Impact Support Club House

[The Dragon Saga]

That sport analogy doesn't really apply at all.

WWE is the face of wrestling, even when it doesn't want to be, it is. It will be the first thing people think of when wrestling is brought up most probably forever. It has more than four times the viewers TNA has, hundreds of thousands of people buys its PPV's, their brand name is incredibly well known and respected because Vince McMahon was innovative and ruthless in his approach. WWE is the alpha male of pro-wrestling.

TNA is like the abused, redneck wife of pro-wrestling. Not that many people care about it, but people do care about it. It doesn't have a lot going for it, but it tries its best to do its best, even if a lot of the time its best comes off poorly. It's not well liked because of its image, it's missing teeth from so many beatings, always has two black eyes and looks like its been addicted to crack for the past six years.

People don't want good things to come to the abused redneck wife who looks and smells like shit, they want the good things to come to the alpha male because he's what's cool and is recognized as the leader. Even when he does wrong, people still look up to him.

 

[Rayne]

That's not an accurate analogy. You'd have to provide teams. TNA and WWE both have national television contracts, so in a way, they're two teams in the same league. One is simply the Yankees of the league, and the other is the Oakland A's, or insert whatever bottom-feeder team you want. I'm not a baseball guy, so I have no idea who is who.

Your analogy should read that it's like Sting choosing to do a retirement tour with the A's instead of the Yankees, to which I'd say, if he feels the A's are what is best for him, and he is an "A's guy", and has a great deal of respect for their organization, etc. Then that's what's best for his career. Yankees fans upset they were spurned for a "lesser" organization can fuck right off.

TNA's more like the New York Mets. They're a team which was very expensive to put together and occasionally excites their fans with rare flashes of brilliance, but their ownership is extremely flaky, it's very apparent that they've never had a long-term plan, and whenever they do get your hopes up for something they almost always disappoint you. Many people feel that it would be best for the franchise if the current owner sold their interest.

I know you said you're not a baseball guy, but the Oakland A's are a team which gets consistent, surprising results in a small-market city while keeping their payroll tight, which, not quite TNA.

(ROH would be the Pittsburgh Pirates of this analogy- another low-budget team in a small market where most people don't know where it is, who have been the butt of people's jokes for years, but have been following a steady plan for a long time and are finally starting to impress people after years of going unrecognized.

ECW would be the Montreal Expos- they had a pair of really good years which people remember fondly, but for the most part were a train wreck whose only financial success came when someone else bought the company and started utilizing the trademarks.)

 

[ABMorales787]

The only context to Sting's debut was "he goes to war with heel factions".

 

[It's Damn Real!]

That sport analogy doesn't really apply at all.

WWE is the face of wrestling, even when it doesn't want to be, it is. It will be the first thing people think of when wrestling is brought up most probably forever. It has more than four times the viewers TNA has, hundreds of thousands of people buys its PPV's, their brand name is incredibly well known and respected because Vince McMahon was innovative and ruthless in his approach. WWE is the alpha male of pro-wrestling.

TNA is like the abused, redneck wife of pro-wrestling. Not that many people care about it, but people do care about it. It doesn't have a lot going for it, but it tries its best to do its best, even if a lot of the time its best comes off poorly. It's not well liked because of its image, it's missing teeth from so many beatings, always has two black eyes and looks like its been addicted to crack for the past six years.

People don't want good things to come to the abused redneck wife who looks and smells like shit, they want the good things to come to the alpha male because he's what's cool and is recognized as the leader. Even when he does wrong, people still look up to him.

Yes, you are correct, despite your reliance on such an exaggerated, sensational state of affairs regarding TNA (not that that's news here, considering your opinion on the product is well known around these parts).

