NWA Championship News

[Carnival 0]

You're making my point.

 

You don't even have a point then, I thought your point was that Hardy was more of a name than Jarrett. That clearly isn't true, then I thought your point was Hardy has more potential to be a "super"star than Jarrett, which I agreed with. So what exactly are you even talking about?

 

And your heel/face point is moot, because they released the Raven DVD when he was a heel.

 

Tweener. not heel.

 

I wasn't saying I like Hardy more than Sting, I was just saying that it was clear from that reaction that that crowd thought Hardy was the biggest star to ever appear in TNA

 

Then the crowd is full of fucking morons. If you think Hardy is a bigger star than Sting then....oh god, you deserved to be in that crowd.

 

So how does that cancel everything I saw.

 

It doesn't cancel out anything you SAW it cancels out what you said, that is if you think Hardy is a bigger name than Sting.

 

The only thing that's clear is that you like Jarrett more than Hardy. And so do I. But neither of our opinions is enough to make him a bigger star than Jarrett, because he clearly is not.

 

So you agree with me???.....

 

Exactly! And let's face it, where the JJ marks wanna admit it or not, being "the new ECW" is infinitely cooler than being "WCW 2000."

 

I know your not talking about me. I never said anything like that. Plus I never fucking said putting the title on Jarrett is a good idea. I think it's a horrible idea. I've said that multiple times now. People need to start reading posts instead of just assuming things.

[Ripper 0]

Hardy is a bigger star than Sting now. He is a bigger star than Jarrett right now. He has been for the last couple of years. He has sold more merchandise, has more fansites, has more screaming fans than both Jarrett and Sting do now. Sting was killed in the last few years of WCW and then disappeared for a few years after that. That will kill your star power. Jarrett, dude...seriously. Jarrett, face or heel has never displayed the star power that Jeff Hardy did while in the WWE and to a lesser extent now. Jeff Hardy will put butts in the seats. You might not like the butts that are in the seats, but dammit he will do it. Raven, Nash and Hardy are the 3 guys that are bigger stars than Jarrett.

 

Its a shame that one guy that can't move and one guy that can't be bothered to show up most of the time are still held in such high regard in the casual viewers eyes, but they are.

[Carnival 0]

Rip I couldn't really read your post, since I'm at work and i'm scared someone is gonna see your avatar and get all bent outta shape.

 

But what I mean by "star" is a big name. Not what he's doing in wrestling now. I mean the most well known name. By those standards Sting bypasses Hardy by miles.

 

Like if you were to poll everyone in america..more people have heard of Sting than Hardy. Same for Jarrett.

[TNABaddboi 0]

Hardy is a bigger star than Sting now.  He is a bigger star than Jarrett right now.  He has been for the last couple of years.  He has sold more merchandise, has more fansites, has more screaming fans than both Jarrett and Sting do now.  Sting was killed in the last few years of WCW and then disappeared for a few years after that.  That will kill your star power.  Jarrett, dude...seriously.  Jarrett, face or heel has never displayed the star power that Jeff Hardy did while in the WWE and to a lesser extent now.  Jeff Hardy will put butts in the seats.  You might not like the butts that are in the seats, but dammit he will do it.  Raven, Nash and Hardy are the 3 guys that are bigger stars than Jarrett.

 

Its a shame that one guy that can't move and one guy that can't be bothered to show up most of the time are still held in such high regard in the casual viewers eyes, but they are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is what I've been saying Carnviliz. That is it and that is all. I'm not saying I'm a Hardy fan (I'm far from it...I didn't even like them as a team, though I loved Matt's V1 gimmick). I'm just saying that he puts butts in the seats and always has, though to a lesser degree now. Five years after his peak, there are people that show up to the studio every week DRESSED as Jeff Hardy and leave when his match is over. You mean to tell me they're not buying DVDs, shirts and headbands? And Sting was a big star, but now, I don't think Sting showing up will make people flock to TNA. Hell, they lied for a year in commercials with footage of him like he was there every week and it did nothing. And once again, I was pumped when Sting showed up the first few times. This isn't my opinion. This is me stepping outside of my opinion to face facts. Like Ripper said, TNA has had very few bigger stars for CASUAL fans than Hardy. Nash, Hall and once upon a time, Sting. That's it. Their second tier of "name" games, i.e Jarrett, Raven, if they can ever get D'Lo back, have value from being on those shows when casual fans were paying attention, but clearly the not the same level of value to the mainstream fans TNA desperately wants to attract. Either way, they should use whatever value they have to make stars out of AJ, Daniels, Joe, Abyss and Monty, so that TNA won't be seen as retread city all the time.

