Has TNA Surpassed The Original ECW?

[Punk13]

Hey all, Just wanted to get your opinions on this. In your eyes or the facts do you think TNA currently has become more of a success fan or financially superior to the hottest years in the original ECW? I see many simularetys and some could argue that TNA has way bigger stars then ECW but we also have to keep in mind that back then Kevin Nash and Scott Steiner would be huge for ECW but now TNA only has them because they cant wrestle....(well) and that they are much older and the spark there is one. While TNAs's production value is way higher then the original ECW i think the in ring talent in ECW is still a bit ahead of the company with the six sided canvas. I also don't think if TNA shut down they would have as big as a cult following as ECW did. So in all of your opinions has TNA surpassed ECW by a long shot or do you think that ECW was a bigger success during there hottest years?

Thanks
Punk13

BTW sorry if this isnt the right board

 

[Scott Free]

Hey all, Just wanted to get your opinions on this. In your eyes or the facts do you think TNA currently has become more of a success fan or financially superior to the hottest years in the original ECW? I see many simularetys and some could argue that TNA has way bigger stars then ECW but we also have to keep in mind that back then Kevin Nash and Scott Steiner would be huge for ECW but now TNA only has them because they cant wrestle....(well) and that they are much older and the spark there is one. While TNAs's production value is way higher then the original ECW i think the in ring talent in ECW is still a bit ahead of the company with the six sided canvas. I also don't think if TNA shut down they would have as big as a cult following as ECW did. So in all of your opinions has TNA surpassed ECW by a long shot or do you think that ECW was a bigger success during there hottest years?

Thanks
Punk13

BTW sorry if this isnt the right board

That's a tough question, because the answer could be both yes and no. Financially and exposure wise, TNA has surpassed the original ECW, they never had a weekly TV show on a decent station for as long as TNA has had, they also didn't have Dixie Carter helping out with some money. For the fan support, TNA has NOT surpassed the original ECW by a long shot, ECW had a loyal, rabid and knowledgeable fan base, TNA caters to casual fans in their Orlando home base, their fans consist mostly of tourists who stop in to watch their show on the way to bigger attractions in Orlando. Innovation wise, TNA has done very little, if anything at all, ECW brought Lucha Libre and Japanese style to the US and invented the "Hardcore" style of matches, TNA is basically doing a mix between WCW and WWE without managing to get it flowing in any proper form into their own, distinctive recognizable brand. Overall, the comparison doesn't make sense, ECW was a shoestring operation that stayed afloat for a little while thanks to the dedication of it's workers and fans, TNA is an investment from a millionaire into a wrestling company, not the same thing.

 

[baken1942]

That is a tough one, but im going to have to agree. TNA has surpassed the original ECW in production and all other business aspect of it, but TNA has NOT surpassed ECW with a fan base. If TNA closed today and AJ and Joe and Daniels went to WWE they wouldnt get TNA chants from the crowd, they would just get cheered. But when the original ECW guys debut and show up in RoH, WWE or TNA they still get ECW chants, and its been how many years since the good ECW has been around?

 

[Tim_Seraphim]

TNA has a weekly show and monthly pay-per-views; the original ECW does not. Survey says?

 

[Just-Dun Biased]

If TNA is truly making a profit then yes, because ECW never made any money. If TNA isn't, then its a toss up.

 

[gunslinger72]

Depends on how you mean. ECW was revolutionary. ECW had a major impact on what WWE became with the Attitude era. The fan base was, as someone already said...RABID. They had shows that left you feeling weak...story lines that kept you glued to your tv...and they did it with ZERO money.

TNA is backed by millionares. TNA has made pretty much NO impact on the wrestling industry at all. Even fans will tell you their shows and storylines are weak at best. Watch the show..the fans are dead most of the time. Without the backing of Panda Energy and whomever else, TNA would have folded long ago and be but a footnote in wrestling history. ECW could have been HUGE with the right backing.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

I would say that "yes, TNA has surpassed the original ECW's success as a company."

