High Road/Low Road 01.22.10: Getting Rid Of The Six Sided Ring

Welcome back to the High Road/Low Road!

A brief explanation of the column: Sat takes the High Road (positive view) on angles, gimmicks, and other wrestling related “stuff” while Chad Nevett takes the Low Road (negative view).

Results for ECW Homecoming:

High Road: 26%
Low Road: 40%
Both Roads: 33%

Sat: I was expecting there to be very few high roads and both roads to win. I was wrong on both accounts. I was leaning towards both roads because there were positives and negatives with the ECW Homecoming.

Chad Nevett: This is pretty split across all of the roads, which makes sense. I’m still not sure where I fall, probably both roads.

Getting Rid Of The Six Sided Ring

High Road:

On the live impact a few weeks ago, Hulk Hogan said that he was going to make changes. So far, I would say that no drastic changes have been made because most of the changes that have been made were expected. I think getting rid of the six sided ring and going with the traditional ring was a change that needed to be made.

Low Road:

The change was unnecessary. The six-sided ring has been part of TNA’s identity since its inception and one of the things that sets it apart from the WWE and other wrestling promotions. It hasn’t prevented TNA from putting on great matches and the only reasons to change it are to facilitate older wrestlers that can’t adapt or to fit into the pre-existing mould of what a wrestling company should be, which is the wrong tactic to take when trying to compete with the monster that is the WWE.

High Road:

Everybody keeps saying that TNA made a mistake in getting rid of the six sided ring because the six sided ring was one of the main things that separated itself from the WWE. I would not argue with that, but I think in a way the six sided ring made TNA seem a bit gimmicky. I think the best move was to eliminate the six sided ring and that would help TNA look a bit more professional.

Low Road:

If TNA only used the ring at times, it would be gimmicky, but since they’ve used it since the beginning, it just happens to be the ring that TNA uses. Is MMA gimmicky for using an eight-sided ring when wrestling and boxing have always used four-sided rings? It’s a sign that TNA is willing to do things differently from its competition that’s easy to pick up on immediately.

High Road:

I have always been a fan of the six sides of steel and I think that TNA going to a four sided ring definitely eliminates that. I don’t know why, but I always preferred the six sides of steel over a regular cage match. The loss of the six sides of steel is the only concern I have with TNA going to the traditional four sided ring.

Low Road:

Not just the six sides of steel, but the dynamic of the X-Division and many TNA matches will be altered. The six-sided ring lent itself more to quicker action and mat wrestling since the corners are less restrictive and limiting. The tighter ropes allowed for a quicker snap-back for wrestlers. If you look at the differences between TNA and WWE matches, one was the subtle effect of the different rings, and forcing TNA to conform to the standard set by the WWE isn’t exactly setting it up as an alternative.

High Road:

The six sided ring is not commonly used and I would have wonder if it makes an impact on wrestler’s decision to join TNA. My gut tells me that it does make a difference on whether a wrestler joins TNA. I think the traditional ring helps TNA draw in some wrestlers that the six sided ring would not have allowed for.

Low Road:

TNA hasn’t had a lot of problems in attracting talented wrestlers to date, so it can’t be much of a factor. While some are no doubt put off by the ring, even older wrestlers like Sting, Kevin Nash, and Mick Foley have wrestled in it, so the only wrestlers so put off by it that they refuse to compete in TNA as a result would be so unoriginal and unskilled in the ring that, frankly, I don’t want to see them wrestle despite how big their name is.

High Road:

A minor high road here. I am happy that TNA decided to just introduce the new ring and not go with the demolishing of the six sided ring. I think if the six sided ring had been demolished, then it would have been a huge disrespect to the six sided ring and basically made the era before the new ring seem like it was not that important.

Low Road:

To simply cast it aside is more disrespectful, particularly the way Hogan did it, which was to basically call it stupid and the fans of TNA stupid for liking it. At least destroying it in an angle would show that Hogan and Bischoff are willing to pay some lip service to traditional TNA fans. Demolishing it would have been a sign of respect, saying that they want it gone, but are willing to at least make its exit part of the show rather than a footnote.

High Road:

I think the new ring and the whole stage looks way better than the old stage. I would say that the new stage and ring looks more professional. If you want to compete with the WWE, you have to start looking more professional and the new stage does that.

Low Road:

It already looked professional. Copying WCW circa 1993 isn’t looking more professional, it’s looking like no one in charge has actually progressed into the 21st century. You can be different and look professional, which TNA’s ring accomplished. I agree that the entrance ramp needed to be updated, but the ring was fine. Also, the ramp to the ring doesn’t look professional, it looks gimmicky and lame.

High Road:

While it was a good thing for TNA to get rid of the six sided ring, it does not mean that we will never see that ring again. I am kind of hoping that TNA brings it back once a year at a pay per view. I think that would be really interesting to see and it could potentially help TNA’s buy rate for that pay per view.

