IMPACT Wrestling LD for 11.10.11 is Sorry 'Bout Your Damn Luck, James Storm!

[Gelgarin]

When did TNA say they were real? It is a TV show dude. If you want to personally have some issue with this, no one can stop you. However, the idea that your pet peeve is some universal truth is simply ridiculous.

On this note, TNA has historically broken kayfabe on a number of occasions directly confirming to the audience that it is not real. Most recently Rosita dropping her character for two minutes to talk about 9/11.

That's more than you get from... say... every other show on television.

 

[shattered dreams]

Prowrestling isn't a sport. So quit insisting that analogy is important while ones to other TV shows (what prowrestling actually is) are moronic.

Even if you are some kind of concussion activist, what exactly is the issue here? This clearly showed the negative effect of not resting with a concussion. Which to me seems to be the responsible way to do such a story. If your argument really is that they should have had a medical team stop him, apply an array of tests and then tell him to sit at home for a few weeks then you have completely lost your mind. Or at least your common sense related to how time and mundane tasks play out on TV.

 

[Gelgarin]

I'm neither, but at least I have a leg to stand on. The ONLY argument you are giving me is that it's "not real", yet we are talking about a show that really does put people out in a ring to compete. We are talking about a show that prides itself on being reality based and this is one of the things that makes you feel like "it's real". Still, that's not all that important. The point is that concussions have become such a major issue over the past few years, so to use a fake one as a catalyst for a story isn't so great to begin with. Then, you take a guy with one and put him in a ring? On top of that, one of you guys said that this could be the "write off" and he might have a real one? So that would mean that TNA really did put a man in a ring WITH A REAL CONCUSSION just to write him off? That's more stupid than the kayfabe version!

All I'm saying is that in 2011, concussions are a sensitive subject, especially in wrestling. Teams are criticized in all sports if athletes are rushed back into action with concussions, yet it's ok to show a guy competing with one minutes after sustaining it? It's sending the wrong message regardless of whether it's fictional or not.

And I don't put stock in the "strength in numbers" argument when your army isn't strong. There are a lot more Palestinians in the Middle East that believe strapping a bomb to themselves and blowing themselves up is the way to obtain peace. Does that mean they are right because there are clearly more of them than those who oppose them?

Comparing us all to suicide bombers, that's in considerably better taste than an actor pretending to have a concussion.
Sport is real. Professional wrestling is not real. It is not OK for a sport team to put out somebody with a concussion because that is legitimately dangerous. Is is completely OK for a professional wrester to go to the ring pretending to have a concussion... because that is not dangerous in any way... because it is not real.

TNA has never once, in eight years of operation, claimed to be real. It is a pre taped television show, not a sporting event, and in this day and age you would have to be chronically ******ed to not be able to tell the difference.

James Storm was placed on no danger, he was placed in some pretend danger, which is exactly what people are placed in during every wresting match. You think that concussions are a special case and should be separated from every every other injury known to man, and you think that wrestling is a special case that should be separated from every other work of fiction known to man, yet for neither can you adequately explain why outside of "because it's what I think, and therefore you should think too".

How about boxing films? Pretty much every one of those ever made has a man continue to fight despite suffering from repeated head trauma. They also all pretend to be real, I mean, they never say that they aren't. Are all of those is colossal bad taste as well?

 

[Mighty NorCal]

TNA has never once, in eight years of operation, claimed to be real. It is a pre taped television show, not a sporting event, and in this day and age you would have to be chronically ******ed to not be able to tell the difference.

Made me LOL


and I dont understand, its not like he refused attention for a concussion, then went out and won a one night 48 man tournament. He ended the show laid out, in very serious condition. Is that not a proper poster child of "Dont try to do things with a concussion, its not fucking safe" ??

 

[ABMorales787]

I'm neither, but at least I have a leg to stand on. The ONLY argument you are giving me is that it's "not real", yet we are talking about a show that really does put people out in a ring to compete. We are talking about a show that prides itself on being reality based and this is one of the things that makes you feel like "it's real". Still, that's not all that important. The point is that concussions have become such a major issue over the past few years, so to use a fake one as a catalyst for a story isn't so great to begin with. Then, you take a guy with one and put him in a ring? On top of that, one of you guys said that this could be the "write off" and he might have a real one? So that would mean that TNA really did put a man in a ring WITH A REAL CONCUSSION just to write him off? That's more stupid than the kayfabe version!

So basically, fake TV needs to tone itself down because of the standards of real life. So Storm went to the ring with a possible real concussion. He took so much offense from Roode I'm... Wait, Roode never hit him. Hell, reports say he did squash matches after that to finish his schedule. Meaning TNA did indeed take proper measures. He never took an on-screen bump and his house show matches did the same.

All I'm saying is that in 2011, concussions are a sensitive subject, especially in wrestling. Teams are criticized in all sports if athletes are rushed back into action with concussions, yet it's ok to show a guy competing with one minutes after sustaining it? It's sending the wrong message regardless of whether it's fictional or not.

