FORUM HOME > Wrestling > TNA
Rhino (Impact Spoilers)

HugeRockStar760Posted on 07/04/06 at 08:25:22

Here's an interesting story coming out of the Impact tapings:

From 411mania:

"I do not know if this is going to air on either week, but it seemed like before the second episode of Impact starts, Rhino comes out with a red sack. He talked about decisions that he had to make. He mentions the offer that was made to him by Vince McMahon to go to ECW but he told Vince McMahon no. He wondered how there could be an ECW when the final ECW Television and World Champion was not there. Rhino mentions that he has the ECW Title belt with him but because of Vince's lawyers he cannot bring it out. He challenges Vince to come to the Impact Zone to take the belt back but he does not think Vince will come to get it."

He is getting some baaaad advice from someone. Maybe it's Eric Bischoff. Everyone saw how well that challenge went back in WCW.

Additionally, Rhino, is basically wrong in thinking he's still the current champion(s). By not signing with ECW, he basically forefit his title reigns.

Another thing, why is TNA promoting their competitors new brand? Paul Heyman pointed that out in a recent interview.
rey619Posted on 07/04/06 at 14:49:08

See, this is one of the reasons I stopped watching TNA. They focus too much of their attention on bad-mouthing WWE, and too little attention improving their own product.

It's one thing for RoH or other indy companies to throw out some crap about the E now and then, they're not on TV.
Rick GarrardPosted on 07/04/06 at 17:04:23

The casual WWE fan would ask you... "Who's Rhino?".

And that's how unimportant him having the ECW Title belt is while he's in TNA.
pszPosted on 07/04/06 at 23:57:20

Nah, the casual fan would say "Wasn't that the guy a few years back jobbing on Smackdown?"
Snabbit888Posted on 07/08/06 at 20:25:55

TNA is so ridiculous.  No wonder they're in such disarray.  How in the world is this angle a good idea?  Keep promoting the competition, Jarrett.  Smart business decision.  Utter ridiculous trash.
HugeRockStar760Posted on 07/14/06 at 05:53:53

So Rhino and TNA once again advertises their competition, ECW.

Let's say I was a casual wrestling fan, but never heard of ECW before. I tune into TNA, and the first thing I see is Rhino yelling about ECW. Pretty good speech, a lot of passion in it. Rhino goes on and on about ECW, so the casual wrestling fan, who never heard of ECW, will go search about it, find out it has a show on SciFi, and then will go watch it. They might even stop watching TNA in favor of ECW.

Great marketing.
AnubisPosted on 07/14/06 at 06:20:45

I seriously doubt people would stop watching TNA for ECW.  The difference between this and Tony Schiavone's infamous words is that WWF had a superior product.  ECW just . . . doesn't.

Of course it's not even a matter as to whether or not ECW sucks anymore.  Fact is, it's not at all similar to the old ECW in any way.  Not even in spirit.  That's why people like me and many other ECW fans are so pissed off: Vince McMahon spit on the legacy of ECW.  It's not ECW at all, it's the WWE hardcore division with its own brand, nothing more, nothing less.  There is nothing ECW about it, not even in the least.  It's insulting.  That's the problem.  Who cares if it's entertaining now?  It's an insult to all ECW fans everywhere, and that's the problem with it.
HugeRockStar760Posted on 07/14/06 at 07:25:29

I agree with you that it's not the real ECW, but the ratings ECW makes TNA look pathetic in comparison. People do like this new ECW...It seems Big Show being the champion hasn't made people tune out.
AnubisPosted on 07/14/06 at 09:17:22

Thing is, they're not tuning in because it's ECW, they're tuning in because it's WWE Show #3.  I think it's important to make that distinction when deciding if ECW is a "success" or "failure".  Either way, ECW is a lie.
rey619Posted on 07/14/06 at 10:34:04

Why anyone would tune in to any WWE program at all is beyond me, but if oldschool ECW fans really expected this to be anything *but* a farce, they can really only blame themselves.
Rick GarrardPosted on 07/14/06 at 18:50:23

I'd rather watch ECW with actual wrestling in-ring, than to have them bring back the Tuesday Night Titans talk show of the 80s in the same time slot.  

