TNA Bound For Glory 2011

[Gelgarin]

No it isn't. You don't blow up the Death Star and then immediately roll the credits. Look up dramatic structure bro. It amused me that the wikipedia entry on that listed Lord of the Rings as a modern work that didn't simply just end with a quick surprise but had a long resolution. Climax, falling action, resolution isn't exactly some new fangled idea. Maybe it isn't over with the ADD generation but that doesn't mean it is bullshit.

What I think he is trying to say is that the final act should contain the biggest climax.

It's equally untrue and only holds up if you restrict your study to realist fiction, but as a theory it does at least have a foundation of logic to recommend it.

 

[Tiger Chaos Theory]

Three hours later this is still the dumbest fucking shit that I've ever seen happen at a PPV.

And I saw Victory Road this year.

+1

 

[shattered dreams]

I guess what he misses in his analogies is that basically in wrestling every match is a story, often largely independent of the others around it. Either that or he completely misunderstood my suggestion, which was mostly that when you build a point of high excitement opposed to a cliffhanger then an abrupt finish isn't necessarily the best idea. If TNA could go back in time they would likely flip the two and it might be better but hindsight is 20/20. The difference between what happened and that hindsight option isn't near as important as people are suggesting. In an era where it is increasingly hard to put out even one really awesome segment it is pure folly to complain incessantly that it happened 15 minutes too early.

 

[JJYanks121]

I guess what he misses in his analogies is that basically in wrestling every match is a story, often largely independent of the others around it. Either that or he completely misunderstood my suggestion, which was mostly that when you build a point of high excitement opposed to a cliffhanger then an abrupt finish isn't necessarily the best idea. If TNA could go back in time they would likely flip the two and it might be better but hindsight is 20/20. The difference between what happened and that hindsight option isn't near as important as people are suggesting. In an era where it is increasingly hard to put out even one really awesome segment it is pure folly to complain incessantly that it happened 15 minutes too early.

Let's not kid ourselves though. Yes, each match has its own story and it may pacify some fans. However, Pay Per Views, and specifically big PPVs like Bound For Glory and Wrestlemania, are built around Main Events. The stuff that happens in the undercard is fun while you see it, but the show is largely judged on the main events.

With that in mind, this show was solid for the first two hours. Then there were things that fall apart for a lot of people. Not only that, let's say you were trying to sell new fans on TNA by buying this show. I'm sure there were some new viewers checking it out for the first time for whatever reason. The last taste in their mouth is going to be that anti-climactic finish. Based on that, why should that new viewer want to come back?

And now I'm done being nice.

The ending to this show was absolutely abysmal and I don't understand how anyone is defending it. What I will point to though, which no one has yet, is the bigger picture. When we talk about the problems of a Hogan/Bischoff run WCW, the main issues were these:

1)It was always about Hogan being the star
2)Building stars didn't happen. You bought them from WWE or they weren't stars because they "had never drawn"
3)People tired of WCW because the HEELS ALWAYS WON. It's cool to run a story where a heel gets an upper hand, but the money is in someone dethroning the heel and that never happened.

Now, what happened tonight, about 12 years after Bischoff was first relieved of his duties in WCW:

Hogan is the star of the show. By and large, this was about Hogan, Hogan, and only Hogan. There were some fun undercard matches, some nostalgia stuff, but this was about Hogan's face turn and the fact that people are arguing that Hogan's match should have went on last is telling. As usual, the Hogan ego made him the star of the show and that he is absolutely, positively, 100 percent full of shit.

Yes, full of shit. I said it. If he wasn't, he would actually make this more about the young guys and less about him. As it stands, Hogan just cemented himself as top babyface on the show. Which brings me to my next point......

The main event ended with a guy that was a draw at some point winning over a guy that hasn't been given a chance to become one. Yep, Kurt Angle wins and most likely because Mr. Bischoff still doesn't understand that by giving new guys a chance, you can create a draw. Other companies don't ALWAYS have to give you draws. It is allowed to create your own. Instead, we get a finish that was underwhelming, and rather than taking a chance on a guy that was built up well, we go with that bullshit finish to make sure the "bigger star at this moment" wins. I'm not even arguing that Roode will be a bigger wrestling star than Angle. Lets be honest, TNA isn't WCW and thus is not as big as its competitor. Naturally, someone who worked for WWE will be more well known than a TNA guy. However, if you create a new face, put him out there on talk shows, radio shows, and anywhere else you can expose him, he could become a star. Rather than do that, we'd better keep Hogan, Hogan and only Hogan as our star right? Can't have a show ending with someone triumphing bigger than Hogan! Which brings me to #3........

