I'll chime in, and I will get to my opinion as to who "won" at the end, but before I do, I want to just address some of the ongoing dilemmas and sub-arguments:
1) Ratings matter for the masses. It does not matter to your personal enjoyment of a show. However, for a show to survive, there has to be mainstream appeal. You could hear about a show like "freaks and geeks" being a lost classic, but it lasted only 1 season due to poor ratings. I have gone back and watched the show and it's actually quite good, but that doesn't replace the fact that it didn't get enough people watching its "quality programming" to keep it alive past 13 episodes. As this pertains to wrestling, the goal is to appeal to as many people as possible. Thus, TNA's program needs to continue to grow, because whether some internet fans like it or not, that won't grow the audience.
2) The argument using WCW as a model to "grow ratings" is basically ridiculous. When Nitro debuted, it actually outscored Raw by a tenth of a point. The ratings after that first week boom went mostly to the WWF for a few months, but by mid 1996, WCW was winning each and every week. Now I understand that WCW was around a few years before Nitro went on the air and had other television programming, but the same could be said of TNA. One could also argue that TNA has featured performers with "name value" in the same regard that WCW was able to, with the exception being that a lot of the name value TNA has is no longer able to be intricate to programming in a wrestling capacity. With that said, we must discount the argument that TNA needs years to build, because WCW had that. The truth is, it didn't, so TNA is already behind the curve.
3) Until March 8th, the OVERALL difference in content geared to an age related audience was negligent as it relates to TNA and WWE. Some have used Hornswoggle or DX (who haven't really been around in a couple of months) as reasons WWE is kid related, but up until recently, not much of an argument was presented regarding TNA as adult other than "it's TV-14, thus it's more geared towards adults". I will admit that TNA made an effort to be "risque" on Monday with a lot of blood, some more language than usual, and sexuality in relation to the champagne bath. If these items relate to you as an adult, then TNA did its job. I would argue that storyline-wise, the content is very similar between the show, and simply using a 2 minute segment of the show (Hornswoggle) as an excuse to say the ENTIRE show relates to children is a weak argument at best. If a TNA fan asks for their show not to be judged as a whole based on one segment, so too should that fan not judge WWE programming based on one performer who appears maybe 2 minutes a show.
4) Schizo and I have agreed to disagree before, but one thing I do respect about him is his ability to back up his opinions with reason. I have seen more reasoning than usual in this thread, but I have offered more. As all that relates to Monday, it's fun to share opinion, but it's also not fair to rag on someone else who differs in opinion.
I may have missed some things as I'm doing this all from memory, but with all those points made, let me give my opinion on "the wars" week 1. This time around, it wasn't so much of a war in terms of who was watching and even in terms of both sides "putting up a fight." If anything, the closer analogy would be like a freshman class challenging a few seniors to a fight. The freshman, motivated and driven, with energy out the wazzoo gather up the usual suspects and even get a few sophomores to join the cause. While motivated and perhaps good fighters, they aren't yet ready for the fight, and when this group shows up to the senior's party, they are ignored while the seniors hang out and have a good time on their own as usual. I think this analogy holds very true for the TNA vs. WWE argument. While TNA came out with guns blaring, doing everything possible to say "look at me! look at me!", the WWE went about business as usual, as it has its biggest Pay Per View of the year on the 28th.
I will admit that at first glance, I found TNA's episode to be much better than it's 1/4 version. Although there were similarities in the "look at me!" style, the surprises were better and the X-Division match was much better than the clusterfuck in the red cage last time. However, when I really sat down to watch Impact, I found too much of it hard to comprehend and somewhat laughable to remotely give it respect as a show. I will not get into every detail, but if I get questioned, I will answer anything directly. As a whole, I found TNA's program to be a lot of flash with little substance. So much was made about Hogan getting back in the ring, but it was anti-climactic at best. Throughout the show, there was questionable booking, best exemplified by RVD getting absolutely pummeled, taking any focus off of someone who could be a big draw. The focus was purely on a man who shouldn't wrestle and one who had recent shoulder surgery and can't do much either. Again, I felt this was a better effort than 1/4, but I still am not, and probably will never be a fan of Vince Russo hot-shot booking. Very rarely is the long term truly looked at and I would guess that the future is questionable at best.
Raw on the other hand did it's job. It may not have been the OMG WHAT A MOMENT type show, but there was certainly quality interwoven with some throwaway sessions. I was fond of any of the segments that pushed to wrestlemania, including the ShoMiz/Truth and Wisdom (I'm still sticking with that!) segment as it made it into a feud and not just #1 contenders against champs. Even the end of the show, which was a bit messy, got the point across the Vince will do anything he can to beat Bret because he can, because he's the boss. It also served to fuel Cena even more as Batista continues to get the uppser hand. I'm a fan of logical booking over hot-shot booking, so Raw appealed to me more. While I can understand at first glance how people enjoyed Impact for being unpredictable and fast paced, I found it too out of control and leaving it all on the field so to speak, so that moving forward, there is no way to keep that pace up, and thus, an inconsistency in booking. For me, I'd like TNA to slow down and focus on a few major things, that would raise my level of enjoyment. Also, I'm not a fan of the desperate use of blood and language. If it's needed, do it, but the more you do, the more it becomes watered down.
Conclusion is a no contest. When one side doesn't consider it a competition, you can't have a winner and loser. With that said, TNA is behind the curve. They have names, good workers, a television slot, Pay Per View guarantees, but still have trouble reaching great numbers. Focus on clean up the product and making it flow better and more logically and then get the marketing machine going. That is my suggestion. Until then, they are just the internet wrestling fan show for those who like to bash WWE. I personally would like to see TNA grow and put on better shows if not for my own selfishness and wanting as much good wrestling as possible. Perhaps good in my mind is different than others, but I can dream, can't I?
a show got its lowest rating and u guys consider that a win. I dont know why there are so many TNA marks yet they cant get decent ratings consistnetly
Ratings is all that matters in the end, and TNA failed to even reach the height they'd previously put themselves.