|
|
Post by King Silva on Sept 14, 2008 16:36:22 GMT -5
In an interview with SLAM Wrestling, Kurt Angle was critical of TNA going overboard on the number of gimmick matches the company holds.
"I believe pay-per-view matches should be straight up, one-on-one," Angle said. "One on one, or tag on tag, nobody else involved, no run-ins, no gimmicks. I feel TNA sometimes thinks we're being innovative by having matches that are gimmicks." Angle then gives examples. "Like on one pay-per-view, we had a cage match with weapons, and a Last Man Standing match, and a New Jersey Street Fight. We don't need to have gimmick matches. We have the talent to have great wrestling matches. That's why we are different than WWE. We have amazing wrestlers that can put on incredible matches." Angle believes TNA will one day be on the same level as WWE. "But within four to six years, we will be comparable to them as far as ratings. As far as value of the company, we’re getting there. If, God forbid, Jeff and Mrs. Carter wanted to sell the company right now, it’s worth a lot of money. I think eventually the company will be almost every bit as valuable as WWE."
Do you agree that TNA is too gimmicky like Kurt believes?
Do you think it will take 4-6 years til TNA is on the same level as wwe in terms of ratings and worth?
Who would Jeff and Dixie sell TNA too; The wwe?
|
|
|
|
Post by tnafan4life on Sept 14, 2008 16:39:29 GMT -5
Dixie & Jeff won't sell. Jeff's put his heart and soul into TNA and he won't sell and Dixie has gone on record to say she's not selling. I don't think it's so much to gimmicky.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Mac on Sept 14, 2008 16:40:44 GMT -5
I do think TNA is Gimmicky somtimes but I dont think they should have to much of it like Angle Said!!!
As Much as I Like TNA, I Dont Think They will get to WWE standards in that Time!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by King Silva on Sept 14, 2008 16:43:39 GMT -5
I do think TNA is Gimmicky but I dont think they should have to much of it like Angle Said!!! As Much as I Like TNA, I Dont Think They will get to WWE standards in that Time!!! I agree with you. 4-6 years seems like a small amount of time to pick up 2.5 million viewers but I would say wwe ratings would fall, like they have been, and tna would have to rise a lot so they could meet in like 7-10 years.. How many gimmick matches on a PPV is too many? |
|
|
|
Post by tnafan4life on Sept 14, 2008 16:46:31 GMT -5
There's nothing wrong with gimmick matches. They just hvae to be used right. Look at No Surrenders card there's 3 gimmick matches and each makes sense. Look at Hard Justice there was only four gimmick matches and 2 of 'em made sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by spawnsyxx9 on Sept 14, 2008 16:53:55 GMT -5
Wow.. Angle actually says something about TNA that is true instead of just pushing it aside.
|
|
|
|
Post by laythvandam on Sept 14, 2008 17:49:22 GMT -5
One gimmick match per PPV is enough.
TNA seems to listen to Angle so hopefully they listen to him once again here, they're going overkill.
|
|
Irish Ghost
POSSIBLE BAD TRADER
Joined on: Mar 5, 2008 15:23:06 GMT -5
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Irish Ghost on Sept 14, 2008 18:20:12 GMT -5
I totally agree there always having some sort of gimmick match
|
|
|
|
Post by tnafan17: The Total Package on Sept 14, 2008 18:42:55 GMT -5
Yea they have went far not only now but in the past with gimmick matches. But I guess, like stated before by someone else, its just how you use them.
As far as being on WWE's standards I would have to say 4-6 doesn't sound out of reach. However, a year or two more sounds more reasonable.
|
|
Loose Cannon
Main Eventer
R.I.P
Joined on: May 16, 2005 21:56:29 GMT -5
Posts: 2,836
|
Post by Loose Cannon on Sept 14, 2008 18:56:21 GMT -5
I disagree. Does TNA overdue it some time yes. But Hard Justice is a bad example cuz it has been known for being gimmicky. I Do Agree with Kurt that TNA has WRESTLERS that can do fantastic things in 1 on 1 matches. TNA just needs to find a middle ground.
