You posted the same thing in the RVD thread and I still disagree 100 percent with this statement. In order for it to be desperation he would have had to be pushed ahead of someone else who was getting a push, but that isn't the case here. It was the case of Mr. Anderson or RVD to get the next shot at Roode because AJ Styles, Jeff Hardy, James Storm and even Sting didn't get the job done. After those 4 wrestlers tell me who on the roster is ready or should have a title shot against Roode? There are only 2 main event baby faces left on the roster who hasn't faced Bobby Roode ATM.
-
Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here
To Quote Dixie Carter: "We are going to focus on younger wrestlers" Bullshit!
- Thread starter DangerousDave
- Start date
You posted the same thing in the RVD thread and I still disagree 100 percent with this statement. In order for it to be desperation he would have had to be pushed ahead of someone else who was getting a push, but that isn't the case here. It was the case of Mr. Anderson or RVD to get the next shot at Roode because AJ Styles, Jeff Hardy, James Storm and even Sting didn't get the job done. After those 4 wrestlers tell me who on the roster is ready or should have a title shot against Roode? There are only 2 main event baby faces left on the roster who hasn't faced Bobby Roode ATM.
JJYanks121
The Mouth of the South Shore
Totally. In 1998, the WWE had lost Bret Hart, HBK and other established stars. So what they did was bring in other established stars to win the war with WCW. Wait......
No they didn't. They pretty much went with guys who weren't so big but they gave them time and some of those guys became legends. The wrestlers that were big in that time? Stone Cold, Kane, Undertaker (arguable if he was a proven draw at this point), Rock, Triple H (and the rest of the nobodies in DX), Mick Foley, and maybe a few more. None of those guys were proven draws from the past and of them, only Taker had been champion before April of 1998 (Taker for 8 days in 91 and then a 5 month reign in 1997). By the end of 1998, it was becoming quite clear that the WWF product was light years ahead of WCW's despite WCW having the "bigger past stars". It wasn't a recipe for failure then and it wouldn't be now if done right. If the newer stars have the hunger and the desire to be great, they'll put on great TV. It's that simple.
Not really. Ratings were better a year ago and so far, people like Rock and more specifically Brock haven't brought up ratings very much, if at all. This is much more concerning for Brock as he was supposed to bring in the MMA audience and so far evidence is showing that he hasn't. Then again, Brock was a young guy coming from developmental once but he probably shouldn't have been given a chance since he wasn't a proven draw then right?
That's a terribly vague statement and one I hear too many times for people trying to defend old men being on TV. You must ask yourself though, how did these men become important and how did they become people I care about? The answer? Someone gave them a chance to be a star at some point and they ran with it. You can say people want to see who they know and like, but if that's all you have, those people aren't around forever and then you'll have nothing left when they are gone. You need a balance, and in my opinion, you want the younger, hungrier guys to become stars. It's the circle of the business and the hungriest ones become big stars. In the mid 2000's, Rock, Austin, Lesnar, and other "stars" were gone. Within a couple of years, men like Cena, Batista, Orton, and Edge were stars and why? They were given a chance and they succeeded. Some fail, but you have to take chances in business and in life.
Again, I'm not against famous dudes being a part of the business, but remember they got famous somehow and they should remember that too. If they love the business, they'd help put young guys over with their words or actions so that the business can do well.
Neither of those ratings are anything to applaud. Again I point you to the WWF. In 1997, the WWF was in trouble. WCW had them on the ropes and they were struggling. However, their business model didn't chance despite being in their worst position in years. They saw the long term picture and that was building the stars of the future. WCW kept looking for short term "big names" You tell me which one paid off in the end? Don't be Eric Bischoff and only worry about today. If you do, you will fail. Ratings are low now, but the hope is that these guys can grow and draw for TNA moving forward.