However, the analogy does still hold its weight. The Yankees, I'd imagine, are the first thing people think of when baseball is brought up. Storied franchise, iconic players throughout history, including the games' most known names, iconic logo, etc. Even if the Yankees don't want to be, they're the face of baseball around the globe. They're a known brand, in the streets of Bangladesh to the penthouse apartments in Manhattan. Everyone knows that logo. Everyone knows that team. Everyone knows when you say "baseball", the Yankees are simply synonymous with it.

I doubt everyone could say the same of a lower-end team. Especially an expansion franchise. The baseball analogy specifically fails on me because I just don't watch it, and haven't followed the game since the 90's when I was a kid and still a fan/viewer. But I'd imagine an Arizona Diamondbacks or Florida Marlins farewell tour wouldn't draw nearly as well as one in the Bronx for [insert iconic player here].

At the end of the day, if a guy wants to do his retirement on a stage other than WWE, that's his prerogative, and he shouldn't be chastised for that decision simply because you (the proverbial you), as a WWE fan, are upset he didn't select your brand. I'm a TNA fan. Am I upset Sting won't go out in a TNA ring? Sure. I'd have loved for him to retire here. But I won't admonish him for choosing otherwise. He felt WWE offered him a better send-off. He knows a lot better than I.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

TNA's more like the New York Mets. They're a team which was very expensive to put together and occasionally excites their fans with rare flashes of brilliance, but their ownership is extremely flaky, it's very apparent that they've never had a long-term plan, and whenever they do get your hopes up for something they almost always disappoint you. Many people feel that it would be best for the franchise if the current owner sold their interest.

I know you said you're not a baseball guy, but the Oakland A's are a team which gets consistent, surprising results in a small-market city while keeping their payroll tight, which, not quite TNA.

(ROH would be the Pittsburgh Pirates of this analogy- another low-budget team in a small market where most people don't know where it is, who have been the butt of people's jokes for years, but have been following a steady plan for a long time and are finally starting to impress people after years of going unrecognized.

ECW would be the Montreal Expos- they had a pair of really good years which people remember fondly, but for the most part were a train wreck whose only financial success came when someone else bought the company and started utilizing the trademarks.)

OK, so use the Mets as an example then. If a player decides his farewell tour will be with them, instead of the Yankees, can you really fault them for that decision if they have stronger ties to the former? I get it, from the perspective of a Yankees fan, in feeling slighted over the decision to go with a "lesser" or "inferior" club, but at the end of the day, its' the decision of the talent that should be respected provided the decision is being made logically and not just based entirely on payout (like Flair, Booker T, etc. with TNA).

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

Never understood the need to label wrestlers as "WWe/ WCW/ TNA/ RoH rejects". My only concern as a wrestling fan is how they are used/ how they act in their new environment. If they entertain, why should I care how they got to where they are now?

The Wolves/ Hardyz/ 3D tag series was fantastic - did it detract that it was between WWe and RoH 'rejects'? Nope! The sterling bouts WWe 'reject' Lashley had with guys like (fellow WWe reject) Jeff Hardy, (RoH reject) Austin Aries or (so called TNA originals) Eric Young and Bobby Roode were good because these are great athletes not because of where people perceive as their 'home'.

Yes, the WWe is the top federation in the world but they generally offer a terrible work/ life balance to all but the biggest names. TNA is an internationally viewed company that offers a much lighter schedule and international exposure (the one true advantage it still holds over RoH).

 

[Dirk]

Dammit, people! It's the Impact Support Club House.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

Dammit, people! It's the Impact Support Club House.

Did the boss's or my support not come across?

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Never understood the need to label wrestlers as "WWe/ WCW/ TNA/ RoH rejects". My only concern as a wrestling fan is how they are used/ how they act in their new environment. If they entertain, why should I care how they got to where they are now?

The Wolves/ Hardyz/ 3D tag series was fantastic - did it detract that it was between WWe and RoH 'rejects'? Nope! The sterling bouts WWe 'reject' Lashley had with guys like (fellow WWe reject) Jeff Hardy, (RoH reject) Austin Aries or (so called TNA originals) Eric Young and Bobby Roode were good because these are great athletes not because of where people perceive as their 'home'.

