lol, I don't know if you're assuming I prefer TNA over the WWE in terms of PPV's. If so, fuck no. The WWE easily destroys TNA in higher quality PPV's and the E hasn't put on a great PPV in quite sometime. However, Genesis sounds pretty good actually. Hopefully in the future, TNA has equal quality PPV's like Genesis.
Genesis 2011
- Thread starter btman
- Start date
-
Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!
I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register
Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board
lol, I don't know if you're assuming I prefer TNA over the WWE in terms of PPV's. If so, fuck no. The WWE easily destroys TNA in higher quality PPV's and the E hasn't put on a great PPV in quite sometime. However, Genesis sounds pretty good actually. Hopefully in the future, TNA has equal quality PPV's like Genesis.
Imortal & Nexus are NOTHING alike whatsoever (apart from being groups of wrestlers on a TV show).... And Nexus DOES make sense.
"nation said:
This from the guy that in this very thread admits to having not watched a TNA PPV for a year or two... THIS is why you take the fucking piss.
Regardless of Enzo's rediculously commending you on stiring up some discussion WITH YOUR IGNORANT BULLSHIT, You're in insult to the entire membership of this forum.
Lol, guess I personally offended you. Sorry you got out debated or I was too much of a "challenge" for you to debate with. What is the fucking problem? The card looks solid unlike most other TNA PPV's in quite awhile. There hasn't been a TNA PPV card this strong in quite sometime. Go on through the past cards in the last two years and you will see this. Stop getting all bitchy because I pointed something out. I guess some people may think this is wrong and there have been cards as good as this if not better in recent months and the past years but they haven't been.....
So let me get this straight, you're bitching about how I am comparing the quality of PPV's that I haven't seen right? Have you ever heard of something called "reception"? How a product is received by the consumers(in this case viewers). TNA Genesis has been received better than other PPV's produced in the last year with maybe a few exceptions. You're actually saying I'm required to watch a piece of shit to know it's a piece of shit? When I can instead save sometime and observe the overall reaction and reception to those who have seen it? Therefore coming up with a general idea to the quality of the product. Let's use an example to try to make you understand this.
I've looked up a random movie on Netflix called "Dead Heist". This movie has been pretty poorly received with an average rating of 2.8/5. So, you think I should watch this myself to come up with the conclusion that it sucks when I can do the intelligent thing and look at the reception to judge how good(or in this case, bad) it is? Now take any random horror movie that has been received better and compare them. Logic should tell you that this movie is better. Possibly for some reason you may feel differently(though obviously you're wrong) and you think the other movie is better. Okay, well have that opinion. Opinions are great but like it or not through something neat called "overall viewer reception", the random movie(insert any random horror movie that's more critically received by consumers) is better. So you don't really have to watch both of them when you can easily look at something fancy called viewer reception.
Let's compare TNA Genesis to another PPV produced by TNA that hasn't fared so well. You can really take any other PPV in the past year and compare them, the cards haven't been as strong as Genesis was. Pick a random PPV, say Slammiversary and compare it to Genesis. You honestly think the card is as strong as Genesis and with a wonderful thing called reception, as good? Go ahead, go online and compare the reception of both PPV's if you want and find out yourself. Looking at some previous cards, some of them look decent and a few of them have been decently received by the viewers with potentially one or two of them possibly being equal to Genesis in terms of quality but for the most part previous PPV's haven't been reviewed as highly as Genesis is, why? Because Genesis is better, reception will tell you that.
Now, please stop bitching already.
I've looked up a random movie on Netflix called "Dead Heist". This movie has been pretty poorly received with an average rating of 2.8/5. So, you think I should watch this myself to come up with the conclusion that it sucks when I can do the intelligent thing and look at the reception to judge how good(or in this case, bad) it is? Now take any random horror movie that has been received better and compare them. Logic should tell you that this movie is better. Possibly for some reason you may feel differently(though obviously you're wrong) and you think the other movie is better. Okay, well have that opinion. Opinions are great but like it or not through something neat called "overall viewer reception", the random movie(insert any random horror movie that's more critically received by consumers) is better. So you don't really have to watch both of them when you can easily look at something fancy called viewer reception.
Let's compare TNA Genesis to another PPV produced by TNA that hasn't fared so well. You can really take any other PPV in the past year and compare them, the cards haven't been as strong as Genesis was. Pick a random PPV, say Slammiversary and compare it to Genesis. You honestly think the card is as strong as Genesis and with a wonderful thing called reception, as good? Go ahead, go online and compare the reception of both PPV's if you want and find out yourself. Looking at some previous cards, some of them look decent and a few of them have been decently received by the viewers with potentially one or two of them possibly being equal to Genesis in terms of quality but for the most part previous PPV's haven't been reviewed as highly as Genesis is, why? Because Genesis is better, reception will tell you that.
