High Road/Low Road 01.22.10: Getting Rid Of The Six Sided Ring
Posted by Chad Nevett on 01.22.2010
In this week's edition of the High Road/Low Road, we discuss TNA getting rid of the six sided ring. Was this a necessary move or a huge mistake? Find out what we have to say inside.
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.
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.
Your reasons for taking the High Road, Low Road, or Both Roads and suggestions for future High Road/Low Road are welcome at satuncletrunx@gmail.com or in the comment section. Your reply will be included in next week's column.
Low Road. It was their niche. You want fast action with a 6-sided ring, you can only find that in TNA. Now it's gone. Low all the way.
Posted By: Tony (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 12:21 PM
Low Road. The ring helped differentiate TNA from WWE, and the manner that Hogan treated its exit and the fan reaction to its exit was disrespectful to both the company and its fans. TNA doesn't need to be WWE Lite to succeed, it needs to have its own unique identity, and like the ring or not, it was definitely a unique trait to TNA in the US wrestling scene.
Posted By: Steffjonesy (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 12:24 PM
Both Roads.
The ring change made no difference on the amount of space outside the ring. There is still not enough space to do more than one move or so.
With the 6 sided rings, all suicide dives went to the front side where the ramp came down. No variety whatsoever.
Part of the thing that set WWE and WCW apart was WWE's great use of the ring surroundings including announcer table bumps.
TNA has a reasonable hardcore roster and the ring setup doesn't enhance that aspect. The backstage brawls of TNA are shitty and most of the big spots happen on the entrance ramp.
Posted By: ROH Commish (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 12:56 PM
Low Road. I liked the six sided ring. It did keep them seperate from the other guys.
Also, they used a four sider until about May of '04...not since the "inception" :)
Posted By: James E (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 12:58 PM
Low road. Getting rid of the ring to fix TNA is like clipping a hang nail when your achilles tendon is severed.
Posted By: Jaime (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 01:00 PM
High Road....I never was a big fan of it but if it is used from time to time it could be good...maybe hkeep the lockdown ppv using the six sided ring
Posted By: xtopnotchx (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 01:01 PM
Low road.
Hogan with one terrible speech essentially buried TNA and its fans.
Removing the six sided ring and especially the way it was done sends only one message to the fans: If you've enjoyed TNA until this point, you suck.
Posted By: Guest#9637 (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 01:07 PM
Look, it's been eight years now, and they STILL need to distinguish their product from the "sports entertainment" we're used to. Do I even need to explain why the ring switching back to four sides is a step backwards?
This is going to help TNA about as much as the Nasty Boys.
Low road.
Posted By: KanyonKreist (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 01:27 PM
Both Roads. I'll miss the ring but not the ramp. The Ramp is a lot better for guys taking bumps, but the loss of the ring will take a bit away from TNA's identity.
Personally, the 6 sides will stand as symbol of Hogan/Easy E's vision for TNA. Should they fail to take TNA to the big time, the ring will symbolize their failure. If they DO make it, no one will question them, in fact the ring will probably be lauded as what brought about the change.
Posted By: Hoodoo91 (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 01:38 PM
"Low road.
Hogan with one terrible speech essentially buried TNA and its fans.
Removing the six sided ring and especially the way it was done sends only one message to the fans: If you've enjoyed TNA until this point, you suck.
Posted By: Guest#9637 (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 01:07 PM"
This!
It's pretty apparant that Hogan (and maybe even long-time TNA management) doesn't think highly of it's fanbase. Basically telling people that they're going to make changes, even if it isn't popular with the long-time fans (who have supported the product over the years) is pretty insulting.
Telling the audience in the Impact Zone to behave, saying they want to get out of the Impact Zone and wanting to do away with house shows, even temporarily, tells me that they want to minimize and control fan critizism. It looks to me that Hogan & Co. want to get the WWE fanbase and going back to the four sided ring is one way to do this.
Another thing that has me thinking are comments from people saying that the six sided ring was eliminated was because the old guys, coming in, can't work with it. Ugh, more WWE-style slow motion wrestling.
Hogan wants TNA to an alternative to the WWE, but not a different alternative.
Posted By: mogamer (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 01:44 PM
High Road. The traditional four-sided ring is what pretty much every wrestler trains in, and having to make them adjust to a non-traditional ring that has less space to work in just for the sake of "being different than WWE" is ridiculous. The six-sided ring was a gimmick and nothing more, and now that the gimmick's run its course, it's time for TNA to go back to what works - in this case, the four-sided ring - and get their shit together booking-wise.