Well that's not fair. One is after the undisputed biggest show of the year while the other is after what should be the second biggest show but where the biggest thing that happened was Eric Bischoff's loss. Being baseless, you could say that no one cared that Bischoff was gone and that's why ratings were low. It's as meaningless an argument as the one you gave. I'll do better for you though. Since BFG 2011, I would consider the booking to be poor. What you've had is a bunch of heel champions for the most part. You have a babyface contender win some sort of match to get the title shot. That person either gets a promo or match to look good leading up to the match then just as the fans are ready for a title change, the heel wins pretty cleanly and cuts a promo about how awesome they are the next night. Then rinse and repeat. The problem with this booking is that avid fans of the product like the champions perhaps but average wrestling fans want to see a babyface triumph over a heel. If you never deliver that, those fans feel like "well why am I watching if this company never delivers great moments?" so they just give up. It doesn't matter if young talent is being utilized if the right people aren't winning stuff. Look at Lockdown. Golden opportunity to have either Velvet or Storm go over Kim or Roode respectively. Both have had long reigns that have been that formula I discussed. Both contenders were the ones fans wanted to win the most and neither won. In fact, no titles changed at Lockdown. Perhaps that fact drove people not to watch Impact, not the fact that Ric Flair hasn't been featured enough.
Of course not because you said Jesse Sorenson who is both hurt and irrelevant so it makes your case sound great. The problem is, no one is arguing that Jesse should be main eventing. They ARE arguing that Storm is champonship material, that Aries should be featured more, that Styles should be able to do ANYTHING outside of Daniels, among other things. It's so say something like you did. Take the least relevant guy and pretend THAT is the young guys people are clamoring for. Again, I'm not saying the old guys have no place on the show, but they shouldn't be the focus of it either. If you are interested in a short term fix, sure. However, I can't imagine TNA should be in the business of short term fixes. That would be terrible business on their part. However, if they were to build stars and actually market them and they were to create storylines that made sense and showed these new stars to be important, you might have something. It's not like the stars TNA has now are doing wonders for the business. If you go only on ratings, not one major star that has been brought in has driven ratings more than 1/10 of a percentage point (0.1 in the ratings). That percentage means nothing. Clearly the old guys haven't done wonders in that regard. Now, we're not talking merchandising or whatever unprovable facts that will be thrown out there. All we have as far as factual info are ratings and there's not a huge difference at this point.
If TNA is smart, they will look at the WWE model. Every time they've lost stars, they've built new ones. That is why they have been the company to stay around all this time. If TNA would like to do that, I'd think building stars that are easily associated with their product is a much better idea than looking for short term fixes with older guys that will never truly drive business.
CobraStarship
Dark Match Winner
Off topic: you are a fucking moron, seriously! edge doesn't belong in the same sentence as Austin and Hogan... how about this sentence "The WWE Hall of Fame includes Stone Cold Steve Austin, Hollywood Hulk Hogan oh and The Rated R Superstar Edge (who btw... held tag gold with Hogan)"...
Back on topic: TNA is doing a great job!
The balance between using legends/iconic names of the wrestling business i.e. Kurt Angle (Being part of this AJ/Kaz/Daniels thing), Hulk Hogan (running the damn company), Rob Van Dam (helping establish Roode etc.), Devon (getting his first singles title run in how long?? and will no doubt put over up coming stars) & Bully Ray (in a fued with Aries?), Kid Kash (which yes is in a way an "X Division Legend" in TNA's eyes" Sting (who everyone in TNA loves) & Ric Flair (stuck in this Gunner/Garrett Bischoff), Mr Anderson, Gail Kim, Mickie James.
then using their key "established" TNA elements; Robert Roode (TNA Champion), James Storm, AJ Styles, Kazarian, Samoa Joe, Magnus, Eric Young, Alex Shelley, Chris Sabin, Madison Rayne, Abyss/Parks, Velvet Sky, ODB, Austin Aries (which yes is new in TNA's eyes but been on the ROH circuit just as long as Punk/Danielson/Joe etc... and has TNA written all over him lol)
then now also concentrating on a new batch of youngsters; Crimson, Sorenson (pre-injury), Zema Ion, Sarita, "Fight Night" etc...
are TNA perfect? GOD NO! but they are doing a good enough job to warrant "anti-youth/anti-tna abuse" for the time being... IMO!!!
