Is WWE more overrated than TNA?

[Jackal960]

Every major company at any given timeframe has it's pros and cons. Although we don't want to see it most of the time, it's always there. It's sometimes hard to admit but at the end it's to truth whether we like it or not. I have always watched WWE more than any other show. WWE over NWA, WCW or TNA. The best years for me was when it was old school. Mainly because i found it more beleivable at that time, I thought there was no kayfebe. But then there wasn't great promos, or it was taking limited time on the air. Then Attitude Era was great, but it was all brawls in the ring. Although there were great matches, most matches were designed to continue the storyline, so wrestling quality was at second plan. What I am trying to say is even we like the show as a whole, there is always cons behind the pros.

Today IMHO we have WWE as the ONLY major wrestling company. That's why I would love TNA to reach WWE's standards and i will support them till they reach that goal, because ultimately it will make WWE a much better show too.

However, when I read all these threads, there is a bit of bias of how well WWE is. Being the only major company doesn't mean they are doing all the rights. Actually they are doing more wrongs than rights. Yes, WWE has it's advantages, it is more professional to start with. When you watch TNA you never have that "major company" feel. Also when you look at the storylines more often than not, it's quite easy to follow. You have your top feuds and midcard feuds. You realize who is getting the push and who is in the doghouse. In TNA you might have a hard time realizing who is main event and who is midcarder, in other words, their card elevator moves too fast. Also with WWE, the crowd makes the show look even bigger where TNA crowd makes the show worse. There are simply too many pros WWE has thats why they still are the only major company.

But, on the other hand, noone mentions, or don't want to see how the roster quality is diminishing every day. 3 years ago the roster was better, 5 years ago it was even better, 10 years ago you had mainevent material everywhere. As much as hopeful IWC is, there is no reason to be that hopeful because youngsters have not reached anything as yet. Maybe they will in the future, but maybe they won't! What about today? If Shaemus or Barrett or McIntyre changes the ship and goes to TNA, how bad would it affect WWE? I would say "zero" the reason is, as much hyped as they are, they are a "work in progress". They may or may not be successful. So we can agree that today's roster "might" look promising but not there, so there is no reason to talk like they will definitely succeed. We are not in 97 so WWE is not in high risk, so i don't think they will push hard to create them as legends.

Another thing is, the overall quality of the show has gone worse as well. Again, 3 years ago i was enjoying the show more, 5 years even more, 10 years ago it was one for the ages. Today more often than not the show is boring. Too many bullsh*t segments with low quality promos. Nowadays it started to pick-up thanks to the Rock and "freestyle" Cena, but only a couple of weeks back, everyone was worried about the WM card. That was only because the shows and PPV's weren't great so there weren't many wrestlers you would definitely want to see at wrestlemania. And considering the whole year, as much as short-memory guys we sometimes can become, until Nexus there wasn't even an interesting storyline going.

When it comes to bashing TNA, people are ready to pull he trigger, most of the time rightly so, but some part of IWC is critisizing TNA so much that WWE suffers from it as well. Without a good competition we will be stuck with mediocre WWE. That's why i think IWC overrates the quality of WWE. What do you think?

 

[terrylee]

Are you serious? Nearly everyone in the IWC constantly bashes the general WWE Product, so I don't know what you mean. Sure there may be more discussion about the WWE here than TNA, but that's to be expected.

You must be seeing things if all you see here are threads praising the WWE. It's almost the complete opposite (i.e. "What Changes does the WWE need to make to be good again?", "Bring back Stone Cold!", etc.).

 

[Jackal960]

No the reason i wrote the thread was just a joke of course serious, seriously serious. And i don't need to list all the posts here.

When WWE does some similar mistake to TNA, IWC is more tolerable. People advocate WWE so much against TNA. Or if TNA does a mistake, it's much more in your face on the threads.

Mind you i didn't mention WWE on it's own, i said WWE is more overrated than TNA.. As a comparison... It's about comparing WWE to TNA and about how IWC reacts...

 

[Decarow]

WWE is light-years ahead of TNA. That's why it's a billion dollar company. Of course it'll be over-rated. Nothing's perfect though.

You say the youngsters have not reached anything. You're right. Wanna know why? BECAUSE THEY ARE "YOUNGSTERS"! You can't debut and be the next Austin in the same night. Austin didn't even turn into Austin over-night!

Let's look at who will most likely be main eventing in WWE in 5 years:

Cena
Orton
Miz
Morrison
Sheamus
McIntyre
Barrett
Swagger

Those are the guys the WWE will be rotating their titles around.

