IMPACT Wrestling LD for 08.18.11

[JJYanks121]

Okay, just finished the show. Mexican America with the tag belts? It's nice they're finally off of Beer Money, but man, what a terrible team to give them to. The match itself was the typical half-thought out overbooked mess of an Impact main event. Someone needs to explain to me why the fuck Mexican America would align themselves with a white man who is very clearly mocking their entire culture and way of life, the one thing their entire group and stable is supposed to be about. And what does Jarrett have against Beer Money? But no, more importantly, WHY THE FUCK WOULD MEXICAN AMERICA WANT JEFF JARRETT'S HELP?! Are they supposed to mentally ******ed or something?

Show was decent at points, the wrestling was nice in the gauntlet and I liked a few of the segments (mainly those involving Flair being batshit crazy AKA Ric Flair) but overall not a very strong effort. Definitely not the worst Impact I've seen in the last 6 months, but not exactly good either. Mediocre would be the appropriate word I think.

My guess is that the writers are just assuming people are so stupid at this point that the very idea that Jarrett is doing something with Mexico and Mexican America's gimmick has to do with Mexico.........well that means they have something in common. Nevermind that they literally have opposite ideologies despite being heels, the word Mexico is involved so they are the same!

Obviously you can tell, I'm with you. It's another stupid move and for the life of me, I don't know why anyone would buy into this as a good idea.

 

[X]

You know I really liked this whole heel chicano power stable idea...six years ago...when it was called LAX and was done infinitely better with better and more motivated wrestlers, promo ability, and managers.

SO glad Hernandez went to Mexico for that big learning excursion while they fired Homicide, they were just building up to this EPIC angle obviously.

 

[hatehabsforever]

No need to worry about such trivialities as logic or common sense. Apparently, all you have to do is inundate us with an onslaught of nostalgia, and the casual fans/ wrestling sheep will immediately accept it. That's the message I've been getting. To hell with consistency or forethought, just thrust Hogan and Flair into the picture, front and centre of course, and nothing else really matters. Styles, Crimson, and these guys, their time will magically come later. In the meantime, Hogan, Bischoff, and Flair are here to save the day. Again.

 

[Slyfox696]

Purely conjecture on my part, but I would love to know which group would comprise the larger number: the number of casual fans who will tune in specifically to see Hogan and Flair, or the number of fans who will tune out specifically because they are being featured, and likely main eventing, in 2011. I know which group I fall into, and I would postulate that it is the bigger group than the nostalgia buffs, and I think the BFG numbers will prove it. I guess we'll see.

When it comes to actually paying for a ticket to the show, the names Hogan, Flair, Sting and Angle on the marquee will sell better than Crimson, Gunner, Young, and Joe. Or whichever young guy is relevant at the moment.

Point taken with Swagger, but let's face it, not all pushes will work out. They tried Swagger, it didn't work out, back to the mid card, and that's that. Still waiting for the push for JoMo, although I think they missed the boat here and it's too late to push him now.

Waiting on what push for JoMo? The guy has been made to look strong for years now, what exactly do you want?

What I am saying is if they are going to have Crimson tear through the ranks in an unbeaten streak, and speculate him as an opponent for Goldberg, they must see at least something in him. This is at least worthy of somewhere on the poster. I'm not saying he should be the focal point, or that the fogies shouldn't be there at all, I'm simply saying that he and Styles belong on there somewhere. Sure, give him a gradual exposure to the spotlight, but be sure to expose him, rather than omitting him altogether.

He hasn't even worked a year in the company, is that correct? Why do they have to feature him now? He's an unproven commodity, unlike everyone else on that poster.

The guy has years to be on posters, he can be on next years. What's the rush? And, more importantly, since when did we attach such a value to being on a poster?

I never suggested featuring him, all I said was put the guy on the poster. If he is going to be the potential future, at least put him in the corner of the poster, somewhat associated with Angle, who he should be facing in the main event. Are you telling me that Hogan, Flair, and Sting will provide anything "exciting, thrilling, or interesting?".

If Sting wrestles either Hogan or Flair, I'd be much more interested in purchasing the PPV than if Crimson was wrestling Gunner in the main-event. So yes, exciting, thrilling and interesting definitely go to Sting, Flair and Hogan.

If BFG is the biggest event of the year, why not feature someone who can still walk and talk.

You're confusing me. Did you not just say, "Fact of the matter is that at this stage of the game, no one on the TNA roster is going to sell tickets."? So why would we feature a guy who will sell less tickets in the big event than three guys who will sell more?

That's like saying we should have more Stephanie McMahon and less Vince, when it's clear Vince is easily the best McMahon around. Wrestling is not about "youth", wrestling is about making money. You put the guys who make the money in the best position. Simple as that.

I'm going to laugh my fucking ass off when Hogan gets back in the ring and then immediately injures himself. I'm going to cry with delicious laughter.

So if I laugh when you have a horrible car accident because you're high, it's okay?

What kind of person laughs when another man gets injured, especially when it hurts his ability to do his job?

 

[hatehabsforever]

When it comes to actually paying for a ticket to the show, the names Hogan, Flair, Sting and Angle on the marquee will sell better than Crimson, Gunner, Young, and Joe. Or whichever young guy is relevant at the moment.

I would accept this as fact. However that was not the question I was asking. You, for example, may choose to purchase BFG specifically to see the older guys on the roster. +1 for TNA. I, on the other hand, will specifically refuse to do so because of the same geezers. -1 for TNA. At the end of the day, how will the numbers net out? I would suggest that featuring these relics in the main event in 2011 will alienate more potential customers than it will attract. Let's wait and see.

Waiting on what push for JoMo? The guy has been made to look strong for years now, what exactly do you want?

A main event title shot would be a nice place to start. He has been pushed to the upper mid card,which is admittedly pretty good. I'd like to see a title shot for some major gold.

He hasn't even worked a year in the company, is that correct? Why do they have to feature him now? He's an unproven commodity, unlike everyone else on that poster.

People have been misunderstanding my point. They don't necessarily have to feature him, I just think he deserves a little more prominence leading up to the event. Let's face it, if the IWC wet dream comes true and he ever faces Goldberg, they better be prepared to feature him then. I have not been suggesting putting him and Angle front and centre on the poster; I just think he deserves somewhere on the poster, especially since he will either win the BFG series, or fall just short.

The guy has years to be on posters, he can be on next years. What's the rush? And, more importantly, since when did we attach such a value to being on a poster?

Point well taken, the significance of the poster is not that great, it was simply something I used to generate some discussion regarding the apparent mind frame of the creative geniuses at TNA, and their consistently myopic vision of the direction of the company as it limps into the next decade. Truth be told, the poster is irrelevant, I just think it speaks volumes of how the company thinks on a go forward basis.