Yes, the WWe is the top federation in the world but they generally offer a terrible work/ life balance to all but the biggest names. TNA is an internationally viewed company that offers a much lighter schedule and international exposure (the one true advantage it still holds over RoH).

Oh, no doubt about it.

Let me be clear, I posted the Sting as a TNA-Reject comment with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek. It was designed to point out the absurdity of labeling performers by where they performed the way so many users on this forum have for years.

But more specifically, how it's a one-way street. It's all gravy when the shoe is on the other foot and ROH/TNA/what have you-"rejects" head to WWE.

 

[The Dragon Saga]

TNA is an internationally viewed company that offers a much lighter schedule and international exposure (the one true advantage it still holds over RoH).

And I'll never deny that by the way. ROH isn't on TV in the UK and Ireland. You can watch it in the UK and Ireland from their website, but if you're flicking through channels you won't find it on. That said, it still has an international appeal, case in point, four sold-out shows with Preston City Wrestling this coming weekend titled Supershow of Honor. Which includes the fastest ever sold-out show PCW has had and they've had guys like Team 3D over there and they didn't sell out. If you're a wrestler, sure, TNA is the way to go if you want to be seen in the UK by people on TV, but realistically, if you were a wrestler would that be the definitive reasoning for you signing a contract? Nah.

 

[Dirk]

Did the boss's or my support not come across?

Not you two. The ...other... one.

 

[ABMorales787]

Oh, no doubt about it.

Let me be clear, I posted the Sting as a TNA-Reject comment with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek. It was designed to point out the absurdity of labeling performers by where they performed the way so many users on this forum have for years.

But more specifically, how it's a one-way street. It's all gravy when the shoe is on the other foot and ROH/TNA/what have you-"rejects" head to WWE.

You'd be surprised by the level of negativity dirtsheet reveiwers seem to have towards it.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

You'd be surprised by the level of negativity dirtsheet reveiwers seem to have towards it.

Not that I give a flying shit what dirt sheet reviewers think about much of anything, but I'm curious... why?

 

[Thriller Ant]

Not that I give a flying shit what dirt sheet reviewers think about much of anything, but I'm curious... why?

When I see people shit on TNA, I think they tend to fall into one of two categories:

-They know/think it's cool to shit on TNA. It's a common thing in any form of pop culture: if something is widely believed to be a joke, you are expected to believe the same thing. TNA fall in that category for much of the IWC.

-They are disappointed in TNA. I would probably fall into this category, even though I try not to actively shit on the company. With the people and stories they've had over the years, TNA should've been so much better. The fact that they have capitalized on the potential they've had at different points is very frustrating and causes myself and others to be down on the company.

 

[klunderbunker]

I'm not a dirt sheet reviewer but I work in the same field. To those who thought it was bad, I saw this:

Get over yourselves and be a fan.

 

[ABMorales787]

Not that I give a flying shit what dirt sheet reviewers think about much of anything, but I'm curious... why?

More along the line of "based on how he was in TNA, he's not gonna be able to deliver on a big match".

I kind of agree, but theyre painting it as not even a perfectly healthy Triple H could help.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

When I see people shit on TNA, I think they tend to fall into one of two categories:

-They know/think it's cool to shit on TNA. It's a common thing in any form of pop culture: if something is widely believed to be a joke, you are expected to believe the same thing. TNA fall in that category for much of the IWC.

-They are disappointed in TNA. I would probably fall into this category, even though I try not to actively shit on the company. With the people and stories they've had over the years, TNA should've been so much better. The fact that they have capitalized on the potential they've had at different points is very frustrating and causes myself and others to be down on the company.

