The Fall of the TNA Originals?

[unknownvicelord5]

Imo I love the way TNA is going and the fact that they are on spike TV. I actually enjoy spike TVs programs.

 

[The Boss]

Yeah. Of course they do. Part of the whole 'showbiz' thing is shining up shit so that it looks nice, right up until the day you no longer want it. If it was my call to make, I'd be looking really hard at how long Hulk Hogan was under contract for, and making sure I squeezed every useful drop I could out of him.

Don't get defensive. We aren't talking hero worship here, we're talking about tracing dollars and cents.

HOLLYWOOD HULK HOGAN's contract was already set to expire in October of 2011, but Panda Energy (the company his contract is through) decided on their own to activate the renewal clause. Therefore they did not even give him a chance to leave. Clearly he is doing what they want him to do.

Dollars and cents are the only way Panda Energy looks at this. And TNA is doing even better now than it was in 2011. So again Panda Energy could see that HOLLYWOOD HULK HOGAN was taking the company in the direction they wanted and clearly they are pleased with the progress.

So it's not a matter of "how long is his contract?" but rather, "How can you say he's doing a bad job if they've already renewed his contract?".

 

[ABMorales787]

Exactly this. The reason why people go over TNA's numbers is because of that investment into being a larger promotion. That costs money, and the Carters (and every other minority owner) are betting that the money spent turns into more money earned. From all indications, that isn't happening. (I'm going to discount the magic revenue stream argument.)

Why people are interested in this is because when those investors decide to pull back on the money they've spent, TNA changes as a result. How exactly, I'm not at all sure. There's about a thousand different directions to go from that point, but if you put less money into a project, that project has to change. (Unless, of course, absolutely hideous amounts of money were being wasted, a la WCW 2000. They were able to put on a television program that appeared largely the same as mid-'90s Nitro, because that company had a LOT of fat they could cut.)

It's probably the most interesting story in professional wrestling this decade; can a second televised promotion be viable in an era of industry-wide recession? (ROH doesn't count. Cable TV out here shows professional wrestling, but I'm not counting Big Time Wrestling either.)

It's actually established by Dixie Carter herself that TNA is indeed losing money particularly in the endeavor of heading on the road permanently. I recall an interview not long ago discussing that. I just can't find the link sadly. The interesting part about it is her saying that had they stayed in the Impact Zone, it would cost them more in time and going on the road and staying with the amount of attendance they get may increase company revenue by next year.

It's a delayed effect, but while money is being injected with little result at the moment, I wouldn't say it's becoming a lost cause. Arena attendances are growing (Lockdown did a supposed 10,000 attendance) and they are firmly promoting their TV dates.

As for the topic of TNA originals, they are far more important these days than they were in say 2007. Before AJ Styles and maybe Samoa Joe were the only big names. Nowadays James Storm, Robert Roode, Austin Aries Daniels and Kazarian are always on top spots. They've gone far up.

 

[IT Factor]

AJ Styles is currently one of the centerpieces of the main storyline in TNA.

Yes, and it only took 3 years to make him a credible character on television again. Considering that AJ Styles is the main guy who remained loyal to TNA, he should have always been a main storyline or focus of the show. AJ Styles is to TNA what Sting was to WCW. He never jumped to WWE despite opportunities to do so. You'd think loyalty would count for something.

Bobby Roode was one of the best Champions in recent TNA history and is now a part of a prominent tag-team, the best one in TNA currently. He is also constantly on TV and involved in something.

I actually agree with most of that. Roode has been one of the more notable exceptions to my list of originals not being used correctly. Roode didn't lose any credibility or status, he's just not getting much exposure on a weekly basis as he did as TNA Champion.

James Storm is a former World Champion, had a huge program with Roode and is now doing smaller storylines but still featured on a regular basis.

Yes, Storm is a former world champion. And yes, he is featured on a regular basis. With the momentum Storm had in 2011 and into 2012, Storm should be a regular main eventer. There is no excuse for Jeff Hardy being used as the BFG tourney winner over James Storm. Storm is the future and Hardy is the past, which was my earlier point.

