Yes, made them relevant, by issuing them as intermediates in a niche company who's focus was on maintaining the blood thirst of ultra-violence fans. Austin may have been prematurely born in ECW, but believe me, it was the WWE that birthed him, not ECW - ECW simply used him for a short span while still quenching the thirst of the blood-thirsty. The premise of that company was on shock value, not wrestling value, so to sit there and tell me that there are examples of wrestlers who made their careers there who were not hardcore wrestlers is false all of those wrestlers (Jericho, Mysterio, etc.) made their names afterward. They just used ECW as a springboard. It's not the same at all.
They moved on from ECW because of money, and wanting to pursue their careers. Many of the talent that stayed in ECW were on their way down from the top. They were misused by WCW/WWF. Guys like Jericho, Beniot, Mysterio were plucked from ECW by Bischoff because they drew. That's no slight on ECW, they left because they wanted bigger exposure and more money - which for a company still in its development is no shame.
On the subject of Austin. You can't have a go at ECW simply because he made his name in WWF. Of course he did, because they had many more viewers. WCW showed that booking Austin was by no means a forgone conclusion. Bischoff claiming that "Stunning Steve" was 'unmarketable' (
Source - see paragraph 6).
Heyman booked an Austin character that went on to form the basis of his character in WWF. Maybe it was obvious - but Bischoff didn't see it.
TNA doesn't have a niche at all. Their niche, if any, is serving as an "alternative" to the WWE. That's it. They've yet to gimmick themselves into something as specific as ECW or ROH did, and I'm not entirely sure they need to it certainly didn't do wonders for either of those companies. It worked for ECW, relatively speaking, but it never took them to the heights of stardom we're expecting of TNA, so to compare the two (or three) is apples to oranges.
The only thing that stops TNA from being the same size as ROH is the money. If ECW had the pockets of TNA it would still be running today. As for not being like ECW - I don't see much difference between either product in the last month or so. More matches than not have invovled weapons, stipulations, and blood. It may not have been where TNA came from, but it's seemingly where they are going.
As for your comment about the same level as stardom of TNA. TNA is drawing remarkably similar TV ratings to what ECW did when they were on TNN. And ECW buyrates were much larger. OK the business may not be as strong now as it once was, but ECW first PPV (way before they had a nationwide TV deal) bought many more numbers in than current TNA PPV's do.
ECW never had the names that were built in other companies like TNA does. It couldn't afford them. But ECW's achievement with very little backing is far greater than TNA's with such deep pockets.
It doesn't matter. They, just like ECW and ROH among others had a marginal taste of success, which is paramount to the argument here when juxtaposed with the level of success that is being expected of TNA. Apples to oranges, again.
See above. I've seen nothing to suggest TNA is any bigger right now than ECW was.
I disagree, as fans almost certainly care about Alex Shelley, Chris Sabin, Beer Money, Inc., AJ Styles, and Samoa Joe among others all of whom have been built by TNA over the years. None may be household names when you compare them to the legacy and lineage of the WWE's current crop of "up and comers", but then again, neither were half the guys created by the WWF before they were actually created and built over years. You have any idea who Vinnie Vegas is? No? Bet you know who Diesel and Kevin Nash are though, huh?
Oh please. People care about Shelly, Styles etc... because they put on good matches. But there characters are non-existant.
"We're from the Motor City" - great. Now whats special about you? "er... we can fly around". Every TNA gimmick is a name and a concept. "Beer Money" - they drink beer - that's it. No character development. Abyss is probably the only exception to this rule - and his character is hardly the most revolutionary thing I've ever seen.
Oh, and Jack Swagger, John Morrison, etc. do? Please, man take your foot out of your mouth so I can at least try to understand the point you're trying to make. Again, this is predicated on the WWE's lineage, and not the actual ability of their performers. No one would give a fuck about Jack Swagger in ROH or in TNA or anywhere else for that matter if he wasn't a WWE wrestler with the WWE backing him. Same goes for guys like Drew McIntyre, John Morrison, over half of the Nexus, etc.
Yeah, some of this is true. Morrison, and Swagger I'll give you. But I don't really feel you've given some of the Nexus guys a chance. They've just passed their sixth month mark on TV (although you may well end up being right - Slater, Young and Gabriel don't bode well for long term characters). But these guys have only been on TV for six months.
