TNA vs. WWE: The Matches

[Y 2 Jake]

About 2 years ago when the original TNA vs. WWE thread was started it was by far one of the most popular threads on the whole board. And for a long time it was very even when it came to the poll results. But in the past year WWE has jumped well ahead, but so have the other two options of neither & both. So what I'm going to do now is split it up into about 10 threads, or more/less if anybody has any suggestions. Below is a list of the topics I currently have in mind.

TNA vs. WWE the topics:

Fans, Matches, PPVs, Characters, iMPACT/ECW/Smackdown/Raw, Champions, Gimmicks, 6-Sides or Square & Feuds​

There are four sides. TNA, WWE, neither & both. Vote and discuss each for your chosen option. Compare and contrast between each.

The first topic is the matches. This relates to any aspect of the match. From gimmick matches, tag matches, women's match, straight matches, short TV matches and so on. And match in any way shape or form. Do TNA do too many gimmick matches, don't WWE do enough, are TNA matches too short on TV, are WWE's too long, for every bad TNA match do you get a good one, are both promotions equal? etc

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I went with both.

Fact is, I truly enjoy a lot of TNA matches. I think their tag teams have more synergy (look at MCMG) and thus their tag team matches are a lot of fun. THe singles matches are very fast paced and athletic, and since there's a different ring to use, the wrestlers themselves get more creative in the matches, creating new excitement.

WWE matches are also usually strong for the same reason they've always been strong. They tell stories. WWE matches feel more like professional wrestling "sports entertainment," whereas TNA matches feel more like athletic contests. Both are fine, just different, and the variety is a good thing.

I voted both.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

One criticism of TNA matches that I can't give to WWE matches is that they're flawless for the most part. Sure there are occasions when somebody will blow a spot. But it's a very rare occurrence in WWE. Unlike TNA where it happens frequently. But that's not TNA's fault or problem. The WWE style doesn't really allow many moves where you're going to slip and land on your face. Whereas TNA does. But that makes TNA matches more unpredictable. It's just that WWE matches always look crisp.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

One criticism of TNA matches that I can't give to WWE matches is that they're flawless for the most part. Sure there are occasions when somebody will blow a spot. But it's a very rare occurrence in WWE. Unlike TNA where it happens frequently. But that's not TNA's fault or problem. The WWE style doesn't really allow many moves where you're going to slip and land on your face. Whereas TNA does. But that makes TNA matches more unpredictable. It's just that WWE matches always look crisp.

Great point, though how much of that is because the WWE wrestlers are in CONSTANT practice, with weekly TV segments and far more house shows. TNA has a few house shows - starting to get more - but then they tape 2 or three episodes of Impact at once and then give the guys time off. It means they are more well rested and morale may be a bit higher, but TNA wrestlers missing match spots is likely the result of a combination of high degrees of difficulty with weekly ring rust.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Great point, though how much of that is because the WWE wrestlers are in CONSTANT practice, with weekly TV segments and far more house shows. TNA has a few house shows - starting to get more - but then they tape 2 or three episodes of Impact at once and then give the guys time off. It means they are more well rested and morale may be a bit higher, but TNA wrestlers missing match spots is likely the result of a combination of high degrees of difficulty with weekly ring rust.

I don't believe so. Most TNA wrestlers will work shows elsewhere in the two weeks or whatever between shows so I don't think ring rust should really come into it.

As I've never done any wrestling before I can only guess but I imagine it's similar to driving. You drive all the time and you don't even think about gears. Leave it a few weeks and it'll take you a couple of minutes to get back into it, but once you've been back at it for 5 minutes you're fine. Leave if months and it's a real struggle for a couple of days. If you catch my drift.

But I'm inclined to believe that it happens so often because there's more activity in TNA rings. Be that good or bad.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I went for both. A few reasons. I find the regular matches of WWE boring, considering they've had the same basic style for all the time I've watched them. I really hate brawling. Can't stand it. There's a lot more brawling in WWE than TNA. There are a few wrestlers that stand out for me in the WWE, but they're rarely consistent. Of course, I haven't followed WWE closely for a month or so now, so it could have all changed.

However, the point I was building up to is that when WWE does have a good match, it's often better than a good TNA match. Well, pretty much always better. TNA utilizes lighter wrestlers more, but they utilize them in multi-man spotfests where each spot is less impressive than the last. Proper pacing means the spots can remain and you can still have an exciting match - it's why I like LAX. I'd take an Angle/Michaels match any day over an Angle/Joe match. Then there's the spectacle of a WWE match, which I just think improves matters.

So on a regular basis, I prefer the TNA spotfests, but for those special moments, WWE outdoes TNA about 90% of the time.

