Have People Been Too Hard on TNA?

[BK Styles]

Quite possibly my first ever thread in this section, as I am more a WWE man, but I still keep track of things on Impact.

For the longest time, people have compared TNA's product to WWE's, as it appeared many moons ago that this small, independant company run by the Jarrett's would be the future competition to WWE. Now, since the days of NWATNA, the company has certainly stepped up its game; they've had world-recognised stars come in (Angle, Sting, arguably Jeff Hardy etc), have produced a few 'homegrown' stars (AJ, Roode, Storm, Daniels, Joe etc), and have even taken some of WWE's ex-employees and have rebuilt them (Mr. Anderson, Pope, Christian Cage). They have a huge and hugely talented roster, their production values have begun to improve significantly, and have given us some amazing matches and moments since the companies inception. And yet, some fans have looked at TNA and have said that by now it has had the chance to mount a bigger challenge to the WWE, and has failed, and has stayed in the same place.

Here is my question; have some fans been too harsh on it's progress?

They put their first show on in 2002; near enough ten years ago, and in that time they've gone from small, independant with a lot of guys that people hadn't heard of before to a network deal, recognised stars from WWE as well as homegrown talent and decent quality of matches. Yes, the stories are at times, poor, and they're still not completely there quality-wise, but in ten years they've gone from nothing to where they are now; the second biggest wrestling company in the US, with some of the best wrestlers in the world on their roster.

Looking at just how it's progressed in ten years (forget Dixie, Hogan, Jarret, Bischoff, etc), they have made phenomenal progress to get where they are today. Could they have done more? Probably. But they've given it a go, and they've managed to land themselves in a pretty good current position.

Those are my thoughts; what are yours?

 

[Zeven_Zion]

Short answer: yes.

Wrestling fans have zero patience. I believe that's apparent by now. As soon as something happens in a storyline it is scrutinized and over-analyzed, without looking at the big picture. It's the same with TNA's growth. Fans expect TNA to grow with a 1.0 in their ratings every year. If they don't - they suck, Hogan's killing them, Dixie is a mark, Vince will buy it, you know the drill.

Overall, TNA suffers from being number two. Constantly I see WWE failing to accomplish something, whether it be in the ratings department or PPV buys, and I see comments by fans saying "Well, at least they're not TNA". Somehow fans find it easier, or more comforting, to shit on TNA ignoring WWE's mishaps and TNA's positive aspects.

It's been about a year and a half and TNA has been the better product, for me. They produced more interesting storylines, they built up more and better wrestlers, they had better matches, they cut better promos, they had better surprises. That's what I rate a show by. Everything else is fluff and is irrelevant.

But WWE has as many haters and praisers as TNA does. Well, maybe TNA has more haters than praisers due to it being a smaller company, but in the end people are too harsh on both companies, and I too am guilty of it. But that's just the way it is. Give a smark Internet connection and enjoy the fireworks.

 

[TUFFY54]

Probably

In all fairness, TNA has done an amazing job at establishing itself as a major wrestling company. While they aren't the powerhouse the WWE is, they are still watched by millions of people every week on a major network. I don't really see how anyone can knock TNA from a business sense. However, I do think TNA deserves some grief over its booking and storylines.

It seems like whenever I watch Impact the great and horrible are almost a 50/50 mix. Guys like AJ, Storm, Angle, Roode, RVD, and Anderson will give us great matches, then we have to sit through nonsense like Eric Young. I honestly can't imagine anyone being entertained by his "tie up with the ref" gag. Not just that, but does ANYONE give a damn about D-Von, The Pope, and the kids? My God its 2011 and they've been running a D-Von Dudley angle for the better part of the year.

Unfortunately, TNA will always be looked at as second rate. Simply due to the Impact Zone tapings and small arenas. However, being number two shouldn't be a problem if your still putting out a good product and your fans are happy.

In the end I think people are too hard on TNA, but they've been the most successful non-WWE wrestling company since the late 90's.

