TNA – Held to an Unfair Standard?

[Gelgarin]

So I tend to avoid the main wrestling sections these days on account of them being chocked full of people who repeatedly fail to show worthwhile levels of intelligence. That being said, I’m really, really bored right now, and figured I’d write a little something about me favourite wrestling show… TNA.

Liking TNA doesn’t seem to be cool right now. We had a minor Renaissance when people wanted to impress Disco, but since he’s gone it’s been more or less straight up TNA bashing all the way, and I honestly can’t understand why. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of problems with a typical Impact broadcast, but certainly no more so than it the case with any WWE outing. WWE is able to subject us to any level of bullshit goofiness and illogical plot development, and all that ever results from it is people will say “what is this, TNA” and then forget about it.

In addition, TNA seems to be stuck in the Catch 22 situation of being criticised whenever it does anything similar, or different, to the WWE. Either the show us just a bunch of stolen angles being performed by washed up has beens; or it’s not being booked properly. I’m going to talk about all of these observations in a little more depth later on, but the essential crux of what I’m trying to say is that, for some reason, a lot of people demand a much higher standard out of TNA that the do WWE.

Let’s start off by taking a quick look at this very forum. If you haven’t already then don’t bother, it’s not all that interesting, and I’m going to summarise anyway. A quick look will swiftly bring us to a collection of people expressing their outrage at TNA having a colourful character named “Suicide”, and bemoaning the moral standard of the show on account of Joe declaring his intent to kill Kurt Angle. Apparently this renders TNA (a show that makes no efforts to appeal to children) worthy of criticism.

Now correct me if I’m wrong, but the WWE (a company who appeal to kids as one of their top demographics) in the build up to their biggest show of the year, had HHH break into another man’s house. He threatened his family with a hammer, threw Randy Orton through a glass window, and later declared his intention to “break his neck”. Possibly I missed it, but I don’t recall seeing people talking about how reprehensible that feud was.

Moving on to a new topic; let’s talk about booking. People love to talk about how TNA is ripping off its competition. Robert Roode is a JBL rip off. Abyss is Kane. James Storm apes Stone Cold (how the fuck people worked this one out I don’t know) all the former WWE guys are just milking their former success. Yadda yadda yadda. Be it gimmicks, angles or production techniques, people love to point out how TNA is just a bush league WWE clone.

However; whenever TNA seems to start doing things a little differently, the nature of the complaints do a total 180 (can’t remember how to do a degree sign). Take to company’s approach to faces and heels for example. As far as I’m concerned, anybody who actually watches the show should quickly come to the conclusion that TNA don’t care very much about faces and heels. They tend to just throw characters out there and see who gets over and who doesn’t. I have literally lost count of number of times I have seen people criticise the company for sloppy booking because; and I quote, “they don’t know who to cheer for”. Sting is a face in a heel faction. Sloppy booking. Joe is a dick who feuds with heels. Sloppy booking. The assumption is made that because TNA is not booked in exactly the same way as the WWE that the show is ‘not booked properly’.

To give another short example, people bizarrely complain about TNA “giving away PPV matches on free TV”. This is another one of those ‘why the fuck to you care’ complaints, but hey, I’ll roll with it. There hasn’t been a PPV quality Impact match since the build to Slamiversery 07 (where the whole show was an hour long clusterfuck match). TNA simply use talent and gimmick matches a little differently to WWE, and once again gets accused of not being booked properly.

It’s the same with angles. People like to talk about how TNA doesn’t make sense. I watch almost every week and am almost never left confused. The WWE tends to hammer each and every story development home with constant replays and didactic commentary. TNA doesn’t do this and apparently this break from tradition makes the show “confusing” and “not booked properly”. Personally I’d be embarrassed to tell people that my professional wrestling show was too complex for me to understand, but that’s neither here nor there. My point is that this is another example of TNA drawing undue criticism.

Then there’s the section of the respective shows that I like to refer to as ‘bullshit’. TNA has a fair portion of this. I still have scars from trying to claw my own eyes out during the “win a date with ODB” segment. That being said, last night I’m given to understand that a cross dressing Italian rolled around in pig slurry with a middle aged woman. If we’re going to refuse to take a show seriously because of bullshit then WWE should have been cast aside for Hornswaggle long ago.

