Who is Better: Gunner or Crimson?

[King_Kong_Brody]

I really do not know. Neither one impresses me much. It's like their both generic, one a generic face, the other a generic heel. I guess I'd say Gunner though if I have to choose...but it's really just saying the best of the worst in my eyes.

 

[The Dragon Saga]

Gunner.

Gunner may be quite similar to Crimson due to their intense personas which TNA has no problem making an evident part of said personas, but Gunner has shown he has a lot more talent than Crimson. Not only is Gunner better on the microphone; although nowhere near the best, but he's obviously better than Crimson, who in his rather short and odd promos just screams. Gunner is also a far better wrestler, he has accomplishments to his name also, former NWA Anarchy Champion is a decent belt to hold on the independent circuit.

Crimson can be built as some undefeated ginger monster all he wants, he doesn't have the potential Gunner has to actually achieve something decent. Once Crimson is eventually defeated, he'll slip further and further down the TNA Rankings and eventually either disappear or fall into the position Samoa Joe has, enhancement talent.

 

[Dizzy]

Crimson is the better right now. He is in a winning streak, he's over with the fans, he's got a unique look and okay in the ring. But neither will lead wrestling as both men are in TNA and nobody from TNA will lead wrestling. It will always be WWE's top star that leads wrestling. Fact.

Wrong.

AJ Styles and Angle has been considered a leading wrestlers. WWE's top stars are ENTERTAINERS.

You wold have to be a total mark to say nobody in TNA or ROH can lead in wrestling. WWE has nobody that is new that is a established superstar main eventer.

Wrong. WWE also have many great young stars such as Dolph Ziggler, Wade Barrett, Alex Riley etc. These guys are better than Crimson and Gunner. They have better mic skills, more charisma and as good if not better in the ring.

Lol WRONG

None of them are main eventers.

Ziggler has been pushed to midcard, again.

Barrett is a joke. Everything about him is a joke. I'm sorry, he is a terrible. Kaval should be taking his spotlight.

Alex Riley? Are you joking?

Crimson is WAY better in terms of looks, potential and career years. Gunner is the exact same way. Just get over the fact TNA has better guys with superstar main event potential than WWE right now.

Del Rio isn't young. Sin Cara is but he fucked himself. Daniel Bryan is a proven fail just like Swagger was as World Champ.

John Morrison the next HBK? He's walking a fine line to the employment line if he continues to rant over Melina.

Right now, TNA is built their guys in a better place than WWE. It's not being bias either. It's being smart and logical.WWE shoots out "young" talent like a stray cat with kittens. Problem is none of them get developed properly.

Robert Roode got developed and officially is ready to main event. James Storm is ready to main event. In a matter of time, I bet Austin Aries will be ready to main event.

WWE does a poor job of building stars now. Sheamus went from destroying jobbers on ECW to main eventing against Cena within 2 weeks. Now, nobody cares about him or even remembers he was a TWO time WWE Champion.

TNA has done a totally poor job as well but they have done a really good job with Roode, Crimson and Gunner thus far.

 

[Cena's #1 In My Heart]

Gunner is way better and more physical in the ring. Could still use some improvement. But Crimson tends to not really hit any offense when he's facing more physical opponents and then just ends up winning with his finisher... The Sky High(come on really?) out of nowhere...

They both have very nice looks.

We haven't really heard Crimson talk much, so I guess I gotta give Gunner the edge there. Though Gunner needs to develop more of a personality. I think he should go the Rhino/Goldberg route and just be a total machine and maniac.

 

[blkshp]

Dizzy, you are entitled to your opinion, but one thing I've noticed from you is that you tend to rattle off things like they're facts. And most of the things you say are clearly biased towards TNA or against WWE. Now hey, that's your thing, more power to you, but your opinion isn't any more "right" then let's say Electro boy's there. I'm not a TNA or a WWE mark, I can watch them both and accept them for what they are. But can you honestly say that TNA can build a star and WWE can't when the majority of the top guys in TNA were WWE/WCW/ECW guys? AJ is a great in ring talent. He's a star...but he's not a superstar. His time as the top guy came and he's a high midcarder now, like Sheamus actually. You can't blast one company for doing it if your favorite company does the same. Imo you WANT those guys to fail, and the WWE as a whole, but that's probably not going to happen. Sure among Barrett, Bryan, Ziggler, Sheamus, Del Rio, Sin Cara and others, some will succeed and some won't, but to tell people they'll all fail because they're not that good or because the WWE is an Entertainment company not a Wrestling company or because Vince McMahon is this or that just makes it sound like you have a major inferiority complex.

