|
|
Post by thefamoustommyz on May 11, 2006 13:09:09 GMT -5
Well, at least Sting didn't milk his company for all it was worth, get pushed to the moon over everyone and their dog, and then whine like a little b*tch about how tough the schedule was, threaten to kill himself to get out of his contract, fail miserably at trying to get into the NFL, then whine like a little b*tch when the contract he signed came back to bite him in the a** when he realized that he'd crapped his lifestyle away perhaps a bit too soon...after all, supporting aging Barbie Dolls takes money. Right, because we are totally talking about Brock Lesner here and not Ric Flair...please don't reach... also, since when is it cool for mods to avoid the swear filter? I don't get it. You think Brock's a GOD but say Batista has a bad attitude and Sting "wussed out"...that's what I don't get. And it doesn't make Sting a "wuss" that he didn't waste all his money like Flair and be forced to kill himself every night so he could pay off back taxes and ex-wives...that's called "smart". And Sting was smart enough not to jump to WWE, where he would have been Trips punching bag (Goldberg, Steiner, Nash) or made to look like an old fool (Flair). Again...because he was smart enough not to need the pay-off. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe on May 11, 2006 13:38:01 GMT -5
Right, because we are totally talking about Brock Lesner here and not Ric Flair...please don't reach... also, since when is it cool for mods to avoid the swear filter? I don't get it. You think Brock's a GOD but say Batista has a bad attitude and Sting "wussed out"...that's what I don't get. And it doesn't make Sting a "wuss" that he didn't waste all his money like Flair and be forced to kill himself every night so he could pay off back taxes and ex-wives...that's called "smart". And Sting was smart enough not to jump to WWE, where he would have been Trips punching bag (Goldberg, Steiner, Nash) or made to look like an old fool (Flair). Again...because he was smart enough not to need the pay-off. Again, what did Brock Lesnar have to do with a discussion about how TNA is centering around Sting? |
|
|
|
Post by canadianpittbull on May 11, 2006 23:59:17 GMT -5
I guess Tommy should just talk to his armpit  As far as TNA centering itself around Sting? Your kidding right? |
|
|
|
Post by swarm on May 12, 2006 8:12:11 GMT -5
I guess Tommy should just talk to his armpit As far as TNA centering itself around Sting? Your kidding right? TNA has been centered around the Jarrett-Sting debacle for awhile now...even you know that. |
|
|
|
Post by Vanilla Gorilla on May 12, 2006 8:20:04 GMT -5
Fact is TNA has alot of to offer but just doen't have the people to do it, they have no money, there main guys are two has beens Sting/Jarrett and the fact that most of there roster are jr heavyweights simply wore thin with me quick, the onlt things that entertain me with TNA are 1) International Talent on occasion 2) Cristain Cage as champ, I just felt this guy needed a push as world champ and WWE wasn't going to give it to him. 3) and well thats about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tournament Master on May 12, 2006 9:16:39 GMT -5
I guess Tommy should just talk to his armpit As far as TNA centering itself around Sting? Your kidding right? TNA has been centered around the Jarrett-Sting debacle for awhile now...even you know that. What program have you been watching Canadian Pitbull? During every match and every commercial break all the announcers have been talking about is who will be Sting's partner to face Jarrett and Steiner? |
|
|
|
Post by canadianpittbull on May 12, 2006 10:34:53 GMT -5
Well I don't see it that way, I guess I look at them as part of the show and if it takes their faces to help get some of the old fans back then so be it. If anything this upcoming match with Sting teaming with Samoa Joe is a step in the right direction.
I cannot wait for TNA to boom and become a solid competition and everyone of you who have blatantly doomed it from the beginning I am going to call you on it.
I would like to know how many who "criticize" the show actually watch it. Be honest. Because if you don't watch the show and just read Internet results your opinion means nothing.
Just how I don't watch RAW so I don't comment on it anymore. However Smackdown I watch so I will comment on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by PureHatred on May 12, 2006 10:59:44 GMT -5
I watch it. As a matter of fact, lately I'm the only one posting results/commentary. And I still thought the Sting/Jarrett thing was taking too much time.
I suppose teaming him with Joe is a good thing, (depending on whethe ror not Steiner can still work a match) but that probably means that next month we'll just see more Jarrett/Sting promos leading to the inevitable singles match pay-off.
|
|
|
|
Post by canadianpittbull on May 12, 2006 14:33:57 GMT -5
Well obviously your exempt from my comment then Purehatred and it doesn't apply to you. Everyone has an opinion and they are entitled to it. Atleast watch the show, before people start jawing about it with no basis to their comments other than hearsay or from reading a results blurb. |
|
|
|
Post by Tournament Master on May 12, 2006 15:34:23 GMT -5
I watch the show, and there are a few things I like about it. AJ, Joe, Shelly, Team Canada... I tape Impact and Smackdown every week and always watch Impact, sometimes watch Smackdown. Could be because Impact is just 1 hour. Neither one captures my interest as much as Raw.
|
|
|
|
Post by canadianpittbull on May 12, 2006 19:13:00 GMT -5
Hmm weird, do you watch RAW because you enjoy soap opera's?
|
|
|
|
Post by Splattercat on May 13, 2006 1:54:30 GMT -5
This is going to sound really retarded coming from someone who's really hard on Triple H, but...If I were to watch Raw, I'd watch it for Triple H...That's how much Interest I have in Raw right now...