 

[xxxdaniel_ariesxxx]

No, not really... I used to be a huge fan of TNA from their debut in 2002 right up until they decided that they had to base their entire company around former WWE and WCW guys. first it was Christian, which wasn't so bad because I was, and am, a huge fan of Christian. But then they had to go and turn their biggest homegrown talent, AJ Styles, into a lacky for the former WWE guy. then they brought in Kurt Angle, who had just been fired from WWE over his drug issues a few weeks before, and had him kill their fastest and most over star in Samoa Joe, by submission, in under 15 minutes, in his very first match with the company. Then they had AJ become Angles lacky. and all the while they seemed determined to put their top title on Sting over and over and over... they spent the last five years telling their fans, on their show, they THEY are the inferior product to WWE and that not only should the fans see them that way, THEY see them selves that way.

Then in 2009 they looked back ten years and said to themselves, "WCW sure was hot in 99/2000 and was taking off... LETS BE JUST LIKE THEM!!!" And went and hired two of the three of the main culprits that helped run WCW into the ground (the other was already working for them as head of their creative), gave them full run of their company, fired anyone who dared speak out against it, and to top it off they turned AJ Styles, who was their World Champion (while Sting was on vacation, I'm sure), INTO A LACKY FOR ANOTHER FORMER WWE GUY!!! WWE Hall of Fame rings gave TNA Guys MAGICAL POWERS for crying out loud. Then they turned half of the roster heel, including ALL of the upper tier TNA grown talent, and made them not just lackys for a former WWE guy, Ric Flair, they made them lackys for a lacky of THE former WWE guy in Hulk Hogan. This left TNA to be defended by the guys from ECW, who all looked like they had either just rolled out of rehab, or needed to go back in, and Sting, a former WCW guy, against all of the former WWE guys and there TNA lackys...

tell me again why I should give a shit about TNA when TNA doesn't even seem to give a shit about TNA? I view TNA as the lesser product and WWE as the better show, just like TNA has been telling everyone for the last 6 years. Why watch TNA when I can just watch WWE and see the future stars of TNA when they are actually in their prime?

 

[Foshinzo]

I'd say yes, but not emphatically.

TNA has done very well for itself, so far. But, they have, are, and probably will continue to make classic mistakes, mistakes that several TNA employees have made before in WCW and didn't learn from. I think this is a reason hardcore wrestling fans especially dog on TNA so hard. You're just watching WCW with a smaller budget all over again, sometimes.

Also, I think your hardcore fan is predisposed to hate TNA. It has Hulk Hogan, it has Bischoff, it has Russo, it has Dixie, and it doesn't push guys like AJ, Joe, or Austin Aries straight to the moon. I know all of those guys have been pushed really hard in that company, but the fact that Hogan still gets more mic time than AJ Styles really drives hardcore fans crazy, and that's all we are on the Internet.

So, yeah, I think the predisposition to hate TNA is unfair, but TNA doesn't do a lot to change your mind, so I'd say about half the hate is fair.

 

[dtroppe]

No, people have been honest. Not too hard and not too easy. Impact is a lousy program and because of that they have low ratings. How is hard to say that. Things that are good get good ratings. Also some lousy shows get good ratings because people spread the word that they are in fact good shows. Its a tv cycle. Dexter is perfect example- small show started out with excellent writing and the plot seemed to loosen over the seasons. People spread the word and started watching. TNA is a lousy show that a handfull of loyalists tune into and even though they try to spread the word, it is so bad that it doesnt catch on.

 

[iwinulose]

oh yeah people rip on tna way to much, i dont actually think most of the haters actually watch tna, but for the most part they do a great job. i mean they have great matches, make some pretty good promo's. one of the down sides is hulk hogan, they listen to that senile old bugger way to much.

