*SPOILER* Again TNA, Really?

mhmmm dont like that

Neither do I.

Spoiler:

Sting is good and I like him but again as World Champion? that's sucks

COME ON!

Stop giving the old guy the title!

ANDERSON!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm an Asshole

Thank fuck Andersons been painfully bad. As I've said TNA Have only had 3 WHC champs this year, same as SD!. The rest of the show looks stellar.

I can see their angle. They are trying to be unpredictable. Who honestly would expect Anderson to lose on his first defence. Sting is washed up and past his prime, but it is still pretty damn insane to have Anderson lose on impact just after winning the belt. He will win it back soon IMO

Dont care for TNA main eventers tbh. Most of them are just former WWE stars. Its been stated that TNA is a WWE graveyard, but maily for the upper card. They have been throwing in some midcarders (Shannon Moore, Orlando Jordan, Elijah Burke, etc.) but atleast they are still young talent (btw fuck TNA for releasing Jordan -_-)

Hazza wrote:

I can see their angle. They are trying to be unpredictable. Who honestly would expect Anderson to lose on his first defence. Sting is washed up and past his prime, but it is still pretty damn insane to have Anderson lose on impact just after winning the belt. He will win it back soon IMO

This is Anderson's second reign and the first reign ended the same as the first, Anderson getting beat on Impact in his first defence. It is not unpredictable, it is repetitive.

Anderson should've never got the belt in the first place imo. Sting had quite a long reign, imagine if he still hadn't lost it to Anderson, that'd be the longest reign in quite some time. In that respect it's stupid booking.

And again with the ridiculous claims of TNA being WWE graveyard - less than 25% are ex-WWE stars.

God wrote:

Anderson should've never got the belt in the first place imo. Sting had quite a long reign, imagine if he still hadn't lost it to Anderson, that'd be the longest reign in quite some time. In that respect it's stupid booking.

And again with the ridiculous claims of TNA being WWE graveyard - less than 25% are ex-WWE stars.

I agree.

I have been watching TNA since 2004 and IMO Anderson has been the worst World Champion that I have seen in the company. I know both of his reigns were short, but the guy seriously is not World Champ material. He's come across boring and whiny over the last few months. I'm not saying Sting is the way to go, but I would much prefer the belt with Sting than Anderson.

Adam's right about the 25%. This is a common misconception that people have. People see guys like Anderson, Hardy and RVD and think, "So this is just a show of ex WWE's guys". Well, those people are wrong.

Newsid wrote:

God wrote:

Anderson should've never got the belt in the first place imo. Sting had quite a long reign, imagine if he still hadn't lost it to Anderson, that'd be the longest reign in quite some time. In that respect it's stupid booking.

And again with the ridiculous claims of TNA being WWE graveyard - less than 25% are ex-WWE stars.

I agree.

I have been watching TNA since 2004 and IMO Anderson has been the worst World Champion that I have seen in the company. I know both of his reigns were short, but the guy seriously is not World Champ material. He's come across boring and whiny over the last few months. I'm not saying Sting is the way to go, but I would much prefer the belt with Sting than Anderson.

Adam's right about the 25%. This is a common misconception that people have. People see guys like Anderson, Hardy and RVD and think, "So this is just a show of ex WWE's guys". Well, those people are wrong.

But don't you think it would be better to wait until a PPV and have him lose then? Hell, have him lose it to Angle.

As for the 25% thing, I decided to count the guys up.

There are a total of 17 ex-WWE guys, not including Hogan, Bischoff etc.

On the website, there is 60 on the roster. So 15 would be 25%, so it is slightly over 25%.
Which is still much less than people think.

Newsid wrote:

On the website, there is 60 on the roster. So 15 would be 25%, so it is slightly over 25%.
Which is still much less than people think.

That's what I was getting at lol.

It used to be a retirement home for WWE guys but if you look at the main event scene now, Angle and Anderson are the only two ex-WWE guys there.

The U's Scotsman! wrote:

Newsid wrote:

On the website, there is 60 on the roster. So 15 would be 25%, so it is slightly over 25%.
Which is still much less than people think.

That's what I was getting at lol.

It used to be a retirement home for WWE guys but if you look at the main event scene now, Angle and Anderson are the only two ex-WWE guys there.

Lol. I was just showing everybody lol.

I'm kind of half & half on this tbh.
Mr. Anderson is overrated imo and his title run has been abysmal
On the other hand, I think having Sting win the title is going backwards, there are plenty of guys who could have won it over him

Thats stupid.