 

[Garrett]

I don't think there is any doubt that based on quality of wrestling, TNA is the better company. I don't remember a good match on Raw since Jericho took the IC belt from Hardy a few months ago, ECW regularly has quality matches (the four way this week and the tag match last week) and I can't remember a good match on SmackDown for a long time. But on Impact, this week we had BeerMoney/Guns and the main event, last week we had Petey/Kaz and the list goes on. And consider this, TNA produces more great matches in 2 hours on TV than WWE do in 5.

 

[FromTheSouth]

WWE matches have too many kicks and punches. I much prefer movement, even it if it's crazy spot monkey-ish action. I'm not a workrate mark or anything, I just like to see more than kick, punch, clothesline, rest hold. I like seeing guys run hard into the ropes. I picked TNA because with the exception of Scott Steiner, everyone looks like they are working their asses off at all times.

 

[SpiralHands]

Thats a very hard question to answer I mean WWE have some good matches soemtimes and when they do they are good matches. But TNA seem to have pretty solid matches every week. At least they dont DQ someone for pulling on tights! But I mean I think X Division matches that TNA have and some of the Heavyweight PPV matches edge the TNA way for me, not to say that WWEs matches are bad because they really arent but always seem to be same moves same people or least on Raw anyways! I think TNA wins matches but I mean everything else I think WWE wins on specially on production and feuds.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

There are a few wrestlers that stand out for me in the WWE, but they're rarely consistent.

Actually I think that most WWE wrestlers are consistent. Consistently boringmaybe. But at least they don't perform one week and not the next. That happens a lot in TNA. One week you'll see a great match between a wrestler, and the next it's a crippling disappointment.

However, the point I was building up to is that when WWE does have a good match, it's often better than a good TNA match. Well, pretty much always better.

I would have to agree there for the most part. But that might have something to do with the wrestlers involved. Undertaker vs. Edge is always going to be a bigger match than anything TNA can produce. And bigger ofthen makes people think better.

TNA utilizes lighter wrestlers more, but they utilize them in multi-man spotfests where each spot is less impressive than the last.

Imagine if WWE were to promote a proper Cruiserweight match now. It would even get dead silence because they've not done anything with them in years. Or it would be hailed as one of the best matches of the year because WWE don't really give the lighter wrestlers free reign to do waht they wish.

Proper pacing means the spots can remain and you can still have an exciting match - it's why I like LAX.

Thing with LAX is that Homicide & Hernandez each do their over the top rope and through the rope moves each match. Both impressive. But in anywhere other than the iMPACT Zone the reaction would get less and less.

I'd take an Angle/Michaels match any day over an Angle/Joe match. Then there's the spectacle of a WWE match, which I just think improves matters.

Like you stated is Michaels/Angle better or is it just bigger?

 

[Uncle Sam]

Actually I think that most WWE wrestlers are consistent. Consistently boringmaybe. But at least they don't perform one week and not the next. That happens a lot in TNA. One week you'll see a great match between a wrestler, and the next it's a crippling disappointment.

Well, I didn't really mean schizophrenically inconsistent. All I know is that MVP was having great matches when Benoit was still around and now he just does those kick moves over and over again.

Like you stated is Michaels/Angle better or is it just bigger?

True. I'm easily made into the spectacle's bitch. Although I suppose it's more because, even with the volume turned off and paying no attention to how big the event is, Angle/Joe just feels like an indie match. Although, the WWE has the advantage in the history, the arena's, the hype and the characters. I don't really evaluate why I like stuff until I'm forced to. And when I do, it normally comes out a bit wrong. Give me a while to work out the kinks.

 

[Dragonslayer]

Hm right now I'm in a difficult situation; I barely catch the occasional Smackdown show (as it's the only wrestling programming that's on regular cable TV hereabouts; RAW, ECW and TNA are only on a Pay-TV Channel), always with about 2 weeks delay due to the synchronisation process (but well, they've come a long way - several years ago they would be about 6 months behind the "real" action), so whenever I see TNA or WWE, it's mostly on some PPV DVD.

And with that in mind, I tend to say that TNA has the MUCH more interesting matches for me - even me, who is not really familiar with most of the TNA roster and characters, much less the angles they're involved in, that hardly does matter, since the matches can create sufficient excitement by themselves; the storyline that goes with them is a bonus. Which makes me believe that TNA has all the potential to become THE definite show, if they manage to bring everything to a larger scale; one that could eventually rival WWE.

But as many of you guys said, WWE has the "spectacle" going for them. With the huge arenas (esp. on PPVs), the stage setups, the pyros, it just looks a lot more "major league". Plus, there are some characters I still remember from earlier days (HBK, HHH, Taker, Edge), which makes relating to their matches easier.

