The W
Views: 101478184
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
20.12.14 1340
The W - Pro Wrestling - TNA Genesis reaction (Page 2)
This thread has 8 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.75
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
(4187 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (43 total)
kentish
Andouille








Since: 19.8.05
From: My Old Kentucky Home

Since last post: 28 days
Last activity: 18 hours
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.52
Konnan had a great line on the pre-show, telling James Storm, "the next time you take your shirt off on national television, I suggest you wear a sports bra".

There was no way you could please everyone with the outcome of Angle/Joe, but I think this is a better decision for the future. besides, Kurt needed a big win, because he was claiming to be the best wrestler in the world, but had been jobbed out his last few months in WWE. And Joe getting his 1st loss to Kurt Freakin' Angle is nothing to be ashamed of. It's not like losing to Nash.

My question is: What was that thing on Abyss' back when he was hanging upside down??? It looked like a small head.




Dean! Have you been shooting dope into your scrotum? You can tell me! I'm hip!
Matt Tracker
Scrapple








Since: 8.5.03
From: North Carolina

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 hour
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.13
    Originally posted by sentonBOMB
      Originally posted by oldschoolhero
      It doesn't matter how well the VKM stuff is "done". Who do VKM feud with? How does bashing WWE make money? What's the payoff? There is none possible. It's masturbatory smart-mark booking which should've gone out of vogue with the Billionaire Ted skits.


    I was thinking the same thing as I watched Kip James posing in the ring after the match. Unless they bring DX over from WWE, which obviously isn't going to happen, this storyline can't possibly have payoffs in the ring.


Maybe it can. On Thursday's Impact, VKM attacked Shawn Michaels before Nash offhandedly mentioned him in his skit. It would be too much to assume there was any synchronization here, but they could move VKM's angle away from the WWE and toward Nash's team of Shelly/Starr. Nash, as a former WWE world champ, could easily rundown VKM for crying sour grapes. This would allow both sides to refer to their WWE experiences and Nash's success as one of Vince's chosen big guys and provide for a potentially fun tag feud while no longer directly focusing on DX or Vince.

(edited by Matt Tracker on 20.11.06 1114)


"To be the man, you gotta beat demands." -- The Lovely Mrs. Tracker

My blog will amuse. (heygregory.blogspot.com)
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 21 hours
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.97
    Originally posted by Quezzy
      Originally posted by Karlos the Jackal
        Originally posted by Quezzy
        I don't get why they played up the God angle with Sting then had him try and cheat and get DQed.
      Because the angle is as much or more about the belt as it is about Sting. The belt is the tool of Satan and corrupts the holder; it corrupted Jarrett and corrupted Sting (very quickly, too!).

      Abyss and Mitchell represent evil demons who now hold the belt due to the manipulations of the Devil (and -- assuming that I'm not just pulling this out of my ass -- The Monster Abyss and the Satanist Mitchell are the obvious guys on the roster to do this storyline with).

      Now Sting has to find his way out of the darkness and back to the grace of God. He gets the belt back, and, wiser and humbler after his previous fall, he makes good on his promise to bring honor and truth back to the title. Good ultimately triumphs over Evil.


    That makes sense and is certainly an interesting and new idea. But like you said Sting was corrupted awfully fast. He was talking about God, seen in the rafters once then he had turned to the darkside. It makes Sting look like his faith isn't very strong at all, which is why I hate angles like these.


Well, it's Vince Russo booking. What would've been a great 4-5 month storyline is compressed into three weeks. Perhaps TNA was concerned about when Sting's contract expires.



"I don't know what is more disquieting -- the fact that the rest of the statue is missing, or that it has four toes."
chill
Landjager








Since: 18.5.02

Since last post: 2745 days
Last activity: 2745 days
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.70
Hmmm. Don't really remember DX feuding with any WCW guys when they declared war on WCW and showed up outside their arena.

The point of this angle, for those who need everything spelled out, is to make Kip and BG matter to the fans again. They were getting little reaction lately and were booked terribly over the summer. The last couple weeks, they've been getting good reactions, and that's the point of this.