In a program that encourages violence? Isn't it already a bad message to begin with?

And I don't put stock in the "strength in numbers" argument when your army isn't strong. There are a lot more Palestinians in the Middle East that believe strapping a bomb to themselves and blowing themselves up is the way to obtain peace. Does that mean they are right because there are clearly more of them than those who oppose them?

No, technically they are right because that's what they believe in. What the hell does this have to do with the issue anyway?

 

[shattered dreams]

To clear up your temporary lapse in sanity JJ. Am I correct that you have no problem that Storm was beaten into a bloody mess backstage?

 

[Joe's Gonna Kill You]

Thanks to Sting for officially overturning the decision of my match & DQ'ing @AJStylesOrg for BVD's interference! The streak continues!

Tonight I battled overwhelming odds & emerged victorious! Good things do happen to good people! You have my permission to be inspired by me!

Heel Daniels is AWESOME

 

[shattered dreams]

Heel Daniels is AWESOME

He is carrying that feud.

 

[JJYanks121]

@Killjoy - it's a storyline driven "fake" show, but the bumps these guys take are real. Even if a guy is protected, putting a guy out there with a concussion is the dumbest thing you could do and you actually could get sued for it. Thus, there's not a chance that this is legitimate.

@Everyone else - All I'm saying is that what I saw is that the story portrayed on screen is that this company showed a man sustain a concussion and then allowed said man to get in the ring with one. I know it is fake and all that, but the message you are sending is it's somehow ok to get in a ring with a concussion.

There is a reason I, along with most people, separate head injuries from most other types of injuries. It's because they ARE different. Head injuries are permanent, they do not heal in the way bones and muscle do, and they are something that are still not fully understood. Legitimate sport has taken a hard line with concussions and will not let their athletes, no matter how good they are, compete until they pass concussion tests. It's a serious issue and one of the catalysts for real sports taking it so seriously was wrestling, of course with the Chris Benoit situation.

You can argue kayfabe and reality all day with me, but the bottom line is that what was portrayed was a concussion and a guy with one was allowed to get in the ring with one. It's not the fact that he "was in no real danger" when you take a step back, it's not that "it furthers a story". Quite simply, a man who was shown to have a concussion (not said but you have to be an idiot not to get it like I've said before) went to a ring to compete and no one stopped him. The image that is perceived is that somehow this is ok. It's not, and all these ridiculous things about movies and other wrestling scenarios are simply not the same. SD just mentioned that I'm ok with the idea of someone getting beaten up backstage. Eh. I thought the "murder by Janice" scenario with RVD was a bit over the top and probably shouldn't have been done, but I understand that some backstage fighting will happen. The line should be drawn at concussions and murder though.

Perhaps I'm on a bit of a high moral ground kick given the recent events with Penn State. I work with kids for a living and the thought of this predator, this inhuman beast, doing what he did to those children is enough to make me sick to my stomach any time I think about it. So perhaps I stood on this high moral ground when thinking about a wrestling show which is clearly a bad idea. Morality and wrestling most definitely do not go together and while I will not relent in saying that this way an ok thing to do and I definitely won't say it was entertaining in the least, I will say that I may have taken too strong a stance only because I should expect wrestling fans not to care about high moral ground. That's not something that exists in the wrestling world.

My world at the moment has morality at the forefront and I took the anger I had in regards to this sexual predator and used it as the catalyst to my anger tonight. We'll all have to agree to disagree, but I can do so in a much calmer fashion in this moment.

 

[Remy LaCroix]

At least Storm wasn't in Sorensen's place. A bump like that would have been brutal and, quite frankly, reckless of them to perform, even if Storm agreed to do so to further a storyline. But I'm in no position to judge what they choose to do.

Good episode tonight.

 

[ABMorales787]

@Killjoy - it's a storyline driven "fake" show, but the bumps these guys take are real. Even if a guy is protected, putting a guy out there with a concussion is the dumbest thing you could do and you actually could get sued for it. Thus, there's not a chance that this is legitimate.

@Everyone else - All I'm saying is that what I saw is that the story portrayed on screen is that this company showed a man sustain a concussion and then allowed said man to get in the ring with one. I know it is fake and all that, but the message you are sending is it's somehow ok to get in a ring with a concussion.

What? Again with that? Things were done, precautions were taken, faaar worse things have been done. Stone Cold got nailed by a car. Big Show fell off an arena and came back to wrestle. Mick Foley fell 15 feet to a table and then 13 feet to the ring, and kept going. He also took 10 unprotected shots to the head and kept going. A storyline in WWE from 2009 had John Cena being thrown through a searchlight and wrestling the next few weeks with a bad back. I don't know how you can cope with the things that happened in the past but you can't accept this because it's 2011 and morality should now be our main priority. If concussions are such an issue to you, you might as well start campaigning for a shut down of the NFL.

