TNA Comments which don't warrant a thread

[Guest LuckyLopez]

Yeah, my biggest problem with the Reverse Battle Royal/Fight for the Right was basically that it was just made up of whoever was left in the company once the actual feuds were covered in other matches (even if that was partly fixed by shoehorning Christian and Joe into the tournament). The top guys and most of the people you'd expect to reasonably put in a #1 Contender BR or Tourney aren't there. The bottom of a top notch Tournament/BR becomes the top. When the Reverse Battle Royal was announced I had hoped that some of the top guys could pull double duty as they did when Rhino won a Battle Royal a couple of years back despite having a scheduled match. But I presume that this match will follow the same basic design of the BFG match and will just be the guys not already booked. Especially since 15 men isn't that many and can easily be filled with the likely suspects.

 

Storm, Harris, Roode, Kaz, Young, VKM, LAX, Steiners, Rave/Hoyt, Petey, Dutt, XXX, Sharkboy, Killings, Raven. Depending on what gets added to the PPV TNA can easily fill that match with just their available roster with no double duty or surprises. But that basically means "the 15 guys we didn't have other booking for."

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Its not just "open a briefcase" though. Its battle a ring full of guys and climb a pole to get the briefcase. Its in principle not THAT much different than a ladder match or Ultimate X match. Retrieve an item that's just out of reach. There are other wrestlers in your way trying to get it as well. No argument about the "luck" though. Definitely a questionable aspect at best seemingly designed for silly stories like a heavyweight getting the X shot and unnecessary drama in someone getting fired.

 

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.

 

I agree in general. But if the World Champ takes on Sting and Joe and gives a title shot to Kaz in between, is that damaging to the title? Kaz isn't the standard challenger. He's an exception. The one thing I would basically agree with is that I don't understand why you do this title shot gimmick 1 month after doing it with the Fight for the Right. It almost has me convinced that Kaz gets the shot to further the idea of him getting a 2nd shot at glory. But like the 1st shot I'm more or less expecting this to be an Impact main event, possibly for the Dec 7 show against ECW, and not the PPV headlining match. And I'd absolutely agree that Eric Young vs Kurt Angle for the TNA World Heavyweight Title at Final Resolution would be a very bad move and one that hurts the title (not making it "meaningless", but certainly a laughable main event).

 

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.

 

Its a random gimmicky thing. Like Beat the Clock. Like Royal Rumble. Like Money in the Bank. And I agree that MitB and RR are at least on paper vastly superior gimmicks, but its the same basic concept. I didn't object to the idea that this match is stupid. I objected to the idea that it was a public declaration that the titles are meaningless and that title shots are cheap and easy to come by. Each competitor has a 4 in 15 chance of getting a briefcase. And then only a 25% chance of getting any title shot and an 25% chance of getting fired. That's not terribly cheap.

 

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?

 

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.

 

Really, it doesn't sound like you're arguing what I objected to from the F4W writer (who I'm still presuming was Alvarez). Maybe I'm wrong. The three of us all agree that the match is basically stupid. And we all have varying levels of concern about giving a title shot to a midcarder who doesn't do all that much to "earn" it. Where I differ with the F4W guy is the idea that its a declaration of the title being without worth. And him not following his "why not wait for the next opportunity when you wouldn't risk your job" with the logical conclusion of "because the prize DOES have value and the wrestlers perceive the gamble worth it." The criticism just seemed over the top to the point where it lost the LEGITIMATE problems with the match in order to make it bigger than it is.

 

It declares the titles meaningless and may be the stupidest concept in wrestling? Really?

 

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.

 

[Jacques 0]

How about you watch the match, and if it is horrible then bitch about it.

[Nate 0]

oh yea I forgot about Triple X, guess with TNA not using them I forgot they worked there

[Guest LuckyLopez]

Yeah, that's fair. I've been pretty disappointed at XXX's absence. Although they did get promo video on last week's show so it would stand to reason they're in TNA's short term plans. But TNA has psyched me out with things like that before.