Now, please stop bitching already.
lol, at least I bring discussion and debate to the forum. Also, I understand what members here post. Funny how somehow you take me saying Jeff Hardy turning heel with potential for good feuds to mean that I think Jeff Hardy is a good heel and that all of the feuds I listed before will be good.
I seriously hope you're just being a smartass here, if you really don't understand the difference of my example to what you're suggesting, that is quite pathetic. I'm not going to claim I'm the best member here because I'm not but you must read the posts of other to draw your conclusion on how good or bad of a poster they are. I'm not going to explain the difference between this and the example I made, it's fucking common sense. Sadly, you might possibly lack this.
seX-Power's analogy is actually quite logically sound. Most top quality posters here find you to be rather horrible, and so it seems most prudent that we all begin to skip over your posts and assume them to be poor.
Honestly, your inability to interpret the way you are wrong is both frustrating and rather astounding. I don't know if you get heightened self-esteem from being able to type with coherent sentences but somehow you now think that you bring 'debate' to the forum. I'm pretty sure that all you're doing is making absurd comments and then backtracking to make it look like you've said a different thing the entire time. Your condescending added touches to your posts (such as always putting a lol, in there somewhere) do nothing but reinforce to other members that you're overrated as a member and contribute less valuable 'discussion' and 'debate' than thewrestlinglounge.com.
Honestly, I have no problem with horrible posters, it's the horrible posters that seem to think otherwise of themselves that really bother me...
Honestly, I have no problem with horrible posters, it's the horrible posters that seem to think otherwise of themselves that really bother me...
Look fool, it's quite simple..... Your 'opinion' doesn't mean shit becasue it's not your own. You can analyse other people's all you like, but that's just a worthless second, third or fourth hand interpretation. Maybe the opinions you are subscribing to are just as ignorant as your own.... Then what?
Conversely, I prefer to make my OWN mind up about things like a free-thinking human being, not some fucking sheep.
Wait so Kaz is X-Champ, Abyss is TV Champ and Anderson is World Champ now?
Anderson Vs Pope would get me watching again. I haven't watched in awhile, and all this Fortune shit is really confusing..
Anderson Vs Pope would get me watching again. I haven't watched in awhile, and all this Fortune shit is really confusing..
I went back to watch this whole show, and it was actually worse than I thought.
MCMG vs Beer Money was okay, but even that was a bit underwhelming. I think it may have been the lackluster crowd that brought this down for me. It is so sad that the loudest reaction from the crowd was a "TNA!" chant after a pointless finisher kickout. TNA.
Kazarian has become so bad that not even Lethal could do something entertaining.
Ray vs Devon was never going to be good.
Abyss vs Doug Williams was HORRIBLE OH MY GOD.
And then RVD vs Matt Hardy happened, AND OH MY GOD IT WAS WORSE. The crowd was dead too. The crowd was actually horrible all night.
I am so glad Jarrett is getting a push. He is seriously a heat magnet. His and Angle's stuff got the biggest reaction of the night until the end of the show.
I am just so disappointed in TNA for pushing Matt Morgan. In a roster with AJ Styles, Pope, Samoa Joe, Jay Lethal, Alex Shelley, Jeff Jarrett, and Kurt Angle, there is just no excuse for that. The guy would maybe make a decent midcard heel, but there's no excuse for having Ken Anderson vs Matt Morgan as the billed main event for any show. That match had no direction and was the epitome of trading moves, and not even doing that well.
Anderson vs Hardy was too slow of a way to end the show. In my view, WWE does the "cash-in quick match to close the show" thing too much, but at least they do it right. It was just not entertaining here because it went on too long; the first minute and the last two minutes should have been the entire match. I do think it is a shame that such a storyline was used on Anderson. I do not mind Anderson getting a push in TNA. I do not like him winning the title, but even that could work in certain settings. But having Immortal win all the belts in the night, then having Anderson beat a giant, THEN winning the world title is SUCH a compelling underdog babyface story. No way should it have been wasted (I do not think that terminology is too strong) on Mr. Anderson. It would have been a PERFECT set up for a guy like Pope to win the world title. Burke was released from the WWE because they didn't buy into him due to his size. That is the kind of guy that TNA has always been a safehouse for, as they would give those types of underused but beloved people a shot (see: Raven, Christian, Booker T). That is exactly why Pope has become so popular in TNA. On the other hand, WWE released Kennedy because he's injury-prone and fairly one-dimensional. And TNA scooped him up because they were on a hiring spree when Hogan came to town. That's the opposite of what TNA represented a few years ago. I do not mind Anderson. He is okay. But to use that storyline on HIM just doesn't make sense in context, and it should have been used on somebody where it would have made a bigger difference.