There is a reason I, along with most people, separate head injuries from most other types of injuries. It's because they ARE different. Head injuries are permanent, they do not heal in the way bones and muscle do, and they are something that are still not fully understood. Legitimate sport has taken a hard line with concussions and will not let their athletes, no matter how good they are, compete until they pass concussion tests. It's a serious issue and one of the catalysts for real sports taking it so seriously was wrestling, of course with the Chris Benoit situation.

James Storm's best friend isn't dead. Though he might want to kill him now.

Seriously though, that's not something that can ever be escaped. Wrestling's a dirty game and it will always be.

You can argue kayfabe and reality all day with me, but the bottom line is that what was portrayed was a concussion and a guy with one was allowed to get in the ring with one. It's not the fact that he "was in no real danger" when you take a step back, it's not that "it furthers a story". Quite simply, a man who was shown to have a concussion (not said but you have to be an idiot not to get it like I've said before) went to a ring to compete and no one stopped him. The image that is perceived is that somehow this is ok. It's not, and all these ridiculous things about movies and other wrestling scenarios are simply not the same. SD just mentioned that I'm ok with the idea of someone getting beaten up backstage. Eh. I thought the "murder by Janice" scenario with RVD was a bit over the top and probably shouldn't have been done, but I understand that some backstage fighting will happen. The line should be drawn at concussions and murder though.

Murder. Reminds me of the time Cibernetico threw Ricky Banderas to an active volcano. Yeah, that really did happen. Sorry, brother. You should know by now wrestling has cross every line possible and still does to this day. Whether it's a guy trying to get to a match with a concussion or a guy beating another with a possible broken neck with a sledgehammer.

Perhaps I'm on a bit of a high moral ground kick given the recent events with Penn State. I work with kids for a living and the thought of this predator, this inhuman beast, doing what he did to those children is enough to make me sick to my stomach any time I think about it. So perhaps I stood on this high moral ground when thinking about a wrestling show which is clearly a bad idea. Morality and wrestling most definitely do not go together and while I will not relent in saying that this way an ok thing to do and I definitely won't say it was entertaining in the least, I will say that I may have taken too strong a stance only because I should expect wrestling fans not to care about high moral ground. That's not something that exists in the wrestling world.

Yes you did.

My world at the moment has morality at the forefront and I took the anger I had in regards to this sexual predator and used it as the catalyst to my anger tonight. We'll all have to agree to disagree, but I can do so in a much calmer fashion in this moment.

Goth kids may be weird as hell at times, but I always say they are right about society being shit. Try watching a homeless person beg for money and then go buy drugs later that night. That gets on nerves with ease and I deal with that shit almost every shift.

 

[jmt225]

If pro wrestling was real, I'd walk away from last night's show thinking James Storm is a warrior with great heart who would do nearly anything to get that TNA World Title back.

That's the message TNA was trying to send with that angle; they weren't trying to be tasteless or act like concussions aren't a serious matter in the business. They simply wanted to show that James Storm is legit and one of the toughest bastards on the roster, who is willing to risk his career to get that World Title back. That's it.

 

[Chrome]

Damn good impact last night

 

[shattered dreams]

Quite simply, a man who was shown to have a concussion (not said but you have to be an idiot not to get it like I've said before) went to a ring to compete and no one stopped him. The image that is perceived is that somehow this is ok.

How that could be your perception is baffling to me. The perception for most is what jmt and others have said. Regardless, the end effect of him going out there clearly showed it was a poor idea. That is how responsible storytelling works with such a topic. If you care so much about concussions then you should be happy they are addressing it instead of pretending it never happens.

 

[Coco]

I think JJ must have hit his head earlier.

You don't joke about that. Leg injury? Maybe. But not this.

 

[JJYanks121]

How that could be your perception is baffling to me. The perception for most is what jmt and others have said. Regardless, the end effect of him going out there clearly showed it was a poor idea. That is how responsible storytelling works with such a topic. If you care so much about concussions then you should be happy they are addressing it instead of pretending it never happens.

Wouldn't you say that addressing it by cancelling the match would be more responsible though? That's all I was suggesting.

This is clearly my hot button topic and yea, it's the one thing I'm not too fond of in wrestling stories. I do feel that the execution of this angle was done in poor taste and there were plenty of opportunities to handle it better. It was just last year that a concussion storyline ran in TNA (based on a real concussion obtained by Mr. Anderson). There were aspects of that one that were handled well (like not having him wrestle for a few months because you simply can't when you have a real one), while other aspects were handled poorly (Morgan never getting the title when standing up for concussions which would have showed that he was right, and some of the things Bischoff and others said were pretty bad as far as "oh, old school guys would have performed with concussions so Anderson is a pussy" and the like). It is a tough subject to do right as it pertains to a storyline which is why I think I'd avoid it all together. There's more chance to screw it up than there is to do it well.

