestling & it worked.Entertainment put WWF on the map and brung it back from the grave.

No, Austin took the company on his back and delivered the goods in the ring.

-=Mike

[Guest Paul H.]

I just want to hear why noone's watching (casual fans) RIGHT NOW. I mean, they already have JJ being pushed as the main guy, so why is noone watching?

How would they get casual fans if they never stick to that route cuz they chicken out when ever one of these E-repoters roasts them?They've never focused on that route completley 100%.

 

That's what's wrong with this business,the smarks don't wanna see the business side of things and the promoters are foolish enough to belive we are actually a significant group.

 

How many times has TNA altered or scrapped ideas cuz they get a bad vibe from the net'?I'm serious the internet never gives anything a chance but when they see the ratings or the acceptance of the casual audience .."It's growing on them".

 

The sad thing is internet fans usually want the opposite of what makes these comapnies money.Instead of using their knowledge and giving real constructive critisicism they just hand out stars and or wanna be Metzler.

[Guest MikeSC]

Because, God knows, net fans don't have a clue on what might make money.

 

Of course, net fans sided with the WWF LONG before they took over the lead from WCW, due to WCW being so insanely shitty.

 

But that was probably blind luck.

-=Mike

...BTW, YOU are a member of the internet...

[CubbyBr 0]

Actually, they IMPROVED on everything. They finally did SOMETHING with Edge & Christian, which Russo couldn't do a thing with. They got the Hardy Boys over, which Russo couldn't do. They got Angle over, which Russo would not have done had he been around. They got Jericho over as a serious performer, which Russo couldn't do.

 

And WWF was INFINITELY more entertaining in 2000 (best promotion in history in 2000) than it was in 1999. It was funnier, the shows were FAR better to watch, etc. And Austin's heel run was gold, whether you like it or not.

 

OMG you're so friggen biased its not even funny. Yeah, they did stuff with some stars but they took others that Russo got over and couldn't come up with shit for them. Val Venis, D'Lo Brown, Mark Henry and other guys that were over during Russo's run were told that creative had "nothing for them." And let's not forget, WWE had an advantage in 2000 that Russo didn't have in that they had a lot more good talent in the ring (Benoit, Jericho, Angle, Guerrero, etc.)

 

The shows in 2000 were completely boring and stale. The only original thing they started, Angle/HHH/Stephanie didn't have an ending at all and just fizzled. It was nothing but Rock vs. HHH for the 183882 time with McMahon being the evil boss.

[Guest MikeSC]

OMG you're so friggen biased its not even funny.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Yeah, they did stuff with some stars but they took others that Russo got over and couldn't come up with shit for them

They didn't know what to do with Val Venis. He was the ONLY striking flaw in the new bookers.

Val Venis, D'Lo Brown, Mark Henry and other guys that were over during Russo's run were told that creative had "nothing for them."

In what alternate universe was Henry ever over?

 

And D-Lo sucked in the ring after the Droz incident. They COULDN'T push him considering how horrible he was in the ring at the time.

And let's not forget, WWE had an advantage in 2000 that Russo didn't have in that they had a lot more good talent in the ring (Benoit, Jericho, Angle, Guerrero, etc.)

They also had tag teams that Russo didn't know what to do with. Another nice plus.

The shows in 2000 were completely boring and stale.

We get it.

 

You. Hate. Wrestling.

 

Why don't you stop watching, since, obviously, you tune into wrestling for something OTHER than the in-ring product? You can surely find people who do the non-wrestling stuff better.

The only original thing they started, Angle/HHH/Stephanie didn't have an ending at all and just fizzled. It was nothing but Rock vs. HHH for the 183882 time with McMahon being the evil boss.

Oh, and Benoit v Jericho. Edge & Christian as hilarious goofs. TLC matches. The whole nine yards.

-=Mike

[Guest Paul H.]

1.For a year or so they did no wrong using and altering left-over story-lines and what happned after that?A silly ass Heel-turn by Austin,McMahon-Helsmley faction,Undertaker/Kane Tag champs  and fucking Rikishi ran was the mystery driver.LAME.When the Radicals popped up the wrestling quota JUMPED and the entertainment value(money) DROPPED. FACT.