That being said, purely wrestling-wise, I guess I'd take TNA over WWE any day of the week, simply because it's a different style, it's not the same kind of matches over and over we've seen a thousand times before. And even IF it is a spotfest (which in many of TNA's matches is undeniably true), it's still more exciting to watch than say, Big Daddy V taking in Mark Henry three weeks in a row or something like that. Plus, they have some new and interesting gimmick matches, whereas WWE has gotten pretty stale with their invention of new match types, instead of relying on tried-and-true gimmicks... Of course, you don't "need" all those gimmick matches, but once in awhile something different can be fun to watch. I believe the last "big" invention WWE had was probably the Money In The Bank, which is nothing but a larger Ladder Match, and before that the Elimination Chamber. And I won't count that Punjabi Prison match since I don't suppose we'll see too many of those anymore.

So aside from some PPV main events, TNA wins the "match" challenge for me; they have so many extremely athletic and talented in-ring performers on their roster, compared to a select few on the WWE roster, the remainder of which is filled with the likes of the aforementioned Viscera, Mark Henry, Great Khali, chubby JBL etc... who are just painful to watch.

 

[DJ]

Lets look-

WWE-

TV Matches : Are passable.Enjoyable but nothing epic.

PPV Matches : Between good and Passable.Once in a while you'll get a classic or excellent match that is **** to ***** Stars(Angle vs HBK etc)

Gimmick Matches : Rare enough now days.But when they do come they are very good or enjoyable.

TNA.

TV Matches: The lower half of the card have some amazing matches.The upper is spoiled by lame storylines and even lamer run ins.

PPV Matches: Again-Good bottom half,Bad top half.

Gimmick Matches: WOW.Yet again-Good when they are near the bottom.Barely passable in the upper half.

Based on this I'm going with WWE.They always put on a good showing and hell,most of the times it enjoyable.Now TNA.......I mark for the X Divison.But TNA seems to want to keep these guys in the mid-card forever!Also Why does TNA Want these washed up wrestler and big men up in main event?Look at Joe/Daniels/AJ-FANTASTIC MATCH!Now look at right now-Joe vs Booker.Hardly gonna catch my eye in 10 years when I look back.

So due to TNA's lack of good main event matches I'm going to have to give the edge to WWE.

 

[Rusty]

An interesting thread. The WWE usually gives us squash matches, and short boring matches weekly. The main event on Raw, Smackdown and ECW is usually good but almost never great. But TNA iMPACT gives us fast paced wrestling in almost all their weekly matches. Their Knockout matches are better than the Divas matches in the WWE. The only real reason I watch iMPACT is for the fast paced wrestling every week. Its hard not to like fast paced wrestling matches. So for the weekly matches I have to give the edge to TNA. Also iMPACT usually gives us a gimmick or a title match. The WWE almost never gives us gimmick matches for free and the same thing goes for title matches, unless its on pay per view. So once again TNA has the edge for weekly matches.

However when it comes to pay per views, nobody beats the WWE. They build up the matches in such a great way(usually) compared to TNA. As for the actual ppv matches, the WWE always makes sure the card is decent and WWE's pay per views are usually worth watching in my opinion. The WWE's gimmicks are better than TNA's. Elimination Chamber, Hell in a Cell and Money in the Bank are all great ppv gimmicks that are usually very entertaining. The WWE just makes the matches on pay per view feel important and are usually worth watching. TNA gimmicks are lame and the pay per view matches just don't feel that important. The ending to the main event is sometimes really stupid e.g The end of the Booker T/Samoa Joe match a few weeks ago. So the WWE wins on pay per view matches.

Overall, I still prefer the matches that the WWE gives us. They just make us believe every single match has importance unlike TNA. The WWE matches are more professional and just feel better. Matches like Triple H vs John Cena or Undertaker vs Batista cannot be beaten by TNA. So my vote is for WWE, but not by much though.

 

[Shocky]

If we are going this year, then the WWE wins by a landslide. I'm not sure if this thread is more of a History of TNA vs. WWE thread, then I might change my mind. If it's 2008, its the WWE and not even close.

The WWE has put on spectacular matches this year all around. Whether it be free TV or pay per view, an A pay per view or a B pay per view, there is almost always damn good matches on each and every card.

I can't say the same for TNA. This time last year I would have called myself a TNA fan, probably moreso then the E, but what a difference a year has made. I find TNAs matches to be just god awful and spot heavy. There really is no interest for me to watch it at this point. Now, I blame a lot of it on the focus being on their incredibly terrible World Champion, but I also blame a lot of it on desolving the X-Division and less of an emphasis on tag wrestling.