Low Road:

That would be turning the six-sided ring into a gimmick and somewhat disrespectful to fans. This isn’t a hell in a cell cage or an elimination chamber, it’s a six-sided ring, which, while different from the traditional ring, isn’t distinct enough to carry a PPV on its own beyond some vague sense of nostalgia. While appealing to traditionalists, if the ring is as off-putting as you claim, it would possibly turn off all of the fans drawn in by the four-sided ring.

Are you taking the High Road or the Low Road?

High Road
Low Road
Both Roads
OR

Simply write “High Road”, “Low Road”, or “Both Roads” in the comment section.

E-Mails:

These are all of the e-mails that we received this week. We do not respond to the actual e-mail, but the reply to your e-mail will be below.

Terry Writes:

I liked the concept of the ECW Homecoming, but I didn’t like the end result. Jackson, to me, is not the best choice for a Championship match with Christian. So, high road for the premise, but low road for the result.

Sat: Is Jackson the best choice to win? No, but I think it was still a very good choice by the WWE.

Chad Nevett: I’m not too high on Jackson, if only because he hasn’t improved over the past year as you’d want, but it could have been worse.

Comments:

Below are the comments for last week’s columns and our responses. Every comment will not be included because it makes our lives a lot easier. The comments section was last looked at on Sunday Evening Pacific Time.

HBK’s Smile Writes:

I’ll go with both roads. The presence of former ECW wrestlers simultaneously makes ECW more intriguing in the short-term while highlighting the lack of talent and name-power regularly on the brand, leading to pessimism regarding its long-term prospects. Barring an extremely compelling end to this angle, few viewers who watch for Punk, Hardy, or whomever, will stick around once this plays out.

Sat: That is a good point and one of the things that I agree is a negative for the ECW Homecoming.

Chad Nevett: I think the use of talent from other brands worked well when they were used to put over ECW talent. You couldn’t do that with everyone, but Yoshi Tatsu certainly got a rub from beating Jack Swagger.

Hardy was a babyface in the WWE until the summer of 09, when CM Punk made him THE babyface in the WWE. He doesn’t have that status in TNA and it appears they don’t care to give it to him.

As for the ECW Homecoming: Both roads. If there is anyone that could carry Zeke to a watchable match it would be either Christian, Jericho, or Michaels. It is also good that the ECW guy won the chance.. I know everyone would love to see Christian v Punk, but that won’t help ECW long term (and hopefully we will see it on Smackdown later this year for the WHT).
On the flip side they buried a good portion of the current ECW roster to have the “graduates” show up…. and the ratings didn’t do much better than before. If you wanted ECW’s ratings to really go up, have the current top stars that were in the Original ECW stop in. You don’t have to change the format of the show or make it “hardcore” but if you promote Jericho and Mysterio for a show or two you will get people to watch it… put on some excellent matches with the current crop like a Ryder-Tatsu match, and you have the chance of keeping some of the viewers you gained.

Sat: I agree that Christian can carry Zeke to a good match. And I don’t think promoting Jericho and Mysterio would have that big of an effect on the ratings. The only way I see the ratings going up is if one of the huge stars makes an appearance.

Chad Nevett: Well, that was one of my negatives: I didn’t think the non-Homecoming matches during this promotion/angle were up to the usual ECW standard. The show usually puts on some very good matches, but it was weaker the past few weeks.

Michael Bauer Writes:

High Road

Yes, this is coming from the guy who recaps this stuff.

Sat: I think Michael’s view is very valuable because he has been watching ECW from the very beginning, so he knows the good stuff and the bad stuff that has been on the show.

Chad Nevett: This comment made me laugh for some reason. But, if Bauer says it’s good, who am I to disagree?

The Gold Standard Writes:

Low Road. Good on paper, bad execution. The ECW Homecoming was confusing in my eyes because I couldn’t understand if they were giving past ECW stars(as well as former champs) a shot or the new crop of stars. Then I hated the fact a guy like Kane eliminated Ryder from it as I feel hes part of the very little title contenders ECW has. I’m glad at the outcome of Jackson winning as I like him but I would have rathered seen Ryder, Benjamin or Tatsu dethrone Christian title reign.

Sat: Ryder was one of those guys that should have been in the battle royal, but I think Kane was put in there, so Jackson could eliminate him last which would be a big thing.

Chad Nevett: I think Ryder being involved in the ‘retirement’ of Tommy Dreamer was a big thing and made up for not being in the battle royal.

Deathpool Writes:

Low road. Its a lot like the Jeff Hardy to TNA situation a week ago. A good idea that was botched in its execution. Like Chad I was confused as to why they’d combine the idea of a tournament and a battle royal into one. I initially liked the idea, as it was giving guys like Kane and CM Punk something to do while they’re treading water before the royal rumble.

If they knew this is where they were going with it, they should have just hyped up doing a rumble-style battle royal on ECW one night, with the winner getting a shot at the title. 10-15 guys max so that its not longer than a half hour or so, it would have been the perfect way to crown a contender and help promote the main rumble a bit.