Daniels went from a program with AJ Styles where he came out victorious, to being a part of the second (in my opinion) best team in TNA and pretty much not missing a week of Television, having promos and matches as well as a title shot not too long ago.

Daniels is perhaps the most underutilized talent in all of TNA. He's only had ONE title shot which was the week he challenged Jeff Hardy for the TNA World Title. How did that end, btw? Oh yeah, a WWE reject won AGAIN! Nice! It seems as though TNA doesn't have enough faith in Daniels to make him a main event guy. Which is idiotic, considering how great his work is.

Now as far as the OP goes, not being in the title picture anymore means you've fallen. If you're doing some good stuff, fans couldn't care less if it was for the title or not. Personally, I think AJ Styles is more interesting now than during any of his Main Event runs. I think Aries is far more entertaining now than during his title run.

There is a big difference between being a good worker/entertainer and being used properly. I still find these guys to be great, which is why I'm wondering why guys like Jeff Hardy are being used over these other better choices. Hell, I bet Sting gets another title shot before the other originals I listed. Even Hulk Hogan, which is very telling of TNA's booking mentality. It's the same shit as what happened in WCW. They refused to book younger guys consistently on top because Bischoff & Hogan believed these guys weren't established enough to run with the title. That's an outdated concept and it's not just TNA doing it. WWE does it too. I say these guys have "fallen" because they are kind of stuck in lower to mid-card status and not even getting OPPORTUNITIES to challenge for titles. I don't even mind that established guys like Bully Ray or Kurt Angle are getting tv times, because they both contribute to the overall product. I just believe TNA could give these highly talented guys more opportunity every once in awhile instead of sticking them with nothing because creative couldn't come up with anything better.

What do you want TNA to do? Keep the TNA originals in the title picture non-stop, 24/7, with no rotation and no focus on ANYONE else for years and years?

Once again, you are taking my whole topic out of context. I have never advocated for originals to dominate television or even hold the title nonstop. That was a faulty assessment of my meaning. What I am saying is that these talented individuals should be getting better exposure and placement on the card based on all they've done to help build the company. That, and because I don't care to see Angle or Sting as 10 or 11 time TNA Champions. Especially when they are both past prime and cannot maintain their champion status like the younger TNA originals could.

Fans need to realize that not fighting for the belt doesn't mean you've fallen. If you're featured on TV and have a match or a promo where you're not made to look like a dunce, you're doing just fine.

Ok, let me play devil's advocate here; what if these non originals were stuck in mid to lower card status without OCCASIONALLY getting a title shot? Do you think they'd stick around? Hell no! They'd be gone without a second thought. My point is that these guys are way too talented to not get the occasional title shot. And by occasional, I do mean more than one world title shot in at least a couple of months or even a year. In the case of AJ Styles, he didn't get a title shot from when he lost the TNA title in 2010 to RVD up until a year or so later when he got one from Roode. And he hasn't since then, which by my math means 2 years ago. In the case of Daniels, he has only gotten one TNA World Title opportunity since his return. That is not the definition of "fine" to me. But it seems as though you don't value opinions other than your own. Which is fine, just don't try to pass off yours as fact and everyone else's as opinion. It's the same thing. Look at this topic over alone and you see a pattern. Zion quoting someone else in an effort to piss all over their views and cement his own as somehow the only one.

The originals had their turn already. Now it's Bully/Hardy. By BFG 13 it'll be AJ Styles and we'll get more originals.

I have said it before and I'll say it again here; I actually like TNA using Bully Ray. He reinvented himself and isn't being overused like some of the other non TNA originals. Bully Ray is the embodiment of what WWE guys should be coming into TNA; a great worker that didn't get the shot in WWE or elsewhere who is willing to change and put others over while at the same time getting his own shot. The only thing I remotely agree about is that by BFG 13, TNA originals will be getting more time. That'll only be because of the same failures of the overall company we've been seeing since Hogan & Bischoff arrived. It'll be out of need and not choice, I'm sure.

This claim of the "fall" of the originals would only be valid if they vanished from TV for months and months after their respective main event runs, which hasn't been the case.