Metalcrack
Dark Match Jobber
TV Title being worthless.......that's why it is being pushed to be on TV EVERY DAMN WEEK. Perfect for a guy with a past with Devon....(POPE??????). Great way to get a heel over is give him tv time, and what better than a title defended....on TV....every week.
Roode needs a CLEAN win over a legit star (RVD anyone????).
Crimson in in his natural role as a heel. Perfect facial mannerisms for this. Let him loose.
You need to use legit stars to get people over, Hardy, Anderson, Angle are perfect examples.
Troll is a Troll.
Aries is being pushed every week. He is building himself up as a heavyweight with legit good matches with Bully Ray.
Magnus and Joe are on TV every week while they are trying to rebuild the Tag Division against another proven TNA commodity in the MCMG (unfortunately, with only 2 hours of TV a week, the X Division has to struggle as there is only so much time).
Aj, Kaz and Daniels are in a storyline with airtime every week.
They realize Velvet is horrible in the ring, which is opposite of what a KO is supposed to be. Thankfully she hasn't gotten the belt again. Just because you're over doesn't mean you need the belt (Tommy Dreamer original ECW....Mr. EC F'N W) never.....NEVER held the heavyweight title for anytime more than one night. If anyone deserved that title it was him. Not the best direction for the product.
Zema, Pope, Nese, Robbie E are all waiting to shine. Old aren't they?
Where are Booker T, Nash, Hall, Steiner, Jarrett, Knobbs and Saggs... yeah off TV as they won't help the product... Too green right?
Roode needs a CLEAN win over a legit star (RVD anyone????).
Crimson in in his natural role as a heel. Perfect facial mannerisms for this. Let him loose.
You need to use legit stars to get people over, Hardy, Anderson, Angle are perfect examples.
Troll is a Troll.
Aries is being pushed every week. He is building himself up as a heavyweight with legit good matches with Bully Ray.
Magnus and Joe are on TV every week while they are trying to rebuild the Tag Division against another proven TNA commodity in the MCMG (unfortunately, with only 2 hours of TV a week, the X Division has to struggle as there is only so much time).
Aj, Kaz and Daniels are in a storyline with airtime every week.
They realize Velvet is horrible in the ring, which is opposite of what a KO is supposed to be. Thankfully she hasn't gotten the belt again. Just because you're over doesn't mean you need the belt (Tommy Dreamer original ECW....Mr. EC F'N W) never.....NEVER held the heavyweight title for anytime more than one night. If anyone deserved that title it was him. Not the best direction for the product.
Zema, Pope, Nese, Robbie E are all waiting to shine. Old aren't they?
Where are Booker T, Nash, Hall, Steiner, Jarrett, Knobbs and Saggs... yeah off TV as they won't help the product... Too green right?
You honestly can't be serious. Hogan is the GENERAL MANGER. How is he the focal point? Sting was the GENERAL MANGER. In that case, why does nobody criticize WWE for having Teddy Long being the "focal point" of WWE SmackDown or Johnny Ace for being the "focal point" of Raw? Because it makes no damn sense and they aren't the focal point.
Your simply making excuses for going against what Dixie is trying to do. Fact is, focusing on younger talent means new stars throughout the roster and shows.
Open Fight Night is a new way to open a set of talent to debut in TNA just like ECW and NXT.
People need to quit being blind and see that TNA has been for the last year pushing new talent and It seems to be going to a higher level.
When TNA pushed Crimson and Gunner, people called them green. Now, they are focusing on new talent out of OVW and the Indies and people are complaining because It's not true based off of RVD and Devon having a role for the first time in MONTHS.