If Sting wrestles either Hogan or Flair, I'd be much more interested in purchasing the PPV than if Crimson was wrestling Gunner in the main-event. So yes, exciting, thrilling and interesting definitely go to Sting, Flair and Hogan.

Come on now, don't exaggerate. No one is suggesting a Crimson/Gunner main event. Two unprovens concurrently would be a disaster. But one relative unknown, in a program with one of the best of all time, that could appeal to me. Much more so than two '80's stars.

I posed the question in the Sting/Flair thread. At what point does Flair and Hogan's appearances in the ring become ludicrous? Sure wrestling is all about kayfabe, but there has to be at least superficial plausibility. At what point does Flair have to leave the ring once and for all? One more year? Two? More? I say they reached that point at least 5 years ago, and that's being kind. Flair and Hogan are too old to compete, never mind main event the biggest program of the year in the company.

You're confusing me. Did you not just say, "Fact of the matter is that at this stage of the game, no one on the TNA roster is going to sell tickets."? So why would we feature a guy who will sell less tickets in the big event than three guys who will sell more?

I guess what I am trying to say is that regardless of who does or doesn't appear, TNA isn't exactly going to set the world on fire with PPV buys, attendance figures, or merchandise sales. What would be wrong with the numbers being down slightly, while shifting the focus of the company which could mean more success in the future. You know, short term pain for long term gain.

That's like saying we should have more Stephanie McMahon and less Vince, when it's clear Vince is easily the best McMahon around. Wrestling is not about "youth", wrestling is about making money. You put the guys who make the money in the best position. Simple as that.

See previous paragraph.

 

[Slyfox696]

I would accept this as fact. However that was not the question I was asking. You, for example, may choose to purchase BFG specifically to see the older guys on the roster. +1 for TNA. I, on the other hand, will specifically refuse to do so because of the same geezers. -1 for TNA. At the end of the day, how will the numbers net out? I would suggest that featuring these relics in the main event in 2011 will alienate more potential customers than it will attract. Let's wait and see.

I don't see why it would. I mean, most of the same guys you'd be willing to buy the show for are still on the card as well. I seriously doubt most people are not going to buy a show because the biggest draw in history, and the man recognized by many as the greatest wrestler ever are on the show.

A main event title shot would be a nice place to start.

He's been in title matches, but he's not ready. He's not good enough, and he doesn't have the credibility with the crowd. And he's an absolutely horrible actor.

People have been misunderstanding my point. They don't necessarily have to feature him, I just think he deserves a little more prominence leading up to the event. Let's face it, if the IWC wet dream comes true and he ever faces Goldberg, they better be prepared to feature him then. I have not been suggesting putting him and Angle front and centre on the poster; I just think he deserves somewhere on the poster, especially since he will either win the BFG series, or fall just short.

Point well taken, the significance of the poster is not that great, it was simply something I used to generate some discussion regarding the apparent mind frame of the creative geniuses at TNA, and their consistently myopic vision of the direction of the company as it limps into the next decade. Truth be told, the poster is irrelevant, I just think it speaks volumes of how the company thinks on a go forward basis.

Let me see if I have this right.

You don't really care about the poster, it was just an arbitrary talking point in order for you to make the point you want Crimson featured more, but you don't really care if he's featured until there's something worth featuring him over. Is that all correct?

As far as TNA limping into the new decade...I'm afraid I don't follow. At a time the WWE seems to be fighting hard to maintain viewership, and at worst losing viewers, TNA is raising the rating which fans think is low and building their fanbase. Whereas a few years ago, a .8 or .9 was low and a 1.1 was usually the high end of what they could draw, now a 1.1 is considered low and they average a 1.2, is that correct? Whereas people used to say they would have to leave the Impact Zone if they were to ever be seen as credible, they now have plans to take Impact Wrestling on the road. Whereas TNA was losing money every month three years ago, we now have reports that each month they're operating in the black.

So please explain this whole "limping" into the next decade thing. I'm afraid I don't follow. When your average ratings go up, when you're able to tour to different markets, and you turn a profit when you couldn't before, then I'm not sure how that can be seen as "limping".

Come on now, don't exaggerate. No one is suggesting a Crimson/Gunner main event. Two unprovens concurrently would be a disaster. But one relative unknown, in a program with one of the best of all time, that could appeal to me. Much more so than two '80's stars.

So...you want to see superstar vs. unproven? Why not put superstar vs. superstar in your main-event? And then, later down the road, when one of these guys have proven they can hang, then put him in the main-event?

I posed the question in the Sting/Flair thread. At what point does Flair and Hogan's appearances in the ring become ludicrous? Sure wrestling is all about kayfabe, but there has to be at least superficial plausibility. At what point does Flair have to leave the ring once and for all? One more year? Two? More? I say they reached that point at least 5 years ago, and that's being kind. Flair and Hogan are too old to compete, never mind main event the biggest program of the year in the company.

This whole paragraph is based upon your theory that people buy wrestling shows for technical classics. Contrary to this popular Internet belief, wrestling fans buy wrestling shows for the interesting stories, and the excitement the idea of the match can bring.

Sting vs. Hogan, a rematch of the match which began WCW's slide into its coffin can sell. Sting vs. Flair, a match people haven't seen in 10 years (at least not on PPV, if I'm not mistaken), and is legendary for its quality, can sell. Sting vs. random rookie A, who people like myself who don't watch TNA regularly don't know, isn't quite the sell.

If I buy Bound For Glory, it won't be because the story of the matches intrigued me, but because the matchups themselves intrigue me.

I guess what I am trying to say is that regardless of who does or doesn't appear, TNA isn't exactly going to set the world on fire with PPV buys, attendance figures, or merchandise sales. What would be wrong with the numbers being down slightly, while shifting the focus of the company which could mean more success in the future. You know, short term pain for long term gain.

Then do that on your "B" shows. Do that on one of the other 11 PPV shows you have a year. But this is your big payoff, the one event which brings in the most money. This is the show where your talent gets paid a little bit more. You don't WANT Bound For Glory to see like just another show. You WANT this show to have the same prestige for TNA that Wrestlemania has for the WWE. You agree Crimson isn't ready for the main-event, so why would you put him there? You have 11 other PPVs you can build him with, this is not the PPV for it.

 

[hatehabsforever]

I don't see why it would. I mean, most of the same guys you'd be willing to buy the show for are still on the card as well. I seriously doubt most people are not going to buy a show because the biggest draw in history, and the man recognized by many as the greatest wrestler ever are on the show.