Granted Fuji Vice and Fuji General were classics, but a wrestling talk show is just not a good concept for TV.  And I'd watch both before I watch the 6-sided clusterschmozz that hypes and pushes only the ego of Jeff Jarrett.
AnubisPosted on 07/14/06 at 21:49:36

On 07/14/06 at 10:34:04, rey619 wrote:Why anyone would tune in to any WWE program at all is beyond me, but if oldschool ECW fans really expected this to be anything *but* a farce, they can really only blame themselves.
Can only blame themselves for actually trusting Vince McMahon?  Fair enough, I suppose.  McMahon can't be trusted.  He's an egotistical sociopath, a liar, and an unethical bastard.

On 07/14/06 at 18:50:23, Rick Garrard wrote:I'd rather watch ECW with actual wrestling in-ring, than to have them bring back the Tuesday Night Titans talk show of the 80s in the same time slot.  

Granted Fuji Vice and Fuji General were classics, but a wrestling talk show is just not a good concept for TV.  And I'd watch both before I watch the 6-sided clusterschmozz that hypes and pushes only the ego of Jeff Jarrett.
You just don't make sense sometimes.  You say you like good wrestling, yet you dis TNA?  TNA is far better with its actual in-ring product than WWE is (and it's been that way for a couple years at least now).  Jeff Jarrett also isn't that bad.  He's more of a "DUD" than a "OMG this guy sucks", and he does do decent in-ring work (not good, but decent enough to be watchable).
TiLoBrownPosted on 07/15/06 at 00:01:27

On 07/14/06 at 21:49:36, Anubis wrote:

Can only blame themselves for actually trusting Vince McMahon? Fair enough, I suppose. McMahon can't be trusted. He's an egotistical sociopath, a liar, and an unethical bastard.


You just don't make sense sometimes. You say you like good wrestling, yet you dis TNA? TNA is far better with its actual in-ring product than WWE is (and it's been that way for a couple years at least now). Jeff Jarrett also isn't that bad. He's more of a "DUD" than a "OMG this guy sucks", and he does do decent in-ring work (not good, but decent enough to be watchable).
1) Didn't every ECW promo before the first show say it was going to be a different ECW? Didn't Heyman himself this ECW would be different and thats why he drated Kurt Angle? So the fucking (and I may have to ban myself) idiots that thought they were getting the same old boring and downright stupid ECW need to shut the hell up already.

2) Rick like wrestling, not spotfest. Thats why I don't like TNA, most of their matches are spotfests, IMO, with people that aren't in WWE anymore.  And once again Anubis stop passing off how you feel as a fact. You like TNA better, not everyone else. Whichever one is better is opinion, not fact.

Rick makes more sense than you, I've discussed wrestling (among many other things) with Rick for years and I respect him because he doesn't pass off opinion as fact.
AllPowerfulGARTHPosted on 07/15/06 at 00:10:59

While I'll not comment on who has the better product, Anubis may be right in thinking that TNA fans are unlikely to be pulled in by ECW just because Rhino went off on a rant about it. Every TNA fan has to know that WWE exists, and those fans either already know and have made a decision about whether they like ECW, or they're die-hard anti-WWE and won't watch anyway. Rhino may look like a complete douche by doing it, but it won't hurt ratings, only his reputation. And even that might actually benefit by appealing to the anti-WWE base. Essentially, TNA has the advantage of being able to mention the competition without directly promoting it, because all their fans know about WWE already.

