This week's edition of Gimme Five follows a slightly different format; we're looking at true/false questions.

From TNA to Hulk Hogan to tag team wrestling to the reasons behind a feud, we bring you our thoughts in a novel sort of way.

Is it possible for something to be true and false? Apparently it is - read on to find out...

1) TNA is better to poach from ROH than to wait for WWE has-beens. True or false?

Leighton:
True. While some WWE cast-offs were hopelessly misused (Christian Cage) and are thus of value to TNA, most of them were let go because they were heatless and crap. Hiring these guys isn't going to make TNA a WWE 'alternative' at all, just a poor cousin. ROH wrestlers are the true alternative promotion, and it is by giving these guys wider exposure that TNA will find it's niche.

Matt:
False. If TNA was nothing but ROH poached talent it would have no draw. If it was all ex-WWE talent the draw would be off the hook. The only reason I watch TNA is for Angle. Christian, Steiner and co. I don't really give a white knuckle crap about their rostered "indy" talent.

Kirsty:
False, but not because the promotion is better with ex-WWE stars, but because they should be focussing on building the talent they already have, rather than always waiting for a slew of WWE releases to give themselves a big pop. There've been some great guys who've come out of ROH - Samoa Joe is a shining example - but TNA have a wealth of talent on their current roster, that they should be concentrating on building up.

Dion:
False. TNA needs to pick up WWE fans. You do that with WWE talent. Of course they need to nuture the future of wrestling, and poaching from ROH is essential to that. But I'm sure more viewers tuned in to TNA because of Kurt Angle than because of Austin Aries.

Simon:
True: In the sense that ROH peeps go a long way towards TNA establishing itself as its own deal, whereas picking up a WWE'er will always have that stigma/baggage. Of course the decent WWE-departees are actually carrying TNA. So, there is that too.

Ost:
True. At present, it feels like TNA has all the ex-WWE talent it needs. Possibly more than it needs, to be honest. At least with ROH talent they have the chance to create and own unique talent, which I’ve always felt a better way to attract new fans than by using people they’ve already seen and weren’t interested in.

2) Hulk Hogan will be at Wrestlemania 25. True or false?

Leighton:
True. If he's alive, he'll be there. Because he's Hulk Hogan. And because he's got a divorce and a huge personal injury lawsuit to pay for.

Matt:
True. Hogan is a mercenary when it comes to moolah. And a quarter century of 'Mania is sure to be a prime time for a payday for the man who launched it all. How amazing would a Hogan/Mr T vs. Piper/Orndorff rematch be, irrespective of their hip, knee and mowhawk problemos? Open your cheque book Vince. Be a sport!

Kirsty:
True. I can't see the silver go by without him. He's a guaranteed pop. And I'm betting he's going to induct someone into the Hall of Fame.

Dion:
True. Hogan and Vince will kiss and make up, as they do. Soon after, Hogan will leak plans of the "new promotion he's planning on starting".

Simon:
True. Hogan will make an appearance that's guaranteed. I think the divorce, the reality show and now the relaunched American Gladiators are all going towards having him step back in the ring a few more times. He's stuffed, sure. But he still pulls. And the potential to film a whole Hogan Knows Best SERIES about a return to the ring was showcased in the recent episode that showed him trying to agree with Vince on a deal. But as a stand-alone event at least, I'd be surprised if he wasn't at WM25. And I like the idea of recreating the original main event. What a hoot!

Ost:
True. He eliminates Nailz, “Dr D” David Schultz, Ole Anderson, Mel Phillips, Barry O and lastly “Macho Man” Randy Savage to win the Gimmick Battle Royal.

3) Tag-Team wrestling is essentially over. True or false?

Leighton:
False. The tag team division in the WWE is dead for the moment, but tag team wrestling will always be around for both storyline purposes and as an alternative to an endless sequence of singles matches. It may just be that the days of 'specialist' tag teams like the Killer Bees and The Headbangers.

Matt:
False. If anything we are witnessing a resurgence with the tag team specialists making a comeback. The likes of Kendrick, London, Cade, Murdoch etc. aren't as over in the singles ranks. Even Shelton Benjamin is struggling to find his niche without Haas. I'm glad we no longer have to rely on singles stars wearing the tag straps to appease their need for gold. Let tag teams blaze their own trails! Demolition, Road Warriors, Hart Foundation, Killer Bees and even the Hardys and Dudleys, Edge and Christian created some of my favourite wrestling moments of all times.

Kirsty:
As far as WWE goes, in the sense that we've lost the glory days of Demolition, the Hart Foundation, the Killer Bees and so on, true. But as Leighton quite rightly points out, there'll always be a reason to cobble together stars in order to segue storylines. I'd personally love nothing better than to see the likes of Londrick and Cade & Murdoch in a main-event feud (and at one point, when Londrick were on SmackDown, I thought we just might see a resurgence of the old days), but I doubt that tag-team wrestling is going to be anything more than filler from this point.