 

Then the crowd is full of fucking morons. If you think Hardy is a bigger star than Sting then....oh god, you deserved to be in that crowd.

 

Once again, not my opinion, but the clear majority opinion based on reaction. I just told you that the whole time they were chanting for Hardy, I was chanting for AJ. I've watched the match on tape and seen myself wearing an AJ Styles t-shirt, so I'm no Hardy mark. Trust and believe.

 

Tweener. not heel.

 

Raven was a tweener when he showed up in TNA, a face after the Jarrett fiasco, a full out heel after he went nuts and turned on Chris Harris in the beginning of 2004 (after which, his DVD was released). He may have even been a heel before that, but he was definitely a heel from that point until the fans popped huge for his title win and the bookers listened to them. They just kinda had Abyss attack him and all of a sudden he was there top face, but hell, he was a heel when he was "suspended by babyface Larry Z" and attacked him 3 weeks earlier. And they followed that segment immediately with a commercial for his DVD. Because heel, face or tweener there are people who would buy a Raven DVD. It's marketable. Jarrett DVD on the other hand? We're still waiting on it, because they still have to convince he's a big enough star to warrant one.

 

You don't even have a point then, I thought your point was that Hardy was more of a name than Jarrett. That clearly isn't true, then I thought your point was Hardy has more potential to be a "super"star than Jarrett, which I agreed with. So what exactly are you even talking about?

 

My point was that TNA putting the belt on Jarrett 2 weeks before they return to national TV because he's "the biggest star they have" (which he is clearly not), is ridiculous. It was ok when they were a start-up company, slightly less so when they were breaking onto national TV after 2 years. But it's absolutely ridiculous after 3 years, in which instead of using what value Jarrett did have to get other guys over, they used every name they could get to make Jarrett the star he never was. Though it was laughable in terms of tv, TNA had a year of more eyeballs then they ever had when they were just running PPVs. And the only star they even tried to make in that year was Jarrett, who you're claiming was already a huge star, and thus shouldn't need the rub of beating 4 guys to win the belt, defeated the company's rising star twice and beating Nash and DDP (both of whom are also bigger stars than JJ) in consecutive PPVs. I'm not talking about potential to be "super"stars, because both guys are past the potential point in their careers. Monty, AJ, Daniels, Hoyt and Abyss are at the potential point. Hardy and Jarrett both had their moments in the sun, and they are both as big as they ever going to be, and as it stands, Hardy is a bigger star than Jarrett. They both have value to TNA though, as they can both be used to legitimize the potential guys.

 

So you agree with me???.....

 

If the argument is that Jarrett has more in-ring talent than Hardy, then definitely. But if the argument is that anytime TNA has a new audience they should shove Jarrett down everyone's throat because he's a huge star, then absolutely not.

 

I know your not talking about me. I never said anything like that. Plus I never fucking said putting the title on Jarrett is a good idea. I think it's a horrible idea. I've said that multiple times now. People need to start reading posts instead of just assuming things.

 

No, I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about all the Jarrett marks that roam the boards related to TNA (TNARev, the official site). Believe it or not, you're not the only one. And I will give you credit for not claiming putting the belt on Jarrett is smart decision. That means you're not a blind Jarrett mark. But a Jarrett mark you are, nonetheless. And that's clouding you're view of his starpower.

[Twisted Intestine 0]

If AMW win the tag titles, I wouldn't mind seeing Jarret/AMW vs Raven/Dudleys feud.

[Carnival 0]

I'm far too lazy to quote here.