However, today, they produce higher ratings than the current ECW and Superstars. Kudos to TNA. This week's ECW only did a .9 rating. First time I am aware it has ever dipped below a 1.0.

Onto Smackdown, I suppose.

 

[404]

TNA caters to casual fans in their Orlando home base, their fans consist mostly of tourists who stop in to watch their show on the way to bigger attractions in Orlando. Innovation wise, TNA has done very little, if anything at all, ECW brought Lucha Libre and Japanese style to the US and invented the "Hardcore" style of matches, TNA is basically doing a mix between WCW and WWE without managing to get it flowing in any proper form into their own, distinctive recognizable brand. Overall, the comparison doesn't make sense, ECW was a shoestring operation that stayed afloat for a little while thanks to the dedication of it's workers and fans, TNA is an investment from a millionaire into a wrestling company, not the same thing.

You are aware that TNA is vastly popular all over Europe and Australia right? TNA's ratings in Australia also beat all three of WWE's flagship shows and Xplosion is aired all over Central Europe on free to air television. TNA is always just a few thousand viewers short of WWE's ratings in the UK and have at times, beaten them. America is really the only Country that has not embraced TNA as the defacto second promotion.

ECW also did not bring Lucha Libre to American television. The very first high profile lucha libre event in the US was co-promoted by WCW and that was When Worlds Collide. Heyman simply booked a few guys that were willing to work both US and Mexico after the event. The original Psicosis and Rey Misterio Jr come to mind here. Heyman also never signed them to a deal, they were used on a per-appearance basis. Only a few short months later, Bischoff had signed a large amount of Luchadores including Psicosis, Misterio and tons of AAA and CMLL guys. This time was considered somewhat of a crash in Mexico as both promotions scrambled to find and/or create new stars. WWE also had a number of Luchadores including Octagon and Cibernetico Back in the early 90's.

Depends on how you mean. ECW was revolutionary. ECW had a major impact on what WWE became with the Attitude era. The fan base was, as someone already said...RABID. They had shows that left you feeling weak...story lines that kept you glued to your tv...and they did it with ZERO money.

TNA is backed by millionares. TNA has made pretty much NO impact on the wrestling industry at all. Even fans will tell you their shows and storylines are weak at best. Watch the show..the fans are dead most of the time. Without the backing of Panda Energy and whomever else, TNA would have folded long ago and be but a footnote in wrestling history. ECW could have been HUGE with the right backing.

FYI, TNA WAS backed by Millionaires. According to one source, they have already begun to repay panda Energy approximately 4 years before they were expected to make payments back on the loan. Dixie also did an interview not long ago and adressed the profit question. She has stated that they have amassed significant profit earnings as of late.

 

[Ballin247]

Its pretty obvious that they have surpassed the old ECW. The old ECW could barely land a TV deal and was only actually around for about 7 years and in its 7th year it was on its last legs. TNA seems to be doing well and shows no signs of collapsing. Even though their ratings are not great they are slowly building and audience. its better to slowly build an audience over the years than to grow too fast and then collapse under your own weight. TNA has a weekly prime-time show that gets decent ratings for its network and also has monthly pay-per-views. Like one of the posters said they are also very popular in Australia and Europe. I don't remember ECW ever touring Europe.

 

[FoleyIsGod]

In terms of revenue, without a doubt, TNA surpassed ECW a long time ago. ECW sadly couldnt compete with the big two at the time, (WWE/WCW) and lost most of his talent when Bischoff raided the company.

In terms of storylines and characters, TNA still has a looong way to go before it can even sniff at th success ECW had. ECW created a modern style of wrestling, with wild brawls, tables, you name i. Then the big two stole the ideas and made millions(and millions!) of dollars, whereas ECW couldnt compete with that level of exposure.