Actually, they IMPROVED on everything. They finally did SOMETHING with Edge & Christian, which Russo couldn't do a thing with. They got the Hardy Boys over, which Russo couldn't do. They got Angle over, which Russo would not have done had he been around. They got Jericho over as a serious performer, which Russo couldn't do.

 

And WWF was INFINITELY more entertaining in 2000 (best promotion in history in 2000) than it was in 1999. It was funnier, the shows were FAR better to watch, etc. And Austin's heel run was gold, whether you like it or not.

2.You just described what american wrestling is.WCW focused away from that and still got raped when McMahon started catering once again to his core audience.Who are fans,of blood,t&A,Violence,cursing,comedy,etc..Wrestling fans=Fans of mindless entertainment.

Actually, WCW tried that when they got Russo --- and when it bombed, they blamed Standards & Practices because Russo's way DOES NOT DRAW anymore. He is the Sabu of booking.

No one tunes into see USA VS.Canada skinny-guy flop-a-thon and if they do they are the minority.

Nobody tunes in for ANYTHING with TNA. And, please note, USA v Canada has been one of Russo's calling cards for YEARS.

3.Boss Vs.Employee is not rooted in an athletic competion,Mike.They took an everyday situation from TV series and took it to Wrestling & it worked.Entertainment put WWF on the map and brung it back from the grave.

No, Austin took the company on his back and delivered the goods in the ring.

-=Mike

1. For a year,Mike..One lousy year of decent booking cuz they peaked with Triple HHH Vs.Foley and the Radicalz and it's been a downward spiral since.After WCW got owned the pretty much buried themselves.

 

Rikishi being the driver was fun for you?4-wayWrestlemania was fun for you?MC-Mahon-Helsmey was fun for you,Mike?Get serious. They had Russo scraps and a decent Smack-Down booker who left after six months(yeah that's why) after that BOMB! It's known Mike don't sit here and debate to me that the WWF-year 2000 post-Wrestlemania was even watchable.

 

BTW that was only 6 months after Russo left!

 

2.What did I just say about WCW?They still had production issues,old wrestlers to get rid off and asuck-ass broad-casting team not too mention almost 8 hours of programming to deal with.How does that cater to the demographic i'm describing?If WCW had those issues resolved and they would've stayed his course they wouldn't have died out so fast.

 

3.Austin took the company on his back,cool.You brung up the Austin Vs.Mcmahon beef specifially by name.How is that wrestling and not enetetainment?They had classic 5-star matches?Nope.

[Guest MikeSC]

1. For a year,Mike..One lousy year of decent booking cuz they peaked with Triple HHH Vs.Foley and the Radicalz and it's been a downward spiral since.After WCW got owned the pretty much buried themselves.

 

Rikishi being the driver was fun for you?4-wayWrestlemania was fun for you?MC-Mahon-Helsmey was fun for you,Mike?Get serious. They had Russo scraps and a decent Smack-Down booker who left after six months(yeah that's why) after that BOMB! It's known Mike don't sit here and debate to me that the WWF-year 2000 post-Wrestlemania was even watchable.

 

BTW that was only 6 months after Russo left!

Actually, the Invasion featured some good matches, hampered by how weak the WCW workers were.

 

Was Rikishi as the driver bad? Yup --- but not in the same ballpark as Vince as the Higher Power. The 4-way WM ME would've been much better if they cut about 10 minutes out of the match. McMahon/HHH was actually entertaining.

 

WWF post-2000 was amazing. Hell, Backlash 2000 was the best PPV --- EVER.

 

They scrapped Russo's horrible booking and, yes, they had an insanely kick-ass writer (Kreski, if memory serves) who left in October or so.

 

Russo left in SEPTEMBER. They hit their APEX in August-September, 2000.

3.Austin took the company on his back,cool.You brung up the Austin Vs.Mcmahon beef specifially by name.How is that wrestling and not enetetainment?They had classic 5-star matches?Nope.