And honestly, the program has improved in the past year. I've caught myself watching a lot more. I started watching 6 years ago. 3 years ago I just kept up with the results. Now I've been watching it more. The stories are getting better. Especially post-Mania last year.

And yes they are rated higher over TNA. Because they are better. They know how to captivate the audience. TNA is not at the level WWE is, in fact they are pretty far away. 3 years ago they were on the right track. They were slowly getting there. Then they brought in Hogan and Bischoff to, metaphorically speaking, give the show "steroids" to jump the show up to WWE's standards of competition, but it has hurt them.

 

[Jackal960]

WWE is light-years ahead of TNA. That's why it's a billion dollar company. Of course it'll be over-rated.

You are just proving my point. I am not saying TNA is better than WWE. I actually said WWE is the only major company in wrestling today and rightfully so.

But if i were to rate things, this is what's happening:

Quality of the show in WWE: 7 Bashing WWE: 3
Quality of the show in TNA: 3 Bashing TNA: 14

 

[ptsheridan]

This thread is pointless because in order to be overrated, something has to be praised highly and unless it's a delusional fanboy of Sting or Hogan, I haven't heard anyone giving praise to the TNA product.

So that pretty much renders all discussion moot.

 

[ptsheridan]

WWE is light-years ahead of TNA. That's why it's a billion dollar company. Of course it'll be over-rated. Nothing's perfect though.

You say the youngsters have not reached anything. You're right. Wanna know why? BECAUSE THEY ARE "YOUNGSTERS"! You can't debut and be the next Austin in the same night. Austin didn't even turn into Austin over-night!

Let's look at who will most likely be main eventing in WWE in 5 years:

Cena
Orton
Miz
Morrison
Sheamus
McIntyre
Barrett
Swagger

Those are the guys the WWE will be rotating their titles around.

And honestly, the program has improved in the past year. I've caught myself watching a lot more. I started watching 6 years ago. 3 years ago I just kept up with the results. Now I've been watching it more. The stories are getting better. Especially post-Mania last year.

And yes they are rated higher over TNA. Because they are better. They know how to captivate the audience. TNA is not at the level WWE is, in fact they are pretty far away. 3 years ago they were on the right track. They were slowly getting there. Then they brought in Hogan and Bischoff to, metaphorically speaking, give the show "steroids" to jump the show up to WWE's standards of competition, but it has hurt them.

List needs more Ziggler. When are people going to realize that Swagger will be gone and in TNA in less than 5 years?

 

[LegendKiller_RKO]

Decarow is on the money here. Yes, stars do not just spawn over night. Its a work in progress. WWE is the premier company. They are not overrated because theres nothing to rate them against. You cant compare the WWE to TNA. Its like comparing a major league baseball team to a minor league team. Theres no comparison. Thats the whole problem with TNA. They focus to much on "what can we do to be like WWE" as opposed to "what can they do to establish themselves as a credible, quality company."

 

[ptsheridan]

Decarow is on the money here. Yes, stars do not just spawn over night. Its a work in progress. WWE is the premier company. They are not overrated because theres nothing to rate them against. You cant compare the WWE to TNA. Its like comparing a major league baseball team to a little league team. Theres no comparison. Thats the whole problem with TNA. They focus to much on "what can we do to be like WWE" as opposed to "what can they do to establish themselves as a credible, quality company."

lol. Sorry, had to. But I totally agree. I tried to watch TNA a bunch of times thinking I could find some kind of redeeming value with Sting, Nash, Hogan, RVD and co. all going over there, but everything they do just rings false.

Although I think the product would increase in quality ten fold if they were in a huge packed arena. It's hard for viewers OR the wrestlers to give a shit about a match when it sounds and looks like it is taking place in a school gymnasium.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Of course WWE is more overrated than TNA and they always will be.

The reason they are is because they got a higher fan base and can give some pretty good programming now and again.

TNA has a lot of fans who love the product (god only knows why) but a great majority of the IWC (and wrestling fans in general) think TNA is absolute shit (personally I agree) so its so easy for the WWE to be more overrated, not nearly as many people hate the WWE as they do TNA, its impossible to be overrated when most people think TNA programming is garbage.

I'm not saying WWE is great, I'm personally not a big fan of them these days either, but they can at least do stuff once in a while that keeps me interested and sometimes I quite enjoy the product, TNA I watch for 5 minutes and change the channel before I throw my remote through the TV.

WWE is always gonna be more overrated, its the better show, its got the big stars, its a hundred million dollar company that is worldwide and it's more talked about on all fronts (how often does any other company get mainstream attention like the WWE?). Its impossible for WWE NOT to be overrated. TNA isn't overrated or underrated, they just plain aren't on a level to be rated.

