Impact wrestling thread - It's a Don West tribute thread now!

[Jon-Carr_92]

On 25 July 2017 at 0:34 PM, Carbomb said:

This is probably not going to be a popular opinion, but I'm not a fan at all of the six-sider for regular wrestling. I really wish they'd only use it for special events.

The downside is they're a lot stiffer than your standard 4 sided. So, they're not as easy on the wrestlers in ring. It was good in the early days because it made them stand out as not many outside Mexico use them. So it really looks something different. Eventually they went back to it for a few years until the 6 sides returned. It was one of the things that immediately popped out when I first came across TNA. They did bring it back for Destination X 2011 while they had 4 sides as a one off which was a cool touch.

[Buzz Lightyear]

Ed Nordholm interview with SInow. It's all about the Hardy situation, worth a read.

http://on.si.com/2uZXwbW

 

[Ladiesman345]

Watching a few clips of the new x-division guys on Youtube and it really hammers home how shit 205 Live is. The TNA guys seem a lot less produced in comparison. They seem to be in their element whereas the WWE guys are just like any of the other people on the roster in regards to the style.

[Carbomb]

3 hours ago, Jon-Carr_92 said:

The downside is they're a lot stiffer than your standard 4 sided. So, they're not as easy on the wrestlers in ring. It was good in the early days because it made them stand out as not many outside Mexico use them. So it really looks something different. Eventually they went back to it for a few years until the 6 sides returned. It was one of the things that immediately popped out when I first came across TNA. They did bring it back for Destination X 2011 while they had 4 sides as a one off which was a cool touch.

That's the thing; I'd just have the six-sider for special X-Division events, like Destination X. They always wanted to push the X-Division as "state of the art" - well, the six-sider, used sparingly, would be the way to do that.

Toryumon did the exact same thing with the Toryumon 2000 Project, many years ago, back in, well, 2000. The ring had black ropes and aprons, had a shiny, futuristic logo in the middle of the canvas, and it all went with the super-highspotty, high-octane, 100mph sprint style that Toryumon (and later DragonGate) were doing at the time. 

I just think using the six-sider for everything is meaningless. Having to get used to it as a viewer was and is annoying, and when the rest of the product is letting things down, it's not distinctive enough to rescue it. When you've got all the trimmings, like the Ultimate X or Elevation X or six-man tags or three-way tags, it makes more sense, I think.

Like I say, I'm sure I'm in the minority, though.

[Philjax]

Well I'm not sure whether I'm particularly into the 6 sided ring either, but all the in-ring action from last weeks show was pretty excellent. Maybe the infusion of the AAA guys has shown it in a better light recently.

[tiger_rick]

It's irrelevent and always has been. It's an aesthetic element for some, most will barely care. Laughable that people like Hulk Hogan used to bang on about it as if it was an issue. They proved that you can revert to a 4 sided ring, book the same old shite and it won't matter one jot.

 

[garynysmon]

Reby Sky's been ranting and raving again o Twitter. In my book, its all got beyond tiresome by now. 

The Hardys have a nice run going in WWE now, both in their 40's, and could probably sign a legends deal any time they wanted. Its pretty obvious the company has no interest in using the gimmick anyway. The WWE usually get what they want, by hook or by crook.

I don't really understand why Nordholm didn't just sell them the IP of the broken universe, but due to her continued petulance, I can't really blame him for digging his heels in now either

I'm starting to agree with those who think this is all bitterness or ego on Reby's behalf that she was being used on TNA TV and while Matt and Jeff have something good, she's not being featured.

Her band of blind #fucktheowl Twitter followers all seem blissfully unaware the team now work for a company that won't allow Cody Rhodes to use his father's ring name he was using for decades before working for Vince, or the Dudley Boys from using a name developed in ECW.

[Buzz Lightyear]

Meltzer was on WO before discussing the whole Broken saga, seen a summary of what he said and basically GFW hold all the cards to this and really not looking to back down anytime soon.

Reby has been waffling on for sometime now. 

Lets say it goes to court and because they paid Dixie's bills for the shows Hardys win. Will Anthem go after Carter for what she sold them (with potential false documents)? 

Edited July 27, 2017 by Buzz Lightyear

[BomberPat]

17 hours ago, tiger_rick said:

It's irrelevent and always has been. It's an aesthetic element for some, most will barely care. Laughable that people like Hulk Hogan used to bang on about it as if it was an issue. They proved that you can revert to a 4 sided ring, book the same old shite and it won't matter one jot.

 

I wouldn't quite say it's irrelevant - even as an aesthetic, it turns me off. Maybe it's that it reminds me of shitty TNA shows past, or of a company that spent years trying to hard to tell you they're different without being different, but the six-sided ring does nothing for me.