Maybe you are correct, maybe most people won't view this situation the same way I do. For me, Sting versus Flair, and eventually Hogan, is a deterrent to my purchasing this event. It's an insult to my intelligence, being expected to buy into these guys as being in the main event at this stage of the game. Perhaps the majority will disagree with me and see it your way. Past greatness and past drawing ability does little to impress me personally.

He's been in title matches, but he's not ready. He's not good enough, and he doesn't have the credibility with the crowd. And he's an absolutely horrible actor.

Has he been in any one on one title matches on PPV, because I cannot think of any? Maybe he's not ready. Maybe he's not good enough. No denying he's a horrible actor, I cannot debate that. I think he earned a shot to show if he's ready or not, and he hasn't really been given that opportunity.

You don't really care about the poster, it was just an arbitrary talking point in order for you to make the point you want Crimson featured more, but you don't really care if he's featured until there's something worth featuring him over. Is that all correct?

This whole discussion started with me stating that I enjoyed Crimson last night (one of the few things I did enjoy) and I wondered why he isn't even on the poster, seeing how he is potentially poised to win the two month tournament leading up to BFG. The discussion evolved from there. All I said was that he has earned a spot on the promotional poster for BFG. I don't care if ne is the total focal point of the poster, but I think it is a glaring omission to not nave him on there in some capacity. So no, I don't fully agree with the trivial way you state it.

So...you want to see superstar vs. unproven? Why not put superstar vs. superstar in your main-event? And then, later down the road, when one of these guys have proven they can hang, then put him in the main-event?

In this case, I would like to see superstar versus unproven in the main event. Simply put, the superstar in this scenario can elevate the unproven to proven virtually overnight. How better to give the guy credibility than to have a tremendous showing at the biggest event of the year? I see to remember some virtually unknown dude who debuted against the same Kurt Angle 8 or 9 years ago, and that likely fast tracked him to credibility. It didn't seem to be too long before this unproven entity was a big deal. Seems to have worked out OK. Sometimes you need some progressive thinking, as well as some courage and some luck, to find that next guy. If you aren't prepared to roll the dice, you may never find that guy.

This whole paragraph is based upon your theory that people buy wrestling shows for technical classics. Contrary to this popular Internet belief, wrestling fans buy wrestling shows for the interesting stories, and the excitement the idea of the match can bring.

I certainly don't purchase pro wrestling for technical classics. Quite the opposite, I watch it for the whole male soap opera situation. I watch it for interesting stories and excitement, both of which are lacking in seeing Ric freaking Flair wooing and bleeding all over the ring well past his prime. Now seeing someone like Crimson take Kurt Angle to the limit, that could be exciting. Seeing Crimson beat Angle and look at the camera after and ask "who's next", that's exciting. Seeing AJ Styles display his wrestling prowess against someone credible, that's exciting. Seeing Hogan limp around the ring, doing the same moves that were getting old 10 years ago when he was still relevant, that does absolutely nothing to excite me whatsoever.

Sting vs. Hogan, a rematch of the match which began WCW's slide into its coffin can sell. Sting vs. Flair, a match people haven't seen in 10 years (at least not on PPV, if I'm not mistaken), and is legendary for its quality, can sell. Sting vs. random rookie A, who people like myself who don't watch TNA regularly don't know, isn't quite the sell.

Consistent with the myopic vision of TNA. Looking only at the one PPV, with no idea what to do beyond it. As you said, this is a rematch from 10 years ago. Ten freaking years, and these guys were already in decline at this point.

If I buy Bound For Glory, it won't be because the story of the matches intrigued me, but because the matchups themselves intrigue me.

This seems inconsistent with what you said above. You just said wrestling fans purchase shows for the "interesting stories", yet you won't purchase it for such interesting stories. You will (if you in fact do) because the match up intrigues you, which is hard for me to comprehend. Intrigued by Flair/Hogan/Sting in 2011, I simply cannot imagine it. Especially when I fear what the writing on the wall here would appear to be.

Then do that on your "B" shows. Do that on one of the other 11 PPV shows you have a year. But this is your big payoff, the one event which brings in the most money. This is the show where your talent gets paid a little bit more. You don't WANT Bound For Glory to see like just another show. You WANT this show to have the same prestige for TNA that Wrestlemania has for the WWE. You agree Crimson isn't ready for the main-event, so why would you put him there? You have 11 other PPVs you can build him with, this is not the PPV for it.

As I said earlier, people will not purchase your B shows if you consistently disappoint with your A show. I'm proof positive of this, when BFG 2010 was such an immense disappointment and I haven't purchased a TNA PPV since.

 

[X]

So if I laugh when you have a horrible car accident because you're high, it's okay?

Totally okay by me dude, but I don't drive these days, I just walk everywhere in town, so odds of me being in a wreck probably aren't very good.

What kind of person laughs when another man gets injured, especially when it hurts his ability to do his job?

Dude I do not give a fuck about Hulk Hogan's well being, sorry. He's a nice enough guy and he's obviously done incredible things for the business, but overall I just don't want him involved in wrestling anymore. I haven't wanted him involved in wrestling for many years now. So yes, I will callously laugh when he breaks his hip when he steps back in the ring Sly, because his doctors have been telling him non-stop that that sort of thing is just what's about to happen to him if he wrestles again.

 

[Slyfox696]

Has he been in any one on one title matches on PPV, because I cannot think of any? Maybe he's not ready. Maybe he's not good enough. No denying he's a horrible actor, I cannot debate that. I think he earned a shot to show if he's ready or not, and he hasn't really been given that opportunity.

He's been in title matches, not necessarily one-on-one, but he has been in them. In fact, wasn't he in one this year with Cena and Miz? And how can you put your World title on someone you can't build a story around? How can you put your World title on someone people aren't willing to part with their money to see?

The point is that just pushing young guys is not enough to make people care about them. You don't push young guys, you push the right guys. Batista was nearly 40 when he got his main-event run...can you argue with his success?

I don't care if ne is the total focal point of the poster, but I think it is a glaring omission to not nave him on there in some capacity. So no, I don't fully agree with the trivial way you state it.

Tell me, what has he done to deserve billing on the same level as the guys who are?

In this case, I would like to see superstar versus unproven in the main event.

And if you were running the company and a huge payday rested on the shoulders of this decision, would you still feel that way? If you were one of the talent on the show, and your big bonus was dependent upon a good draw for the show, would you still feel that way?

Somehow, I just don't think you would. The biggest show of the year is not when you test something, it's when you go with what you know will work. Save the testing stuff for other shows.