Don’t get me wrong. There are plenty of problems with TNA. Their phobia of clean finishes bothers me, as does their obsession with D list celebs I’ve never heard of. That being said, there are a bunch of things the show does very well (such as building characters and promoting light heavyweight wrestling). At the end of the day though, TNA seems to draw a lot of criticism for criticisms own sake and I'm curious as to why. If I’m not blowing eloquent smoke out of my ass then I suppose my question is ‘why this is’. Are people so accustomed to the WWE that they criticise anything different? Is TNA doing a lot more wrong than I’m willing to admit? Do people just criticise the show to be cool? (had to get that one in somewhere.)
You decide.

 

[ztwhite]

I don't think the unfair standard is unfair at all.

Before I address the post, let me say I watch Impact faithfully, at least I Tivo it and try and get through it before the weekend is over.

The problem with TNA is the WWE. Unfotunately for any wrestling organization that tries to make a run, it's always going to be held up for comparison against the "E". That what a standard bearer does !!!

If you eat a chocolate chip cookie you've never tasted before, you're invaribly going to compare it to a Chip Ahoy. Why ? Because everyone has tasted a Chips Ahoy.

Does that mean that TNA is no good ? Absolutely not. Does that mean the WWE does evrything perfectly ? Absolutely not. It's simply comparing the only two wrestling products we have to base our opinions off of.

When WCW was around, people were comparing the "E" with WCW all the time and vice versa. Some people like the WWE... some people like TNA... some people like both (at least I do).

As for the knock-off comparison of guys like Roode, Abyss, Storm, etc... they are !!! It's hard to not see a comparison when you're looking for them.

As for the Suicide storyline and actions - I stated in a different thread that it's not the motions or suggestions that bother me, it's the fact that it has nothing to do with the current storyline. Suicide is a cool ring name and I like the look, but everyone knows what suicide implys, so we do have to be shown the motion of suicide. HHH is known as The Game, but he doesn't come out holding an XBox joystick ??!!

When my kids were younger, they would sometimes wonder out of bed when Raw or Smackdown was on and I would lie with them while watching wrestling (early 2000's). The product wasn't always o.k. in my opinion for a one and three-year-old to watch. At least the "E" has cleaned up their act and made it acceptable (on most occasions) for my now seven and nine-year-old to watch (even though they have little to no interest).

As for the retreds - Foley, Nash, Steiner, Sting, etc... - it's eerily similer to the road WCW went down and it ultimately killed the company (ratings wise anyway). There will be a time when these guys HAVE to move on, even though they may not want to, and TNA is setting themselves up for failure by not establishing powerful new stars - WHICH THEY HAVE A VAST MAJORITY OF IMO. Honestly, I see a brighter roster of young, talented wrestlers in TNA than in the WWE, both in the ring and on the mic.

Like yourself, I'm not sure if ALL the criticisms are warranted... but at some point in time, there was another chocolate chip cookie before Chips Ahoy and it somehow became the standard bearer.

 

[thepoo62]

Very good posts guys, I love intellegent wrestling conversation. The reality is that both products leave us scratching our heads because we feel we could do better. As a hobby, I like to do some creative writting and sometimes I take the current product and just book a few months of the show starting from whatever date we are at. I'm fairly confident that my version is always 100 times better than whatever the WWE or TNA eventually went with over that course in time. This is why I'm critical of both products but I also understand there are backstage politics, egos, injuries, contracts, movie shoots, nepotism and so on that force the writters to simply edit their work to what we end up with on a weekly basis.

Truthfully, writters are asking a bunch of muscle-bound mornons to act out their vision when all they really care about is becoming famous and looking cool. Also, most of the people inthe backoffice are the very same retired muscle-bound morons that are not educated in how to run a business or market a product but simply got their positions (see Johnny Ace) because they lived it their whole lives.

Sound fair?

 

[golden miz]

tna is something diffrent from what else is out there. In a way it is a mix of wcw/origional ecw. TNA is diffrent and I view it as its own entiety. Theres times I like TNA more then WWE and theres times (one night with ODB) i question that there even ready for national spotlight. I think TNA is held to an unfair standard but i choose to view it as its own image not wwe's.

 

[Miko]

An interesting thread. I'll quote the bits I take issue with.

Let’s start off by taking a quick look at this very forum. If you haven’t already then don’t bother, it’s not all that interesting, and I’m going to summarise anyway. A quick look will swiftly bring us to a collection of people expressing their outrage at TNA having a colourful character named “Suicide”, and bemoaning the moral standard of the show on account of Joe declaring his intent to kill Kurt Angle. Apparently this renders TNA (a show that makes no efforts to appeal to children) worthy of criticism.

That hurts man, but anyway, I made that thread simply to ask whether death threats, knives and characters that may promote Suicide have a place in wrestling. In fact, I may read more replies to it later.

I am not keen, so I display that, drives discussion and all. Unfortunately this thread is doing exactly what I stated happens in the other thread, someone criticises TNA and TNA fans say "you dont say that about WWE". I cant say that about WWE, I dont watch it anymore, I dont care about WWE (cept' Smackdown sometimes).

Now correct me if I’m wrong, but the WWE (a company who appeal to kids as one of their top demographics) in the build up to their biggest show of the year, had HHH break into another man’s house. He threatened his family with a hammer, threw Randy Orton through a glass window, and later declared his intention to “break his neck”. Possibly I missed it, but I don’t recall seeing people talking about how reprehensible that feud was.

There you go

However; whenever TNA seems to start doing things a little differently, the nature of the complaints do a total 180 (can’t remember how to do a degree sign). Take to company’s approach to faces and heels for example. As far as I’m concerned, anybody who actually watches the show should quickly come to the conclusion that TNA don’t care very much about faces and heels. They tend to just throw characters out there and see who gets over and who doesn’t.

Love it myself, I may make a few knocks but it's kinda refreshing to see. I may not agree with all the angles (like Samoa Joe) but stuff like Sting being a face in a heel faction is great. Lethal Consequences and the Gunns both trying to unmask Suicide. I do really enjoy it.

Basically my point is, I like TNA, I have a habit about criticising the not good about the things that I like. I dont know (or really care) about why others criticise. I just want something I enjoy to get better.

 

[Sedated]

There is a VERY simple answer to this.

The WWE has a major lack of young/interesting talent. When you watch a bullshit WWE program it's not a big shock. What did you really expect? They're making lemons out of lemonade (To a degree.)

TNA on the other hand has a TON of GREAT talent that they choose to let waste away so guys like big poppa fucking pump can remain in the spot light while guys like AJ Styles are stuck in the back round some where. This may not be the exact case now but it has been at times and that is what made me sick of the TNA program. There was a time when a I was a HUGE TNA mark and then the quality of the match ups went way down hill.

So once again, why do people have higher standards for TNA? Because with the roster and talent TNA has it should blow WWE out of the water yet it still manages to be just as pathetic 80% of the time.

 

[Wrestlefan27]

I love TNA right now. Because they're new. And because not every match is about telling a story. Some matches are just about exhibitionism and athleticism, and that is what I think the WWE needs more of.

At least twice every Impact I'm like "Holy crap!! Did he/she just do that!" And I can't remember the last time I said that while watching WWE. I love the innovative and NEW moves and the fast paced action. I don't want to see twenty minutes of rest holds.

I have trouble taking Samoa Joe seriously because he just doesn't look the part. In the words of Scott Steiner..... "HE'S FAT!!" (That guy is money on the mic...in short spurts anyway.) I actually lol'd when Joe said he was going to kill Angle.

The only (and the company's biggest) problem I have with TNA is that they're not developing younger stars. I don't want to see the old guard anymore (Kurt Angle being the exception, TNA's top heel IMO). I'd like them if they disbanded the Mafia, but who knows when that will happen. These guys ned to be putting younger talent over. But I do like where they're going with Eric Young. And the MMG are 1 of the reasons I tune in every Thursday.

I love the Knockouts, the Beautiful People are the best pure heels I've seen in a while. Too bad only Angelina can wrestle. But they do moves and take bumps the same way the guys do. And they actually have legitimate storylines instead of being thrown into crap 5 minute matches randomly!

I don't know why people harp on the announcing so much either. Other than the fact that Tenay and West are not likeable characters, I think they do alright. I like the face/heel combo.

The product is not nearly as bad as everyone says it is.

 

[LokiCobain]

I've spent way too many posts trying to help TNA out with these criticisms. Whenever there is one company that has a monopoly on anything, any and all competition gets ignorantly (for the most part) criticized. In the computer world, there are still people who refuse to buy a Mac because it's too confusing (even though it's supposed to be easier). It's confusing because it's not Microsoft. I think it's similar logic. It's "loyalty".