 

[Rckstrtmmy]

My main beef is the WWE trying to be more realistic. If you look, most matches are filled with strikes and the wrestlers signature moves. There really isn't anything that will make you jump out of your seat and say holy shit that just happened. Most of the matches are formulaic to a fault. I blame this more on the booking than the wrestler's capabilities. On Raw at least, there is almost no in ring action, mainly promos and bs matches only used to further a storyline. Most matches don't get more than 10 minutes, and the matches that go that long always have someone thrown to the outside and a 3 minute commercial break in the middle of the match.

Also, there aren't really any characters anymore. Everyone seems to just be a normal person. Aside from The Undertaker, every big star is just a normal guy. I don't mind this too much but a little variety can do wonders. Most people wear trunks, there really isn't any originality in the wrestler's attire. It just seems like the WWE isn't trying as hard as they could be because frankly they don't have to. They set the standard and get to do what they want because there is no competition compelling them to do better. TNA isn't going to change this because they don't know what the fuck they are doing! I hoped for a while that TNA could provide a respectable alternative to WWE but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

 

[finoj05]

WWE, because of their history and market control, have always been easier to defend because they are #1. Despite the fact WWE has fallen in ratings and buy rates nearly every year (bad timing considering they are up in the ratings department currently but beforehand they were down) and TNA has only slightly increased in ratings and (reportedly) have fallen in buy rates, TNA gets the flack for every decision they make because people feel they aren't successful (which is a rather false assumption and based on speculation and rumors).

That constant bashing has created a false reality where the entire IWC believes TNA is losing millions of dollars, is a glorified indy company (whatever that means, but taken at face-value, it's a rediculous statement that continues to earn undeserved credibility) and is on the brink of collapse. TNA, unlike WWE, is a private company and does not release it's financial data.

It also does not help is there is a contingent of the IWC that releases false information (low attendance, rumors of backstage problems and the Jeremy Borash fiasco) to purposely (for whatever reason) spread lies about TNA to make them look bad and because of TNA's reputation (again, thanks to the IWC), people are more likely to believe it.

TNA would have to be a near-perfect company (and start competing with WWE in America) for well over several years before the IWC gives them any extra credit. Till then, people will compare them to WCW 2000 (which was miles worse than anything TNA has done for several years), blame Vince Russo/creative/Dixie Carter for the failures and praise the wrestlers/talents for the stuff that works till they are blue in the face.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I wish the term overrated was obliterated from all the languages of the world. It's become so misused and inappropriately applied that the word no longer holds any meaning.

If you're saying the WWE is overrated because you're not a fan of the quality of the product, that's one thing. Quality is and always will be entirely & 100% subjective to one's own personal opinion.

However when it comes to practical, non-subjective points of view, then there's simply no way WWE can be considered overrated. The reason why the WWE is still around, the reason why it continues to make hundreds of millions of dollars a year, while it continues to put 14,000 people in its seats on a very regular basis is because it's always been able to keep millions upon millions of people interested in its product enough to watch it and their money on it. The fact that it's still here and is still such a huge force while all of its contemporaries are either forgotten or are licensed properties that the WWE itself owns is because of the company's success. By definition, the WWE can't be overrated because look how damn successful it is. It's like saying that the New York Yankees are overrated because they've won more World Series titles than any other team in baseball history.

Whenever the vast majority of the American public hears the term professional wrestling, they immediately think of the WWE. That's not overrated, that's the fruition of Vince McMahon's dream.

 

[Rckstrtmmy]

I wish the term overrated was obliterated from all the languages of the world. It's become so misused and inappropriately applied that the word no longer holds any meaning.

If you're saying the WWE is overrated because you're not a fan of the quality of the product, that's one thing. Quality is and always will be entirely & 100% subjective to one's own personal opinion.

However when it comes to practical, non-subjective points of view, then there's simply no way WWE can be considered overrated. The reason why the WWE is still around, the reason why it continues to make hundreds of millions of dollars a year, while it continues to put 14,000 people in its seats on a very regular basis is because it's always been able to keep millions upon millions of people interested in its product enough to watch it and their money on it. The fact that it's still here and is still such a huge force while all of its contemporaries are either forgotten or are licensed properties that the WWE itself owns is because of the company's success. By definition, the WWE can't be overrated because look how damn successful it is. It's like saying that the New York Yankees are overrated because they've won more World Series titles than any other team in baseball history.

Whenever the vast majority of the American public hears the term professional wrestling, they immediately think of the WWE. That's not overrated, that's the fruition of Vince McMahon's dream.