 

[god-soldier]

When I said the WWE doesn't have guys like Crimson or Gunner I am talking about from a real stand point all WWE wrestlers are very cartoonish John Cena and Randy Orton are very cartoonish in their gimmicks and characters and presentation on the mic and in the ring and Dolph Ziggler is cartoonish at well and he sucks on the mic. Wade Barrett and Sheamus are more bullys then real intimidating threats. Gunner and Crimson have an intimidating and Goldberg Brock Lesnar complex no body in the WWE has that right now and when the current WWE universe grows up they are gonna look to guys like Gunner and Crimson the more intimidating you are the more the fans who have grown up will adapt to these guys. Mark Henry is intimidating Kane is intimidating th Big Show can be intimidating but he can be a big softee so can Eziekel Jackson but he is a softee and Mason Ryan is just ******ed Batista look a like. Gunner and Crimson have the look and an IT factor we just got to see which one it is

 

[blkshp]

Again, this is an opinion stated like a fact. I don't see an "it" factor at all with these too at this point. They're just two guys with tattoos and one name at this point. Again, I'm not knocking them, but they have no definition as characters at this point. You're a TNA fan, so you should want them to succeed, but with their lack of gimmicks how do you tell a compelling story about them? That's ultimately what hurt Goldberg after a while. When the streak was over, they didn't know what to do with him because they didn't let the character grow past his initial gimmick. What happens when an even less developed Crimson loses? What happens when Gunner goes solo? They have no real on screen personality other then intense, so what do you do with them? This isn't MMA, wins and losses alone ultimately are just half the battle, if you can't craft a story around somebody then the "creative has nothing for you" meeting is all but inevitable. I'm not saying Sheamus or Barrett or Ziggler are going to be top stars, I don't have a crystal ball, but at least they have a CHARACTER, they can be placed in feuds that will allow them to build on what they already have. That is how you build on potential. Like I said, I'm not a WWE or TNA mark, I'm a wrestling fan, I think Bobby Roode, Austin Aries and Shelly's potential are far and away clearer then Gunner and Crimson at this point imo. Take off the blinders and you might see my point. Or not. I'd bet on the latter

 

[yoshi_doce2006]

Again, this is an opinion stated like a fact. I don't see an "it" factor at all with these too at this point. They're just two guys with tattoos and one name at this point. Again, I'm not knocking them, but they have no definition as characters at this point. You're a TNA fan, so you should want them to succeed, but with their lack of gimmicks how do you tell a compelling story about them? That's ultimately what hurt Goldberg after a while. When the streak was over, they didn't know what to do with him because they didn't let the character grow past his initial gimmick. What happens when an even less developed Crimson loses? What happens when Gunner goes solo? They have no real on screen personality other then intense, so what do you do with them? This isn't MMA, wins and losses alone ultimately are just half the battle, if you can't craft a story around somebody then the "creative has nothing for you" meeting is all but inevitable. I'm not saying Sheamus or Barrett or Ziggler are going to be top stars, I don't have a crystal ball, but at least they have a CHARACTER, they can be placed in feuds that will allow them to build on what they already have. That is how you build on potential. Like I said, I'm not a WWE or TNA mark, I'm a wrestling fan, I think Bobby Roode, Austin Aries and Shelly's potential are far and away clearer then Gunner and Crimson at this point imo. Take off the blinders and you might see my point. Or not. I'd bet on the latter

Then you obviously never saw Gunner as The Universal Soldier Phil Shatter in the NWA, NWA Anarchy World Champ for 9 Months, NWA National Heavyweight Champion for 2 years, Gunner has IT, his current gimmick does not have it.

Though I do agree with you where Crimson goes. He has a long way to go.