When I see people shit on TNA, they fall almost exclusively into the first bucket, because people in the second bucket (of disappointment) tend to take a different approach:

The people in the second bucket don't shit on the product. They take defensive/offensive positions against various things TNA is doing, but the approach is almost always tactical and designed at how it/they could be improved. The criticisms are almost never the at-your-expense variety. They tend to forego the low-hanging fruit jokes that the first bucket cling to like flies to shit, and their opinions are, by sheer comparison to the first bucket, of substantially greater value. Ben Franklin once said "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do." — those words ring truer by the day (or by the post) for the first bucket.

This all goes back to the post I wrote here years ago in a TNA LD that was being flooded with first bucket whiners where I laid into them about as well as I've ever laid into anyone here regarding the level of masochism and self-harm it required for anyone to actively continue to watch a product they hated that much. And that group, at least at the time, included KB. It's our long-standing feud, really, though at least in his case he gets paid to be that guy (from time-to-time). That's a lot more than can be said of the rest of the group hanging around at that time.

 

[Starkist]

Nah, caught a clip on YouTube, or some other video service this morning.

I just dig Sting, so I was into it, even though I have no context for why he was there, or what was going on in the ring.



I was just taking a shot at the history of "WWE reject" stuff that killed the TNA section of the forum. Not that there weren't a number of talents that would meet that criteria, but that basically anyone who even had a cup of coffee with WWE came into the company with this stigma from non-fans of TNA. A stigma that seemingly disappeared (disappears?) when the reverse happens.

Sting to WWE? YES! STING! OMG!
Angle to TNA? OMG, washed up has-been! WWE reject! Enjoy our scraps! LULZ!

Generally speaking, of course.

I know bud, I understood.

 

[klunderbunker]

When I see people shit on TNA, they fall almost exclusively into the first bucket, because people in the second bucket (of disappointment) tend to take a different approach:

The people in the second bucket don't shit on the product. They take defensive/offensive positions against various things TNA is doing, but the approach is almost always tactical and designed at how it/they could be improved. The criticisms are almost never the at-your-expense variety. They tend to forego the low-hanging fruit jokes that the first bucket cling to like flies to shit, and their opinions are, by sheer comparison to the first bucket, of substantially greater value. Ben Franklin once said "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do." — those words ring truer by the day (or by the post) for the first bucket.

This all goes back to the post I wrote here years ago in a TNA LD that was being flooded with first bucket whiners where I laid into them about as well as I've ever laid into anyone here regarding the level of masochism and self-harm it required for anyone to actively continue to watch a product they hated that much. And that group, at least at the time, included KB. It's our long-standing feud, really, though at least in his case he gets paid to be that guy (from time-to-time). That's a lot more than can be said of the rest of the group hanging around at that time.

I know you don't believe it when I say this (and I can understand why) but the vast majority of my complaints are because the company frustrated me. There's so much talent around there and there was potential to be very good but they kept making the same mistakes over and over. That, plus Hogan and Bischoff destroying almost everything good and dragging the show through the floor, was what drove me insane. Even back when you and I went at it more than ever, it was because TNA frustrated me by repeating the same mistakes, with the main one being not making new stars and relying on older names.

As for the WWE rejects part, sometimes it does come off like they'll hire anyone WWE let go, but they've toned it down a good bit in the last few years. Also, sometimes you get a guy like Carter, who was nothing in WWE and now is one of the best guys on the roster. He showed that potential in WWE on NXT but he never got to showcase it. That hire made sense when they made it, whereas I'll never see the logic in bringing in someone like Val Venis or Test.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

Oh, no doubt about it.

Let me be clear, I posted the Sting as a TNA-Reject comment with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek. It was designed to point out the absurdity of labeling performers by where they performed the way so many users on this forum have for years.

But more specifically, how it's a one-way street. It's all gravy when the shoe is on the other foot and ROH/TNA/what have you-"rejects" head to WWE.

Oh I knew you were lampooning the same old shtick we've heard for years and years irrespective of how good the product might have been at various junctures because of these signings.