Two years in a row, a heel walked out of the biggest show with the title. I'm not against heel title runs. Far from it actually. However, heel title runs should lead to a big moment where a babyface triumphs over evil. That's where the money's at. Angle's run has sucked, but since he's Angle, there was a chance to have the babyface triumph, and more than that, there was a chance to celebrate years of hard work on your grandest stage. THAT would have been a moment to remember. Unfortunately, the idiots in charge still to this day don't understand the value in a big babyface win. They didn't get it when they fucked up Starrcade 1997 and they don't get it now. Even if Roode wins at the next show or two, so what? The moment is gone. I loved the example before of Austin beating HBK two shows down the line. Your biggest show of the year is about THE MOMENT and that moment is gone. Whether or not you think Roode is ready or not, you put him in your main event and you built him to be the guy. You have to go with him and you didn't. It was an abject failure on a lot of levels and I can't understand how anyone is arguing that.

So looking at this show, it was a lot of fun. I really did enjoy most of it. However, weeks and months and years from now, people will only remember the Hogan stuff and the Roode failure of a main event. Thus, this is a success if you are a Hogan mark and don't care that he refuses to be anything less than the primary focus, but it is a failure if you were looking for this show to be a complete revamp show. If you thought Styles would win, RVD would win, Sting would win and restore order, and Roode would win to bring a new era to TNA with a new champion. Some of those things happened, but Sting's win is overshadowed as the guy he beat somehow went from the guy trying to ruin the company to the good guy everyone loves, while the new era will have to wait because "heelz winning rulez" and because attempting to create a star on the grand stage is just an awful, awful idea.

Rant over. Good show until the last half hour for me. Then all that happened.........

 

[FunKay the Inevitable]

So it seems the general consensus is that it was a good show...with a naff ending.

 

[jmt225]

I didn't order the show, but on paper I think it looks highly enjoyable and that TNA handled every match well. I know the Angle/Roode ending might cause some stirs, but Angle winning controversially doesn't bother me; it only means the feud will continue. It's not like this was some big blow off match... it was the first in what will undoubtedly be a series of matches. Plus, I'm not a Bobby Roode fan at all, so I didn't have any high expectations about him being the next big thing for the company.

Also, how does Roode losing make the entire Bound for Glory series a waste? I guess everyone wanted TNA to treat this like WWE treats Money in the Bank winners. Well, I'm sorry but if something is that predictable, then it's not fun to watch. You're all just mad that TNA fooled you into thinking Roode was the next World Champion.

Although I will say that with this kind of booking that the show should have ended with Sting/Hogan, but if that had happened, more people would be bitching about that than they are this, even though it looks like the crowd couldn't have been more receptive to the segment.

Anyways, I'll probably end up buying this on DVD; that's how promising the show looks to me. I haven't bought a TNA DVD since AJ's 2nd DVD was released, so that should tell you something (honestly, the crowd more than anything makes me want to see it, but it looks like TNA gave them a very entertaining show).

 

[X]

Jesus tapdancing, walrus-shooting Christ Gelgarin, why are you such a raging TNA apologist? Like, I fucking loved this show and thought it was excellent, but you're even pissing me off with this inane apologist stance you take on everything that is ever related to TNA in any way. Are TNA even capable of ever doing anything wrong, ever? 'Cause reading your posts, you'd get the idea that this company was infallible. I can't even remember a single solitary instance in which you didn't jump at a moment's notice to apologize and defend TNA for every last thing they've ever done in their entire existence.

Oh and as for the Angle/Roode match, it seemed rather obvious that Angle was legit injured and they were calling the finish on the fly.

 

[Gelgarin]

Then perhaps you ought to get better at reading.

 

[a0161613]

Going by that X, I reckon we see a title change on Impact. And they have previous on that too.

 

[jmt225]

To be fair X, Gel does destroy the Knockout Division at every given chance. I imagine if Velvet's match tonight got 30 minutes instead of 5, he'd be leading the charge of non-stop bitching about that.

And personally, I don't find TNA apologist anywhere near as annoying as WWE apologist. At least TNA apologist simply want to find something they enjoy in professional wrestling, while all WWE apologist worry about is how much money Vince McMahon is making.

 

[X]

Culminations at the big shows, continuations at the little shows.

Bleeding buys has anything to do with that strategy, and has everything to do with a pile of other variables.