 

[Zeven_Zion]

No, people have been honest. Not too hard and not too easy. Impact is a lousy program and because of that they have low ratings. How is hard to say that. Things that are good get good ratings. Also some lousy shows get good ratings because people spread the word that they are in fact good shows. Its a tv cycle. Dexter is perfect example- small show started out with excellent writing and the plot seemed to loosen over the seasons. People spread the word and started watching. TNA is a lousy show that a handfull of loyalists tune into and even though they try to spread the word, it is so bad that it doesnt catch on.

Ah, but what your genius mind is missing is that TNA Wrestling is a WRESTLING TV show. I don't know if you had your head up your ass so far, you probably did, but there are a lot less wrestling fans out there than there are casual TV viewers. A large portion of the audiences don't like wrestling period. They never did and they never will. They think it's cheesy, fake, gay and so on.

If a casual viewer is flipping the channels and sees 'Dexter', he'll give it a shot because it's a normal show, and if it just so happens to be well written and interesting s/he will continue to watch it.

If the same casual viewer is flipping the channels and sees Impact Wrestling he'll keep on browsing for some good stuff and won't give TNA a chance because it's wrestling.

Therefore it's very unfair to compare a wrestling show with TV series. It's also quite pathetic to deem a show "bad" because the rating is lower than WWE's. If we judge a show by that, and we know that WWE draws triple the ratings TNA does, are you telling me that their matches are three times better than TNA's? That their roster is three times better than TNA's? That their promos are three times better than TNA's? That their storylines are three times better than TNA's? If you do then this debate is over, you're a complete moron.

If not, then you'll come to the tragic realization that the ratings only reveal the popularity of the show, not how good it is. There are a plethora of factors which affect the ratings, spanning from which Network you're on to how good your marketing strategies are. Quality certainly can make them or break them, but I highly doubt that quality alone will improve the ratings. I've said it before and I'll say it again - TNA can have a flawless product, but until it becomes more popular in some fashion, they'll only dish this flawless product to a selected number of wrestling fans and that's it.

Look at all the wonderful singers there are out there. There are bums who can hit every note and nail every song there is. But they're not rich, they're not popular. There are indy actors who are amazing. But they'll never win an Oscar or achieve any type of success. There are young, aspiring politicians who have morals, class and integrity - they'll never even be governors. Son, if anything entertainment related became popular based on quality, the entertainment industry wouldn't be such a shit hole right now, music wouldn't suck, we'd watch great movies and we'd get awesome wrestling. We don't get either, and yes I do include politics as a part of the entertainment industry.

Not to mention that TNA's rating isn't actually low. It's just lower than WWE's. Jersey Shore draws better ratings than RAW. Does it mean that the show is better?

 

[Jack-Hammer]

The answer is yes for some and no for others.

Some fans haven't really even tried to give TNA a chance. Some won't invest their time and effort into it and see if there's any aspect of the product worth looking at. Some will rag on TNA just for the hell of it becaus there are so many other people that aren't into it.

For some, however, they're just being honest. I've watched TNA almost the entire time they've been on Spike and it's been mixed. I enjoyed it initially but I thought things really, really started going downhill around late 2008 to very early 2009, continued throughout 2010 and for much of this year. The X Division meant nothing, the Knockouts ultimately went the same route, older wrestlers constantly being put over at the expense of younger talent without any payoff to show for it in terms of increased ratings or ppv buys, an oversaturation of veterans that simply weren't entertaining or couldn't get the job done inside the ring or the mic, long & repetitive faction war/corporate power struggle storylines that gobbled up air time, Hogan & Bischoff showing up in every other segment, wrestlers being pushed (such as Abyss) that really shouldn't have, useless concepts like the TNA Ranking System, tv broadcasts consisting almost entirely of meaningless 3 minute matches, mediocre championship reigns & feuds, and on and on it went. The reason I kept watching, generally, was because of a handful of talents like AJ Styles, Beer Money and a handful of others.

However, since Vince Russo has been replaced as head booker, there have been positive changes such as better overall wrestling quality, the X Division actually resembling something of its former glory, pushing new & viable stars into top positions within the company, giving those stars time to grow on fans before immediately de-pushing them if the ratings slump, the faction wars & power struggle storyline seems to have finally died, younger and/or generally newer faces are being put at the forefront instead of consistently jobbing them out and putting over older guys. In short, IW has become a consistently watchable show within the past several months in my view.