As for the ratings issue, maybe. TNA has NOONE to comepete with(besides the WWE) ECW at the time was competeing with the two biggest companies, who could put rasslin on whenever they saw fit. Not to mention, the network ECW was on (TNN/what is now Spike) rarely advertised the show, hence the lower ratings.

In conclusion, TNA has got it easy compared to ECW, yet they still have moronic storylines, little character development anymore(they just take all the ex-wwe wrestlers and push them over thier own) and Vince Russo(probabaly the smartest and stupidest guy in wrestling)

 

[Scott Free]

You are aware that TNA is vastly popular all over Europe and Australia right? TNA's ratings in Australia also beat all three of WWE's flagship shows and Xplosion is aired all over Central Europe on free to air television. TNA is always just a few thousand viewers short of WWE's ratings in the UK and have at times, beaten them. America is really the only Country that has not embraced TNA as the defacto second promotion.

Nice to know, but are you aware that this is because TNA has a TV show to export and ECW barely had theirs shown in the US, on crappy TV stations at horrible hours and with no publicity what-so-ever.Yet, I bet Australia and Central Europe has heard of the original ECW, why ? Word of mouth, ECW fans made it a point to spread the word, the WWE jumped on the band wagon much latter because they wanted to sell their DVD.

ECW also did not bring Lucha Libre to American television. The very first high profile lucha libre event in the US was co-promoted by WCW and that was When Worlds Collide. Heyman simply booked a few guys that were willing to work both US and Mexico after the event. The original Psicosis and Rey Misterio Jr come to mind here. Heyman also never signed them to a deal, they were used on a per-appearance basis. Only a few short months later, Bischoff had signed a large amount of Luchadores including Psicosis, Misterio and tons of AAA and CMLL guys. This time was considered somewhat of a crash in Mexico as both promotions scrambled to find and/or create new stars. WWE also had a number of Luchadores including Octagon and Cibernetico Back in the early 90's.

Woah, ECW barely had a TV show, how could they bring Lucha Libre to American TV ? All they did is import the talent and showcased it on their live events, of course, WCW raided the talent after they found out that Lucha could sell in the US. I'll say one thing about TNA, they actually acknowledge Japanese wrestling, something the WWE has avoided like the plague.
You know, the way TNA booked their Locked Down PPV in Philly and the fact that the TNA roster has tons of ECW talent tells me that TNA could snag some of those rabid ECW fans IF they start booking like Heyman, or better yet, let Heyman book TNA, just keep him away from finance.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

It's obvious that TNA is more successful commercially and, production wise, old school ECW could barely keep the lights on in the building sometimes, let along compete with how the product of TNA is packaged.

Now, during its heyday, ECW had literally a cult following. It was never really a major force in terms of crowds, drawing money or pulling in ratings. Now, that being said, the original ECW has gained a good, sizable base of fans retroactively since fans have managed to see old tapes or dvds or stuff that's been put up on youtube! and all that.

As to which fanbase is bigger...well, I'd say that if Vince were to ever decide to give ECW a de-makeover, basically let it go back to its roots, and could find a network willing to let the product remain the ECW of old, TNA would be in some real trouble I think. The only way I think that'd possibly happen is if Vince got ECW onto HBO or Showtime or something to that degree, because no network on prime time or basic cable would touch the old ECW.

 

[Blade]

I think TNA has a higher stature as a wrestling company. It's able to attract seasoned vets and former world champions in way that ECW was never quite able to do. TNA has also travelled the world, sold out arenas in many different countries. They had Bam Bam, Terry Funk and a few others. But it doesn't compare to TNA having Kurt Angle and Sting.

But really ECW never had to attract older stars. They made their own. They made Raven and Shane Douglas and Rob Van Dam etc. which TNA has never been able to successfully.
Which brings me to my next point, TNA hasn't made any long term impact on the wrestling industry, while you can still see the influence of ECW to this very day.