 

I never thought you were a hardy mark. Although you may give the hardy marks at the TNA shows too much credit. They are a very small portion of the audience and a very hated portion like ripper mentioned. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree, but I really do think Jarrett is a bigger name than Hardy and thats it. Ringwork aside, potential aside...like i mentioned if you poll america Jarrett or Hardy..more people have heard of Jeff Jarrett. But thats opinion too, I just think it wouldn't even be close.

 

I think a better case can be made for the Dudley Boyz being bigger stars than Jarrett.

[TNABaddboi 0]

I think a better case can be made for the Dudley Boyz being bigger stars than Jarrett.

 

I was going to agree to disagree as well, but I just don't see how the Dudley's can be stars, but Hardy isn't. They were pushed at the same time, AGAINST each other, and they all got over because of it (along with E&C of course). If the Duds are bigger stars than Jarrett, than so is Hardy IMHO. Which I think is true on both counts.

 

I never thought you were a hardy mark. Although you may give the hardy marks at the TNA shows too much credit. They are a very small portion of the audience and a very hated portion like ripper mentioned.

 

I can't stand the Hardy marks either and creatively TNA would be better off turning him heel, but I doubt they will, because they value those marks.

[Ripper 0]

Okay, Jarrett..MIGHT be more known. But Hardy will get more viewers. How about that. People remember Jeff Jarrett because they still go on a tanget spelling his name and such (JA-double R- E- double T) but he isn't going to make people tune in because he is remembered as a joke comedy act with flashing lights on his hat. People know Jeff hardy for killing himself in entertaining matches. Hardy's fans will watch more than your casual viewer that remembers Jarrett.

 

I think the best way to put this is Hardy has more Fans than Jarrett. Jarrett may be more known, but if they aren't tuning in or buying DVDs they don't matter. The viewing audience and paying customers are what matter at the end and i think you would be hard pressed to say Jarrett has Hardy beat in that sense.

[Carnival 0]

OK Rip, I'll agree with that.

 

I've just always seen the Dudleys as bigger stars than the Hardy's. I don't know why really. I think they were just way more over than any other tag team since the outlaws.

[TNABaddboi 0]

Okay, Jarrett..MIGHT be more known.  But Hardy will get more viewers.  How about that.  People remember Jeff Jarrett because they still go on a tanget spelling his name and such (JA-double R- E- double T) but he isn't going to make people tune in because he is remembered as a joke comedy act with flashing lights on his hat.  People know Jeff hardy for killing himself in entertaining matches.  Hardy's fans will watch more than your casual viewer that remembers Jarrett.

 

I think the best way to put this is Hardy has more Fans than Jarrett.  Jarrett may be more known, but if they aren't tuning in or buying DVDs they don't matter.  The viewing audience and paying customers are what matter at the end and i think you would be hard pressed to say Jarrett has Hardy beat in that sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Great summary Ripper! I couldn't agree more.

[Carnival 0]

Ripper gave us the Dr. Phil treatment. The Peacemaker.

[Scroby 0]

I think the thing that is more intresting here is the fact that Spike wanted the change and TNA went along with it. Now my only question is this, after the debut on Spike tv will the titles change hands within a few weeks or will they stay the same?

[cabbageboy 0]

Did Spike ever take such an interest in WWE programs? Or did they just bend over for Vince and let him do whatever he wanted?

 

I dunno. I mean I don't mind a network holding a promotion accountable for whatever crap they might put on TV, but they shouldn't interfere with actual booking in terms of who gets what title. USA getting pissed over the Austin/Pillman angle? Fine. USA getting pissed over Sid beating Michaels (same time period)...not so good.

 

Here's the problem with Jarrett and has been for 10 years: He's a shitty heel. Always has been. He simply isn't a threat physically and is too much of a slack jawed yokel to come across as a brilliant mastermind. I'm telling you guys, Jarrett's best career work was done in Memphis for daddy when he was a soft spoken good old boy babyface. I'm not sure if this act would have made it in the WWF but had he gone to WCW instead Jarrett would have been a very popular face.

 

I wasn't pissed in 2002 or 2003 when Jarrett would get the title. His dad ran the promotion, and it's not like the NWA was a REAL promotion or anything (just a hick league out of Nashville...the USWA with a PPV deal). Thing is, apparently Jarrett can't grasp that for TNA to ever go national the promotion can't be a vehicle used to get himself over.

