FORUM HOME > Wrestling > TNA
TNA: questionable content?  WHA?

AnubisPosted on 08/10/06 at 08:23:01

I had read about a week ago that the one cell phone network company (I think it was amp'd mobile or something like that) pulled their support from TNA due to "questionable content" . . . Huh?

Makes no sense.  Wrestling don't get much more family-friendly than TNA.
CarlzillaPosted on 08/10/06 at 08:48:39

Did TNA sign another "major star" (read: washed up former WWE or WCW star)? Maybe the questionable content was all the 45+ has beens stinking up the TV for a friggin' hour.
lazy_duckPosted on 08/10/06 at 09:12:32

On 08/10/06 at 08:48:39, Carlzilla wrote:Did TNA sign another "major star" (read: washed up former WWE or WCW star)? Maybe the questionable content was all the 45+ has beens stinking up the TV for a friggin' hour.
ROTFLMAO
wizardneedsfoodPosted on 08/10/06 at 18:07:20

I think Amp'd mobiles commercials are more questionable content than anything on TNA. That's some of the worst commercial writing ever. Outside of those horribly Helio commercials anyway.
HugeRockStar760Posted on 08/10/06 at 18:19:29

On 08/10/06 at 08:48:39, Carlzilla wrote:Did TNA sign another "major star" (read: washed up former WWE or WCW star)? Maybe the questionable content was all the 45+ has beens stinking up the TV for a friggin' hour.
Sounds like you don't really watch TNA. Otherwise, you'd know that wasn't the case. Just because TNA used Lex Luger, Rick Steiner, and Buff Bagwell for one segment for a few weeks does not mean TNA is a place for "has beens." Not to mention, TNA is using Scott Steiner more effectively than the WWE ever did. Basically, the WWE screwed over Steiner just because he was a WCW wrestler. And like everything that could've made them money and ratings, the WWE didn't care because they wanted to get one over on WCW (even though, amazingly, they own WCW, so you'd think they wouldn't mind making some money off the name and it's stars).
91Posted on 08/10/06 at 18:51:30

On 08/10/06 at 18:19:29, HugeRockStar760 wrote:
Basically, the WWE screwed over Steiner just because he was a WCW wrestler. And like everything that could've made them money and ratings, the WWE didn't care because they wanted to get one over on WCW
I'd say it had a LOT more to do with THAT Royal Rumble match. Steiner was made to look really strong, and the match was booked to make it appear that Steiner had essentially owned Triple H (and to Hunters credit, he sold like a champ), all on a world title match on one of the big five PPV's. That's hardly "screwing" the guy. He screwed himself by being entirely responsible for arguably the worst world title match in any major promotion in the last ten years.

OK, by the end of his WWE run he had improved to at least watchable standards (barely), but like hell would any like-minded individual ever risk him in another main event feud in the WWE again after that shambles.

Besides, if they were really desperate to get one over on WCW in that manner, why did Booker T just defeat Rey Mysterio for the WWE title?
pszPosted on 08/10/06 at 19:23:54

God knows neither of THEM were in WCW...

(Nor was Benoit, Jericho, Eddie, Big Show, Finlay, Helms, Ric Flair, Regal...)


Back on topic, though, does anybody know exactly WHAT "Questionable Content" was cited?
Mister MunshunPosted on 08/10/06 at 19:36:02

On 08/10/06 at 18:19:29, HugeRockStar760 wrote:Basically, the WWE screwed over Steiner just because he was a WCW wrestler.
*cough* Missed the Steiner Brothers in WWF, did you?
HugeRockStar760Posted on 08/10/06 at 20:09:55

On 08/10/06 at 18:51:30, 91 wrote:

I'd say it had a LOT more to do with THAT Royal Rumble match. Steiner was made to look really strong, and the match was booked to make it appear that Steiner had essentially owned Triple H (and to Hunters credit, he sold like a champ), all on a world title match on one of the big five PPV's. That's hardly "screwing" the guy. He screwed himself by being entirely responsible for arguably the worst world title match in any major promotion in the last ten years.