Ummm success can be a byproduct of the company being overrated, no? By overrated he means that so many people love it, and most people think that todays product is inferior to WWE's product in the past. SO many people watch the WWE blindly because they don't really care because they like wrestling, and that's cool. I for one will always watch no matter how shitty I feel the product is at that given time. But to say a company cannot be overrated because it's successful is an asinine statement.

 

[Calderownz]

Technically, yes. More people watch WWE, therefore, more people are going to rate it and -- in my opinion -- rate it too highly. However, on virtually every front, WWE is still head and shoulders above WWE, in my opinion.

Production Value: WWE
Storylines/Direction: WWE
Pay-Per-Views: WWE
Wrestlers: TNA

I give TNA the better wrestlers, considering most of their wrestlers are better in terms of athleticism and overall ability. However, WWE still has the better showmen and talkers.

Otherwise, it's not really close. Production value is certainly in favor of WWE. PPVs are subjective, as are storylines. However, the direction of both is truthfully so much more clear in WWE.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Ummm success can be a byproduct of the company being overrated, no? By overrated he means that so many people love it, and most people think that todays product is inferior to WWE's product in the past. SO many people watch the WWE blindly because they don't really care because they like wrestling, and that's cool. I for one will always watch no matter how shitty I feel the product is at that given time. But to say a company cannot be overrated because it's successful is an asinine statement.

No, what's asinine is the fact that SO many people continue to use weak cop outs as arguments for why the WWE continues to do well. First off, exactly what is it that makes you so certain that "most people", to use your words, find today's product inferior to WWE's in the past? Have you conducted any research to back up your statement? Partcipated in any sort of audience testing polls conducted by WWE or NBC Universal to gauge satisfaction with the current product? The answer is no because all you're doing is repeating the same tired, worn out, weak and baseless arguments posted by various net fans several times a week. Most of whom are wishing that it was still 1998 and we got to hear Jerry Lawler scream "Puppies!!!!!" 20 times during every Raw telecast. Oh, and just in case someone decides to go on a rant about how PG is killing the WWE and using ratings as an indicator, look up when the numbers actually started to dwindle. Raw has been firmly drawing in the 3s since 2003, long before the WWE went back to a PG format.

"SO many people watch the WWE blindly because they don't really care because they like wrestling, and that's cool." Yeah, pretty much another baseless IWC cliche` with zero credibility. Here's a thought: People generally tend to watch television programming that they like. It's not completely out of the realm of possibility for someone to spend their time watching a particular television program because they enjoy what they're seeing rather than "blindly" watching.

As for overrated, as I said, what's considered quality is always going to be subjective. The amount of success the WWE has achieved, however, is not subjective. If the WWE put out a press statement declaring Raw to be the greatest and most influential television program of the past 20 years, then I can see someone justifiably calling it overrated because it's such an overblown statement. Overrated is when someone or something is heaped with praise & prestige but the praise outstrips his/her abilities. You can call The Beatles overrated, but people will look at you as if you have giant mushrooms growing out of the crack of your ass with smurfs living in them. Why? Because like the Beatles or not, the influence and continued success that the group has had over the music industry over the course of the past 50 years, even though two of the members are dead and the band itself has been broken up for over 40 years, can't be disputed.

The very same thing can be applied to the WWE. Simply not liking the WWE product and using an opinion based on that dislike to call the WWE's influence and importance to wrestling overrated are two completely different animals altogether.

 

[Rckstrtmmy]

No, what's asinine is the fact that SO many people continue to use weak cop outs as arguments for why the WWE continues to do well. First off, exactly what is it that makes you so certain that "most people", to use your words, find today's product inferior to WWE's in the past? Have you conducted any research to back up your statement? Partcipated in any sort of audience testing polls conducted by WWE or NBC Universal to gauge satisfaction with the current product? The answer is no because all you're doing is repeating the same tired, worn out, weak and baseless arguments posted by various net fans several times a week. Most of whom are wishing that it was still 1998 and we got to hear Jerry Lawler scream "Puppies!!!!!" 20 times during every Raw telecast. Oh, and just in case someone decides to go on a rant about how PG is killing the WWE and using ratings as an indicator, look up when the numbers actually started to dwindle. Raw has been firmly drawing in the 3s since 2003, long before the WWE went back to a PG format.

"SO many people watch the WWE blindly because they don't really care because they like wrestling, and that's cool." Yeah, pretty much another baseless IWC cliche` with zero credibility. Here's a thought: People generally tend to watch television programming that they like. It's not completely out of the realm of possibility for someone to spend their time watching a particular television program because they enjoy what they're seeing rather than "blindly" watching.