Makes no sense. None.
dudedudedude
Pre-Show Stalwart
The main storyline is always central to/ or involving Hogan. He is your focal point. ALWAYS
So let me get this straight. If Hogan is on the screen for two segments of a two hour show, it's all about him and any and all pushes involving anyone else on the roster are null and void? Roode has a match. Hogan's character booked him in the match, so it's all about Hogan and Roode can't get over? I'd like to think that the majority of people who watch TNA are not this sick. No way.
Now that I think about it, it's going to be interesting to see how WWE manages to make new stars with John Laurinitis being involved in/central to ALL of the main storylines in WWE. Not only is he in the middle of the Lesnar/Cena feud, he's also involved in his own side feud with CM Punk, he's got something going with Sheamus, and this whole people power thing goes through both Raw/Smackdown from top to bottom. I'd love someone to try and explain to me the difference between his role in WWE and Hogan's in TNA.
californiachef84
Pre-Show Stalwart
Why on earth is this so hard for people like you to understand? We are only disagreeing in your mind. Think about that for a moment... no, please take a little longer to digest that. You said, "The only reason people think Roode is young is because he is just now getting pushed as a main event star". I totally agree and never said to the contrary. Only in your mind did you think that I disagreed with you. Wrestling is all about PERCEPTION! Roode is not perceived to be as old as Cena because Cena has been the top guy of his company for like 7 years. So yes, Roode IS A YOUNG GUY! Roode's real age is irrelevant in this argument. PERCEPTION, fool!
Your second point is (as you said), "35 sure as hell isn't young for a wrestler".
Let's take a trip down memory lane, shall we? Austin was 34 before he won his first WWF title. Hogan was 30 when he won his first WWE title. Edge was 33. Mick Foley was 33. Buddy Rogers was the very first WWE champion and he was 42. Stan Stasiak was 36. Billy Graham was 34. The Iron Sheik was 40. The Macho Man was 36. All of these superstars seemed to work out for everyone didn't they. All of these guys worked well into their 40's and were still big draws.
Finally, you seem to think that I was comparing the careers of wrestlers like Hogan & Austin to that of Hardy and Roode. No one on here was ever comparing "how big" of stars any of these men were. The comparison that I made was how old they were before they got there first world title and main event push. It was spelled out perfectly in the argument I made, but you just wanted to twist it into your own direction. Smarten up! And if you are gonna argue with somebody about something, make sure that you know what the hell you are arguing about, FOOL!
californiachef84
Pre-Show Stalwart
You ever watch baseball great Nolan Ryan pitch in his mid forties against then rookie Robin Ventura? Youtube that...
I believe the OP to be intentionally saying untrue things about TNA because he just hates the company because he is a "WWE loyalist". His only objective is to try to make TNA look bad. That is why he intentionally made false claims. When someone does this then I feel that a verbal berating is in perfect order. I also got 6 green reps so I think that most of the people here agreed with me and thought that the OP was full of crap.
How is he the focal point? The entirety of his on screen activity for the last 2 weeks has been telling people that they're going to be in a match. Im sorry, isnt that what every other GM does? Just because hes there, doesnt mean hes the focal point.
I'm not going to address what the original poster said; I've seen enough of these kind of threads that I really don't give a shit about the content anymore. I'm going to focus on your response, to this post as well as to several others recently.
Instead of attacking his ideas and demonstrating that whatever claims he made were false, you simply state "he lied", then move onto a progression of insults. Verbal beating? You look like a child who can't construe an argument and resorts to childish name calling, then gets all giddy when other people, just as childish, cheer him on. Six people green repped you, huh? First, everybody is allowed access to the reputation system. You don't have to have anything particularly useful to say or offer, everyone gets the opportunity to select the "I Approve" radio button. Second, six people approving a post isn't shit. You just think it's a lot because you're unused to that mediocre level of approval on a post.