Does that mean that they've stopped putting stuff on television that I'm just not that into? Of course not. That'd be impossible because there's always going to be something that they do that someone, somewhere just isn't that into. And voicing that dislike isn't "hating", it's stating an opinion. If the blind fanboys can't stand negative criticism, they're the ones with the problem and need to grow up. If the wrestlers themselves don't like it, they need to get out of wrestling & the public eye altogether and try to find themselves a nice little cubicle in a nice office somewhere.

 

[kor420]

The answer is yes for some and no for others.

Some fans haven't really even tried to give TNA a chance. Some won't invest their time and effort into it and see if there's any aspect of the product worth looking at. Some will rag on TNA just for the hell of it becaus there are so many other people that aren't into it.

For some, however, they're just being honest. I've watched TNA almost the entire time they've been on Spike and it's been mixed. I enjoyed it initially but I thought things really, really started going downhill around late 2008 to very early 2009, continued throughout 2010 and for much of this year. The X Division meant nothing, the Knockouts ultimately went the same route, older wrestlers constantly being put over at the expense of younger talent without any payoff to show for it in terms of increased ratings or ppv buys, an oversaturation of veterans that simply weren't entertaining or couldn't get the job done inside the ring or the mic, long & repetitive faction war/corporate power struggle storylines that gobbled up air time, Hogan & Bischoff showing up in every other segment, wrestlers being pushed (such as Abyss) that really shouldn't have, useless concepts like the TNA Ranking System, tv broadcasts consisting almost entirely of meaningless 3 minute matches, mediocre championship reigns & feuds, and on and on it went. The reason I kept watching, generally, was because of a handful of talents like AJ Styles, Beer Money and a handful of others.

However, since Vince Russo has been replaced as head booker, there have been positive changes such as better overall wrestling quality, the X Division actually resembling something of its former glory, pushing new & viable stars into top positions within the company, giving those stars time to grow on fans before immediately de-pushing them if the ratings slump, the faction wars & power struggle storyline seems to have finally died, younger and/or generally newer faces are being put at the forefront instead of consistently jobbing them out and putting over older guys. In short, IW has become a consistently watchable show within the past several months in my view.

Does that mean that they've stopped putting stuff on television that I'm just not that into? Of course not. That'd be impossible because there's always going to be something that they do that someone, somewhere just isn't that into. And voicing that dislike isn't "hating", it's stating an opinion. If the blind fanboys can't stand negative criticism, they're the ones with the problem and need to grow up. If the wrestlers themselves don't like it, they need to get out of wrestling & the public eye altogether and try to find themselves a nice little cubicle in a nice office somewhere.

Everything here is correct, especially since Vince Russo was replaced as head booker things are looking up. TNA is so much better now than it was just at the beginning of the year, i use to live for Mondays but now i can't wait for Thursdays. TNA is so much better than wwe right now imho.

 

[theshadowranger]

Some of it is unfair bias some of it is that it's compared to WWE. We all grew up watching wwe and when you see the long history and the big stage and bright lights you can't help but see TNA as 2nd rate.

The bias comes in when people only talk about the bad and ignore the good. When TNA gives people what they want, they get ignored. Everyone went into a frenzy demanding the Roode when the world title. Now that he is world champion noone seems to care about it.

I listen to a lot of wrestling radio shows and people only call in to talk about TNA when the want to complain. Every show had people call in to complain that Roode didn't get the belt at BFG. Now he is the champion an no one calls in to those shows to talk about Roode as champ.

People complain about hogan,sting, and bischoff taking up too much tv time. Hogan hasn't been on tv in 2 months, bischoff is barely on and sting has wrestled 1time since BFG.

People complain about the ex-WWE guys always being on top.

5 of the 7 current title holders are TNA homegrown talents
the other 2 are Morgan and Kim who are better known for their TNA runs and no one cares.

