So, Sting still make for a poor heel?

[The Viper Orton]

Well quite frankly, I wouldve given sting at least a six month title run for this great angle and he showed he can be not just a great heel, but a one that can be talked about for a long time. Don't get me wrong, if rvd beats hardy and then hardy joins sting as a part of deception it would be a very great angle to begin with (even abyss can added as he was deceived by hogan).

Its better to have a heel that can cut promos and give a meaning for the title yet not so versatile than to give a face champion that wants to fight everyday.... (another cena)

 

[MancMark]

I'm half hoping it plays out as Sting being the good guy all along and Hogan and Bish being the ********s.

Sting's doing his best. The fans still cheer him, and that ultimately is the problem. As for dragging it out for this long, it's called suspense. They have to be seen to at least let something run and try to build up the eventual tension. Not everything can run it's course in a month.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Oh IDR, you are such a TNA mark they could spoon-feed you diarrhea and you'd call it honey... more or less of which is happening right now.

Anyways, you my friend have the patience of a god. I, along with the majority of the IWC, have all but given up on caring why Sting has been doing what he's doing. TNA constantly drags angles out for way too long with no discernible payoff. Who were Samoa Joe's kidnappers? Are they going to tell us? Do you honestly still even care? It's been months and they don't even mention it anymore. I really want TNA to succeed, I really do. But this is not the way it's going to happen.

To answer your questions I'm not a fan of this heel turn but bless Sting's heart he's doing his damnedest. Hopefully it shouldn't matter either way because I'm hoping the payoff is Hulk and Bischoff deceiving us and Sting being the good guy all along.

I hope that's not coming from a guy who takes WWE programming as the gold standard of professional wrestling, because if it is, I've got a great story to tell you about the time the pot called the kettle black.

If anyone is spoon-feeding their fans material that could most closely resemble fecal matter, it's the WWE, not TNA. TNA may not make the most sense to very many people, but it's far more entertaining, far more mature and far less childish.

I'd sooner watch a senseless iMPACT! than watch a childish Raw any night of the week.

I'm not sold on the idea that "sense" and "logic" are what make for successful and effective wrestling programming, anyway – the WCW rarely made "sense" and was rarely "logical", yet they were minutes and inches away from choking the WWE out of business in their heyday – wonder how they accomplished that if they were spoon-feeding their fans diarrhea and calling it honey?

 

[MisterRob]

If anyone is spoon-feeding their fans material that could most closely resemble fecal matter, it's the WWE, not TNA. TNA may not make the most sense to very many people, but it's far more entertaining, far more mature and far less childish.

Of course it's far less childish, because WWE is PG and aiming a lot of their content at the younger crowd. That's a given, so knocking them for the new marketing direction of their entire company is silly, especially since it's working and bringing them a great deal of money. And far more entertaining can be countered easily enough since 3 times as many people watch WWE then TNA, so clearly three times as many people find WWE more entertaining then TNA. And sorry, three times as many people aren't 'brainwashed' and lack good judgment, they actually enjoy the product and find it entertaining and the majority clearly wins in most logical and realisitc scenarios when you're judging two things.

I'd sooner watch a senseless iMPACT! than watch a childish Raw any night of the week.

Good for you! Clearly you do that every week.

I'm not sold on the idea that "sense" and "logic" are what make for successful and effective wrestling programming, anyway – the WCW rarely made "sense" and was rarely "logical", yet they were minutes and inches away from choking the WWE out of business in their heyday – wonder how they accomplished that if they were spoon-feeding their fans diarrhea and calling it honey?

What was senseless or illogical about WCW back during their most successful time competing with the WWE? I'm quite curious, actually.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Of course it's far less childish, because WWE is PG and aiming a lot of their content at the younger crowd. That's a given, so knocking them for the new marketing direction of their entire company is silly, especially since it's working and bringing them a great deal of money. And far more entertaining can be countered easily enough since 3 times as many people watch WWE then TNA, so clearly three times as many people find WWE more entertaining then TNA. And sorry, three times as many people aren't 'brainwashed' and lack good judgment, they actually enjoy the product and find it entertaining and the majority clearly wins in most logical and realisitc scenarios when you're judging two things.

Yeah, I'm sure their legacy and lineage do absolutely nothing for their weekly ratings, or why they have a larger fan-base. Nah, it's all because they just so happen to appeal to a larger audience by providing said audience with baseline humor and color-by-numbers booking.

Three times as many people can damn well be that brainwashed and lack good judgement, too, by the way. Needn't look any farther than religion for further proof of that.

Good for you! Clearly you do that every week.

Yup, and I'll continue to.

What was senseless or illogical about WCW back during their most successful time competing with the WWE? I'm quite curious, actually.

Oh, so now it's just what was so senseless and illogical about WCW during their most successful time period, not the period prior or the weeks following that 82-week reign? Funny, I thought you weren't a fan of cherry-picking, but I guess if it suits your argument, why not, eh?

