Paid Members gmoney Posted March 20, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 20, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted March 20, 2011 Moderators Share Posted March 20, 2011 WHO BETTA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members FLips Posted March 20, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 20, 2011 If you want me to answer questions then just ask a question and don't bring my personal life into it. Â Not a total monopoly no. If it was say WWE and then all the indies/development territories then I wouldn't mind that. We had that between the time WCW got bought out and TNA became big, and 2001, 2002 and 2003 are some of my favourite years in wrestling. If you mean just having WWE and no other independant companies then no, I wouldn't want that. My problem isn't that TNA are there, it's that they push themselves as the second best we have but they have a dreadful product and never learn from their mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members FLips Posted March 20, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 20, 2011 Also Gunner or Murphy are way more of a nobody than any of the people posted so far. They're the worst tag team on the roster by far, and they've randomly gave one of them the TV belt, a week before they guy they stripped of it came back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted March 20, 2011 Moderators Share Posted March 20, 2011 Oh be fair, they're no worse than Generation Me. And (Pedant) it's the TV belt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members FLips Posted March 20, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 20, 2011 You're right, Gen Me are shit. And again, You're right, it's the TV not US. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted March 20, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 20, 2011 I've never seen Gunner work a match, yet despite this I consider him less of a nobody than R-Truth. Â Or perhaps because I havent seen him work, he has an unfair advantage over Truth, whos arrival into an arena is greeted with more apathy than bath salts at Christmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted March 20, 2011 Moderators Share Posted March 20, 2011 My mam still refuses to exchange my bath bomb off Aunty Llinor for a bottle of wine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.PeterVenkman Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Triple A does make one good point, 2001-2003 were great years for wrestling, 2002 especially, which is when you'd think WWE would have been at their most complacent  Summerslam and Survivor Series that year were two of the best pay per views they've ever done, Raw went a bit shit but turned round once they brought the World Heavyweight Title in and Smackdown was just ace in general, so a monopoly isn't ideal but it doesn't necessarily mean that WWE would be shit  In regards to TNA, I was never a big watcher, I gave up on it ages ago mainly because I could never watch it on a saturday and could never catch a reply and when I did, it was shite, so I stopped watching it  At the end of the day, it's a TV show I used to watch, just like Eastenders, I don't watch that either and I certainly don't watch it just to rip it apart on a website, so to anyone whose not happy with TNA, just stop watching  Just thought of another link between TNA and Eastenders, the only decent thing on TNA is Velvet Sky's arse and the only decent thing on Eastenders is Whitney's arse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJS269 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Triple A, they will always make it personal. It distracts you from the argument. Being (in their opinion) right isn't enough for them, they have to take it that step futher. But don't ignore them, then they just say "YOUR BACKING OUT THE THREAD LOLZ" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Everyone is just pushed as a character, Â I love how you say this as if it's a bad thing. For years, TNA was regularly accused by internet moaners of having a load of characterless spot-monkeys. Since Hogoff have been on-board, everyone's been getting fleshed out and given time to establish a character on TV. Some have swum, some have sunk. And you're criticizing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted March 20, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 20, 2011 Triple A, they will always make it personal. It distracts you from the argument. Being (in their opinion) right isn't enough for them, they have to take it that step futher. But don't ignore them, then they just say "YOUR BACKING OUT THE THREAD LOLZ" Â I wish you'd just back out of the forum entirely, you boring twat. Â I don't watch TNA all that much at all, but like with WCW at the end I think it's an enjoyable car crash whenever I watch it. You never know quite what's going to happen and it is certainly anything but predictable. Sure, Gunner being made TV champion is dumb but I would never have expected it. The whole Hardy situation was a mess but again, great fun to watch. It isn't coherent, it makes no sense, and it may infuriate people - but that's what I like about it when I watch it. Â EDIT - Also, I agree that there are a lot more actual characters now too - everybody has a gimmick to a certain extent. Robbie E is a case in point - without his awesome gimmick in the 'old' TNA he would have popped up in the odd Ultimate X match, nobody would have given a fuck, and he would have been back in Kathmandu Championship Wrestling within a couple of months. He's not a particularly great wrestler, but I'm totally sold by his character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RepoMan Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 You have actually watched this weeks iMPACT right? And when I said you were right earlier I was talking shite? You don't think these through do you? Shame to see you turn into a troll You ruined the poem right at the end Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanchiz Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 I really don't get what people's problem with Gunner winning the TV title is. TNA have clearly been having problems with some of their bigger names recently (Hardy getting wasted, RVD/Anderson having a bad match & breaking character) So its a perfect time to put the title on a new fresh face. That match had 3 relatively new guys, and was a message to the fans that they are looking at developing new wrestlers. It could also be perceived as a message to the established stars that there is guys in the undercard waiting to take their spots if they aren't deserving of them (Although possibly Im reading too much into that). Gunners been doing Ok in matches, and now has a chance to show what he can do as a singles performer, after all, the belt is just a prop for him to develop around.  From a storyline point of view, Gunner & Murphy have worked well as Immortal's back up men, and remained a constant throughout chaotic times, they've had a few matches and not embarassed themselves, or the faction - so why not give them a reward, and a chance to go for a title. Going forward, it gives a chance for Gunner to develop a new character, and Murphy to develop a jealous character, which Bishoff's intro to the match was clearly planting the seed for - Everyone's a winner  As for Abyss? He's been injured, and so the title was taken off him. Immortal run the show and want to keep possession of the belts, so decide to have a match where a member of their faction gets the belt. It keeps being said that Abyss turns up on the following week's show, so why take the belt off him - Correct me if Im wrong, but I've looked at those spoilers and havent seen any mention of Abyss on the show at all, it was announced that he'll be part of the main event of the next PPV, which is still several weeks away, but not on that iMPACT, so again, whats the problem? The PPV will likely be his comeback show, in a match where he wouldnt have been defending the title anyway. Add that all together and its far too long a stretch for him to not be defending the belt, so it should be taken off him  Personally, Id rather see someone new with the TV belt anyway - It was doing nothing for Abyss, and he was doing nothing for it, looking at the list of previous champs, only Doug Williams seemed to gain anything from the belt, and he didnt have it long enough. Time to give someone new a shot, and Gunner is as deserving as anyone else.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJS269 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 I remember someone (might of been FK9) on TNA Asylum (which occasionally stumbles on a good idea ) mentioned that maybe putting the TV belt on Crimson would have been a good idea, as it gives a new young guy a belt, and it helps strengthen a feud between him and Abyss ( after he injured him). As for Gunner, well we shall wait and see. Wasn't he NWA World Champion, or something to that effect. Â I have to say the constant gimmick matches and unclean finishes don't help the product, but thats been a long term problem for TNA. I don't agree with having 3 matches (one a KO title match, one a 6 man street fight and one worst of all the main event of a PPV with the World title on the line) lasting less than 5 minutes between them in one week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.