As for overrated, as I said, what's considered quality is always going to be subjective. The amount of success the WWE has achieved, however, is not subjective. If the WWE put out a press statement declaring Raw to be the greatest and most influential television program of the past 20 years, then I can see someone justifiably calling it overrated because it's such an overblown statement. Overrated is when someone or something is heaped with praise & prestige but the praise outstrips his/her abilities. You can call The Beatles overrated, but people will look at you as if you have giant mushrooms growing out of the crack of your ass with smurfs living in them. Why? Because like the Beatles or not, the influence and continued success that the group has had over the music industry over the course of the past 50 years, even though two of the members are dead and the band itself has been broken up for over 40 years, can't be disputed.

The very same thing can be applied to the WWE. Simply not liking the WWE product and using an opinion based on that dislike to call the WWE's influence and importance to wrestling overrated are two completely different animals altogether.

I never said I thought the product was inferior, I was mainly going by the things I've read on here which point to my statement being true. Whether it's better or worse, it seems to be the OPINION of a lot of people that the WWE is not as good as it used to be. I like how things are now personally, but you can't say with a straight face that the star power is anywhere near where it used to be back in the day. And I'm not just talking about the Attitude era, but before that as well. PG doesn't change much besides blood, sex, and swearing, all of which I can do without so get off your soapbox defending something I didn't suggest hurt the company mmk?

As for the whole "blindly" watching deal, that may have been a bad word to use. I meant to say that wrestling fans will watch anything WWE puts on, whether they like it or not (me included), because of the lack of a solid alternative. WWE is the only brand on TV right now that provides a stable, solid, consistent, type of programming that most general fans will enjoy. So again stop bitching.

Your description of something being overrated is accurate however you pointed to continued success being the reason the WWE can't be overrated right now. If success were an indicator of whether something is properly gauged in the entertainment world, Justin Bieber is the next fucking Michael Jackson. That's all I have to say about that.

 

[Jackal960]

If you're saying the WWE is overrated because you're not a fan of the quality of the product, that's one thing. Quality is and always will be entirely & 100% subjective to one's own personal opinion.

So true, I mean WWE's show quality is mediocre for me but can be good or even great for someone else. After all that's the point this thread, that's my opinion, i wonder what you think. As much as my opinions are subjective, so is everyone elses though.

However when it comes to practical, non-subjective points of view, then there's simply no way WWE can be considered overrated. The reason why the WWE is still around, the reason why it continues to make hundreds of millions of dollars a year, while it continues to put 14,000 people in its seats on a very regular basis is because it's always been able to keep millions upon millions of people interested in its product enough to watch it and their money on it.

Your non-subjective point of view is based on some figures. I will give you some others: Raw used to have sold out arenas but now they start using a portion of the arena and at one stage they used to move viewers to other parts so that the camera won't show the empty seats. Just putting Rock on the show jumped the ratings from 3 to 3.8. These all show there is a huge room for improvement. As i said we are not saying WWE is bad, but it's not THAT good currently. [/QUOTE]

The fact that it's still here and is still such a huge force while all of its contemporaries are either forgotten or are licensed properties that the WWE itself owns is because of the company's success. By definition, the WWE can't be overrated because look how damn successful it is. It's like saying that the New York Yankees are overrated because they've won more World Series titles than any other team in baseball history.

Let's say I'm an average Yankees fan and they started to fail one year after another. What will i do? First i will start to talk about previous years success stories and say how great club Yankees are. I will emphasize more on the pros and with the history behind me i will expect them to become better anytime soon. After all, we are talking about the Yankees, so i expect them to deliver more often than not. I will start making fun of the inferior teams who never achieved anything. (but that will be the start point of overrating my own team) Then i will start to watch Yankees at home, instead of going to the stadium (first, attendance will start to decline)... Then i will only watch at certain times when i expect them to show me a good game (then ratings will decline, any similarities with WWE's wrestlemania months?)... Then i will barely watch them and they will even lose the guys who continued to watch them for long years. Of course, there will always be real Yankees fans who will go to the stadium whether they put on a great game or not. But for a casual fan like me, i would start doing something else in my free time.

That's why i think WWE is overrated by us. Because there is no competition you can't judge the show against a big company like them. Being better than TNA, or having a great history of success, doesn't make you successful in putting a good show every week. Yes, it will still make you good, but not THAT good... Making fun of TNA won't make WWE better but we are intentionally or unintentionally usually state how inferior TNA is and how great WWE are. And in the meantime overrating today's product.