What TNA has that WWE doesnt and vice versa

[James Greiga]

TNA gets a lot of heat about a lot of things thats well deserved. But, what TNA has that WWE hasnt had in a really long time is having the best athletes. Guys like AJ styles, Bobby Roode, Sting, Samoa Joe and James Storm may not have started out in TNA but with guys like them on TNA's roster, guys such as Dolph Ziggler, The Miz, Mark Henry, John Cena and Randy Orton don't hold a candle in ability, some of them dont even hold a candle in mic skills and overall charisma. One thing about WWE is that their matches are usually quite boring, and the wrestlers are always jumping around and rolling basically making it look like ballet with commentary. TNA has the best matches with the best wrestlers and they have the best gimmicks. WWE hasnt had a good real gimmick since Hurricane. They also give more wrestlers chances at the spotlight. TNA pushes more wrestlers while WWE only pushes maybe 8 people out of their huge 30+ roster.

However, at least i can finish watching a WWE show. I get so bored with TNA after about the first hour. The matches are great and the wrestlers are great but the commentary is shit. Many say that Michael Cole is unbearable, i disagree and say that Mike Tenay is the worst commentator there in history even in his WCW days. The theme songs are so generic and similar to each other. They sound cheap and like they were played on a toy keyboard and I never know who is coming out when the music hits until i see him. WWE's storylines arent too creative but they still keep me interested. The wrestlers are for the most part more charismatic and things like the Money in the Bank, Royal Rumble and the Survivor Series matches are much more interesting. Another thing is that WWE has PPV's that you can remember. The TNA PPV's names included are pretty generic, not too special and if someone asked me to name a PPV for TNA past, present or future i could not do it. Another thing is that TNA sees WWE is TV-PG. They see that many fans hate PG television and they try the exact opposite approach. They overdo violence, they over cursing and they overdo the sexuality.

The question is what do you think TNA/WWE has that WWE/TNA will never have?

 

[ezuvgu]

The main strength of WWE is their production values. No other company in the world can match them in that aspect. WWE's best matches also tend to be better than TNA's best matches. I wouldn't put any TNA matches in recent years on par with HBK/Taker, HHH/Taker, or the MITB Punk/Cena match. One other strength of WWE is their ability to draw larger crowds than any other promotion in the world.

The most obvious strengths of TNA are the Knockouts and X Divisions. Prior to 2011, TNA was also strong in tag team wrestling, but with the injury to MCMG, Gen Me's attitude problems leading to their release, and the rise of Beer Money to main event status, TNA was left with the likes of Mexican America and Ink Inc as their tag team division. In the past, a strength of TNA was the complexity of their storylines. When Russo was booking, you actually had to pay attention to the show and watch every week or you'd be confused. Pritchard has taken the company in a fairly basic direction, which is probably good for trying to grow the company but will get old quick. I like that TNA hasn't gone along with WWE's bad idea to go PG, but they are still toned down compared to what wrestling used to be. I'm not a fan of Tenay's commentary, but at least he calls the matches and the TNA commentators aren't talking about Twitter constantly. Another strength of TNA is that the TNA World Title has been held almost entirely by main event level wrestlers. The WWE has a bad habit of giving world title reigns to wrestlers that aren't ready to be champion.

The biggest strength of TNA compared to WWE is that everybody on their roster actually has a unique gimmick and most of the roster has a unique look. In WWE, most of the roster has the same generic face and generic heel gimmicks with the same wrestling gear and the same movelist (except for a finisher and a few signature moves) and even the same hairstyle. That wasn't the case at all until recently and definitely makes it much harder for the WWE wrestlers to get over.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

WWE has John Cena. They also have Vince McMahon. That might sound obvious, but it's pretty damn important. Several other obvious things stand out to me - mainstream coverage, a shit load of money to do whatever they want with, better ratings, a live show, and a consistently traveling schedule. All in all, I'd say WWE has a better system of stability. That might be a hinderance as well as a blessing, but they have a system of balance. They can afford to make some big decisions, but often choose not to because playing it safe still brings in the cash.

TNA has the balls to take chances. They'll put the World title on Bobby Roode, or bring in a guy that nobody else thinks has a chance. It may only work out 20% of the time, but at least they're taking a chance on guys that deserve a shot. It wasn't until recently that I saw WWE going out on a limb for guys like Punk or Bryan, and even that's not a certainty. TNA doesn't draw a billion dollars a year, and generally draw a 1.0 no matter what they do. In a lot of ways that liberates them to do things like try and bring back the NWO, run with Storm/Roode as a lead feud, bring back Jeff Hardy, allow Hogan to relive some sort of glory days, etc. Like I said, maybe 1/5 of the things they try really work out, but they do TRY more than the WWE does. They have to in order to survive...