In this case, I don't think it was handled properly at all. Still, I don't know why I even remotely tried to hold a wrestling show to high moral ground. That's stupid and I know it, but that's the mood I was in last night. It came off very poorly and after a good night's sleep, it still does. Then again, I'm the guy who at 16 years old stopped watching in the Attitude Era because the show simply got too low brow for me. Just difference of opinion I guess, but I'm not sure that means either of us are right. I find it tasteless, ya'll say taste doesn't matter in wrestling. Actually, maybe we're both right. It WAS tasteless, but this is a tasteless business so it really shouldn't matter.

 

[Pepe Silvia]

EY is TNA's version of Will Ferrell

"Alright, give him a beard and make him do wacky shit. Wait, is he in his underwear? Okay, at one point he just randomly needs to be in his underwear."

 

[shattered dreams]

Wouldn't you say that addressing it by cancelling the match would be more responsible though? That's all I was suggesting.

That is boring. The point of wrestling is to entertain. They have no compelling reason to tell the stories responsibly at all. Any time they chose to in any way should be viewed as a positive instead of a negative.

while other aspects were handled poorly ... some of the things Bischoff and others said were pretty bad as far as "oh, old school guys would have performed with concussions so Anderson is a pussy" and the like.

Why don't you understand how stories work, especially in wrestling? They deal with pertinent issues and how the action plays out delivers the message. If bad guys say things then those are comments that the public is supposed to view as being in poor taste. If someone goes out with a concussion and passes out then that means it wasn't a good choice. The stories convey everything you want, just not in your chosen format. The format you are describing is what should happen in real life. Normal life isn't interesting. Larger than life is. Wrestling isn't a representation of real life and if it is then what happened at the end of Thursday's show is the least of our problems.

 

[JJYanks121]

That is boring. The point of wrestling is to entertain. They have no compelling reason to tell the stories responsibly at all. Any time they chose to in any way should be viewed as a positive instead of a negative.



Why don't you understand how stories work, especially in wrestling? They deal with pertinent issues and how the action plays out delivers the message. If bad guys say things then those are comments that the public is supposed to view as being in poor taste. If someone goes out with a concussion and passes out then that means it wasn't a good choice. The stories convey everything you want, just not in your chosen format. The format you are describing is what should happen in real life. Normal life isn't interesting. Larger than life is. Wrestling isn't a representation of real life and if it is then what happened at the end of Thursday's show is the least of our problems.

You seriously need to just stop talking. This thing was over and you come back and say something more stupid than before. That's not a way to make a point and if anything, you are making everyone else who at least presented cognizant arguments look foolish for their mere association to you.

The main problem is that you address me in a degrading fashion. That's step one in how to not get taken seriously. Then, you ramble incessantly on a point that makes no sense and really has nothing to do with what is even being discussed. Because I'm bored and just a little bit angry that you simply don't know when to quit when you are way behind, I'll take a stab at some of the stupidity you have presented here.

The first paragraph is you trying to explain why it's a good idea for the GM to look like a moron as somehow that made the show "more entertaining". In 5 seconds I can come up with a more entertaining way to present the show. Storm gets hurt, a competant GM rules him out of his bout and instead puts together a #1 contender's match for the end of the night. That match goes 10 minutes + and gives us a #1 contender for the PPV, which by the way is a better way to get one than what we got on Thursday. Then, that guy (be it Styles or someone else) gets his shot at the PPV while the assailant for Storm remains a mystery. Rather than a lame main event, you got a good match in my scenario and you didn't have to look stupid to do it. I don't think a half assed attempt by a concussed guy at beating up the champ only to fall down after a minute is more entertaining. Maybe I'm wrong though, but I'd think wrestling fans might enjoy a good wrestling match more than that segment.

Now that we've sufficiently debunked your first paragraph (which I know you'll take one line out of, make some smarmy remark about and think you "one upped" me without hitting on the meat of the paragraph and without even properly understanding what I presented, but that's besides the point as I'm done with you after this anyway), let's get to the next one, shall we? Without actually reading my next paragraph, you go off into a diatribe about storytelling which makes about as much sense as the storytelling you are defending. Let's break it down:

Why don't you understand how stories work, especially in wrestling? They deal with pertinent issues and how the action plays out delivers the message.

So, a pertinent issue would be, oh I don't know.......concussions? And the actions deliver the message? Let's play this out in dummy terms then. Last year, Matt Morgan defended a guy with a concussion by saying it's bad to wrestle with one. Eric Bischoff and Jeff Hardy say that Morgan's an idiot and wrestling with concussions is for men while sitting out is for *****es. The actions played out over 3 months and they saw Jeff never once lose to Matt Morgan. Message delivered = Bischoff and Hardy are right and Morgan is wrong. Concussion victims are not worth standing up for as proved by Morgan falling short in the quest.

In 8 simple lines, I just made you look like an idiot. But let's go for more because this is fun.

If bad guys say things then those are comments that the public is supposed to view as being in poor taste.