Sat: This would have been a great idea and it probably would have helped the ratings if it was promoted properly.

Chad Nevett: I really hate tournaments that end in battle royals. One area where TNA has it all over the WWE is how they do tournaments on their shows where they devote an entire episode to the tournament, which makes it look bigger and mean more when the winner had to defeat three people in a single night.

The Great Captain Smooth Writes:

Both roads. High, because it’s a great idea and it gives the ECW fans a chance to see wrestlers they haven’t seen in a while. Low, because I don’t know if Zeke is quite ready to wrestle for a title yet. Goldust has been very over and he deserves a chance at the belt.

Sat: The problem with Goldust is that he is a bit of a goof and he should be nowhere near a title.

Chad Nevett: Yeah, Goldust getting the shot would have been far worse. And I like Goldust. He’s a great worker and can deliver good matches, but his role is help train and get over younger talent at this point. Taking him out of that role would be a mistake.

ROH Commish Writes:

High Road.

Good victory for Zeke and brings Regal back to the title picture. I think Regal could turn on Zeke soon albeit for title or not.

Zeke became a viable contender because of this and it is a fresh and new opponent. Zeke and Christian haven’t had any single matches together ever.

This angle has righted the ship after the ECW title picture fell apart when Regal didn’t win when he should have. Benjamin v Christian meant nothing and there was no build.

With this we get a new contender and 2 weeks to build a feud. Plus, if any raw or sd guy won, everyone would know Christian would be retaining at Rumble.

Sat: The ECW title picture has been a definite wreck and it is nice to see it maybe stabilize.

Chad Nevett: This has brought some attention to the ECW title, which is good, and, hopefully, they use the next two episodes before the Rumble to build this right.

Guest#0715 Writes:

Low Road

Positives:
– Semi-fresh faces on a show with a small roster
– Highlights wrestlers who did well after graduating from ECW

Negatives:
– Accentuates the fact that ECW is a finishing school.
– Regarding the format: I didn’t mind the qualification matches. But a mini battle royal? That’s about as uncreative as you can get.
– It felt like WWE was testing the waters to see if a mutibrand show (like Superstars) would work in that timeslot. In essence: the beginning of the end of the new ECW.

Sat: The testing the waters for a multibrand show at that time slot had not occurred to me and I think you might be on to something.

Chad Nevett: I don’t see ‘Accentuates the fact that ECW is a finishing school’ as a negative. I think that should be the focus of the show/brand. This is where you see future superstars as they work their asses off to make it in the WWE. That idea appeals to me a lot.

Guest#5445 Writes:

Low Road
It had a great, long buildup which made it feel like it actually mattered, an achievement not just for an ECW match but for any match, but I hated the match itself. Despite having more wrestling ability in his little finger than both participants in the current WWE title picture Evan Bourne was made to look like a joke again for no reason. He could have had an excellent match with Christian, he would have been no more or less over than the winner and he would have definitely benefited from the opportunity. Meanwhile at the end of the homecoming match the previously hot crowd seemed to significantly die down when it came down to just Kane and Jackson, and then after a half-hearted Kane chant the crowd went totally dead when Jackson won. I’m pretty sure the crowd would have slowly warmed to a Christian vs Bourne matched due to Bourne’s eye-catching offence, just as I’m pretty sure the crowd will remain dead for however many boring minutes Christian vs Jackson will be. Christian is a great worker I just don’t think anyone’s capable of carrying Jackson to a decent match.

Sat: The one thing that I am wondering is that it might be have been a smart move to go with Bourne/Christian at the Rumble and then Christian/Jackson at No Way Out.

Chad Nevett: I’m not convinced about Bourne as Christian has had a lot of title defenses against young faces where it was about respect and ‘putting on a good show.’ That’s a refreshing change of pace, but it doesn’t build him as a strong champion worth cheering for. It would feel too much like his match against Tatsu once again.

JLAJRC Writes:

Low Road due to the poor execution. I’m personally tired of #1 contenders being decided by a battle royale. If they had just stuck to the tournament, it might had been interesting.
Also, Ezekial Jackson? He’s even less over then the man he beat, Koslov.

Would it had honestly hurt them to have put the title on Shelton Benjamin and then do a rematch at the Rumble?

Sat: I don’t know about everybody else, but I am digging Jackson more than Kozlov.

Chad Nevett: Yeah, I like Jackson more than Kozlov who hasn’t improved nearly as much as he should have given his monster push on Smackdown in 2008.

TWITTER

http://www.twitter.com/411mania
http://www.twitter.com/411wrestling
http://www.twitter.com/411moviestv
http://www.twitter.com/411music
http://www.twitter.com/411games
http://www.twitter.com/411mma
http://www.twitter.com/satuncletrunx
http://www.twitter.com/cnevett

Your reasons for taking the High Road, Low Road, or Both Roads and suggestions for future High Road/Low Road are welcome at [email protected] or in the comment section. Your reply will be included in next week’s column.