What's worse?

[shattered dreams]

Signing another companies "rejects" and making them better than they were or signing another companies stars and making them forgettable?

We hear a ridiculous amount about how dumb TNA is for signing talented wrestlers and getting more out of them than WWE did. Makes perfect sense. What I cannot figure out is why what WWE does is supposedly better? Isn't the point of signing someone to have them make a positive contribution to your product? Since it quite obviously is, then shouldn't it be much worse to not use someone up to their potential than what TNA does?

From the wrestlers perspective I get it. Take the bigger paycheck in spite of the reduced, sometimes drastically, role. But why is WWE paying more and simultaneously getting less out of them? If I was an excessive nitpicker then I would be much more up in arms about this than TNA and "rejects." Seems like TNA is turning lemons into lemonade and getting criticized for it, while WWE is buying at lemonade prices but it turns out all they wanted was water.

 

[DirtyJosé]

Signing another companies "rejects" and making them better than they were or signing another companies stars and making them forgettable?

What were you saying about signing another company's stars and making them forgettable?

Oh look, it's yet another TNArd thread in which a mark feels the need to try and prove the unprovable. You don't make any sense or point here, which isn't surprising coming from you. It's ok though; let's just turn this on your head.

We hear a ridiculous amount about how dumb TNA is for signing talented wrestlers and getting more out of them than WWE did.

Yes, that is biggest argument against TNA these days; not the horrible overbooking, not the illogical format of each episode of iMPACT, and not the inconsistant storylines and characterizations.

Makes perfect sense. What I cannot figure out is why what WWE does is supposedly better? Isn't the point of signing someone to have them make a positive contribution to your product? Since it quite obviously is, then shouldn't it be much worse to not use someone up to their potential than what TNA does?

TNA wishes they had a guy like Cena, or Orton. Those are stars being used to their maximum potential. Where in your logic does Desmond Wolfe fit in? Do you really think TNA is using one of their best performers to his full potential? Or what about Brian Kendrick?

From the wrestlers perspective I get it. Take the bigger paycheck in spite of the reduced, sometimes drastically, role. But why is WWE paying more and simultaneously getting less out of them? If I was an excessive nitpicker then I would be much more up in arms about this than TNA and "rejects." Seems like TNA is turning lemons into lemonade and getting criticized for it, while WWE is buying at lemonade prices but it turns out all they wanted was water.

Considering some of the biggest stars in TNA only went there because it was an easy paycheck with much less work, I think you really need to go back and sit in your corner and think about what "getting less out of them" really means. WWE got the best of RVD and Hardy, compared to their performances in TNA. WWE got the best of CM Punk. Can you give any examples of this crap argument beyond Anderson and (debatably) Pope? I didn't think so. Another weak thread with a weak basis delivered by a TNArd.

 

[shattered dreams]

I'm not doing the whole dumbassjose ruins a thread with increasingly off-topic quote wars and weird insults (keep your NArds to yourself). The one thing I will say is that forgettable is an overstatement. What I should have said is average. Gail Kim, Chris Harris, Monty Brown, they became forgettable. However, to keep us on-topic I am talking about the somewhat recent signings by either company. Specifically those considered wwe "rejects" vs those holding above average spots in TNA. CM Punk is not particularly relevant in that context and even then it is not like WWE is really using him up to his potential. RVD and Hardy were not rejects considering WWE tried to sign both. I do think it is amusing you dip into the past to bring up Punk but cannot think of this guy called Kurt Angle (before you go off topic here we are talking about what they were getting out of the talents around the time of the switch, not careers). Neither issue is directly tied to the other, meaning they can be discussed on their own independently.

 

[D-Man]

I, for one, never complain when TNA signs new talent. One promotion's loss is another's gain. Both promotions have proven time and time again that they have capabilities of taking one promotion's wasted talent and putting them to good use. Examples of this are Christian, Booker T, Kaz, and AJ Styles.

Obviously, the answer is anything that brings a positive to the product. Therefore, signing WWE "rejects" and making them better. But your opening question is completely skewed and leaves out some important factors. The most important factor being that TNA has taken former WWE talent who did nothing for their product, brought them in, hyped them like they were the next John Cena via Dixie's "boy that cried wolf" tweets, and then shoved them in midcard limbo. How is any of that making them "better"? It's like taking a pile of shit and pouring ammonia on it to make it smell better. Sure, it'll kill some bacteria, but in the end it's just going to make it into a new form of stink.