Nope --- but Austin v Foley WAS stellar and those were part of that storyline. Hell, the only downside was that Russo didn't know how to END the storyline --- a common problem for him.

-=Mike

[Guest Paul H.]

Because, God knows, net fans don't have a clue on what might make money.

 

Of course, net fans sided with the WWF LONG before they took over the lead from WCW, due to WCW being so insanely shitty.

 

But that was probably blind luck.

-=Mike

...BTW, YOU are a member of the internet...

1.Internet fans want "wrestling".

 

If wrestling made money how come ECW still isn't around,how come WWF surpassed WCW?Why isn't ROH national?

 

The actual in-ring procudt makes money when it's a match between 2 characters,who are over,and have been established from many months of booking.

 

Booking=Writing=as in wrestling's a work,a show...enetertainmet.

 

The money is in the writing not the wrestling.

 

2.Net' fans always side with the casual fans if it's immensley over.I remember many people coming down on "Attitude" and saying WCW only lacked production values.Fuck,now Batists is over,right guys?He's "improved" Gimme a fucking break!

 

My whole point here is that internet fans are sheep just like the marks.By the time WWF was passing WCW errybody and their momma knew it was gonna happen,how com no one sided with the WWF when the real "Attitude" segments like the Austin/Pillman gun fiasco began?Net fans are marks for the columnists and don't wake up untill the something is massivley adored by the Casual/Mainstream media.

 

3.Yeah,i'm not blinded by love of work-rate and hyrpocritical hatred of all things popular like most though.

[CubbyBr 0]

In what alternate universe was Henry ever over?

 

And D-Lo sucked in the ring after the Droz incident. They COULDN'T push him considering how horrible he was in the ring at the time.

 

Go back and watch the tapes. He wasn't Austin-like over but he was more over than in 2000.

 

 

 

They didn't know what to do with Val Venis. He was the ONLY striking flaw in the new bookers.

 

You're actually serious, aren't you?

 

X-Pac, Road Dogg, Billy Gunn, Godfather, Kane...

 

The only striking flaw? I guess you don't consider running the same Austin v. McMahon storyline, except w/Rock in place of Austin, for six months a flaw. Yet anything TNA does is the "worst thing in wrestling history." I guess when they start their feuds off with someone spilling coffee on someone else, they'll reach WWF2000 greatness. The biased in every single thing that you write on the this board is just fucking ridiculous.

 

You talk about how Russo never ended his storylines yet you wet yourself at the thought of WWF in 2000. Where was the ending to the Rock/Benoit feud in 2000? Where was the ending to the Angle/HHH/Steph story? Where was the ending to the HHH/Jericho feud? As far as building up feuds, they had almost zero creativity during that period. For almost every PPV, their big push on the Raw the week before was a slopped together tag match featuring the top two feuds that had no reason for happening.

 

They also had tag teams that Russo didn't know what to do with. Another nice plus.

 

Edge/Christian was creative, I won't deny it. But with did they do with the Hardyz that was so cutting edge? Put Lita with them? WOW. Having the Dudleyz to work with didn't hurt either.

 

We get it.

 

You. Hate. Wrestling.

 

Why don't you stop watching, since, obviously, you tune into wrestling for something OTHER than the in-ring product? You can surely find people who do the non-wrestling stuff better.

 

Boy, you hit the nail on the head. Because I thought the storylines were boring in 2000 that means I hate wrestling. Boy, you're not only an expert at what draws in wrestling but you can read other peopl'es mind and know what they like and hate too.

 

Oh, and Benoit v Jericho. Edge & Christian as hilarious goofs. TLC matches. The whole nine yards.

 

Yeah, putting two of the best wrestlers in the world into a long feud just oozes creativity. you don't get the fact that I'm not saying the wrestling was bad...the reason why the matches were happening, the storylines, sucked for the most part. The only creative STORYLINE they started, Angle/HHH/Steph, never had an ending and ended up sucking.

[CubbyBr 0]

Double-Post, my bad

 

In what alternate universe was Henry ever over?

