I stick to my bucket hat-hoodie-jeans ensemble more often than not.

Actually, it was widely popular, and it was canceled in spite of a petition by the show's fans to keep it on the air. Which sort of defies all logic. Evidently, there is a TV producing bigwig out there with a poor sense of business smarts and an axe to grind.

Someone sounds frustrated with the fact that I'm actually making a lot more sense at this point...LoL...

There was nothing even remotely defensive about my post, as you seem to think. I'm merely sitting here responding to your posts rationally.

And if the statement "grown men dressed in speedos and ballerina tights sticking their manly parts in each others faces" doesn't strike you as implying an element of homosexuality than perhaps I'm wasting my time even offering a response to your rambling prose to begin with. And if you'd take the time to actually read my post per verbatim instead of skimming it, you'd understand that I wasn't insulting homosexuals.

I could care less what you do or don't believe. I'm merely offering food for thought, not trying to alter your opinion. You, on the other hand, have returned to this topic after stating that you were going to leave it to the wrestling fans to discuss...apparently, you cannot handle losing an argument anymore than you can accept the fact that there might be one or two people in existence on the planet with more knowledge on a particular subject than you.

I'll leave you to no doubt misinterpret that however you prefer.

We obviously make the distinction, and I have said it again and again. Yes, it is predetermined, yes it is cooperative. But there are elements of the industry that are all too real.

If it's utterly fake and utterly a sham, why then are ninety percent of the world's wrestlers addicted to painkillers?

You cannot deny that a professional wrestler has to be in good shape to do what he or she does. Therefore it is a sport, regardless of whether or not what plays out on TV is planned months in advance.

Why, what's wrong with yahoo?

You just described mixed martial arts (save for the part about predetermined results). There is nothing more suggestive as it relates to male homosexuality than watching one man dominate another in a full mount position. By your definition, mma is neither a sport, nor is it manly. And yet the practitioners thereof can break wood and ice and all manner of substances with a strike and are capable of rendering a human being incapable of walking and in need of medical treatment (if not a coroner) within seconds.

Doesn't get much more manly than that.

Naw man, Steiner left TNA last year. I hear he wrestles primarily in Puerto Rico right now.

True, and I'm well aware. It was more of a rhetorical question. I was alluding to the hypocrisy that one is perfectly acceptable while the other is completely objectionable.

Exactly.

And while I'm on a tangent, I just had another thought. What is it with people's usage of the term "male soap opera"? Am I to conclude that a male soap opera is bogus and illegitimate, and anyone that partakes deserves the ridicle of the general populace? As opposed to a female soap opera, which somehow is acceptable despite being debatably more pretentious?

*GASP* What? Then it's true? My entire life is a lie...

Why do all non-wrestling fans equate all wrestling fans with semi-intelligent beings that drool and drink beer and cannot tell reality from what isn't real?

That stereotype isn't much different than saying all "southerners like country music" or "all gay people speak in high pitched voices and wear women's undergarments."

It would be like me accusing a movie goer of not having a firm grasp of reality because he or she enters the theater with the direct intention of suspending their sense of disbelief for the sake of their entertainment.

And you completely missed the point of my post. My point wasn't to argue the basis of what's real versus what is not. I was simply stating that there is a completely different aspect to wrestling that virtually all non-fans are completely ignorant of, and that is the presence of numerous independent and foreign wrestling companies that have as much in common with WWE as oil has with water.

I'm no more into WWE than you or a lot of other people on here, yet I obviously label myself a wrestling fan. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that there is a great deal to do with wrestling that does not attract people whose favorite pasttime is sitting in front of their TV idly killing brain cells.

And no, I'm not referring to amateur wrestling.

It still saddens me that 99 percent of the general public equates WWE with what wrestling is. So we get "WWE isn't a sport" instead of "wrestling isn't a sport." WWE is a far cry from being all that pro wrestling is, I assure you. WWE, despite its visibility, is merely a fraction of the bigger picture.

You're wrong...in the opinion of this fan, WWE went to hell ten years ago, back when WCW and ECW died and the lack of competition caused the company to get lazy in its programming.

As for Nexus, there are actually a number of them who are pretty accomplished outside of WWE (and if WWE still has an ounce of brains creatively, they will be given their pushes, simple as that). Namely Bryan Daniel (totally insepid name, would you believe he was Bryan Danielson in ROH?) and Kaval, the latter of whom is unfortunately rapping (deep sigh).

Not exactly. There has been a degree of gimmickry in wrestling dating back to the late 19th century, but true gimmickry in wrestling began during the late 1910s and early 20s, when the first wrestling trusts were formed and started to take over the profession. Hell, one of the biggest names of that era was Jim Londos, who billed himself as "The Golden Greek." He was widely regarded as the Hulk Hogan of his day, as he was very gimmicky with less wrestling talent than most of his contemporaries.

That age of wrestling purists complained that using a closed fist bore no semblance to what wrestling should be...how ironic...in fact, there was a public outcry when "Strangler" Lewis used a closed fist to beat Stanislaus Zbyszko for the world title in 1922. Back then, pure wrestling fans griped that a true wrestling match was all holds, with no room for punches or kicks, or even bodyslams or dropkicks, seen as gimmicky maneuvers at the time. So I suppose every era has its own interpretation of gimmick...

The gimmickry I'm referring to however is the manner in which wrestling shows have become blatant talkfests in which wrestling (as this generation knows it) is on the backburner. I'm talking about 5 minute matches and 20-minute monologues, which is a relatively recent (and shameful) development.

I agree with the "too much talking etc" aspect. Although I reiterate that the quality of wrestling on TNA PPV can be compared favorably to the quality of wrestling from any era.

Loneliness, last year's court battle and cherries. Disgusting little red things.

Anyone else unhappy regarding the show's ultimate fate? I just polished off the second season, and I find myself kind of depressed that there won't be a third.

Merely two seasons? Are you f'n' kidding me??

Incidentally, when I was at the Fringe a couple months ago, there was this random person dressed in what looked like an authentic TDK suit. He was still too short to be the real Batman, however.

The best non-comic rendition of Batman is undoubtedly Batman: Arkham Asylum, a video game for xbox 360. The characters really come to life, and they obey their DC roots. Unlike Heath Ledger's Joker.

It's true that TNA's direction has kind of sucked of late...still, in terms of wrestling action, it far outstrips WWE. Just don't expect many good matches on free TV; good televised wrestling is virtually extinct, regardless of the company. PPV, that is the way to go.