How better to give the guy credibility than to have a tremendous showing at the biggest event of the year?

Who cares? Is that going to make people retroactively go back and buy tickets for the show? Are people going to call up their cable provider and demand they get get to pay for Bound For Glory after it's over? Of course not.

It's not about what happens on the show itself, but rather how many people you get to invest in the show.

I see to remember some virtually unknown dude who debuted against the same Kurt Angle 8 or 9 years ago, and that likely fast tracked him to credibility. It didn't seem to be too long before this unproven entity was a big deal.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it nearly three years after that debut before said previously unknown dude got his face on the poster of the biggest show of the year?

Seems to have worked out OK.

It sure did...three years later.

Seeing Crimson beat Angle and look at the camera after and ask "who's next", that's exciting. Seeing AJ Styles display his wrestling prowess against someone credible, that's exciting. Seeing Hogan limp around the ring, doing the same moves that were getting old 10 years ago when he was still relevant, that does absolutely nothing to excite me whatsoever.

Again, you're talking about what happens after the money is already laid down or not. I'm talking about what makes people lay down the money in the first place.

Consistent with the myopic vision of TNA. Looking only at the one PPV, with no idea what to do beyond it.

Again, I feel you're missing the point.

This is THE show of the year. Everything builds for this one show. Hell, how long have they been doing the BFG Series? Months now, correct? Bound For Glory is just like Wrestlemania in that you don't book the show after Bound For Glory until the PPV goes off the air. Bound For Glory is the climax of the wrestling year for TNA, just like Wrestlemania is for the WWE. Hell, what kind of pre-planning does the WWE do for after Wrestlemania? If you said "none" to yourself, then you are right. That's why Backlash (and I guess it's now Extreme Rules?) is almost always a very similar card to what you see at Wrestlemania. Look at this year's cards:

Wrestlemania:

Edge (w/ Christian) vs. Del Rio
Rhodes vs. Mysterio
Kane/Big Show/Santino/Kofi vs. Barrett/Jackson/Gabriel/Slater
Orton vs. Punk
Cole vs. Lawler
Undertaker vs. Triple H
Snooki/Stratus/Morrison vs. Ziggler/Layla/McCool
Miz vs. Cena

Extreme Rules:

Orton vs. Punk
Kingston vs. Sheamus
Cole/Swagger vs. Lawler/Ross
Mysterio vs. Rhodes
Layla vs. McCool
Christian vs. Del Rio
Big Show/Kane vs. Barrett/Jackson
Cena vs. Miz vs. Morrison

Notice how similar those cards are? The WWE books Wrestlemania in the same manner you're bashing TNA for booking Bound For Glory. This is the biggest show of the year, and everything you do builds to this. It's silly to worry about the Monday after BFG, when all you need to be worrying about right now is BFG.

This seems inconsistent with what you said above. You just said wrestling fans purchase shows for the "interesting stories", yet you won't purchase it for such interesting stories. You will (if you in fact do) because the match up intrigues you, which is hard for me to comprehend. Intrigued by Flair/Hogan/Sting in 2011, I simply cannot imagine it. Especially when I fear what the writing on the wall here would appear to be.

What I meant was that no matter what kind of feud you write for Crimson from now until BFG, it's not going to interest me as much as seeing Sting vs. Hogan on the marquee. That is a far more interesting matchup/story than Crimson and whatever story they give him.

I can see where that would be confusing, but I was in a hurry to finish the post.

As I said earlier, people will not purchase your B shows if you consistently disappoint with your A show. I'm proof positive of this, when BFG 2010 was such an immense disappointment and I haven't purchased a TNA PPV since.

Ironically enough, the main-event of last year's BFG featured Kurt Angle, the main-event newcomer Mr. Anderson and the main-event newcomer Jeff Hardy.

So...basically when TNA gave the guys who were fairly new to the main-event (Anderson and Hardy) the spotlight, it turned you off so much you haven't purchased another show since. Seems kind of inconsistent with what you're saying about Sting vs. Hogan/Flair, doesn't it?

 

[Slyfox696]

Totally okay by me dude, but I don't drive these days, I just walk everywhere in town, so odds of me being in a wreck probably aren't very good.

Dude I do not give a fuck about Hulk Hogan's well being, sorry. He's a nice enough guy and he's obviously done incredible things for the business, but overall I just don't want him involved in wrestling anymore. I haven't wanted him involved in wrestling for many years now. So yes, I will callously laugh when he breaks his hip when he steps back in the ring Sly, because his doctors have been telling him non-stop that that sort of thing is just what's about to happen to him if he wrestles again.

And if I mock people for being sad because someone they don't know killed themselves after years of drug and alcohol abuse, you're okay with that as well?

 

[X]

And if I mock people for being sad because someone they don't know killed themselves after years of drug and alcohol abuse, you're okay with that as well?

Uh yeah, you can go ahead and say anything that you want. That's your right. Doesn't make it right though.

 

[hatehabsforever]

He's been in title matches, not necessarily one-on-one, but he has been in them. In fact, wasn't he in one this year with Cena and Miz? And how can you put your World title on someone you can't build a story around? How can you put your World title on someone people aren't willing to part with their money to see?

Sure, he was in this title match but let's face it, he had no real shot here, he was clearly the third man who had no realistic shot to win. By the way, this is drifting off topic, don't try to cloud the issue sidetracking me

And if you were running the company and a huge payday rested on the shoulders of this decision, would you still feel that way? If you were one of the talent on the show, and your big bonus was dependent upon a good draw for the show, would you still feel that way?

Somehow, I just don't think you would. The biggest show of the year is not when you test something, it's when you go with what you know will work. Save the testing stuff for other shows.

Huge payday? Big bonus? Your vision is surprisingly short sighted. I think if I were running the company, I would try to think well beyond the BFG PPV. I would not be trying to score one big payday, with nothing following it. And I don't think I'd be pinning my hopes so heavily on nostalgia, I hasn't been working thus far, and I don't think BFG will be any different.

Who cares? Is that going to make people retroactively go back and buy tickets for the show? Are people going to call up their cable provider and demand they get get to pay for Bound For Glory after it's over? Of course not.

It's not about what happens on the show itself, but rather how many people you get to invest in the show.

It's about more than getting people to invest in the show, it's about getting people to invest in the product as a whole. Building a better product can potentially do this. Building around one PPV with no ability to follow up on it is not smart business. How far can they extend this angle?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it nearly three years after that debut before said previously unknown dude got his face on the poster of the biggest show of the year?

