|
|
Post by tswdm on May 12, 2008 20:50:54 GMT -6
No, but the whole race for the #1 contender spot took place on PPV for the title match itself only to take place on free TV. Just seems like a waste.
|
|
|
|
Post by tee on May 12, 2008 20:55:29 GMT -6
Not a waste, as what was said to happen did happen. Gail Kim won a title shot and got it. Gail Kim and Kong have been feuding since Kong showed up. No real need to add any more build.
|
|
vicesquad
Sleeping Where I Want
50%
Posts: 68
|
Post by vicesquad on May 12, 2008 20:55:46 GMT -6
According to the iMPACT! spoilers Kong beat Gail Kim, so earning the shot was meaningless. Because all earned title shots must lead to title victories, right? Thanks for reporting that spoiler information. Now, I can save the time I would have wasted watching another Kong victory. |
|
|
|
Post by tswdm on May 12, 2008 20:59:34 GMT -6
The logic of the whole thing doesn't make sense. The #1 contender match didn't need to be on PPV to lead to a taped TV match. I think the participants at Sacrifice would care more about keeping their hair than getting a title shot at Kong. It would make more sense to let yourself be eliminated from the battle royal right away to protect your hair instead of trying to get to the end where you have a high chance of being shaved. It's not like this was anyone's last chance. There would be other title match opportunities. I'm examining this too much. It's TNA so who cares.
|
|
|
|
Post by sonicstorm06 on May 12, 2008 21:03:25 GMT -6
The logic of the whole thing doesn't make sense. The #1 contender match didn't need to be on PPV to lead to a taped TV match. I think the participants at Sacrifice would care more about keeping their hair than getting a title shot at Kong. It would make more sense to let yourself be eliminated from the battle royal right away to protect your hair instead of trying to get to the end where you have a high chance of being shaved. It's not like this was anyone's last chance. There would be other title match opportunities. I'm examining this too much. It's TNA so who cares. Don't feel so bad. I thought the same thing also. |
|
|
|
Post by kae on May 13, 2008 1:50:58 GMT -6
Well, wrestlers are meant to want the belt more than anything else. They're meant to risk their health, sanity, and, yes, even their hair to get that chance. I didn't find that part of the match too problematic, because I don't think it's bad that TNA is booking the women's strap as being that important.
|
|
|
|
Post by leescoresby on May 13, 2008 4:52:15 GMT -6
The whole concept was nasty, mysogynistic, offensive drivel. Period.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankp316 on May 13, 2008 4:57:17 GMT -6
The logic of the whole thing doesn't make sense. The #1 contender match didn't need to be on PPV to lead to a taped TV match. I think the participants at Sacrifice would care more about keeping their hair than getting a title shot at Kong. It would make more sense to let yourself be eliminated from the battle royal right away to protect your hair instead of trying to get to the end where you have a high chance of being shaved. It's not like this was anyone's last chance. There would be other title match opportunities. I'm examining this too much. It's TNA so who cares. Anyone looking for logic and common sense in pro wrestling booking needs to stop watching TNA. They don't understand why their fanbase is stagnant. This nonsense turns fans off. |
|
|
|
Post by Flammable D on May 13, 2008 7:48:18 GMT -6
The whole concept was nasty, mysogynistic, offensive drivel. Period. It was stupid as hell, yes, but I didn't find it offensive or misogynistic at all... I don't really see how those apply. |
|
|
|
Post by sonicstorm06 on May 13, 2008 8:19:43 GMT -6
And the bad thing is Gail Kim can't even seem to get a crowd reaction anymore anymore. It's not Gail hate, this forum I'm on even the uber Gail Kim fans are acknowledging she is getting no reaction.
|
|
|
|
Post by subiestraight99 on May 13, 2008 8:33:47 GMT -6
The whole concept was nasty, mysogynistic, offensive drivel. Period. It was stupid as hell, yes, but I didn't find it offensive or misogynistic at all... I don't really see how those apply. It's no more mysogynistic than Bunnymania, bra & panty matches, evening gown matches, water balloon and water gun matches, and pudding matches. The only mysogynistic part of the whole match were the annoying backstage segments in which Jim Cornette talked down to them about being more concerned about hair and makeup than on competing, which was partially true for some of the characters. The concept of the match was stupid and over-gimmicked when they had good feuds going that could make PPV-quality matches. I watched it on PPV, and I enjoyed it more than I anticipated. The ladder part of the match was probably the best part. Also, Nikki's scalp didn't get butchered during the shaving like Raven. I think a hit she got by the ladder cut her open because she was bleeding down her face and neck throughout the ladder portion of the match. I am annoyed that it's back to Gail Kim as #1 contender, but she's been the best fighter against Kong, when no other KO's have beat her. So that logic makes sense. |
|
|
|
Post by casey on May 13, 2008 10:20:11 GMT -6
No, but the whole race for the #1 contender spot took place on PPV for the title match itself only to take place on free TV. Just seems like a waste. You have to sell the Free TV show as well sometimes. Theres alot more people not buying those PPVs; that watch Thund..I mean Impact. So giving away big matches on free TV is actually a good idea. |
|
|
|
Post by leescoresby on May 14, 2008 1:35:57 GMT -6
It was stupid as hell, yes, but I didn't find it offensive or misogynistic at all... I don't really see how those apply. It's no more mysogynistic than Bunnymania, bra & panty matches, evening gown matches, water balloon and water gun matches, and pudding matches. . If it were indeed no more mysogynistic than the above list that would still make it quite bad enough from where I'm sitting. But here's the thing - all that rubbish is temporary, over quickly and even, in the case of water balloons and guns, the kind of stuff some people seem to actually enjoy participating in. Do you know any women who enjoy having their hair shaved? More to the point do you know many people who enjoy watching that happen? And if you do perhaps you might try asking them why they enjoy watching it. |
|
|
|
Post by magnumgecko on May 14, 2008 1:55:54 GMT -6
I'd argue that it's less offensive than all the other matches listed, because it was wrestled as a serious match and just happened to end with a girl getting her head shaved. I don't get why this is such a big deal or why anyone expected something better from TNA.
|
|
|
|
Post by leescoresby on May 14, 2008 2:09:08 GMT -6
I'd argue that it's less offensive than all the other matches listed, because it was wrestled as a serious match and just happened to end with a girl getting her head shaved. I don't get why this is such a big deal or why anyone expected something better from TNA. "Happened to end". What the heck does that mean? Was that not the whole angle? So is it ok for women to have their head shaved for absolutely no purpose except to give gratification to a few pathetic weirdos who aren't interested in the exhibition of wrestling ability but merely in watching attractive young women being humiliated? |
|
