Of course I am not claiming that the divas amount to anything more than eye candy, that's obvious to anyone who watches the show. What I am saying, though, is that at least WWE is upfront about it and doesn't try to claim that their female roster is anything more than this. Actually, I shouldn't say the WWE, I should say the WWE fanbase. As a big WWE fan, I realize that the divas are only there for their looks, that's always been the case, and I wouldn't be foolish or naive enough to suggest otherwise.
Whereas a lot of TNA fans get on with the nonsense that the knockouts are so much better in the ring, have so much more in ring talent, have done so much more in the indies, etc., All I am saying is that's total bullshit. Just like Maryse, Eve, and Layla and company are there to be eye candy only, so too are TBP. Don't give me the crap that they are so much more talented in the ring, because the only talents they display in the ring is shaking their asses for the amusement of the male audience. And that's OK, as I said, I'm not complaining. The only point I was originally making to the other guy was that if that's the only thing drawing an audience to your product, your organization is in big trouble. If Angle, Styles, etc., don't daw an audience and the only thing the audience is interested in is TBP, TNA wrestling is done. I'm not saying that is the case, I'm just saying "if,"
First, the "other poster" made it painfully and sarcastically clear that he was talking about TBP being the main draw in the Knockouts division and not the entire company. With all due respect, that was a silly assumption to begin with.
Second, asserting that the Knockouts are better in the ring isn't actually bullshit. I'll admit that the division is a shell of its former self, but TBP, Sartia, Daffney, Taylor Wilde, Rosie, and Hamada are collectively more talented than the women who wrestle regularly on WWE television. . .I don't think that's a silly assertion. T&A + actual wrestlers > T&A + more T&A. See. . .I'm a little confused as to why you consider that bullshit. Enlighten me.
Third, Angelina Love IS better in the ring any of the model divas I listed in my original post. I'm not saying she's amazing, I'm saying she's solid. A word not many people would use to describe your WWE divas. Solid > Crap. Again, I'm not seeing where I'm being ridiculous here.
You admit that WWE Divas are
just eye candy. Anyone who actually watches TNA realizes that they actually have a
mix of T & A and actual wrestlers. I highly doubt anyone ever suggested that TNA didn't have any T&A at all. The point is, it isn't
ALLT&A. WWE has ONE non-T&A female wrestler that wrestles regularly (Beth Phoenix) and she's still pretty gorgeous, just not traditionally so.
Sarita and Taylor Wilde's street fight last week wasn't about them being attractive. Not once during the match did either announcer say anything remotely mentioning their looks. They called on the intensity of the street fight. When's the last time that happened in WWE? I can recall one time in the past year where that happened in WWE and it was interrupted by NEXUS. (Natalya v. Tamina)
Lastly, Angelina Love, Madison Rayne, Daffney, and even Lacey Von Erich all have discernible on-air somewhat entertaining personalities which is a legitimate skill when you're working with the types of products that WWE and TNA have. The three women who don't show personality (Sarita, Taylor, and Hamada) are great in-ring workers. Which makes most of the roster valuable for things other than their looks. Would TBP have jobs if they weren't beautiful? Probably not. Do they have other skills that make them valuable besides their looks? Yep. Can I say that about 3/4s of the WWE models turned wrestlers? Not at all. So. . .that would mean that Knockouts > Divas.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying it's not a debatable thing, because one could argue the Divas do what they're brought there to do very well, but someone claiming the Knockouts have more overall talent is not the silly assertion you want to make it out to be.