The past 2 PPV main events were TNA guys fighting for the title. No one cared going into the shows but when they didn't like the outcomes they all complained.

TNA has a much harder trip to make to the top. WCW had a billionaire funding it who also owned his own TV network. They didn't have to answer to a network or worry about losing their time slot. The owner of wcw was the owner of the network.

Yes people are way too hard on tna, they are a much younger and smaller company than WWE and shouldnt be held to the same standards in some areas.

 

[GameOver]

I too would say yes and no
They already had a base to work with, taking WCW guys that weren't employed by WWE and bringing in some amazing talent from indies.

But really what have they done since then? nothing, just repeated the same mistakes WCW was and that's no wonder when it was the some of the production and backstage staff doing the same things.

It's been stagnantly just marketable for years and nothing changes.

Only in the last year that they've really stepped up as far as some sense of logical booking.

I can say not being a fan but still watching, when i first got word of TNA through a youtube vid bout 7yrs ago i was impressed with the six sided ring theme and the XDivision was OMG WTF!!! but all of that has gone and TNA is just another generic show with some good enough talent.

in summary WWE is consistant (consistantly bad the last few years lol),
TNA has fleeting moments of greatness coupled with worthless PPV's and boring acting.
Give TNA money and if they put it into marketing, training and production and booking skills there may be a great show.

 

[GameOver]

Some of it is unfair bias some of it is that it's compared to WWE. We all grew up watching wwe and when you see the long history and the big stage and bright lights you can't help but see TNA as 2nd rate.

The bias comes in when people only talk about the bad and ignore the good. When TNA gives people what they want, they get ignored. Everyone went into a frenzy demanding the Roode when the world title. Now that he is world champion noone seems to care about it.

I listen to a lot of wrestling radio shows and people only call in to talk about TNA when the want to complain. Every show had people call in to complain that Roode didn't get the belt at BFG. Now he is the champion an no one calls in to those shows to talk about Roode as champ.

People complain about hogan,sting, and bischoff taking up too much tv time. Hogan hasn't been on tv in 2 months, bischoff is barely on and sting has wrestled 1time since BFG.

People complain about the ex-WWE guys always being on top.

5 of the 7 current title holders are TNA homegrown talents
the other 2 are Morgan and Kim who are better known for their TNA runs and no one cares.

The past 2 PPV main events were TNA guys fighting for the title. No one cared going into the shows but when they didn't like the outcomes they all complained.

TNA has a much harder trip to make to the top. WCW had a billionaire funding it who also owned his own TV network. They didn't have to answer to a network or worry about losing their time slot. The owner of wcw was the owner of the network.

Yes people are way too hard on tna, they are a much younger and smaller company than WWE and shouldnt be held to the same standards in some areas.

all of that has only changed in the last 2 months. Too little

as for Roode as champ, i don't think it's him it's the way they went about it, ie Storm was the one that got the nod not Roode, Roode only got in cause Storm got injured. Why couldn't Storm have won, been a face champ for a while then creep in Storm vs Roode rivalry over a few PPV's leading to a heel turn.

That and the rest of the product around these newly pushed stars is still bad (in general) hell even the Knockout division has become really mindless and that was the best thing TNA had when they effectively scrapped the XDivision.


Personally i like Roode as champ, i think he's the best thing going in TNA atm.
He's a triple threat (Mic, Ring and Personality) and Bully Ray has done a 180 in his ability + EY continues to give Santino a run for his money in being the funniest segments on wrestling TV. There's 3 good things that have come out of the clusterfuck that is TNA the last few years.

 

[multiverseman.com]

I think the frustration with TNA comes from what they could be doing instead of what they are. Sure some people are WWE marks and always will be. Some of us are generally frustrated that they make some of the same dumb mistakes WCW did for no good reason.

Jeff Jarrett is a wrestling legend though, no matter how you look at it. He went from WWE castoff to WCW champ to creating legit competition for the WWE. He's truly made lemonade out of lemons.