 

And D-Lo sucked in the ring after the Droz incident. They COULDN'T push him considering how horrible he was in the ring at the time.

 

Go back and watch the tapes. He wasn't Austin-like over but he was more over than in 2000.

 

 

 

They didn't know what to do with Val Venis. He was the ONLY striking flaw in the new bookers.

 

You're actually serious, aren't you?

 

X-Pac, Road Dogg, Billy Gunn, Godfather, Kane...

 

The only striking flaw? I guess you don't consider running the same Austin v. McMahon storyline, except w/Rock in place of Austin, for six months a flaw. Yet anything TNA does is the "worst thing in wrestling history." I guess when they start their feuds off with someone spilling coffee on someone else, they'll reach WWF2000 greatness. The biased in every single thing that you write on the this board is just fucking ridiculous.

 

You talk about how Russo never ended his storylines yet you wet yourself at the thought of WWF in 2000. Where was the ending to the Rock/Benoit feud in 2000? Where was the ending to the Angle/HHH/Steph story? Where was the ending to the HHH/Jericho feud? As far as building up feuds, they had almost zero creativity during that period. For almost every PPV, their big push on the Raw the week before was a slopped together tag match featuring the top two feuds that had no reason for happening.

 

They also had tag teams that Russo didn't know what to do with. Another nice plus.

 

Edge/Christian was creative, I won't deny it. But what did they do with the Hardyz that was so cutting edge? Put Lita with them? WOW. Having the Dudleyz to work with didn't hurt either.

 

We get it.

 

You. Hate. Wrestling.

 

Why don't you stop watching, since, obviously, you tune into wrestling for something OTHER than the in-ring product? You can surely find people who do the non-wrestling stuff better.

 

Boy, you hit the nail on the head. Because I thought the storylines were boring in 2000 that means I hate wrestling. Boy, you're not only an expert at what draws in wrestling but you can read other peopl'es mind and know what they like and hate too.

 

Oh, and Benoit v Jericho. Edge & Christian as hilarious goofs. TLC matches. The whole nine yards.

 

Yeah, putting two of the best wrestlers in the world into a long feud just oozes creativity. you don't get the fact that I'm not saying the wrestling was bad...the reason why the matches were happening, the storylines, sucked for the most part. The only creative STORYLINE they started, Angle/HHH/Steph, never had an ending and ended up sucking.

[Guest Paul H.]

Mike,very few people will even remember wtf went on in the WWF-2000 other then having it suck and hoping for WCW to get better.

 

WWF-2000 post-Wrestlemania=gaaaaarbage.

[Guest MikeSC]

1.Internet fans want "wrestling".

Weird, considering that if people want comedy, there are MUCH better places for it than, say, PRO WRESTLING.

If wrestling made money how come ECW still isn't around,how come WWF surpassed WCW?Why isn't ROH national?

In order, ECW had shitty wrestling. WCW was so bad that the MILDLY superior WWF product owned it --- and, in 2000, completely buried them. ROH doesn't WANT to be national.

The actual in-ring procudt makes money when it's a match between 2 characters,who are over,and have been established from many months of booking.

Hate to tell you --- if the in-ring work is unspeakably shitty, no amount of booking can save it. Hell, Godfather only got over when they used him as an opening match guy --- when they gave him a title belt, it was a disaster.

Booking=Writing=as in wrestling's a work,a show...enetertainmet.

 

The money is in the writing not the wrestling.

Wrestling does writing much worse than most other TV shows.

2.Net' fans always side with the casual fans if it's immensley over.I remember many people coming down on "Attitude" and saying WCW only lacked production values.

Nobody that I knew of. WWF , starting shortly after WM14, was the internet darling while smarks starting dumping on WCW.

Fuck,now Batists is over,right guys?He's "improved" Gimme a fucking break!

I'll say it right now --- he's so much better than Monty Brown, it's comical. He's improved A TON.

My whole point here is that internet fans are sheep just like the marks.By the time WWF was passing WCW errybody and their momma knew it was gonna happen,how com no one sided with the WWF when the real "Attitude" segments like the Austin/Pillman gun fiasco began?