Not really. Bad guys can be a little more risque, but plenty of bad guys are able to say things that aren't remotely in bad taste. When CM Punk was the straight edge savior, how many of his comments were in bad taste? Zero, and in fact, many of his comments were quite accurate about how fans were cheering for a guy who was a bad example to their kids. You have this misconception that heels need to say things way over the line in order to come off as bad. That's not true. The best heels are the ones that can get under your skin regardless of how risque their character is. How about Muhammed Hassan. The character started out as a Palestinian American who complained of poor treatment in the US since 9/11 happened. He was a regular American citizen but grew bitter due to being stereotyped. This man got more heat than anyone I can think of, and not once did I say ANYTHING that could be construed as being in poor taste. That said, the second he was portrayed as praying for masked assailants which could be construed as terrorists I guess (I'm still confused on this to this day), his character was yanked. Due to the world we live in, that was seen as going to far. Still, Randy Orton told the Guerrero family that Eddie was in hell on national TV and that was ok? If you think that statement was right to say because it "got Randy heat", then I really need to go no further. That's disgusting and was in poor taste and I've given you plenty of ways to tell a great story and be a great heel without saying something distasteful. If you still don't get it, there's no helping you.

If someone goes out with a concussion and passes out then that means it wasn't a good choice.

No shit? But in real life, that wouldn't even be a fucking choice. I got a minor concussion in a soccer game in high school (that's over a decade ago so less was known about concussions then even) and when I awoke from it (I was out for 4 minutes), I said in slurred speech "am I going back in?" and the coach and trainer just laughed at me. I was off to the doctor and they knew it. So it's never a choice to go anywhere with a concussion. Not only will contact hurt, but so too will bright lights, loud noises, and basic movement.

However, even if we ignore all of that, your sentence is just plain stupid and it came out of nowhere. You don't know how to corral your thoughts and it's making it very easy to pick you apart like a javelina in the desert. This sentence doesn't have anything to do with anything so we'll just move on.

The stories convey everything you want, just not in your chosen format. The format you are describing is what should happen in real life. Normal life isn't interesting. Larger than life is. Wrestling isn't a representation of real life and if it is then what happened at the end of Thursday's show is the least of our problems.

I couldn't separate the last few sentences because they are just random ideas clumped together and I really didn't feel like trying to discern what the fuck you were talking about. What you did is what weak arguers do, and that is to make bold, overlying statements without merit in hopes that these universally accepted statements somehow support your argument and thus make you look superior. A good debater can pick this out easily though, as there is absolutely nothing backing up any of these grand, overlying statements.

Let's try and understand what you were trying to say though. I don't have a "chosen format" and that's not even the issue here. The issue from the beginning is that the way things played out was insensitive to concussions and was in poor taste. That's all. Then you go on to say that I'm suggesting the the way things should play out (because I gave an example, something you are incapable of doing) is too much like real life and that real life isn't interesting. Apparently, "larger than life" is interesting, which is a phrased coined by the main you probably loathe, Vincent Kennedy McMahon. Amazing how phraseology that you are using to defend a product that you started watching due to you disdain of the larger product comes from the man who built that product into a giant huh? But let's get back to the point at hand here. Larger than life is interesting while real life isn't. I suppose if you have a mundane existence then you might be right, but I like to think that life is quite interesting. So too does wrestling, as both companies have been pulling stories from "real life" for years, and many fans tend to enjoy those the best. We're not in an era with voodoo magicians, garbage men, and movie characters come to life anymore. Some have even dubbed this "the reality era" of wrestling. Ironic, since reality is what doesn't work right?

Apparently though, this isn't right to you as you next suggest that "wrestling isn't a representation of real life". Well if it isn't, then the WWF should give back a lot of money to fans for "duping them" into buying into a story that everyone could relate to: the employee standing up to the boss.

You see, once we got away from the cartoon era of wrestling, the stories we had were based on things that COULD actually happen in real life. The only difference being that all differences were settled in a squared circle and it's all theatrical. My favorite story of all time is the Owen vs. Bret Hart story. It's so simple yet it's possibly the best wrestling story ever. Owen feels overlooked and becomes jealous/bitter towards Bret. He turns on him and tries to show Bret that he deserves the spotlight. Simple, but so effective. And here's the crazy thing.........everything you have suggested that makes a "good story" isn't involved here. At no point does Owen say something truly despicable to be a good heel, the story is in fact realistic and believable and doesn't have to be "larger than life" to work, the story is told responsibly, and in the end, the respectful brother wins the feud which shows that disrespecting a family member to get noticed isn't the best course of action. This story has proved everything you have said wrong and is one of the best of all time.