So if you're going to ask us all a question that tries to imply, once again, that you feel the MAJORITY OF POSTERS ON THIS SITE THAT WATCH TNA ARE WRONG ABOUT THEIR OPINIONS ON THE PRODUCT, take it elsewhere.

 

[One to Remember]

as wrestling fans we are free to say any utilizing of talent is a plus. i think it hurts TNA when WWE takes its talent only to marginalize them. It highlights how lopsided the war between the two federations is. That arrogance that WWE demonstrates devalues TNA greatly. Plus the TNA stars are being deprived of a higher place in GENERAL wrestling they might deserve. Maybe glutony is the word to use?

And Gail Kim did she not win the woman's title in her first match in a Raw main event filled with fems? Did her career still not falter..?!

And again aguy leaving WWE should not be deemed a reject without detailed information on his departure. Its really getting old this whole "ex WWE guys arent allowed to work" bullshit i hear all day every day. Its not fair tothe guy trying to feed his self and w/o details o his release it amounts to slander or baseless speculation which is weak..

 

[shattered dreams]

as wrestling fans we are free to say any utilizing of talent is a plus. i think it hurts TNA when WWE takes its talent only to marginalize them. It highlights how lopsided the war between the two federations is. That arrogance that WWE demonstrates devalues TNA greatly. Plus the TNA stars are being deprived of a higher place in GENERAL wrestling they might deserve. Maybe glutony is the word to use?

This is kind of what I was getting at. Gluttony. Yes, this practice does tend to put a slightly negative light on TNA but its not like that is an especially necessary step for WWE because the lights are already shining aplenty. By engaging in this practice they are essentially paying more for midcarders than they theoretically should be. They sign the guys because they can, not because they have a good use for them. To me this seems inefficient. Unless TNA is considered legit competition to a higher level than we are led to believe. Put it this way, who is getting more out of their signings? That is not the whole picture but I never said this discussion was all encompassing; merely a comparison of two practices.

The most important factor being that TNA has taken former WWE talent who did nothing for their product, brought them in, hyped them like they were the next John Cena via Dixie's "boy that cried wolf" tweets, and then shoved them in midcard limbo. How is any of that making them "better"?

Nothing over the top or exaggerated about this at all....

How are Pope or Anderson not making them better? Anyways, the better I am talking about is relative to the individual, not the whole, although you would think the two would be somewhat related.

So if you're going to ask us all a question that tries to imply, once again, that you feel the MAJORITY OF POSTERS ON THIS SITE THAT WATCH TNA ARE WRONG ABOUT THEIR OPINIONS ON THE PRODUCT, take it elsewhere.

Now I have heard them all. If a theoretical majority of the IWC believes something then is it true? So John Cena sucks? Opinions can be misguided for a variety of reasons. I would also dispute that a majority thinks the whole rejects thing is of importance and that WWE holding back talent from elsewhere is a good thing. This post is about business practices more than about quality of programming. If you are going to resort to IWC doesn't like TNA, or TNA ratings are bad, in any "discussion" why even bother? You already "clearly" know the answer.

 

[D-Man]

Nothing over the top or exaggerated about this at all....

How are Pope or Anderson not making them better? Anyways, the better I am talking about is relative to the individual, not the whole, although you would think the two would be somewhat related.

Ah, that's right. A true TNA mark taking the two out of the equation that have improved through TNA's wonderful booking. So that leaves out -

Orlando Jordan
Brian Kendrick
Raven
Shannon Moore
Stevie Richards

And I could go on. I mean, you're such a fucking blind mark that you fail to see ANY negative in your product. Maybe if you actually admitted a few of TNA's faults people wouldn't shit on your horrific blind TNA posting so much. But I'm exaggerating... yeah, ok.

Now I have heard them all. If a theoretical majority of the IWC believes something then is it true? So John Cena sucks?

Apples and oranges, once again. This is what you're good at. You dive right into the comparison with the WWE. I'm not comparing... I'm telling it like it is.

