|
|
Post by BDS on Nov 17, 2007 13:29:24 GMT -5
That Sig and banner are awesome Sherrifan..LOL It is unfortunate that I will not bow to the pressure of Chris Masters, though. If I was able to hold out against Kennedy's sack, I'm sure I can hold up against Masters for a while.  |
|
|
|
Post by dukedave on Nov 17, 2007 14:34:29 GMT -5
I was able to hold out against Kennedy's sack, I'm sure I can hold up against Masters for a while. Hold out against this.  |
|
|
|
Post by MikeMcKinney on Nov 17, 2007 15:12:28 GMT -5
I was able to hold out against Kennedy's sack, I'm sure I can hold up against Masters for a while. Hold out against this. LOL!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by majorbludd on Nov 17, 2007 15:22:54 GMT -5
Last weeks Impact rating was 1.1 if that tells you anything. That ranks right up there with reruns of America's Funniest Home Videos and any episode of Doctor Steve O
|
|
|
|
Post by gatekeeper on Nov 17, 2007 16:02:58 GMT -5
But their overall talent pool is probably stronger than WWE right now No way. Not even close. If they were good, they'd be in the WWE. Nothing about that show is worth watching. If a super fat chick is one of the best in your stable, it's bad news. |
|
|
|
Post by dukedave on Nov 17, 2007 16:25:41 GMT -5
But their overall talent pool is probably stronger than WWE right now No way. Not even close. If they were good, they'd be in the WWE. Nothing about that show is worth watching. If a super fat chick is one of the best in your stable, it's bad news. Hey now, the super fat chick has a killer tan. OK, now that I got that out of my system, I agree with your first sentence fully. I thought about calling out Aquinas on that. However, nothing about the show is worth watching is far from true. The list of things worth watching - Styles, Daniels, Motor City Machine Guns, Christian, LAX, Kurt Angle (still can put on a good match), Booker, Eric Young, Robert Roode, Kevin Nash (OK, not really, this is just to mock bigeasy), and Kaz. Actually, fire everybody else and hire Danielson, McGuiness, and the Briscoes (just so Knapik can sport a chubby) and we'd be off to a good start. |
|
|
|
Post by Knapik on Nov 17, 2007 16:30:58 GMT -5
Someone say Briscoes? I have a massive erection all of the sudden!
|
|
|
|
Post by dukedave on Nov 17, 2007 16:32:53 GMT -5
Someone say Briscoes? I have a massive erection all of the sudden! Geez, it only took five minutes. |
|
|
|
Post by Aquinas on Nov 17, 2007 18:32:53 GMT -5
But their overall talent pool is probably stronger than WWE right now No way. Not even close. If they were good, they'd be in the WWE. Nothing about that show is worth watching. If a super fat chick is one of the best in your stable, it's bad news. Your first sentence is a valid opinion. I don't feel as strongly about that as the other points.... The second point is one we've gone around and around about, and I just happen to disagree completely. Guys like Booker, Styles, Angle, Christian and Daniels are better than a lot of people in the WWE....there's a lot of undeniably CRAP wrestlers in WWE and they aren't automatically better because they are there (Khali, case in point -- he may well be the worst wrestler on the entire planet). You obviously have the right to your opinion but 'nothing about that show is worth watching' may work for you....but there are lots of us out there who disagree. As I've said before, I happen to enjoy Impact more than Raw (I hate D-X, I think Orton is personality-less, Coachman and Hornswaggle and the non-wrestlers still waste way too much airtime, etc etc) The 'super fat chick' can wrestle. If my time is going to be wasted by women's wrestling, I want them to at least be capable. There are plenty of places to see hot chicks. Watching them bumble around awkwardly in a wrestling ring isn't one of them. |
|
|
|
Post by SherriFan on Nov 17, 2007 19:22:45 GMT -5
Since I'm not here to argue with anyone -- if I wanted to do that, I'd get an AOL account and see how many "your momma" comebacks I could conjure up from them -- I'll just say this: BDS was asking for opinions, and everyone gave theirs to him. All are valid opinions because they are just that. Some people like TNA, some people like it better than WWE, some people think TNA is a joke, some people just don't like it, and some people just don't like it because it's not WWE. All opinions, all different, and either all or none matter (depending on how you look at it, but not a little of both). And, by the way, as a "chick" who enjoys women's wrestling, I can say that this is one thing TNA is infinitely superior in. The TNA women's champion has yet to fall on her noggin doing a spot she's practiced for weeks, just to note. As far as TNA having a better talent pool than WWE? Well... let's assess a few of the important guys... TNASting Booker Angle Christian AJ Styles Jay Lethal Gail Kim Samoa Joe Kevin Nash and just for the heck of it, we'll say Kaz WWETriple H Shawn Michaels Batista Undertaker Umaga Kennedy Randy Orton John Cena Candice Michelle (I know, she's not the champ right now, but just wait until she gets back...) Rey Mysterio If you really wanted to get technical, you could remove three people from that list and add: Vince, Hornswoggle and Coachman, making it even more exciting. Looking at the list, there are about two WWE guys who put on really good matches; I count seven TNA listers who fit that role. WWE most definitely has the upper hand with "star power" when you factor in Trips, the Undertaker, Cena and HBK. Too bad there's only one of