Coming back to 2011, we're still talking about stories existing in the wrestling world that are reality based. It's been that way since the mid 90s (the good one anyway, I mean I'm not basing my argument on a post menopausal woman getting pregnant and then giving birth to a fucking hand). The story we have in hand I can kind of buy, even if it is rushed more than sex with a married chick when her husband is on the way home. Roode busts his ass for months to win a big tournament. Roode gets screwed making the tournament pointless but also making all of his hard work pointless. Roode's partner of all people wins the belt out of nowhere by getting an undeserved shot due to Angle's stupid clause in the contract. Roode gets his shot and feels good because maybe this will be vindication. Match is right down the middle and not wanting to get screwed again, Roode gets desperate and cheats to win. All of those aspects are fine and though it would have worked better over a couple of months, the story works in the regard. The only place I really have a problem with the story is this past week. I have no problem with Storm getting taken out with an injury. That would give the story something that was taken away from the beginning (time). Where it doesn't become ok is when the scene occurs where Storm is shown to have a concussion. We've discussed this all before and I'm not getting into it again. This is a story we can understand as you might feel the way Roode does if your fat, worthless, walking stereotype partner that should never be above the midcard gets the title before you do when you have busted your ass. This is something that in reality we could understand and totally debunks your "wrestling isn't based on reality" theory. I've debunked it like 8 times but once more won't hurt. Still, that part is something we can understand and relate to which is what makes a good wrestling story. The part where it gets dicey is this week. Like I said earlier when I thought this was over, I'm willing to accept that wrestling has no moral compass. I personally think that it CAN work while having one (see the Owen/Bret story again as well as Punk/Hardy and others), but if that's what some fans are ok with, I'll let it slide. Where you fall short is trying to defend this with your cliched arguments. You presented nothing new and I really wish you didn't post this retort. Others like Killjoy presented cognizant arguments and I believe we agreed to disagree. You kept going and thus, I had to do what I had to do. Next time, formulate your thoughts into sentences that make sense and we'll have a real debate. Until then, just read what I wrote and don't respond. You might learn something, but just understand that I'm trying to agree to disagree here.

It's this simple: I was riding a high moral horse on Thursday and I still kind of do. I'm a weird wrestling fan in that way. Many don't think morals and wrestling go together and that's fine. That's where we agree to disagree. I won't be ok with concussions being played off in the way they have been in TNA, some will be ok with that. Agree to disagree. VERY SIMPLE STUFF. We're done now. Save your vague, cliched arguments for whatever stupid thing we'll argue about in next week's LD.

 

[shattered dreams]

The main problem is that you address me in a degrading fashion. That's step one in how to not get taken seriously. Then, you ramble incessantly on a point that makes no sense and really has nothing to do with what is even being discussed. Because I'm bored and just a little bit angry that you simply don't know when to quit when you are way behind, I'll take a stab at some of the stupidity you have presented here.

So when you turn to insults, ramble and don't know when to quit it is to be highly regarded? You must have hit your head harder than I thought back in the day.

The first paragraph is you trying to explain why it's a good idea for the GM to look like a moron as somehow that made the show "more entertaining". In 5 seconds I can come up with a more entertaining way to present the show. Storm gets hurt, a competant GM rules him out of his bout and instead puts together a #1 contender's match for the end of the night. That match goes 10 minutes + and gives us a #1 contender for the PPV, which by the way is a better way to get one than what we got on Thursday. Then, that guy (be it Styles or someone else) gets his shot at the PPV while the assailant for Storm remains a mystery. Rather than a lame main event, you got a good match in my scenario and you didn't have to look stupid to do it. I don't think a half assed attempt by a concussed guy at beating up the champ only to fall down after a minute is more entertaining. Maybe I'm wrong though, but I'd think wrestling fans might enjoy a good wrestling match more than that segment.

Cool story bro. You can tell it when you have your own wrestling company.

Now that we've sufficiently debunked your first paragraph (which I know ... you one upped me ... on ..., let's get to the next one ... Without actually reading my next paragraph

So, a pertinent issue would be, oh I don't know.......concussions? And the actions deliver the message? Let's play this out in dummy terms then. Last year, Matt Morgan defended a guy with a concussion by saying it's bad to wrestle with one. Eric Bischoff and Jeff Hardy say that Morgan's an idiot and wrestling with concussions is for men while sitting out is for *****es. The actions played out over 3 months and they saw Jeff never once lose to Matt Morgan. Message delivered = Bischoff and Hardy are right and Morgan is wrong. Concussion victims are not worth standing up for as proved by Morgan falling short in the quest.

When you hit your head the part of the brain that understands context was severely damaged. At least the part that cherrypicks is still functioning though.

Not really. Bad guys can be a little more risque, but plenty of bad guys are able to say things that aren't remotely in bad taste. When CM Punk was the straight edge savior, how many of his comments were in bad taste? Zero, and in fact, many of his comments were quite accurate about how fans were cheering for a guy who was a bad example to their kids. You have this misconception that heels need to say things way over the line in order to come off as bad. That's not true. The best heels are the ones that can get under your skin regardless of how risque their character is. How about Muhammed Hassan. The character started out as a Palestinian American who complained of poor treatment in the US since 9/11 happened. He was a regular American citizen but grew bitter due to being stereotyped. This man got more heat than anyone I can think of, and not once did I say ANYTHING that could be construed as being in poor taste. That said, the second he was portrayed as praying for masked assailants which could be construed as terrorists I guess (I'm still confused on this to this day), his character was yanked. Due to the world we live in, that was seen as going to far. Still, Randy Orton told the Guerrero family that Eddie was in hell on national TV and that was ok? If you think that statement was right to say because it "got Randy heat", then I really need to go no further. That's disgusting and was in poor taste and I've given you plenty of ways to tell a great story and be a great heel without saying something distasteful. If you still don't get it, there's no helping you.

tl;dr

I think I vaguely noticed that you have a curious definition of plenty and a not so surprisingly distorted view of how Punks character was meant to be taken. Not to mention I don't quite remember Bischoff being straight edge.