// the circus // dvd shelf // top 20 //

griff
Head cheese








Since: 26.2.04
From: Manchester, England

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 1 day
#25 Posted on
I've not seen the PPV so I don't want to comment too much although I hope that the world title change doesn't become a once-a-week thing as it did in WCW.

I really hope TNA does well. I'm hoping that Russo has learned from his mistakes and that the product adopts a bit of stability once it has settled into its prime time spot.

I can undertand the Angle/Joe match not being any longer (for both future encounters and maybe Angles health). Putting the belt on Abyss in such an odd way makes little sense to me.
JustinShapiro
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 12.12.01
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.51
Enjoying TNA for their in-ring is fine and dandy, 13 minute ripoffs notwithstandings, but the booking is, go figure, stupidity up and down. I wouldn't include Angle beating Joe in that, because there is apparently a Master Plan that involves Joe winning the belt and having to defend against the one man who beat him in an ultimate mega match. So in and of itself, Angle beating him here makes sense.

But I'm willing to bet an unnamed sum of money that I can't be held to that those plans go down in the flames of stupidity. A company that kills two of its belts in one night and changes the other every week is never going to be able to book that feud correctly and you're wasting your time if you're expecting to be rewarded by watching this product, unless being occassionally entertained by Kevin Nash or the good matches that aren't marred by the bad overbooking is reward enough.
kentish
Andouille








Since: 19.8.05
From: My Old Kentucky Home

Since last post: 28 days
Last activity: 18 hours
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.48
So the nearly crippled Angle "only" worked 13 minutes against one of the stiffest wrestlers going today, in what most are calling a pretty solid match. Is that so bad for a guy who 6 weeks ago most people on this board were saying had no business stepping into the ring at all and should retire? How long SHOULD he stay out there and let Joe stiff the snot out of him?



Dean! Have you been shooting dope into your scrotum? You can tell me! I'm hip!
Karlos the Jackal
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: The City of Subdued Excitement

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 7 hours
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.00
    Originally posted by JustinShapiro
    [...]you're wasting your time if you're expecting to be rewarded by watching this product, unless being occassionally entertained by Kevin Nash or the good matches that aren't marred by the bad overbooking is reward enough.
Yeah, well, most of the time, it is (if we're talking PPVs and not Impact), although I don't necessarily disagree with your views on the booking, which tends to spoil the endings of otherwise great matches.

Also -- I wouldn't describe the Angle/Joe match as a "ripoff." I didn't even think about the length of it until I started looking at reactions online, where many of the people griping about it only being 13 minutes long are people who didn't watch it, and therefore have to go by the "numbers" rather than the "feel."

To me, the match felt "complete" (unlike, say, the Samoa Joe Ultimate X match, which did feel like a ripoff [as it turned out, through no fault of their own, but still]) and I have no complaints about it. Good stuff, and I'm looking forward to the rematch.

--K



Last 5 movies seen: Double or Nothing (1937) - Who Gets to Call it Art? - Shadow of a Doubt - Pusher II: With Blood on My Hands - Stolen
Tyler Durden
Landjager








Since: 22.2.04
From: Frankfurt, Germany

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 7 hours
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.88
    Originally posted by kentish
    So the nearly crippled Angle "only" worked 13 minutes against one of the stiffest wrestlers going today, in what most are calling a pretty solid match. Is that so bad for a guy who 6 weeks ago most people on this board were saying had no business stepping into the ring at all and should retire? How long SHOULD he stay out there and let Joe stiff the snot out of him?



Nothing more to say! Wise words!



The first rule of Fight Club is:

You donīt talk about Fight Club!


The second rule of Fight Club is:

You donīt talk about Fight Club!
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 2045 days
Last activity: 1979 days
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
Angle's a guy who would go half-an-hour every time if he could. A match that was built up as the "Bout of the Decade" that involved him only going thirteen minutes is a pretty crazy notion. People can postulate that it's because they're saving all the best stuff for a rematch- which is really weird reasoning, by the way-but it seems pretty self-deluded.