TNA may be more commercially successful and be more popular internationally, but if it closed down next week it would be forgotten within a few years while ECW's legacy would live on.

 

[404]

Nice to know, but are you aware that this is because TNA has a TV show to export and ECW barely had theirs shown in the US, on crappy TV stations at horrible hours and with no publicity what-so-ever.Yet, I bet Australia and Central Europe has heard of the original ECW, why ? Word of mouth, ECW fans made it a point to spread the word, the WWE jumped on the band wagon much latter because they wanted to sell their DVD.

I'm not here to argue, I was simply stating a point.

Just because ECW was known in Europe by word of mouth doesn't mean they had any kind of success over there. Also, if you look at the original ECW ratings, they only ever hit the Neilson Media TV ratings scale for a mere 14 months before shutting down. The last ECW show only hit a 0.6 rating.

Woah, ECW barely had a TV show, how could they bring Lucha Libre to American TV ? All they did is import the talent and showcased it on their live events, of course, WCW raided the talent after they found out that Lucha could sell in the US. I'll say one thing about TNA, they actually acknowledge Japanese wrestling, something the WWE has avoided like the plague.
You know, the way TNA booked their Locked Down PPV in Philly and the fact that the TNA roster has tons of ECW talent tells me that TNA could snag some of those rabid ECW fans IF they start booking like Heyman, or better yet, let Heyman book TNA, just keep him away from finance.

Is that not what you said in your other post?

ECW brought Lucha Libre and Japanese style to the US and invented the "Hardcore" style of matches,

 

[itbewilly]

TNA has a weekly show and monthly pay-per-views; the original ECW does not. Survey says?

ECW had a weekly show on TNN until Raw made its switch to TNN during that little time that it left USA.Had ECW got its t.v deal sooner who knows where it may have gone or how long it would have last.Business stand point goes to TNA only because it has a big money muscle backing it.ECW was better both in wrestling quality and entertainment wise and fan base wise.ECW was a promotion that no one gave a chance that honestly became one of the big 3 at the time.

WWE i do think had some involvement with ECW that was never publicly announed hence the Jerry Lawler/RVD/Sabu storyline that went on but other then that i think WWE seen ECW as a developmental territory as apposed to competition.

Answer is money wise and business wise TNA is above the original ECW but show quality,wrestling quality and fan loyalties have to go to the original ECW.

 

[only1soe]

Yeah like many of the other posters I feel its a two fold question. I think there is no question that TNA has better production value, exposure and is packaged over all better than ECW. However the over all entertainment/wrestling product of the first ECW may not ever be matched.

Its always fun to me to show new wrestling fans old ECW footage. They are shocked and want to find out more. If or once TNA is gone I dont think people will be going back through the history than people do now with ECW.

ECW has always and will forever mean more to the business than TNA ever will be able claim.

TNA is a very good second teir company. They are a legit company and way beyond ROH or anything out there.

However, if I had the option to pay money to see an ECW live event that was going to be on PPV or the same with TNA right now I would easily pick ECW. I think everyone else on this board would say the same.

 

[Deexter Jorgan]

There are two schools of thought on this matter:

Business standpoint

TNA is backed by a major Investor that has a net worth of over One Billion Dollars

TNA is featured heavily on spike tv and is an attraction in Orlando

TNA is able to offer a better schedule and more money to seasond vets something that ECW wasnt able to do.

TNA is tv 14 and attracts a wider audience, ECW was more adult orientated

Wrestling Standpoint

TNA has a greater roster but fails to utilize at least half its talent

No Vets are passing the torch to the young established wrestlers

The title is being used to bring in outside talent

TNA has a better tag team division then any other company

TNA has failed to advertise outside of Orlando or Spike TV




Overall Booking is shoddy at best, where ECW managed to make wrestlers who had no skill look like they where worth something to the competitor, TNA has yet to book most of its talent right.