The original poster really didn't have much to say, but you've offered absolutely nothing to the conversation. You've actually subtracted from the conversation, because while the original poster was at least trying to express an idea, all you've been capable of expressing is "poopyhead". Verbal beatdown? Maybe to a twelve year-old, what you're doing is having a temper tantrum.
californiachef84
Pre-Show Stalwart
First of all, I referred to the term "verbal berating" (not "verbal beatdown" as you put it) because that is what a previous poster labelled it. Secondly, I don't necessarily care about the "reputation" system and getting green reps. The only reason that I brought it up was because it offered a distinct insight to the person who "quoted" me from an earlier post. Meaning that his opinion was just as worthless as mine and, for that matter, yours as well. Therefore, in the grand scope of things ALL of our opinions are worthless. The difference is that I believe that the OP was not expressing a heartfelt opinion, but merely trying to degrade something (in this case TNA) that he doesn't have any knowledge of. The reason for this is because he hates EVERYTHING that has the name TNA attached to it. So if you want to label "verbal berating" or "verbal beatdown" or "poopyhead", I don't care. I will call people out on bullshit when they spew out bullshit. If you actually took the time to read any of my posts from previous threads then you would know that this is not how I traditionally respond to posters.
If you think that I offered nothing constructive to this conversation then so be it. I really don't care if that is your opinion. For that matter, I don't think that you offered anything constructive to this conversation. The only difference is that more people agreed with me than you. You couldn't even manage to quote me properly by saying "verbal beatdown" instead of what I actually said.
Next time don't pick a fight with someone who has a BS degree in English and a minor in Philosophy.
Oooooh, a BS in English! And a philosophy minor! What did you do, walk into the registrar and say "Hi, I'd like to spend as much money as possible, while receiving the least employable set of skills you can give me." I am not impressed by your beginner's college degree, which you sure as hell don't write like you possess.
It's ironic that a philosophy minor would turn to such defenses as "more people agree with me than you", a statement that is illogical on its face since not only is there no metric to measure that, but I didn't present a case to the general public to debate in the first place. For that matter, it's surprising that a philosophy minor would use such teenage Nitzsche bullshit like "All opinions are worthless." You would think that someone who had received logical training in philosophy wouldn't make arguments like "six people approved of my post, therefore most of the board agrees with me". I would expect an English major to focus on which homonym I used, as opposed to the argument I made, because if they went to school for such a fluff degree, they probably don't have much skill in focusing on what's important to a situation and what not.
Next time, don't assume that a bachelor's degree is going to impress people.
californiachef84
Pre-Show Stalwart
What on earth is wrong with you? For starters, I had a scholarship to go to school and I didn't have to pay a thing. Secondly, I don't care if you approve of what I went to school for or if you are "impressed by it". This is completely irrelevant and is detracting from the conversation.
This conversation is about the young guys of Impact Wrestling. Why not try focusing on that instead of trying to tear down my career path? This is completely childish and not necessary.
I didn't bring up your "career" path as if it had something to do with the discussion. (For the record, a "career" isn't what you studied in school, it's what you get a job in and make a living from.) You were the one who brought up your education as if it had anything to do with the conversation. I just took the ball you gave me and ran with it. You quite obviously were trying to impress people with your little beginner's college degree; else, what in the hell would be the point of saying "Next time, don't pick an argument with someone who went to school for the least employable field he could find?"
You want to talk about focusing on the discussion? That's how you and I got started talking, because you attacked a poster with a slew of insults completely unrelated to the discussion, then said you felt attacking someone without approaching the topic under discussion was justified, largely because you didn't like what he had to say.
If we want to talk childish and unnecessary, we could focus on your "WWE LOVING TOOL!!!" post, which was obviously meant as a well-rationed response to someone's argument, correct? You seem to love throwing the insults around, but it suddenly becomes puerile and childish when it comes back your way. For the record, I don't have to tear down your career path, as it is a road leading nowhere and thus needs no deconstruction. Might want to get to work on that teaching certificate.
californiachef84
Pre-Show Stalwart
For the record, I am almost finished with my masters degree in English and will become an English teacher when I am finished. I do not know what world you live in, but being a teacher in kind of an important field. On top of that, I have been working as a MLT (medical laboratory technician) for the past 6 years. I do not know why you try to belittle someone who has honestly dedicated his life to helping others.