As for it actually being an issue beyond aesthetics, it is when it comes to in-ring stuff. Not that much of this would be evident to us as punters, but a six-sided ring is much stiffer, so you either end up with guys shortening their career by taking the same big bumps on that ring as they would on a conventional ring, or having toned down matches because they're not taking those bumps, and neither are ideal. The surface area of the ropes is smaller, which makes springboards and even simple rope-running spots clumsier and harder to pull off or, at best, just more awkward because working in a four-sided ring is so ingrained in 99.9% of wrestlers, so you're actively over-complicating things for them, and harming the psychology of your matches. There's also not a single side you can use for hard camera as easily as with a four-sided ring, either.

So, for me, it's a mess of negatives that mean it hurts more, makes it harder to work a match, and looks shittier on TV, with the only real positive being "it looks different". But like rick said, if you're booking the same old shit within it, a different looking ring isn't going to shine that shit into a diamond.

Part of me likes the idea of using the six-sided ring solely for X-Division specials, but then the other part of me thinks that the X-Division as a whole is very silly.

Edited July 28, 2017 by BomberPat

[Carbomb]

I agree, 100%. I wasn't implying by any means that it has such a significant impact on the rest of the product, if the core of the product is great or terrible. However, it does bug me a bit, so in this regard, it's not irrelevant as far as I personally am concerned. A lot of wrestling is about the aesthetics and the fripperies and the presentation, because, like with so many other things in wrestling (and probably in the vast majority of the popular entertainment industries), it's about using little devices and tricks to sell the same old thing. Prime example is the use of different titles for the same match - No Holds Barred, Street Fight, Hardcore Match, Falls Count Anywhere, etc. - to sell a different perspective on a feud or an angle. Sure, the aficionado will come up with their own distinctions, but in reality, all those different labels are just ways of presenting the same old thing as a fresh new thing, and, for me, it's the same thing with the six-sider.

The six-sider in itself is nothing. However, it could be used effectively as part of an overall package to convey a sense of occasion. Like I say, if they'd kept it just for special X-Division events, then using it in conjunction with the special stips matches, a different set, a different venue, maybe even a new set of X-Division-only rules, and a whole load of promotion of Destination X or World X Cup as being "high-tech wrestling" or whatever could be very effective indeed. The fact that the audience has to re-adjust their conditioned perceptions ever so slightly because they're used to seeing movement from rope-to-rope or post-to-post can contribute psychologically to a significantly different perception, and therefore a different reception and atmosphere. Once again, I point to the Toryumon 2000 Project, with its distinctive presentation, including a six-sider. Very different from the main Toryumon product, you're left in no doubt this is basically Toryumon's NXT, and that this is the new breed of state-of-the-art new talent; it did well in getting over talent like Yoshino, Milano Collection AT, Takagi, and so on.

Put it this way: sure, the ring, by itself, is irrelevant. But it can be potentially used, if used correctly, to enhance a product. I'd rather TNA/GFW have used it in a way that means something rather than completely nothing, but then they've always had a tendency to waste every opportunity to improve their product in little ways here and there. Those tweaks aren't a big deal in and of themselves, but add them all together and it becomes significant, I feel. And, often, the smallest detail can be the difference between an angle, storyline, or gimmick getting over or not.

[tiger_rick]

53 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

I wouldn't quite say it's irrelevant - even as an aesthetic, it turns me off. Maybe it's that it reminds me of shitty TNA shows past, or of a company that spent years trying to hard to tell you they're different without being different, but the six-sided ring does nothing for me.

That's you as an individual. And is all related to their shitty booking. The number of people in that boat will be negligable and will pale in comparison to the people who'd watch a well-booked show with wrestlers they care about.

53 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

As for it actually being an issue beyond aesthetics, it is when it comes to in-ring stuff. Not that much of this would be evident to us as punters, but a six-sided ring is much stiffer, so you either end up with guys shortening their career by taking the same big bumps on that ring as they would on a conventional ring, or having toned down matches because they're not taking those bumps, and neither are ideal. The surface area of the ropes is smaller, which makes springboards and even simple rope-running spots clumsier and harder to pull off or, at best, just more awkward because working in a four-sided ring is so ingrained in 99.9% of wrestlers, so you're actively over-complicating things for them, and harming the psychology of your matches.

I get the point about the bumping but given they work on it once in a blue moon, I'm not convinced it's a career-shortener. Don't buy the rest either, if I'm honest. Talented guys have had outstanding matches in that ring time and again. The good X-Division guys have found a way to fly, to springboard, etc time and again. It's easily adaptable. I'm not arguing preferable. It just doesn't make any difference. We saw that when they changed it.

53 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

There's also not a single side you can use for hard camera as easily as with a four-sided ring, either.

Come on, it's just a hexagon. It still has parrallel sides.

[BomberPat]

On the hard camera front - basically, on a four-sided ring, if you use one side of the ring for hard camera, then the opposite side is effectively the "backdrop"; if you think of it as watching a play in a theatre, then the side opposite hard camera is the curtain, the other two sides are stage left and stage right, hard cam is the audience. If you're working for television, you're working towards hard camera, and any rope-running spots will be executed from stage left to stage right. If you run the ropes, you're running from side-to-side on the viewers' TV screen. 

