alfdogg 0 Report post Posted January 9, 2007 One problem I've always had with the over/underrated wrestler awards, is that it really just becomes who is the most over/underpushed wrestler. If that's what you're going for with that, that's fine, it's just that it's easy for everyone to say Batista/Orton are overpushed, etc. I think if, when voting, we were looking at the wrestler's ability as opposed to their pushes, it would make for a lot more interesting discussion. I don't know of anyone who thinks Batista is a good wrestler, so he can't really be overrated. Just something to consider for future awards, perhaps. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wyld Cannon 0 Report post Posted January 9, 2007 I also can't believe Danielson/McGuiness got Match of the Year. I would have given it to Kenta/Marufji vs. Morishima/Rikioh myself, but i thought KENTA vs. Maru, Tenryu/Nakajima vs. Sasaki/Kobashi, Nagata/Bernard, and Nagata/Kanemoto were ALL more deserving. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Corkscrew_Senton 0 Report post Posted January 9, 2007 "That got TNA some positive mainstream attention." Made no ratings impact whatsoever and aggitated TNA marks. Plus, AJ Piercizski and his little shitty X Division Title looked so bush league standing next to John Cena and his ultra awesome WWE Title on the ESPN show. "Impact" for best wrestling show?!?!?!? That last part is just stupid, the WWE belt is bigger. The AWA belt was gigantic, much larger than the WWF belt in comparison during the late 1980s. It's true that it made no ratings impact, but that might be because TNA does a terrible job advertising itself. The appearances on ESPN and Sports Illustrated were the first most people heard of TNA, but TNA itself did next to nothing to capitalize on that. As for agitating TNA marks, I can't really comment on that. I'm a TNA fan, dunno about mark. It didn't bother me. It was a relatively short match and it didn't steal time away from more important angles. With that all said, yes, Impact as show of the year is surprising. I in general can't stand WWE but thought Smackdown was by and large better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hunter's Torn Quad 0 Report post Posted January 9, 2007 There were a few voting choices that had me wondering what the person behind them was thinking. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jericho2000Mark 0 Report post Posted January 9, 2007 There were a few voting choices that had me wondering what the person behind them was thinking. Care to elaborate? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
UseTheSledgehammerUh 0 Report post Posted January 10, 2007 The WWE Bling Bling Belt is beautiful while the X Division looked like a toy made out of rusted copper. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Corkscrew_Senton 0 Report post Posted January 10, 2007 The WWE Bling Bling Belt is beautiful while the X Division looked like a toy made out of rusted copper. To each his own I guess. I'm not a fan of the TNA belts honestly, moreso the World than the X but I'm not a fan of either. The Bling Bling Belt to me is shit and symbolizes the former WWF's transition from wrestling to "sports entertainment." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Star Ocean 3 0 Report post Posted January 10, 2007 too much roh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