 

[blkshp]

I haven't seen much of that footage no, but if you have "it", you don't usually lose "it". But i never said Gunner and Crimson don't have it, just that I haven't see it at this point. And its just my opinion, I'm a wrestling fan, not a talent evaluator or booker, so while I see some young talents and think "that guy is gonna be a star", I might not see it in another and I could be dead wrong on both. My beef is that some people on here present there opinion as a fact and if you disagree you're an enemy mark. I also respect the people that bust their asses in the ring in every promotion because I've seen the after effects. So yeah, I think its waaay too early to deem Gunner and Crimson sure fire torch bearers for the entire industry, I see way more potential for that in Roode, Aries and Shelley. And no I wouldn't put them on any higher level then Barrett or Sheamus or Ziggler at this point, because none of these guys (in TNA or WWE) have peaked, how can anybody be sure of how great they can (potentially)be?

 

[ih8myusername94]

When Gunner joined Immortal I happened to turn to impact a little late and when I saw him I instantly thought it was Crimson who turned heel. This shows that they look very similar besides the hair. Anyway, I prefer Crimson because of his streak. Plus, Gunner doesn't offer anything of appeal to me really.

 

[yoshi_doce2006]

I haven't seen much of that footage no, but if you have "it", you don't usually lose "it". But i never said Gunner and Crimson don't have it, just that I haven't see it at this point. And its just my opinion, I'm a wrestling fan, not a talent evaluator or booker, so while I see some young talents and think "that guy is gonna be a star", I might not see it in another and I could be dead wrong on both. My beef is that some people on here present there opinion as a fact and if you disagree you're an enemy mark. I also respect the people that bust their asses in the ring in every promotion because I've seen the after effects. So yeah, I think its waaay too early to deem Gunner and Crimson sure fire torch bearers for the entire industry, I see way more potential for that in Roode, Aries and Shelley. And no I wouldn't put them on any higher level then Barrett or Sheamus or Ziggler at this point, because none of these guys (in TNA or WWE) have peaked, how can anybody be sure of how great they can (potentially)be?

Yea, a lot of people do that. I just think the character Shatter was given is so damn generic he is having trouble getting it over. You can have IT but IT only gets you so far if you are not put in position to succeed. I see a lot of potential in TNA, but can they be put in position to succeed?

 

[JETER123]

Both guys have a fantastic look and seem to be on the verge of something big. It's almost a toss-up at this point, but as stupid as this way sound, I'm saying Crimson is better because of his name. Gunner is a HORRIBLE name, uninspired and bland.

 

[blkshp]

I agree, that is a very good question. One of WCW's ultimate flaws was the inability to create and enhance the gimmicks of their talents. Terra Rising became Triple H, Mean Mark Callous became the Undertaker, Stunning Steve Austin became Stone Cold, Lionheart Chris Jericho became Y2J etc. As much as people hate on the WWE now, they have a history of finding a good gimmick (or adapting an old one) and running with it. I could only imagine what wouldve happened to Dwayne Johnson if he went to WCW. That's what, imo, TNA needs to focus on, building gimmicks up and letting storylines grow out of them. That's what I said about Gunner and Crimson, its not about them at this point, plenty of guys had talent and never became top draws. A great talent needs a great gimmick to excel.

 

[yoshi_doce2006]

I agree, that is a very good question. One of WCW's ultimate flaws was the inability to create and enhance the gimmicks of their talents. Terra Rising became Triple H, Mean Mark Callous became the Undertaker, Stunning Steve Austin became Stone Cold, Lionheart Chris Jericho became Y2J etc. As much as people hate on the WWE now, they have a history of finding a good gimmick (or adapting an old one) and running with it. I could only imagine what wouldve happened to Dwayne Johnson if he went to WCW. That's what, imo, TNA needs to focus on, building gimmicks up and letting storylines grow out of them. That's what I said about Gunner and Crimson, its not about them at this point, plenty of guys had talent and never became top draws. A great talent needs a great gimmick to excel.

Yea, but Russo wont do that, Hogan doesnt know how to do that, and Bischoff has other business ventures he has to attend to and cant do TNA 100% of the time. TNA doesn't have the people in charge to do everything they need to. They have done a pretty good job but quite frankly not good enough.

On average the WWE screws up more careers than TNA with poor gimmicks, but WWE has a big enough following and enough money to screw up 10 times and still survive off hitting a home run once. TNA doesn't have that, they can't just say "Oh well, messed that one up. Who's next?" TNA has to start getting this right.

 

[blkshp]

Exactly, WWE can afford to not get it right, hell they can cut a guy when he's green or if they give him a crap gimmick, then resign him again when the time is right (potentially Colt Cabana situation, I mean Scotty Goldman? Ugh). TNA can't afford that. They're smaller, less of a dynasty and have to continue to build a loyal fanbase. I know you can't look at a CM Punk and say "TNA screwed up", but they have to literally exaust a talents potential or risk losing them to the more established company with bigger assets. Tough spot to be in.