 

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.

Why wouldn't it be? The problem is the lack of a guaranteed Title Shot and yet making it 3 empty cases and 1 title shot would improve it? How does that work? The odds of a World Title shot remain the exact same. The odds of being disappointed by grabbing the wrong case remain exactly the same. The number of chances of winning SOMETHING is cut. The only advantage seems to be the elimination of the stupid pink slip. But this goes back to my very first comment. The pink slip gamble basically adds an inherent risk and a concern for the wrestlers. It does NOT make the match, title shot, or title cheaper. It makes it riskier. If this were just a 15 man ladder match for a World Title shot there would be NO reason for anyone from Sharkboy to Christian to want to give it a shot.

 

I really just don't in the slightest bit understand how you figure 3 empty cases and 1 World Title shot improves the problem if the problem is a lack of a guaranteed Title shot to the victor (separating it from a BR or MitB).

 

That's not a "cheap" title shot. That's just ridiculous to say. Its outright stupid to suggest that a title shot with a risk of firing or receiving a lesser prize is cheaper than a title shot with NO inherent risk.

 

This is NOT "just opening a briefcase and getting lucky." Its basically a 15 man brawl. Its having to fight those 14 other men for an out of reach briefcase. When the prize in that briefcase is uncertain and comes with a very large risk. I'd prefer a more manageable match and/or a better field of competitors. Luck plays a MAJOR factor but you have to GET a briefcase before it does.

 

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.

Trust me, if next month TNA pulls out a weird gimmick to crown a #1 contender from a bunch of midcarders I'll be concerned at the growing pattern. And I already don't understand why TNA is doing this RIGHT after Fight for the Right unless there is a specific design to that (such as Kaz winning this one as well and getting his rematch).

 

But is this really a "long line" of similar gimmicks? Reverse Battle Royal/Fight for the Right. Feast or Famine. And? Gauntlet for the Gold? I'd flat out call it a ridiculous double standard if that was declared a stupid TNA gimmick. King of the Mountain? A questionably silly gimmick to be sure but essentially a ladder match with 5 "worthy" contenders. So where is the long line of them that leads to a devalued title? Outside of the Reverse Battle Royal the only other things I could add to the line are the pair of tag matches that recently had the title on the line. But I'd be reluctant to include those because even there are basically multiman Title matches.

 

And again, what does that have ANYTHING to do with the worth of the title? How do silly gimmicks to anoint the #1 contender devalue the title? Because the match isn't very good even though it stands to be better than a BR? Because the goal isn't to pin a man or directly best him even if it isn't in any number of similar matches? Because there is a gamble involved?

 

I'm willing to just concede this whole thing if you'd like because I never intended to have an extended debate with anyone. Not that I'm not willing to continue if you'd like but I merely thought it was reasonable for me to suggest that the writer was being VERY over the top with his reactions, even if there was a basically legitimate point. But you appear to not think he was overreacting at all. So that sure seems like an impassable difference of opinion between us. I'm pretty sure its going to be impossible for you to convince me that the TNA World Title is meaningless because there is a silly #1 Contender match slated to happen which may or may not be good in ring and when I can't even understand how your suggestion of 1 Title in 4 cases would improve it. I'm obviously a lurker here and I just felt compelled to react to something. I know full well the general opinion of this board and yourself towards TNA in general.

[Guest LuckyLopez]

Double post. My apologies.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Why wouldn't it be? The problem is the lack of a guaranteed Title Shot and yet making it 3 empty cases and 1 title shot would improve it? How does that work? The odds of a World Title shot remain the exact same. The odds of being disappointed by grabbing the wrong case remain exactly the same. The number of chances of winning SOMETHING is cut. The only advantage seems to be the elimination of the stupid pink slip. But this goes back to my very first comment. The pink slip gamble basically adds an inherent risk and a concern for the wrestlers. It does NOT make the match, title shot, or title cheaper. It makes it riskier. If this were just a 15 man ladder match for a World Title shot there would be NO reason for anyone from Sharkboy to Christian to want to give it a shot.