Because it was a bad angle.

Net fans are marks for the columnists and don't wake up untill the something is massivley adored by the Casual/Mainstream media.

Said the guy who sounds like every SE freak out there. Just saying.

3.Yeah,i'm not blinded by love of work-rate and hyrpocritical hatred of all things popular like most though.

No, you're just a mark for lame comedy, shitty attempts at booking, and really weak T & A

Go back and watch the tapes. He wasn't Austin-like over but he was more over than in 2000.

He wasn't over in 1999, either.

You're actually serious, aren't you?

 

X-Pac, Road Dogg, Billy Gunn, Godfather, Kane...

As I said, D-Lo's was the only underpush that was BAD. Burying dead weight like XPac, Dogg, Gunn, and Godfather was a GOOD thing.

 

And Kane was not even close to being de-pushed.

The only striking flaw? I guess you don't consider running the same Austin v. McMahon storyline, except w/Rock in place of Austin, for six months a flaw.

When the hell was there a 6 month Rock v McMahon program? Vince was basically out of the angle entirely by the end of June --- about 3 months after it started.

 

And, no, it was not even close to the same thing.

 

I guess when they start their feuds off with someone spilling coffee on someone else, they'll reach WWF2000 greatness. The biased in every single thing that you write on the this board is just fucking ridiculous.

Do you REALLY want to go into the lame ways angles started during "Attitude"?

You talk about how Russo never ended his storylines yet you wet yourself at the thought of WWF in 2000. Where was the ending to the Rock/Benoit feud in 2000?

Ended when Rock moved to Angle and Benoit moved to HHH.

Where was the ending to the Angle/HHH/Steph story?

Missed HHH beating Angle, eh?

Where was the ending to the HHH/Jericho feud?

Missed Fully Loaded 2000, huh? Shame, as it was an excellent show.

As far as building up feuds, they had almost zero creativity during that period. For almost every PPV, their big push on the Raw the week before was a slopped together tag match featuring the top two feuds that had no reason for happening.

Yup --- fortunately, the IN-RING PRODUCT made it infinitely more tolerable.

Edge/Christian was creative, I won't deny it. But with did they do with the Hardyz that was so cutting edge? Put Lita with them? WOW. Having the Dudleyz to work with didn't hurt either.

Not like Russo left the Duds as anything but, well, MIMICKING THEIR LAME ECW STUTTERING ANGLE when he departed. Nice reclamation project by the new bookers.

Boy, you hit the nail on the head. Because I thought the storylines were boring in 2000 that means I hate wrestling.

No, you hating wrestling means you hate wrestling.

Yeah, putting two of the best wrestlers in the world into a long feud just oozes creativity.

Remember who Russo stuck Jericho with?

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike,very few people will even remember wtf went on in the WWF-2000 other then having it suck and hoping for WCW to get better.

 

WWF-2000 post-Wrestlemania=gaaaaarbage.

Funny, because the audience was MUCH larger back then.

 

WWF-post WM2K was amazingly good. RAW was ALWAYS super-solid. The PPV's were top notch.

-=Mike

[Guest Paul H.]

"They tried your way and they failed miserably"

 

JJ Vs Truth or JJ vS. Hardy ...

 

Hmmmm....

 

Hmmmmmm.....

 

Maybe they should try again.

 

On a serious note:IF i'm not mistaken this is the TNA folder(one of the first to pop up) and most here are TNA fans.So why wouldn't you all want TNA to succeed? Most of you seem more content on ripping them apart or giving them further away from what Main-stream wrestling is all about for some selfish reasons that only you know.

 

Why as fans,would you wanna to keep a company down for your own entertainment purposes?No one here is slow or stupid we all know that TNA making it Prime-Time could only mean good things for the business and the only way for them to compete is by putting on a Main-Stream,Entertainment-Based product..we all know this.

