I'm a little late again...... :(
I really want to see WM this year, but a personal situation might get in the way of that.........some things can't be helped (esp. in this case). I'll try anyway, though.
Punk is shaping up to easily be the next JBL - someone playing such of a scum-of-the-earth character that you just want to run him over with a monster truck in real life because of it. However, unlike JBL, he sounds like a cool guy in real life, so I wouldn't want to on that account. But damn, he plays a scumbag so well, doesn't he?
Bob Uecker's being inducted? Awesome; he's one of the funniest guys around. Wait, is he still alive? Haven't heard anything about him in quite a few years.
At 3/17/10 01:39 AM, Outlaw88 wrote:
I just noticed we have irish icons. Very cool. :)
Unfortunately, I missed em. :(
At 3/18/10 12:57 AM, Outlaw88 wrote:
WWE.com is reporting that the following has officially been added to WWE's Wellness Policy:
"WWE has eliminated using folding metal chairs to 'strike' an opponent in the head. The WWE penalizes through fine and/or suspension the following: The intentional use of a folding chair to 'strike an opponent in the head. Any blow to the head that is deemed an intentional act."
This works in a couple of ways. It allows them to give a reason as to why a person isn't aiming for the others head, it helps keep injuries down, and it can be an easy way to get a wrestler off tv for storyline reasons if need be. I have no problems with WWE not wanting to have their workers be hit in the head and am glad this is going to be put into place.
JR finally got his wish. I also expect he was influential in this decision. Can't blame them, though; it's not like it'll affect match quality by much, either.
At 3/19/10 07:01 PM, MaraquanWocky wrote:
Oh yeah...I wanna take a poll. Just to see if I'm right or not.
Meh, like avie said, I guess I'll bite.
1. Do you buy WWE Magazine?
Nope.
2. Do you own at least three different copies of a Smackdown Vs RAW videogame?
No, just the 2010 port for the DS - and it wasn't all it was cracked up to be.
3. Do you buy MMA magazines or the Inside Wrestling magazines?
Nope.
4. Do you Wiki certain wrestlers for fun?
I have a few times out of curiosity.
5. Favorite WWE wrestler? Favorite TNA wrestler? Favorite RoH/Chikara/former WCW/ECW/NWA/New Japan Pro Wrestling/FCW/other wrestler?(if you have one?)
I dunno.........haven't really decided on one yet. Can't say anything for TNA at all since it's been a while since I saw it last.
Reply and get a prize!*
*Cookie
Gimme' cookie now.
At 3/20/10 12:06 AM, PantyWipe wrote:
But now that theyre picking the 5 year olds over the people that kept them afloat for years when they REALLY NEEDED IT?
I think a lot of us agree with that part.
Oh well. TNA is getting bigger and WAAAY better
This part, however, is debatable.
the WOMENS DIVISION THAT CAN ACTUALLY WRESTLE AND LOOKS TAKE A BACKSEAT TO TALENT, the X division, and the hungry young guys with WRESTLING ABILITY getting a push because they EARNED IT.
I definitely agree with those parts, too, esp. that first line (which you all know by now how I feel on that). There ARE some things TNA definitely has over WWE, but as far as being better overall, they just don't seem to be there yet, and by what I hear, it's still not looking too good.
I mean, for shit's sake, TNA got rid of the 6-sided ring - their DEFINING FEATURE! Yes, I'm still pissed about that.
At 3/23/10 11:04 AM, Outlaw88 wrote:
Wait, TNA is constantly mentioning the competition? Why? That doesn't make much sense to me. WCW tried that too and they ended up screwing themselves on a few occasions.
Haven't they been doing that from the beginning?
And if Avie is right in saying RVD is just one of the guys now, then TNA has already messed up. It's like how WWE screwed up their use of Goldberg. You don't bring in a person of high value only to make them not stand out.
Definitely. A guy like RVD, who has earned a fuckton of respect over his career, NEEDS to be treated like a top dog, or don't hire him.
However, Sting WAS injured, so give them the benefit of the doubt on that one.
At 3/23/10 05:50 PM, Odinman wrote:
WWE is getting too "for kids" TNA makes plenty of dumb decisions I wish they hadn't. I'd rather no company be fucked.
Now this is more where I stand. I'd much rather see BOTH products.......or AT LEAST ONE OF THEM.......do things intelligently.
I think it's pretty stupid that TNA is going up against WWE. I think they should cut their losses and go back to Thursdays.
I agree; it seems that they're still not ready.
TNA also has its share of dumb angles, but they also have plenty of good ones, as well as some quality wrestling.
So does WWE; it's just a matter of whose stupid angles are more stupid, and right now it's still TNA.
As for the old guys , I like them. Veterans have been a part of TNA since the beginning and as long as they're staying away from hurting the young guys(which they are) I won't mind if they stay. I've enjoyed a lot of the veteran story lines.
I don't have that much of a problem with the vets being there, either. I actually liked the idea of The Main Event Mafia vs. The Front Line.
Overall I think TNA is still too small. WWE still puts out good stuff, even though they can do better. I just hope in the end of this TNA doesn't die because like the brand or not, if TNA dies, there's plenty of wrestlers that you'll never see again, and others that will get nowhere in the WWE.
That's one thing you have to give TNA: Without it, guys like Tomko & Matt Morgan would most likely be nowhere.