If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact

Portrayal of Samoa Joe.

  • 06-02-2016 12:01am
    Registered Users Posts: 95 ✭✭

    Referencing Joe's TNA run here more so than his current NXT run, but does anyone think he has been portrayed as a bit too much of a monster compared to what his stature and presence makes one believe he is capable of?

    I wasn't a huge follower of TNA but did tune in every now and again between 2008 and maybe early 2010. One story line that particularly annoyed me was his "Nation of Violence" run where he took out the Main Event Mafia.

    Watching him completely dominate Nash (Sacrifice 09 I think) and Steiner in matches really bugged me given that anyone can tell in a shoot fight those guys would probably hand him his ass on a platter. Despite their age those two still had good, imposing physiques (not to mention Nash had about a foot on him.) while Joe had become extremely overweight. Let me be very clear I had no issue with him beating those guys, but it was the manner in which he completely physically dominated them that just didn't sit right with me. I think Nash was portrayed poorly in TNA in general as they never really got his "big man" demeanor across like WWE and WCW did, but that's another discussion.


  • Registered Users Posts: 45,552 ✭✭✭✭Mr.Nice Guy

    I zoned out of TNA around this time. Was that when he wore that tattoo on his face?

    He was brilliant in '05, '06 and one of the few reasons I used to watch TNA then. I could definitely buy him as a big threat back then and I felt he did well holding his own against Angle at that time, who was one of the hottest acts in wrestling when he first arrived in TNA.

    I can't speak too much about the period in question but at that time Nash and Steiner would have been pushing fifty whilst Joe would have been late twenties, i.e. his peak. Frankly Joe should have been dominating those guys. He should have been way bigger for TNA than he was.

    Put it this way. Joe was to TNA for a time what Roman Reigns is to WWE. Do you think WWE would bring in near fifty-something part-timers and allow them have a competitive match with Reigns?

    The only exception is Hunter who is a few years off that, as well as obviously playing by different rules.

  • Registered Users Posts: 95 ✭✭FERGAL7

    Yes it's the period when he was wearing the tattoo on his face. His matches with Angle were good, but in my eyes anything Angle does is gold!

    I appreciate the sentiment but i think him and Reigns are somewhat different situations. Firstly in my view Reigns is booked too strong. Sheamus, Del Rio, Barrett and Rusev (3 out of 4 of them former WC's) are routinely jobbing to Reigns, sometimes all four of them at once! In my eyes that's bad booking. Does WWE intend to never present any of these guys as credible threats to the main event scene again? In my view they're all a bit too good to be permanent mid carders and with Barrett a legitimate run as a heel champ is something that can be done that hasn't been done before. While an argument could be made that the three former champs had their run, WWE are seriously damaging Rusev's character.

    I appreciate at the time the two guys were much older than Joe, but that he dominated them so decisively was I thought a bit much. look at Big Show vs Reigns, Kane vs Rollins etc, examples of WWE putting the younger guy over while not making the older guy look like a bitch.