|
|
Post by JimSteel on Nov 17, 2006 12:17:06 GMT -5
I always wanted to see WCW vs WWE or ECW years ago in a PPV
I am not saying a regular thing but have one big show
Would help TNA and it cant hurt the WWE much and they could make some money in the process as it could be a big sell
The problem I see is will Vince let his guys job to TNA Guys?
|
|
|
|
Post by blueraider2 on Nov 17, 2006 12:38:51 GMT -5
i think we know the answer to that.i'll think on this and vote later.
maybe
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Nov 17, 2006 12:40:55 GMT -5
I have no idea how to vote, but I put the ETA on this thread being locked at around 7PM tonight...
|
|
|
|
Post by GOODZILLA on Nov 17, 2006 12:46:49 GMT -5
No way. WWE would never give a "rub" to TNA.
|
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Nov 17, 2006 12:52:21 GMT -5
No. there is no one in TNA good enough to go over any WWE stars that would appear on such a PPV.
|
|
|
|
Post by GalactiKing on Nov 17, 2006 13:05:53 GMT -5
No. It won't happen so I'll just vote no.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatekeeper on Nov 17, 2006 14:55:16 GMT -5
No.
|
|
|
|
Post by thedragonreborn on Nov 17, 2006 15:02:25 GMT -5
I had to vote maybe. Both companies need to get some stuff straight if this were to be interesting. I don't think most fans will ever clamor for WWE v. TNA like they did for WCW v. WWF in the old days.
Rahl
|
|
|
|
Post by Highway61Revisited on Nov 17, 2006 15:11:36 GMT -5
Samoa Joe, AJ Styles, Austin Aries, Low-Ki, Christopher Daniels, Homicide (does he ever have a bad match?), Abyss (better than most WWE big men), do I need to continue? Those guys are all SIGNIFICANTLY better than the entire WWE roster.
Back on topic: What would be the point of this? It would get TNA some noteriority but it would be mostly WWE guys going over TNA talent. Vince really has nothing to gain by doing this. Most fans would think, "What?" when they heard the WWE was facing TNA at a pay-per-view. They'd probably think it was some kind of diva thing.
Eh. Vince probably isn't too keen after what Kurt has said. (I doubt he really cares what BG and KJ say. Who really does though?) So I'd probably be leaning on the no, as I wouldn't want to see Samoa Joe have to job to someone who is 10 times less talented than he.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Nov 17, 2006 17:21:10 GMT -5
Samoa Joe, AJ Styles, Austin Aries, Low-Ki, Christopher Daniels, Homicide (does he ever have a bad match?), Abyss (better than most WWE big men), do I need to continue? Those guys are all SIGNIFICANTLY better than the entire WWE roster. Back on topic: What would be the point of this? It would get TNA some noteriority but it would be mostly WWE guys going over TNA talent. Vince really has nothing to gain by doing this. Most fans would think, "What?" when they heard the WWE was facing TNA at a pay-per-view. They'd probably think it was some kind of diva thing. Eh. Vince probably isn't too keen after what Kurt has said. (I doubt he really cares what BG and KJ say. Who really does though?) So I'd probably be leaning on the no, as I wouldn't want to see Samoa Joe have to job to someone who is 10 times less talented than he. The problem does not lie in TNA having a lack of talent, but rather the matches that would have to be scheduled. While guys like Daniels, Styles and Homicide are excellent performers, who are they going to wrestle? Homicide could be gotten into a match he could win by pitting LAX against London and Kendrick or Cryme Tyme. Other than that, there are problems with finding a way for any of them to win. I know the TNA fanboys are going to hate to admit it, but if you sell out a major arena and book Samoa Joe against John Cena in the Main Event, Cena has to win. It's that simple. It would have been like having a WWF-AWA supercard in 1986. Hulk Hogan would have to beat Rick Martel. Samoa Joe does not have the star power to legitimately go over Cena, or anyone else at the top of the WWE, at this point. Styles and Daniels are great performers, but who do they wrestle and, again, how can one justify them beating a WWE counterpart? AJ Styles is one of the top 3 guys (number one, in my opinion), so that would mean he would go against someone like Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Randy Orton, Edge or Booker T. Seriously, who would he beat? Not that a potential show couldn't be entertaining, but the match results would be a no-brainer in every instance. For that reason, I vote no. |