And while it was tongue in cheek, by the definition that many have used for labeling TNA guys as WWe/RoH rejects - Sting IS a TNA reject simply because they did not believe he was worth the money (and the same can also be said about the likes of Hogan, Flair, Foley, Styles, Nash, Bully Ray etc)... and you know what? I'll happily mark out for WWe reject ADR in TNA if it happens AND I'll happily mark out if TNA reject Sting succeeds in WWe.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

It's the term "reject" I hate. It's a stigmatized word to devalue the performer to a point of absurdity, as though they've been infected with some horrific, incurable virus that's going to infect anything else they touch again.

 

[Starkist]

Yeah, people hate but forget that WcW and thee then WWF traded people left and right. Hell, they even took titles into the other promotion and threw them in trash barrels. Where they "rejects" then? No, so why is it a thing now.

 

[ABMorales787]

Del Rio was a CMLL reject when WWE picked him up anyway.

 

[Rayne]

Yeah, people hate but forget that WcW and thee then WWF traded people left and right. Hell, they even took titles into the other promotion and threw them in trash barrels. Where they "rejects" then? No, so why is it a thing now.

Because between WCW and WWE, there was real debate as to which was the better promotion. Performers were switching companies because one would call a guy working for the other and say 'we'll take what they're giving you, and raise it 50%'.

That isn't the situation today; you have one predominant company, and one second-place company. There is no question as to which one will give you more money and exposure. This is why the 'reject' label gets used now, because guys don't go to TNA for the huge package deal and the media crossover possibilities, they go to TNA because the WWE didn't want them.

I don't always agree with the way the 'reject' label gets thrown around on this board, but let's not play clueless as to where it came from.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

I know you don't believe it when I say this (and I can understand why) but the vast majority of my complaints are because the company frustrated me. There's so much talent around there and there was potential to be very good but they kept making the same mistakes over and over. That, plus Hogan and Bischoff destroying almost everything good and dragging the show through the floor, was what drove me insane. Even back when you and I went at it more than ever, it was because TNA frustrated me by repeating the same mistakes, with the main one being not making new stars and relying on older names.

As for the WWE rejects part, sometimes it does come off like they'll hire anyone WWE let go, but they've toned it down a good bit in the last few years. Also, sometimes you get a guy like Carter, who was nothing in WWE and now is one of the best guys on the roster. He showed that potential in WWE on NXT but he never got to showcase it. That hire made sense when they made it, whereas I'll never see the logic in bringing in someone like Val Venis or Test.

It's not so much logic as it is value that I tend to use as a fulcrum. Is there value in Val Venis? Nope. So why do it? Same would have went for Test, who also flopped, or a lot of other guys.

On the flip side, was there value in Booker T? Ric Flair? Yes and yes. The problem is, both men were in it for the wrong reasons, so there's more than one way to skin a cat here.

Because between WCW and WWE, there was real debate as to which was the better promotion. Performers were switching companies because one would call a guy working for the other and say 'we'll take what they're giving you, and raise it 50%'.

That isn't the situation today; you have one predominant company, and one second-place company. There is no question as to which one will give you more money and exposure. This is why the 'reject' label gets used now, because guys don't go to TNA for the huge package deal and the media crossover possibilities, they go to TNA because the WWE didn't want them.

I don't always agree with the way the 'reject' label gets thrown around on this board, but let's not play clueless as to where it came from.

I'm not. I've even admitted earlier that there are some guys who absolutely fit that mold. What I reject is the principle that anyone going one way or the other should receive that label on their way out the door of wherever they are leaving, like a scarlet letter, so the world can remember forever the terrible choice they've made, or the fact they're no longer wanted.

I'd chalk up the Black Reign character, for example, in TNA, as exactly that. A cast-off that TNA tried to do their own spin on, that just went nowhere. In a lot of ways, the same goes for Jethro Holliday (Trevor Murdoch), and a handful of others.