The IWC says Cena sucks but they don't know pro-wrestling so their subjective comments cannot be taken into consideration. But once a group of people say that an entire television show doesn't entertain them, I'd listen to them and believe every word. THAT'S the difference between your bullshit theories and the realism that you constantly turn the other cheek to. While the IWC doesn't know shit about whether a wrestler sucks or doesn't suck, they sure know a lot about what entertains them. It's subjective and they have rights to their opinion. So if the majority of them says a product is not entertaining, I believe them.

Opinions can be misguided for a variety of reasons.

I agree. You're a perfect example. Except the difference is that I actually look into your side and try my hardest to see the good in TNA's product, where there is a TON of good. But whoever writes their scripts is doing a total shit job.

I would also dispute that a majority thinks the whole rejects thing is of importance and that WWE holding back talent from elsewhere is a good thing. This post is about business practices more than about quality of programming. If you are going to resort to IWC doesn't like TNA, or TNA ratings are bad, in any "discussion" why even bother? You already "clearly" know the answer.

I guess you decided to ignore my first paragraph, you ignorant moron. Allow me to post it again:

I, for one, never complain when TNA signs new talent. One promotion's loss is another's gain. Both promotions have proven time and time again that they have capabilities of taking one promotion's wasted talent and putting them to good use. Examples of this are Christian, Booker T, Kaz, and AJ Styles.

Obviously, the answer is anything that brings a positive to the product. Therefore, signing WWE "rejects" and making them better.

Now take the sand out of your vagina and start seeing ALL aspects of the audience's opinions, embrace TNA's flaws, accept them, lather, rinse, and repeat.

I'm sick of owning you in every thread on this, I swear.

 

[shattered dreams]

You either do not get it or simply repeat catchphrase criticisms regardless of situation. This is not about quality of booking. It is about how the talent is used. None of the guys you mention have a worse spot in TNA. Some haven't worked in WWE since 2003. Jordan might not have worked out well but they tried something WWE would not with him to attempt to use him better. Even if Jordan did not work out all that well how does that take away from Anderson's contributions? It doesn't. Midcard gimmicks fail to get over all the time, no matter where they came from, but potential main event guys are hard to come by.

Are you even planning on going on topic and talking about the efficiency of WWE's signings?

I mean, you're such a fucking blind mark that you fail to see ANY negative in your product. Maybe if you actually admitted a few of TNA's faults people wouldn't shit on your horrific blind TNA posting so much. But I'm exaggerating... yeah, ok.

The move to mondays was a huge mistake, the way hogan talked about it was a huge mistake, abyssmania was a poor idea, Rob Terry's title time was a waste (at least in this country) and I could go on. See exaggerating. Never once claimed TNA was infallible. Although you routinely claim it is 100 percent shit. Which one of us is more grounded in reality? All I have ever said is that it is better than it gets portrayed to be in the IWC.

Apples and oranges, once again. This is what you're good at. You dive right into the comparison with the WWE. I'm not comparing... I'm telling it like it is.

High opinion of your opinions. You actually criticized me for making real arguments and discussions instead of using your my opinion is gospel approach. Ok jeDus.

The IWC says Cena sucks but they don't know pro-wrestling so their subjective comments cannot be taken into consideration. But once a group of people say that an entire television show doesn't entertain them, I'd listen to them and believe every word. THAT'S the difference between your bullshit theories and the realism that you constantly turn the other cheek to. While the IWC doesn't know shit about whether a wrestler sucks or doesn't suck, they sure know a lot about what entertains them. It's subjective and they have rights to their opinion. So if the majority of them says a product is not entertaining, I believe them.

This is where you fail. There is no difference between knowing TNA doesn't entertain you and knowing John Cena doesn't entertain you. The reason none of these subjective opinions matter is that the IWC is a small subset of the wrestling audience. Millions of people watch either product in a given week. 50 people bashing tna while 10 defend it is irrelevant in the scheme of things. Especially when at least half of that 50 watch tna anyway.

I'm sick of owning you in every thread on this, I swear.

jeDus complex much?

What is with the current outbreak of my opinion is correct and anyone who disagrees is a blind mark?