One of the bigger criticisms (since I can go on for hours) is the "washed up" guys who go and win in TNA, and how this is what WCW did, and why it failed. First of all, WCW got where it did by this method. Bringing in the Outsiders and Hogan and the others boosted ratings and made it actually competitive. The problem was their inability to develop the young talent or new guys. TNA is doing this. They may not be holding the main titles, but they aren't close to where WCW was. WCW became so inclined on beating WWE that they didn't think long term. TNA is still in the process of gaining viewers and Kurt Angle vs Sting vs Mick Foley is going to attract more non-regular viewers than AJ Styles vs Samoa Joe vs Daniels. It doesn't matter who's better, that's just a fact. But when you watch Impact, or especially the PPVs, it's the younger guys that steal the show, and you walk away as fan of the younger guys. I think people dwell too much on who is holding a title, rather than anything else. Tommy Dreamer was a staple in ECW and didn't hold the title until 2000. Guys can excel (and are) without titles. Once TNA gets too a comfortable level, then they should change gears and mix it up, but there's no reason to do it when this is working. And even with this, they're beginning to pair up veterans and youngsters (Jarrett/Young, Angle/Joe, Booker/AJ, Dudleyz/Beer Money, Sting/Matt Morgan, Raven/Abyss, Shane Douglas/Daniels).
My other observation is that "TNA reject" is never thrown around. TNA and WWE run their companies completely differently, and just because someone leaves for WWE doesn't mean they're WWE "rejects". I would hardly call Kurt Angle or Booker T a reject, but he would fall under that category. TNA brought in Daivari, Trevor Murdoch, and Matt Morgan (I'm probably missing people). WWE brought in Gail Kim, Ron Killings, and Chris Harris. The first two didn't do anything in WWE, left to TNA, became something important, then left again to do nothing again. Matt Morgan became something great from his time in TNA, rather than being a stuttering waste of time. Chris Harris became a dark match jobber.

When Ric Flair signed a contract with ROH did anyone say they were signing WWE rejects? We're so used to this monopoly that anyone that any fan knows went through WWE (or WCW, but WWE doesn't get criticized for hiring all their talent). Now that there's options, how would hiring no name guys help them? If they have a name, they were in WWE, or possibly ECW/WCW (most got picked up, but there are exceptions). It's a completely ridiculous claim to say that everyone who once was in WWE, but no longer is, is a "reject". TNA has an easier schedule, which is an appeal for guys who actually want to have a family and be around them, and pursue other interests. I would rather wrestle in TNA than WWE. The only thing WWE provides is more publicity (possibly), and more money. There was another thread saying TNA was the minor leagues...so if you get fired from the "big leagues", where would you want to go? If you're someone like Trevor Murdoch, who was a tag team champion, why would you settle for just any independent company if you could sign with the next best? Plus, we all know the politics that go on backstage in WWE, so someone getting fired may have nothing to do with their actual ability. If Kennedy signs with TNA, was he a "reject"? What if someone was just made to job in WWE because HHH didn't like them? They could be great, just unlucky in the politics part.

As I said, I could go for hours, so I'm going to stop. But I do want to point out that I have one friend who watches wrestling, no one else. However, I've had other friends over when I have it on, and they all find TNA more exciting. They're more likely to call it gay or fake when it's WWE, but actually get into it when it's TNA. This obviously doesn't make it a fact that TNA is better than WWE, but it does say something about the target audience. WWE seems to be working great for kids, but it seems the older people prefer TNA. And especially when it comes to non-wrestling fans, TNA seems to be the preference.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Didn't read the opening post. The question is, am I being a rebel or am I just lazy? Lazt is the answer. I'll interpret what I think the thread is about. Something about not judging TNA buy WWE standards, right? Wrong, most likely. But I'm using it anyway. Closing with a question always helps me, for the future. Whai, you did.

I might use WWE as the standard when it comes to wrestling. But so does TNA. I think that could be one problem. Also, TNA was really good, for the most part in 2006, it's taken several steps back in quality since then.

I don't dislike TNA because it's not like WWE. I do, after all, enjoy ROH. No, I dislike TNA because it's shit and it'sstopped being the promotion I I started to get intrested in years ago.

 

[mrarmageddon]

I find WWE unbearable to watch and thus only watch Impact these days. I agree that AJ should be pushed as the best guy in the organisation along with Joe and Daniels.

But I don't agree that MEM should be disbanded, in a year or 2 when most of these guys retire then sure end it. But if you have them under contract and disband the group then all that will happen is these guys will have seperate storylines and therefore take up even MORE time on he show. I also don't stand the hatred for Steiner, he still manages to pull out the odd decent PPV match and is hilarious on the mic...more than can be said about Nash yet everyone tends to leave him alone.

Reading the results of Extreme Rules tells you all thats wrong with WWE, the titles are worthless. The heavyweight titles changed at Backlash and last night was more of the same...guy wins belt to delight of fans...loses it to another guy instantly. Then the other title changes too and is won by a guy who's injured and will have to give up the belt....and people criticise TNA's booking?