And besides. These guys are the exceptions to the rule. In TNA - characters like Morrison and Swagger are everywhere. I'm not saying WWE is perfect, but it's lightyears ahead of TNA when it comes to character development.
Styles has been on TV for years, and his character his still completely dull. Sure he can wrestle to a very high standard. But out of the ring there is nothing. Just like all the rest - a name "AJ Styles", and a concept "The Phenomenal One". Now what? Erm...
Just look at Jeff Hardy. He's crap in TNA because they have not got a clue how to use him. Just look at the formula - a name "Jeff Hardy" - a concept "The Charistmatic Enigma" (whatever that means). Now what? "He was a big name in WWE - this must work".
It hasn't, on any level.
That may be true, but I don't think that's an indictment on the fact that TNA fans, which you are carelessly lump-summing into a group that's represented by the fans at the iMPACT! Zone, don't care about the product. If anything, that's proven false every week when over 1 million homes tune in to watch the show. That number may be marginal when you compare it to a company like the WWE who've been around for over two decades, but it's not when you compare it to other starters without the same history to point to.
If no one cared about the EV2.0/Fortune beatdown, why did over half the audience of iMPACT! tune in to watch ReAction directly following iMPACT!, which featured a ton of overflow from the very concept?
As another has said, half tuned in, but half turned off. Reaction is bound to do well this week. But you can't come off each impact with an invasion angle.
Impact numbers are on the same level as ECW. Business has dropped off a bit, but ECW never had any stars that were made elsewhere. Infact, it says everything about ECW - that some of the best characters in TNA right now who are the draws - The Dudleys, RVD and EV2 - were all made by ECW. TNA have added zero to their characters - because they don't know how to.
Equal? TNA has Hogan, Flair and Angle of which only Angle wrestles for them semi-regularly. The WWE has the Undertaker, Chris Jericho, Edge, John Cena, HHH, Big Show, Rey Mysterio, Kane, etc. I'd hardly call that equal. Most of the veterans in TNA are there as mouth-pieces, not performers, so it's much more difficult for them to get guys over the way Jericho does on a weekly basis for the WWE products.
I was comparing iMPACT to NXT. NXT carries the WWE name (but none of the big stars). And yet it draws similar numbers as iMPACT does with Angle, RVD, Kennedy, Hardy etc...
As for most of the verterans in TNA being mouth pieces - Sting, Nash, Hall, Flair - they've all still been wrestling. And Hogan would - if his back allowed it.
Yet you know what of Jack Swagger, Drew McIntyre, etc.? Why do they get labeled a success, while their counterparts in TNA fail?
Swagger, I'll give you. But McIntyre has a character far more developed than most in TNA. Unlike TNA, the concept of his character actually works within storylines.
Nope, but it did contain a leader who was 56-yeras old, that being Ric Flair in 2005. Marginal difference if you ask me.
Flair never lead Evolution.
Right, I forgot, because all of wrestling needs to be focused on the most literal sense of realism, right? That must be why 3'2 Rey Mysterio was capable of beating 7'0 Kane, right?
No one cares about that title because since the day AJ, Joe and Daniels moved on, none of the spot monkeys that people are so convinced they need to return to were worth watching - that is why he's in a feud with Doug Williams for a "title no one cares about anymore". If anything, Williams has done a fantastic job of making people care for it again by making them hate him for the very reason the title was deflated to begin with for being against the spot monkeys.
If you ask me, the current X Division championship storyline is the best storyline they've had since Jerry Lynn/Daniels/Sabin.
What storyline? He won the X-Division title. Then only one person tried to take it off him. Now this challengers have all dissapeared. This angle only works if people want the belt. Right now, nobody does.
Bland wrestlers without personality? Are you fucking mad? AJ Styles has more personality in his pubic hair than half of Nexus, yet I bet you'd be all over the Nexus being the "hottest thing in wrestling" a few weeks prior. The only one without a personality in that group is Kaz, and it just so happens he's also the least important of them all.
Like I said above. I agree about Nexus, but you must atleast give them time to develop. Styles has no personality. Neither does Beer Money, or Kazarian.