To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires, and lights, in a box.-Edward R. Murrow
JustinShapiro
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 12.12.01
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.52
And if Angle can't wrestle more than 13 minute matches then he certainly shouldn't be taking the muscle buster.
John Orquiola
Scrapple








Since: 28.2.02
From: Boston

Since last post: 174 days
Last activity: 174 days
#32 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.10
Oh man, I've never seen a bigger bunch of whining clockwatchers. Have some perspective: WrestleMania III, Hulk Hogan vs. Andre the Giant, one of the most hyped and most epic wrestling matches of all time, and that was about 10 minutes long. But Angle and Joe aren't big stiffs like Hogan and Andre, you say? Fine. Same show, WrestleMania III, Randy Savage vs. Ricky Steamboat. Widely considered then and now (except by those full of youthful ignorance) one of the greatest wrestling matches ever, a masterpiece of nearfalls and wrestling moves and counters. That match was less than 15 minutes, but it was a magnificent performance by two guys who were the among the best in the world in their primes. And before anyone says something stupid like, "Yeah, but that was 1987!", in 1987 Ric Flair was doing one-hour matches night after night and Savage vs. Steamboat's 15 minutes was still the match of the year.

The best wrestling matches are about quality of performance, not about how many seconds they're given to make the smart marks (who didn't even watch the show) happy. Angle vs. Joe was very good but yeah, it was lacking in some respects, compared to what expectations were. But that isn't strictly a time issue. Angle could have started the match with an overhead belly to belly, followed by ten rolling Germans, an Olympic Slam and then the ankle lock while Joe could have unleashed his kicks, muscle buster and rear naked choke all in the space of four minutes. That would have hit all the big spots those two do right away. Wouldn't have made the match better. They damn near killed each other for those 13 minutes - watch the match some time and see for yourself. In a way the shorter match served them in that it made everything they did to each other seem more devastating.

Now, could they do better? Yeah. Hope so. That's what rematches are for. Was I let down by the match? Not while I was watching it, I was too caught up in the drama to notice the time. I thought it was a hell of a match. I certainly wasn't checking my watch and counting the seconds.



Back of the Head: www.backofthehead.com
JustinShapiro
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 12.12.01
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.52
    Originally posted by John Orquiola
    Oh man, I've never seen a bigger bunch of whining clockwatchers.


You've seen bunches of clockwatchers before?


    Have some perspective: WrestleMania III, Hulk Hogan vs. Andre the Giant, one of the most hyped and most epic wrestling matches of all time, and that was about 10 minutes long.


Some other perspective might be that that was two completely different kinds of wrestlers, and not promoted as a dream wrestling match, and not between two of the best workers of the last five years, and not booked with the intention of putting on a great wrestling match, and not occurring with a precedent of PPV main events and Kurt Angle matches and Samoa Joe matches going longer, usually much longer, than 13 minutes.


    Same show, WrestleMania III, Randy Savage vs. Ricky Steamboat. ... That match was less than 15 minutes


And it wasn't the main event, and Wrestlemania 3 wasn't entirely built around Savage and Steamboat in a classic dream match, and Savage didn't do 20 hours worth of radio interviews before the show saying it was going to be the greatest match ever.


    The best wrestling matches are about quality of performance, not about how many seconds they're given to make the smart marks (who didn't even watch the show) happy.


But holy shit, number of seconds might allow for greater quality of performance, which is what the match and PPV were being sold based on, and which is why 99% of classic, unforgettable matches are at least 18-20 minutes long, and why deliberately not booking your dream match to go 15 minutes (if that is what happened and they didn't cut it short for an as of yet unknown reason), and as long as Daniels/Sabin and shorter than Styles/Christian and shorter than Angle/Abyss and SHORTER THAN STING/ABYSS, is pretty stupid.

Coincidentally, TNA is now booked by a guy who doesn't care about or understand good wrestling matches, which is why one can't help but wonder if the reason the match was shorter than expected was not because 13 minutes was the exact, perfect amount of time for them to have this match or if they were shortchanged out of dumbness.

(edited by JustinShapiro on 21.11.06 1556)
DirtyMikeSeaver
Boudin rouge








Since: 19.5.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 14 days
Last activity: 14 days
#34 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.30
If I'm reading you wrong, Justin, I apologize, but if you're saying that Hogan/Andre wasn't billed as a dream match, you're crazy. That was THE dream match, the one evenyone wanted to see back then. Admittedly, it was built around something else other than "Hey, this will be a great technical match", but it was built on "Can Hogan beat this behemouth (boy, I hope I spelt that right)".