 

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.

 

I really just don't in the slightest bit understand how you figure 3 empty cases and 1 World Title shot improves the problem if the problem is a lack of a guaranteed Title shot to the victor (separating it from a BR or MitB).

 

As mentioned, it improves the problem because then they'd fighting over a guaranteed shot at the most important itle in the company.

 

That's not a "cheap" title shot. That's just ridiculous to say. Its outright stupid to suggest that a title shot with a risk of firing or receiving a lesser prize is cheaper than a title shot with NO inherent risk.

 

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.

 

This is NOT "just opening a briefcase and getting lucky." Its basically a 15 man brawl. Its having to fight those 14 other men for an out of reach briefcase. When the prize in that briefcase is uncertain and comes with a very large risk. I'd prefer a more manageable match and/or a better field of competitors. Luck plays a MAJOR factor but you have to GET a briefcase before it does.

 

I'd just rather luck play a minor part rather than a major part.

 

But is this really a "long line" of similar gimmicks? Reverse Battle Royal/Fight for the Right. Feast or Famine. And? Gauntlet for the Gold? I'd flat out call it a ridiculous double standard if that was declared a stupid TNA gimmick. King of the Mountain? A questionably silly gimmick to be sure but essentially a ladder match with 5 "worthy" contenders. So where is the long line of them that leads to a devalued title? Outside of the Reverse Battle Royal the only other things I could add to the line are the pair of tag matches that recently had the title on the line. But I'd be reluctant to include those because even there are basically multiman Title matches.

 

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.

 

And again, what does that have ANYTHING to do with the worth of the title? How do silly gimmicks to anoint the #1 contender devalue the title? Because the match isn't very good even though it stands to be better than a BR? Because the goal isn't to pin a man or directly best him even if it isn't in any number of similar matches? Because there is a gamble involved?

 

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 willing to just concede this whole thing if you'd like because I never intended to have an extended debate with anyone. Not that I'm not willing to continue if you'd like but I merely thought it was reasonable for me to suggest that the writer was being VERY over the top with his reactions, even if there was a basically legitimate point. But you appear to not think he was overreacting at all. So that sure seems like an impassable difference of opinion between us. I'm pretty sure its going to be impossible for you to convince me that the TNA World Title is meaningless because there is a silly #1 Contender match slated to happen which may or may not be good in ring and when I can't even understand how your suggestion of 1 Title in 4 cases would improve it. I'm obviously a lurker here and I just felt compelled to react to something. I know full well the general opinion of this board and yourself towards TNA in general.

 

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.

 

 

[Nate 0]

granted this Feast or Fired match is a bit corny, this is actually a good thing because there's potential to build 4 new stars up, and create a "firing" angle, here's my prediction on who finds what case:

 

TNA World Title: James Storm

TNA Tag Team Title: LAX

TNA X-Division: Sonjay Dutt or Petey Williams

Fired Case: Eric Young (obvious reasons) or Chris Harris (because of the way he's been callin out creative pissing and moaning about not being used)

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

Oh Harris HAS to get the fired briefcase. Then go off on the match concept and TNA in general. Its perfect for him

[Cowboy Battlenuts 0]

So this feast or fired match has me wondering....

 

Why would the participants even fight eachother? Just go for the case as quick as possible and hope for the best.

 

I gotta say, in terms of logic lending itself to the structure of a match, this just doesn't have any. Sounds like something someone came up with while they were stoned and never decided to think about it while sober.

[Silence 0]

Stupid question, but would all wrestlers know what's in each briefcase before the match or would it be random?

 

This makes me think it could be someone other than Harris that gets the pink slip. Harris is just our prediction.

 

[Scroby 0]

Stupid question, but would all wrestlers know what's in each briefcase before the match or would it be random?