The fall of the originals is simply not being used to full potential. It's that simple, really. You seem to be of the opinion that as long as a guy is being used on tv, everything is fine. By that logic, I guess Rob Terry is our next World Champion? How about Jessie Godderz? Just because you are featured on television means nothing. There has to be a good push to go with that exposure for anyone to take these guys seriously. Which has been my whole point in this. You either mistook my meaning or twisted it to fit whatever logic you wanted it to.

I just love it how when all of these guys were getting pushed to Main Event status, nobody said jack shit. Few people dared to mention that TNA finally did something we all bitched for, for years. Complete silence. Then, they stop Main Eventing and take a back seat to recharge their batteries and all of a sudden we again get the "when is TNA going to let them shine" bullshit.

That's a bit of a stretch, don't ya think? As long as I've been on this forum, there have been topics complaining about this very subject. Maybe you were being so self-righteous you didn't stop to notice. I dunno. What I do know is that there is a case for each person on my original list being under used or not being used to full potential. It's arrogant to say it is "when is TNA going to let them shine bullshit" because they should have been consistently shining all along. Remember WCW? That company went under because the assholes running it didn't realize that people want to see change. We'll just keep the same 3 or 4 guys in the main events and to hell with anything new. We seen how well that worked, didn't we? Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[mlp420]

^ Guys like you are just never going to get it. WWE could take all of the TNA originals and make them household names overnight. Not because they have a magic formula for it, but because they are the WWE. They don't have to focus on building an audience, they just have to maintain the one they built over the years (or what's left of it) when the show was actually good. It's not like WWE is where they are because of Sheamus and Ryback. It started with Hogan, then Austin and Rock, and now Cena.

If TNA was in that spot, we wouldn't be having this conversation over and over, because Roode/Aries/Styles would all be big stars right this minute, even if they we're booked EXACTLY THE SAME over the last few years or so. There's a big difference between building an audience and maintaining one. The problem is there are too many people frustrated that the TNA guys aren't big stars, and they have no clue why, yet think they have all the answers.

And your WCW example perfectly sums up your problem. WCW became major with ex WWE guys that they brought in during the early 90s (Hogan, Savage, Hall, Nash, Luger). WCW's true failure is that they didn't create new stars once those guys brought them to that level. You're talking about TNA like they are in the same position WCW was in 1998, when today's TNA is more like WCW from the early 90s.

 

[ヒュー　G.　レックション]

WWE could take all of the TNA originals and make them household names overnight.

What nonsense! Who do you consider to be household names in WWE right now? Hogan and Rock are household names. I wouldn't even say Cena is a household name but he'd be the closest. Go out on the street and ask "Who is John Cena?" "Who is Sheamus?" "Who is CM Punk?"

 

[mlp420]

^Household name is probably the wrong term to use but that's really besides the point.

 

[IT Factor]

^ Guys like you are just never going to get it. WWE could take all of the TNA originals and make them household names overnight. Not because they have a magic formula for it, but because they are the WWE. They don't have to focus on building an audience, they just have to maintain the one they built over the years (or what's left of it) when the show was actually good. It's not like WWE is where they are because of Sheamus and Ryback. It started with Hogan, then Austin and Rock, and now Cena.

I'm never going to get it? I guess not. Because I cannot fathom how vastly talented guys AREN'T getting pushes over guys way past their primes. You say WWE started it with Hogan. then Austin and Rock. and now Cena. While that may be true, where would WWE be today if only Hogan and the Warrior were champion all the time? For that matter, where would WWE be today if no "original" talents got shots? The difference between WWE and TNA is like night and day. You really can't compare the two. Apples and oranges comparison.

If TNA was in that spot, we wouldn't be having this conversation over and over, because Roode/Aries/Styles would all be big stars right this minute, even if they we're booked EXACTLY THE SAME over the last few years or so. There's a big difference between building an audience and maintaining one. The problem is there are too many people frustrated that the TNA guys aren't big stars, and they have no clue why, yet think they have all the answers.