|
|
|
Post by Highway61Revisited on Nov 17, 2006 17:39:33 GMT -5
Samoa Joe, AJ Styles, Austin Aries, Low-Ki, Christopher Daniels, Homicide (does he ever have a bad match?), Abyss (better than most WWE big men), do I need to continue? Those guys are all SIGNIFICANTLY better than the entire WWE roster. Back on topic: What would be the point of this? It would get TNA some noteriority but it would be mostly WWE guys going over TNA talent. Vince really has nothing to gain by doing this. Most fans would think, "What?" when they heard the WWE was facing TNA at a pay-per-view. They'd probably think it was some kind of diva thing. Eh. Vince probably isn't too keen after what Kurt has said. (I doubt he really cares what BG and KJ say. Who really does though?) So I'd probably be leaning on the no, as I wouldn't want to see Samoa Joe have to job to someone who is 10 times less talented than he. The problem does not lie in TNA having a lack of talent, but rather the matches that would have to be scheduled. While guys like Daniels, Styles and Homicide are excellent performers, who are they going to wrestle? Homicide could be gotten into a match he could win by pitting LAX against London and Kendrick or Cryme Tyme. Other than that, there are problems with finding a way for any of them to win. I know the TNA fanboys are going to hate to admit it, but if you sell out a major arena and book Samoa Joe against John Cena in the Main Event, Cena has to win. It's that simple. It would have been like having a WWF-AWA supercard in 1986. Hulk Hogan would have to beat Rick Martel. Samoa Joe does not have the star power to legitimately go over Cena, or anyone else at the top of the WWE, at this point. Styles and Daniels are great performers, but who do they wrestle and, again, how can one justify them beating a WWE counterpart? AJ Styles is one of the top 3 guys (number one, in my opinion), so that would mean he would go against someone like Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Randy Orton, Edge or Booker T. Seriously, who would he beat? Not that a potential show couldn't be entertaining, but the match results would be a no-brainer in every instance. For that reason, I vote no. I don't realize understand why you quoted my post since were essentially in agreement. My basic understanding of what you posted is that TNA isn't big enough to compete with WWE. Right, but, how was that disagreement? I never said that TNA was lacking talent, I was simply responding to Swarm's post that noone in TNA is worthy of facing a WWE star. That's clearly wrong. I certainly hope you weren't calling me a TNAfanboy, because if you've read other posts you would certainly realize that's not the case. I agree with you but if you were trying to make a concrete point about how my post was wrong, you didn't elaborate enough on exactly where we disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Nov 17, 2006 17:48:18 GMT -5
I didn't quote your post because I was disagreeing with it, but rather it was the reason I was posting.
I wanted to share my opinions about why the PPV would be a bad idea and how the TNA guys would be placed in no-win matches. Kind of a situation where TNA's best would probably win a match if placed against WWE's mid-carders, but headliner vs. headliner, the WWE guys would, and should, prevail.
The fanboy reference was directed at those to whom it applies: The people who complain about how bad WWE storylines are but then praise a company that puts out far worse angles and those who bash the WWE's quality of in-ring action but heap praise on show that fills up the majority of its one hour of TV time with 8-man clusterfucks and one-on-one squashes.