At any rate, I'd wager that Rhino referencing ECW is far less harmful for the TNA fan base than putting the title back on Jeff Jarrett for the 42nd time, but that's just me.
Rick GarrardPosted on 07/15/06 at 01:22:37

2) Rick like wrestling, not spotfest. Thats why I don't like TNA, most of their matches are spotfests, IMO, with people that aren't in WWE anymore.  And once again Anubis stop passing off how you feel as a fact. You like TNA better, not everyone else. Whichever one is better is opinion, not fact.
I supported TNA with my hard earned dollars the first two years when it had weekly PPVs, back when it wasn't trying to be what WCW was, back when they had a paying fanbase (not just a bunch of people that are there to cash in on the air conditioned building in north Florida between rides at Disney World).  TNA at the beginning was a hardcore, smash mouth, let's try to be what ECW used to be style of company, back before they got the Panda Energy money that they have totally squandered on buying the set, instead of trying to buy better in ring talent not known as spot monkeys (They do have a couple of talented workers, but a majority are shorter than me {I'm 5'8"} and thusly way less believeable in what they do including Rhyno, whom I've met when he was with WWE).

Rick makes more sense than you, I've discussed wrestling (among many other things) with Rick for years and I respect him because he doesn't pass off opinion as fact.
And it's my opinion that the 6 sided ring belongs with 6 man tag matches exclusively since that is what it was originally intended for down in Mexico with AAA.  If TNA wanted a larger ring, all they had to do was get the old WWE Madison Square Garden ring that was 20'x20' instead of the current rings that are more along the lines of 16'x16' if not mistaken.  When I look out there and see something different as far as wrestling product, I don't look to TNA, I look to RoH, even if they won't admit to having a WWE affiliation (even I though I think 10 years from now it will be proven that they did, much like the fact that Paul Heyman has been on the WWE payroll since around 1995 according to the Rise and Fall of ECW book, even though it was never publically acknowledged until well after all original ECW legal suits were finalized.)

And FYI, Jarrett is just trying to break Lawler's impressive 136 time World Champion of Memphis record (so it's a TAD exaggerated).
Critic of the DawnPosted on 07/15/06 at 03:27:32

On 07/15/06 at 01:22:37, Rick Garrard wrote:When I look out there and see something different as far as wrestling product, I don't look to TNA, I look to RoH, even if they won't admit to having a WWE affiliation (even I though I think 10 years from now it will be proven that they did, much like the fact that Paul Heyman has been on the WWE payroll since around 1995 according to the Rise and Fall of ECW book, even though it was never publically acknowledged until well after all original ECW legal suits were finalized.)
I'd be more inclined to belive WWE was bankrolling Ring of Honor if Cary Silken hadn't bought out ROH shortly after the Feinstein fiasco, and if they weren't actually making money.  I have no idea how deep Cary's pockets are, but he's invested in good light and sound equipiment which gives ROH shows a clean, professional look and sound on DVD, plus in flying in some of the top talent from Japan to help boost business.  And it seems to be paying off.  Since ROH turns a  profit (which I don't believe ECW ever did), there's little to no need for Vince's millions to prop up the company.

That said, ROH and WWE definately have an informal understanding at the least, and possibly even a more formal (confidential) arrangement of some sort.  If they didn't, there's no way that CM Punk and James Gibson could have held the ROH World Title while they were under WWE contracts.

Eric "Critic of the Dawn"
Rick GarrardPosted on 07/15/06 at 04:00:38

I'd be more inclined to belive WWE was bankrolling Ring of Honor if Cary Silken hadn't bought out ROH shortly after the Feinstein fiasco, and if they weren't actually making money.
I didn't say that WWE was "bankrolling" RoH nor was I implying they were.  I am thinking that WWE may actually have a "talent exchange" worked out with Gabe Sapolsky much like they did with Paul Heyman.  And it would not shock me in the least if Gabe were actually on the WWE payroll presently, considering how fast WWE snatched up MLW's Court Bauer, which leads me to also believe that MLW was in some way assisted by WWE at least with TV clearance on the now defunct Empire Sports Network in upstate New York.  

Also to contradict WWE not letting it's talent hold other company's titles.... Tazz held the ECW World Title while under WWE contract after he kicked Mike Awesome's ass in Indianapolis, after Awesome agreed to a WCW deal while still ECW World Champion.

pszPosted on 07/15/06 at 04:20:24

Jerry Lawler was reigning USWA champ God knows how many times while being a wrestler/announcer for WWF/E.