 

[H33LTurn]

Absolutely. I'm not even going to attempt to say that TNA is run anywhere as well as WWE is but its doing pretty well for a company with so many obstacles going against it. TNA is inferior to WWE in money, auidience and quantity of talent but its still managed to make itself one of the more known companies out there. Sure, they do make mistakes, often might I add, but people act like WWE doesnt either. WWE focuses more on the entertainment aspect than anything else. It has a superstar, a storyline, a show, etc for every member of the WWE Universe to enjoy. TNA lacks that diversity and targets a specific, older audience, which is maybe what has limited the company for so long. I honestly dont see whats so wrong with it though, its like any other wrestling company out there. It has its ups and its downs but it still keeps me watching. I guess people have just adopted a negative attitude about TNA and every little thing that doesnt go over so well, like Stings joker character, gets blown out of proportion.

 

[Defekt]

I try to support TNA, but usually get frustrated with the poor booking and give up.

This most recent go around, I was all in until Bound for Glory.

Kurt Angle retained the title against Bobby Rude (who was booked as a Cinderella story) in a mediocre match, then lost it a few days later on Impact to James Storm, who lost it it to Roode the next week.

I've heard a few people try and rationalize these events, but I didn't like it, and it turned me off TNA for the time being.

With that said, I agree they've come a long way as far as being taken seriously as a major promotion, and I hope they find success.

 

[BK Styles]

Some brilliant responses here, and I thank all of you for taking the time to give your thoughts.

The main point of this thread for me is this; regardless of issues with people in power(Dixie, Hogan, Jarrett, Russo etc) and storyline issues, all problems I complately agree with by the way, TNA's position in a world where for the last 10 years WWE has been the ONLY consistant number 1 in the wrestling world is actually very good. Yes they make bad mistakes, and yes it is a bit reminiscent of late WCW, but look at WWE. They've had some great ups in history, and some huge downs, but look where they've ended up.

My point; take all of the bad storylines, odd booking, bad management out, and look at TNA's position in regards to its lifespan and what it has going for it. Yes it has negatives, but it has a helluva lot of positives too, and actually, it's in a pretty good position now, all things considered. You could even say it's in a goodposition despite the negatives pointed out by all, and I'm getting the consensus that the majority here agree with this.

Please, keep your opinions coming

 

[Brian in Austin]

I think it depends on what aspect of TNA we're talking about. For example, when Hulk Hogan signed with TNA we were sold the notion that he and Bischoff were going to be the difference makers they needed to take TNA to the next level. How many years later is it now and if we look at the ratings that really hasn't worked in their favor. In fact, their ratings, more of less overall, have remained flat. Have they seen spikes in ratings? Yes. But for the most part, they've remained mostly the same.

We were told that it was the young guys who would get a push, but that took a very long time to materialize and now that Hogan and Bischoff have finally taken a back seat, we are seeing some better results (IMHO) on tv. FTR I was never a proponent of the idea that using Hogan, Bischoff, Flair et al in storylines was going to produce results.

Now are people too hard on TNA? Not in my opinion based on what we were told we would see once Hogan et al arrived on the scene.

 

[SinCityBlitz]

No they haven't been too hard on TNA. People want an alternative to the WWE not another WWE. TNA is basically WWE lite.

Fans rip the WWE all the time so why should TNA get any kind of break? They had the chance to look at the things that WCW and WWE did and not make the same mistakes yet they did the exact same stupid things both companies did.

I want nothing more than for TNA to rise up and be a serious challenger to the WWE. Competition makes everybody better.

There should be no such thing as being too hard on a company. When they do something stupid they should be called out on it. Likewise when they do something great they should get credit. Fanboys of both be damned.

But there are a certain bunch of people that will never be happy.

 

[Krossbreed]

Well this whole james storm kurt angle feud is superior to any wwe feud right now. Something was getting really repetitive with tna maybe it was vince russo's booking, but ever since the bound for glory tournament TNA has been a whole lot better.