 

NWA: TNA shouldn't rely on ANY of these retread bums in my view. Seeing Jarrett, the Road Dogg, Billy Gunn, Hardy, whoever on a 2nd rate promotion only shows that these guys have hit hard times. They desperately need to push their own stars until they get over.

[Carnival 0]

You need those "retread bums" to put over the new guys. otherwise you've got generic 1 vs generic 2. I agree that once they get the ball rolling in TNA they should be putting over new guys. But up until now, they would have been putting over the new guys in front of the internet kids and thats it. Now is the time to start to make stars.

[Guest Biggles]

I think the thing that is more intresting here is the fact that Spike wanted the change and TNA went along with it. Now my only question is this, after the debut on Spike tv will the titles change hands within a few weeks or will they stay the same?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If they are going to book Jarrett and AMW as a strong heel stable, then I think Jarrett will keep the title for a while and AMW will soon capture the Tag Team titles.

[Coolclint 0]

What I think needs to be noted is that while, yes, for wrestling, WCW 2000's ratings were in the toilet (sans Thunder, which actually was), WCW was still drawing millions to the show. Were they bad shows with horrible booking? Yes. But they were by no means in the actual toilet in terms of ratings, especially on cable.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

I asked Dave Meltzer about Spike's apparent involvement in this. He said they had nothing to do with it, and that the booking commitee made the call.

[RedJed 0]

I asked Dave Meltzer about Spike's apparent involvement in this. He said they had nothing to do with it, and that the booking commitee made the call.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I had a feeling that was the case. Now the big question is that we seem to know how this committee has felt towards Jarrett - for the most part, its been pretty negative towards him. Is this more of a positive fact or negative fact that it was the booking team's call? Meaning is there more or less of a chance that this is just a very short term reign to put over either Raven or Brown at BFG?

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

I asked Dave Meltzer about Spike's apparent involvement in this. He said they had nothing to do with it, and that the booking commitee made the call.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is this more of a positive fact or negative fact that it was the booking team's call? Meaning is there more or less of a chance that this is just a very short term reign to put over either Raven or Brown at BFG?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I've said before, I will be surprised if Jeff drops the belt anytime soon. Even if he does drop the belt, he'll still be the most pushed guy in TNA, and they won't get anywhere with Jeff as the focus of things.

[Vyce 0]

Ha, TNA just LEAPED from "the new ECW" to "WCW 2000".

Yeehaw, I got all the stroke around here, y'all!

COW-BOY!

 

Exactly! And let's face it, where the JJ marks wanna admit it or not, being "the new ECW" is infinitely cooler than being "WCW 2000."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, not really.

 

Let's face it, whether the ECW marks wanna admit it or not, even dying WCW, WCW 2000, was a better promotion than ECW ever was. Seriously.

 

Ripper makes some good points about Hardy being a bigger star than Jarrett, but I don't think it's sane to consider putting the belt on him, or even booking him as the top face of the promotion. I don't view the guy as trustworthy in the least. Not that he's two-faced or anything, but he's the type of guy I could totally see no-showing, a la Waltman, and there's always the possibility that one day we'll wake up to the news that someone found him decomposing in a hotel room somewhere, pumped full of god knows whatever narcotics he takes just to silence the demons in his head.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

Ha, TNA just LEAPED from "the new ECW" to "WCW 2000".

Yeehaw, I got all the stroke around here, y'all!

COW-BOY!

 

Exactly! And let's face it, where the JJ marks wanna admit it or not, being "the new ECW" is infinitely cooler than being "WCW 2000."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, not really.

No, it really is. Casual (well, non-SMARK fans) still think of ECW as some ultra-cool renegade promotion that changed the way the product was done. Hell, WWE even admitted that with the release of the Rise & Fall of ECW, as they heavily hyped how revolutionary of a promotion it was in the ads for it. So, really, being hyped as the second-coming of one of the most talked-about promotions of the last decade? Definitely cooler than being compared to the darkest era of another company that went out of business.

Let's face it, whether the ECW marks wanna admit it or not, even dying WCW, WCW 2000, was a better promotion than ECW ever was.  Seriously.