OK, by the end of his WWE run he had improved to at least watchable standards (barely), but like hell would any like-minded individual ever risk him in another main event feud in the WWE again after that shambles.

Besides, if they were really desperate to get one over on WCW in that manner, why did Booker T just defeat Rey Mysterio for the WWE title?
Big Poppa Pump? Booked as a face? And you're telling me he wasn't set up for failure from the beginning? The character is inherently a heel. It wasn't the same Big Poppa Pump, especially when you have him debates with Christopher Nowinski. This is the same company that put a wig on Goldberg, and didn't "get it" about him until his opinion of the company was already firmly to the point that he wouldn't resign a contract.

Booker T has been treated like a joke for most of his WWE tenure. He was used as fodder for Triple H at WM XIX when he should've won considering how popular he was with the crowds during the Booker T/Goldust tag team.

And can you say Rey Mysterio has been given the proper treatment as champion as John Cena was during his reign? Rey Mysterio is a more talented wrestler than Cena, but due to his WCW heritage, his title reign was made to look like one of the weakest in WWE history. Not exactly a rousing endorsement of how WWE pushes former WCW stars (at least the ones during WCW's 80+ week run on top against the WWE).

Benoit, Jericho, Eddie, Big Show, Finlay, Helms, Ric Flair, Regal...)
Yeah, Gregory Helms. WWE sure used him right. The Hurricane gimmick, while getting him over, was a detriment to him ever being taken seriously. Why the WWE didn't continue the "Sugar" Shane Helms gimmick is beyond me. Apparently, there can only be one "Shane" in the company on television.

I'll give you Benoit and Jericho. However, Jericho and Benoit and Guerrero and Regal and Big Show all went to the WWE before the buyout of WCW. As far as Vince was concerned, that was enough to spare them from his ego.

Ric Flair? At his best while the manager of Evolution, and a legend, so he doesn't count.  

Finlay is the biggest surprise. I never thought he'd get over with a WWE crowd, but they managed to do that way before they introduced a midget for him.

*cough* Missed the Steiner Brothers in WWF, did you?
Might want to take some cough syrup. Vince's ego about this is only due to the 1996-1998 years where Nitro was the top wrestling show. And even then, can you really consider The Steiner Brothers run in the WWE in the early 90s good? They didn't make the impact they made in WCW.
91Posted on 08/10/06 at 20:19:27

I'd changed my mind about putting that last sentence in, I was just going to note Booker T was champ and leave it at that. Guess I forgot.

Besides, him being face wasn't the least bit destined to fail - rewatch his debut at the Survivor Series and tell me the fans at MSG didn't blow the roof off. In fact leading up to the Triple H match, that sort of response was pretty much the order of the day (particularly since Trips was coming out on the losing end almost every week of their feud), and after the Rumble nobody could give a toss any more, he was THAT bad. Victim of his own downfall for being so awful.
Snabbit888Posted on 08/10/06 at 20:41:49

Exactly.  When he first came in, it would have been stupid for Steiner to be heel because he was getting huge face pops.  Had they made him a heel, anti-WWE'ers would have bitched about how Vince never listens to the fans and does what he wants. ;)
HugeRockStar760Posted on 08/10/06 at 21:04:57

On 08/10/06 at 20:41:49, Snabbit888 wrote:Exactly. When he first came in, it would have been stupid for Steiner to be heel because he was getting huge face pops. Had they made him a heel, anti-WWE'ers would have bitched about how Vince never listens to the fans and does what he wants. ;)
That doesn't mean the WWE should've kept him as a face for so long. And even if we insist on Big Poppa Pump being a face, at least make him a tweener where he doesn't give a damn if the fans like him, but they can cheer him anyways.

I'll admit, though, Steiner did a lot to not warrant a major push. Probably his biggest blunder was when he fell off the ring apron or something that was really embarassing. I think it was similar to Vader falling out of the ring.
91Posted on 08/10/06 at 21:40:22

That doesn't mean the WWE should've kept him as a face for so long. And even if we insist on Big Poppa Pump being a face, at least make him a tweener where he doesn't give a damn if the fans like him, but they can cheer him anyways.