TNA is one breakout star away from pulling over wwe fans and one media darling away from taking wrestling to new heights. Now that cm punk is fading...cena is unbearable, there really isnt any wwe star that makes me watch...i just have a habbit of watching raw...while tna has guys like aj styles and jeff hardy who can get hot at any given time.

I dont know whats in some of your kool aids but tna is more entertaining to watch, the talent work so hard and if it wasnt for zack ryder, ziggler, cm punk(who needs to go back to being a rebel) i prob would be tired of wwe myself.

When tna brings back motor city machine guns...with a good angle, and gets more original faces signed maybe people who r bored of wrestling will give tna a try. There knock out division is good tv

 

[IHW]

100 %. People are way to hard on TNA.

Yes, things have been rough, and the ride has been crazy to get where they are. But, they need the constructive criticism.

 

[famous]

First of all, the ratings argument is starting to go out the window as WWE has gone from triple to barely to not to far above TNA. If it was even relevant before as the highest rated shows on TV have gone from 33 at the beginning of WWE's rise to power to 8.8 this year (American Idol by the way) so when you look at it objectively from a business standpoint anything 1.0 to 1.5 is pretty damn good considering the WWE hovers around 3.0 lately, both shows actually have great ratings considering all the other shows on TV. Second let us not forget that TNA Originals like AJ, Daniels, JJ, guys like EY and Bobby Roode not only wrestled in WWF/E either full time or in an attempt to sign, including Kaz who was being poised to be something in the cruiserweights till it was demphasized, but some of them includingAJ, Daniels, JJ, and a few guys who were there in the PPV days where WCW guys. So the pushing former WWE/WCW wrestlers argument is dumb as they did it "when it was good" just no one remembers the guys from Heat/Velocity/Etc. So in short, yes wrestling "fans" are too hard on TNA.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

So you're looking for a subjective opinion on the subjective opinions of "some fans". This is about as broad a question that I have seen in any non-spam section. It is so broad that I recommend that the only opinion that you read is your own since it is the only one that truly matters and all other opinions are unlikely to provide any constructive argument.

But to answer your question, the answer is "of course". "Some fans" are unfair. I consider myself "some fan" or at least "someone" that used to be a "fan" and I admit that I have been unfair. But I also know that I turned on the show a few weeks ago and saw Garrett "I just wish I had Matt Hardy's charisma" Bischoff winning a match. That is a terrible thing. I don't know if it is unfair to use the word "terrible". It is certainly dramatic and compared to someone's dog getting run over by a car it is not "terrible" but that is how I feel when I see Garrett "My dad is no longer over, why would anyone expect me to get over?" Bischoff on my TV.

I recommend that you stick to more specific, less open-ended thread topics. Ryan86 is someone that might be a good example for you to learn how to start a thread that will generate actual discussion.

 

[James Greiga]

Well think about it, the more people who insult your product theres more information that allows you to get better. They have gotten better but i still cannot get past than just a few minutes of the show it is just awful.

 

[sephx42]

I've tried so many times to give TNA a shot, but the answer for me has been echoed in the thread quite a bit already - they let too much of what killed WCW run the show. During the back end of the Monday Night Wars (and most of the nWo) they made a product out of taking any scraps WWE trimmed the fat for. TNA is like the gross fat girl that wants to finish your dinner. "Hey, that junkie you fired last week...Can we have him?"

I mean, seriously, they kill all of their own credibility when the fans KNOW an active, non-rehabilitated drug user or a guy that couldn't get over/is too old/has personal issues is showing up with the same problems that got them fired a month ago.

You guys read waay too much into ratings, though. It's like alchemy, it's only telling a part of a much bigger picture, and some of you guys seem to use it as fortune-telling or a barometer. WWE might be in the toilet right now, but one high-profile return, one great storyline, or a sudden influx of rookie talent, and they're right back to where they were. TNA still has to get word of mouth built up, restore faith in their product, and actually up the quality before it can grow. That is YEARS from now, if ever.