So THAT was why ECW had to paper their crowds heavily...wait, no, they didn't. So THAT was why ECW still had the same guys on top in 2000 as they did in 1996...oh wait, no they didn't (though for different reasons). So THAT was why ECW in 2000 is looked at as a complete joke and one of the worst booked promotions ever...again, no, they aren't. You can argue that ECW in 2000 was a joke (which, compared to just two years prior, it was), but I don't see how you can argue that giving some decently talented unknowns a place to show that they can - and even DESERVE - be seen nationally/internationally is worse than having a man from Long Island with a Brooklyn accent yelling about Hulk Hogan and Jeff Jarrett and Booker T trading the World title back and forth sometimes two or three times in one night.

Ripper makes some good points about Hardy being a bigger star than Jarrett, but I don't think it's sane to consider putting the belt on him, or even booking him as the top face of the promotion.

Hardy just may be the only choice WORSE to be World champion than Jarrett at this point.

I don't view the guy as trustworthy in the least.  Not that he's two-faced or anything, but he's the type of guy I could totally see no-showing, a la Waltman, and there's always the possibility that one day we'll wake up to the news that someone found him decomposing in a hotel room somewhere, pumped full of god knows whatever narcotics he takes just to silence the demons in his head.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, only choice in TNA worse than Jarrett to hold the title.

 

I still do not understand why they'd put the belt on Jarrett besides to have him drop it to either Brown or Raven at BFG, or maybe somebody else that TNA wants to push as their focal point when they're on Spike.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Someone should point out that ECW's Living Dangerously almost doubled the buy rate of WCW's PPV that month, Uncensored, and that ECW's Massacre on 34th Street got almost nine times the buy rate of that month's Starrcade.

[Guest MikeSC]

Ha, TNA just LEAPED from "the new ECW" to "WCW 2000".

Yeehaw, I got all the stroke around here, y'all!

Exactly! And let's face it, where the JJ marks wanna admit it or not, being "the new ECW" is infinitely cooler than being "WCW 2000."

No, not really.

No, it really is. Casual (well, non-SMARK fans) still think of ECW as some ultra-cool renegade promotion that changed the way the product was done.

At the risk of being mean --- the casual fans, based on attendance, ratings, and buyrates were oblivious to the existence of ECW.

Hell, WWE even admitted that with the release of the Rise & Fall of ECW, as they heavily hyped how revolutionary of a promotion it was in the ads for it. So, really, being hyped as the second-coming of one of the most talked-about promotions of the last decade? Definitely cooler than being compared to the darkest era of another company that went out of business.

I'll say this --- for all of its faults, WCW changed the business in many profound ways.

Let's face it, whether the ECW marks wanna admit it or not, even dying WCW, WCW 2000, was a better promotion than ECW ever was. Seriously.

So THAT was why ECW had to paper their crowds heavily...wait, no, they didn't. So THAT was why ECW still had the same guys on top in 2000 as they did in 1996...oh wait, no they didn't (though for different reasons).

Yes, different reasons. Namely, most anybody in 1996 had left for greener pastures by 2000.

So THAT was why ECW in 2000 is looked at as a complete joke and one of the worst booked promotions ever...again, no, they aren't.

Somebody LIKED ECW's booking in 2000? It was pedestrian, to be generous.

You can argue that ECW in 2000 was a joke (which, compared to just two years prior, it was), but I don't see how you can argue that giving some decently talented unknowns a place to show that they can - and even DESERVE - be seen nationally/internationally is worse than having a man from Long Island with a Brooklyn accent yelling about Hulk Hogan and Jeff Jarrett and Booker T trading the World title back and forth sometimes two or three times in one night.

Russo being an inept dufus does not make ECW a well-booked company.

Ripper makes some good points about Hardy being a bigger star than Jarrett, but I don't think it's sane to consider putting the belt on him, or even booking him as the top face of the promotion.

Hardy just may be the only choice WORSE to be World champion than Jarrett at this point.

We have 2 possibilities:

1) Spike TV is run by idiots

2) Spike TV is run by Jerry Jarrett.

 

Neither is a positive.