Not really the same thing though is it? Cena was able to progress more slowly because WWE had a plethora of talent to main event while such development occurred. While they were grooming Cena, they had the Rock, and Austin, and HBK, and HHH, and lots of other guys. They did not hold back on Cena while 50 or 60 year old has beens were overstaying their limelight.

Again, I feel you're missing the point.

This is THE show of the year. Everything builds for this one show. Hell, how long have they been doing the BFG Series? Months now, correct? Bound For Glory is just like Wrestlemania in that you don't book the show after Bound For Glory until the PPV goes off the air. Bound For Glory is the climax of the wrestling year for TNA, just like Wrestlemania is for the WWE. Hell, what kind of pre-planning does the WWE do for after Wrestlemania? If you said "none" to yourself, then you are right. That's why Backlash (and I guess it's now Extreme Rules?) is almost always a very similar card to what you see at Wrestlemania.

I'm not missing the point I am simply disagreeing with the point you are making. The BFG series has been ongoing for months, with a couple of months left to go. They are going to spend 3 or 4 months building Crimson up, then disrespect him by leaving him in the geriatric shadows of Hogan and Flair.

I think WWE plans much further ahead than you give them credit for. Backlash/Extreme Rules rehash Wrestlemania match ups because they are trying to capitalize on match ups with lots of hype and build. This is not a lack of planning, it's smart booking. TNA could do the same thing. Have Crimson loose a nail biter to Angle at BFG, then give him a successful rematch at the next PPV. Instead we are given old versus older at BFG, with little follow up potential.

The WWE books Wrestlemania in the same manner you're bashing TNA for booking Bound For Glory. This is the biggest show of the year, and everything you do builds to this. It's silly to worry about the Monday after BFG, when all you need to be worrying about right now is BFG.

It is pointless to build toward this event all year if you have no ability to follow up on it. Crimson may or may not have a long term future, but we know for a fact that Hogan and Flair don't. Or do we? It is silly to not worry about tomorrow.

What I meant was that no matter what kind of feud you write for Crimson from now until BFG, it's not going to interest me as much as seeing Sting vs. Hogan on the marquee. That is a far more interesting matchup/story than Crimson and whatever story they give him.

I would never disrespect you by questioning your opinion, you are certainly entitled to it, as am I. I am simply shocked, though, that you feel any interest or intrigue regarding Hogan or Flair at this stage of their careers.

Ironically enough, the main-event of last year's BFG featured Kurt Angle, the main-event newcomer Mr. Anderson and the main-event newcomer Jeff Hardy.

So...basically when TNA gave the guys who were fairly new to the main-event (Anderson and Hardy) the spotlight, it turned you off so much you haven't purchased another show since. Seems kind of inconsistent with what you're saying about Sting vs. Hogan/Flair, doesn't it?

Come on now, Anderson is a newcomer? He was an upper mid carder, approaching the main event, in WWE, which is certainly comparable to if not more significant than the main event in TNA. Let's not call Anderson a newcomer along the same lines as Crimson would be. Jeff Hardy, a main event newcomer, I won't even address such a ridiculous statement, I know you know better than this. BFG 2010 was not a horrendous disappointment due to failures of those newcomers Hardy and Anderson. It was a flop because TNA promised us for months that "they" were coming to change the landscape of professional wrestling forever, only to reveal that not only were they already there, but they were the same old same old. They were not coming, it was just another heavy dose of nostalgia, and now that another 12 months have elapsed, things ate exactly the same: Hogan and company front and centre even still, and with no idea where to go with these guys at the forefront in this decade. I nave always felt that "they" at BFG 2010 was a fall back position because their original plans fell through and they had no idea what to do then. 12 months later, they still have no idea what to do, so they thrust these guys down our throats yet again, and how that we are gullible enough to accept it again, and won't be outraged. Fool me once, shame on you... You know the rest.

 

[Pepe Silvia]

Comes with the territory of being a Bruins fan.

:|

 

[George Steele's Barber]

And if I mock people for being sad because someone they don't know killed themselves after years of drug and alcohol abuse, you're okay with that as well?

No, it's not ok. Directly mocking someone that is grieving for whatever reason is insensitive and hurtful. However, laughing at someone on TV when they hurt themselves is insensitive, but not hurtful and has become a long standing American tradition (I.e. - boy hits dad in balls with baseball bat, Jackass, Tosh.0).

 

[Joe's Gonna Kill You]

Enjoyed the show

 

[Slyfox696]

Uh yeah, you can go ahead and say anything that you want. That's your right. Doesn't make it right though.

And it won't stop you from condemning me for it, now will it? That's what I don't understand. How can you get upset with me for mocking people about Kanyon killing himself when these people didn't even know Kanyon, and then turn around and delight in the injury of a man who is just trying to help out the company he works for, and provide a bigger payday to the wrestlers who need it? Does that not seem inconsistent to you?

Sure, he was in this title match but let's face it, he had no real shot here, he was clearly the third man who had no realistic shot to win. By the way, this is drifting off topic, don't try to cloud the issue sidetracking me

It's very much on-topic. The topic is that pushing young guys doesn't always get young guys over.

Huge payday? Big bonus?

Absolutely. Your biggest show of the year should always provide the biggest payout of the year. The money guys make at Wrestlemania many times is much greater than they get at any other time. I was reading Jericho's book tonight, and he mentioned that for his title match at Wrestlemania 18, he got a check with five figures on it. Apparently, Triple H got four times the amount he did, until Jericho complained about it.

Bound For Glory is the Wrestlemania of TNA. This is the big payoff show.

Your vision is surprisingly short sighted.

All evidence to the contrary.

I think if I were running the company, I would try to think well beyond the BFG PPV. I would not be trying to score one big payday, with nothing following it.

Let me ask you this...let's assume we book BFG as a run of the mill show, and not a special show. Let's assume we don't milk it for the most money we can.

When do we get paid? When do we get our bonuses? What incentive do the wrestlers have to make the night special? The answers are "just like always", "never" and "none". Every promotion has always had their big show of the year, the one which you build to and work to get the big payoff.

It's about more than getting people to invest in the show, it's about getting people to invest in the product as a whole. Building a better product can potentially do this. Building around one PPV with no ability to follow up on it is not smart business. How far can they extend this angle?

Who cares, when they can start fresh the night after BFG? You have 40-45 weeks to build interest in the product as a whole. You take those other two months and build for a huge payoff for the company, for the wrestlers and the fans. BFG is the culmination of a year's worth of storylines, and then you run it all over again.

Not really the same thing though is it?

Uhh, yeah, it kind of is. Isn't that why you brought it up in the first place? Remember, I didn't bring it up, you did. If it wasn't the same thing, why did you mention it?