As for Angle saying it's going to be the MOTY, well, I mean, he does have to sell it. He can't say "Well, it's going to be good, but please, people, temper your expectations". Maybe in his heart of hearts, he thought it would be great. It's hard to live up to the expectations. And it's not like we're talking about a horrid match they had. Most of the reviews I've seen gave it no lower than 3 1/2 stars.

I understand what you and others are saying about the length, but matches don't HAVE to be 25-30 minutes to be 'epics' or good. Hey, taking it to another sport, I remember Hagler and Hearns had a AMAZING fight and it lasted 3 rounds. Tyson's fights didn't last long and no one felt ripped off.

The thing is, if there is an Angle/Joe II, I'm pretty sure most people would watch it.



Kevin Kelly: "Mr. Austin, would you like to comment on Wade Keller's Take that endorsing the XFL hurts your anti-authority character?"

Steve Austin: "Oh shit, he actually said that? I thought the boys in the back were ribbing me!"

Kelly: "No, he really said that. Did they tell you the part about you sitting in the stands, looking all skeptical?"

Austin: "AHAHAHAHAHAHA. Yeah... oh man that was too much."
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 2045 days
Last activity: 1979 days
#35 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
Most people would watch Angle/Joe II because they're expecting more out of this than Angle/Joe I delivered. The Hogan/Andre comparison is a bad one because, as it was billed, length was irrelevant to the match. Hogan/Andre wasn't about those guys going toe-to-toe for thirty minutes. It was as pro-wrestling as you can get. Angle/Joe was sold as a smart fans' match, a surefire MOTY candidate. And it was positioned as the top draw on a show which was barely announced before Thursday's Impact. Angle/Joe was supposed to be TNA's best match ever. That's how it was sold. It wasn't. Why? Can we at least try to analyse that question? I'd say right now it's a toss-up between general retarded Russo time management and Angle not being safe enough to go full-bore for more than thirteen minutes.



To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires, and lights, in a box.-Edward R. Murrow
DirtyMikeSeaver
Boudin rouge








Since: 19.5.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 14 days
Last activity: 14 days
#36 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.30
But that's the thing, length SHOULD be irrelevant in this case too. This match didn't have to be 30 minutes or whatever to been seen as the MOTY. All this stuff is subjective. Someone could have seen this match and though it WAS the MOTY (sadly, it could be because most of the matches in WWE and TNA have been underwhelming to say the least).

I agree, it wasn't TNA's best match ever, but I'm not going to dump on them because they did a good (great?) match and I don't feel ripped off by ordering the event. As for why it wasn't the 'greatest TNA match ever', well, that's up to the viewer, because they have to decide why. My reason is because it's going to be pretty damn hard for anything to be Joe/Daniels/Styles I (which wasn't even seen as MOTY that year due to Micheals/Angle).

I do think it's funny that you had 3 really good matches and a decent brawl before a really bad ending and we're saying it's a disappointment. If WWE put on a card with basically four 3 star matches, we'd be praising them right now.



Kevin Kelly: "Mr. Austin, would you like to comment on Wade Keller's Take that endorsing the XFL hurts your anti-authority character?"

Steve Austin: "Oh shit, he actually said that? I thought the boys in the back were ribbing me!"

Kelly: "No, he really said that. Did they tell you the part about you sitting in the stands, looking all skeptical?"

Austin: "AHAHAHAHAHAHA. Yeah... oh man that was too much."
Quezzy
Knackwurst








Since: 6.1.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 39 min.
#37 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.57
    Originally posted by Big Bad
    Well, it's Vince Russo booking. What would've been a great 4-5 month storyline is compressed into three weeks. Perhaps TNA was concerned about when Sting's contract expires.


The Vince Russo point is valid but I'm pretty sure Sting re-signed. Can anybody confirm this or did I make it up?

Personally I think that the fact that people are completely bashing TNA and other people are adamantly sticking up for them is a pretty good sign for them. Meanwhile the WWE threads usually go something like "Well tonight's show sucked" followed up by ten or so replies that basically say "yup, pretty much".