 

[DirtyJosé]

Millions of people watch either product in a given week. 50 people bashing tna while 10 defend it is irrelevant in the scheme of things.

Then why do you continue to make such a big deal out of it in every single thread you start? Why do you feel that somehow pointing out how much more often TNA takes criticism than WWE is going to make it stop?

Horrible booking is entirely relevant to the use of any superstar's potential. It's quite simple, even you should understand it: if the booking is shit, the performer suffers for it. If the booking is shit, the potential of that performer is being squandered. You could try to argue this, but you'd be wrong.

You want people to stay on topic, but you yourself gave no examples in favor of your argument in the OP, either for TNA or against WWE. Meanwhile, others have pointed out to you plenty of TNA signings who disprove your argument that TNA has made more out of less.

What is with the current outbreak of my opinion is correct and anyone who disagrees is a blind mark?

Funny, that's what this entire thread, nigh your entire existence on these forums can be best summed up with. Just because you think it's unfair doesn't make it so. TNA is an inferior product at the moment. Financial reports prove this. Ratings prove this. Shake your fists at the IWC all you want, you aren't proving or changing anything.

 

[shattered dreams]

Then why do you continue to make such a big deal out of it in every single thread you start? Why do you feel that somehow pointing out how much more often TNA takes criticism than WWE is going to make it stop?

Why do you pretend you know why I do what I do? The whole point of a discussion is to debate the merits of an idea by presenting reasons for your side. I think what we do in the IWC is purely for our own entertainment. Some people think that a discussion is taking your predetermined opinion and acting like a jackass longer than anyone else cares to, thus they "win." What they win I have yet to figure out but it seems to bring them great joy. Reason would dictate that if you have a strong case that some might be convinced to join your way of thinking. So I often will point out things that relate to my way of thinking. That being the relative badness of TNA is wildly exaggerated, especially relative to similar issues in WWE. I think there is a strong case for that but hardly believe it is a certified fact.

Horrible booking is entirely relevant to the use of any superstar's potential. It's quite simple, even you should understand it: if the booking is shit, the performer suffers for it. If the booking is shit, the potential of that performer is being squandered. You could try to argue this, but you'd be wrong.

Relevant yes, but is that what we are talking about? Also, while relevant it is hardly the be all end all. If TNA booking is so terrible how did they take several talents and improve upon them? Booking is extremely subjective. We are basically talking about how the companies try and use the guys they sign. The reason I said the booking is not what we are discussing is because how well they succeed is not the main issue. The biggest issue I have is why does WWE sign these guys for more to do less?

You want people to stay on topic, but you yourself gave no examples in favor of your argument in the OP, either for TNA or against WWE. Meanwhile, others have pointed out to you plenty of TNA signings who disprove your argument that TNA has made more out of less.

Often OPs are to start discussions and are left open to see here people take the conversation. Posting this now shows questionable reading comprehension because it is not like names have not been discussed on either side since.

Funny, that's what this entire thread, nigh your entire existence on these forums can be best summed up with. Just because you think it's unfair doesn't make it so. TNA in an inferior product at the moment. Financial reports prove this. Ratings prove this. Shake your fists at the IWC all you want, you aren't proving or changing anything.

Thanks for clearing up for me why I exist. Always makes more sense to hear why you do something from someone who doesn't even know you. Just because TNA is inferior does not mean WWE does everything perfect or even better. Just because you think something doesn't make it so either. That is my point. I have no problem with dissenting opinions. What I have a problem with is the idea that someones opinion is simply correct to the point of not needing to be justified or explained. Just saying I know I am right and you are wrong is a waste of space. By definition an opinion is not a fact. As long as you, me or anyone else is open minded enough to discuss their opinion then I am fine with that, no matter what it is. I may try and convince you your why is incorrect or vice versa but that is enjoyable when done without insults and other gibberish.

 

[DirtyJosé]

The biggest issue I have is why does WWE sign these guys for more to do less?

What guys? Who have they signed for more? Plenty of arguments against your stance have been made, but you've failed to retort with anything other than your usual whining about how unfair everything is in the IWC. Yet again, you fail to deliver on producing any kind of argument. No one has ever claimed the WWE to be perfect, and yet you continue to drive that home as the centerpiece of every single worthless thread you start.