 

This makes me think it could be someone other than Harris that gets the pink slip. Harris is just our prediction.

It's a work, they should know which briefcase has what and what one they need to grab.....unless they fuck up and go for the wrong briefcase.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

And with the companys trackrecord with props this just has to happen

[Guest LuckyLopez]

So this feast or fired match has me wondering....

 

Why would the participants even fight eachother? Just go for the case as quick as possible and hope for the best.

There are 15 wrestlers and 4 briefcases. And the briefcases are suspended above the ring. So functionally they HAVE to confront each other to get there. And logically being wrestlers they'll fight to wear each other down so they can get a chance for it. Its not really anything new. Its a Pole match. Just with 4 Poles. Same basic idea of a Ladder match. The only truly strange part of this is the mystery of the briefcases.

 

 

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.

I honestly just don't agree. I think 3 prizes basically means more or at least as much as 1. Its possibly every wrestler wants the World Title shot and certainly they'd all prefer something over the other. But I just don't really think the presence of the X and Tag title shots hurts the match. I actually think it adds some potentially interesting stories. Unfortunately it also adds some easy and potentially poor stories like a Heavyweight getting the X shot.

 

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.

That I agree with completely. And while in theory it does add a gamble to the match you're right. None of us believe someone will be fired. It will just lead to a potentially stupid angle.

 

I'd just rather luck play a minor part rather than a major part.

No real argument. Although I do think the luck factor does add a POTENTIALLY compelling story or two. A singles wrestler getting the tag shot can lead to a new tag team. An X wrestler getting a World Title shot can lead to an elevation. And even a heavyweight with actual ability winning an X shot could theoretically lead to a wrestler "revealing" or "proving" himself in ways TNA can sell as new. Or perhaps just 1 half of a tag team like Homicide or Rave winning and standing out as a singles. But I'm basically cynical of this and I'm a fan of the company. I understand you to have a much more cynical view of the company so I can certainly understand why you'd be pretty cynical on this.

 

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.

That's reasonable. I think there's no denying that TNA is often very gimmicky and seems to pride themselves on doing new things. And for every Gauntlet for the Gold or Ultimate X that I like, or Xscape Match I have no problem with, there's always a Reverse Battle Royal in the mix.

 

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.

I do agree that it would at least be cleaner if this was separated from something like the Fight for the Right. But I've also always been a fan of some kind of "earning" idea for title shots rather than just a select few ever having a chance of getting a shot. But a little more order and sense, and involving the actual top half of the card would go a long way towards making me more comfortable with a match like this.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

What would you say to the match, after seeing it first, if the big names were in the match as well. The possibility of someone like Joe, Abyss, Steiner possibly getting the pink-slip makes it more interesting.

 

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.

 

Joe wins the world title shot after being in a hard fought match like the six-man tag and he wins the title at the Dec. 7 head-to-head against ECW. The IWC would cream their pants as one of their "chosen ones" finally won the title and no one expected it since it was on regular tv.

 

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.

[Mike wanna be 0]

Do we even know the official rules for the match? All I can see is that there are four briefcases and you have to get one and open it...so does it end when the last one's opened? Do you just get a briefcase and leave the match and open them when all four are done? If so is it hot potato based where whoever has the briefcase when the fourth one is claimed gets to keep it and has to defend it in the meantime, or do you just get it, do a little dance while everyone else is dejected and leave, or what?

 

I'm all for gimmick matches and chaos but I need to have at least some understanding of what the fuck is supposed to be going on and apparently I'm supposed to pay top dollar for the PPV to find out.

[RedJed 0]

Do we even know the official rules for the match? All I can see is that there are four briefcases and you have to get one and open it...so does it end when the last one's opened? Do you just get a briefcase and leave the match and open them when all four are done? If so is it hot potato based where whoever has the briefcase when the fourth one is claimed gets to keep it and has to defend it in the meantime, or do you just get it, do a little dance while everyone else is dejected and leave, or what?

