TNA vs. WWE: The Shows

[Y 2 Jake]

About 2 years ago when the original TNA vs. WWE thread was started it was by far one of the most popular threads on the whole board. And for a long time it was very even when it came to the poll results. But in the past year WWE has jumped well ahead, but so have the other two options of neither & both. So what I'm going to do now is split it up into about 10 threads, or more/less if anybody has any suggestions.

This thread is about the shows. That includes the weekly iMPACT, Raw, Smackdown, ECw and each of the promotions monthly PPV's. Which PPV's offer the most value for money? While WWE shows usually have superior main events the undercard is throw away, unlike TNA which is all mid card. Do you get more entertainment in 30 seconds of iMPACT than you do in a whole hour of ECW. You can't ever call iMPACT boring, but you can certainly call it stupid, but does that make it better than Raw, etc.

 

[The Snake]

WWE for me, Ive seen about 4 episodes of iMPACT and 1 Main Event of TNA and I can't seem to get over how it "looks" it all seems to be Kurt Angle from what I watched. I get the darn video packages every few minutes telling me stuff I didnt want to know, as a new viewer it would have been nice to have been filled in more. I found the only thing going for it is that it is not WWE, which means anyone who does not enjoy WWE can have an alternative to watch, and people who are wrestling nuts can watch more wrestling. TNA is very very average.

WWE - I have been watching it for a number of years and have always enjoyed it, it's very crisp and quick and I feel I can expect some good entertainment from my 1-2 hours, and have no qualms about paying £15 for my PPVs, I was lucky in that the TNA one was free, because I wouldn't pay for it, I could watch Raw or Smackdown for nothing which I find better than a TNA PPV.

Raw offers a very commercial product, lots of crowd reliant wrestlers, lots of big stars and instantly recognizable faces, it's the biggest show in wrestling by a long way, however it is my least favorite of the 3 shows and 3rd of all 4 wrestling shows - Its based more on how I don't like many of the wrestlers to enjoy the show in a way where I feel I am more than being entertained.

Smackdown has quicker wrestling and is my favorite show in WWE; my favorite wrestlers are on there, or at least most of them are, it might not have the legacy of RAW, but forgetting tradition, this has been the best show since they rebuffed the roster, I realise RAW has been great since the draft, but SmackDown! hit a higher gear, 1st of 4 shows.

ECW, I genuinely enjoy watching, albeit I only started watching because it is part of WWE (blind faith), the show has grown on me, I initially thought, this is worse than iMPACT, but I realised that there was a lot of talent, and a lot of wrestling as opposed to lots of interviews bigging up everyone and there were very few if any video packages - It is my 2nd favorite show as it stands, of course it isn't "better" than RAW, but I enjoy my 1 hour of ECW more than half the amount I enjoy the 2 Hours of RAW.

iMPACT - A few wrestlers I like on here, AJ is good to watch, I also am one of Christians "Peeps" from his WWE days, but it is still in the WWE's shadow, if it did more to entertain consistently then I would perhaps start watching it every week, but there is something about it which makes me not want to keep going back, even when I know it's on, Ill tend to pick something else.

Of course in logical terms - Raw is best, SD! 2nd, ECW and iMPACT are 3rd/4th, but thats a ratings thing, I was speaking from preference.

That's all Ive got for now.

 

[Tim]

WWE.

I have seen Impact once, and the matches were punch, kick, irish whip, repeat til finisher. It was boring and there wasn't really much wrestling in it. The only good match I saw was with AJ Styles in it.

WWE has three seperate programs with usually different wrestlers on it. It is quicker paced wrestling than TNA and has more variety in a match. Their matches are just more entertaining in general and they have better wrestlers overall IMO.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

WWE.

I have seen Impact once, and the matches were punch, kick, irish whip, repeat til finisher. It was boring and there wasn't really much wrestling in it. The only good match I saw was with AJ Styles in it.

WWE has three seperate programs with usually different wrestlers on it. It is quicker paced wrestling than TNA and has more variety in a match. Their matches are just more entertaining in general and they have better wrestlers overall IMO.