Posted By: Anonymous Smart Mark (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 01:48 PM
Both Roads, but driving on the Low side.
Both, because if this is what distinguishes you from the competition then you have a lot more work to do.
Since the X-Division has been de-emphasize lately, getting rid of the old ring means less.
Low, and a big one, because of the manner in which the change was sold. There were many ways Hogan could have explained the change. He decided on one of the more alienating ways. Yes, TNA needs to appeal to more than the regulars in the Impact Zone. But loyal customers are the corner stone of any business.
Low again because of what Hogan cutting a promo on the ring and fans implies about his attitude and salesmanship. It reeks of "they'll like what I tell them to like", which is never good.
Posted By: Guest#6063 (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 01:50 PM
Ok, the issue at hand is: the removal of the six sided ring, not whether I like the six sided ring.
I do like that ring a lot, but given the circumstances, I'll say it was the right thing to do.
High Road
Positives:
- The 4-sided ring (and ramp) should appeal to wrestling traditionalists.
- The 6-sided ring was most helpful to the X-division, which TNA (and Hogan) has been de-emphasizing, despite the addition of Hardy.
- A 4-sided ring seems to be more friendly to heavyweights: more springy and perhaps softer. It's like when WWF used the big blue cage instead of a chain-link cage. It catered to heavy guys.
- From a TV production standpoint, I think a 4-sided ring is easier to shoot. There have been times where shots inside the 6-sided ring were kind of disorienting.
- It may help with sponsorship deals. Potential advertisers look at what works. WWE draws millions of viewers and has a 4-sided ring. Advertisers may want TNA to do the same.
- It makes it ok when one of the veterans cuts a promo and uses the phrase "squared-circle." Just kidding.
Negatives:
- This takes away a big part of TNA's identity.
- Likely spells the end of "Six Sides of Steel."
- The replacement was unceremonious. I'm not saying we should have seen Hogan take it down with a chainsaw or anything like that. But a spot like Lesnar superplexing Big Show to destroy the ring would have made for a cool visual. Or maybe, TNA could have hatched its own version of the Inferno Match and the ring could have caught fire. Even an old-school vs new-school match to determine the fate of the ring would have made things interesting.
Posted By: Guest#2100 (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 01:56 PM
Low Road.
Everyone talksa bout wanting alternatives. This was an alternative and it is now gone. I wouldn't want every wrestling company to go to it but I would like to have some use it.
Posted By: Comment Board Poster (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 02:00 PM
High Road x 10000000
Posted By: Joe (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 02:04 PM
LOW ROAD
Posted By: Nastee (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 02:20 PM
I haven't seen the new ring yet-- but as long as it's not another giant ad then I call it a win... if it is, they changed the wrong thing.
Posted By: Guest#0842 (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 02:57 PM
High Road for TNA,Low Road for TNA Originals and Long Term fans such as myself.The 6 sided ring was one of the first things I noticed about TNA when I started watching it on the Fox Sport channel or whatever channel it used to be on before Spike and it made them different than other federations which I liked.I feel like all these changes that are bound to happen, TNA assumes for the better but really they were already good just needed better bookers.In the end I believe TNA will succeed although lose a lot of loyal fans with the changes.They need to stop worrying about the haters (cause they will always hate regardless) and WWE and start worrying about not only their own product but be more of a difference than an alternative for Ex WWE guys.Exception to Pope cause WWE really missed the ball with him.
Posted By: The Gold Standard (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 03:39 PM
I'm going with Both Roads.
I actually believe this to be part of a storyline similar to the MEM angle. Hogan/Bischoff come in and start changing a bunch of stuff. The older wrestlers come in and hog the spotlight. Heck, I'd even expect to see some of these guys winning titles.
And eventually - Jarrett, Daniels, Joe - all of the TNA originals will start to fight back. And eventually, you will see the company revert back to the 6 sided ring.
Even if this is not part of a storyline and is permanent - I don't think that it matters that much. Good wrestlers are good, bad wrestlers are bad - and the ring doesn't matter that much.
It may improve upon TNA's tendency to miss things outside of the ring. With the ramp on one side - there are only three sides (two corners) for which the cameramen have to watch out. With the 6-sided ring, there was a tendency to miss something happening right around the corner (and there were more corners).