In addition, all opinions are NOT equal. If one were to make a statement that "the earth is flat", then that is not a valid opinion. We can prove that the earth is not flat and, as a result, can disprove the validity of that claim. Therefore, when someone makes a claim that "TNA is not pushing young stars", then I can call bullshit. We can prove by looking at the story lines and the main focus of the show that this is not true. Hence, it is not my opinion that the OP is wrong but FACT! Anyone who follows Impact Wrestling knows this to be true. With that said, I feel it justified to respond to the OP in the manner that I did. Sometimes people need to be dealt with harshly. Even more so when that said person makes outrageous claims. Notice how the OP never even tried to give a rebuttal of what I had said.
I can see that you are a smart person who can give a well-rounded thought. However, I think that you are missing the whole point in this discussion. I don't really think that you understand why I responded in the manner I did. Quite honestly I do not know how to lay it out any better for you than I have. My whole point is that personally attacking me for my school/career path is not the same as attacking someone for making an uninformed, and ridiculous observation.
Yes, the world definitely needs more English teachers. I am not belittling your belief that you're somehow helping the world by helping fulfill an outdated government quota for four years of English education. I'm belittling you for thinking for a second that a bachelor's degree is something impressive to bring up in a discussion on a professional wrestling message board. (Yeah, I know, you weren't trying to impress anyone, you just bring that up as the closing line in all of your arguments on the internet, right?)
The man who said just a few posts ago, "All opinions are worthless", is now claiming that his opinion is superior to someone elses. Furthermore, he's claiming that something that can only be a matter of opinion- what a "push" is and who it's being applied to- is a fact which supports his point of view. Who then backs up that thought process with an "everyone who really knows what they're talking about agrees with me" statement.
The reason the OP never tried to rebutt you is because there was nothing you said that could be rebutted. It was a post consisting entirely of insults.
Philosophy minor? Really?!?!? The reason I'm belittling you this time is because the way you argue is so ridiculously out of tune with someone who had actually spent time receiving logical training of any sort. I've never heard someone who's studied philosophy rely so heavily on "other people agree with me" arguments.
See, that's ironic. I think I'm attacking someone for making an uninformed, ridiculous observation. The difference is that I never tried to pretend I was making an erudite observation of someone elses opinion. You made a post that was nothing but insults because you disagreed with someone's point of view. I disagreed with your ethic that you should be able to freewheelingly insult someone you disagree with without offering any contribution to the discussion at hand, so I approached you in a similar manner.
For the record, I keep attacking your education because I'm pretty much entirely convinced you made it up to make yourself look bigger than you are, but was giving you the benefit of the doubt for the time being. You might have been able to slide English major by, but you having any kind of training in philosophy seems like something of a sick joke.
Texas Tornado
Occasional Pre-Show
If TNA is smart, they will look at the WWE model. Every time they've lost stars, they've built new ones. That is why they have been the company to stay around all this time. If TNA would like to do that, I'd think building stars that are easily associated with their product is a much better idea than looking for short term fixes with older guys that will never truly drive business.
DangerousDave
The dirtiest player in the game.
Exactly, all I had to see is over 150 post and one pitiful red square to know what this guy is about. Not worth my time to argue with such a poster.
californiachef84
Pre-Show Stalwart
Look dude, I am going to make a couple of observations here and then I am done. First of all, could I have handled my initial post differently? Well of course I could have handled it differently. I could have taken my traditional approach and stated my argument in a polite and cordial manner. The thing of it is is that I am so sick and tired of people throwing insults at something (in this case TNA) that they know nothing about. The OP obviously had no clue what he was talking about. You say that he was expressing an opinion and that I verbally assaulted him. I honestly don't believe that he was expressing his opinion. His "opinion" is just too absurd to take seriously. All he was trying to do was trash TNA because he doesn't like it.
I also agree that having a BS degree is an outdated government quota. What can I do about that? Regardless of what you believe I was not trying to impress you with my education credentials. I have never mentioned that on any of my previous posts. I was merely stating a fact. Take it or leave it.