I think MORE gimmick matches is something WWE needs and needs bad. I think they only have a select few wrestlers who can entertain in 1 on 1 matches.
|
|
|
|
Post by King Shocker the Monumentous on Sept 14, 2008 20:35:17 GMT -5
Doesn't he contradict himself there?
|
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Sept 14, 2008 21:48:43 GMT -5
i definetly agree with kurt on the too gimmicky thing. they've really taken away the originality of a lot of specialty matches.
|
|
newfrigginshow
Main Eventer
NFS
Joined on: Jul 13, 2006 8:23:46 GMT -5
Posts: 1,427
|
Post by newfrigginshow on Sept 15, 2008 12:27:57 GMT -5
He's right and we've been saying it here for months and months. Of course they'll never listen to the fans, but maybe they will listen to Kurt Angle.
|
|
WWF Sim Fed
Superstar
Joined on: Feb 16, 2008 0:09:32 GMT -5
Posts: 724
|
Post by WWF Sim Fed on Sept 15, 2008 12:34:58 GMT -5
And maybe Kurt Angle listened to Mick Foley. Hopefully Foley will help TNA in the right direction. One of the main reasons I stopped watching TNA was that there was way too much going on with storylines getting tied in to one another and interferences and never clean finishes. What is the point? TNA needs change to survive and last night was a sign of that has No Surrender was there worse PPV to date.
|
|
|
|
Post by Taft on Sept 15, 2008 13:03:22 GMT -5
He should be saying that to Vince Russo...
:/
|
|
NAC ATTACK '08
Main Eventer
RECORD: 3 wins - 5 losses - 5 Battle Royals
Joined on: Jan 13, 2005 15:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 1,678
|
Post by NAC ATTACK '08 on Sept 16, 2008 13:03:59 GMT -5
--
Since watching NWA-TNA during their very first SHOW ever... there wasn't a lot of gimmicks there, and I personally enjoyed that. It was a breath of fresh air to watch something on PPV that wasn't "sports entertainment", but real professional wrestling back to the roots of a traditional style show.
Over the course of time, gimmicks were added yes, and today, TNA is flooded with gimmicks - be it the matches, the charactors, the crash segments - almost every aspect of TNA now has a gimmick involved, and I would go further than Kurt's comments and say TNA isn't just too gimmicky, when it comes to just matches, but they're too gimmicky as a whole organization!
Granted you have some areas that are more pure & original, like Sting, Christian, Joe, Styles, Book, Angle - basically all the top guys... but MOST of the undercard guys use gimmicks or are almost always associated with gimmicks.
To say TNA is too gimmicky, is an understatement, IMO.
|
|
NAC ATTACK '08
Main Eventer
RECORD: 3 wins - 5 losses - 5 Battle Royals
Joined on: Jan 13, 2005 15:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 1,678
|
Post by NAC ATTACK '08 on Sept 16, 2008 13:06:26 GMT -5
He should be saying that to Vince Russo... :/ -- I don't get why people keep dogging on Russo ... Russo is NOT only NOT the finally say in what goes on, but Russo, I know for a fact, prefers a "natural" worker over a gimmick worker (meaning someone who is an extention of themselves, instead of a cheesy charactor they're trying to portray). |
|
|
|
Post by BigShab421 on Sept 16, 2008 13:21:32 GMT -5
I agree with Angle.
Sell it to Bischoff.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisxfirexburns on Sept 18, 2008 12:40:17 GMT -5
It is to gimmicky like Kurt said ,but I dont think TNA will be on the same Level as WWE in 4-6 yrs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Sept 19, 2008 15:56:59 GMT -5
I agree 100% with the gimmicky part. They go way to far with the gimmick matches and all the interferences and crap. Thats what dissappoints people.. seeing a good match end by someone running down and interfering.
On the other hand.. I doubt TNA will be anywhere near WWE in terms of value and ratings.. it took WWE decades to get where its at and doubt TNA could pull it off in 4 years.
|
|
