Sting, Hogan and Flair is Exactly What Bound For Glory Needs

[Brian in Austin]

When the world shakes down Hogan and Austin will be remembered as the biggest wrestling names, but that doesn't mean that Vince didn't treat the Rock as the bigger star during the whole nWo feud. Personally, I'd list them Hogan > Rock > Andre but without that much of a chasm between them.

There is no evidence in the States because they have only changed the business model of moving outside of the Impact Zone in the US very recently and they still don't tape IW outside of the SE - as I've already stated. In the UK however, IW has ratings about double that of RAW & SD.



Once again, this is about a single match at a single PPV so how long they should use Hogan, Flair and Sting isn't relevant to the post; but if it's causing you sleepless nights... my opinion is that their longevity would be contingent on TNA's aspirations. If they try to expand their geographical area for IW tapings, then yes they should use the banner names to get people into the tapings until they have enough brand awareness to let them go. If they are happy with their lot in the SE, then they should let them go at the earliest opportunity and plumb the money into other avenues, for example - bringing in recognisable performers like the World's Greatest Tag Team & MVP plus the best of the Indy scene (as they have recently shown a willingness to do with the X Division).

So you're saying that TNA wresting is only a regional operation at this time? I for one feel like, and believe, they are a national operation. Heck, given the fact they are as popular as you say they are in the UK, they are a worldwide operation/brand. But I also hear you saying that in order for them to grow out of being a regional operation, that they need the name stars to help get them there. So what I REALLY hear you saying is that without name stars, TNA can't be successful.

Which pretty much is what a lot of fans are saying.

 

[Sarsip]

To me, it isn't so much that the match has no place on the show. Vince vs. Bret was a trainwreck, but there was some cache to seeing it and it didn't hurt the credibility of Wrestlemania. TNA, however, has built this match up as their main attraction for the lion's share of Bischoff and Hogan's tenure in TNA. I have no doubt that TNA will put this match on no lower than 3rd from the top, and more likely 2nd (big mistake if they make it the main event over Roode and Angle); but how could they? They've invested important 'quarter hour' slots in the match for so long that this has to be one of the more important matches on the card. They've invested all that time and money into a match that nobody believes will be great (unlike how WWE invests time and money into older main eventer matches that end up being great i.e. Taker at Mania series, Flair vs. Michaels) and that will likely/hopefully be at least one of the two's last match, meaning that there can be little follow up if by chance there is any heat to be taken from this match. If this was an attraction match with 3 months build, I'd argue that it's pretty smart. Main event angle for the last 18 months? Seems like a lot of wasted resources to me.

 

[New Hot Fed]

Anybody who was a die-hard fan of the nWo Hogan v. Sting fued has to be interested in the current TNA scenario.

Sorry Jackrabitt but you would be wrong. I'm not interested in that at all. Maybe in a better scenario but this has been badly booked.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

To me, it isn't so much that the match has no place on the show. Vince vs. Bret was a trainwreck, but there was some cache to seeing it and it didn't hurt the credibility of Wrestlemania. TNA, however, has built this match up as their main attraction for the lion's share of Bischoff and Hogan's tenure in TNA. I have no doubt that TNA will put this match on no lower than 3rd from the top, and more likely 2nd (big mistake if they make it the main event over Roode and Angle); but how could they? They've invested important 'quarter hour' slots in the match for so long that this has to be one of the more important matches on the card. They've invested all that time and money into a match that nobody believes will be great (unlike how WWE invests time and money into older main eventer matches that end up being great i.e. Taker at Mania series, Flair vs. Michaels) and that will likely/hopefully be at least one of the two's last match, meaning that there can be little follow up if by chance there is any heat to be taken from this match. If this was an attraction match with 3 months build, I'd argue that it's pretty smart. Main event angle for the last 18 months? Seems like a lot of wasted resources to me.

Teasing a match and building a match are two different things, the actual build to this match began when Sting donned the Joker persona and even then it was presented as far from a certainty, right up to Naitch's return and subsequent challenge to the Stinger - only then did it become a near certainty. Prior to this, he was initially trying to get Dixie to see the error of her ways in trusting HH & EB. Then he left TNA when his warnings fell on deaf ears only to return as an avenger determined on getting the company back by exerting as much heartache on Immortal as he could by taking the World Title and the sway it presents. I think it's refreshing to have had the slow build to this match rather than the Fast Food storyline style that has been too prevalent for too long now.

I also like the mentality - Hogan isn't trying to hide the fact that he is beat up, he isn't setting this up to be Savage vs Steamboat 2011. Also on the Immortal One's side is that he is the heel which under wrestling 101 rules means that he will dominate the majority of the match and it is Sting's responsibility to sell his offence; something the Icon still does very well. Hogan's most famous match was probably against Andre (largely due to the fact that he mentions it at every opportunity) and the Giant was only months from having been unable to lift a 100lb woman. Hulk is now in the Giant's position of the heel with a legitimately injured lower back, who better to lay out the match?

I'm sorry but I must comment on the 'how WWE invests time and money into older main eventer matches that end up being great' comment:

1. WM27; Michael Cole vs Jerry Lawler - only the overrated Taker vs Triple H received significantly more time than this aberration.
2. WM26; Bret Hart vs Vince McMahon received a monster build up despite the fact that one isn't legally allowed to be involved in a physical bout.
3. WM25; Y2J vs Snuka, Piper & Steamboat plus an altercation with Flair before getting knocked out by Mickey Rourke who was never seen on WWeTV again.
4. WM22; HBK vs VKM (2nd longest match on the card by a margin).
5. WM19; Hogan vs McMahon allocated over twenty minutes and only 105 seconds shorter than the longest bout.

These are five of the most hyped matches in the last ten years of WrestleMania - three of them feature McMahon, a non wrestler and 57 for WM19 and 64 at WM26; Y2J took on 65 year old Snuka, 55 year Piper and 56 year old Steamboat (who saved the match from becoming a complete abomination); and, in the final example, a massive build for a comedy match between an extremely unathletic commentator and his 61 year old wrestling legend colleague.

So you're saying that TNA wresting is only a regional operation at this time? I for one feel like, and believe, they are a national operation. Heck, given the fact they are as popular as you say they are in the UK, they are a worldwide operation/brand. But I also hear you saying that in order for them to grow out of being a regional operation, that they need the name stars to help get them there. So what I REALLY hear you saying is that without name stars, TNA can't be successful.

Which pretty much is what a lot of fans are saying.

TNA has treaded water with the big names as far as US ratings, were they have fallen down is that Panda are willing to spend money on big names but they haven't taken the next logical step of taking IW taping to the masses. Yes, it is a national and worldwide programme but their premier product is contained to the SE. Live taping in as many Cities as possible along with as many local TV and Radio interviews would raise brand awareness. Having BFG in the NE, a traditional WWF stronghold is a step in the right direction. The WWF rocketed when they went to the masses, WCW became legitimate contenders when they left the sound stage and did the same. 2 million people regularly watch IW out of a population of 307 million and RAW can hit 5.5 million but when you think that 3 times that amount used to tune into wrestling every Monday, it shows what the potential market out there could be. If IW was to go without the 'names', I'm sure they would eventually get stronger but with the 'names' you have more chance of getting there quicker. Hogan, Flair, Sting, Angle, RVD, the Dudleys, Steiner and Hardy all contributed to wrestling's last great boom period - seeing or hearing them lends that big time feel to raise hype.

I'm not into blowing smoke, I'll call TNA's weaknesses as I see them. Much of the IWC loves to piss on Hulk and Eric's time in TNA and, particularly in their early tenure, there was questionable decisions that most certainly didn't bear fruit. After the teething pains the product has improved remarkably and IW is showing ambition; we get tapings outside the Impact Zone and Philadelphia is hosting their biggest PPV. Should they continue to follow this risk taking trend, then maybe - just maybe they will make that next big step (after all, once upon a time, a promotion took the ultimate risk when they signed the World's favourite wrestler and got him to tell his loving audience that they could "Stick it!").

 

[Sarsip]

There is some credence to what you're presenting, although you definitely took what I meant by my older main eventer comment as precisely the opposite of what I meant. The matches you suggested did have significant build up (although much less than a year and a half, and over the course of 4 hours of television per week instead of 2) but were definitely all attraction matches. For example, on the WM19 card that featured Hogan vs. McMahon, you also had Rock vs. Austin, Angle vs. Lesnar and HHH vs. Booker T; Hogan vs. McMahon was not the make-or-break of this card. That's the same for all of the examples you gave. I was trying to recognize that when the WWE uses older performers as main event attractions on the card, like Undertaker, Michaels or Flair, the matches typically deliver in a big way. People consistently look forward to the Undertaker's match at Mania every year. Even if Hulk is making preemptive excuses for how this match is going to look, TNA has definitely positioned this match as one of maybe two reasons, the other being the World title story, for why you should buy this PPV. I just don't think it can possibly deliver in the same way a main event at Wrestlemania would.

The Hogan-Andre comparison may be fine from a working standpoint, but this is not the same situation. That match really made Hogan and put him over the top as the clear cut draw of the promotion and was, if not necessary, then majorly beneficial to both the company and Hogan's career, and Andre knew it. Andre still had mystique to him at that point; beating him mattered. There really is no sound reason for this match to be happening in this capacity though. A win over Hogan does not carry anywhere near the cache that a win over Andre did; if it does, Sting is the guy you want to get the rub as the flagship of your growing promotion? He's in his 50s! A great example of the way the Hogan-Andre scenario works is by having Crimson go over Goldberg in the main event. Goldberg was the most memorable streak in wrestling; he lost in mainly bullshit schmozes. Build Goldberg up as the believable monster he was, then have him job to Crimson; it would mean something. I'm not saying that's a possibility or even a good scenario, as Crimson by all accounts is nowhere near even where Goldberg was in terms of readiness. But it would give a new guy much needed steam.

I also stand by what I say about the buildup/tease/what-have-you. I think it should have been obvious to most people once Immortal formed that they were setting up Hogan on one side and Sting on the other for a showdown for control of the company. The idea was that Sting's focus be on destroying Immortal and destroying Hogan (poorly executed as it was at many points). You're right, it has recently focused more on the two of them specifically, but it has been evident since well before that. Don't get me wrong, it's what TNA has paid for since Day 1 of the Hogan-Bischoff project. As a fan, I guess I don't get it though. It's an old feud between two old men that stagnated 15 years ago or so and that people just didn't seem to be clamoring for in 2011. If this match has to happen, why does it have to be so prominently featured? It's not Hogan-Andre at WM3, it's not Flair-Michaels at WM24, and realistically, Bound for Glory is not Wrestlemania and TNA is not WWE. TNA really has little business promoting nostalgia when they haven't done much of note in their near ten year existence.

 

[sikkbones]

i am honestly waiting for the day that the billionare ted skits come true and hogan comes to the ring with the assitance of a walker.. the day is coming... hogan is such a glory hog that he never retire quitely.... i almost wish hogan had purchased WCW when he had the chance.. if for nothing else... so hogan would have been a behind the scenes type person even if WCW just became a videotape company... Hogan will never be happy without being the focus of the company... this is why we will see hogan one day in an Indy with TV that is willing to pay his reduced expectations pay just so he will on tv....

and flair will be 90 years old wrestling in a barn for your local indy without tv... that's how badly he needs the money... maybe he got busted smoking pot by the IRS? wait that's willie nelson.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

There is some credence to what you're presenting, although you definitely took what I meant by my older main eventer comment as precisely the opposite of what I meant. The matches you suggested did have significant build up (although much less than a year and a half, and over the course of 4 hours of television per week instead of 2) but were definitely all attraction matches. For example, on the WM19 card that featured Hogan vs. McMahon, you also had Rock vs. Austin, Angle vs. Lesnar and HHH vs. Booker T; Hogan vs. McMahon was not the make-or-break of this card. That's the same for all of the examples you gave. I was trying to recognize that when the WWE uses older performers as main event attractions on the card, like Undertaker, Michaels or Flair, the matches typically deliver in a big way. People consistently look forward to the Undertaker's match at Mania every year. Even if Hulk is making preemptive excuses for how this match is going to look, TNA has definitely positioned this match as one of maybe two reasons, the other being the World title story, for why you should buy this PPV. I just don't think it can possibly deliver in the same way a main event at Wrestlemania would.

But build or not, Sting / Hogan is far from the be all match. Kurt vs Roode has been built for some months now; RVD vs Jerry Lynn and (most likely) AJ vs Daniels are both matches that have toplined PPVs before; Bully Ray has been getting a steady build for some time now and is being rewarded with a match against a TNA headliner in Anderson; even the KOs Fourway is being given a decent build. To add to this, it doesn't appear to me that we are going to get the 'dross' match that often infects Mania - the Corre 8 man and the 6 person mixed tag this year alone.

The Hogan-Andre comparison may be fine from a working standpoint, but this is not the same situation. That match really made Hogan and put him over the top as the clear cut draw of the promotion and was, if not necessary, then majorly beneficial to both the company and Hogan's career, and Andre knew it. Andre still had mystique to him at that point; beating him mattered. There really is no sound reason for this match to be happening in this capacity though. A win over Hogan does not carry anywhere near the cache that a win over Andre did; if it does, Sting is the guy you want to get the rub as the flagship of your growing promotion? He's in his 50s! A great example of the way the Hogan-Andre scenario works is by having Crimson go over Goldberg in the main event. Goldberg was the most memorable streak in wrestling; he lost in mainly bullshit schmozes. Build Goldberg up as the believable monster he was, then have him job to Crimson; it would mean something. I'm not saying that's a possibility or even a good scenario, as Crimson by all accounts is nowhere near even where Goldberg was in terms of readiness. But it would give a new guy much needed steam.

Again with the Andre made Hogan argument? Andre wasn't even used continually by Vince Snr, he was sent out round other territories to attempt to keep him fresh when he returned to the NE. Hogan was the man that Jnr used to make the WWF not only a national promotion but a cross over entertainment monster. Ask a casual wrestling fan about the wrestling legacy of Andre and if your lucky enough to find one that remembers him, I'd be amazed if they knew anything beyond his Hogan matches. Ask the same fan about Hogan and even if they've never heard of TNA they'll likely list off memories like McMahon, Lesnar, Rock, Sting, the nWo, Savage, Piper, Flair and Andre. If history tells us anything, Andre gained more from WM3 than Hogan.

Why are you talking 'rub' anyway, even if Hogan was to face someone like James Storm; given his age and condition, just how much of a rub would it be regarded as?

My use of Andre was simple, Hogan has faced an opponent who worked an iconic match with him suffering the same debilitation. Hogan now operates as a similar presence and is facing a guy who exhibits many of the traits that Hulk used as a face.

I also stand by what I say about the buildup/tease/what-have-you. I think it should have been obvious to most people once Immortal formed that they were setting up Hogan on one side and Sting on the other for a showdown for control of the company. The idea was that Sting's focus be on destroying Immortal and destroying Hogan (poorly executed as it was at many points). You're right, it has recently focused more on the two of them specifically, but it has been evident since well before that. Don't get me wrong, it's what TNA has paid for since Day 1 of the Hogan-Bischoff project. As a fan, I guess I don't get it though. It's an old feud between two old men that stagnated 15 years ago or so and that people just didn't seem to be clamoring for in 2011. If this match has to happen, why does it have to be so prominently featured? It's not Hogan-Andre at WM3, it's not Flair-Michaels at WM24, and realistically, Bound for Glory is not Wrestlemania and TNA is not WWE. TNA really has little business promoting nostalgia when they haven't done much of note in their near ten year existence.

Explain to me how it has been planned for 18 months when Sting wasn't even an employee less than half a year ago?

So, if you where a promoter holding an event in a new town, you would ignore the fact that you have three guys synonymous with the sport because they didn't have their biggest moments in your promotion? How about using footballers, boxers, actors etc when you have no significant history in these fields and they have none in yours?

The monotony of stating this is really starting to grate, this is one match at one PPV. If you don't like the idea, fine, there will be half a dozen other built matches on the card and it is unlikely that any of them will last less time than the entrances - look forward to them instead of fixating on that which you claim to have no interest in!

i am honestly waiting for the day that the billionare ted skits come true and hogan comes to the ring with the assitance of a walker.. the day is coming... hogan is such a glory hog that he never retire quitely.... i almost wish hogan had purchased WCW when he had the chance.. if for nothing else... so hogan would have been a behind the scenes type person even if WCW just became a videotape company... Hogan will never be happy without being the focus of the company... this is why we will see hogan one day in an Indy with TV that is willing to pay his reduced expectations pay just so he will on tv....

and flair will be 90 years old wrestling in a barn for your local indy without tv... that's how badly he needs the money... maybe he got busted smoking pot by the IRS? wait that's willie nelson.

Eleven televised matches in a combined 44 month tenure? I find your lack of respect disturbing.

 

[Brian in Austin]

I give up guys. You win. TNA is great! Best thing ever. I just watched Hogan hobble out to the ring, tear up as he essentially announced (unless this is yet another EB, Russo, Hogan swerve) his retirement. Yawwnn!!!! Been there, done that. I suspect though if Hogan is truly leaving (which I doubt right now) and he shows up in WWE, those who love him in TNA right now will turn on him faster than Red Rock stomped bullriders for years.

At any rate, I'm done with this argument. Doesn't make any difference anyhow. Results are what matters! 1.2, 1.3, 1.1, 1.2, 1.4., 1.3, etc.

 

[Sarsip]

Well, Fit, whether I'm interested in this match or not is not the point of the thread. Someone had an opinion that having 3 performers whose ages add to over 150 years as the major program headed into the promotion's top PPV was exactly what the company requires; my opinion is that not only is that incorrect, it's counterproductive to what any growing company should want to achieve. Just because I have no interest in this ill-conceived match doesn't mean I have no interest in a steady #2 promotion finding some success outside of Vince McMahon's world of sports entertainment. You're basically saying that the answer to being anti-abortion is to not have an abortion; the fact that abortion exist is reason for anti-abortion lobbyists to state their opinions and the fact that this 'abortion' of a match is happening is reason for my opinion being expressed.

To your first point, I guess we'll wait and see. If Hogan - Sting is positioned as a top 3 match (hell, make it top 2), I guess I had a better take on who TNA felt would best sell the PPV. Don't know how they couldn't feature it; the winner gets control of the company for his proxy. But if Daniels vs Styles, Bully Ray vs. Anderson, and RVD vs. Lynn are featured more prominently, maybe I'll concede that they are interested in the company's future for more than I've given them credit. Again, seems like a lot of wasted time building toward Dixie getting her company back if they did that (the prolonged build from the first 'They' angle that I've referenced as the Hogan - Sting build), but in the end it doesn't matter.

To clarify, I didn't say Andre made Hogan; the Andre - Hogan match made Wrestlemania 3, which I argue elevated Hogan, WWF and Wrestlemania into a higher class of stardom. Hogan was a star before that and likely would have been a star after, but perhaps not as iconic if WWF didn't take off as a leader in the way it did after that match. If he does WM3 against Adrian Adonis for example, who was his scheduled opponent for WM2, does WWF sell out Pontiac Silverdome? From there, does WWF develop strangleholds on major markets, or does NWA compete with them more easily? Is Hogan the clear cut face of pro wrestling or is it now Ric Flair?

Frankly, your use of Andre was too simple and needed further exploration; what I was trying to present was that beating Andre meant FAR more than beating Bundy or Piper or Savage at the time, therefore it was at least useful to use a broken, limited Andre in that spot. Using a broken Hogan in this spot will have nowhere near the same effect, so why bother? You evidently missed my point completely by bringing up putting Hogan in a match with Storm; Storm would not gain much by beating Hogan given his age and condition as you stated, so why have him in there? Nothing Hogan can contribute in the ring can elevate his opponent, TNA or Bound for Glory; given that he can't possibly give a passable match by his own admission, what good comes of this or any Hogan match at the PPV?

As a promoter, if I had access to three top names synonymous with professional wrestling, would I ignore their accomplishments based on the fact that they accomplished them elsewhere? No, I would ignore them based on the fact that they accomplished them many many years ago, they are incapable of wrestling in matches that defined their careers, and most importantly, there are young performers in the company that could benefit by having more prominent places on the card. I will never understand how fans can still get behind these guys who are past their prime by 10 or 15, sometimes 20 years, just based on the fact that they were legends long ago in a galaxy far away. As I stated before, TNA has yet to make their own memories, and I think a large part of that is that they abandon direction for whatever formerly successful castaway wants to come to their promotion and sing their praises, and if you were to find memories, I bet you they come in the form of a Daniels, Styles or Joe. Look at all of the top talent that made their names elsewhere: RVD, Anderson, Hogan, Sting, Pope, Dudleys, Flair, Steiner, Angle, list goes on. Why can't TNA push themselves away from the table? If the three names synonymous with wrestling can't wrestle anymore, then you need to make three new names synonymous with wrestling and tell the former three that you're not interested. Flair, Sting and Hogan's names are not helping TNA by being synonymous with wrestling, their names are hurting wrestling by being synonymous with it.

I'm sorry if you find arguing about this 'grating' despite the fact that you're an active participant still, but it goes to the credibility of the product. This match to me is an albatross; I likely wouldn't have bought the PPV anyway, but I think its presence on the card would hinder my decision to spend money in the case where I was actually going to decide. I've bought TNA PPVs before. I bought Joe vs. Angle a few years ago. That was a match between two strong personalities that were relevant in wrestling and at the top of the promotion. If it seems like I'm fixating, it's because I find it ridiculous that I'm actually discussing a main event match in a major company at a major PPV between a 60 year old man and a 50 year old man that originally happened 15 years ago.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

Well, Fit, whether I'm interested in this match or not is not the point of the thread. Someone had an opinion that having 3 performers whose ages add to over 150 years as the major program headed into the promotion's top PPV was exactly what the company requires; my opinion is that not only is that incorrect, it's counterproductive to what any growing company should want to achieve. Just because I have no interest in this ill-conceived match doesn't mean I have no interest in a steady #2 promotion finding some success outside of Vince McMahon's world of sports entertainment. You're basically saying that the answer to being anti-abortion is to not have an abortion; the fact that abortion exist is reason for anti-abortion lobbyists to state their opinions and the fact that this 'abortion' of a match is happening is reason for my opinion being expressed.

Yes, you read that right.

For an angle that's received as much criticism and hatred as this has, I for one honestly can't understand why (shocking, I know).

Age aside (and I'll get into why this doesn't matter later), everything about this—absolutely everything—makes sense leading into Bound For Glory.

1. These men are superstars. Not in the WWE sense of the word in that anyone who has ever wrestled for Vince or his company is a "superstar", but in that these men supersede life. They are larger than it. They are super heros. They are the pioneers of the industry who have an ability few from the modern era have to captivate their audience in every facet of their game – in the ring and out. Again, age aside for the moment, why would you not want to utilize this to tell a story that fans (note: not just internet fans) want to see?

The nostalgic history of these three men is undeniably entertaining for anyone who can appreciate both nostalgia and the matches these men made infamous all those years ago. Again, why would you not want to utilize this to tell a story that fans want to see?

2. As was illustrated by the success of Hart/McMahon at WrestleMania, if given the proper treatment and the correct amount of "censorship", the declining in ring skill of these men can be masked or throttled enough to still leave a lasting impression and produce a proper match at Bound For Glory between Sting/Hogan, just as it did tonight on iMPACT! between Sting/Flair.

Not every match needs to be a technical five-star physical bout in order to be successful, and not every performer needs to be capable of wrestling like AJ Styles, regardless of what you've read on the internet. Wrestling is about telling a story. Match "quality", as in the quality of the physical performance alone, is only a part of that, and a minor one at that (though there are a number of people who'd have you believe otherwise here). The single most important aspect is the psychology of the match-up and how well executed it is, which is determined by how well the crowd takes to the event. As was seen by the crowd reaction to Sting/Flair, I have no question that Sting/Hogan is fully capable of achieving the exact same effect, if not bettering it..​

Obviously at their age and at the level of their diminished ability, a five-star match isn't a realistic expectation, but that's not to say that a good-to-great match can't still take place if the story in place and psychological build of the match does enough to mask the obvious negatives of the physical limitations of all parities involved, which TNA is certainly on the track to achieve at the moment.

As far as I'm concerned, this is a winning scenario for the company heading into the biggest PPV of the year so long as the right guy wins and wins in the right way. The story thus far has been told exactly as it should be, so so long as the conclusion doesn't spoil the climax to this, we, as viewers and as fans, should be in for a treat of an event come October 16th. That is, of course, if you don't go into this with a handful of unruly and illogical expectations like this being the greatest match of the year, of all-time or being some kind of tactical soirée. A little perspective will go a long way in appreciating this for what it is.

I'm sure I'l get reamed for this, and I'm sure this will be riddled with criticisms and complaints about the combined age of the competitors, but I needed to get this out, because it needed to be said. Bottom line: Sting/Flair/Hogan is the reason I'll be ordering (not streaming) Bound For Glory.

I think you'll find that IDR and I are making the exact same argument (not always the case). Where I think the main two differences in opinion between you and I are concerned is that I do believe that two ring generals of this stature can still provide a more than satisfactory match up and, more pertinently, you appear to be thinking as a member of the IWC - I loved Destination X but if you gave one of the 12plus million people who have stopped watching wrestling in the past decade the option of that card or the BFG card, which do you honestly think they would be more interested in? Believe me, I'll be the first guy celebrating when guys like AJ and Bobby can be mentioned in the same sentence as a Randy Orton without the response 'Who?' but to get there they need recognition, what better way to gain recognition than showcasing your abilities at events with the most recognisable?

I've used the example on a number of occasions but look at the past WM and it's dependence outside of it's active roster. Compare that with BFG and, of the card thus far, we have two guys who do not regularly compete and one of those is Jerry Lynn.

To your first point, I guess we'll wait and see. If Hogan - Sting is positioned as a top 3 match (hell, make it top 2), I guess I had a better take on who TNA felt would best sell the PPV. Don't know how they couldn't feature it; the winner gets control of the company for his proxy. But if Daniels vs Styles, Bully Ray vs. Anderson, and RVD vs. Lynn are featured more prominently, maybe I'll concede that they are interested in the company's future for more than I've given them credit. Again, seems like a lot of wasted time building toward Dixie getting her company back if they did that (the prolonged build from the first 'They' angle that I've referenced as the Hogan - Sting build), but in the end it doesn't matter.

BFG is being sold on two fronts - the established names to try and attract new customers to purchase the event and the originals to attract guys like yourself and Bri who hate the (oft repeated) concept of a non active competitor featuring. Kurt vs Bobby will be the ME but I would be surprised if Hogan vs Sting isn't the penultimate or second from last match and I have no problem with that. Seriously, tell me how you could have a match with the two and put it in the middle of the card - particularly if you are using it as a promotional device?

However, I'm not sure if you saw last nights IW but Roode vs Angle was pushed for far more of the show than Sting vs Hogan. It opened with a package on Kurt / Bobby, went to Sting coming out to endorse Bobby in his attempt to win the Title, it had an extended promo package of Roode training and at home, interview segments with him and fellow Fortune member AJ, a match between the two and even in the closing segment with Hogan, he name checked both.

To clarify, I didn't say Andre made Hogan; the Andre - Hogan match made Wrestlemania 3, which I argue elevated Hogan, WWF and Wrestlemania into a higher class of stardom. Hogan was a star before that and likely would have been a star after, but perhaps not as iconic if WWF didn't take off as a leader in the way it did after that match. If he does WM3 against Adrian Adonis for example, who was his scheduled opponent for WM2, does WWF sell out Pontiac Silverdome? From there, does WWF develop strangleholds on major markets, or does NWA compete with them more easily? Is Hogan the clear cut face of pro wrestling or is it now Ric Flair?

Frankly, your use of Andre was too simple and needed further exploration; what I was trying to present was that beating Andre meant FAR more than beating Bundy or Piper or Savage at the time, therefore it was at least useful to use a broken, limited Andre in that spot. Using a broken Hogan in this spot will have nowhere near the same effect, so why bother? You evidently missed my point completely by bringing up putting Hogan in a match with Storm; Storm would not gain much by beating Hogan given his age and condition as you stated, so why have him in there? Nothing Hogan can contribute in the ring can elevate his opponent, TNA or Bound for Glory; given that he can't possibly give a passable match by his own admission, what good comes of this or any Hogan match at the PPV?

And for me to clarify, Hogan vs Sting will elevate TNA because it will attract people who do not know the wrestlers that helped build the company but by them purchasing the event it will introduce them to these guys. My use of Andre is pretty much exact, had the Giant not been used WM3 could have been just as successful by bringing in someone like John Tenta or better still Martin Ruane who was actually bigger than Andre. Vince Jnr deserves great credit for doing something that his father hadn't - he made the Giant a star.

As a promoter, if I had access to three top names synonymous with professional wrestling, would I ignore their accomplishments based on the fact that they accomplished them elsewhere? No, I would ignore them based on the fact that they accomplished them many many years ago, they are incapable of wrestling in matches that defined their careers, and most importantly, there are young performers in the company that could benefit by having more prominent places on the card. I will never understand how fans can still get behind these guys who are past their prime by 10 or 15, sometimes 20 years, just based on the fact that they were legends long ago in a galaxy far away. As I stated before, TNA has yet to make their own memories, and I think a large part of that is that they abandon direction for whatever formerly successful castaway wants to come to their promotion and sing their praises, and if you were to find memories, I bet you they come in the form of a Daniels, Styles or Joe. Look at all of the top talent that made their names elsewhere: RVD, Anderson, Hogan, Sting, Pope, Dudleys, Flair, Steiner, Angle, list goes on. Why can't TNA push themselves away from the table? If the three names synonymous with wrestling can't wrestle anymore, then you need to make three new names synonymous with wrestling and tell the former three that you're not interested. Flair, Sting and Hogan's names are not helping TNA by being synonymous with wrestling, their names are hurting wrestling by being synonymous with it.

You do realise that TNA has followed this model from the start, right? Ken Shamrock, Ron Killings, Konnan, JJ, Raven, Shane Douglas - none were young and all carried recognition from the big boys. If you believe that TNA can succeed without recognisable guys just by being original, try this term on for size 'Wrestling Society X', or explain to me why RoH isn't on their level?

I'm sorry if you find arguing about this 'grating' despite the fact that you're an active participant still, but it goes to the credibility of the product. This match to me is an albatross; I likely wouldn't have bought the PPV anyway, but I think its presence on the card would hinder my decision to spend money in the case where I was actually going to decide. I've bought TNA PPVs before. I bought Joe vs. Angle a few years ago. That was a match between two strong personalities that were relevant in wrestling and at the top of the promotion. If it seems like I'm fixating, it's because I find it ridiculous that I'm actually discussing a main event match in a major company at a major PPV between a 60 year old man and a 50 year old man that originally happened 15 years ago.

It's grating that people have buried the match before it occurs. It's grating that people are only thinking of themselves ("I don't want to see a 52 year old man wrestle a 57 year old man with a wrecked back!") and ignoring the fact that most people who are not aware of their ages or their physical conditions might want to see it, along with quite a substantial amount of fans.

As long as people continue to slate something they are yet to see, I will defend my right to want to see it and my beliefs as to why it is a good business decision.

I give up guys. You win. TNA is great! Best thing ever. I just watched Hogan hobble out to the ring, tear up as he essentially announced (unless this is yet another EB, Russo, Hogan swerve) his retirement. Yawwnn!!!! Been there, done that.

You ever heard of a heel accentuating an injury? It bores you and yet you don't know if it's real or kayfabe? RAW must knock you out!

I suspect though if Hogan is truly leaving (which I doubt right now) and he shows up in WWE, those who love him in TNA right now will turn on him faster than Red Rock stomped bullriders for years.

You can give examples of TNA fans doing this then? Wouldn't like to think you'd just insult a whole promotions fans for no apparent reason.

At any rate, I'm done with this argument. Doesn't make any difference anyhow. Results are what matters! 1.2, 1.3, 1.1, 1.2, 1.4., 1.3, etc.

Very true and as always I'm optimistic. This highly debated match could be the first step up the ladder.

 

[Brian in Austin]

Well, Fit, whether I'm interested in this match or not is not the point of the thread. Someone had an opinion that having 3 performers whose ages add to over 150 years as the major program headed into the promotion's top PPV was exactly what the company requires; my opinion is that not only is that incorrect, it's counterproductive to what any growing company should want to achieve. Just because I have no interest in this ill-conceived match doesn't mean I have no interest in a steady #2 promotion finding some success outside of Vince McMahon's world of sports entertainment. You're basically saying that the answer to being anti-abortion is to not have an abortion; the fact that abortion exist is reason for anti-abortion lobbyists to state their opinions and the fact that this 'abortion' of a match is happening is reason for my opinion being expressed.

To your first point, I guess we'll wait and see. If Hogan - Sting is positioned as a top 3 match (hell, make it top 2), I guess I had a better take on who TNA felt would best sell the PPV. Don't know how they couldn't feature it; the winner gets control of the company for his proxy. But if Daniels vs Styles, Bully Ray vs. Anderson, and RVD vs. Lynn are featured more prominently, maybe I'll concede that they are interested in the company's future for more than I've given them credit. Again, seems like a lot of wasted time building toward Dixie getting her company back if they did that (the prolonged build from the first 'They' angle that I've referenced as the Hogan - Sting build), but in the end it doesn't matter.

To clarify, I didn't say Andre made Hogan; the Andre - Hogan match made Wrestlemania 3, which I argue elevated Hogan, WWF and Wrestlemania into a higher class of stardom. Hogan was a star before that and likely would have been a star after, but perhaps not as iconic if WWF didn't take off as a leader in the way it did after that match. If he does WM3 against Adrian Adonis for example, who was his scheduled opponent for WM2, does WWF sell out Pontiac Silverdome? From there, does WWF develop strangleholds on major markets, or does NWA compete with them more easily? Is Hogan the clear cut face of pro wrestling or is it now Ric Flair?

Frankly, your use of Andre was too simple and needed further exploration; what I was trying to present was that beating Andre meant FAR more than beating Bundy or Piper or Savage at the time, therefore it was at least useful to use a broken, limited Andre in that spot. Using a broken Hogan in this spot will have nowhere near the same effect, so why bother? You evidently missed my point completely by bringing up putting Hogan in a match with Storm; Storm would not gain much by beating Hogan given his age and condition as you stated, so why have him in there? Nothing Hogan can contribute in the ring can elevate his opponent, TNA or Bound for Glory; given that he can't possibly give a passable match by his own admission, what good comes of this or any Hogan match at the PPV?

As a promoter, if I had access to three top names synonymous with professional wrestling, would I ignore their accomplishments based on the fact that they accomplished them elsewhere? No, I would ignore them based on the fact that they accomplished them many many years ago, they are incapable of wrestling in matches that defined their careers, and most importantly, there are young performers in the company that could benefit by having more prominent places on the card. I will never understand how fans can still get behind these guys who are past their prime by 10 or 15, sometimes 20 years, just based on the fact that they were legends long ago in a galaxy far away. As I stated before, TNA has yet to make their own memories, and I think a large part of that is that they abandon direction for whatever formerly successful castaway wants to come to their promotion and sing their praises, and if you were to find memories, I bet you they come in the form of a Daniels, Styles or Joe. Look at all of the top talent that made their names elsewhere: RVD, Anderson, Hogan, Sting, Pope, Dudleys, Flair, Steiner, Angle, list goes on. Why can't TNA push themselves away from the table? If the three names synonymous with wrestling can't wrestle anymore, then you need to make three new names synonymous with wrestling and tell the former three that you're not interested. Flair, Sting and Hogan's names are not helping TNA by being synonymous with wrestling, their names are hurting wrestling by being synonymous with it.

I'm sorry if you find arguing about this 'grating' despite the fact that you're an active participant still, but it goes to the credibility of the product. This match to me is an albatross; I likely wouldn't have bought the PPV anyway, but I think its presence on the card would hinder my decision to spend money in the case where I was actually going to decide. I've bought TNA PPVs before. I bought Joe vs. Angle a few years ago. That was a match between two strong personalities that were relevant in wrestling and at the top of the promotion. If it seems like I'm fixating, it's because I find it ridiculous that I'm actually discussing a main event match in a major company at a major PPV between a 60 year old man and a 50 year old man that originally happened 15 years ago.

Well I've got to go back on my decision to let this go by saying THANK YOU for you informed and pointed comments. You are exactly right and you said it much better than I've been able to so far. I've tried on multiple occasions to explain this in a big picture sort of way to the TNA fans, but they seemingly don't, or don't want to, get it! And now Hogan is essentially announcing his retirement next week? So how does THAT impact (no pun intended) the match with Sting? A stand-in for Hogan? Is Hogan, with his comments last night, now turning face and are we going to see a flipping of the script with Sting now apparently the heel in this storyline? The irony of this to me is HH is ending his run in TNA the way he began it. Swerves!!! I wonder where we've seen THAT (ahem, WCW) before?

At any rate, IF Hogan wrestles, this will be terrible UNLESS there are multiple swerves (which I suspect will be the case here) involved, with multiple people getting involved (which I also suspect will be the case.) In other words, it will end in a convoluted mess, as things usually do with TNA.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

Well I've got to go back on my decision to let this go by saying THANK YOU for you informed and pointed comments. You are exactly right and you said it much better than I've been able to so far. I've tried on multiple occasions to explain this in a big picture sort of way to the TNA fans, but they seemingly don't, or don't want to, get it!

Explained what exactly? All you keep repeating is build the company on the originals who, as you already know, have never had ratings to indicate that they are known outside of TNA's fans. Why should the average Joe watch them over RoH, DGUSA, PWG etc in that scenario?

To be big time they need to look big time. Spike only agreed to show Impact on the proviso that they had Sting for recognition purposes. I find it somewhat ironic that so many guys who prefer WWe over TNA think that their best chance of success is become more like an Indy rather than using recognisable faces to look more big time and yet have no problems with the E bringing back alumni, stealing TNA talent or using celebrities who don't give a toss about the sport.

And now Hogan is essentially announcing his retirement next week? So how does THAT impact (no pun intended) the match with Sting? A stand-in for Hogan? Is Hogan, with his comments last night, now turning face and are we going to see a flipping of the script with Sting now apparently the heel in this storyline? The irony of this to me is HH is ending his run in TNA the way he began it. Swerves!!! I wonder where we've seen THAT (ahem, WCW) before?

Hmmm, that must be a great crystal ball - now I'll not have to watch next week! Seriously, how long have you watched this business? The cowardly heel doing everything in his power to escape the heroic face ain't a swerve, that's classic wrestling 101.

At any rate, IF Hogan wrestles, this will be terrible UNLESS there are multiple swerves (which I suspect will be the case here) involved, with multiple people getting involved (which I also suspect will be the case.) In other words, it will end in a convoluted mess, as things usually do with TNA.

Again with the crystal ball - must suck to be a pessimist! You realise that you have pre determined in your own mind that this will not be any good? Many wrestlers have put on good performances despite physical drawbacks, why will you not give Hogan (of all people) the benefit of the doubt until after the event? Go back and watch old Hulk matches, you'll be surprised how little adapting he will have to make to have a safe enjoyable 'Hogan' match.

 

[Brian in Austin]

Explained what exactly? All you keep repeating is build the company on the originals who, as you already know, have never had ratings to indicate that they are known outside of TNA's fans. Why should the average Joe watch them over RoH, DGUSA, PWG etc in that scenario?

To be big time they need to look big time. Spike only agreed to show Impact on the proviso that they had Sting for recognition purposes. I find it somewhat ironic that so many guys who prefer WWe over TNA think that their best chance of success is become more like an Indy rather than using recognisable faces to look more big time and yet have no problems with the E bringing back alumni, stealing TNA talent or using celebrities who don't give a toss about the sport.



Hmmm, that must be a great crystal ball - now I'll not have to watch next week! Seriously, how long have you watched this business? The cowardly heel doing everything in his power to escape the heroic face ain't a swerve, that's classic wrestling 101.



Again with the crystal ball - must suck to be a pessimist! You realise that you have pre determined in your own mind that this will not be any good? Many wrestlers have put on good performances despite physical drawbacks, why will you not give Hogan (of all people) the benefit of the doubt until after the event? Go back and watch old Hulk matches, you'll be surprised how little adapting he will have to make to have a safe enjoyable 'Hogan' match.

Well I've been watching wrestling for about 30-35 years now and from what I've seen over the years, the days of the territories were tremendously more entertaining than what we see today. The product we see today from both companies is sometimes horribly lacking in entertainment value and please understand that I have no dog in this fight. I watch both brands and have no loyalty, per se, to either one. I just watch because I expect to be entertained.

Now, as to WWE stealing TNA talent, that is factually incorrect. This, at the end of the day for the talent, is a business. THEY decide where they will work. It's not the fault of WWE that TNA doesn't have the deep pockets to keep talent. WWE simply makes better offers and opportunities and there's nothing at all wrong with that.

Once again on the Hogan v. Sting match, which I'm not even sure is going to happen at this point. Hogan himself has stated he's not capable of putting on a good match. For goodness sake, he was barely able to swing a chair that can't weigh more than 5-10 pounds? He's said several times he can't do his legdrop anymore. He can barely walk without pain. (visibly anyway) Now, this isn't me bashing the guy, it's me facing the reality that he's older and physically battered now. He's not "The Hulkster" anymore. It's time for all of us as fans to let it go. Let him go. His career (in ring) is over. IF this match happens, it will be bad. Again, not bashing, just facing facts. I'm not against Hogan being in the ring, I'm against Hogan being in the ring when physically he shouldn't be. I wonder what else he's doing to damage his body by being in this match. People continue to say that it's about nostalgia. What nostalgia? Is Sting going to bring back 'the crow' character and is Hogan going back to 'Hollywood Hogan?' Cause THAT would be nostalgic. The 2 of them just getting in the ring together isn't nostalgic. Maybe getting 'the band' back together for one more night and Sting (the crow) coming down from the rafters to take em out one more time. THAT would be nostalgic. But The Joker Sting versus heel TNA owner Hulk Hogan is NOT, I repeat, NOT nostalgic. It's just what is the latest in their careers for both of them. Heck, most people haven't cared for this version of Sting and a lot of people are now saying this match will not be a good one.