One thing though - the ring is way too small. The faster wrestlers have less room to work with and that may reduce the impact some of their speed moves will have (one step of momentum vs. two or three steps - visually it makes a big difference when measuring the "impact" of a speed move).
Posted By: SpankyHamm (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 03:41 PM
Low Road.
Posted By: Guest#3025 (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 03:47 PM
The shape of the ring has nothing to do with how tight the ropes are, as far as springing off of them. They get tightened at the turnbuckles, regardless of the shape, and can be tighter or looser as desired.
Plus, the Six Sided Ring bumps a lot harder than a four, due to the nature of it's construction. And as we all know, softer bumps means less injuries. Plus it appears as if the ring is a twenty footer, four feet smaller than the WWE ring, making the in ring pace seem quicker because less distance is covered.
Posted By: supa sta (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 03:52 PM
Bloody F*cking low road!! without a shadow of a doubt!
Posted By: Guest#1338 (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 03:55 PM
100% Low Road
The six sided ring was the one thing that got me give TNA a look as something different than the WWE. Taking that away now makes them look totally inferior to the WWE as just another lower federation.
Posted By: Tower of Bauer (Registered) on January 22, 2010 at 04:22 PM
Both roads. High, because the ring never made much of a difference. Low, because it was their "thing". I just hope they don't try a 3-sided ring.
Posted By: The Great Capt. Smooth (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 04:25 PM
I think TNA looks a lot better with a 4 sided ring. Two extra sides does not really mean anything and is unnecessary. Also, it's not the ring that makes the promotion, it's the people they put in it. Four sided or six sided I don't care to see The Nasty Boys, Nash, Foley or Hall. These old washed up has beens are taking camera time away from the people who can actually wrestle and contribute.
Posted By: kolop1 (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 05:01 PM
High road.
There's plenty of ways to be different from WWE other than using a different ring.
Posted By: Guest#9153 (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 05:02 PM
Low Road.
Posted By: y2jdingo (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 05:11 PM
High Road.
The six sided ring was a gimmick. All gimmicks eventually run their course.
If people are complaining about them getting rid of the ring, then they have no right to bitch about all the other things going on TNA. Six sides, four sides. It is all the same when you got a company putting on such an inconsistent product that is more bad then good.
Posted By: Eboney (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 05:14 PM
LOW ROAD!!!
Posted By: Sean (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 05:44 PM
Low road.
Posted By: No (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 06:10 PM
Both roads. Simply because I don't see it as being strong enough to be a low road. But it's certainly not a high road. It's a tricky one that will ultimately only mean anything if they choose to make it so. Ultimately, two less sides to the ring makes very little difference to the product or the performances, but I will miss the hexagon.
Posted By: Cun\' (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 07:49 PM
Low Road.
Posted By: Guest#8978 (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 07:52 PM
Low Road. The 1 good thing about seeing the returns of Hogan, Flair, and etc was I was excited to see them wrestle in a 6 sided ring.
Hogan screwed that up, now I want him out and I'm going to cut down my TNA watching.
Posted By: Guest#9281 (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 07:55 PM
tna didnt use the 6 sided ring since there inception. they started when they got the fox sports net deal you nimrod! so going back to the regular ring is like going to there original state!!!!
Posted By: Guest#7194 (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 08:18 PM
Low road. I may have went both roads had Hogan not called the six sided ring a play pen. The way I see it though, the six sided ring made TNA original and in the wrestling industry, doing anything original is rare nowadays.
Posted By: Gozzo (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 08:21 PM
Low Road: TNA has nothing to differ itself from WWE.
Posted By: Guest#7360 (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 08:37 PM
High road to the actual idea of getting rid of the TNA ring. Gimmicks have their place, but are best used sparingly. The 6 sided ring is a gimmick and, thus, best used sparingly... time to go.
Low road to the question you didn't ask (ie the way they went about executing the change). If you are going to change a major part of your product, don't shit all over your fanbase in the process.
Posted By: Rubba the hate loofa (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 09:46 PM
high road
Posted By: big (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 10:40 PM
Low road.
Posted By: Joe Schmoe (Guest) on January 22, 2010 at 11:29 PM
No road.
this column sucks.
Posted By: The Fuj (Guest) on January 23, 2010 at 10:25 AM
"The Six Sided Ring has been a part of the TNA's identity since it's inception".