Do I really need to bring up the Finger Poke of Doom, the Yeti, the Shockmaster, Glacier and the rest of the Mortal Kombat characters, Bischoff challenging McMahon to a match, Goldberg being tased by Nash to end up with his first loss, Halloween Havoc '98, Steve Austin's firing, the White/Black Hummer story, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc?

 

[MisterRob]

Yeah, I'm sure their legacy and lineage do absolutely nothing for their weekly ratings, or why they have a larger fan-base. Nah, it's all because they just so happen to appeal to a larger audience by providing said audience with baseline humor and color-by-numbers booking.

Three times as many people can damn well be that brainwashed and lack good judgement, too, by the way. Needn't look any farther than religion for further proof of that.

I really hate this argument of "lineage and legacy". There's a great deal of people who have stopped watching WWE because they don't enjoy it anymore, etc, are you saying everyone who has chosen to remain and continue to watch and support WWE is merely brainwashed? What a joke. I don't even watch WWE regularly (besides keeping upto date with things and watching videos on the website here and there weekly), but to say all of those people watch the product based solely on their lineage and the brand name itself is ridiculous. I think you've 'brainwashed' yourself, because people DO watch WWE because they enjoy the product and because they choose to because they truly believe it's a more entertaining product and a far better choice then TNA. To try to discredit that, without any facts and just your opinion, is silly.

Oh, so now it's just what was so senseless and illogical about WCW during their most successful time period, not the period prior or the weeks following that 82-week reign? Funny, I thought you weren't a fan of cherry-picking, but I guess if it suits your argument, why not, eh?

Do I really need to bring up the Finger Poke of Doom, the Yeti, the Shockmaster, Glacier and the rest of the Mortal Kombat characters, Bischoff challenging McMahon to a match, Goldberg being tased by Nash to end up with his first loss, Halloween Havoc '98, Steve Austin's firing, the White/Black Hummer story, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc?

Actually it was YOU who said, and I quote "yet they were minutes and inches away from choking the WWE out of business in their heyday". You were the one referencing their most successful time period, when they were beating WWE in the ratings and almost put them out of business. That was you not me, I'd just like to know what they were doing during this time that you feel was 'senseless' or 'illogical' because I really don't see much at all that was.

Most of your examples are either quite a while before Bischoff even took over and the nWo and the huge success of WCW began or quite some time after that time was over and Nash was booking and WCW was in a downward spiral (Goldberg losing, Finger Poke of Doom, those were all during the days of Nash booking).

 

[It's Damn Real!]

I really hate this argument of "lineage and legacy". There's a great deal of people who have stopped watching WWE because they don't enjoy it anymore, etc, are you saying everyone who has chosen to remain and continue to watch and support WWE is merely brainwashed? What a joke. I don't even watch WWE regularly (besides keeping upto date with things and watching videos on the website here and there weekly), but to say all of those people watch the product based solely on their lineage and the brand name itself is ridiculous. I think you've 'brainwashed' yourself, because people DO watch WWE because they enjoy the product and because they choose to because they truly believe it's a more entertaining product and a far better choice then TNA. To try to discredit that, without any facts and just your opinion, is silly.

And that's your prerogative if you choose to hate the argument of "lineage and legacy", but it doesn't make it any less relevant. It doesn't matter that some folks have stopped watching the WWE because they don't enjoy it anymore, because that doesn't change the fact that some folks still watch it out of habitual legacy/lineage. The two are unrelated.

I never said all people watch the programming because of it's lineage/legacy, by the way – read my post again. I said it was a ridiculous assertion to scoff at the idea that their lineage/legacy has nothing to do with their numbers, and I still do.

Actually it was YOU who said, and I quote "yet they were minutes and inches away from choking the WWE out of business in their heyday". You were the one referencing their most successful time period, when they were beating WWE in the ratings and almost put them out of business. That was you not me, I'd just like to know what they were doing during this time that you feel was 'senseless' or 'illogical' because I really don't see much at all that was.

Most of your examples are either quite a while before Bischoff even took over and the nWo and the huge success of WCW began or quite some time after that time was over and Nash was booking and WCW was in a downward spiral (Goldberg losing, Finger Poke of Doom, those were all during the days of Nash booking).

So what? Like I said then, and I'll say again, I'm not sold on the idea that "sense" and "logic" are what make for successful and effective wrestling programming, anyway. The WCW made a number of mistakes during their reign, including giving away the fucking results to RAW live on their broadcast that ended up biting them in the ass, David Arquette: WCW World Champion, celebrities as main-eventers (Rodman, Malone, Leno, etc.), The Outsiders tag-team championship reigns that saw numerous "number one contenders" never get their shots, the loss of the Radicalz, Starcade '97, Sting & Goldberg's failed heel turns, The Ultimate Warrior, Bret Hart, The Renegade, etc. etc. etc.

Yet they were the second most successful wrestling company in history, and still had millions of viewers every week – go figure.