Dion:
False. TNA brought tag team wrestling back three years ago, and the E has since gone on to bring some great tag teams into the fold. REAL tag teams. I like it.

Simon:
False: In that it always be used. But true: In that it seems like the days of specialist teams that hardly ever go in to singles matches seems way over, by which I mean the time has passed, not way over in the sense of it being a hit with fans. Right!?

Ost:
False. For that would not only mean that wrestling largely did not exist in Japan and Mexico, but that the great tag team matches found in the smaller US promotion didn’t exist either. The WWE is fully capable of promoting very good tag team wrestling, but they rely heavily on writers from a non-wrestling background, and for whatever reason, the concept of tag teams feuding and fighting is beyond them.

4) The best feuds stem from real (deep-seated) personal issues. True or false?

Leighton:
False. In these days of the internet and very little in the way of kayfabe, it seems that a feud with a supposed personal background will capture the imaginations of internet-dwellers in a way that 'regular' feuds do not.
 
However, the key to success is for it not to BE personal, but rather to make it SEEM personal. It's just a change in the boundaries of how far things have to be 'worked' to make something truly believable. Perhaps just working within the realms of a TV show isn't enough for a major feud any more.

What is important is that the feud seems real, not that it is real. Look at the classic feuds like Austin vs Rock, Undertaker vs Kane, Rock vs Foley, Bret Hart vs Owen Hart. Those guys ranged from brothers to good friends, there was no animosity there. But they were all compelling.

Matt:
False. The best feuds stem from spectacle and the resulting pay day. If guys have issues their egos are likely to get in the way of giving the fans what they want. The best wrestlers put their personal gripes aside for the good of the spectacle. Look at Vince/Austin or Hogan/Andre. Biggest feuds on the planet, with a common appreciation for making money.

Kirsty:
True and false. Sorry, I know we're supposed to pick one, but it can be true if both performers are professional enough. Look at Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart. They gave us one of the greatest matches of all time, and they did it for an hour, no less, and their animosity towards each other only added to the intensity. The speculation that coloured their whole feud only amped it up and while it's true they got snarly backstage, in the ring they were both consummate professionals who gave us some amazing matches.

False, because when you've got two guys who know each other really well, like each other alot, and trust each other completely, they might take the feud to new levels. I don't think that anyone believed Steve Austin and Bret Hart were actually close friends when they feuded throughout 1996 and 1997, they were that convincing. And yet they were close all along, as were Owen and Bret.

I've got a sneaking suspicion that Batista and Shawn Michaels aren't each other's biggest fans. I'm quite interested to see how this one goes.

Dion:
False. The best feuds come from great creative and better chemistry.

Simon:
False: Only in the sense that, as others have basically said, the best feuds come from great performances, energy and chemistry. That can of course come from a believable storyline based on truth. But it could just come from committted performances and incredible chemistry. Shawn Michaels and HHH are mates, but they will go out there and have a great match with each other every other year. And we can get sucked in to believing a face/heel turn from either of them. And I won't add to the list of examples that are already here, but yeah, there are heaps...

Ost:
False. When I look back at the greatest, longest running and best drawing feuds, very few of them were based on an existing rivalry. Sometimes it has added an extra dimension to a feud, but apart from NJPW vs UWF (and it’s variants) I really struggle to think of many successful feuds based on real animosity.

5) Pro-Wrestling was better when you thought it was real. True or false?

Leighton:
True. Once it's gone it's something that you can't recapture. From the time that you know it's not real you can appreciate wrestling, enjoy wrestling and be entertained by wrestling. You may even occasionally be drawn in enough to suspend your disbelief and be emotionally drawn into a wrestler or a match. But you can never again have a general emotional investment in wrestling for what it purports to be.

Matt:
True. Because when I just thought it was real it didn't hurt so much. Now I know it is real and it hurts like a son of a bitch.

Kirsty:
Pro-wrestling IS real. It's real in the sense that these are genuine athletes who really get physical and who are truly talented - as anyone who's watched wrestling for any length of time knows, it takes a lot of skill to do what they do and try not to get hurt. To me, that's real.

Fixed outcomes? I think I always knew it, but even now I can still get into the spirit of a high-intensity match propelled by a great feud and get worked up like it's real. So, to answer the question, false.

Dion:
True. And false. I've loved pro-wrestling from different perspectives from when I was a childhood mark to writing about and being involved with it. Neither was better than the other, just different.

Simon:
False: for me I laughed when I first saw pro-wrestling. And loved it. I no doubt thought it was real at first. But very quickly worked out it wasn't - not that I disagree with Kirsty's point there - And it's still funny to me. Dammit!

Ost:
False. I’ve enjoyed many more wrestling matches in the last 12 years I’ve been back interested in wrestling than I did when I was 9. It wasn’t that it was “real” as much as I thought the animosity between the wrestlers was “real”. It was a long, long time ago anyway. But I do think people now would enjoy the WWE a lot more if it just built up the stories and feuds without all the “this is all a big joke” attitude that exists these days. They didn’t even have that sort of tone when Zeus and the Gobbledegooker were around.