The Terrible Decisions That TNA Makes
As far back as I can remember, pro wrestling has been in my life. I've watched it through the good and the bad. I've witnessed many stories unfold and pay very close attention to the patterns that it follows. All of pro wrestling follows the same formula, whether it is on screen or behind the scenes.
Through these years, you start to notice little things. Certain decisions that are made and can damage a wrestler or the companies name. Last night, at TNA's Bound For Glory, that mistake was made.
Bound For Glory is the biggest event that TNA puts on every year, if you choose to believe them. Now, for months, Samoa Joe has been the TNA champion. Aside from the fact that he received the title way too late in his TNA career, he was representing the fact that the younger talent was on the rise.
Samoa Joe begins to show a lack of respect and prompts some of the veterans to question him. Enter Sting.
Sting, a 23 year veteran and one of the more well known names in pro wrestling, decides that it's up to him to teach Joe a lesson and take the title from him. And that's exactly what Sting did. Sort of.
You see, Sting was all over the arena and successfully getting beat by Joe through out the match. After over 20 minutes of this, Sting goes for his baseball bat, which Kevin Nash stops him from using. Nash than hits Joe with the bat which sets up the Scorpion Death Drop. Three seconds later, Sting is the new TNA Heavyweight Champion.
Let's analyze this. Joe has nothing but offense during the entire match and gets a baseball bat to the back. Now, when Joe got hit, he fell on all fours and turned to face Nash. He gets up and gets hit with the Scorpion Death Drop. So after two hits, one of which he practically no sold, he's out. Joe looks incredibly weak in this exchange.
Sting doesn't look much better either. Seeing as how he didn't put up much of a fight, how are we to believe that Sting even deserves the title right now?
Sting's age also comes into play with all of this. Don't get me wrong, it's great to see someone at Sting's age still be able to work for as long as he has, but his time has come and gone. Now is the time for the younger talent to hold the title. Which is what part of this feud was about.
The commentators mentioned several times during the match that whoever wins the match will have all the power. So if Joe won, the younger talent would be in charge and finally be able to step up. If Sting won, the veterans retain power and continue to hold everyone down. Sting won.
The pattern should have been obvious through out the night as to who would win the title. Booker T won his match defeating A.J. Styles. That match was all about younger talent versus veterans. Jeff Jarrett defeated Kurt Angle earlier in the night. So the cards were in place.
Now, it seems that according to the story lines, TNA is being run by the veterans. I thought TNA was suppose to be where the younger talent had a chance to excel and become something. I thought there was no glass ceiling.
Apparently, I was wrong. TNA has successfully solidified as the place for older stars to go before their careers fade away and go over on younger guys that still need to become something.
Now, for those who think that this is just a good story starting up, consider this: if the younger talent is suppose to be the underdogs coming up and eventually taking power, why was Joe booked as the heel and Sting as the face? Why would TNA want the audience to see the younger talent as the bad guys?
This is just going to make the audience want the veterans to retain the power. That's why Sting has the title.
Now, this problem hasn't reached the point of no return. I know there are several people who think that TNA will destroy themselves within a year. I'd have to disagree. TNA is just making lots of small bad decisions but it is all still salvageable. Right now, they need to get the title off of Sting and put it on an up and coming star; like A.J. Styles or Robert Roode.
TNA has all the talent they need to become the top wrestling company in America. They just need to think about the stories they are doing and what the long term outcomes are going to be.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?