"The ends justify the means Norcal! The ends justify the means! Who gives a fuck if you're sacrificing the future of your company for a quick cheap buck based on nostalgia, who cares about two years from now, we got 20,000 people to buy our biggest show of the year and are able to get roughly the attendance of most minor league baseball games to show up to some of our biggest shows of the year! We're on fucking fire! The ends justify the means! Quick cheap buck now > sustaining a financially viable long-term operation, obviously! Who cares about TNA in 2016? We've got more world titles and PPVs to build around middle aged drug addicts! Yeah! Nostalgia! Quick buck! Fuck the future! Ends justify the means!"

Did I do it right? I'm new to this apologist thing.

 

[X]

Then perhaps you ought to get better at reading.

I'm quite good at reading thanks, was reading at a twelfth grade level when I was eight years old. I just find it unbearably annoying when someone who by all appearances is very well-educated falls into the ideological pratfall of making it their duty to apologize incessantly for the irrational and illogical behavior exhibited by a group, party, or entertainment product they support in order to vicariously mentally ejaculate themselves and their purported pseudo-logic. We get it, you like TNA, you're smart, and you're trying to debunk the stereotype of TNA fans being immature or stupid. That doesn't mean you need to blindly apologize for and defend everything that company does. I promise you, if you find a solitary fault with TNA the world will not end, the WWE will not win the war, Dixie Carter will not fall over dead, and the wrestling fan masses will not suddenly revolt in mass ignorance to destroy your beloved company.

Yes, I realize I'm being melodramatic and hyperbolic. This does not take away from my point here though. Your raging apologist stance with TNA is far and away one of the most annoying traits exhibited by any poster on this entire forum. You and SD should start your own little misanthropic club where you can yell about these things at a brick wall while the rest of us are in the other room, not acting like petulant children under the guile of altruistic objectivity. We're busy arguing about methods and theories, you're busy playing the partisan game. You're like a stale GOP party member or something, defending your party to no end with no regard for logic or objectivity.

Right, that's all I'll say on the matter. I fear I've been too blunt and off-putting in this post, but damnit, I'm a bit tipsy and I really, really have grown tired of your act.

 

[JJYanks121]

To be fair X, Gel does destroy the Knockout Division at every given chance. I imagine if Velvet's match tonight got 30 minutes instead of 5, he'd be leading the charge of non-stop bitching about that.

And personally, I don't find TNA apologist anywhere near as annoying as WWE apologist. At least TNA apologist simply want to find something they enjoy in professional wrestling, while all WWE apologist worry about is how much money Vince McMahon is making.

Both types of apologists are pretty insufferable. The TNA apologist get annoying because ANYTHING remotely construed as negative towards TNA they get up in arms about and will find any which way to explain why you are wrong. For many, it's completely foreign to disagree with something on a show but still like the show. That gets annoying to me.

As for the WWE apologists, the ones you get on the forums are generally these people who haven't really seen TNA too much but like shitting on the little guy. I'm a Yankee fan so I compare it to that a lot. I have a buddy who shits on the Mets more than anyone and claims to be a Yankee fan, but ask him to name 5 Yankees and he can't do it. Ask him to name 2 Mets, even tougher. That's the type of shit you get.

Either way, being an apologist sucks. Better off just liking what you like and not trying to use every trick in the book to convince other intelligent folk otherwise. Even less wise to try and convince unintelligent folk (a large part of these boards for sure) to think a certain way. It's freakin wrestling. Just enjoy the show.

 

[X]

Both types of apologists are pretty insufferable. The TNA apologist get annoying because ANYTHING remotely construed as negative towards TNA they get up in arms about and will find any which way to explain why you are wrong. For many, it's completely foreign to disagree with something on a show but still like the show. That gets annoying to me.

As for the WWE apologists, the ones you get on the forums are generally these people who haven't really seen TNA too much but like shitting on the little guy. I'm a Yankee fan so I compare it to that a lot. I have a buddy who shits on the Mets more than anyone and claims to be a Yankee fan, but ask him to name 5 Yankees and he can't do it. Ask him to name 2 Mets, even tougher. That's the type of shit you get.

Either way, being an apologist sucks. Better off just liking what you like and not trying to use every trick in the book to convince other intelligent folk otherwise. Even less wise to try and convince unintelligent folk (a large part of these boards for sure) to think a certain way. It's freakin wrestling. Just enjoy the show.

JJ has summed up most of my thoughts in a much more cordial, endearing manner here. I do apologize for my rudeness and insulting nature Gelgarin, truthfully, I just absolutely fucking hate apologists, and I suppose the last 3 hours of political debate I just walked out of has left me a bit irritable in the wee hours of the morning here.

 

[FunKay the Inevitable]

Is it just me or did X go all Chris "Gelatinous Tapeworms" Jericho there?