 

Why post-pone the enivatable?It's fact all "Rasslin" companies fold from WCW to ECW to the terrotories you can argue whatever reason you can come up with ,why and what factors influenced it...But the only real reason they failed is that they didn't reach the same level as Vince's world-class ENTERTAINMENT company becuz they refuse to,just like you,accept that is business is a business.

[Guest MikeSC]

"They tried your way and they failed miserably"

 

JJ Vs Truth or JJ vS. Hardy ...

 

Hmmmm....

 

Hmmmmmm.....

 

Maybe they should try again.

They've tried JJ v Harris. JJ v Styles. JJ v Raven. JJ v Hardy.

 

Notice the one factor in common?

On a serious note:IF i'm not mistaken this is the TNA folder(one of the first to pop up) and most here are TNA fans.So why wouldn't you all want TNA to succeed? Most of you seem more content on ripping them apart or giving them further away from what Main-stream wrestling is all about for some selfish reasons that only you know.

If they produce shit --- why should anybody want to watch them succeed? If they cannot improve things, then why support them?

Why as fans,would you wanna to keep a company down for your own entertainment purposes?

Seeing as how we don't own a piece of them, if they don't entertain --- why support them?

No one here is slow or stupid we all know that TNA making it Prime-Time could only mean good things for the business and the only way for them to compete is by putting on a Main-Stream,Entertainment-Based product..we all know this.

If their product sucks --- it's NOT competition. It's simply causing more people to not give the product a chance.

Why post-pone the enivatable?It's fact all "Rasslin" companies fold from WCW to ECW to the terrotories you can argue whatever reason you can come up with ,why and what factors influenced it...But the only real reason they failed is that they didn't reach the same level as Vince's world-class ENTERTAINMENT company becuz they refuse to,just like you,accept that is business is a business.

No --- they failed because they produced a POOR PRODUCT.

 

TNA is doing the same.

 

Why prop up a company that is bad?

-=Mike

[Guest Paul H.]

1.Internet fans want "wrestling".

Weird, considering that if people want comedy, there are MUCH better places for it than, say, PRO WRESTLING.

If wrestling made money how come ECW still isn't around,how come WWF surpassed WCW?Why isn't ROH national?

In order, ECW had shitty wrestling. WCW was so bad that the MILDLY superior WWF product owned it --- and, in 2000, completely buried them. ROH doesn't WANT to be national.

The actual in-ring procudt makes money when it's a match between 2 characters,who are over,and have been established from many months of booking.

Hate to tell you --- if the in-ring work is unspeakably shitty, no amount of booking can save it. Hell, Godfather only got over when they used him as an opening match guy --- when they gave him a title belt, it was a disaster.

Booking=Writing=as in wrestling's a work,a show...enetertainmet.

 

The money is in the writing not the wrestling.

Wrestling does writing much worse than most other TV shows.

2.Net' fans always side with the casual fans if it's immensley over.I remember many people coming down on "Attitude" and saying WCW only lacked production values.

Nobody that I knew of. WWF , starting shortly after WM14, was the internet darling while smarks starting dumping on WCW.

Fuck,now Batists is over,right guys?He's "improved" Gimme a fucking break!

I'll say it right now --- he's so much better than Monty Brown, it's comical. He's improved A TON.

My whole point here is that internet fans are sheep just like the marks.By the time WWF was passing WCW errybody and their momma knew it was gonna happen,how com no one sided with the WWF when the real "Attitude" segments like the Austin/Pillman gun fiasco began?

Because it was a bad angle.

Net fans are marks for the columnists and don't wake up untill the something is massivley adored by the Casual/Mainstream media.

Said the guy who sounds like every SE freak out there. Just saying.

3.Yeah,i'm not blinded by love of work-rate and hyrpocritical hatred of all things popular like most though.

No, you're just a mark for lame comedy, shitty attempts at booking, and really weak T & A

Go back and watch the tapes. He wasn't Austin-like over but he was more over than in 2000.

He wasn't over in 1999, either.

You're actually serious, aren't you?

 

X-Pac, Road Dogg, Billy Gunn, Godfather, Kane...