These are just a few examples but Its clear cut, TNA is a better brand overall because by a business standpoint they are making money where as ECW was losing money constantly I fail to understand why that happened, most people point the blame at paul heyman and money he wasted on Now Spike TV paying for their show to be broadcast.

TNA has a great working relationship with Spike and actually had their show extended to two hours which ECW wasnt even able to maintain its spot despite being the most watch program on spike for its timeslot.

But overall product i would have to give it to ECW, Heyman protected his wrestlers with gritty story lines and an overall alternative product, TNA says they are the alternative but ECW was actually an alternative showing fans an elimate of wrestling that WCW and WWE didn't provide, and was copied and drained to its last breath.

 

[MisterRob]

The answer is a very definitely no.

TNA, in theory, has surpassed ECW at being profitable. No one can really claim to know how profitable TNA is, or what state they really are in financially (beyond word of mouth), but you can give TNA that much. Aside from that? They haven't surpassed ECW in any other way at all. ECW became relevant beyond just their little section of the pool, TNA hasn't. ECW changed the wrestling business and became an alternative to everything else being done at the time, TNA certainly hasn't. ECW was groundbreaking, TNA is nothing. You can't even say TNA has surpassed ECW in their best pay per view buyrate because no one knows what TNA's buyrates are. You also can't say that TNA has surpassed ECW in television ratings on Spike, becuase they haven't. ECW at times received the very same rating highs as TNA's best ratings, 1.2 and 1.3.. and ECW was one hour, had no advertising and no help from the station where TNA is the exact opposite with two hours, and they are backed entirely by Spike. That tells you everything you need to know right there. TNA has leaps and bounds to go before they ever get anywhere near surpassing ECW on the majority of fronts.

 

[HBKscm]

couldn't agree more with you MisterRob add to that is the fact that ecw fans were and for the most part very passionate about that brand and TNA has no fans that are like that hell not even wwe has fans like ecw had.

 

[Scott Free]

I'm not here to argue, I was simply stating a point.

I hate arguing, it serves no purpose if closed minds engage in it.

Just because ECW was known in Europe by word of mouth doesn't mean they had any kind of success over there. Also, if you look at the original ECW ratings, they only ever hit the Neilson Media TV ratings scale for a mere 14 months before shutting down. The last ECW show only hit a 0.6 rating.

They could not have had any success in Europe, how could they ? They didn't do International tours. TNA doesn't tour much either, but at least they have a TV show setting up the fans in case they do decide to tour and if they remember to advertise the fact. The TV comparison you make is kind of silly, ECW's TV budget was of about $ 1.50 ok, maybe a bit more than that, but let's say shoestring, then you had a talent roster that was reduced to the bone by raids from WCW and the WWE, then you had restrictions on their content put on by the network, put all that on late at night, with no promotion from the network and in print, and you can't seriously compare it to TNA's Impact. Business wise, TNA is much better than ECW.

Is that not what you said in your other post?

As far as Lucha Libre, ECW did not import it first, in fact, the NWA had been doing that for years, Mil Mascaras is but one early example of how Lucha was already exposed in the US. What ECW did was bring in some luchadores and re-introduced them to the US public after years of absence. The public liked that style, and so did WCW, which basically raided all of them from ECW.
What I said in my other post is that ECW was in no shape to compete with TNA both in terms of TV production values and business growth, you do know that most of their TV show promos were shot in Paul E.'s basement, right ? In closing, the fan base ECW had was hardcore, not in the sense of blood lusting, but in the sense of being wrestling fans with a wide knowledge of the business, and they knew INNOVATION when they were presented with it. One tiny example, the tables, ECW introduced the table spots to pro wrestling and fans loved it. They did it because since their home base was a bingo hall, they just had plenty of tables around, so why not use them ? Well, everybody and their brother is still copying the table spots to these days. What has TNA done that's innovative enough to impact the wrestling business for days to come ?