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe on May 13, 2006 10:29:26 GMT -5
Hmm weird, do you watch RAW because you enjoy soap opera's? Not speaking for anyone else, but I watch Raw because I like being entertained, and I find solid wrestling accompanied by out-of-the-ring drama to be entertaining. In regards to your "soap opera's" comment: Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Edge, Shelton Benjamin and Rob Van Dam can all outwrestle damn near anyone in TNA. John Cena has more charisma and is a better showman than anyone in TNA. Kenny Doane has more overall potential than almost anyone in TNA. As I have said numerous times, I watch TNA and, for the most part, have since its inception. I don't think the company is complete trash, but there is no way anyone is going to sell me on the idea that they are putting out a better "wrestling" product than RAW or Smackdown. |
|
|
|
Post by canadianpittbull on May 13, 2006 10:35:41 GMT -5
did I make any reference to TNA?
I merely asked if they like soap opera's because lets be honest here, the creative team is made up of soap opera writers AND there is more gabbing on the mic than wrestling in the ring and it is also the show that has the most ridiculous angles like something out of a Passions episode.
Now I will make my reference to TNA and to Smackdown. I enjoy these two show because there ismore wrestling which is what I want to watch instead of sitting for 30mins before a match even happens.
I love when I ask a legitimate question and then I get hit with a "TNA doesn't have this" blah blah beat my chest crap. Oh right, I guess the rumor is I work for TNA? Haha!!!!!!! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Chewey on May 13, 2006 11:53:05 GMT -5
I have really lost interest in TNA over the last couple of months, but I did manage to watch iMPACT last Thursday. I was not impressed. TNA's X Division wrestlers are being treated with the same love that cruiserweights get on Smackdown, and we have old "legends reunion show" between the James Gang and Team 3-D and Jarret-Sting.
How many X Division guys will Kevin Nash squash before he goes down?
I guess the only good that can come out of it is if Samoa Joe gets into a mini-feud with Scott Steiner, goes over, and then challenges for the TNA belt.
Smackdown was going good but has sucked the last couple of weeks. Raw has some awesome performers, but there are at best three matches per episode.
Wrestling is terrible right now and yet I keep waiting for management to get their act together and make it better. I mean, the talent is there - they just aren't handled properly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chewey on May 13, 2006 11:54:28 GMT -5
and here's to hoping Paul Heyman can shake things up... just like he did ten years ago when wrestling also sucked back then.
I know he's on Vince's payroll and Vince probably won't let ECW outshine his own WWE product, but one can hope...
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe on May 13, 2006 12:01:29 GMT -5
did I make any reference to TNA? I merely asked if they like soap opera's because lets be honest here, the creative team is made up of soap opera writers AND there is more gabbing on the mic than wrestling in the ring and it is also the show that has the most ridiculous angles like something out of a Passions episode. Now I will make my reference to TNA and to Smackdown. I enjoy these two show because there ismore wrestling which is what I want to watch instead of sitting for 30mins before a match even happens. I love when I ask a legitimate question and then I get hit with a "TNA doesn't have this" blah blah beat my chest crap. Oh right, I guess the rumor is I work for TNA? Haha!!!!!!! ;D The inference was there, whether you actually said "TNA" or not. To compare TNA with Smackdown is off, too. By the way, was it just me or was that a pretty good bit of "gabbing on the mic" on Impact the other night? Maybe it's just my imagination, though. |
|
|
|
Post by PureHatred on May 13, 2006 12:34:19 GMT -5
If you look at it proportionately, TNA does just as much talking as either WWE show. It may not feel as long because the show is only an hour. But it's still about a third of the actual TV time.
As for the soap opera comment: wrestling is pretty straightforward; you have two parties in conflict and you make it so the audience is willing to pay to see them fight it out to settle their differences.
WWE just sometimes give us far more outlandish characters with far more outlandish reasons for them to fight. At times it works, at times it doesn't.
TNA is more straightforward, but it does sometimes get repetitive. If they get a second hour I hope they find better storylines for their undercard then "hey lets fight to see who's better!" Soap Opera comments aside, that's just not very interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Splattercat on May 14, 2006 3:05:15 GMT -5
If TNA gets a second hour and keeps it's same 20 minutes of talk, then it'll be a better wrestling show...Plain and simple...if they get their second hour... And Joe, there was no mention, overt or otherwise, of TNA in Pittbull's statement...From my perspective, the statement was made based on his opinion of Raw, not how Raw compared to Smackdown or TNA...Let's be fair now...  |
|
|
|
Post by Joe on May 14, 2006 13:17:01 GMT -5
If TNA gets a second hour and keeps it's same 20 minutes of talk, then it'll be a better wrestling show...Plain and simple...if they get their second hour... And Joe, there was no mention, overt or otherwise, of TNA in Pittbull's statement...From my perspective, the statement was made based on his opinion of Raw, not how Raw compared to Smackdown or TNA...Let's be fair now... Pittbull responded to someone's statement about Raw holding his interest more than Smackdown or Imapct by asking if the person liked soap operas. That is basically saying, "If you like Raw, you're a soap opera fan. If you like TNA (or Samckdown, to a lesser extent because CPB doens't constantly sing the praises of SD), you're a wrestling fan." The implication was there. |
|
As far as TNA centering itself around Sting? Your kidding right? 