No shit? But in real life, that wouldn't even be a fucking choice. I got a minor concussion in a soccer game in high school (that's over a decade ago so less was known about concussions then even) and when I awoke from it (I was out for 4 minutes), I said in slurred speech "am I going back in?" and the coach and trainer just laughed at me. I was off to the doctor and they knew it. So it's never a choice to go anywhere with a concussion. Not only will contact hurt, but so too will bright lights, loud noises, and basic movement.

I guess James Storm is tougher than you

Wrestling is real life and he did it so

However, even if we ignore all of that, your sentence is just plain stupid and it came out of nowhere. You don't know how to corral your thoughts and it's making it very easy to pick you apart like a javelina in the desert. This sentence doesn't have anything to do with anything so we'll just move on.

Came out of nowhere? Doesn't have anything to do with anything? I was joking before but you seriously might need to get a CAT scan.

I couldn't separate the last few sentences because they are just random ideas clumped together and I really didn't feel like trying to discern what the fuck you were talking about. What you did is what weak arguers do, and that is to make bold, overlying statements without merit in hopes that these universally accepted statements somehow support your argument and thus make you look superior. A good debater can pick this out easily though, as there is absolutely nothing backing up any of these grand, overlying statements.

Most "good debaters" can discern what people are talking about.

Let's try and understand what you were trying to say though. I don't have a "chosen format" and that's not even the issue here.

Yes you do. Why else would every post contain angry thoughts about what they should have done?

The issue from the beginning is that the way things played out was insensitive to concussions and was in poor taste. That's all.

Then you go on to say that I'm suggesting the the way things should play out (because I gave an example, something you are incapable of doing) is too much like real life and that real life isn't interesting.

Umm didn't you spend several posts saying that the examples I gave were not applicable. You should probably pick one or the other or get to the doctor. I suggest public transportation because I am afraid you might have too big of a blind spot to get behind the wheel at this point.

Apparently, "larger than life" is interesting, which is a phrased coined by the main you probably loathe, Vincent Kennedy McMahon. Amazing how phraseology that you are using to defend a product that you started watching due to you disdain of the larger product comes from the man who built that product into a giant huh? But let's get back to the point at hand here. Larger than life is interesting while real life isn't. I suppose if you have a mundane existence then you might be right, but I like to think that life is quite interesting. So too does wrestling, as both companies have been pulling stories from "real life" for years, and many fans tend to enjoy those the best. We're not in an era with voodoo magicians, garbage men, and movie characters come to life anymore. Some have even dubbed this "the reality era" of wrestling. Ironic, since reality is what doesn't work right?

Holy tangent batman. That main is alright. I got nothing against Vince. He is running a business. Just not for me right now. Sad that you don't understand the difference between actual reality and selective amplified "reality." I could probably go on a tangent about how you hate Russo/WCW/"worked" shoots etc but that just proves I can talk about something that probably isn't even relevant just as good as you can. Reality tv isn't real life. Maybe all of real life isn't truly boring but there are plenty of elements of it that are not fit to entertain. If you notice the stories from "real life" that make it onto wrestling shows are ones that would play even if they were not real. In those cases the "reality" backing they enjoy just builds them up more. Going to the doctor is a mundane task, your ex-wife marrying a co-worker isn't. While this era might not be over the top larger than life it still is clearly rooted in a world where the mundane aspects don't exist and as such is clearly more interesting than real life. Furthermore, the "real life" aspects are almost always amplified and altered to entertain in the scope of a show. Define that in whatever way you desire.

Apparently though, this isn't right to you as you next suggest that "wrestling isn't a representation of real life". Well if it isn't, then the WWF should give back a lot of money to fans for "duping them" into buying into a story that everyone could relate to: the employee standing up to the boss.

Take this response to your doctor. I finally found where your head doesn't work correctly. There is a fundamental difference between something you can relate to and something that is actually real. Many people can relate to the desire to stand up to their boss. However, the way that plays out on a wrestling show is that we have that central point that people can relate to around which a lot of fantasy oriented actions take place that are beyond the scope of the average life.

You see, once we got away from the cartoon era of wrestling, the stories we had were based on things that COULD actually happen in real life. The only difference being that all differences were settled in a squared circle and it's all theatrical.

That is one hell of a difference to gloss over.