Then again, they DID strip thier OWN CHAMPION of the title (allowing him to hold the other 7(!) he had at the same time) so they could give it to Taka, so...
Rick GarrardPosted on 07/15/06 at 04:28:31

that's only cause Ultimo Dragon was working for the WWE enemy known as WCW.  :)

Owen Hart, Randy Savage, Sid, and numerous others also held titles in the Lawler/Jarrett owned USWA while on the WWE payroll as well.  
pszPosted on 07/15/06 at 04:49:52

Damn. Forgot about WCW's Cruiserweight. Make that "He kept the other 8(!) titles he was holding at the time (I should know this, considering who wrote the Dragon profile on the old TNM site... :-)

Most of the Hart-related/friendly wrestlers held Stampede titles, too.
Critic of the DawnPosted on 07/15/06 at 05:18:29

On 07/15/06 at 04:00:38, Rick Garrard wrote:

I didn't say that WWE was "bankrolling" RoH nor was I implying they were. I am thinking that WWE may actually have a "talent exchange" worked out with Gabe Sapolsky much like they did with Paul Heyman. And it would not shock me in the least if Gabe were actually on the WWE payroll presently, considering how fast WWE snatched up MLW's Court Bauer, which leads me to also believe that MLW was in some way assisted by WWE at least with TV clearance on the now defunct Empire Sports Network in upstate New York.
As I said.  Obviously there's at least an informal agreement in place.  Not sure if I agree about Gabe, though.  I suppose it's possible, but since Gabe isn't the head honcho in ROH there MIGHT be legal problems with that kind of arrangement.  Hard to say.

Also to contradict WWE not letting it's talent hold other company's titles.... Tazz held the ECW World Title while under WWE contract after he kicked Mike Awesome's ass in Indianapolis, after Awesome agreed to a WCW deal while still ECW World Champion.
I'm using that as evidence that a connection is there, not stating that this shouldn't happen if there was a connection.  Fact of the matter is, WWE would not let their contracted wrestlers appear in another promotion if there wasn't some kind of understanding in place.  We now know that WWE had an arrangement with ECW, and it quite obviously had one with Lawler's promotion.  So I agree with you on this point.

Interestingly, at the moment ROH has a similar arrangement with TNA despite TNA trying to set itself up as competition against WWE.  This position is certainly beneficial to ROH, but one wonders if and when either WWE or TNA will try to throw their weight around to make ROH pick a side.

Eric "Critic of the Dawn"
Rick GarrardPosted on 07/15/06 at 16:31:01

I think it will be TNA that will fire the first salvo in the battle for RoH and when they do, WWE will step up and move ECW to Thursday nights at the same time as TNA, thusly getting WWE involved in a minor league war.

Does WWE own the Portland video tape library?  Since they have pretty much every other promotion's tape library at this point, I'd say that early Mid-South from Bill Watts and PNW from Portland seem to be the two they don't have.
JustinPosted on 07/15/06 at 22:10:06

Bill Watt's ex-wife is trying to sell WWE the tape library.
AnubisPosted on 07/18/06 at 08:14:59

As much as I despise Vince and WWE, I gotta say that Silkin and Sapolsky are more genius than anyone in the industry.  I do believe they're even better at business than McMahon himself!  Check it:

Let's face reality, there is some kind of agreement (either working or non-aggression) in place between ROH and WWE, and that's smart business; by getting in good with the "top dog", you insure a healthy life, so that they don't go under.

Yet ROH also still manages to keep a working agreement (albeit a very unstable one at this point) open with TNA, which gives them twice the support and none of the headaches.

ROH is basically in bed with two enemies and making a healthy profit because of it.  That's business done right and done in an ethical fashion.  I have the utmost respect for that.
meetzorakPosted on 11/17/06 at 17:31:22

I watch Dragongate.