As I said, D-Lo's was the only underpush that was BAD. Burying dead weight like XPac, Dogg, Gunn, and Godfather was a GOOD thing.

 

And Kane was not even close to being de-pushed.

The only striking flaw? I guess you don't consider running the same Austin v. McMahon storyline, except w/Rock in place of Austin, for six months a flaw.

When the hell was there a 6 month Rock v McMahon program? Vince was basically out of the angle entirely by the end of June --- about 3 months after it started.

 

And, no, it was not even close to the same thing.

 

I guess when they start their feuds off with someone spilling coffee on someone else, they'll reach WWF2000 greatness. The biased in every single thing that you write on the this board is just fucking ridiculous.

Do you REALLY want to go into the lame ways angles started during "Attitude"?

You talk about how Russo never ended his storylines yet you wet yourself at the thought of WWF in 2000. Where was the ending to the Rock/Benoit feud in 2000?

Ended when Rock moved to Angle and Benoit moved to HHH.

Where was the ending to the Angle/HHH/Steph story?

Missed HHH beating Angle, eh?

Where was the ending to the HHH/Jericho feud?

Missed Fully Loaded 2000, huh? Shame, as it was an excellent show.

As far as building up feuds, they had almost zero creativity during that period. For almost every PPV, their big push on the Raw the week before was a slopped together tag match featuring the top two feuds that had no reason for happening.

Yup --- fortunately, the IN-RING PRODUCT made it infinitely more tolerable.

Edge/Christian was creative, I won't deny it. But with did they do with the Hardyz that was so cutting edge? Put Lita with them? WOW. Having the Dudleyz to work with didn't hurt either.

Not like Russo left the Duds as anything but, well, MIMICKING THEIR LAME ECW STUTTERING ANGLE when he departed. Nice reclamation project by the new bookers.

Boy, you hit the nail on the head. Because I thought the storylines were boring in 2000 that means I hate wrestling.

No, you hating wrestling means you hate wrestling.

Yeah, putting two of the best wrestlers in the world into a long feud just oozes creativity.

Remember who Russo stuck Jericho with?

-=Mike

1.It's not what makes money.So why should promoters(business-men) listen to you?Not only are you telling them to stop making money just to please you but you and everybody else who feels the same are a very,small group who will watch what's given to you.

 

 

2.ECW had shitty wrestling,WCW was inferior to WWF matches? Sure,Mike.All companies goal is to go National even ROH.

 

ECW & WCW,were mentioned becuz at the time they offered the best wrestling on a national level in all of the US.Again,if the in-ring product is what motivates people how come the two best companies in that feild folded like laundry?

 

If Wrestling makes money how come those companies aren't around any longer?If wrestling made cash then i'm sure that it would have the kept the doors open for Paul.E or would have made-up for WCW bloated contracts,right?

 

So why didn't wrestling make up for all those mistakes,Mike?Doesn't wrestling make money?

 

3."No amount of booking can save shitty wrestling?" Hulk Hogan single-handley put wrestling on the map and he was an abonimation in the ring.The Ultimate Warrior at one time even larger than Hogan was ,shit in the ring..but money.

 

4."Wrestling does writing worse than other TV shows" So what?The sky is blue.The money in the business come from the writing & story-telling.

 

5.When the Early "attitude" era started,DX,Hart Foundation,Stone Cold..more that a few fans where turned off by all the non-sense including stuff like Pillman gun angle yet around the time they started pulling back mainstream attnetion sooo many columnits started jumping the band-wagon.

 

6.Batista.is a perfect example of what i'm talking about.I remember when some guys came in here with him in the sig and they talked about him flame-baiting.But now "He's grown on me" That's the nature of the internet wrestling community for you..hyprocritical they'll like what everyone else likes too.

[what 0]

They are "unproven" please.

 

You could tell just by looking at them Mike,you really think,that Casual fans would actually would care about Styles?,c'mon now.At least not in the level he's at right now let me tell you.

 

The Truth & Monte would be more beleivable main-eventer when in reality would just be upper-midcarders anywhere else.