MCMG vs Beer Money was okay, but even that was a bit underwhelming. I think it may have been the lackluster crowd that brought this down for me. It is so sad that the loudest reaction from the crowd was a "TNA!" chant after a pointless finisher kickout. TNA.
Kazarian has become so bad that not even Lethal could do something entertaining.
Ray vs Devon was never going to be good.
Abyss vs Doug Williams was HORRIBLE OH MY GOD.
And then RVD vs Matt Hardy happened, AND OH MY GOD IT WAS WORSE. The crowd was dead too. The crowd was actually horrible all night.
I am so glad Jarrett is getting a push. He is seriously a heat magnet. His and Angle's stuff got the biggest reaction of the night until the end of the show.
I am just so disappointed in TNA for pushing Matt Morgan. In a roster with AJ Styles, Pope, Samoa Joe, Jay Lethal, Alex Shelley, Jeff Jarrett, and Kurt Angle, there is just no excuse for that. The guy would maybe make a decent midcard heel, but there's no excuse for having Ken Anderson vs Matt Morgan as the billed main event for any show. That match had no direction and was the epitome of trading moves, and not even doing that well.
Anderson vs Hardy was too slow of a way to end the show. In my view, WWE does the "cash-in quick match to close the show" thing too much, but at least they do it right. It was just not entertaining here because it went on too long; the first minute and the last two minutes should have been the entire match. I do think it is a shame that such a storyline was used on Anderson. I do not mind Anderson getting a push in TNA. I do not like him winning the title, but even that could work in certain settings. But having Immortal win all the belts in the night, then having Anderson beat a giant, THEN winning the world title is SUCH a compelling underdog babyface story. No way should it have been wasted (I do not think that terminology is too strong) on Mr. Anderson. It would have been a PERFECT set up for a guy like Pope to win the world title. Burke was released from the WWE because they didn't buy into him due to his size. That is the kind of guy that TNA has always been a safehouse for, as they would give those types of underused but beloved people a shot (see: Raven, Christian, Booker T). That is exactly why Pope has become so popular in TNA. On the other hand, WWE released Kennedy because he's injury-prone and fairly one-dimensional. And TNA scooped him up because they were on a hiring spree when Hogan came to town. That's the opposite of what TNA represented a few years ago. I do not mind Anderson. He is okay. But to use that storyline on HIM just doesn't make sense in context, and it should have been used on somebody where it would have made a bigger difference.
^^^ Suprised to see your implied props for Lethal... Maybe TNA just do a terrible job of showcasing him (That "these are my roots" segment was so damn painful to sit through!), but I find him awful.... Massively uncharismatic, so unconvincing when he 'fires' up and lacks any kinda character.
I used to (perhaps unfairly) bash him for the Macho Man schtick; doubting that he had what it took to establish his own character/gimmick... This far down the line It feels like I was right all along.
Kaz/Lethal was horrible... Seemed like, for the sake of damage limitation, they slowed down as the match went on as they gradually came to terms with the fact that they had absolutely NO chemistry.
As for the smaller guys: When you look at Bourne, Bryan, Kaval, Tyson you gotta assume that the 'E are going some way to get over their 'fear' of little guys... Sadly, Burke (who's nowhere near as small as those guys!) missed that boat.
PPV verdict:
MCMG/BM wasn't great but did the job.
Angle/Jarret stuff was fun.
Rest = Lame.
I used to (perhaps unfairly) bash him for the Macho Man schtick; doubting that he had what it took to establish his own character/gimmick... This far down the line It feels like I was right all along.
Kaz/Lethal was horrible... Seemed like, for the sake of damage limitation, they slowed down as the match went on as they gradually came to terms with the fact that they had absolutely NO chemistry.
As for the smaller guys: When you look at Bourne, Bryan, Kaval, Tyson you gotta assume that the 'E are going some way to get over their 'fear' of little guys... Sadly, Burke (who's nowhere near as small as those guys!) missed that boat.
PPV verdict:
MCMG/BM wasn't great but did the job.
Angle/Jarret stuff was fun.
Rest = Lame.
Yeah, I probably overrate Lethal in all that I do. I dug some of his ROH stuff with Joe, and his match where he won the X-Division title from Kurt Angle is one of my favorite undercard TNA matches ever. Him, like Jarrett and probably even Christian, I tend not to look at objectively. I just feel like he's a likable babyface and so I respond like that.