They didn't really keep him as a face that long. He was barely used about four months after his debut ("get in shape to the point where you can perform more than two moves, useless)" and when he came back, after a couple of months (and a moveset that had trebled) he turned heel. Besides, it's not like they had him portray a Captain Nice style character, all he did in his initial face run was beat up Triple H - granted that made him a defacto face from the get go, but it wasn't beyond the realms of his character to do without becoming the next kids favourite.

In any case, think of it like this, if they bought back Ricky Steamboat (and picture him as still being awesome) and they said "Ricky, we want to make you a heel, but you'll be world champion for a year" do you think he'd complain about being mis-used? He might prefer a particular allignment but as long as he's getting pushed to the moon, would he care? I certainly wouldn't. Come to think of it, I bet he'd make a badass heel.

I'll admit, though, Steiner did a lot to not warrant a major push. Probably his biggest blunder was when he fell off the ring apron or something that was really embarassing. I think it was similar to Vader falling out of the ring.

Visually, yes, it was the worst thing he did though I was more amused with Test wondering whether or not he should sell it.
AllPowerfulGARTHPosted on 08/11/06 at 00:36:34

Making Scott Steiner a face in his second WWE run, as noted before, made sense because of the colossal face pops he was receiving. If you follow Steiner's first few months in WWE, you will notice that his pops start to drop off riiiiiiight around the first time he actually had to, y'know, wrestle (against Triple H at the 2003 Royal Rumble). Then there was the atrocious follow-up match that actually served as the main event for No Way Out of that year, which, you could argue, was even worse -- at least after their first encounter, you had a spectacular Kurt Angle vs. Chris Benoit title match immediately following and the always-popular Rumble match after that. After that point...well...when you're in a situation where your rival is more over than you and that rival is Test, there are problems.

RockStar, those ex-WCW guys you mentioned haven't exactly had it as bad as you seem to think. Booker T wasn't spending all his time main-eventing, but he's spent a tremendous amount of time hovering around the main event in WWE prior to his recent World Heavyweight Title win. On top of that, he's held the Intercontinental Title once, he's been a tag team champion twice, and he's held the United States Title three times. Even when he was teaming with Goldust, he was viewed as a threat -- really, only his recent feud with the Boogeyman and some of his stuff with Stone Cold Steve Austin early on have painted him as a complete chump. And I'd say his unexpected loss to Triple H at WrestleMania 19 may have been affected more than just a little by the fact that Goldberg was signed to WWE just days before 'Mania.

Saying WWE has buried Rey Mysterio because he's ex-WCW is ridiculous. He wasn't made to look like a weak champion because he's from WCW, he was made to look like a weak champion because he weighs less than my coffee table (and because some of the writers are kinda loopy in the head). And more importantly, he has been made to look FAR stronger in WWE than he EVER was in WCW. How many world titles did Rey win in WCW? How many main-event matches was he in? Hell, when was he ever even CLOSE to the main event, save for a brief and pointless feud with Kevin Nash?

Additionally, saying the Hurricane gimmick was a bad idea for Gregory Helms is insanity. That gimmick was crazy over. He may have spent some time as a jobber, but if you'd like to try to convince me that "Sugar" Shane Helms had the power to get waaaay more over than the Hurricane ever did, have at it, hoss.
Snabbit888Posted on 08/11/06 at 00:49:58

And more importantly, Helms LOVED The Hurricane gimmick.  It wasn't like they gave him a stupid gimmick he hated.  He enjoyed playing it, and from what I gather, it was his idea anyway.  I think the gimmick was around too long, but still.

And I think this whole "Vince hates WCW guys" thing is a bit overblown.  It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" thing.  Since Vince didn't put all the WCW guys over, he obviously has a grudge against them.

And Steiner is, was, and will always be useless.  His initial heel run as Big Poppa Pump in WCW was good, but his body degenerated so much that he was and still is useless in the ring.
HugeRockStar760Posted on 08/11/06 at 01:17:31

Ok, ok. I get it. To quote Vince from when he bought WCW "Big Poppa Pump up? Poppa Pump down?" In this case, it's thumbs down.