 

[Pimpin]

I think this question goes both ways of the spectrum here.

TNA from a financial standpoint has done way better than the original ECW cause Jarrett has Dixie Carter & her families company in Panda Energy financially backing them & they have done alot better than what I thought they would.

In terms of quality of the product, The Original ECW is a long long long ways ahead of TNA as Paul Heyman made alot of nobodies look like the greatest thing since sliced bread & let the stars just be themselves, meanwhile TNA has practically the same people that drug WCW down the toilet, they have Vince Russo as the booker of the show(I would personally replace him with well myself) & a bunch of washed up has beens in Kevin im injured Nash, roided up Scott Steiner & as much as I hate to mention their names I would even say Booker T & Sting, those particular 4 won't pass the torch to guys like A.J. Styles & on top of that they put a 40 something year old nearly crippled man as their world heavyweight champion instead of somebody more deserving like Styles, Daniels & Samoa Joe(yes he is good & I kinda like the Nation Of Violence thing as it reminds me of Taz, but he need to lose a bunch of weight). I think that the only way that TNA even comes close to passing the original ECW in terms of quality of the product is to get the Philly fans on their side(they got a good chance in that), either make the has beens pass the torch or get rid of them & fire the Creative team & hire either Paul Heyman or Eric Bischoff to steer the company in the right direction creatively.

 

[404]

As far as Lucha Libre, ECW did not import it first, in fact, the NWA had been doing that for years, Mil Mascaras is but one early example of how Lucha was already exposed in the US. What ECW did was bring in some luchadores and re-introduced them to the US public after years of absence. The public liked that style, and so did WCW, which basically raided all of them from ECW.

No, sorry. ECW didn't even do that. Even during the very very short time span between When Worlds Collide and the cruiserweight boom, There were guys disappearing from AAA and CMLL at a rapid pace. By the time Psicosis and Misterio jumped ship, WCW quite literally had roughly 1/4 of the major lucha populace from AAA and CMLL.

Mil Mascaras was also never characterized as what we would now call a luchador. If that was the case, El Santo (and Jr) Sicodelico Sr and a plethora of others would be credited for bringing lucha to the states. Lucha Libre is characterized by different moves. Not just because you are from Mexico and wear a mask. Bischoff was the man who brought modern Lucha Libre to the rest of the world with When Worlds collide.

They could not have had any success in Europe, how could they ? They didn't do International tours. TNA doesn't tour much either, but at least they have a TV show setting up the fans in case they do decide to tour and if they remember to advertise the fact. The TV comparison you make is kind of silly, ECW's TV budget was of about $ 1.50 ok, maybe a bit more than that, but let's say shoestring, then you had a talent roster that was reduced to the bone by raids from WCW and the WWE, then you had restrictions on their content put on by the network, put all that on late at night, with no promotion from the network and in print, and you can't seriously compare it to TNA's Impact. Business wise, TNA is much better than ECW.




What I said in my other post is that ECW was in no shape to compete with TNA both in terms of TV production values and business growth, you do know that most of their TV show promos were shot in Paul E.'s basement, right ? In closing, the fan base ECW had was hardcore, not in the sense of blood lusting, but in the sense of being wrestling fans with a wide knowledge of the business, and they knew INNOVATION when they were presented with it. One tiny example, the tables, ECW introduced the table spots to pro wrestling and fans loved it. They did it because since their home base was a bingo hall, they just had plenty of tables around, so why not use them ? Well, everybody and their brother is still copying the table spots to these days. What has TNA done that's innovative enough to impact the wrestling business for days to come ?

I will agree with you on the shoestring budget but the rest is irrelevant. There were reports that Paul did and failed to get funding for ECW. Clearly, PPV buyrates and other product sales weren't enough to keep ECW alive. TNA also had a rabid fanbase in it's early years. Regardless of what people might think of it now, it's popularity is growing, people are buying their products, they are expanding. From a promoters standpoint, Wrestling is a business. TNA made it when ECW simply could not.

