Matt Hardy Wins WHC at BFG; Vacates Title in Injunction Booking Angle

[It's Damn Real!]

They had this planned, for whatever amount of time, because their television situation is precarious. Had they had that sorted out properly (meaning were they not being cancelled, which is likely what's keeping DA from paying out the money for them to film normally), this whole series would not have been necessary.

As "smart" as this series is, it's a microcosm of a larger problem, which is why people are still ripping TNA over it.

 

[New Hot Fed]

They had this planned, for whatever amount of time, because their television situation is precarious. Had they had that sorted out properly (meaning were they not being cancelled, which is likely what's keeping DA from paying out the money for them to film normally), this whole series would not have been necessary.

As "smart" as this series is, it's a microcosm of a larger problem, which is why people are still ripping TNA over it.

People ripped TNA for a variety of things.

First cause Hardy is old and fat and is not really a homegrown.

Then they ripped them cause Hardy vacated it. Cause people they didn't know it was a planned storyline.

Then more than a few wanted to continue being mad and propagate this fake outrage after the tournament was announced so they went: "it should not be done this way!".

The current trend is shitting on them cause the women are involved(which in this case it's the most logical argument for going LOLTNA) and yea they should take that out.

In fact the divisions to me do not work at all cause you face the same people and the UK division for example is not very stacked.

But I think the vacant belt storyline itself makes sense, it is what EC3 should be doing. He loses the title but at the same make a strong case that he should have not. Also it's very much in character with him and makes everything to be about him. Which is what should be.

I guess my biggest thing is that if there was controversy with the 3 men involved in a title match, why not have a re-match? Or have them get some sort of advantage in this tournament? I mean even from a EC3 point of view, he said he wasn't pinned and that there was interference, shouldn't he and his lawyer try to annul the match, annul the result of that match so he can be Champ again?

I mean, it's weird that any of the three men should start at 0 with any of the other TNA wrestlers.

 

[Hello... I'm Awesome]

One thing about this that hasn't been talked about as far as the tournament that has come out now is Austin Aries. Wasn't he just "retired" by Rockstar Spud like a month ago? Now he is back thrown in there with no explanation whatsoever. No mention of the match between the two or anything. Usually when there is a retirement match if the person that loses comes back it is forever before they come back again and have a reason behind it.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

One thing about this that hasn't been talked about as far as the tournament that has come out now is Austin Aries. Wasn't he just "retired" by Rockstar Spud like a month ago? Now he is back thrown in there with no explanation whatsoever. No mention of the match between the two or anything. Usually when there is a retirement match if the person that loses comes back it is forever before they come back again and have a reason behind it.

Matthews mentioned it during the broadcast, sarcastically joking that "internet fans" or whatever terminology he used, would probably be mad to see him back considering the stipulations that saw him leave. KB and I talked about it in the LD, actually.

I can't really blame them. When you have a "career" match and lose, you lose your career. That means you never come back. To just pretend like, oh well, that was then and who cares, is insulting to your fans.

The solution is simple — stop over-selling the nature of your stipulations. Instead of a "career" match, have it be a "loser gets fired" match. Getting fired is something you can come back from. Promising to "never wrestle in a TNA ring again" if you lose is a promise that should be taken seriously. So just stop doing that. Do what I suggested. It's safer, in case you ever want to bring someone back down the line.

 

[klunderbunker]

But I think the vacant belt storyline itself makes sense, it is what EC3 should be doing. He loses the title but at the same make a strong case that he should have not. Also it's very much in character with him and makes everything to be about him. Which is what should be.

I guess my biggest thing is that if there was controversy with the 3 men involved in a title match, why not have a re-match? Or have them get some sort of advantage in this tournament? I mean even from a EC3 point of view, he said he wasn't pinned and that there was interference, shouldn't he and his lawyer try to annul the match, annul the result of that match so he can be Champ again?

It makes horrible sense for Ethan to file an injunction against Matt. He's beaten Matt twice, including in Matt's own match. The move that makes sense for Ethan is to demand a one on one match with Matt in whatever stipulation they pick. Ethan got the injunction to force Matt off of TV. What did he think the result was going to be other than a vacant title? Ethan had no real reason to want the title vacant given what he's done against Matt in the past. That never made sense to me.

Matthews mentioned it during the broadcast, sarcastically joking that "internet fans" or whatever terminology he used, would probably be mad to see him back considering the stipulations that saw him leave. KB and I talked about it in the LD, actually.

It was internet nerds and the answer was pretty much "HAHA you're stupid for trying to figure this out and we're not going to answer it because we're on TV and you're not."

Further proof of my theory that Josh Matthews is in fact a huge tool.

 

[Hello... I'm Awesome]

Matthews mentioned it during the broadcast, sarcastically joking that "internet fans" or whatever terminology he used, would probably be mad to see him back considering the stipulations that saw him leave. KB and I talked about it in the LD, actually.

I can't really blame them. When you have a "career" match and lose, you lose your career. That means you never come back. To just pretend like, oh well, that was then and who cares, is insulting to your fans.

The solution is simple — stop over-selling the nature of your stipulations. Instead of a "career" match, have it be a "loser gets fired" match. Getting fired is something you can come back from. Promising to "never wrestle in a TNA ring again" if you lose is a promise that should be taken seriously. So just stop doing that. Do what I suggested. It's safer, in case you ever want to bring someone back down the line.

Oh, thanks, I haven't gotten that far into it yet, DVR'd it. But yeah I totally agree. It makes it look like they don't give a crap about the stipulations. Loser gets fired would have made a lot more sense. Or at least have something with spud like asking Dixie if she can reinstate him.