1 Star!? Really!?

[BellaEaglesArmy]

That's because people just don't like TNA. Every time wrestleone posts a poll on TNA. It always get's 1 star no matter how good the show was. Most people just don't care for the company at all.

 

[Headman]

I didn't watch it so I didn't cast a vote on this particular poll. However if I were going to vote on the build up it would have gotten one star from me. Your average TNA show is worthy of one star so perhaps TNA has put on so many crappy shows that people aren't going to give them the benefit of the doubt anymore. Still, they should watch the show before voting. That seems fair.

 

[sufyaan05]

I think it was the second best PPV of the year for TNA,

The one before this one, where Roode beat RVD in a Ladder match (Sacrifice) was slightly better.

If they didn't screw up the finish, then it would have easily been one of the best PPV (incl WWE) of the year.

 

[bigandpissed]

On those polls i always ignore the 1 stars because the majority of the people who vote 1 star are trolling. If you disregard the 1 stars you get a much more accurate evaluation of the event. if you do that with this poll, you will see that most people considered it a 4 star event.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Personally, I don't think the show was a 1 star event at all. All in all, it was one of the best ppvs TNA has put on in a very long time, since last year's Destination X ppv. There was a hot live crowd, which always enhances the atmosphere of a ppv, and they had overall good solid wrestling on the show.

At the same time, in my eyes, it wasn't this mega epic ppvs some tout it as being. The thing that drug the show down for me was that I just wasn't interested in some of the feuds & storylines. I didn't care about Bully Ray beating up a "lawyer", didn't really care about seeing Styles & Angle wrestle for tag title belts that they don't need and I interested in seeing the Sting vs. Roode feud dragged out. The tag title match had good action and was fun to watch, but it's difficult to really get into a match if you don't really give a damn about the underlying story leading into the match. The action in the Roode & Sting match was pretty decent, nothing great & about what I expected, but it had a flat out shitty ending that frequently dogs TNA main events.

It was a good effort from TNA. They looked big league and they're head & shoulders above where they were at this time last year.

 

[Silly Willy Nilly Vanilly in the Milly]

There's always some people that are going to hate on TNA. That's the way it is.
But I would give Slammiversary at least 4/5 stars. It was almost as good as, if not better than, Mania this year. (I'm going to get trolled out now...)
Just my opinion.

 

[backwardsrko]

I tried really hard looking for a zero star to rate it a zero, but I couldnt find it, so I had to give it a 1 . The only reason I watched Slammiversary was because Christian from WWE was on there. You asked for a reason to back it up, there I backed it up.

 

[DJ Kyo]

There's always some people that are going to hate on TNA. That's the way it is.
But I would give Slammiversary at least 4/5 stars. It was almost as good as, if not better than, Mania this year. (I'm going to get trolled out now...)
Just my opinion.

I won't troll you out, but I actually had the privilege of attending both of these events LIVE and Wrestlemania 'show' wise was much better than Slammiversary as to be expected.

HOWEVER that being said, I will say both were on par with their 'good' matches.

 

[Danger Burger]

I tried really hard looking for a zero star to rate it a zero, but I couldnt find it, so I had to give it a 1 . The only reason I watched Slammiversary was because Christian from WWE was on there. You asked for a reason to back it up, there I backed it up.

Care to go a little deeper on that one? What left you wanting more? The wrestling? The match-ups/pairings? Lack of story-telling in the ring? Bad finishes? Give us more so we can understand what disappointed you...

I havent seen the show itself (its free over here, but i didnt know what night it was on) so i have yet to make an opinion!

 

[Swarles Barkley]

On those polls i always ignore the 1 stars because the majority of the people who vote 1 star are trolling. If you disregard the 1 stars you get a much more accurate evaluation of the event. if you do that with this poll, you will see that most people considered it a 4 star event.

Shouldn't you also ignore the five-star ratings because those could just company marks? If you ignore the one-star ratings because of trolling, you should ignore the five-ratings because of markism.

At the end of the day, who really cares about some anonymous pole on a website? If you enjoyed the show, that is all that should matter.

 

[suffolkspur]

Care to go a little deeper on that one? What left you wanting more? The wrestling? The match-ups/pairings? Lack of story-telling in the ring? Bad finishes? Give us more so we can understand what disappointed you...