 

[Scott Free]

No, sorry. ECW didn't even do that. Even during the very very short time span between When Worlds Collide and the cruiserweight boom, There were guys disappearing from AAA and CMLL at a rapid pace. By the time Psicosis and Misterio jumped ship, WCW quite literally had roughly 1/4 of the major lucha populace from AAA and CMLL.

That might be right, WCW always had the talent, what they lacked was knowing what to do with it. ECW showed them what to do with it, they copied, same old story. Nothing was being done in WCW till Misterio, Eddie Guerrero and Psicosis showed up.

Mil Mascaras was also never characterized as what we would now call a luchador. If that was the case, El Santo (and Jr) Sicodelico Sr and a plethora of others would be credited for bringing lucha to the states. Lucha Libre is characterized by different moves. Not just because you are from Mexico and wear a mask. Bischoff was the man who brought modern Lucha Libre to the rest of the world with When Worlds collide.

Who's "we" ? I'd call a wrestler, who worked Lucha Libre style for years, wore a traditional lucha mask and was revered as a movie star and a luchador in his home country, Mexico, a luchador, I mean if it's good for them, it's good for me. You can credit Bischoff if you want, but I first appreciated that style when I watched it on ECW. Same goes for the Michinoku Pro, I would never have even heard of them if not for ECW.

I will agree with you on the shoestring budget but the rest is irrelevant. There were reports that Paul did and failed to get funding for ECW. Clearly, PPV buyrates and other product sales weren't enough to keep ECW alive. TNA also had a rabid fanbase in it's early years. Regardless of what people might think of it now, it's popularity is growing, people are buying their products, they are expanding. From a promoters standpoint, Wrestling is a business. TNA made it when ECW simply could not.

I see, so you skipped the entire point of ECW being innovative, and went to the part where TNA is a success business wise and ECW failed, I already said that TNA was a clear winner in that area. Very sly, but I ask again, and maybe you might want to not find it so irrelevant as to not answer, what has TNA done so far that so innovative that surpasses anything ECW did ? Because that's the area that I think TNA has not surpassed ECW in.

 

[404]

That might be right, WCW always had the talent, what they lacked was knowing what to do with it. ECW showed them what to do with it, they copied, same old story. Nothing was being done in WCW till Misterio, Eddie Guerrero and Psicosis showed up.

Who's "we" ? I'd call a wrestler, who worked Lucha Libre style for years, wore a traditional lucha mask and was revered as a movie star and a luchador in his home country, Mexico, a luchador, I mean if it's good for them, it's good for me. You can credit Bischoff if you want, but I first appreciated that style when I watched it on ECW. Same goes for the Michinoku Pro, I would never have even heard of them if not for ECW.

Lucha Libre as seen now is nothing like what Mil Mascaras, his brothers and peers did. You can see it however you want, WCW and Bischoff showcased Lucha first.

Michinoku Pro was also mentioned in WWE just a short time later when Taka Michinoku made his debut and eventually won the light heavyweight title. For all we know, he was another of WWE's ECW plants just like Al Snow was.

I see, so you skipped the entire point of ECW being innovative, and went to the part where TNA is a success business wise and ECW failed, I already said that TNA was a clear winner in that area. Very sly, but I ask again, and maybe you might want to not find it so irrelevant as to not answer, what has TNA done so far that so innovative that surpasses anything ECW did ? Because that's the area that I think TNA has not surpassed ECW in.

I can assure you, i didn't skip it on purpose. Then again if you want to go there, TNA during it's young years was also quite innovative. The Lucha/puro/cruiserweight mashup called the X-division was unlike anything done before. The big difference is that TNA put that style aside on their own and now are coping with a giant identity crisis. ECW was, on the other hand, consistently copied by both WCW and WWE and simply couldn't come up with another sticking point for their product.

 

[whojgov32]

what?