 

[Notorious718]

I'm not really a huge fan of either of them to be honest. However in terms of overall ring technique, I'd say Gunner gets an edge. To me, I think Gunner has all the tools to be a star in TNA and I think he has an edge in mic skills when compared to Crimson. Crimson has a great look and a great build but playing the role of a badass will only get you so far if you can't get the fans emotionally invested in you on the mic. At this point, all Crimson has had going for him since his TNA debut is his undefeated streak and it's not as if all of his matches have been that impressive. What will happen when he inevitably loses? He lacks character depth which is something that I think Gunner has only a slight edge over Crimson on due to being in the spotlight with Immortal. Gunner really has pleasantly surprised me. I thought he'd amount to nothing more than the security guard jobber but he's far exceeded my expectations, something that Crimson has not done yet.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

At this point in time, it's like taking a couple of turds and asking which one of them stinks less. One turd might be bigger than the other but, when it's all said and done, they're both still turds.

If these two were in WWE with the same sort of character, people would be labeling these guys as a couple of generic, one dimensional meat bricks getting pushed because Vince loves their look. And those people would be absolutely right. However, that seems to be perfectly acceptable since they're in TNA and are already being touted and debated as the future of the company.

When it comes to Gunner, there's just nothing to be said. He's spent his entire time in TNA playing the role of a generic lackey & general stooge in Immortal that just happens to have a good muscular build and some tattoos. And all this "intensity" in him amounts to little more than him making some angwy wangwy faces while slapping himself. Everything about the guy screams generic mid-card place holder.

As far as Crimson goes, I just see a big guy with a good look that TNA is pushing and pushing hard. Right now, he just comes across as a poor man's Goldberg. Yes, yes I know that TNA isn't doing the exact same thing WCW did with Goldberg but there's more than enough similarities to warrant comparison of the two. As far as intensity goes, same with Gunner. He makes some faces, maybe snarls or something a little and that's about it.

So who's better? Crap by any other name still draws flies.

 

[yoshi_doce2006]

At this point in time, it's like taking a couple of turds and asking which one of them stinks less. One turd might be bigger than the other but, when it's all said and done, they're both still turds.

If these two were in WWE with the same sort of character, people would be labeling these guys as a couple of generic, one dimensional meat bricks getting pushed because Vince loves their look. And those people would be absolutely right. However, that seems to be perfectly acceptable since they're in TNA and are already being touted and debated as the future of the company.

When it comes to Gunner, there's just nothing to be said. He's spent his entire time in TNA playing the role of a generic lackey & general stooge in Immortal that just happens to have a good muscular build and some tattoos. And all this "intensity" in him amounts to little more than him making some angwy wangwy faces while slapping himself. Everything about the guy screams generic mid-card place holder.

As far as Crimson goes, I just see a big guy with a good look that TNA is pushing and pushing hard. Right now, he just comes across as a poor man's Goldberg. Yes, yes I know that TNA isn't doing the exact same thing WCW did with Goldberg but there's more than enough similarities to warrant comparison of the two. As far as intensity goes, same with Gunner. He makes some faces, maybe snarls or something a little and that's about it.

So who's better? Crap by any other name still draws flies.

Why not just say you know nothing about either, have never seen them anywhere besides TNA, and they have crap gimmicks? I mean that is basically what you just told us. Obviously you never saw Shatter (Gunner) beat Davey Richards in that classic 15 minute match last year.

For anyone who has never seen Gunner as anything but a stooge here is Gunner AKA The Universal Soldier Phil Shatter vs The American Wolf Davey Richards. And Richards is an absolute beast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY3JIILB3io

 

[LSN80]

Why not just say you know nothing about either, have never seen them anywhere besides TNA, and they have crap gimmicks? I mean that is basically what you just told us. Obviously you never saw Shatter (Gunner) beat Davey Richards in that classic 15 minute match last year.