Couldn't agree less. WWE has a style, and hardly anybody is allowed to vary from it. TNA matches are quicker, more happens etc. But that's also the problem. Too much happens in iMPACT, and what does happen is poor. Unlike WWE in which nothing much happens, but at least it leads somewhere.

 

[Davi323]

WWE, easily. The production quality alone, regardless of the matches, make WWE programming more enjoyable to watch. TNA programming looks third rate in comparison, WWE just looks more like a real, mainstream viewing event. It just looks more "big time" than TNA does. Its much easier, as a fan, to get drawn in to a promo where you have an arena filled with 15,000 people reacting, than it is to get drawn in watching a promo being performed in a glorified TV studio with seats that looks no bigger than a high school gymnasium. Simply put, WWE programs can bring out a lot more energy out of a crowd, and because of that, its easier for me to get drawn in watching at home.

As far as PPVs go, its not even close. Nothing TNA has, or ever will have, can compete with Wrestlemania. TNA is like NFL Europe, and their biggest PPV is like the World Bowl in comparison to the WWE's Super Bowl. I am not trying to simply bash TNA, but, they have a loooooong way to go before they are real competition to the WWE.

 

[Tim]

Couldn't agree less. WWE has a style, and hardly anybody is allowed to vary from it. TNA matches are quicker, more happens etc. But that's also the problem. Too much happens in iMPACT, and what does happen is poor. Unlike WWE in which nothing much happens, but at least it leads somewhere.

Maybe I just watched a bad episode of iMPACT, and that made me say this.

Ok, so tell me what's similar between Jeff Hardy and Triple H please. The WWE have a style, but they are allowed to vary from it, depending on the type of wrestler.

In TNA, they are allowed to do basically whatever they want. There are no banned moves, which doesn't limit them at all. However, people seem to think that WWE is better.

This is because in WWE, they are telling a story in most of their matches. For example, the HBK v Michaels match was pretty bad wrestling wise, but it was good because of the story told in it. In TNA, most of their matches don't tell a story, they are just wrestling.

 

[Rusty]

iMPACT doesn't even compare to Raw, Smackdown and even ECW sometimes. TNA always has too many angles and too much going on at the same time that it can get rather confusing at times. ECW usually only has 1 main angle and maybe another t.v feud. But I still enjoy watching ECW mainly for the superior wrestling matches. Raw and Smackdown are always great to watch and are always entertaining, without having too many angles and without becoming confusing.

However, sometimes iMPACT provides the better quality wrestling matches in almost all of their matches. TNA is always fast paced which always makes me tune in, but sometimes it is a little too fast for my liking. Also, iMPACT usually provides us with title matches or a gimmick match on free t.v which is rare for the WWE as they make us pay for title and gimmick matches. TNA's titles still have credibility despite being often defended on free t.v. But the problem with iMPACT is that if I miss it one week, and tune in the next week, very little has changed at all as nothing too major happens in the weekly show. Sometimes TNA doesn't focus on their storyline advancement but rather focuses on their matches, which isn't a wise decision if they want more pay per view buys.

I don't order many TNA pay per views at all, but from the ones Ive seen all they are is stacked full with gimmick matches. I love gimmick matches too don't get me wrong, but having more than 2 or 3 on a monthly pay per view is quite ridiculous in my opinion. Watch Wrestlemania 24 and watch Bound For Glory 2007. The WWE makes people care about their pay per view matches and in my opinion, has a greater influence on the fans in buying their pay per views as they have 3 separate shows to promote it each and every week. WWE's pay per views also have an evenly balanced card as they always have main events worth watching, a strong mid-card and decent fillers.

Plus, the WWE has matches on pay per view from all 3 brands and therefore has more time to advance storylines and hype matches. TNA only has 1 single 2 hour show a week to promote its pay per view. So I have to say the WWE easily has better shows that are more superior than TNA's. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy TNA because I love their matches they provide every week, but nothing beats a WWE Pay Per View and TNA is hardly ever more entertaining than Raw or Smackdown in my personal opinion. iMPACT always feels too rushed to me and they always struggle to squeeze everything in 2 hours. The WWE spreads their matches and promos out which makes for a more relaxed but a more entertaining show.