The Best of WCW Clash of the Champions

[klunderbunker]

Because you build to the biggest show of the year with the biggest card you can come up with. Sting vs. Jarrett, with Sting winning the title, was the biggest card TNA could come up with at the time. Throw in the ultra hot LAX vs. Daniels/Styles and TNA put on the biggest show they could have.

Sting vs. Joe wouldn't have nearly the same appeal. Not to mention, Joe was extremely overrated back then, and I think TNA knew it.

Overrated enough that he was the first pick to give to Angle?

I agree on the rest of the show. It was great other than the main event, which I have never liked, mainly due to Jarrett being in it.

 

[Slyfox696]

Overrated enough that he was the first pick to give to Angle?

Yes. You could sell that storyline. But as the champion, you're a lot more exposed and you're asked to do a lot more stuff. You need to be a lot more versatile, which Joe simply was not.

But TNA knew Joe vs. Angle would sell very well (and it did, if I remember correctly) so like a good pro wrestling promotion, they did what would sell.

It was great other than the main event, which I have never liked, mainly due to Jarrett being in it.

Jeff Jarrett is hugely underrated as a heel.

 

[klunderbunker]

Yes. You could sell that storyline. But as the champion, you're a lot more exposed and you're asked to do a lot more stuff. You need to be a lot more versatile, which Joe simply was not.

But TNA knew Joe vs. Angle would sell very well (and it did, if I remember correctly) so like a good pro wrestling promotion, they did what would sell.

Which is again why I wouldn't have done Joe vs. Angle so early. Then again like you said it sold well so it wasn't a bad decision.

Jeff Jarrett is hugely underrated as a heel.

I agree, but I think his title reign should have ended LONG before it did. he came in as a lame duck champion so the title match was in little doubt. This is TNA in 2006, where they don't swerve you in the big title matches.

Edit: scratch that. I'm getting my JArrett title reigns confused. I would have still taken it off of him at Hard Justice. Or do something else at Hard Justice instead of Sting vs. Jarrett. That would have helped it too.

 

[Slyfox696]

Then again like you said it sold well so it wasn't a bad decision.

It was never going to sell better than it did. It was the right decision.

I agree, but I think his title reign should have ended LONG before it did. he came in as a lame duck champion so the title match was in little doubt. This is TNA in 2006, where they don't swerve you in the big title matches.

But that was part of the appeal. Part of the appeal, similar to Starrcade '97 is that you knew what was going to happen. You knew who was going to win, and you knew what the result was going to be (or at least, should have been). Wrestlings fans are just like any other people, they want to feel good. They want the anticipation, and they want to know their anticipation will pay off in a great way. That crowd was white hot for Sting and his victory.

You can do a lot of criticizing of TNA's booking before Russo came in (because most of it was terrible), but they did get a few things right and that was one of them.

 

[klunderbunker]

It was never going to sell better than it did. It was the right decision.

Yeah like I said, I didn't hate the decision. I'm just not sure I would have done the same. It wasn't one of the things they did that ticked me off though.

But that was part of the appeal. Part of the appeal, similar to Starrcade '97 is that you knew what was going to happen. You knew who was going to win, and you knew what the result was going to be (or at least, should have been). Wrestlings fans are just like any other people, they want to feel good. They want the anticipation, and they want to know their anticipation will pay off in a great way. That crowd was white hot for Sting and his victory.

You can do a lot of criticizing of TNA's booking before Russo came in (because most of it was terrible), but they did get a few things right and that was one of them.

I think it's more the buildup to it that got on my nerves. Doing the match two months prior to BFG (which felt like it had a bigger build), having Joe beat Jarrett mostly clean the month before and then throwing him into a pointless hardcore match, plus having it be so obvious made it all seem like kidn of a mess.

 

[Slyfox696]

I think it's more the buildup to it that got on my nerves. Doing the match two months prior to BFG (which felt like it had a bigger build), having Joe beat Jarrett mostly clean the month before and then throwing him into a pointless hardcore match, plus having it be so obvious made it all seem like kidn of a mess.

No doubt, that was terrible. I've still yet to figure out what TNA was thinking when they put Joe vs. Jarrett, in a non-title match, when they had already announced the main-event at Bound For Glory.

Like I said, TNA's booking before Russo was terrible. I think Monty Brown still has a couple of title shots coming to him.

 

[klunderbunker]

No doubt, that was terrible. I've still yet to figure out what TNA was thinking when they put Joe vs. Jarrett, in a non-title match, when they had already announced the main-event at Bound For Glory.

Like I said, TNA's booking before Russo was terrible. I think Monty Brown still has a couple of title shots coming to him.

That was my issue with it too. From a logic standpoint, shouldn't Joe has a claim to at least a spot in the title match? I don't think it was ever even mentioned again, and then they wait a year and a half to give him the title while Angle gets FOUR reigns? I get one or even two, but FOUR before Joe gets his first? It's like Taz in ECW: they kept the belt on Shane WAY too long and when Taz finally got it, a lot fewer people cared.

On the show I'm about to finish, Brown won a contender's match. Not a #1 contender's match, but a contender's match, meaning beating Jeff Hardy clean moved him up in the rankings. This is clearly different than any other singles match between two upper midcard/main event guys because uh......uh......hey Christian's here!

 

[Uncle Sam]

Did you guys watch this on blu ray? I was going to buy it but a friend of mine said if I bought the blu ray the matches would only show on half the screen because they weren't originally filmed in hi def. Is that true and if so is it annoying to watch like that?

All old wrestling footage is in 4:3 ratio. Your television is probably 16:9. Anything filmed before 2008 will have been filmed in 4:3 and so will correctly be presented in 4:3, whether you have the Blu-ray, DVD or Betamax version. If you adjust it to fit the screen, you actually cut off the top and bottom of the picture and worsen the picture quality.

The only exception to this is the Royal Rumble 2008, which was filmed in 16:9 but inexplicably released in 4:3.

I'll let you boys get back to talking about how men in tights were so much manlier back in the day.

Edit: Oh, you're talking about TNA. Neat.