To be brutally honest, aside from Kurt Angle, I've failed to see one talent from another organization who has actually made a difference in TNA. Lousy booking trumps any kind of credibility these "originals" might have once had. It's not enough to kill their careers, but TNA will have to start giving these guys opportunities to succeed or they will lose any credibility they once had. Again, it comes back to the "established star" concept that Hogan and Bischoff have that is outdated.

And your WCW example perfectly sums up your problem. WCW became major with ex WWE guys that they brought in during the early 90s (Hogan, Savage, Hall, Nash, Luger). WCW's true failure is that they didn't create new stars once those guys brought them to that level. You're talking about TNA like they are in the same position WCW was in 1998, when today's TNA is more like WCW from the early 90s.

No, my WCW example was an analogy. While WCW did have the established veterans to get noticed, they also failed to create new stars. Which is the same parallel problem in TNA. I get the logic here; it takes the veterans to help put over the newer stars. And I agree with that point. But, TNA's problem has been painfully obvious over the last 2 or 3 years. They have the big names like Sting, Angle, Jeff Hardy, etc but aren't using them to put over newer talents on a consistent basis. Therefore, they are remaining the same and not really changing. I like these veteran stars as much as the next fan. However, TNA needs to desperately start using the vets like Sting and Angle who are on borrowed time to put over the AJ Styles, Bobby Roodes, James Storms, Daniels', etc. If not, history will repeat and yet another wrestling company will go under.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

TNA has been around for eleven years now, and I'm starting to get very tired of all the whining about "originals" and "WWE rejects" from this magical time known as "the past".

Let's put something into perspective. Calling Austin Aries a TNA Original, while putting somebody like Kurt Angle into the WWE cast-away category is ignorant. Aries wrestled for TNA for two years, went away for a time, then came back and spent a year in the X-Division, before moving up to being a World Champion. Kurt Angle has been in TNA for almost seven years. Bully Ray and Devon have been with the company for eight. Jeff Hardy has been in TNA collectively between four and five years, depending on what you count as "with" TNA.

So how long does somebody need to be with TNA to be "viable" in the eyes of TNA fans, and stop being looked at as a WWE reject who TNA needs to push to look relevant. How long before wrestling fans get their head out of their ass and stop seeing these guys as "WWE Superstars" or "TNA wrestler" and just pro wrestlers who independent contract, and go where the money is, and where they can get a job?

Daniel Bryan. CM Punk. Sheamus. Alberto del Rio. These guys haven't been with the company for half the time Kurt Angle has been with TNA, and they're all respected World Champions. Nobody says "oh look at that ROH guy WWE is pushing to get respect from the indie fans". THey are happy, because somebody they like is getting to wrestle matches on TV.

Bobby Roode held the title longer than anybody in TNA history. James Storm will probably have his day in the sun. But he's a babyface, and damn good at it, so he's probably not going to ever have a long title reign in this day and age unless he turns heel. Fans were begging Bully Ray to get the belt last year, and the only reason he really hasn't developed as a World Champ in my eyes, is that TNA dropped 8 PPV events a year, and we've had a lot less defenses.

AJ Styles is getting a huge push right now, and is involved in one of the few interesting angles in TNA. Austin Aries and Bobby Roode, as well as Kazarian and Chris Daniels are the only thing interesting to happen to tag wrestling in TNA in a very, very long time. Chris Sabin just came back, and is immediately in line for an X-Division title shot. Sting is the DEFINITION of a TNA original, so if you're going to get all up in arms about him being in the title picture, there's no leg to stand on.

I do wish that Hogan and Sting were less of a big deal in TNA. Sting can't wrestle a good match, and Hogan literally can't wrestle any match. It's embarrassing to what either try at this point. I don't give a shit about what's good or bad for ratings - they've been at a 1.0 every week for years on end. So purely from a wrestling fan perspective I'd like to see James Storm, Bobby Roode, AJ Styles, Christopher Daniels and Austin Aries as the focal point of TNA's main event. And I'd love to see what they can do with Kenny King and Chris Sabin.

 

[New Hot Fed]

Jesus Christ, dude. What is this giant-ass gripe you have with Hogan not being a good investment and TNA not being better off in spite of him? Aside from the ratings/attendance being the same (or slightly less), TNA appears to be doing better in every other department.