Cena was able to progress more slowly because WWE had a plethora of talent to main event while such development occurred. While they were grooming Cena, they had the Rock, and Austin, and HBK, and HHH, and lots of other guys. They did not hold back on Cena while 50 or 60 year old has beens were overstaying their limelight.

Rock and Austin were basically gone by this point. And TNA has Sting, RVD, Angle, Styles, and others who can hold down the fort until the rookie Crimson is ready for the spotlight.

It very much is the same thing.

I'm not missing the point I am simply disagreeing with the point you are making. The BFG series has been ongoing for months, with a couple of months left to go. They are going to spend 3 or 4 months building Crimson up, then disrespect him by leaving him in the geriatric shadows of Hogan and Flair.

Disrespect him? Isn't the fact they are building him up in the first place show more than enough respect for someone who wasn't even in the company at Bound For Glory 2010?

I think WWE plans much further ahead than you give them credit for. Backlash/Extreme Rules rehash Wrestlemania match ups because they are trying to capitalize on match ups with lots of hype and build.

I completely disagree. Backlash/Extreme Rules rehash Wrestlemania match-ups because it's easy, and it's how they begin the transition out of their build-up to the biggest show of the year. They don't plan ahead, they use the PPV after to begin the transition out of Wrestlemania.

TNA could do the same thing. Have Crimson loose a nail biter to Angle at BFG, then give him a successful rematch at the next PPV. Instead we are given old versus older at BFG, with little follow up potential.

I'm confused...how does Crimson not appearing on a poster prohibit TNA from having Crimson lose a nail biter to Angle and then having a successful rematch? What exactly is stopping that from happening?

It is pointless to build toward this event all year if you have no ability to follow up on it.

Why? That's like saying it's pointless for Apple to build all their advertising around the release of the iPhone 5, if they don't have plans to release an iPod a month or two later. Isn't the fact people will be lining up for blocks at each AT&T and Verizon store on release day, slapping down their hard earned money enough justification for the advertising Apple does before the release?

Crimson may or may not have a long term future, but we know for a fact that Hogan and Flair don't. Or do we? It is silly to not worry about tomorrow.

No, it's silly to shortchange your biggest PPV of the year, in order to make sure to put the spotlight on an unproven worker who may not have a long-term future. You're just throwing money down the drain HOPING to get a return on that investment somewhere down the road. That's just bad business.

I would never disrespect you by questioning your opinion, you are certainly entitled to it, as am I. I am simply shocked, though, that you feel any interest or intrigue regarding Hogan or Flair at this stage of their careers.

Why wouldn't I? Because they can't WRESTLE? At the end of the day, I know that if Hulk Hogan is in the ring, it's still going to be one of the most interesting segments of the night, because Hulk Hogan just gets it. He knows what entertains when he's in the ring.

Come on now, Anderson is a newcomer? He was an upper mid carder, approaching the main event, in WWE, which is certainly comparable to if not more significant than the main event in TNA.

What else do you call someone who has never been a main-eventer except a newcomer?

Let's not call Anderson a newcomer along the same lines as Crimson would be. Jeff Hardy, a main event newcomer, I won't even address such a ridiculous statement, I know you know better than this.

So, let me see if I have this straight. You want new guys in the main-event, as long as the new guys have less than one year of pro wrestling? Correct me if I'm wrong, but did Crimson not main-event Impact two weeks ago? That's a rhetorical question, because I know he did. Thus, wouldn't that mean he wouldn't be a newcomer to the main-event?

Yes, that last question is silly, just like it's silly trying to argue Anderson and Hardy are in the same class as main-event veterans like Hogan, Sting, Flair and Angle.

BFG 2010 was not a horrendous disappointment due to failures of those newcomers Hardy and Anderson. It was a flop because TNA promised us for months that "they" were coming to change the landscape of professional wrestling forever, only to reveal that not only were they already there, but they were the same old same old. They were not coming, it was just another heavy dose of nostalgia, and now that another 12 months have elapsed, things ate exactly the same: Hogan and company front and centre even still, and with no idea where to go with these guys at the forefront in this decade. I nave always felt that "they" at BFG 2010 was a fall back position because their original plans fell through and they had no idea what to do then. 12 months later, they still have no idea what to do, so they thrust these guys down our throats yet again, and how that we are gullible enough to accept it again, and won't be outraged. Fool me once, shame on you... You know the rest.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but "They" didn't wrestle, did they? Your discontentment was with an angle, not a match, and you were upset because you built "they" up in your mind to a level which could never be met. I mean, Bischoff and Hogan teaming up together and Jeff Hardy joining them? Just how much bigger could the angle have realistically been?

I find your criticism of a potential Sting vs. Hogan/Flair match based upon an angle a year ago which you created your own disappointment in to be astonishing.

No, it's not ok. Directly mocking someone that is grieving for whatever reason is insensitive and hurtful. However, laughing at someone on TV when they hurt themselves is insensitive, but not hurtful and has become a long standing American tradition (I.e. - boy hits dad in balls with baseball bat, Jackass, Tosh.0).

Yeah...pretty sure this conversation is way above your head. Nothing personal intended, it's just from before your time.

 

[ABMorales787]

Yeah. That Joker Sting. Cool stuff, bro.

I'm gonna go watch the show now.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

@Sly - nothing personal taken. If there is additional context to the analogy than maybe I can concede your point. However, on it's surface the analogy lacks merit.

Regardless, X can hold his own.

 

[hatehabsforever]

Absolutely. Your biggest show of the year should always provide the biggest payout of the year. The money guys make at Wrestlemania many times is much greater than they get at any other time.

Bound For Glory is the Wrestlemania of TNA. This is the big payoff show.

First of all, I have to say, it's absolutely exhausting debating with you. I'm starting to think you may know a thing or two about professional wrestling, even though we appear to have divergent views of significant aspects of it.

I agree with you that BFG is their biggest show of the year, their Wrestlemania per se. I just don't think you need to rely so heavily upon guys in their late '50's or early '60's to cash in. They have plenty of other guys that could be marketed better and utilized more efficiently to still make this their biggest show of the year. And using such guys could provide better results in the short term and long term. With this current approach, there is no long term plan. And I think this lack of vision is largely responsible TNA's inability to get to the next level.

Let me ask you this...let's assume we book BFG as a run of the mill show, and not a special show. Let's assume we don't milk it for the most money we can.

No one is suggesting this be booked as a run of the mill show. I just don't think you need Flair or Hogan to rise above mediocrity. Styles, Joe, and several others should be able to do it To make this the best show of the year. It's not like the bar has been set particularly high.