Lance's Response:

THAT IS AWESOME!
Deputy Marshall
Liverwurst








Since: 28.6.04
From: Troy, NY

Since last post: 65 days
Last activity: 4 days
#38 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.27
    Originally posted by DirtyMikeSeaver
    If I'm reading you wrong, Justin, I apologize, but if you're saying that Hogan/Andre wasn't billed as a dream match, you're crazy.

You read it wrong. He was addressing the comparison to Savage/Steamboat.

(edited by Deputy Marshall on 21.11.06 2016)

Suggested Purchase of the Week
"Lullabies to Paralyze" by Queens of the Stone Age (audio CD) (The W at Amazon)


The Collected Works of K. Michael Marshall
JustinShapiro
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 12.12.01
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#39 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.52
    Originally posted by DirtyMikeSeaver
    If I'm reading you wrong, Justin, I apologize, but if you're saying that Hogan/Andre wasn't billed as a dream match, you're crazy.


I didn't mean to suggest that but I could've worded it better. It was *the* dream match for sure, but it wasn't promoted as what I vaguely worded a dream wrestling match, or a chance to see classic wrestling between two great wrestlers, like Angle vs. Joe or Angle vs. Shawn Michaels or Joe vs. Kenta Kobashi. Hogan/Andre was a dream match between two superforces who had 'never' wrestled before and the in-ring was irrelevant to the epic encounter just taking place, like Rock vs. Hogan. (Then again, even the Wrestlemania 18 match between Rock and a broken down, broken-ribbed Hogan was laid out to go more than 15 minutes because they knew it was the selling point and the biggest deal.)

Angle and Joe aren't at the level of Hogan or Andre or Rock though; they're just the biggest star in a small upstart promotion and one of the four or five bigger names of the last six years. They're known for their great matches, not their starpower, so they're being put together not just so people can see them face off in the ring, but to have a great match. And that they still had a strong match in that time is great,


    I understand what you and others are saying about the length, but matches don't HAVE to be 25-30 minutes to be 'epics' or good.


I completely agree. I just don't understand why TNA would deliberately only have it go 13 minutes, because no one with any common sense would think that was enough time to insure they'd be able to live up to the expectations for that kind of match. I don't mean to belabor this and would've left it at that two days ago, but felt like I should try and clarify what I was trying to say.


    I do think it's funny that you had 3 really good matches and a decent brawl before a really bad ending and we're saying it's a disappointment.


Point taken for sure. Like I said (or did I? dunno), you can't complain about the wrestling quality, as on average the TNA PPVs have been better, sometimes significantly so, than the WWE ones ever since TNA went monthly, but their booking and the way they shoot themselves in the foot makes me want to not even bother.


    If WWE put on a card with basically four 3 star matches, we'd be praising them right now.


Yes. Then again, I thought this year's Wrestlemania was a really good show but I was still annoyed at them for shortchanging what was shaping up to be ... a great Kurt Angle match.
thecubsfan
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 10.12.01
From: Aurora, IL

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 13 hours
#40 Posted on | Instant Rating: 10.00
    Originally posted by Figure Four Weekly - go buy it!
    I’m told prior to the match, both guys were asking to rush through the pre-match stuff so they could have plenty of time, but then ended up going home early on their own.


So, TNA did plan on it going longer, and it was one of the guys in the match who called for a quicker end. Easiest explanation is Angle, not having worked regularly and dealing with injuries and perhaps even detox, wanted to go as hard he could for as long as he could, could only go as long as 13 minutes.



thecubsfan.com - CMLLBlog
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Thread rated: 4.75
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Thread ahead: TNA iMPACT: November 23, 2006
Next thread: WWE Signs Monty Brown
Previous thread: RAW good tonight?
(4187 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
I only caught the first half-hour, but what a show that was! I laughed more than I did watching The Office premiere- or any other show in a long time for that matter.
- dwaters, Smackdown #683 9/21/12 (2012)
Related threads: Genesis 2006 predictions - TNA Genesis Results/Thoughts - More...
The W - Pro Wrestling - TNA Genesis reaction (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 1.386 seconds.