 

I'm all for gimmick matches and chaos but I need to have at least some understanding of what the fuck is supposed to be going on and apparently I'm supposed to pay top dollar for the PPV to find out.

 

My guess is its battle royal over the top rope style where once its down to four of them, they all fight for the boxes? For all we know, the boxes might be named what is in them. All in all though, one of the most clusterfuck ideas the company has had and thats saying something!

[Guest LuckyLopez]

Its a pole match. 4 poles, 4 cases. I presume its a 1st come 1st serve fight to get them down. And this is pure guess but I'd think the easiest way to handle some of the concerns is that when someone grabs a case they step aside and wait with it. Then when the match is done the 4 "winners" line up and we have our surprises. But honestly, beyond the poles I have no idea.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

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.

[RedJed 0]

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.

 

Yeah, I just got it this week, overall I was kind of let down. They elaborated on parts of the year that I expected, but really didn't cover alot of the actual booking of that year's show as a whole and more took certain elements they thought was strong from that year (such as Raven/Jarrett) and covered it a bit, but not enough to my liking. The majority of the documentary was just how TNA was a small little "family" that made it through year one, and that was about the bottom line. Definately alot of spinning of things, and it was weird to not have Jerry hardly mentioned at all. It was as weird, I thought, that Russo wasnt really given much mention at all, nor was even interviewed at all. All in all, there was some stuff I found interesting (just general stories about this and that) but overall, I was let down.

 

I would like to see them do this for year after year of TNA, though, as the concept has potential but they just need to refine it a bit, and definately be leery of how WWE has done alot of the same spinning of situations as they have done with this documentary. I guess I expected more of a humble approach from the company regarding their first year and instead it was your typical "thinking inside the box" stuff one would expect from a wrestling company.

[Jingus 0]

took certain elements they thought was strong from that year (such as Raven/Jarrett) and covered it a bit, but not enough to my liking.

They certainly didn't mention how after "babyface" Jarrett pinned "heel" Raven in their big match, the fans loved it so much that they pelted the ring with garbage.

[The Buzz 0]

That match almost made me stop watching TNA, when I started watching probably six weeks prior.

 

 

I think another horrible move by TNA was jobbing Raven in canada on a house show to Jarrett rather than possibly using it as a main event on one of their first impacts on Spike. Could have done the same thing on Spike and garnered more interest in the AMW heel turn and Raven's storyline with Larry Zybysko about getting screwed out of a rematch.

[RedJed 0]

took certain elements they thought was strong from that year (such as Raven/Jarrett) and covered it a bit, but not enough to my liking.

They certainly didn't mention how after "babyface" Jarrett pinned "heel" Raven in their big match, the fans loved it so much that they pelted the ring with garbage.

 

Yeah they talked about how the build was so strong (which it was) that they turned tons away from the Asylum that night, and then someone (may have been JJ himself) elaborated on how well laid out the match was and that "it delivered" or something close to those lines. They then interview Raven and he compliments the build but throws out there that damn near everyone wanted him to win that match, and that was kind of the final word from him. Shocked that comment even made it in the DVD, actually.

 

Internally, that whole feud HAD to have generated a ton of politics as the feud was never followed up upon really afterwards other than Styles being thrown into the mix and then AJ wins the belt from JJ. Raven continued to be extremely over that entire year, and he got at least one more title shot (against Styles) which again saw him get the shaft. For whatever reason (I'd call it fear of a certain someone losing that top stop as the head babyface) Raven was clearly held down to a level in 03 there.

[RedJed 0]

That match almost made me stop watching TNA, when I started watching probably six weeks prior.

 

 

I think another horrible move by TNA was jobbing Raven in canada on a house show to Jarrett rather than possibly using it as a main event on one of their first impacts on Spike. Could have done the same thing on Spike and garnered more interest in the AMW heel turn and Raven's storyline with Larry Zybysko about getting screwed out of a rematch.

