From theminister on 10/13/08 10:00 AM

Agreed. I didn't get to see the show (fortunately!!!) but when I heard that Sting won again I was bitterly disappointed. Just think Sting signed on thru 2009 so you'll get to see this again next year.

From jeff on 10/13/08 10:42 AM

I agree as well. Unfortunely I was one of the unlucky ones who saw Bound For Glory. Lucky I saw it for free. To me this was the worst Bound For Glory TNA has had yet. There wasn't one five star match and there were alot of bad matches. This didn't feel like a Wrestlemaina type pay-per-view it just felt like another pay-per-view. If the crowd wasn't so hot then this pay-per-view would have totally bombed.

From FLCchampRUSH on 10/13/08 11:51 AM

... I smell a buyout soon... WWE/TNA 2011!!

From bpapa on 10/13/08 12:37 PM

I barely watch TNA but is this really a big deal? From far away it didn't seem like Joe was setting the world on fire with his title reign. With Sting as champ they can do Sting vs. Jarrett for the title, although how funny is it that they will have that feud where Sting is the heel and Jarrett is the face?

From SirWilliam on 10/13/08 4:04 PM

Do you really want to see another Sting vs Jarret fued? Personally, I don't. And I'm not mad at the fact that Joe lost the title, but to Sting for the third straight row??? It's just getting annoying. I would have much, MUCH rather had Joe put on a clinic with Styles with Styles getting the title. What a moment that would have been. But Sting getting the title again is not a moment, and it seems fairly pointless to me.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Sting. But TNA is doing some horrid booking.

From SirWilliam on 10/13/08 4:08 PM

and ALSO, if you watched the same video as I did about Bound For Glory, Jarret claimed that something that would shock the wrestling world would take place at that event. Can you tell me where this occured? Did Nash interferring shock the world?? I mean honestly, who DIDN'T see that comming??

From theminister on 10/13/08 7:25 PM

You nailed it SirWilliam. It's not that Joe lost the title, it's who he lost the title to. Guys like Cage, AJ, or even Angle I can understand, but Sting???

TNA's booking is lousy. The WWE's booking has been average at best recently but TNA makes the WWE look like geniuses.

C'mon bpapa, Sting v. Jarrett? That was from 2006 and it wasn't that good then.

From DaneBramage on 10/14/08 7:39 AM

Apart from the last few minutes with Sting winning the title, this was easily the best pay-per view of the year so far, TNA or WWE. All of the men's matches were good, and the knockouts matches were watchable. The multiman gimmick matches were very good, they're probably the things TNA do best. If only Joe hadn't lost the belt to Sting though, it would have been even better. In fact it's not even that he lost it, it's the way he did with the interference spoiling a perfectly good match.

From theone86 on 10/14/08 8:35 AM

Alright, looks like I'm going to have to play devil's advocate AGAIN.

I will say that I'm not very interested in a Nash/Joe feud. I wouldn't mind a established wrestlers stable lashing out aginst the younger guns, maybe an NWO reunion in the form of a new Wolfpack (Sting, Nash, and either Booker, Steiner, or both, although four probably is pushing it), but Joe vs. Nash on its own doesn't really intrigue me.

Now Joe. He had a very respectable reign at 182 days, about 6 months, that's no short reign. The only people in recent memory to do that are Angle and Jarrett, not even Cage lasted that long. In fact, you'd probably have to go back before Rhino and Killings' runs (I'm too lazy to do that right now) to find someone other than Angle or Jarrett who's held the Title that long. World Title reigns in this period should probably be lasting anywhere from 3-12 months anyways, with the extremes being the exception adn not the rule, so Joe's run is a very respectable run when put in perspective. By contrast, Sting's last two reigns lasted one month and two days, respectably.

Now AJ. Might I remind you that he IS a three-time World Champion in TNA and is one of, if not the, most decorated wrestler in TNA history. He's already accomplished a lot, and he hasn't dropped in status. He's still working main event programs. It's not like he's being buried. Now, would I like to see a Joe/AJ feud for the Title? Hell yes, but that doesn't mean I'm going to get pissed off just because it doesn't happen RIGHT now. AJ just finished a feud with Kurt Angle which ended less than two weeks before Bound for Glory I believe. Is that any time to thrust someone into a main event program? No, main event programs need a good build. Joe and AJ are young and there will PLENTY of time to do an ongoing feud between the two.

Now Cage. Cage, I think, has the best argument for getting a Title run. That being said, what claim does he have to deserving it more than Sting? He's done very little mid card work in comparison to Joe and AJ, and guys like Jarrett, Sting, Angle, and even Nash have been willing to put over and help younger guys. He doesn't have that surge of popularity he had when he first came in, either, as compared to Sting who reportedly gets some of the biggest pops from the crowd among anyone. I like Cage as performer, but I don't mind seeing him wait a little while for a guy like Sting.