Finally, you took my "all opinions are worthless" statement out of context. This was partially my fault for not making this statement more clear. "All opinions are worthless" was not meant to be applicable to every opinion. In fact, I just simply meant that for our particular discussion. The distinction being that in our unique back and forth discussion, the only thing that we expressed were our opinions. Therefore our opinions are debatable and are not necessarily fact. Relatively speaking, that makes "all of our opinions worthless", given the context. The difference between our conversation and that of the OP is outlined in the first paragraph.
In addition, there are many different philosophers who have very different methods and beliefs. In the case of something like mathematics, problems are solved with explicit instructions. Philosophy is very different as there are many different ways to express an idea and to try and solve a problem. Therefore, I do not understand how one could attack my education in philosophy for not fitting a certain "mold". That just simply doesn't make any sense.
Regardless of what you think, I think that you are a pretty cool dude. You are much different from a lot of the posters on here who have trouble expressing an idea or spelling properly. Thanks for the engaging conversation.
DangerousDave
The dirtiest player in the game.
Well I've read through the whole thread and guess I have to finally answer "Mr Know it All", aka californiachef84. My point is that Dixie announced the push of younger wrestlers and within 2 shows we have 2 older wrestlers in spots that could have been filled by younger wrestlers. That would have better proven TNA's actually trying to do what they say they are going to do.
As far as me being a WWE tool, you are wrong, I never watch it and couldn't care less about it. If you look at my over 200 post during the last two years you will find they are all in the TNA forum. Not only do I watch Impact on TV, I go to every TV taping in the Impact Zone. I love the product no matter what they do, but they always seem to make announcements and end up doing the opposite or drop the concept without explanation.
If you would have taken the time to look my previous post you would have seen they were all in the TNA forums. I think you were just jobbed out.
As far as me being a WWE tool, you are wrong, I never watch it and couldn't care less about it. If you look at my over 200 post during the last two years you will find they are all in the TNA forum. Not only do I watch Impact on TV, I go to every TV taping in the Impact Zone. I love the product no matter what they do, but they always seem to make announcements and end up doing the opposite or drop the concept without explanation.
If you would have taken the time to look my previous post you would have seen they were all in the TNA forums. I think you were just jobbed out.
californiachef84
Pre-Show Stalwart
Exactly, all I had to see is over 150 post and one pitiful red square to know what this guy is about. Not worth my time to argue with such a poster.
This is a pretty bland way to look at the world. I have "one pitiful red square". This doesn't really bother me. Nearly all of my red reps came from one thread about Kurt Angle's DUI. Just because I didn't jump on the bandwagon, everyone on that thread took issue with me. You should check it out if you are curious. Just try to be a little more informed before you make comments like that.
californiachef84
Pre-Show Stalwart
Well I've read through the whole thread and guess I have to finally answer "Mr Know it All", aka californiachef84. My point is that Dixie announced the push of younger wrestlers and within 2 shows we have 2 older wrestlers in spots that could have been filled by younger wrestlers. That would have better proven TNA's actually trying to do what they say they are going to do.
As far as me being a WWE tool, you are wrong, I never watch it and couldn't care less about it. If you look at my over 200 post during the last two years you will find they are all in the TNA forum. Not only do I watch Impact on TV, I go to every TV taping in the Impact Zone. I love the product no matter what they do, but they always seem to make announcements and end up doing the opposite or drop the concept without explanation.
If you would have taken the time to look my previous post you would have seen they were all in the TNA forums. I think you were just jobbed out.
My mistake... I will own up to it like a man. I am sorry dude. Let me just say that having Roode work with veterans is an excellent way to establish him as "the guy". Having Roode work with some other unknown, young guy doesn't really do much for him or TNA.
Once again, I apologize...
DangerousDave
The dirtiest player in the game.
Do as I say, not as I do ............
DangerousDave
The dirtiest player in the game.
A californiachief84 Peace dude.