My favorite story of all time is the Owen vs. Bret Hart story. It's so simple yet it's possibly the best wrestling story ever. Owen feels overlooked and becomes jealous/bitter towards Bret. He turns on him and tries to show Bret that he deserves the spotlight. Simple, but so effective. And here's the crazy thing.........everything you have suggested that makes a "good story" isn't involved here. At no point does Owen say something truly despicable to be a good heel, the story is in fact realistic and believable and doesn't have to be "larger than life" to work, the story is told responsibly, and in the end, the respectful brother wins the feud which shows that disrespecting a family member to get noticed isn't the best course of action. This story has proved everything you have said wrong and is one of the best of all time.

I would like to know where I said the only way to be a good heel is to say something despicable. I never said anything of the sort. What I did say is that what a heel says is meant to be looked at as the wrong way to go about something, which would fall under disrespecting a family member to get noticed here. If I was to respond like you here I would says family feuds are very personal issues that should not be made light of on tv because they hurt the children involved. My uncle didn't talk to my dad for 10 years and it still effects me to this day as a dark place in my childhood. In real life you shouldn't just get jealous of other loved ones success because the effects on children aren't usually considered. Yes, I made this up to show how easy it is to just randomly chose the focus of a story. While in sports people might not attempt to do things after getting hurt, you really want me to believe it never happens in real life? You really think no one ever overlooks their personal well-being because they have a drive for revenge?

Coming back to 2011, we're still talking about stories existing in the wrestling world that are reality based. It's been that way since the mid 90s (the good one anyway, I mean I'm not basing my argument on a post menopausal woman getting pregnant and then giving birth to a fucking hand).

Didn't you say something about throwing in random cliches in a desperate attempt to look smart earlier?

The story we have in hand I can kind of buy, even if it is rushed more than sex with a married chick when her husband is on the way home. Roode busts his ass for months to win a big tournament. Roode gets screwed making the tournament pointless but also making all of his hard work pointless. Roode's partner of all people wins the belt out of nowhere by getting an undeserved shot due to Angle's stupid clause in the contract. Roode gets his shot and feels good because maybe this will be vindication. Match is right down the middle and not wanting to get screwed again, Roode gets desperate and cheats to win. All of those aspects are fine and though it would have worked better over a couple of months, the story works in the regard. The only place I really have a problem with the story is this past week. I have no problem with Storm getting taken out with an injury. That would give the story something that was taken away from the beginning (time). Where it doesn't become ok is when the scene occurs where Storm is shown to have a concussion. We've discussed this all before and I'm not getting into it again. This is a story we can understand as you might feel the way Roode does if your fat, worthless, walking stereotype partner that should never be above the midcard gets the title before you do when you have busted your ass. This is something that in reality we could understand and totally debunks your "wrestling isn't based on reality" theory. I've debunked it like 8 times but once more won't hurt. Still, that part is something we can understand and relate to which is what makes a good wrestling story. The part where it gets dicey is this week.

Do you have any arguments that aren't based on your personal preference for a story being different? Do you really not understand that a key part of this story is you never know when you get an opportunity? I have no idea how that plays out better over even more months. You are also in an absurd place here because of your dislike of Storm. If you can't distance yourself from your bias to tell the story correctly then why should we believe you can do it on this topic in general?

Like I said earlier when I thought this was over, I'm willing to accept that wrestling has no moral compass. I personally think that it CAN work while having one (see the Owen/Bret story again as well as Punk/Hardy and others), but if that's what some fans are ok with, I'll let it slide. Where you fall short is trying to defend this with your cliched arguments. You presented nothing new and I really wish you didn't post this retort. Others like Killjoy presented cognizant arguments and I believe we agreed to disagree. You kept going and thus, I had to do what I had to do. Next time, formulate your thoughts into sentences that make sense and we'll have a real debate. Until then, just read what I wrote and don't respond. You might learn something, but just understand that I'm trying to agree to disagree here.

Agree to disagree is a cliche. It usually just means that you are too stubborn to give up your point even though you know you are wrong or do not wish to defend it against points you cannot refute. The idea that Punk-Hardy had a moral compass just shows how stupid people get when they talk about morals. Morals are relative and everyone likes to pretend they have the answer. Call me crazy but deriding somebody in a pretentious manner for having struggled with addiction is anything but the moral high ground.

It's this simple: I was riding a high moral horse on Thursday and I still kind of do. I'm a weird wrestling fan in that way. Many don't think morals and wrestling go together and that's fine. That's where we agree to disagree. I won't be ok with concussions being played off in the way they have been in TNA, some will be ok with that. Agree to disagree. VERY SIMPLE STUFF. We're done now. Save your vague, cliched arguments for whatever stupid thing we'll argue about in next week's LD.

An apple a day keeps the doctor away.

In an industry where every conflict is settled by a fight, something even elementary school kids know is the wrong way to go about things, I have a hard time worrying about the moral implications of not putting him on the IR like this was a high school soccer game or something.