I guess that one-million+ audience TNA pulls in every week all just watch because it's such an awful fucking program that doesn't deserve to be on television, eh? Or maybe they're just masochists?

 

[DPete]

I prefer Sting as a heel. When he is a face I find myself wanting to see him lose. So for me, I want to see him get his ass kicked even more as a heel.

 

[The Best At What I Do]

Well, Bubba The Love Sponge, if he were a "mark" he wouldn't be too pleased with Sting turning on the fan's we wouldn't know its fixed. At least that's what my diccionary says.

Hmmm maybe you should make sure you comprehend a response before you argue with it. I never said he's a general wrestling mark. I said he's a TNA mark, therefore he marks out for everything TNA does including the Sting turn. But maybe you should use a dictionary instead of a diccionary.

4 months. You have the patience of a schoolgirl needing to take a leak. You also want to complicate the simple. He hates Hogan. The fan's or "marks" don't seem to care about a reason. They just want Sting to stop beating up people. You want to find the bulls other ass.

Sorry I enjoy taking at least once in 1/3 of the calendar year. 4 months is forever is the wrestling industry. Ask anyone who watches. Almost every feud nowadays is over within 4 months including the most intense ones. We're really expected to just sit and wait for an explanation that will guarantee to just end in disappointment for over that time frame?

I really don't care. He's back and being solid. Why derail him with what would probably a failing story?

My point exactly! It doesn't have to be a failing story but you already know it would be. Why can't they just follow through while people are still interested?

That's kinda what he's been trying to tell. Truth is, why? Just what is Hogan gonna do if he turns heel? Or Bischoff? Nothing. They are mangement. Other than being jerks, there is nothing to go with. So Sting should stay as he is and eventually get along with Hogan. We never got a reason as to why Austin sided with Mr. McMahon or The Alliance. We never got a reason for Matt Hardy feeling sorry for almost killing his brother several times. Stings a heel. He beats good guys up and needs to be stoped. The basic premise of a heel. If you want a reason to know why he's being evil, keep speculating. His reasons are the drive of his character right now. If he reveals them, there really won't be a point for it.

...Are you serious? Are you being serious right now? That is honestly one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. What would Hogan and Bischoff do? Hogan and Bischoff hold all the power son! They can go out there and play the big bad bosses holding the top face down which has been proven gold in the wrestling world. You cited Austin siding with Vince. Do you recall how shitty that heel turn was? The least TNA can do is learn from the mistakes of the WWE.

 

[ffejyoop]

I have to say that I'm really liking Sting in his current heel role. Someone recently said something along the lines of getting people to tune in the next week to see what happens in an angle is key to episodic television (maybe Jim Ross?). For me this is the closest thing as far as Sting is concerned to the "Sting in the rafters" angle that WCW did in the 90s. I know a few people that got physically violent when he wouldn't come down... but they damn sure watched the next week. I for one will be tuning in regardless, but finding out what Sting has been bitching about is something I want to see, even if it takes a few months to find out. Oh, and IDR, you continue to impress me with your posts, even if you are a TNA "mark"... uh, don't know the emoticon for an eyeroll, so insert that here. The only time I've watched the E lately was to see what the deal with the NXT angle is all about but I'm guesing they're gonna F that up (not drop it because it's not getting over, but just plain F it up)

 

[ffejyoop]

TNA constantly drags angles out for way too long with no discernible payoff. Who were Samoa Joe's kidnappers? Are they going to tell us? Do you honestly still even care? It's been months and they don't even mention it anymore. I really want TNA to succeed, I really do. But this is not the way it's going to happen.

There's a difference between the two angles as the Samoa Joe one they didn't talk about it after a few weeks, whereas with Sting, he's on every week continuing it and keeping in people's heads "why is he doing this?"

 

[Goliath Uterus]

No, I think Sting makes for a great heel. Right now, everyone hates him and he's got the crowd in the palm of his hands. But like KB said, its and unwarranted heel turn and quite random.

I do think he's pulled it off well, seamlessly in fact, regardless of the poor booking.
And I do think his issues w/Hogan and the others will be solved simply because, they've been building this up for so long that if they abort it now, then Stings charecter (and that whole buildup) will all be for shit.

 

[benm1989]

Everyone said the same thing about Hogan before the NWO angle on WCW. How do we even know if it was Russo that booked this. This type of angle so like something Eric Bischoff would try and pull off. It worked with Hogan and it is working with Sting. I mean people are even starting to boo him. Thats something i have never even heard before. Even when he was supposed to be heal in the MEM people cheered even louder for him. But this angle is working as im tuning in evry week cause im dying to find out why hes doing it. But i have a suspicion that he going back face and Bischoff, Hogan and Jarrett will turn heel. Bischoff is too good as a heel and from what i have read he likes playing the bad guy on tv. Kinda going off topic there sorry but i believe if Sting didnt come back as a heel there wouldnt be much there for him to do at least this is giving him fresh feuds.