those that doesn't utterly bore me when they're in the ring (and only one that doesn't bore me on the mic, and they're not the same guy). As I've said, I like them both for different reasons, and right now I just happen to like TNA more. Some people loved old ECW, some people thought it was crap. Some people even like that new ECW, and aside from Punk and Morrison, I have no idea why -- but that's only my opinion. Watch what you like, don't watch what you don't like. But no amount of mimicing Havoc's banner at the bottom of his posts is going to make anyone change their mind regarding how they feel about particular wrestling promotions. Only the wrestling promotions can do that. Sooo... this would be assuming WWE didn't completely RUIN (with very few exceptions) every wrestler who ever first made a name somewhere else: Taz(z), Sabu, Scott Steiner, Goldberg (though he sucked already), RVD, Booker, Sean O'Haire, the nWo (gimmick), the Sandman, Raven, Lance Storm, Dean Malenko, and I'm sure if I bothered to look at Obessessed With Wrestling (little plug), the list would go on and on. They just liked to pretend they "created" Eddie and Rey. Or ECW. Meanwhile, RAW's big ratings this past week came in strong against the Disney Channel re-run of "Freaky Friday (2003)." Realistically, ratings don't really mean as much as they used to with the advent of TiVo and DVR. Regardless, it's rather asinine for any of us (myself included) to get on here and argue about this stuff. That would be just as silly as someone who loves LoW going into the CotG thread and saying, "CotG sux! None of their wrestlers are real! And wrestling aliens and robots is just stupid!" That wouldn't go over with CotG fans very well, would it? Have a little respect for what fans (in a TNA thread, no less) think of the promotion. Many of us like them both, and for different reasons - just like real world wrestling. Whatever happens here, let's not turn this into another "Chris Masters Injured" thread. That was just embarassing for everyone who ever came to this forum. ... don't make momma spank! |
|
|
|
Post by gatekeeper on Nov 17, 2007 19:51:20 GMT -5
Sheerifan,
All of the guys you listed on the TNA spot of "good wrestlers" all suck.
I'm surprised Kevin Nash can still get in and out of the ring without blowing his knee out.
Plus, 99% of those guys are WCW/WWE castoffs.
When I watch wrestling, I like to see guys building feuds, and make it pretty clear if I'm supposed to cheer or boo them.
It doesn't matter if you are a good technical wrestler. It really doesn't.
Like Aquinas said, he thinks Khali is the worst wrestler ever. I completely disagree because if you were 7'3" and 425lbs., you don't need to do drop toe holds.
What matters is that you have to care about the character and the matches have to mean something to the feud.
TNA never accomplishes this.
|
|
|
|
Post by SherriFan on Nov 17, 2007 20:16:00 GMT -5
Sheerifan, All of the guys you listed on the TNA spot of "good wrestlers" all suck. Hmmm... sounds awfully troll-like to me... Although that's really the way I felt about most of the WWE list. Agreed! I'm also surprised the Undertaker still buries people like he does - no pun intended. The most boring wrestler unlive. If castoff means "Tired of Vince's Ego, Triple H and Undertaker doing nothing but causing detriment to their careers", then I suppose so. And I only count 50% who had the displeasure of being in the E first. That must have been why people were getting up and leaving during the Mark Henry / Untertaker match at Unforgiven. The response to the Angle / Kaz match this week on Impact received the exact opposite response. I agree, but seeing how he's a wrestler, taking bumps and being able to, you know, actually get down on the mat to cover an opponent wouldn't be asking too much of a wrestler would it?  Well, he's not worse than Giant Gonzales... and he does have that nice tan. You're right, though, Khali is amazingly better than Angle.  The only thing "Great" about Khali is everyone's response when we finally don't have to see him any longer. Anyone who gets excited about a Batista / Khali Punjabi Prison Match, well... that's just not right. I fast forwarded through that, but I'm sure it was a classic that Cole and JBL put over like it was the most awesome thing ever, and many of the fans bought into that. And what makes Batista think he needs to write a book? I hope he tells all about how he legitimately got beat up in the locker room by Booker T and how Vince was so embarassed he initially didn't see Batista as a title contender any longer. For you. They accomplish it for me several times a month. This is exactly what WWE does NOT accomplish for me. And that's just my opinion -- but any of the current WWE feuds bore me to death -- Triple H / Umaga, HBK / Orton, Batista / Undertaker, none of them illicit any sort of response from me whatsoever. And if you don't believe me, well, just ask this guy... |
|
|
|
Post by dukedave on Nov 17, 2007 20:55:20 GMT -5
Sherri, You must have missed the memo - Everything Vince does rules. Everything TNA sucks.  It's a very simple equation. I'm surprised I have to explain such simple things to you. BTW - Sherri, are you rocking a killer tan. If so, you might be able convert some people to the dark side.  PS - Am I the only one creeped out that the photo of Chris Masters doesn't seem to look like Chris Masters. Is it possible for a person to take a picture of themselves that doesn't look like them. |
|
|
|
Post by SherriFan on Nov 17, 2007 21:11:03 GMT -5