 

[Slim Pickns]

I used to always here the argument of TNA's matches being more technically based, therefor better. I haven't heard that argument in a while though. While it may be true that they are more technical, I find it hard to get into most TNA matches, especially on TV, simply because the come off as uneventful. What do I mean by this, well its simple. Any TNA match not involving Angle or Booker, comes off as second rate. Sure, guys like Shelly and Styles are technically gifted and fast, but the lack of charisma from most of the guys steals from the build up.

The WWE and its larger than life characters are hard to top. With guys like Edge, who can draw massive heat, and Cena who can get the crowd going with his intensity constantly doing well, its hard for TNA to compete right now. Without the ability to draw emotion from the fans, its just to guys fake fighting.

 

[TNAw00t]

The WWE and its larger than life characters are hard to top. With guys like Edge, who can draw massive heat, and Cena who can get the crowd going with his intensity constantly doing well, its hard for TNA to compete right now. Without the ability to draw emotion from the fans, its just to guys fake fighting.

well this isnt really the TNA vs WWE FAN thing, which is why i choose TNA cause theeyre X division matches are entertaining, even if they have weird gimmiks like curry man (but thats the character wwe v TNA thing) but its still awesome, and the tag thing is way better cause theres only a few teams in WWE on each brand
RAW-cryme tyme and rhodes+ted
SD!-edge heads, shannon moore and wang...but shannon got released =-(
ECW-miz+morrison
heavyweight division-well for SD and ECW seems to be losing for me cause matt vs mark isnt that exciting for me, same with HHH vs khali, but i still like Punk...hes my favorate in WWE besides Jeff Hardy so im liking RAW a bit, but im a fan of samoa joe because hes still awesome. for a fat guy, he always seem athletic and i have always liked his promos were he seems crazy

 

[Dead Kennedy]

Both can be pretty on/off. WWE have the squash match problem, TNA have the gimmick match/overbooked finish problem. But overall, I think TNA have the better matches and the better in-ring talent. However, their storyline just turn my interest off. I'd rather have a few diamonds in a coal mine (WWE) than many diamonds floating in a sea of feces (TNA). But TNA have the better matches, overall.

 

[Beeyond_Good_and_Evil]

I picked WWE here this is why. For weekly matches the matches on Impact are always solid. You get good main event matches every week. You get good undercard matches as well. That's the problem with WWE's weekly TV matches is their Main Events are good.But their undercard on the Weekly shows suck. But then PPV comes along and I'll order most WWE PPV's or go to Hooters or somethin to see them. I don't watch TNA ppv's bc they suck with the exception of Slammiversary and BFG. Those are the only two I'll get so weekly TV matches go to TNA but PPV matches go to WWE.

 

[Marquis]

I choose wwe. The weekly matchs are not the best infact tna most of the time has better ones but on ppvs they deliver.I find myself disappointed with most tna ppvs infact of all them this year so far in my opinion havent delivered except maybe Final Resolution. But on wwe ppvs theres always a couple of matches that please me sometimes even the whole card on the ppv is great. wwe ppvs always deliver while tna is not constant enough. Tv wise i give it to tna.

 

[Mitch3721]

I am going to go with WWE, i think TV wise they dont have as exciting matches as TNA, but i feel that this is because TNA are the up and coming promotion and still feel like they have a lot to give to the fans, hence they really crank it up even for TV. But on PPV you see WWE trying as hard as TNA try on regular TV, and they do top them. This could be because they have the bigger names, or the better infrastructure, but to me i dont think TNA will ever compete with the PPV matches that WWE put on, and the only reason why they look better on TV is because they try harder as they have more to gain.

 

[therockyfan316]

see to me, it may seem tna has the more athletic matches but another aspect of "the match" that should be considered is the results. there may be more dq finishes (which i absolutley detest) but i feel that results matter more in wwe i.e. who won and who lost. im not sure if im making sense, and i may just be speaking for myself, but during the duration of the match u mite be going ooh and aahh during a tna match, but when its said and done and u find out who won, i think ur more likely to be interested in who the winner is in wwe matches and the matches mean more. just my two cents. if they could just add moves to the wwe matches and have less interference/dq endings, we'd have the perfect blend.

 

[midgensa]

While TNA has definitely grown on me in the last year and has some great talent ... I have to go with WWE on this.
I know the "same five moves" arguments are made, I know the "same feuds" all the time arguments are made, but it comes down to crispness (mentioned before in this thread by a few).
WWE is looks more fluid, which of course makes it a little less unpredictable, but all in all very few missed spots or spots that make you go huh?
TNA is entertaining ... and I think it takes a lot from the high-flying, crazy spots side of wrestling, but I personally am more of a technical fan. Angle, Joe and even some of the smaller guys put on solid matches, but I feel a TNA wrestling match is more about "the show" than the wrestling.
I guess that makes sense to me at least. I just like WWE matches better. Maybe it is more because of the level of top tier talent, hell, I don't know. Time for bed.