 

You have to build up guys with other guys and other than Jarrett & Raven there's nothing to interest a casual fan at first.Jarrett isn't a draw cool,he's had his time,good,but no one else is ready for that spot quite yet.

 

I guarnetee you no one off-line will be intersted in another Style reign..Jarrett will pull MORE than he could today and forever.They need to get back to the Entertainment aspects you wanna be big-league then you gotta sell out.

 

The "Solid Foundation" comment:No.It's not neccesary to have a strong WRESTLING product to be a good show or make money.That's a Smark myth.

Styles would at least be a new face to build around. If they truly want to be an alternative/competitor, they'd build around someone new. Why build around a guy nobody gives a shit about?

[what 0]

1.Internet fans want "wrestling".

No. Wrestling fans want wrestling. Otherwise they'd be watching Days of Our Lives. You need to realize this. And stop posting.

[bob_barron 0]

Ummm ROH doesn't have the money to go national.

 

So their goal is not to go national.

[Guest MikeSC]

1.It's not what makes money.So why should promoters(business-men) listen to you?Not only are you telling them to stop making money just to please you but you and everybody else who feels the same are a very,small group who will watch what's given to you.

If you truly think wrestling fans don't want wrestling, then you have no clue what actually works.

 

And, they aren't making money NOW. They aren't even coming CLOSE to making money.

2.ECW had shitty wrestling,WCW was inferior to WWF matches? Sure,Mike.All companies goal is to go National even ROH.

Yup. ECW was shitty. Insanely so post-1996.

 

And ROH doesn't desire to go national because, as has been shown, going national is nigh impossible. Better to do well in your market than to tank nationally.

 

Something TNA should have considered.

ECW & WCW,were mentioned becuz at the time they offered the best wrestling on a national level in all of the US.

At no point after 1996 did ECW offer better wrestling than either WCW or WWF. And, when WCW had the best wrestling in the US, they were successful. When that slackened off, they were not.

Again,if the in-ring product is what motivates people how come the two best companies in that feild folded like laundry?

I get the distinct impression that you don't actually know what wrestling is.

If Wrestling makes money how come those companies aren't around any longer?If

ECW grew too large for its own good, had too little talent, and relied on too many lame gimmicks and crap booking after 1996 to attract a consistent audience (however, they drew MUCH LARGER audiences than TNA has). WCW, also, went the Russo route, did a whole lot of SE-crap (see Arquette, David), and killed their fanbase.

 

MEANWHILE, WWF produced the best matches in the business and did huge business. Weird, huh?

wrestling made cash then i'm sure that it would have the kept the doors open for Paul.E or would have made-up for WCW bloated contracts,right?

Not when you generate crap matches and use horrid booking.

So why didn't wrestling make up for all those mistakes,Mike?Doesn't wrestling make money?

Bad wrestling doesn't.

3."No amount of booking can save shitty wrestling?" Hulk Hogan single-handley put wrestling on the map and he was an abonimation in the ring.The Ultimate Warrior at one time even larger than Hogan was ,shit in the ring..but money.

Warrior never drew a dime in his life. His reign was insanely horrible.

 

And, quite frankly, Jimmy Snuka or Sgt. Slaughter could have done what Hogan did. Hell, Piper was more responsible than Hogan.

4."Wrestling does writing worse than other TV shows" So what?The sky is blue.The money in the business come from the writing & story-telling.

And YOUR ideas are horrible ideas.

5.When the Early "attitude" era started,DX,Hart Foundation,Stone Cold..more that a few fans where turned off by all the non-sense including stuff like Pillman  gun angle yet around the time they started pulling back mainstream attnetion sooo many columnits started jumping the band-wagon.

Such as? And, hate to break it to you, there was no mainstream attention then, either.

6.Batista.is a perfect example of what i'm talking about.I remember when some guys came in here with him in the sig and they talked about him flame-baiting.But now "He's grown on me"  That's the nature of the internet wrestling community for you..hyprocritical they'll like what everyone else likes too.

How dare ANYBODY possibly appreciate an improving performer? Bastards!

-=Mike