Is this because of Hogan? Hell no it's not because of Hogan. I agree, Hogan didn't contribute to this. This is TNA's natural progression as a company. Going semi-live and fully on the road. I really think this would've happened with or without Hogan.

Either way, Hogan has his purpose in TNA and since they've had him for 2-3 years, I'm sure they're fine with paying his old ass as they have been for quite a long time. Are you involved in TNA financial matters? Is he hurting YOUR wallet somehow? What's up your ass?

He seems to have SOME value to them. The presumption that "Hogan = N#1 wrestling company overnight" comes from the fans and Hogan's trademark overhyping of everything which he is fully aware of, that's his job. Also from the fact that he's Hulk Hogan. The fans simply ate that shit up like hot bread. I say good job, Hulk. And if this presumption is not fulfilled, suddenly he's useless and just draining money out of TNA.

Does TNA appear to be in ANY financial peril at the moment? No. In fact, by the looks of it, they're doing pretty damn well. So what's the fuss about?

Let's get back on topic now, and discuss how the TNA originals are in the crapper. Apparently. Somehow. Someway.

Problem with Hogan is not only he contributed to nothing of worth financialy but creatively-wise the fact that all the shows are about him is holding the TNA talent down. Instead of having guys trying to impress Hogan to go after Bully, why not have Hogan not being there, all hopes is lost, Aces and 8s are in the ring, you hear music and Matt Morgan shows up and confront them? Instant fresh new feud with a new top contender.

 

[New Hot Fed]

^ Guys like you are just never going to get it. WWE could take all of the TNA originals and make them household names overnight. Not because they have a magic formula for it, but because they are the WWE. They don't have to focus on building an audience, they just have to maintain the one they built over the years (or what's left of it) when the show was actually good. It's not like WWE is where they are because of Sheamus and Ryback. It started with Hogan, then Austin and Rock, and now Cena.

If TNA was in that spot, we wouldn't be having this conversation over and over, because Roode/Aries/Styles would all be big stars right this minute, even if they we're booked EXACTLY THE SAME over the last few years or so. There's a big difference between building an audience and maintaining one. The problem is there are too many people frustrated that the TNA guys aren't big stars, and they have no clue why, yet think they have all the answers.

And your WCW example perfectly sums up your problem. WCW became major with ex WWE guys that they brought in during the early 90s (Hogan, Savage, Hall, Nash, Luger). WCW's true failure is that they didn't create new stars once those guys brought them to that level. You're talking about TNA like they are in the same position WCW was in 1998, when today's TNA is more like WCW from the early 90s.

WCW tried to become bigger with WWF stars like Hogan and Duggan and Savage and it did not work. It's when they CHANGED Hogan that things started happening cause of creativity.

The thing is, if former stars from WCW and WWE are doing nothing substantial for TNA, then why not get rid of them and focus on making TNA homegrowns stars instead. There's proof that it doesn't matter anyway. Angle or Hardy or Sting as champ won't get better ratings or buyrates than Roode or Storm or AJ or Joe. So why not give the ball to guys that are younger, fresher and have the chance to give you better matchs?

 

[wrestlingfan]

These guys still are the head of the company. Its just called being used in rotation. 2012 was dedicated to Roode, Storm, & Aries.

 

[mlp420]

No, my WCW example was an analogy. While WCW did have the established veterans to get noticed, they also failed to create new stars. Which is the same parallel problem in TNA.

Okay, this is one huge negative of having Eric Bischoff and Hogan in TNA. These nonstop, ignorant comparisons to WCW, from people who may not even know the first thing about this time period in wrestling.

Again, there is a big difference between building an audience and maintaining one. Nitro was getting over 5 million viewers a week during their peak. Their mistake was that they didn't use that 2 year window to elevate new guys that would be able to take over when fans lost interest in the older guys. TNA is in an entirely different situation. If TNA was getting 5M viewers and pushing Hogan/Sting, you'd be 100% right, no debating. But they aren't getting anything close to that. In other words, this can't possibly be compared to the "Rise and Fall of WCW" Because there has never been a rise to begin with.