So I have to ask. Why do YOU want to see this match and more importantly, what will it do to move TNA forward and grow their brand?

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

Well I've been watching wrestling for about 30-35 years now and from what I've seen over the years, the days of the territories were tremendously more entertaining than what we see today. The product we see today from both companies is sometimes horribly lacking in entertainment value and please understand that I have no dog in this fight. I watch both brands and have no loyalty, per se, to either one. I just watch because I expect to be entertained.

I have no doubt that what you say here is true; in the territories you had your hometown faces and heels and then the guests who would come through for them to challenge. But, when Vince created the National monster WWF and stole the best guys from the territories - they went bust. Indies are now effectively the territories reborn but, generally, on a much smaller scale. TNA need to expand their scope if they are ever to grow their viewing figures and to do this, they need the recognisable faces to get the bums in the seats - once there the AJs, Joes etc can be shown to be the new guys to see when they face off against the Angles and RVDs. Otherwise they, as much as I might love them, are just another small scale operation that nobody knows with a roster that nobody has heard off.

Now, as to WWE stealing TNA talent, that is factually incorrect. This, at the end of the day for the talent, is a business. THEY decide where they will work. It's not the fault of WWE that TNA doesn't have the deep pockets to keep talent. WWE simply makes better offers and opportunities and there's nothing at all wrong with that.

That's one way to look at it. However, the timing of certain signings and subsequent use of the talent suggest that it isn't simply the case of WWe looking their abilities. Nash and Book were signed when it looked like they were about to reform the MEM, Gail Kim was brought back when the KOs were getting more favourable reviews than the Divas (and then terribly misused).

Once again on the Hogan v. Sting match, which I'm not even sure is going to happen at this point. Hogan himself has stated he's not capable of putting on a good match. For goodness sake, he was barely able to swing a chair that can't weigh more than 5-10 pounds? He's said several times he can't do his legdrop anymore. He can barely walk without pain. (visibly anyway) Now, this isn't me bashing the guy, it's me facing the reality that he's older and physically battered now. He's not "The Hulkster" anymore. It's time for all of us as fans to let it go. Let him go. His career (in ring) is over. IF this match happens, it will be bad. Again, not bashing, just facing facts. I'm not against Hogan being in the ring, I'm against Hogan being in the ring when physically he shouldn't be. I wonder what else he's doing to damage his body by being in this match. People continue to say that it's about nostalgia. What nostalgia? Is Sting going to bring back 'the crow' character and is Hogan going back to 'Hollywood Hogan?' Cause THAT would be nostalgic. The 2 of them just getting in the ring together isn't nostalgic. Maybe getting 'the band' back together for one more night and Sting (the crow) coming down from the rafters to take em out one more time. THAT would be nostalgic. But The Joker Sting versus heel TNA owner Hulk Hogan is NOT, I repeat, NOT nostalgic. It's just what is the latest in their careers for both of them. Heck, most people haven't cared for this version of Sting and a lot of people are now saying this match will not be a good one.

So I have to ask. Why do YOU want to see this match and more importantly, what will it do to move TNA forward and grow their brand?

Hogan doesn't have to be a 'Hulkamaniac' or 'Hollywood' and Sting doesn't have to be a surfer, the Crow or even the Joker. Terry Bollea is the biggest thing ever in wrestling (sorry SC fans but if Hulkamania hadn't exploded, there wouldn't have been a WWF to show any 'Attitude') and Steve Borden is, in my opinion, the guy who will always symbolise WCW. As such, once they step into the ring across from each other, I will be awash with memories.

I'll guarantee that Hogan vs Sting will happen otherwise TNA will be facing a heap load of bad publicity for selling a PPV on the pretence of a match that isn't going to happen.

Hogan's comments don't really concern me. Aside from aiding his cowardly heel persona, it also adds as a buffer in the case that the match doesn't work. Basically, it puts him on a no lose situation and reduces the pressure on him. However, Hogan regards himself as the best ever and he will not be looking to go out and detract from that. The fact that he has accepted this makes me believe that we are underestimating what will happen.

I want to see the match because, firstly, it is the pay off to a slow build feud. Secondly, I love Hogan and I want to see him have his final match against my favourite wrestler ever on a reasonable stage (which is why I love that BFG is taking place outside of the SE). These would be my two reasons if I wasn't a member of the IWC but I now have that final reason - to see if they have put their egos (in particular Hogan) ahead of their capability. You may be right, it may stink but that doesn't mean I wouldn't love to see them prove all their detractors wrong (again).

How will it move them forward? Again, I feel the biggest mistake Panda has made is not signing the Flairs, Hogans and Hardys - it's caging them in a soundstage in Florida. BFG being in Philly and featuring their biggest names on the promotional material is my idea of the perfect start for how they should continue. Once people in the NE tune into see (example) RVD because they remember his old ECW master classes and notice that this company has turned Bully Ray from a stuttering, broken glasses Tag Teamer into a great solo heat magnet heel or that they have some guy Roode who brings back memories of luminaries like Hennig, Rude and Triple H or that they have two guys called AJ Styles and Daniels who had as good as or maybe even a better match than RVD and Lynn without the aid of TL&C. Just take a look at their poster, every guy featured can attract some demo...

• Beer Money for the TNA originals fans
• Kurt Angle for the Attitude fans
• RVD for the ECW fans
• Sting for the WCW fans
• Hogan for the WWF fans
• Flair for the NWA fans

As far as I'm concerned, use the older big names to attract fans but use your home grown younger guys to KEEP them.