For anyone who has never seen Gunner as anything but a stooge here is Gunner AKA The Universal Soldier Phil Shatter vs The American Wolf Davey Richards. And Richards is an absolute beast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY3JIILB3io

Fair enough, but theres one point youre missing completely. The point of this thread isn't to discuss Tommy Mercer or Phil Shatter, it's to discuss Crimson and Gunner. The corelation here doesn't stick. Let me give you an example. It would be like me asking you, "What did you think of Leo DiCaprio in Inception", and you saying "he sucked, but he was great in Shutter Island!" Well and good, but the question wasn't what he was like in Shutter Island, it was what he was like in Inception.(I liked both movies, so dont go there) Its the same basic premise. Gunner and Crimson are the roles they're playing in TNA, and who are what they were or how they were promoted on the Independent wrestling scene isn't of relevance here.

Anyway, to avoid spamming, if TNA actually did something to make me care about Crimson, I would like him so much more. Not that he's Goldberg or Samoa Joe in the ring, but he's carrying a similat gimmick. Because he doesn't have the facial expressions, mannerisms, or mic skills of either, TNA needs to do something to make him stand out. I actually like him in the ring, and feel if pushed properly, he could do well for himself. The person who broke his winning streak would be a very big deal. But the fact that the streak is barely mentioned, nor is he given much mic or face time, TNA has made it virtually impossible to care about him, and his winning streak. Embellish it like they did for Goldberg(42 wins one week 52 the next), give him a storyline where everyone is wanting to be "the one" to end his winning streak, and let him main event an Impact or two, and I could be much more invested. I think he has talent, and a good storyline, but neither are being maximized. They've failed to even give a number to his winning streak, which is important because it shows how big of a deal it is.

Gunner was given somewhat of a push when he won the TV title, but losing it to Eric Young in a comedic factor has prevented me from taking him seriously whatsoever. I know, he beat Sting and Anderson, both champs at the time, in back to back weeks. But there was where it began and ended. He is just another undercard heel in the diluted Immortal(Bully Ray being the exception). He looked good in the match against Davey Richards, but most of his moveset has failed to translate when it comes to his time in TNA. Again, he's just another man that has failed to get a sustained push, even if he did make the best of it when he got the small one.

My choice is Crimson. He has the winning streak, while woefully underpromoted, is still a storyline. He's pretty competant in the ring, and very agile for his size. Listen to the crowd when he comes out, or during one of his matches. They simply don't have an opinion one way or another about Crimson. Going only halfway with his undefeated streak in that it's not a central storyline on the show but rather briefly mentioned is possibly the only thing keeping Crimson from being a possible money commotity.

 

[He's Phenomenal]

I'm more a fan of Gunner than I am Crimson, but it's easy to see the potential they both have.

You could see Gunner had something, even when he was playing the security guy. I thought him and Murphy would go on to become a decent tag team to start with but that obviously weren't how it went down, as Gunner broke away a lot sooner than I'd assumed. But he's shown he's more than ready and I honestly believe TNA have something here. Gunner has a lot going for him and I can't pinpoint exactly what it is, he just comes across as someone who could be a star in pro wrestling.

Crimson has been impressive since his debut (which was great) but he doesn't get used enough IMO. I know he has his streak going on but I don't feel TNA are making full use of that. He's not even featured on iMPACT! some weeks. I'm not saying he has to be beating people every week but he should have something to do every week. He needs to be put out there like Gunner. You rarely see an episode of iMPACT! without Gunner. Crimson has real potential to be a huge face IMO. And with the route TNA are going down, this seems to be what they're thinking. With Crimson's matches being competitive and usually his opponent getting the better of him, the fans are getting behind him. Obviously he'll need to be able to interact with the fans on the mic and I suppose that test will come later.

I could see these two guys fighting over the World Title in the next few years. Gunner as the dominating Champ and Crimson the one to stop him. This should've been done for the TV Title when Gunner had it IMO.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Why not just say you know nothing about either, have never seen them anywhere besides TNA, and they have crap gimmicks? I mean that is basically what you just told us. Obviously you never saw Shatter (Gunner) beat Davey Richards in that classic 15 minute match last year.

I don't care about what Gunner was doing on the indy circuit quite frankly. What I'm concerned with is what I'm shown from these two in TNA. The topic is which one is better and based on what I've seen out of these two in TNA, neither of them strikes me as particularly special. Tons of guys have had great matches and are "stars" out on the indy circuit but TNA is supposed to be in another league right? Supposed to be the big time? Lots of guys that are/were big deals on the indy scene have headed to bigger levels like TNA and haven't shined.