As far as Rey is concerned, my main contention is that you should never have your World Champion jobbing out as he did to The Great Khali. If you want to get a feud over like the one with JBL, there are more creative and enjoyable angles that doesn't involve jobbing out your champion.
Snabbit888Posted on 08/11/06 at 01:26:23

On 08/11/06 at 01:17:31, HugeRockStar760 wrote:Ok, ok. I get it. To quote Vince from when he bought WCW "Big Poppa Pump up? Poppa Pump down?" In this case, it's thumbs down.

As far as Rey is concerned, my main contention is that you should never have your World Champion jobbing out as he did to The Great Khali. If you want to get a feud over like the one with JBL, there are more creative and enjoyable angles that doesn't involve jobbing out your champion.
I will fully agree with that.
CarlzillaPosted on 08/11/06 at 01:35:37

On 08/10/06 at 18:19:29, HugeRockStar760 wrote:

Sounds like you don't really watch TNA. Otherwise, you'd know that wasn't the case. Just because TNA used Lex Luger, Rick Steiner, and Buff Bagwell for one segment for a few weeks does not mean TNA is a place for "has beens." Not to mention, TNA is using Scott Steiner more effectively than the WWE ever did. Basically, the WWE screwed over Steiner just because he was a WCW wrestler. And like everything that could've made them money and ratings, the WWE didn't care because they wanted to get one over on WCW (even though, amazingly, they own WCW, so you'd think they wouldn't mind making some money off the name and it's stars).
Nope, you're right, I don't watch TNA. I don't even have a working TV...well they work, but not for regular TV just games and DVDs.

It was more a poke at the fact that TNA is "establishing" itself as a haven for WWE and WCW midcarders, and former main eventers who may have been main event in the early 90's but are WAAAAAY past their prime now. It wasn't meant to be taken at 100% face value.
AnubisPosted on 08/11/06 at 09:55:20

To be fair, the only recycled talent worth noting are Sting, Jeff Jarrett, Kevin Nash, and Scott Steiner.  Nash is the worst of the three by far, and even he seems to be in decent shape; on top of that, his angle is very entertaining, and he's giving a good rub to Alex Shelley, which is great.  Same goes for Steiner as far as fitness goes.  As for Jarrett, love him or hate him, he's a decent worker and has a good grasp of psychology; he's a far better champion than Cena could ever be, in his role.  Sting, well, Sting still rules and is looking good when he wrestles, so I totally approve of him.
Snabbit888Posted on 08/11/06 at 10:02:22

On 08/11/06 at 09:55:20, Anubis wrote:To be fair, the only recycled talent worth noting are Sting, Jeff Jarrett, Kevin Nash, and Scott Steiner. Nash is the worst of the three by far, and even he seems to be in decent shape; on top of that, his angle is very entertaining, and he's giving a good rub to Alex Shelley, which is great. Same goes for Steiner as far as fitness goes. As for Jarrett, love him or hate him, he's a decent worker and has a good grasp of psychology; he's a far better champion than Cena could ever be, in his role. Sting, well, Sting still rules and is looking good when he wrestles, so I totally approve of him.
I guess my problem with all of them is not so much that they're there.  Sting can still go, I hate Jarrett but he does have a purpose and can contribute, Nash is charismatic, and Steiner... well, Steiner is there.  My problem is that no news guys get pushed in TNA worth a damn.  You got Daniels and Styles, sure, but Joe certainly isn't being pushed like he should be because he's playign way down the line to guys like Jarrett and Steiner.  TNA in the mindset they're at now, seems like the only stars who will get the big pushes are guys WWE just released.
91Posted on 08/11/06 at 18:14:42

On 08/11/06 at 09:55:20, Anubis wrote:Sting, Jeff Jarrett, Kevin Nash, and Scott Steiner. Nash is the worst of the three
Maths not your strong point. :P
HugeRockStar760Posted on 08/11/06 at 18:22:18

On 08/11/06 at 10:02:22, Snabbit888 wrote:

I guess my problem with all of them is not so much that they're there. Sting can still go, I hate Jarrett but he does have a purpose and can contribute, Nash is charismatic, and Steiner... well, Steiner is there. My problem is that no news guys get pushed in TNA worth a damn. You got Daniels and Styles, sure, but Joe certainly isn't being pushed like he should be because he's playign way down the line to guys like Jarrett and Steiner. TNA in the mindset they're at now, seems like the only stars who will get the big pushes are guys WWE just released.
Samoa Joe has not been pinned in his TNA career. I'd say that is impressive in professional wrestling. Besides, everything is building to Bound for Glory where I am sure he is going to win the title from Jeff Jarrett. I think once he wins the title, that is when we can judge how TNA is using him. I'm actually interested in seeing how he will be booked to lose the title.

