I am 34 years old. Many of my earliest memories are of watching the NWA with an uncle, seeing guys like Ric Flair, Dusty Rhodes, The Midnight Express. I really didn't enjoy it all that much, but it was on, and I was far to young to have any say in the matter. I didn't really become a fan until I discovered the WWF, shortly before WM3. When I saw my first WWF show, it was the match between Randy Savage and George Steele, where Ricky Steamboat came out of the crowd to save Steele and get his revenge on Savage for "crushing his larynx" with the ring bell. I was hooked.
I've watched wrestling on and off ever since. For years I never missed a show, and that lasted until the early 90s, when I just simply didn't have time for it anymore. From 93 until 96 I think I might have seen RAW once or twice, so when I came back to wrestling in 96, I really didn't know who anyone was anymore. But I happened to be at a friends house one nigth, and they were watching a show called Nitro, and I was amazed at what I was seeing. This was in the middle of the Outsiders invasion, just before Bash at the Beach. As soon as I started watching with him I was hooked again.
From 96 until probably 99 I only watched WCW. The WWF didn't interest me anymore. It wasn't so much that they had lost me, as that WCW had grabbed my attention and wouldn't let go. The storylines were like nothing I had seen before, the action in the ring was amazing to me as well. For someone who had grown up watching entire shows where not a single match was ever in doubt because one of the guys had his own t-shirt and the other guy was Iron Mike Sharpe, seeing what WCW was doing was like a breath of fresh air.
And then it started to go downhill. Around 99 I started watching both Raw and Nitro, since Nitro aired twice on Mondays. I could tell that the WWF was picking up steam, and WCW just couldn't seem to hold it together. I was still a huge fan, mind you, and this was primarily due to Sting at that point. I was a
huge mark for Sting. But I could see that WCW was going downhill. The product on WWF programming didn't interest me much more though, and I eventually quit watching RAW altogether.
Then, in 2001, Vince bought WCW. The night of the final RAW, I decided that I was done with wrestling. I would just stop watching at all, because I had zero interest in watching the WWF. That lasted for a few months. By that time, however, I had already discovered this website. So although I stopped watching, I still kept up with what was happening online. And when I began hearing about WCW wrestlers appearing on RAW and at WWF PPVs, I decided to give RAW a shot. From 1998 through 2000, I had purchased every single WCW PPV and none from WWF. My first WWF PPV that I actually purchased as an adult was Invasion.
Even though that storyline a terribly bad turn, by the time it had played out I was a fan again. Part of what enables me to still be a fan after all of this time is that I don't take it too seriously anymore. I don't watch a show expecting every storyline to interest me or every match to be five stars. I watch because enough of the storylines interest me, and because there are certain wrestlers that I like to root for or against,
Now, I did give TNA a try. And not by watching "a couple of episodes" a someone above mentioned. My first exposure to TNA was during the angle when Alex Shelley was stalking Sting. Because the storyline centered around Sting, I started watching every week, for close to a year, and during that time I purchased several of the PPVs as well. And eventually, I got bored with it. What I was seeing each week on Impact just didn't interest me as much as what I could see on RAW and SD.
I've tried a couple of times since then to get into TNA. When Mick Foley made the jump I started watching again, as Mick is another of my all-time favorites. For a while my DVR was set to record every episode of RAW, SD,
and Impact. After awhile though, I again lost interest. Its not that there is anything
wrong with TNA...actually, let me take that back. There is a lot wrong with TNA, but it isn't the wrestling itself. In many cases, yes, the in-ring action is far superior to what you can see on WWE programming. The difference is, in TNA, I have never really been given a reason to care about anyone in the ring.
Some people may think that the current WWE product is too juvenile, too "PG", to be taken seriously. My response to that would be to ask
why you want to take it so seriously in the first place. As a kid, I really really
really wanted to see the guys I liked win their matches, and hated it when they lost. I thought it was a real sport, and would vehemently defend it to anyone who claimed otherwise. But then I grew up. I realized it
isn't a sport, its a television show. I don't watch it to see who wins and who loses, I watch it to be entertained, plain and simple. Same reason I watch Lost, or HIMYM.