Now I'm at the part where I'm going to get the most flak, the double standard. I have said in the past, and continue to assert, that there's a clear WWE double-standard. No one ever says crap about Triple H being Champion. Why should someone who's held the Title as much as him get the nod over Jeff? What about Jericho, isn't he, "past his prime?" Does anyone ever say that Shawn Michaels wins too much at Wrestlemania, and would the people criticizing Sting say John Cena has won too many times at WWE's biggest show of the year? Would anyone have disagreed with giving Flair one last shot at the Title, or doing the smae for Michaels when he returns? So why is it such a big deal for Sting? Sting has the most legitimate claim to being a legend as anyone who's ever wrestled full-time in TNA, so why shouldn't he be winless at BFG? Undertaker debuted a year before Sting, and he's won at 16 straight Wrestlemanias, you're getting bent out of shape because Sting won at three Bound for Glories? The fact is that Sting has done a lot for this business, has never hesitated to put anyone over, and he deserves this recognition. He's done a lot for TNA and TNA repays him with this, the same way WWE repays Taker with a win streak and Triple H with his Title reigns.

From jeff on 10/14/08 10:24 AM

DaneBramage what the hell were you watching. That comment you made with Bound For Glory being the best pay-per-view of the year is totally wrong. This has to be the worst Bound For Glory i've seen. Nearly every wwe pay-per-view produced this year was better than Bound For Glory. Not even the last two matches were good enough to make the pay-per-view a enjoyable experience.

From willierko on 10/14/08 7:15 PM

*clears throat* Theone86: where have you been? Dude I'm the only one on here that calls triple H ot on his bullshit, yet you claim no body does. I've written not one, not two, but three blogs over the past few months with my distaste for Triple H's title run to his backstage politics and his lack of not being able to PUT ANYONE OVER !!

I've said this before and I'll say it again : I can not find myself being emotionally invested in TNA, I haven't since Daniels' last run as the fallen angel. With the WWE its different. I see myself caring for the Y2J-HBK Rivalry, I care for Jeff Hardy trying to get his hands on the WWE title, and I care for Matt Hardy trying to hold on to the ECW Title. I also even care about CM Punk getting his hands on Randy Orton for costing him the World Title.

For me its simple : I do not care for TNA.

From jeff on 10/14/08 11:22 PM

theone86 again your argument about the wwe is wrong.

The reason no one is complaining about Chris Jericho having the World title is because Jericho deserves it. Jericho hasn't a World title in a LONG time therefore no one doesn't have any problem with Jericho winning the title.

The reason alot of people aren't complaining about Triple H's title reign is because he hasn't had a World title reign since 2005. Do I think Triple H has had too many title reigns yes I do, but Triple H at least took a break from being in the title picture for abot 4 years. And Shawn Michaels hasn't won that many wrestlemania's.

As for Sting he barely goes on the road and he is only used everytime Bound For Glory comes around. Winning three Bound For Glory's three times in a row is ridiculous. Sting should have jobbed to Samoa Joe. I don't mind Joe losing the title against, but Joe should have lost to someone who is a hardworker andd really deserves a title reign.

From theone86 on 10/15/08 3:28 AM

Willerko: Alright, I just don't remember your Triple H blogs. The fact still stands for everyone else.

Still, how long can one guy hold onto a Title and keep people emotionally invested? I don't mind seeing Joe take a break and then chasing against another heel again.

I won't argue that Jericho doesn't deserve it, I won't argue that Triple H doesn't deserve it, but I also will argue that Sting deserves it. I don't know why he isn't getting the same kind of respect as guys like Taker or Michaels. He's done just as much for the industry, been just as big, if not bigger, of a star as them in WCW, and he's worked hard his entire career, not to mention been totally willing to job for the likes of Abyss, Christian, and others in order to put them over. It's rumored this is his final run, so I wouldn't be surprised of this was a last hoorah run like Terry Funk's in ECW.

And again, does anyone ever complain about Undertaker's streak? Let's face it, no one thinks of Bound For Glory as being as big as Mania. TNA needs a history to build it up, and what better way of doing that than having your biggest legend develop a win streak there? Sting winning gives the event prestige, just like calling Michaels Mr. Wrestlemania and giving Taker a win streak gives Mania prestige. If we were talking about Kevin Nash, I'd be on your side, but we're not, we're talking about the Icon Sting.

From theminister on 10/16/08 2:06 PM

I complained about Undertaker's streak in one of Willierko's Triple H Blogs. But we can't compare Taker and Sting. Taker is a guy who has worked for the WWE consistently for nearly 20 years. His WM streak (although ridiculous in my opinion) is legitimized by the fact that Taker works all the time all year round for the WWE. Sting shows up for BFG and wins, loses the title a few days or weeks later and we don't see him again until it's time to build up to the next BFG.

BFG is TNA's biggest PPV and should be a showcase for guys like AJ, Joe, Daniels, Cage etc. Guys who work hard all year should be rewarded with getting a big match at the Big Show. Instead TNA has made BFG Sting's showcase. To their credit the WWE has made their biggest PPV Wrestlemania the place where young stars have made their career. Randy Savage, Ultimate Warrior, HBK, Stone Cold, Batista, Cena, Mysterio and Benoit all won their first WWE World Title at Mania. Other stars like Lesnar and Triple H have won the gold at Mania. And guys like Slaughter, Flair, Sid, Booker T, JBL, Eddie, Edge, Orton, Angle etc have been in World Title Matches at Mania. Despite Taker's streak, others have gotten the oppotunity to showcase their talents in main event matches. This is not happening in TNA and that's the problem.