Aesthetically, that's far preferable, and more immediately psychologically appealing from a viewer's perspective than a six-sided ring forcing you to work diagonally across the ring.  And that's just one example - there's a lot of camerawork that is stymied by a six-sided ring.

I was taught to think of the ring as having an invisible Union Jack painted upon it - as a referee, I occupy the blue spaces, while the wrestlers work in the red. It's a logical layout that just doesn't lend itself as well to a six-sided ring, for workers or viewers. That may be because we're just so familiar with a four-sided ring, but I believe there are technical, aesthetic, and psychological reasons why four sides are better.

 

Again, I agree that it pales in comparison to good booking and good presentation. I'd support a wrestling company with an octagonal ring, or no ring at all, if they produced compelling television and characters and stories that I cared about. But I don't buy that it doesn't matter because it's "just" aesthetics - aesthetics can make or break a wrestling company.

[Dudley Eastbank]

3 hours ago, BomberPat said:

On the hard camera front - basically, on a four-sided ring, if you use one side of the ring for hard camera, then the opposite side is effectively the "backdrop"; if you think of it as watching a play in a theatre, then the side opposite hard camera is the curtain, the other two sides are stage left and stage right, hard cam is the audience. If you're working for television, you're working towards hard camera, and any rope-running spots will be executed from stage left to stage right. If you run the ropes, you're running from side-to-side on the viewers' TV screen. 

Aesthetically, that's far preferable, and more immediately psychologically appealing from a viewer's perspective than a six-sided ring forcing you to work diagonally across the ring.  And that's just one example - there's a lot of camerawork that is stymied by a six-sided ring.

I was taught to think of the ring as having an invisible Union Jack painted upon it - as a referee, I occupy the blue spaces, while the wrestlers work in the red. It's a logical layout that just doesn't lend itself as well to a six-sided ring, for workers or viewers. That may be because we're just so familiar with a four-sided ring, but I believe there are technical, aesthetic, and psychological reasons why four sides are better.

 

Again, I agree that it pales in comparison to good booking and good presentation. I'd support a wrestling company with an octagonal ring, or no ring at all, if they produced compelling television and characters and stories that I cared about. But I don't buy that it doesn't matter because it's "just" aesthetics - aesthetics can make or break a wrestling company.

Really interesting insight there. 

[tiger_rick]

3 hours ago, BomberPat said:

On the hard camera front - basically, on a four-sided ring, if you use one side of the ring for hard camera, then the opposite side is effectively the "backdrop"; if you think of it as watching a play in a theatre, then the side opposite hard camera is the curtain, the other two sides are stage left and stage right, hard cam is the audience. If you're working for television, you're working towards hard camera, and any rope-running spots will be executed from stage left to stage right. If you run the ropes, you're running from side-to-side on the viewers' TV screen. 

Aesthetically, that's far preferable, and more immediately psychologically appealing from a viewer's perspective than a six-sided ring forcing you to work diagonally across the ring.  And that's just one example - there's a lot of camerawork that is stymied by a six-sided ring.

I was taught to think of the ring as having an invisible Union Jack painted upon it - as a referee, I occupy the blue spaces, while the wrestlers work in the red. It's a logical layout that just doesn't lend itself as well to a six-sided ring, for workers or viewers. That may be because we're just so familiar with a four-sided ring, but I believe there are technical, aesthetic, and psychological reasons why four sides are better.

Really interesting stuff, BP. Makes a lot of sense. It does mean adapting but I still think the good wrestlers always have and the ring is only something you think about during the shit.

3 hours ago, BomberPat said:

Again, I agree that it pales in comparison to good booking and good presentation. I'd support a wrestling company with an octagonal ring, or no ring at all, if they produced compelling television and characters and stories that I cared about. But I don't buy that it doesn't matter because it's "just" aesthetics - aesthetics can make or break a wrestling company.

Don't disagree. TNA's shows before the takeover are a good example of horrible looking off-putting product. But the ring was still absolutely the least of their problems. The horrible lighting, set-up, graphics, non-existent crowd and commentary were much more obvious.

[Buzz Lightyear]

15 hours ago, garynysmon said:

Reby Sky's been ranting and raving again o Twitter. In my book, its all got beyond tiresome by now. 

I see she was on Pro Wrestling Sheet last night, not sure how personally she got though. 

Mike Bennett rambling on about late pay issues last night (which whilst correct isn't to do with current owners, shame some sites aren't reporting that). Who pops up and it's Matt Hardy, the same Hardy who was posting his pay slips online and complementing the company for the fantastic relationship 18 months ago. 

What next? He'll probably be telling us he owns IP and how he put on the show all by himself... Oh.