I havent seen the show itself (its free over here, but i didnt know what night it was on) so i have yet to make an opinion!

No he can't go deeper because he doesnt have a genuine reason he is just a WWE fanboy troll. The very fact he says the only reason he gave it one star was because Christian from WWE was on there speaks volumes. In many ways that section was the worst/most pointless segments i have seen on a PPV. He cannot form an opinion of his own, he thinks it cool to follow this rather sad "popular" hatred of all things TNA because its the in thing to do.

Of course if he wants to come back and give us some objective reasons as to why he disliked the show i would love to hear them. I may even take my troll comment back and apologise. I wont hold my breath though because i genuinely believes he is a biased troll and has no true opinion of his own.

I enjoy watching wrestling. I watch a number of different companies. I enjoy some of the stuff all companies put out and dislike other stuff. I have a preference for TNA currently because it caters more to what i enjoy and i believe has been especially good in the past few months. Thats my opinion. The thing is, if i like something or dislike something and wish to comment on it i will give actual reasons as to why this is the case. I also wont piss on someones opinion if they actually give some substance for their opinion. I find it really amusing that there are some people that want to take sides and make blantantly biased trolling comments over what comes down to a scripted tv show. Seriously, grow up. It tiresome.

 

[Remy LaCroix]

LOL I thought this was in the spam section when I originally posted.

The sites full of WWE marks, what can you say...

This. It's full of WWE marks and they only care about WWE. You see the usual WWE marks (who haven't been banned yet from the main page for some odd reason) shit on anything TNA related. You're probably asking, "But Luna, how do you know that they're solely WWE marks?" The answer is pretty obvious: anything indy related in the main page is lucky enough to get more than one comment, so I highly doubt the trolls/marks watch any wrestling without the initials WWE.

But yeah, the day after Slammiversary I looked at the poll and shook my head in disappointment. Fuck the WWE marks/fanboys, fuck 'em to hell.

I tried really hard looking for a zero star to rate it a zero, but I couldnt find it, so I had to give it a 1 . The only reason I watched Slammiversary was because Christian from WWE was on there. You asked for a reason to back it up, there I backed it up.

Chinga tu madre.

 

[Pink Hole Slam]

Why even pay attention to stuff like this? Sting/Roode, Joe/Aries, Hardy/RVD/Anderson, the return of Storm, and Abyss making his PPV return (kind of) is enough to make this at least a 3/5 star show.

 

[Pimpin]

Unfortunately, the people who vote it one star are either WWE apologists who have this undying loyalty to them and shit on anything that is TNA without providing valid reasons for it while also not really being knowledgeable of wrestling outside the letters WWE, trolls who do it for the sake of trolling, or a combination of the two. Those types of people shouldn't even have the option of voting on polls or giving out opinions because they won't provide objective opinions other than the typical yet stale "WWE iz zeh best ever", "TNA Sux" and all the other garbage they spew out (most of the time, they don't even watch the damn show). Some WWE fans are cool and provide constructive criticism, but the ones who crap on TNA for the sake of crapping on it are morons. Simple as that.

For Slammiversary itself. It was definitely not a one star event. Not even close. The show has "Aries/Joe", "AJ/Angle vs. Kaz/Daniels", "Roode/Sting" and I'll even say matches like "Kid Kash/Hernandez", "Hardy/RVD/Anderson" and "Gail Kim/Miss Tessmacher" were great matches matches. Only matches that sucked were the Garret/D-Von vs. Robbie's match (anything with Garret sucks) and the Crimson/Storm match (that's more due to it's lack of time than it is on the performers themselves). I'd give it four stars and in my opinion, it was better than Mania (which I also watched in it's entirety).

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Haters are gonna hate. Joe vs. Aries was better than anythink Punk and Bryan have put together in the last few months AND everyone is saying that is the best thing going for in ring work in WWE.

The WWE fan boys just don't want anyone else to succeed, even when they are. Out of 5 stars I'd give the show 3.5. Aries/Joe, Tag title match alone were superb matches

Aries doesn't sell a damn thing, never has, never tells a coherant story in the ring either. Aries has WURKRATEZ and MOVEZ and all that smarktastic shit, but Aries is about 3 levels below Joe, Punk, and Bryan.