 

[Gelgarin]

Impending word fort in 20, 19, 18...

"The ends justify the means Norcal! The ends justify the means! Who gives a fuck if you're sacrificing the future of your company for a quick cheap buck based on nostalgia, who cares about two years from now, we got 20,000 people to buy our biggest show of the year and are able to get roughly the attendance of most minor league baseball games to show up to some of our biggest shows of the year! We're on fucking fire! The ends justify the means! Quick cheap buck now > sustaining a financially viable long-term operation, obviously! Who cares about TNA in 2016? We've got more world titles and PPVs to build around middle aged drug addicts! Yeah! Nostalgia! Quick buck! Fuck the future! Ends justify the means!"

Did I do it right? I'm new to this apologist thing.

On the whole... no, that was pretty shit.

For a start, complaining about a booking philosophy that's been used successfully for seven years on the grounds of its lack of longevity makes you sound utterly deluded. Since the company's inception the title has spent well over three times as long in the hands of established veterans from other companies than it has in the hands of home grown talents. As someone who's been watching since near the beginning I'm not convinced that the ratio of clean to unclean finishes has fluctuated much. The ratio of title reigns is something like 2500:750, and has yet to do any hard to the viewership. The business model appears to be working fine.

And since I'm here, I suppose I might as well address X's little "TNA apologist" label once and for all. It's not like we haven't been through this dance a hundred times before with me being called a "blind mark", but there's no harm in going through the foot movements one more time.

If you want to save time then cast your mind back to when Lord Sidious started calling people "WWE shareholders". It was exactly the same as what X is doing now, and has become no more worthy of attention with time. Nevertheless, I shall give it some. Fuck knows why. It's probably out a hypocritical desire to show the world how smart I am. Read to the end and then pick the irony out of that.

You see, the interesting thing about me, is that I actually like pro wrestling.

Not in the Xfear/Klunderbunker way whereby what I actually enjoy is complaining on the internet to show other internet dwellers how much "smarter" I am then the people in the industry. I legitimately enjoy my pro wrestling broadcasts... and do you know what I do when I legitimately enjoy something, be it TV, literature or food? Why, I refrain from taking every possible opportunity to shit on it, that's what.

Of course there are a hundred things that bug me about every episode of Impact. And if someone lacking a selective memory attends a live discussion you'll see that a couple of them usually earn a mention. I loath Abyss, the women almost all suck, I'm not a Hogan fan, nor do I enjoy Anderson much. There's too much Christy Hemme, not enough JB or Don West, the Direct Auto Insurance skits stink, American commercials in general suck ass, Russo reuses certain narrative devices far too much, I miss the crowd chanting TNA! and This is Awesome every match. TNA telegraph their big announcements and swerves too much, Mike Tenay has become a horrible commentator and doesn't know what a Thesz press is. I miss Petey Williams and Jay Lethal, Mexican America is racist without being funny, the ref bumps always look appauling and James Storm doesn't actually ejaculate in my face when I'm watching the show... there are a million and one things I could find to complain about if I desperately wanted to act like you X... but I don't.

For the record, all of those things (sans the Cowboy facial one) are things that I have actually complained about in LDs over the past few months, and there would be a hundred more if I honestly thought that people desired to read every trivial negative thought that passed through my head. Obvious X is going to completely ignore any contradictory evidence because it would get in the way of him launching yet another one of his pathetic personal attacks where any semblance of subject is ignored so that he can talk about all of his counterparts personal problems and why he (X) is not a massive hypocrite. I'm sure it will go exactly as it did last time and the time before, and accomplish nothing other than to prove that X's latest attempt he PM'ed me about to 'cut that shit out' has met with abject failure. Anyone surprised?

Back on subject (what a novel idea) all of my issues are comparatively minor, and seldom take away from my enjoyment of the show, and as such I don't feel the compulsion to drone endlessly on about them. If I ever did get to that point then I would probably stop watching, because it would become clear to me that I was no longer a TNA fan.

As far as the attitude of those who spend most of every episode locked in complaint (and I'm not actually highlighting you here X, since you stay out of the LDs these days), they basically have a choice of two options, both of which paint them as a bit of a dick. Either they legitimately don't enjoy the show, and are simply watching so that they can try and spoil it for other people; or they do enjoy the show, but choose to complain constantly anyway in order to show how smart they are. Like I said, either choice means they're behaving like a cunt, and as such I choose not to indulge in that kind of bullshit. If you ask me JGKY is the person here with his head screwed on the tightest, simply going out of his way to enjoy the show wherever possible.