 

Yeah, I was pretty upset about it all myself - that was the single most point where I thought (and until this point I had complete faith in the product) that TNA really is just as bad in holding down talent as WWE has/had been.

 

Yeah, the whole Raven/Jarrett super duper mini feud in 05 was a fucking joke. AGAIN, Raven does the job to JJ, when he was pretty damn over as champion. To make it even worse, AGAIN, there is no followup on Raven/Jarrett really after Raven lost in Canada to him. It just made no sense.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

And that pattern is repeating itself. After he cut a great promo leading into BFG about his mission to return to the top of the card...and then having his first strong in ring showing in some time at the show...

 

He hasn't been on TV since.

 

...

 

although aside from jobbing to Hoyt and Rave neither have LAX...which is actually far worse

[Jericholic82 0]

Quick query, why did TNA feel the need to produce a knock off Booker T theme? They couldn't use his real one? I thought it was just production music, so it coudn't cost too much for them to use. I guess they just figured to be cheap and make up a half-asses soundalike theme (though its much better than what WWE used to dub it over with on some dvds)

[RedJed 0]

Quick query, why did TNA feel the need to produce a knock off Booker T theme? They couldn't use his real one? I thought it was just production music, so it coudn't cost too much for them to use. I guess they just figured to be cheap and make up a half-asses soundalike theme (though its much better than what WWE used to dub it over with on some dvds)

 

WWE must own the theme or something. His music used in WCW/WWE was never duplicated on commercial DVD releases (I believe) or video games either, so that may have had something to do with it.

 

All in all though, I like his theme in TNA - its close to the original.

[Jericholic82 0]

Quick query, why did TNA feel the need to produce a knock off Booker T theme? They couldn't use his real one? I thought it was just production music, so it coudn't cost too much for them to use. I guess they just figured to be cheap and make up a half-asses soundalike theme (though its much better than what WWE used to dub it over with on some dvds)

 

WWE must own the theme or something. His music used in WCW/WWE was never duplicated on commercial DVD releases (I believe) or video games either, so that may have had something to do with it.

 

All in all though, I like his theme in TNA - its close to the original.

it was on some dvds and most of the video games, but wwe did not produce it so they cant own it, its stock production music (it was even used on an old episode of kids in the hall)

 

I guess it doesnt matter

[Jingus 0]

Yeah they talked about how the build was so strong (which it was) that they turned tons away from the Asylum that night,

Once again failing to mention a key point: those weren't paying fans that got turned away. Even on that night, TNA was still making people pay for ringside, but entirely filling up the bleachers with freebies. So they turned away people who got there too late for a free spot.

 

I can't even begin to impart the sheer amount of cussing which was attacked to the name "Jarrett" amongst the fans in the parking lot after the show that night. They didn't have to worry about turning away anybody the NEXT night, iirc even the free crowd was down by half.

[Scroby 0]

That match almost made me stop watching TNA, when I started watching probably six weeks prior.

 

 

I think another horrible move by TNA was jobbing Raven in canada on a house show to Jarrett rather than possibly using it as a main event on one of their first impacts on Spike. Could have done the same thing on Spike and garnered more interest in the AMW heel turn and Raven's storyline with Larry Zybysko about getting screwed out of a rematch.

 

Yeah, I was pretty upset about it all myself - that was the single most point where I thought (and until this point I had complete faith in the product) that TNA really is just as bad in holding down talent as WWE has/had been.

 

Yeah, the whole Raven/Jarrett super duper mini feud in 05 was a fucking joke. AGAIN, Raven does the job to JJ, when he was pretty damn over as champion. To make it even worse, AGAIN, there is no followup on Raven/Jarrett really after Raven lost in Canada to him. It just made no sense.

I think there was some kind of big storyline that was going to unfold over a period of time, but TNA just kind of let the whole thing quietly get tucked away.