Er, no it hasn't. They used a 4 sided ring on the weekly PPV's
Posted By: Vince McArsehole (Guest) on January 23, 2010 at 03:24 PM
Both Roads.
It's High because it helped to separate it from the WWE.
It's low because it was the ONLY thing that set it apart from the WWE.
Posted By: JLAJRC (Guest) on January 23, 2010 at 04:33 PM
Both roads
Yes, the 6-sided ring was certainly different and original when compared to the WWE's presentation, but at the same time, the 6-sided ring will only stand out as much as the booking allows it to. For example, I'd rather watch AJ Styles vs. Daniels in a 4-sided ring than watch Team 3D vs. The Nasty Boys compete in the 6-sided ring.
Truth be told, a ***** match inside the 6-sided ring would probably still be a ***** inside a 4-sided ring. The only way TNA is truly going to differentiate themselves from the WWE is through good booking and proper utilization of talent.
Posted By: Tom (Guest) on January 23, 2010 at 07:34 PM
I've just finished watching the last Thursday's Impact, the first impact with the return of the four sided ring from the Asylum Era. The show doesn't seem to be affected from aspects of story telling or in ring action, which is where it really counts. However, I honestly think that the elimination of the Six Sided ring was a bad idea. The ring gave the show a very unique look, channel surfers would look at the ring and stop for a moment because they hadn't seen anything like that before. Uniqueness is what TNA needs in order to properly compete with WWE, and the must be as unique as possible.
Posted By: Mark (Guest) on January 23, 2010 at 07:35 PM
high road
Posted By: Legal Eagle (Guest) on January 23, 2010 at 07:53 PM
High Road
Every time I tried to watch TNA it was unbearable, I would tell Angry Bear every week, "I'll watch it when they get rid of that stupid ring" & now they have & I'll actually DVR it now. Do I like the NWO & the Nasty Boyz in TNA? No... but hopefully they are brought in as enhancement talent for the short term & then they move on. Nostalgia (the Hogan guys) plus tradition (the 4 sided ring) will make people tune in, I am, & I can't be the only one...
plus every match when a guy or knockout was thrown towards the ropes, they always looked over their shoulder & actually redirected their course because of that stupid 6 sided 'UFC' ring...
I wanted to like TNA, and now maybe I can... call me a traditionalist but that's how I feel. 6-sides sucked. Jeff Jarret should get off TV as well but that's another item all together.
Posted By: theHomewrecker! (Guest) on January 23, 2010 at 09:57 PM
Lowest of the low roads for a very, very simple reason. I will admit I don't watch a lot of TNA. With that said, everyone was afraid that Hogan would turn this to WCW, and ultimately destroy what the X-Division guys worked so hard to build. This sends just that message. The 4 sided ring, the ramp and entrance way, even the writing... all WCW reruns. If Hogan wanted the TNA fans to support him, he would leave the ring in place so that he can use the MCMGs and other great workers to keep people watching after his name brings them in. This is VINTAGE HOGAN and is low for that reason.
Posted By: Jon (Guest) on January 23, 2010 at 11:03 PM
Lowest of low roads. It's a symbolic representation that everything that TNA worked to build over the last seven/eight years is insignificant - one of the defining features that Joe Fan could point to in order to say that TNA is different from WWE; tossed away in an instant by an egomaniac who's repeatedly proven that he only cares about himself and his friends.
Posted By: Texas Kelly (Guest) on January 24, 2010 at 12:41 AM
The 4 sided ring is the playing field of the sport. How much sense would it make if I bought a baseball team and built them a field with 6 bases? UFC invented their own ring because they invented their own sport. It just looked so amateur that I couldn't bear to watch it no matter who was in the ring.
Posted By: Jay (Guest) on January 24, 2010 at 01:09 AM
Low Road
Officially TNA is as bad as WWE now.
Posted By: Creme Brulee (Guest) on January 24, 2010 at 08:41 AM
Low Road: To say what most others are saying, the 6 sided ring, while rough to get used to at first was really their niche, what made them different, now they are just any other also ran company
Posted By: Guest#1060 (Guest) on January 24, 2010 at 09:31 PM
Low, low...dear God, low.
Posted By: Glide (Guest) on January 25, 2010 at 07:04 PM
High Road
Posted By: Guest#7528 (Guest) on January 27, 2010 at 10:39 AM
Copyright (c) 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.