I don't really see what the problem is with Jeff Jarrett. He makes for a great main event heel for the promotion and when Samoa Joe defeats him, it's going to make him look even stronger as a world champion.

Kevin Nash is the main reason Alex Shelley has been able to get over. Mainly because Alex can showcase his personality, which is pretty damn funny. I never was  a fan of Shelley's until TNA let him work the mic and show that personality with this gimmick he has now.

I think guys like Scott Steiner, Kevin Nash, and Sting are necessary to get the younger wrestlers over.
Snabbit888Posted on 08/11/06 at 20:18:57

The only young guy to be put over is Samoa Joe, and I hope you're right on his winning the title.  Sadly, for me it's a "wishful thinking" type of deal until it happens.
AnubisPosted on 08/11/06 at 21:22:47

On 08/11/06 at 18:14:42, 91 wrote:

Maths not your strong point. :P
Actually, math is one of my strongest subjects. Sadly, I originally wrote that only mentioning Sting, Steiner, and Jarrett; I added Nash later on, and forgot to go back and change the numbering.
Rick GarrardPosted on 08/12/06 at 01:04:40

I deal with the company that creates TNA's t-shirts on a regular basis and I found it quite odd yesterday when I got their newest catalog that of the 8 TNA shirts available, not one was of Jeff Jarrett.

liquidblue.com under the sports link, look for TNA. They had all but Jarrett's in the paper catalog, but show his with the other 8 on the supplier site. Wonder what THAT means?
AnubisPosted on 08/12/06 at 02:00:59

Well, I dunno, but this Sunday's match is REALLY hard to predict.  First off, I have a feeling Christian Cage will turn on Sting.  Problem is, will he turn on him after or during the match?

For whatever reason, I see Sting winning the belt.  I see him defending against Christian Cage at No Surrender successfully before dropping the belt to Samoa Joe at Bound for Glory.

Still, it's a tough prediction.
PulsarPosted on 08/12/06 at 16:53:20

Here's news to all the wrestling fans out there. Samoa Joe is NOT being misused. He's continuously in fueds with Big Names (He just Main Evented 2 of the last 3 if I'm not mistaken). Throw in his match this weekend with 2 upper-midcards Rhino and Monty Brown, and he's gone against Sting, Jeff Jarrett. Scott Steiner, AJ Styles, Christopher Daniels, Rhino, AJ Styles, and has or will go over almost the entire Main Event scene. You don't NEED a World title to be over (See Roddy Piper's entire career)

Right now, I think TNA is EXACTLY where it needs to be. Senshi as your X-Division champ is good because it's showcasing a young, and incredibly talented, star. Aj Styles and Daniels as Tag Champs make sense, cause it makes, not only that division stronger, but the X-Division room to grow and showcase other talent, and, granted the Main Event is something that could've been done 10 years ago, it'll be butts in the seats. Plus, how can you NOT agree with Eric Young's entire angle right now? It's amazingly entertaining television. TNA has even made Nash entertaining for the first time in about 8 years.
Rick GarrardPosted on 08/12/06 at 17:12:13

the only reason to watch TNA right now... James E. Cornette!
HugeRockStar760Posted on 08/12/06 at 18:49:36

What I like about TNA is the fact that there is hardly ever 20 minute interviews to open Impact. The hour TNA is on really goes by fast. I've noticed with WWE shows things tend to drag on a bit.

I think TNA has done a great job with Samoa Joe. But unlike Roddy Piper, I think a title reign is absolutely necessary for him to continue his upward trend to being a star in the business.