At least the TNA title doesn't change every few days, at least they have a tag division worthy of the name and at least the knockouts can entertain without jumping into a pool of pudding in their underwear. WWE is a mess top to bottom, no belt has prestige of any kind (remember when the IC title was an honour and the sign of a future world champ?). It's a joke, don't agree well watch a 1998-2000 WWF show and then watch a new episode of raw.

 

[mozenwrath]

Stuck in the background? what the hell man? Samoa Joe main evented last week's impact against Kevin Nash and beat him cleanly. Sure the guys in the MEM may be "over the hill" (kind of strange how that works considering Angle and Booker T are still considerably young guys.) but they don't take up nearly the amount of tv time the beautiful people take up. And how is AJ in the background? He's won every single title that TNA has and he main evented impact with Daniels. If all you wanted to see was the triple threat match with AJ, Joe and Daniels I suggest watching it over and over again on youtube.

I think another unfair criticism TNA gets is that "it's nothing but old WCW/ECW/WWE washouts. I don't see how that's true considering a huge chunk of TNA's roster are Shimmer/ROH alumni (AJ, Lethal, LAX, and Samoa Joe being the most notable.) But on the same token WWE had Ricky "The Dragon" Steamboat compete in a 6 man tag and for the longest had 2 female senior citizens on their active talent roster. (Fabulous Moolah and Mae Young ring any bells for anybody?) And on top of that they've had alot of the same Main Eventers for the past several years now give or take a few faces here and there.

There is a VERY simple answer to this.

The WWE has a major lack of young/interesting talent. When you watch a bullshit WWE program it's not a big shock. What did you really expect? They're making lemons out of lemonade (To a degree.)

TNA on the other hand has a TON of GREAT talent that they choose to let waste away so guys like big poppa fucking pump can remain in the spot light while guys like AJ Styles are stuck in the back round some where. This may not be the exact case now but it has been at times and that is what made me sick of the TNA program. There was a time when a I was a HUGE TNA mark and then the quality of the match ups went way down hill.

So once again, why do people have higher standards for TNA? Because with the roster and talent TNA has it should blow WWE out of the water yet it still manages to be just as pathetic 80% of the time.

 

[Dre Guevara]

I still watch WWE, mainly because Edge & Jericho R my favorite wrestlers, aside from that, they're falling off & TNA is on the come up.

 

[RendarSelin]

I think TNA is getting a lot of unfair criticism. Gimmicks in wrestling are recycled all the time: Superstar Billy Graham -> Hulk Hogan; "Nature Boy" Buddy Rogers -> "Nature Boy" Ric Fliar; Shawn Michaels/Diesel -> The Brian Kendrick/Ezekiel Jackson; etc.

Another criticism towards TNA is the fact that older wrestlers are holding back younger talent. I think TNA is making huge mistakes with their marketing department. Casual wrestling fans will identify huge stars: Sting, Kurt Angle, Booker T. How many casual fans know AJ Styles, or Samoa Joe, Suicide, The Motorcity Machineguns, etc.? Big names often attract the viewers, which means ratings. How many low rated movies sell well mainly because of the top star? I don't fault TNA for having multiple older stars, but I do believe they are not being marketed well. We never see billboards, TV spots, radio ads, etc., for TNA shows. When TNA ran a house show here in Canton, I never saw one single ad promoting it. Advertising isn't cheap, but can attract casual fans, especially if they compare their prices to WWE prices, or advertise their $20 picture spots in the ring with stars (how many casual fans may go simply to pose in a ring with Scott Steiner or Team 3D?)

In response to the "we don't know who to cheer for" statement, it's simple: cheer for who you want in TNA. I like how in TNA the line between heel and face is blurry. It seems WWE's heel/face line is extremely well defined: faces are superhero types or underdogs, with heels being sleezy cowards. Samoa Joe's Nation of Violence character is a great example of a blurry face (perhaps even a tweener). He is wanting to punish the Main Event Mafia in very un-face like methods, but also doesn't seem to mind mixing it up with AJ Styles or Daniels.

TNA gets a lot of unfair criticism. Not all WWE storylines get entertainment or well responses, and such is the same with TNA.

 

[yankeeboy2319]

i'm a new guy making my first post, and i just wanted to lay out my thoughts on TNA. People like to call it a bush league WWE clone but I tend to consider it a clone of early era Bischoff WCW. They film their show on a set not much bigger than retro-WCW's. They tape several weeks of shows at a time. Their booking shows almost no creativity and they bring in former big names who no one seems to care about anymore. Some TNA fans might find hope in this realization but remember this, there are no billions from Ted Turner to turn this product around, or nWo type angle coming to save wrestling again. TNA is has its small target audience, much like old WCW, and without those 2 things will remain in Vince's shadow.