And that, I think, is the true difference between TNA and WWE. WWE realizes it is a television show, and now it presents itself as such. TNA, on the other hand, is desperate to be taken seriously. They want to be known as the "wrestling show." I honestly do hope that they do well, and I believe that having Hogan and Bischoff come in is quite possibly the best thing that could have happened for them in the long run. Not because of the value that Hogan's name brings, but rather because both of those men understand one basic principle; if they try to market TNA as a legitimate sports product, it will fail. I don't mean to imply that they are trying to act as if it isn't predetermined, but simply that they want to be looked at as a serious wrestling show, and it just won't work anymore.
TNA and WWE
should be different products, distinct and individual. If they become too similar, whats the point of watching both. It would be akin to watching Friends, and then the next night watching a show called Buddies, about six people in their mid to late twenties living in New York, and the hilarity that ensues. Why watch Buddies when you already have Friends, especially if Buddies looks like it was shot with a tenth of the budget that Friends had?
So, to answer the original questions posed in this thread.
What draws you to the WWE and fuels your addiction and loyalty to Vince McMahon when clearly they are not the organization putting out the more adult product at the moment, which is more geared towards adult interests.
I really hate this question, because it reminds me of an old Mitch Hedburgh joke, "Have you ever tried sugar or PCP?" It's a question that is almost impossible to answer truthfully without indicting yourself. Actually, it reminds me of McCarthyism. If you say that you are a fan of the current WWE product then you are automatically labeled as a Vince McMahon loyalist. Pleas of innocence are seen as admissions of guilt. Well, to be quite honest, I could care less about Vince McMahon. I don't watch WWE because of Vince, I never have. I watch because, all in all, I find it to be the more entertaining product. If TNA did more to sustain my interest, I would probably still watch both shows. You call TNA the more adult product, I call it the more boring one.
Third, why is Brand Loyalty to the WWE so important to you, if Vince McMahon is not loyal to you?
Again, brand loyalty means jack-all to me. I watched WCW for years, because I found it to be more entertaining. The biggest reason I almost
didn't go back to WWE after they bought WCW was
because of Vince McMahon. But when I did finally go back, I liked enough of what I saw to remain a fan. Now, you might say "But if you only like some of what you see, yet you still watch anyway, that makes you a loyalist. Why aren't you watching TNA instead?" My answer would be simple; I may only like some of what I see on WWE shows, but I like even less of what I see on TNA. When that changes, perhaps I'll go back to watching both.
And lastly, why is it important to squash competition and prevent it from even rising, when you are essentially doing more harm to the wrestling business because of your missplaced brand loyalty, then you are helping it by creating a healthier market?
So let me try to decipher what you are saying here. It sounds to me that you are saying that, because I prefer the WWE to TNA, and only currently watch WWE shows, then I am trying to squash competition. Meaning that I should watch TNA, even though I don't enjoy it at the moment, to help create a better overall environment. If that is indeed what you mean, then you are crazy. It is
not the fans responsibility to help TNA succeed, it is TNA's responsibility to produce a show that makes me, as a fan, care enough to want to watch it. If they can't put out a show that entertains me, I am not going to change the channel just so that they get higher ratings, in the hopes that they will eventually become enough of a threat to make a small impact on the WWE's programming. I am all for healthy competition. And I say, if they want to compete, then putout a competitive product. When they do, I'll watch. Until then, at least in my case, they have failed.
I genuinely want to get into your minds to understand your thought process better and see what makes you tick as far as your wrestling interests are concerned.
I really want to believe that. I do. I secretly suspect that a lot of times you don't completely believe 100% of what you say, but rather play the devil's advocate or turn the condescension up a notch just to drive debate and discussion. Of course, I'm probably wrong...
EDITOR'S COMMENTS (Lord Sidious)
As I said in the Rep to you for your post, you are actually wrong. Every word that comes out of my mouth, I believe to be the honest-to-God truth. You can ask IC25, I simply can not debate something that I don't believe to be the truth. Not to play Devil's Advocate, not to drive discussion ... none of that. I can't argue something unless I believe it to be the 100% truth and that is why I seem stubborn in my views. It's because I believe them and I defend them until the very end.
However, that doesn't mean that I am not smart enough to realize that my views can be unpopular with WWE fans and naturally cause discussion, dissension, etc. So in that respect, it makes a perfect match. And just for those that are curious, since so many people can't seem to figure out why I am WWE Moderator, that is the reason.
I have unpopular views, but those views naturally produce discussion. So it's a perfect match.