|
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Nov 18, 2006 0:09:56 GMT -5
Samoa Joe, AJ Styles, Austin Aries, Low-Ki, Christopher Daniels, Homicide (does he ever have a bad match?), Abyss (better than most WWE big men), do I need to continue? Those guys are all SIGNIFICANTLY better than the entire WWE roster.  |
|
|
|
Post by Highway61Revisited on Nov 18, 2006 0:26:47 GMT -5
Samoa Joe, AJ Styles, Austin Aries, Low-Ki, Christopher Daniels, Homicide (does he ever have a bad match?), Abyss (better than most WWE big men), do I need to continue? Those guys are all SIGNIFICANTLY better than the entire WWE roster. Care to elaborate? If you can name workers with a better grasp on the universals of being a good professional wrestler and explain this in detail, that's fine. However rolling your eyes because you disagree isn't that strong of an argument. There's no precedent that ANY wrestler (with the exception of Benoit) has been better since 2002 than any of the people I've mentioned. |
|
|
|
Post by gwffantrav on Nov 18, 2006 0:50:41 GMT -5
Care to elaborate? If you can name workers with a better grasp on the universals of being a good professional wrestler and explain this in detail, that's fine. However rolling your eyes because you disagree isn't that strong of an argument. There's no precedent that ANY wrestler (with the exception of Benoit) has been better since 2002 than any of the people I've mentioned. Come on Ross...let's see Kahli, Umaga, Masters, LAWLER, Murdoch, Idol, James, Piper, Duggan, Chavo.... |
|
|
|
Post by GOODZILLA on Nov 18, 2006 1:04:47 GMT -5
Care to elaborate? If you can name workers with a better grasp on the universals of being a good professional wrestler and explain this in detail, that's fine. However rolling your eyes because you disagree isn't that strong of an argument. There's no precedent that ANY wrestler (with the exception of Benoit) has been better since 2002 than any of the people I've mentioned. To me what makes a good wrestler is a combination of many things: wrestling ability, psychology, stamina, mic skills, etc. Some of the guys you mentioned are very skilled at wrestling ability and have good stamina .... but the vast majority of TNA guys don't know how to tell a good story during a match. Whenever I watch TNA it just seems like they string together move after move after move. It's hard to explain but the pace doesn't seem right to me. I sit there and think, "oh there was a move. Oh, another move. There's a move. Move. Move. Move, that one was kinda cool. Another move." There's no psychology. It makes it feel more fake to me, it's harder to suspend my disbelief when I watch TNA. They just don't tell a story and don't make you care who wins. So in that regard here are a few wrestlers from the WWE who I think are better all around wrestlers than anyone in TNA: Carlito, Edge, John Cena, Johnny Nitro, Shelton Benjamin, Triple H, Batista, Chris Benoit, King Booker and I'm sure I could think of more if it wasn't 1 am ;D |
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Nov 18, 2006 1:08:12 GMT -5
Care to elaborate? If you can name workers with a better grasp on the universals of being a good professional wrestler and explain this in detail, that's fine. However rolling your eyes because you disagree isn't that strong of an argument. There's no precedent that ANY wrestler (with the exception of Benoit) has been better since 2002 than any of the people I've mentioned. I can name a ton of guys who actually make the company they work for money... Umaga, Cena, Nitro, Carlito, HHH, HBK, Kane, Kennedy, Jeff Hardy, Matt Hardy, Big Show, Sabu, RVD, CM Punk, Undertaker, Rey Mysterio, Finlay, Lashley, Batista, Edge, Orton, Benjamin, Booker,and Vince McMahon himself all all better wrestlers than everyone you mentioned. I don't care how many flip-flops TNA guys can do in one match. Show me the money. and until you do...you suck at wrestling. |
|
|
|
Post by gwffantrav on Nov 18, 2006 1:08:33 GMT -5
Care to elaborate? If you can name workers with a better grasp on the universals of being a good professional wrestler and explain this in detail, that's fine. However rolling your eyes because you disagree isn't that strong of an argument. There's no precedent that ANY wrestler (with the exception of Benoit) has been better since 2002 than any of the people I've mentioned. Carlito, Edge, John Cena, Johnny Nitro, Shelton Benjamin, Triple H, Batista, Chris Benoit, King Booker and I'm sure I could think of more if it wasn't 1 am ;D Nice list Good...but if anything...I'd say Shelton is more of a TNA style guy based on your logic. Carlito is a HUGE example of what a WWE wrestler is. I still remember him from OVW and now...and think he's the pits. But just has that look and some charisma. |
|
|
|
Post by Knapik on Nov 18, 2006 1:15:09 GMT -5
Edge, John Cena and Triple H are better entertainers than anyone in TNA. They really are. I love the TNA wrestlers (hate the product), but those 3 are above them all as far as entertaining goes.
But for those who like wrestling matches, you can't fault someone for liking TNA. Ignoring the lame booking, the guys put on solid matches, ones I believe are generally better than the WWE ones. I love the WWE and would pick it over TNA most any day.... but I'd rather watch a TNA match.
Austin Aries is a better wrestler than anyone in the WWE. He has great mat work, has NO problem telling a story during a match, does the high-flying stuff and has a great intensity and even greater stamina. He can go for as long as needed. Does he entertain like Edge, Cena, and Trips do? No, but a lot of that is because the WWE blows TNA out of the water as far as production and booking go.
Just my opinions...
|
|
|
|
Post by Knapik on Nov 18, 2006 1:16:11 GMT -5
And I agree with Trav about Shelton.
|
|