Well, I do live close to the beach, so I've got a little residual left over from the summer - but since I don't do the tanning-bed thing, it's starting to fade. Note: I forgot that the whole "tan" joke was originally a rib on Payback, and thus the comment was not meant to be taken personally. I do find the idea (even though that's clearly not what Payback meant originally) of good tan = good wrestler very funny though, and that has nothing to do with Payback.You know... when I first found the image I actually thought, "Hmm.. that's a kind of odd-looking Chris Masters photo." To me, he does look like Masters, yet he doesn't. I think it's the beard and the fact that he has too much hair... and it kind of looks like borrowed Maven's eyebrows, too. But hey, I'm not going to spend a lot of time looking for a Chris Masters photo (and banner, nontheless!) to torment people with, when just any Chris Masters photo will do. |
|
|
|
Post by PureHatred on Nov 17, 2007 23:00:37 GMT -5
All of the guys you listed on the TNA spot of "good wrestlers" all suck. It's really hard t take you seriously when those are the kinds of opinions you give. You're just Canadian Pitbull in reverse. That's not factually true. Sting has been offered WWE deals numerous times. Booker, Christian, and Angle all walked away from their contracts. The WWE reject criticism is valid when you start talking about guys like Test, Rikishi, Sabu, The Dudleys even..but the guys who are currently in TNA's main event scene are all guys that the WWE *trie* to kepe with their company. The rest I mostly agree with. I do think you have to be able to actually work a match. Because eventually, no matter how well a storyline is built up, it's a huge let-down if the pay-off match sucks. But being a good worker doesn't mean you have to be a good technical wrestler and the WWE has many good workers who aren't technically sound. And the writing is substantially more consistent in that respect. But TNA *does* manage to put on good matches. They do have several athletes who have proven they can work a much faster and in many ways more impressive style than anything the WWE will do (and to be fair, it's easier to work that way when you only work a limited amount of dates) anmd there are also plenty of guys who can do promos as well or better than the guys in the E. They 're just cutitng promos in storylines that don't make sense. I'm definitely not saying TNA is better than the WWE. Because it's not. It can't be because they f*ck up too many of the basic rules of storytelling to take them seriously. But TNA isn't a complete and total waste of time and they do have people on that roster that are easily talented enough to work for theWWE. |
|
|
|
Post by PureHatred on Nov 17, 2007 23:04:54 GMT -5
For the record, this bit was pretty LOL as well...
..because there are guys on that list that are among the better workers in the business.. unless you're some internet snob that thinks "move-set = great worker."
|
|
|
|
Post by SherriFan on Nov 17, 2007 23:36:15 GMT -5
For the record, this bit was pretty LOL as well... ..because there are guys on that list that are among the better workers in the business.. unless you're some internet snob that thinks move-set = great worker. Hey! My two picks were Shawn Micheals and Rey. And no, I do not believe "Five Knuckle Shuffle" = great worker. ;D All in all, it was probably a little overly critical, to be honest, and I forgot a couple of key guys like Jeff Hardy (like him or not). Orton is good when he wants to be, Triple H is good when he's not worrying about trying to make the other guy look like crap, and the rest... as far as 99% of their matches go, those guys bore me; it's like I'm watching the same match over and over, no matter who their opponent is. But, that's my opinion, feel free to LOL at it all you like, because it'll still be there when you're done. |
|
|
|
Post by PureHatred on Nov 17, 2007 23:43:18 GMT -5
John Cena has been the best worker in the WWE this year. Period.
He pulled off good matches with Umaga, and Lashley. He is the ONLY person who has made Khali watchable. And his matches with HBK were MOTY worthy.
Throw in the fact that ever since his feud with Triple H hes been consistently one of the better performers in the company and honestly I feel as if the only way to say Cena is a "bad worker" is if you are a move-set snob.
Cena is a good worker in the same way that Hogan, Austin,a nd the Rock were...maybe he has a set number of moves...but he gets the fans to buy into his match, he gets the fans to believe the story he's telling, and he gets the fans to care. That's really all that matters.
The rest...meh. Think what you want.
But don't expect people to be objective about TNA and then turn around and not be objective about one of the most importan people in the business.
|
|
|
|
Post by SherriFan on Nov 18, 2007 0:01:27 GMT -5
I would definitely agree with that. I never said Cena wasn't good at telling "the story" -- it's just that I could care less about his story because I don't like John Cena. The real guy, I'd probably really like; the tv character, I don't.
He's good at what he does, and it's really nice for the kids and teeny-bopper girls to have someone to cheer.
I agree. John Cena has been the WWE iron man for the past year. I mean, look at what's become of RAW without him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Knapik on Nov 18, 2007 0:20:29 GMT -5
You left out wrestling fans who appreciate the total package. Kids... girls... knowledgeable wrestling fans.
|
|