Who cares, when they can start fresh the night after BFG? You have 40-45 weeks to build interest in the product as a whole. You take those other two months and build for a huge payoff for the company, for the wrestlers and the fans. BFG is the culmination of a year's worth of storylines, and then you run it all over again.

Admittedly no one can predict the future, but past experience would indicate that TNA will not do this. They won't start fresh after BFG 2011, no more than they did after BFG 2010. They had 40-45 weeks to build after that debacle last year, but they didn't do it. What do you think is going to happen after Sting beats Flair, I think we all know. What happens after Hogan beats Sting, I think we know that too. And with a contract ready to be renegotiated, and seeing an Angle/Hogan eventual showdown, I think we can surmise what follows next and I'll tell you, it holds no appeal for me whatsoever.

Disrespect him? Isn't the fact they are building him up in the first place show more than enough respect for someone who wasn't even in the company at Bound For Glory 2010?

Disrespect may be too harsh a choice of words. Not respect enough may have been a more appropriate choice of words.

Why wouldn't I? Because they can't WRESTLE? At the end of the day, I know that if Hulk Hogan is in the ring, it's still going to be one of the most interesting segments of the night, because Hulk Hogan just gets it. He knows what entertains when he's in the ring.

It is a sad testament to the state of the company if Hulk Hogan, at the age of 58, is going to be the most interesting segment of the night, especially factoring in his physical status.

 

[Slyfox696]

First of all, I have to say, it's absolutely exhausting debating with you. I'm starting to think you may know a thing or two about professional wrestling, even though we appear to have divergent views of significant aspects of it.

I appreciate your acknowledgement of my wrestling knowledge.

I agree with you that BFG is their biggest show of the year, their Wrestlemania per se. I just don't think you need to rely so heavily upon guys in their late '50's or early '60's to cash in. They have plenty of other guys that could be marketed better and utilized more efficiently to still make this their biggest show of the year. And using such guys could provide better results in the short term and long term. With this current approach, there is no long term plan. And I think this lack of vision is largely responsible TNA's inability to get to the next level.

Well, we're approximately 2 months out from BFG. Just how much do you think you can build these new guys up to get them to a level they can draw significantly enough for you to to feel confident in the money they'll bring in?

No one is suggesting this be booked as a run of the mill show. I just don't think you need Flair or Hogan to rise above mediocrity. Styles, Joe, and several others should be able to do it To make this the best show of the year. It's not like the bar has been set particularly high.

Those guys will be on the show too, but Bound For Glory has had those guys for years. It wasn't until the Stings, Angles, and so on came that TNA began to really make some headway.

Admittedly no one can predict the future, but past experience would indicate that TNA will not do this. They won't start fresh after BFG 2011, no more than they did after BFG 2010. They had 40-45 weeks to build after that debacle last year, but they didn't do it. What do you think is going to happen after Sting beats Flair, I think we all know. What happens after Hogan beats Sting, I think we know that too. And with a contract ready to be renegotiated, and seeing an Angle/Hogan eventual showdown, I think we can surmise what follows next and I'll tell you, it holds no appeal for me whatsoever.

I don't follow TNA enough to to go with the "I think we all know" line, because I don't know. What I do know is Bound For Glory is coming, and I'm starting to keep an eye on TNA to see what it may hold. And if it's Sting vs. Hogan, I'm a lot more likely to part with my dollars than Sting vs. Crimson. And if Hogan beats Sting, which leads to a match with Angle, that sounds quite interesting to me as well.

Disrespect may be too harsh a choice of words. Not respect enough may have been a more appropriate choice of words.

My point still holds true. Here's a guy who hasn't even been in the company a full year, and is already main-eventing Impact and feuding with Kurt Angle. Seems to me that is more than any rookie can ever hope for.

It is a sad testament to the state of the company if Hulk Hogan, at the age of 58, is going to be the most interesting segment of the night, especially factoring in his physical status.

Or it just shows how great Hogan is? I mean, did you feel the same way when the most interesting aspect of Wrestlemania 24 was the 59 year old Ric Flair's retirement match against Shawn Michaels, who was 43 years old? Or were you glued to your TV set like most other wrestling fans, watching what you thought would be Flair's final match? When Steve Austin was kicking the 53 year old Vince McMahon's ass from one side of a cage to another at St. Valentine's Day Massacre, did you say it was a sad testament to the state of the company that this 53 year old man who was not even a trained wrestler was main-eventing against the hottest thing in wrestling?

I fail to see what age has to do with entertainment value.

 

[hatehabsforever]

I appreciate your acknowledgement of my wrestling knowledge.

Yeah, and the least you could have done was repay the compliment after debating all day long. Thanks for nothing . This will have to be brief as it is approaching 3am here, if I try to post when I'm too tired, I may come off sounding incoherent (which actually may blend in nicely in the TNA section).

Well, we're approximately 2 months out from BFG. Just how much do you think you can build these new guys up to get them to a level they can draw significantly enough for you to to feel confident in the money they'll bring in?

I think booking guys like Crimson properly can elevate him pretty quickly. Making him look very strong against a guy who many believe is one of the best ever could do wonders for him in a short period of time. Last night, I found the guy to be intense, and better on the mic than I anticipated. Angle could do wonders for his character and certainly make him more interesting than guys old enough to be his father.

Those guys will be on the show too, but Bound For Glory has had those guys for years. It wasn't until the Stings, Angles, and so on came that TNA began to really make some headway.

I can't help but notice you refer far more frequently to Sting and Angle than you do to Hogan and Flair. Accidental, or a subliminal realization of the weakness of your argument regarding these relics?

I don't follow TNA enough to to go with the "I think we all know" line, because I don't know. What I do know is Bound For Glory is coming, and I'm starting to keep an eye on TNA to see what it may hold. And if it's Sting vs. Hogan, I'm a lot more likely to part with my dollars than Sting vs. Crimson. And if Hogan beats Sting, which leads to a match with Angle, that sounds quite interesting to me as well.

I just don't understand the sentiment, I really don't.

Or it just shows how great Hogan is? I mean, did you feel the same way when the most interesting aspect of Wrestlemania 24 was the 59 year old Ric Flair's retirement match against Shawn Michaels, who was 43 years old? Or were you glued to your TV set like most other wrestling fans, watching what you thought would be Flair's final match? When Steve Austin was kicking the 53 year old Vince McMahon's ass from one side of a cage to another at St. Valentine's Day Massacre, did you say it was a sad testament to the state of the company that this 53 year old man who was not even a trained wrestler was main-eventing against the hottest thing in wrestling?

Not how great Hogan is , how great he was.

