- Joined
- Apr 17, 2019
- Messages
- 86,329
- Reaction score
- 25,451
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The Impact Zone, Scotland
- Favorite Wrestler
-
I'd have to simply disagree with you. I'd say most of this roster is working a better match than the average current day match. The workers themselves may be better in theory, but they're not working better matches. Because as Jim haters like to say, "wrestling's evolved." As for TNA, most of their guys were hired off the indies so of course a lot aren't particularly polished in 2002. That said, even if I gave you this argument and agreed the undercard isn't as good, as I do like quite a bit of the undercard like the women's divisions and NXT, I feel the main event is just something that can't be understated and I don't you can compare those. I wasn't trying to compare the full products, though. Just saying I miss the psychology that isn't as prevalent today.Hoss Delgado said:I guess my argument against this is you have plenty of guys on the undercard during this time period who I'd say are worse than the average worker nowadays. And you can also look elsewhere, like in TNA, where even though I like the product, there is only a segment of that roster that was especially good in ring. WWE at this time was just loaded with hungry talent more than anything else.