And as far as the complaining about the booking of the originals, again, WWE could take ANY of those guys and book them EXACTLY how TNA has booked them and they'd be big stars in WWE. That's just the way it is. Guys like AJ Styles and Aries are only going to get but so far with the TNA brand where it is, and they could have the most brilliant bookers/writers and Emmy-Caliber storylines and it would make no difference at all.

 

[mlp420]

WCW tried to become bigger with WWF stars like Hogan and Duggan and Savage and it did not work. It's when they CHANGED Hogan that things started happening cause of creativity.

The thing is, if former stars from WCW and WWE are doing nothing substantial for TNA, then why not get rid of them and focus on making TNA homegrowns stars instead. There's proof that it doesn't matter anyway. Angle or Hardy or Sting as champ won't get better ratings or buyrates than Roode or Storm or AJ or Joe. So why not give the ball to guys that are younger, fresher and have the chance to give you better matchs?

You're right, they could get rid of Hogan, Sting, Jeff Hardy and focus on the originals. And they'll go from getting 1.0s with star power to getting 1.0s without star power.

Here's the problem: They are not in this to get 1.0s. There's no future in that. When you're not happy with the status quo, you do everything you can to get better. If it doesn't work, so be it. It was still worth doing because the status quo was never going to cut it anyway. It's called an investment. They happen every day in the real world. Never understood people that use that line of reasoning. Makes no sense at all.

 

[Zeven_Zion]

Okay, this is one huge negative of having Eric Bischoff and Hogan in TNA. These nonstop, ignorant comparisons to WCW, from people who may not even know the first thing about this time period in wrestling.

Again, there is a big difference between building an audience and maintaining one. Nitro was getting over 5 million viewers a week during their peak. Their mistake was that they didn't use that 2 year window to elevate new guys that would be able to take over when fans lost interest in the older guys. TNA is in an entirely different situation. If TNA was getting 5M viewers and pushing Hogan/Sting, you'd be 100% right, no debating. But they aren't getting anything close to that. In other words, this can't possibly be compared to the "Rise and Fall of WCW" Because there has never been a rise to begin with.

And as far as the complaining about the booking of the originals, again, WWE could take ANY of those guys and book them EXACTLY how TNA has booked them and they'd be big stars in WWE. That's just the way it is. Guys like AJ Styles and Aries are only going to get but so far with the TNA brand where it is, and they could have the most brilliant bookers/writers and Emmy-Caliber storylines and it would make no difference at all.

I swear to God, if Bischoff and Hogan didn't come to TNA a few years ago, people wouldn't be making these comparisons as much. TNA was always like WCW. Sting as World Champion would've immediately prompted the "oh they tryin' to be like WCW". Then you have the Main Event Mafia. The X-Division are the Cruiserweights. Russo this, Russo that. On and on and on.

When are people going to realize that TNA is like WCW and like the WWE because it's wrestling. Sure, they rip them off sometimes due to the inspiration of something being a storyline or a personality that was in WCW or WWE - fuckin' sue them. It happens in every company. Bishoff took the nWo from Japan. McMahon took the edgy stuff from WCW and all of them ripped off ECW. ECW on the other hand ripped off hardcore porn. It happens!

And why is a comparison to WCW a bad thing in the first place? Because it's not authentic? Because everything has to be one hundred per-cent original and never before seen in any alternate dimension of the entertainment industry? Usually it's the really innovative and different things the IWC takes a big dump on. Besdies, if casual fans had that much of a problem with borrowed ideas, WrestleMania should be tanking every year. Superbowl anyone? McMahon ripped off real sports like football than he did WCW and ECW combined. Hall of Fames, WrestleManias and whatnot.

Give all the companies a break. Wrestling's been around for 50+ years, they stopped being innovative 13 years ago. All of them. It's all basically ran (yes, TNA included) by a 60 or 70+ old man who lost his grip on what's entertaining many years ago. He's no Steve Jobs and this ain't Apple. It's ... crapple. That's my best joke this week. There's your creativity, now shut up.