I loved seeing a 43 year old HBK retire a legend in a classy and effective manner. I didn't mind seeing Flair in the ring then because I thought it was spelling the end, and giving this legend his just rewards. But it is an astronomical jump from a 59 year old man getting a classy send off from a class act, to a 62 year old man pathetically refusing to let go of the torch. And it is a big leap from 43 to 59, especially considering the physical and mental demands of this business.

SCSA kicking McMahon's ass was unique. This was such a monumental feud in the Monday Night Wars, and even though McMahon was a 53 year old non wrestler, it was effective in context. There is no context which justifies a 58 year old Hogan versus a 62 year old Flair, especially when there's no guarantee whatsoever that this spells the end either. We may be having this same discussion in advance of BFG 2012 or beyond.

And to use your words, Austin was the hottest thing in wrestling, culminating the hottest rivalry. Neither of these fossils are anywhere near hot these days, unless they just get up off their heating pads, and there's no hot feud to speak of either. Just nostalgia, egos, and delusional short term thinking.

I fail to see what age has to do with entertainment value.

Age alone isn't the issue, but physical condition, or lack thereof, combined with age, is relevant. Kayfabe only allows you to suspend disbelief to a certain extent before it simply gets silly. And this ship has sailed, years ago.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

[YOUTUBE]ut9B8FiQFe8&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

Flair is fucking AWEsome.

And yes, Sting is ssshakin' like a rat!

 

[Slyfox696]

Yeah, and the least you could have done was repay the compliment after debating all day long. Thanks for nothing . This will have to be brief as it is approaching 3am here, if I try to post when I'm too tired, I may come off sounding incoherent (which actually may blend in nicely in the TNA section).

Perhaps I don't feel the same way about you?

I think booking guys like Crimson properly can elevate him pretty quickly. Making him look very strong against a guy who many believe is one of the best ever could do wonders for him in a short period of time. Last night, I found the guy to be intense, and better on the mic than I anticipated. Angle could do wonders for his character and certainly make him more interesting than guys old enough to be his father.

Can...could...could....see all of these qualifiers you keep putting in? Those "can"s and "could"s might be said of anyone. However, we know what we're getting with Sting/Hogan/Flair. And when we're coming up on the biggest show of the year, you need to go with what you know will draw, not what "could" draw.

I can't help but notice you refer far more frequently to Sting and Angle than you do to Hogan and Flair. Accidental, or a subliminal realization of the weakness of your argument regarding these relics?

More like TNA was already heading in the right direction before Hogan, Flair and Bischoff showed up. After all, Sting was with TNA back in 2004 and then again in 2006. Angle showed up in 2006. Bischoff and Hogan didn't start until 2010, if I'm not mistaken.

I referred to Sting and Angle there because when those guys came over, that's when we saw TNA really start to rise.

I just don't understand the sentiment, I really don't.

I don't understand putting an unproven commodity in the spotlight of the biggest show of the year and praying he'll make you money.

I'll tell you what, why don't we both invest our life savings? I'll invest mine in Samsung and you can invest yours in CTL. My Galaxy Tab 10.1 vs. your 2GoPC. Neither of us sells like Apple's iPad, so how comfortable do you feel in investing your life savings in CTL, while I invest mine in Samsung? Who is going to make more money?

Not how great Hogan is , how great he was.

Wait, who determines when Hogan is no longer great? TNA has become self-supporting, which means monthly profits are being made, ratings have been going up, and they are getting ready to take their flagship show on the road into new territories.

Wouldn't you consider that a sign of greatness for a company who has been stuck in Orlando since 2003 or 2004, formerly losing money each month and hoping for a TV rating which would now be considered an embarrassment?

I loved seeing a 43 year old HBK retire a legend in a classy and effective manner. I didn't mind seeing Flair in the ring then because I thought it was spelling the end, and giving this legend his just rewards. But it is an astronomical jump from a 59 year old man getting a classy send off from a class act, to a 62 year old man pathetically refusing to let go of the torch. And it is a big leap from 43 to 59, especially considering the physical and mental demands of this business.

I'm confused, when was there a match signed between Hogan and Flair for Bound For Glory? Hogan is 59, Flair is 62, but they're not wrestling each other, are they? I thought you were saying Hogan or Flair would be wrestling Sting, not each other. And surely you are not doubting Sting's ability to go in the ring, are you?

SCSA kicking McMahon's ass was unique. This was such a monumental feud in the Monday Night Wars, and even though McMahon was a 53 year old non wrestler, it was effective in context. There is no context which justifies a 58 year old Hogan versus a 62 year old Flair, especially when there's no guarantee whatsoever that this spells the end either. We may be having this same discussion in advance of BFG 2012 or beyond.

Okay, so now the problem isn't their age, but the context of the match? Seems like you keep changing the situation as it suits your needs.

And to use your words, Austin was the hottest thing in wrestling, culminating the hottest rivalry. Neither of these fossils are anywhere near hot these days, unless they just get up off their heating pads, and there's no hot feud to speak of either. Just nostalgia, egos, and delusional short term thinking.

And yet, they will still draw better than Crimson in the main-event.

I'm not sure why you haven't gotten that yet. You keep talking about how these guys aren't what they once were, but you can't (and haven't) deny they are still a more sure bet than the young wrestler you're using as your example in Crimson.

 

[X]

And it won't stop you from condemning me for it, now will it? That's what I don't understand. How can you get upset with me for mocking people about Kanyon killing himself when these people didn't even know Kanyon, and then turn around and delight in the injury of a man who is just trying to help out the company he works for, and provide a bigger payday to the wrestlers who need it? Does that not seem inconsistent to you?

No it seems more like you just trying to make shit out of nothing by trying to instigate some kind of heated argument about morals and ideals and all that jazz. I don't fucking care. I am a human being, and I never claimed to be perfect. I can be as consistent or inconsistent as I very well fucking please, as can you.

 

[Slyfox696]

No it seems more like you just trying to make shit out of nothing by trying to instigate some kind of heated argument about morals and ideals and all that jazz. I don't fucking care. I am a human being, and I never claimed to be perfect. I can be as consistent or inconsistent as I very well fucking please, as can you.

What is that old saying? "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything"

You have me very confused xfear. I remember you biting my head off in the Kanyon thread because I wasn't empathizing with a guy who took his own life, and yet here you are wishing injury upon another human being because...you don't like him?


Sure, I suppose you can be as inconsistent as you want to be, but when you willingly admit hypocrisy, it really gives you no leg to stand on at any time in the future, and makes your past scolding seem nothing but argumentative, the very thing you like to accuse me of all the time. I'm just having difficulty understanding your thought process on this.