TNA Wrestling General Discussion Thread

[Smart Marx]

Goldberg should have had one more year of seasoning. There was no reason he should have been rushed out the door, irrespective of how over he got.

Agreed. In 1998 Nash was getting super over as a babyface. He should have taken the spot and not turned heel in 1999. Then 1999 could have been Goldberg’s ascension.

 

[Leon TrotSky]

What are we even talking about anymore

 

[Smart Marx]

From my experience it's mostly people saying something that isn't WWE sucks because "they have 0 stories" and then all the reasonable people that do like stories support that for some reason bc that bad faith argument is attacked. It's a very good strategy to get two reasonable sides fighting with each other, just takes one outlandish comment and then you don't even have to keep it up after everyone will do your work for you and you can get popcorn.

It's no different to me than when the women's involvement was more of a talking point. You had both sides with stop watches counting women's match time to prove that the other side also books women bad. I don't believe those people cared about the women's booking in the other company, but they'd get people on their side that actually care to argue for them.

Oh, yeah, no one actually cared about women’s wrestling was counting the minutes they were on television. That shit was dumb. They just wanted to dunk on the opposing side and didn’t realize everyone could do better.

 

[Hoss]

Well to be fair CM Punk has pretty much nuked every stance he ever made in his life, other than being straight edge (to our knowledge). Turns out, he doesn't really stand for shit as strongly as he'd like folks to believe.

 

[Smart Marx]

What are we even talking about anymore

Trolls, women’s wrestling, green Goldberg and hookers.

 

[Grimoire Lenin]

Trolls, women’s wrestling, green Goldberg and hookers.

Classic Vince Russo TNA.

 

[Smart Marx]

Well to be fair CM Punk has pretty much nuked every stance he ever made in his life, other than being straight edge (to our knowledge). Turns out, he doesn't really stand for shit as strongly as he'd like folks to believe.

I like Punk and this accurate.

I think when he’s cutting a promo and he just says shit.

I do think he believes in stuff he says out of the ring. I believe he’s for trans rights and women’s rights and stuff like that.

 

[Leon TrotSky]

Agreed. In 1998 Nash was getting super over as a babyface. He should have taken the spot and not turned heel in 1999. Then 1999 could have been Goldberg’s ascension.

I'm gonna say something here about Nash/Diesel that I hope you'll agree with: both companies wasted an opportunity to have Nash as a top babyface, either by giving him the Generic Top Babyface Formula rather than sticking with his character that was over (WWF) or by turning him heel when he was getting over (WCW).

Neither went with what worked with him

 

[Smart Marx]

I honestly think Nash and Goldberg for the belt in 1999 at Starrcade instead of 1998 would have drawn huge dollars. With both as babyfaces.

 

[Smart Marx]

I'm gonna say something here about Nash/Diesel that I hope you'll agree with: both companies wasted an opportunity to have Nash as a top babyface, either by giving him the Generic Top Babyface Formula rather than sticking with his character that was over (WWF) or by turning him heel when he was getting over (WCW).

Neither went with what worked with him

I agree on both. I think WCW turning him into a babyface without changing Nash’s character proved it could have worked in the WWF and WCW flushed money down the toilet turning Nash heel and aligning with Hogan when Nash and Hogan matches in 1999 would have drawn huge house for at least six months.

 

[Leon TrotSky]

I honestly think Nash and Goldberg for the belt in 1999 at Starrcade instead of 1998 would have drawn huge dollars. With both as babyfaces.

With Hall still interfering to break the streak? Do you then go with Nash and Goldberg both feuding with Hall?

 

[Smart Marx]

With Hall still interfering to break the streak? Do you then go with Nash and Goldberg both feuding with Hall?

If the reunion isn’t happening in 2000, probably not, no.

Also, in this scenario Nash goes in champion and Goldberg wins and keeps the streak.

I’d probably have Steiner break it at Bash 2000.

 

[Leon TrotSky]

If the reunion isn’t happening in 2000, probably not, no.

Also, in this scenario Nash goes in champion and Goldberg wins and keeps the streak.

I’d probably have Steiner break it at Bash 2000.

And then you set up his dominance going into 2001.

What happens when Hogan whines about being the real star around here

 

[Smart Marx]

And then you set up his dominance going into 2001.

What happens when Hogan whines about being the real star around here

Then Booker T can climb by being the guy to beat the guy who beat Goldberg.

This is how you lift all the boats in your tire.

As for Hogan, I don’t know. That’s hard to answer with his creative control. I think there’s value in keeping him around in 2000 if he wants to play ball, and he can maybe get a legacy run in 2001/2 like he did in the WWF, but he shouldn’t be the main guy after 1999. Him and Nash would draw good houses in 1999 and Hogan and Goldberg would make bank in 2000, but Hogan would have to understand that Goldberg goes over the entire time.

 

[Grimoire Lenin]

You send Hogan home tbh.