look like you I'm a hardcore wwe fan, I love it just because the guys in the creative team are shit and don't give good storylines thats not thew fault of us the fans and I think wwe fans doesn't need to get that low to insult the fans of a good promotion like tna and you tna fans don't need to be saying that wwe sucks, can we just have to very good promotions and try to open our minds to other thingsRated R Superstar316 said:
It's just like 1997 when Bret Hart was still in the WWF in the middle of their whole storyline and he had his first encounters with Austin (starting at S.S. 1996). Even though WCW was trouncing them in the ratings, the WWF product was generating more fierce pops and heat than anything I've ever seen. Even though I was a WCW fan and loved Nitro, I could tell right then that the tide would turn because these young WWF upstarts had momentum and they were hungry. Their product was sharper and the main event matches were leagues more exciting than Hogan versus Flair, or Hogan versus Piper. I look at WWE and all I see is wasted resources. They have some of the best wrestling talent on the entire planet and all the means in the world to push it. They just don't use any of it. Instead, they spend time doing primary pushes to a group of individuals who can't lace the boots of yesterday's WWF/E greats like Stone Cold or The Rock. It hurts to see it because I've been a fan of WWF stuff (even if I don't like the man pushing it) since the age of four. Hell, I still have original VHS copies of a majority of the classic PPVs all the way back to WM 1.Blackthorn said:
tna_fan said:
So which does WWE have? Shitty wrestling, or good wrestling? I vote for shitty the majority of the time. Their promos are better SOMETIMES. The storylines aren't exactly anything to write home about. Ratings are at 3.0 and above, your're right. However, they used to be nearly twice that. Along with WCW's ratings, which were around the 3.0 range (give or take a few points), WWE should still have around a 5.0 average. This means they not only lost the WCW audience (which they were basically spoonfed by the acquisition), but they also lost two of their own points in the process. Sure, I'll give you that SOME of TNA's promos and storylines aren't exactly the stuff of legend, but neither is the WWE product at present. The main differences between the two being that one is established and held in bigger arenas, while the other is not. TNA has good wrestling, but they suck plain and simple? You're going to have to make up your mind.ErkBono23 said:
I watch them all in addition to my ROH DVDs. Even on the worst shows, I still find at least five minutes of redeeming quality somewhere, but if I don't watch them it doesn't allow me to make fair comparisons when I bury the dog***t that WWE strains out of its backside each week. I wish to high heaven ROH would at least get a syndication deal or something so I could watch them on a weekly basis. I do like that their DVDs are cheap to buy at Wherehouse Music, though. However, I burn through them quickly and don't want to cheapen it by watching the stuff over and over again.dmacid said:
dmacid said:
Yes, and WWE has at least a few decades of back business and entrenched fanbase to go off of. They're a household name that's synonymous with pro wrestling. The fact is that if TNA had all of the media trappings and resources that Vince had, they'd do just as good as WWE, at the least. Anybody with at least half a working brain knows that WWE does have good, even great talent. It's just that the company can't pour piss from a boot when it comes to managing that talent. If you want proof, slip in an old WWF tape and observe the differences in not only the quality of the in-ring action, but the storylines, as well as the audience response from match to match. Wrestling is scripted, so whoever is booking decides who wins, slick. WWE just uses recycled wrestlers for the most part just like TNA does, the difference is that McMahon has way more of a foothold in the business and more outlets to push his product. If TNA were given those same means to function, they'd be able to level the playing field overnight. That doesn't say jack$hit as to the quality of the product, which has been in a cumulative downard spiral for the last two years.crippler2525 said:
At least your opinions were organized and well thought out for each thing you stated. Most times, we get someone with a reading level slightly above the fourth grade running in shooting nothing but blanks. Some of your points with regards to TNA are spot-on, sometimes. Especially when it comes to the promos. I feel they have been getting better since Russo took over, but I still feel some of the wrestlers need more work with regards to their gimmick or speaking ability. And by the way...welcome to the boards, man.TheRealLionheart089 said:
When compared to the wrestling of past, they've definitely been slipping, considering the quality of talent they have. Limited movesets and matches that are just too short have turned too many of the casual WWE audience members into lemmings with attention spans that have trouble enjoying a match that actually sees a length beyond ten minutes. I also blame Goldberg for that...but that's another story, altogether. There was wrestling before WWE, sure enough. You're right as far as the impact they've made on the business in the last thirty years, but blind allegiance and excuses for a lazily-constructed product has zero bearing when I'm watching the shows. If something sucks, loyalty is never an issue. If you want to know where I really found my interest in pro-wrestling? NWA/WCW during the late eighties and early nineties. The quality of wrestling was always a shade above what WWE was doing...even if the production values and scripting were complete crap. If holding high standards to the dominant promotion in America is treasonous, then that's fine and dandy for me.showtyme27 said:
The difference is that TNA gets more out of their athletes. I do watch all of the shows, and it disgusts me to see Chris Benoit and Booker T...two of the best North American workers of the last decade wrestling in watered-down, boring, matches against wrestlers who couldn't even hold their jockstrap on their best days. TNA rarely pushes contenders for the heavyweight title that can't at least stay afloat in an extended match, Monty Brown being the exception. Guys like Cena, Batista, and Kane drop the consistency of WWE's heavyweights down to zilch. They've managed to undo all of the work done by Benoit, Michaels, Eddie Guererro, and Kurt Angle from the previous years and turn the heavyweight division into a den of mediocrity.showtyme27 said:
I'm in definite agreeance with you on this. Every company has their problems, but some are worse than others. TNA might be a little-engine-that-could, but when I see where WWE is at now, versus where it was in the late 1990's, it sickens me because they have a better set of talent rosters now than they did then. When I watch Smackdown episodes have piped-in crowd chants ala' WCW Thunder, then I get really irate, because all of those shows are just a handful of good booking decisions away from being better than they were in their prime.showtyme27 said:
WWE's workers started off in other places and not in WWE. Shawn Michaels (AWA), HHH (WCW), Benoit, (WCW, ECW), Big Show (WCW), Booker (WCW), Undertaker (NWA/WCW). And this is just for starters.joshb said:
TNA spanks WWE's collective ass up and down in the wrestling department. Yeah, WWE smokes them in the attendance and production values areas, but look at the response TNA's crowds get compared to WWE's. Night and day as every TNA fan in the audience actually gives a damn about the matches from top to bottom, while WWE's current crowds bypass the quality performers and performances for the gimmickry and cheap finishers. Raw isn't remotely using it's "big players" in an intelligent manner. DX is old and needed to stay dead. Orton and Edge should be in the title hunt along with HHH and HBK, instead of putting on tag matches that are irrelevant and don't help a damn thing with regards to the overall direction of the show. John Cena needs to go back to wrestling school right now. ECW is a gigantic waste of some of the better workers this business has seen, just so a pathetic, empty excuse for a once-respected brand of wrestling can do something with worthless hacks like Big Slow and The Great Khali. ECW matches have DQs now. That's about as extreme as a nursing home. ECW has become exactly what Lawler used to say it was. Smackdown is another waste that has the most retarted booking structure in recent memory. Fat needs to be trimmed in the rosters of all of the shows and the cumulative structure of matches needs to be changed. All the way from the style, to the pacing, to the length.joshb said:
Amount of storylines doens't equal quality. Half of the storylines wouldn't be so bad if the matches they support weren't complete crap. Remember, TNA is a completely fresh brand that has no history of background support. ECW is basically Diet Raw and had all of the help of pre-pushed talent, as well as a marketing blitz from WWE's other two shows. ECW's ratings are around 1/2 to 3/4 of what they were from the beginning, which means that the majority of faithful ECW fans turned the goddamn channel and haven't been back for a progress check. TNA isn't competition for WWE because they're a baby promotion that is only about five years old. WWE has been around for ages and had been thriving when WCW went tits up. The ratings do matter and WWE pissed away both the WCW ratings they could've gained in the merger, as well as about two to three full points of ratings they once had at the turn of the millenium. This means loads of people gave up on the product a long time ago. The only reason WWE maintains is that all of their direct competition is gone. TNA has to claw their way up from scratch. Not like WCW did.joshb said:
