Monday, December 18, 2006

People Defend Vince Russo

Well, I'll be damned...

"Ratings have been going up since Russo's been writing TNA. If they continue to rise, please shut your respective mouth.

Or watch something else.

Thanks bro."

"Come on give Russo a break. TNA just got their highet ratings ever. Their shows are great now. Can you honestly say that WWE has had a good storyline since Russo left years ago. Look at what happened to the ratings for Raw when Russo left, they dropped!!!! It took a few weeks but they dropped big time. Have you seen a good swerve since Russo left? No. Anyone with a have of a brain knows that WCW was a mess before Russo got their. Also check the rating on WCW, when Russo gained a small of amount of support from the good ole boys in WCW the rating went up. This part of the story is never told for some reason. The facts are Russo took WWE to unreal heights. If the McMahons are so creative why are the rating so poor compared to when Russo carried them? Vince McMahon is so clueless when it comes to being creative and the nut (Stephanie) doesn't fall far from the tree.

Come on admit it Russo is the best creative mind in the business. Ask yourself why you really hate Vince Russo."

"I'm tired of everyone crapping on Vince Russo like he's the antichrist. Vince Russo didn't kill WCW. He had a few horrible ideas, like the Arquette fiasco, but he had just as many good ones, like finally letting wrestlers like Scott Steiner and Booker T run with the ball, albeit years too late. With a competent editor, Russo does good work, and Jarrett and Carter are, for all their faults, competent editors. Add to that the checks added by TNA's content standards and you have a good system to reign in Russo. Russo's other upside is that he wants to develop personalities for the younger wrestlers, and allowing LAX to run with the ball and pairing up the X-Division guys with Kevin Nash has made for some genuinely entertaining television. As for Angle/Joe, TNA doesn't have time to drag out a really long tease of an angle. I do wish that they had waited longer for the rematch, but TNA needs to get people into their product fast, and Angle vs. Joe is doing that. I think that TNA's problem is that they only have one hour a week to develop these storylines, and I know that ECW only has that too, but they have the advantage of being able to hotshot RAW & Smackdown superstars onto their roster whenever they please, whereas TNA is on their own. If they ever expand to two hours their product will improve dramatically, in my opinion. And even without the expansion, they are making strides in getting their name out there, as last week's 1.2 rating showed."

"Hey, regular reader of your column and just got finished with your TNA year in review and just wanted to say i respectfully disagree with your comments. Firstly, you forgot to mention that TNA just received it's highest rating EVER. And that's with Vince Russo booking and the feud between Angle and Samoa Joe, you know, the one that has "run it's course". An by the way, overbooking and throwing away stipulation matches long before Russo. I'm not a Russo defender at all but TNA went form booking Jarret and Rhyno in Main Evnets to having a 5 way with talent like Angle, Joe, Sting, Christian and Abyss.How can a prime time deal and the highest ratings ever lead to anything but a positive review of TNA in 2006?"

I may respond tomorrow here (I always try to respond personally to e-mails), but I must admit Russo is a conversation ender for me. It seems so obvious to me that Russo is an awful booker that I almost don't feel like discussing it, like evolution vs. creationism. But evidently there are people out there who disagree.


Anonymous Dave S. said...

The people who emailed you made some valid points, but the fact is that Russo's negatives far outweigh his positives. His one strength is developing characters for previously non-descript guys, and he has actually done an excellent job with that. Putting Nash with the X-Division guys has actually made everyone involved very entertaining. But the fact is that Russo has no regard at all for in-ring action, and his storylines tend to overshadow the actual wrestling, which is the complete wrong way to put on a good wrestling show. Plus, the worst thing about Russo is the fact that he has the sense of humor of a 12 year old; I generally like stupid humor, but Russo's brand of humor is usually too stupid even for me. Also, you've made the point plenty of times that he completely devalues match results and titles, which is correct, and is a huge negative as well. If Russo was teamed up with a booker who actually knows how to book a good wrestling feud (Cornette and Heyman come to mind), then his weaknesses could be covered, like they were when he was in WWF.

2:39 AM  
Anonymous Phil said...

That TNA is "getting their highest ratings ever" really is a foolish argument. Firstly, they have all of one rating above 1.0. Secondly, even if they were to become a company doing 1.2s consistently, unless it translates into actual revenue (PPV buys), that increase is superfluous. Finally, how much of that increase is attributable to the time slot, anyway?

9:38 AM  
Anonymous Charlie Kane said...

Todd, I have also had people defend McDonalds cheeseburgers, a cassette tape of Journey's greatest hits, and the entire career of Adam Sandler. While all of them may have their moments, I can't say as though the arguments will end up holding much water. Russo is a disease, and any value that the TNA shows have had will be constantly undermined by the fact that it will all eventually turn to ash in the mouth. It's a shame to see so much talent in the company used so speciously. But, I don't know that Heyman or Cornette would really do much different. I would like to see TNA go to a new, creative person who is looking for a chance to change things up. Now, I couldn't tell you where they'd find said person, but it'd be much preferred to 1997 WWF slop.

4:45 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home