Then of course there's the fact that I'm cursed with a god damn sense of perspective. Every time something minor happens with TNA (or I would imagine any wrestling broadcast) melodramatic ******s start rioting about how it's the end of the world, and it falls to the few rational regulars in these things to bring a voice of reason into the discussion.

When Victory Road happened people (some of whom were actually reasonable posters like KB) were bouncing off the walls about how the company would be bankrupt in a year. Apparently explaining that Victory Road (whilst pretty shitty) doesn't actually matter makes one a "blind mark". I turned out to be right, and it had next to no long term effect, but why should that get in the way of a good mudslinging.

Tonight, when Angle pinned Roode a bunch of people were running around like headless chickens. Harthan was the particular highlight as he pontificated on how the last two minutes of a really good show managed to make the whole thing complete shit. Exposing the logical fallacy in this (whilst simultaneously suggesting that the show should have been ordered differently - I mention this because the three times I said it all appear to have failed to penetrate your skull) once again makes one a "TNA apologist". Shocking.

Well, call me whatever the fuck you like. Personally I'm partial to the term fan, but if you want to go with blind mark, apologist or shareholder then be my guest. If you want to add patronizing, condescending, supercilious or asshole to the list then by all means be my guest. I know which of them I am.

I enjoy TNA.
I don't need to complain about it in order to enjoy the show.
I don't need to complain about it to boost my ego.
I certainly don't need to complain about it in order to satisfy you.

I enjoy TNA.
Live with it.

EDIT: This thing really needed headings.

 

[Coco]

Great show. Well worth the money. My only problems were some sloppiness from Jerry Lynn and the Angle-Roode match being a little heat-less and finisher-heavy for my taste. Of course everything else more than made up for that. Not sure I get the complaints about AJ-Daniels though. You people sure are curmudgeony.

 

[Dowdsy McDowds]

I'm wondering, how would people have reacted if Hogan/Sting had been the Main Event given the way it and the Roode/Angle match went down? Would the result of Roode/Angle given away Hogan/Sting more or what?

Just asking because people seemed surprised Hogan/Sting wasn't the final match and seemed pleased about it, but it seems it may have closed the show on a better note?

Looking forward to watching the show to be honest.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Decent matches, poor booking. Yeah, broken record, I know.

I didn't get the Hogan face turn. As someone said last night, he worked the entire match as a heel... then he turned. Taking crowd reaction into account, it didn't ruin the moment, but it wasn't booked very well. Then again, the crowd ate it up, so I'm not sure bashing it, completely, is the right move.

Roode/Angle was a hell of a match, with an odd ending. In heel vs. face feuds, for the title, the face usually wins in the end. I know some will tell me they're extending the feud, it's not over, etc. Well, I call bullshit. Pure bullshit. Why would you extend this feud? If your plan is to put Bobby Roode over, why not do so at your biggest show of the year? Are they waiting for an off-brand PPV to do so? And if he's not going to take the strap, what was the point of turning someone like Kurt Angle heel? It doesn't make much sense, to me at least.

 

[shattered dreams]

Anyone who was worrying about how much sense everything made in the aftermath of the Hogan match needs to read Gelgarin's post. I was glad to find out in that moment that the IWC had not completely destroyed the fan in me. It will be a sad day once that is over and I am one of the few staring blankly while everyone around me has a damn good time.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Anyone who was worrying about how much sense everything made in the aftermath of the Hogan match needs to read Gelgarin's post. I was glad to find out in that moment that the IWC had not completely destroyed the fan in me. It will be a sad day once that is over and I am one of the few staring blankly while everyone around me has a damn good time.

Mmm, I know... simplicity

 

[Tiger Chaos Theory]

Fuck Roode, his time is over, they ruined it, time to move onto someone better.

Mr. Anderson.

 

[Harthan]

14 hours later. Still among the dumbest shit ive had the misfortune to witness.

 

[Joe's Gonna Kill You]

Holy Shit we get it you did not like the ending Shut up alreadu

 

[.]

What are people upset about exactly? The screwdriver thing? Hogans face turn out of nowhere? The ending?

Honestly the ending was the only thing that actually annoyed me slightly. I'll remain optimistic with the fact that Roode was brought up to Angle's level and will most likely receive a rematch with more build and it will mean more when he eventually does win the title as long as they don't Chris Harris him.

The screwdriver thing is apart of wrestling we see from time to time. It often looked as if wrestlers are trying to kill one another in matches legitimately. Abdullah the Butcher did it from time to time. Chainsaw Charlie seemed to want to cut Billy Gunn in half. It's mindless psychopathy for the sake of making us gasp.

Sporadic face/heel turns happen in wrestling. Deal with it.