I don't view the guy as trustworthy in the least. Not that he's two-faced or anything, but he's the type of guy I could totally see no-showing, a la Waltman, and there's always the possibility that one day we'll wake up to the news that someone found him decomposing in a hotel room somewhere, pumped full of god knows whatever narcotics he takes just to silence the demons in his head.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, only choice in TNA worse than Jarrett to hold the title.

 

I still do not understand why they'd put the belt on Jarrett besides to have him drop it to either Brown or Raven at BFG, or maybe somebody else that TNA wants to push as their focal point when they're on Spike.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Seeing as how Spike wanted JJ as the champ --- he isn't losing it before Impact debuts.

[Placebo Effect 0]

Someone should point out that ECW's Living Dangerously almost doubled the buy rate of WCW's PPV that month, Uncensored, and that ECW's Massacre on 34th Street got almost nine times the buy rate of that month's Starrcade.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Did Meltzer ever find out if that rating for Massacre on 34th Street was the REAL rating? I don't see how that almost broke a 1.0 when they only had Hardcore TV at the time, regardless of the weekend it fell on.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Someone should point out that ECW's Living Dangerously almost doubled the buy rate of WCW's PPV that month, Uncensored, and that ECW's Massacre on 34th Street got almost nine times the buy rate of that month's Starrcade.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Did Meltzer ever find out if that rating for Massacre on 34th Street was the REAL rating? I don't see how that almost broke a 1.0 when they only had Hardcore TV at the time, regardless of the weekend it fell on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know, but I would think that something like that would have been corrected, if it was indeed wrong, long before now.

[TNABaddboi 0]

Ripper makes some good points about Hardy being a bigger star than Jarrett, but I don't think it's sane to consider putting the belt on him, or even booking him as the top face of the promotion. I don't view the guy as trustworthy in the least. Not that he's two-faced or anything, but he's the type of guy I could totally see no-showing, a la Waltman, and there's always the possibility that one day we'll wake up to the news that someone found him decomposing in a hotel room somewhere, pumped full of god knows whatever narcotics he takes just to silence the demons in his head.

 

I was in no way, shape or form suggesting putting the belt on Hardy. I was just negating "TNA had to put the belt on Jarrett because he's the biggest start they have" argument by pointing out that he is not the biggest star they have anymore, because IMHO, Nash, Hardy and Raven are all bigger stars, in that order. And of the three, they'd made the right choice (in terms of business sense, think ECW nostalgia craze) and reliability (Nash=injury prone, Hardy=crazy), but then they fucked it all up Thursday. ,

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

What was the buyrate that was believed? Also, Massacre was probably the second-best ECW PPV of 2000, right behind Hardcore Heaven. Guilty As Charged 2k was decent, Living Dangerously 2k sucked, Heat Wave 2k had a good match or two that were overshadowed by the XPW bullshit, Anarchy Rulz 2k was mediocre (ESPECIALLY since Anarchy Rulz 99 was insanely good), N2R 2k was "meh," Massacre was solid. GAC '01 was good for what it was: a farewell to ECW with the best they could get at the time.

 

And Mike, pedestrian booking by a guy with a skullet and 1 hour of a sleep a night (ECW in 2000) is better than awful booking by a guy who works best with somebody standing over him going "okay, that's TOO stupid" or somebody right next to him going "okay, we'll do that tonight, but never again" (WCW in 2000).

[Guest MikeSC]

They were both terrible. One sucking doesn't mean the other one didn't also suck.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

What was the buyrate that was believed?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The buy rate for Massacre, according to WIA, was 0.98. Starrcade got a 0.11. The Starrcade number isn't in dispute. WCW got some miserable numbers that year. Even if Massacre didn't reach 0.98, it still had to beat out Starrcade.

 

Why does anyone still bother with what Mike has to say about ECW?

[2GOLD 0]

Jarrett is the biggest star they have who won't get depressed, go on a bender or suddenly not feel like wrestling anymore. They should never give Hardy a belt, ever. The guy remains as unreliable as he was in the WWE. I still feel like they MIGHT either do a title change on the first or second show (the first taping) or at the least setting up a King of the Mountain match for Bound.

 

Honestly, it sounds like Ultimate X and KOTM will return at BFG. At this pace I wouldn't be surprised to see another damn cage match as well.