Start backing up your claim. Quit trying to take this off topic. Gail Kim sucks, Chris Harris was fat, and Monty Brown disappeared for personal reasons before WWE could do anything with him. Meanwhile, CM Punk has done better in WWE than he ever did in TNA, and Jeff Hardy made more money from and for WWE than he ever has from and for TNA.

 

[D-Man]

You either do not get it or simply repeat catchphrase criticisms regardless of situation.

Did you ever stop to think that YOU don't get ME? Why am I always the one that's taking the fall in a debate with you? You're such a stubborn, insignificant nothing and you can't admit any wrong with your favorite show's product. Get over yourself... seriously.

This is not about quality of booking. It is about how the talent is used.

Wait.... WHAAA??? Booking and use of talent ARE the same thing, you fucking twit.

None of the guys you mention have a worse spot in TNA.

Jordan might not have worked out well but they tried something WWE would not with him to attempt to use him better.

I rest my case here.

Even if Jordan did not work out all that well how does that take away from Anderson's contributions? It doesn't. Midcard gimmicks fail to get over all the time, no matter where they came from, but potential main event guys are hard to come by.

Where, in this entire thread, did I mention the name Anderson??

This is your problem. You're ignorant, a crybaby, and you can't get your facts straight. Your arguments have more holes than Jake Roberts has in his nasal cavity.

Hey imbecile, I never claimed that TNA hasn't elevated ANYONE from WWE's midcard. But you're so busy polishing up your perfect TNA product that you fail to see the cracks like the ones I mentioned. Then, when I mention them, you dive into a completely different subject to try and make your point valid.

Game, set, match.

Are you even planning on going on topic and talking about the efficiency of WWE's signings?

No because that's not what this thread was about. You asked us what was worse, "signing another companies "rejects" and making them better than they were or signing another companies stars and making them forgettable?" I chose one side and reinforced it. Just because it's convenient to YOUR argument for me to mention the efficiency of WWE's signings doesn't mean I'm going to do it. My point was made... clearly.

The move to mondays was a huge mistake, the way hogan talked about it was a huge mistake, abyssmania was a poor idea, Rob Terry's title time was a waste (at least in this country) and I could go on. See exaggerating. Never once claimed TNA was infallible.

I'll be honest here... this is the first time I've seen you concede these things. Therefore, I bow gracefully and thank you for that. In return, I will continue to be completely honest about both promotions' products.

Although you routinely claim it is 100 percent shit. Which one of us is more grounded in reality? All I have ever said is that it is better than it gets portrayed to be in the IWC.

Oh, I do?? Really? That's why I constantly praise AJ Styles as the best in-ring worker in the world, Ric Flair as the greatest to ever wrestle, Beer Money as a powerhouse tag team, Robert Roode to be untapped potential in the singles picture, Matt Morgan to be a show stopper... should I go on?

Fucking ignorance, I swear. I CONSTANTLY talk about my disappointment in TNA. Not my hate for TNA. I know they're SO much better than they put on television right now. I think their writers need to be fired, tarred, feathered, and beaten to death because they SUCK. But I never said I hated the promotion or its talent. I'm merely frustrated with it all.

High opinion of your opinions. You actually criticized me for making real arguments and discussions instead of using your my opinion is gospel approach. Ok jeDus.

I have no clue what this means, but it's a typical shattered dreams comeback so I won't even think twice about it. I'll just roll my eyes and move on like everyone else does after reading your pathetic dribble.

This is where you fail. There is no difference between knowing TNA doesn't entertain you and knowing John Cena doesn't entertain you.

But this is not what I said. I said that IWC fans think "CENA SUX BEECAWSE HES GOTZ FIVE MOVS". In other words, they say he sucks in the ring. How would they know? Have they been to wrestling school? I have and I can tell you that Cena is FAR superior to Hulk Hogan in a ring. And Hogan is one of (if not the) greatest of all time. So the IWC is dead wrong there.

I spoke about the entertainment factor. Sure, IWC members show their disdain for this as well. But my comparison was about the IWC being subjective about something they know nothing about... something that can be taught. We were never taught how to "be entertained." We either are or we aren't. TNA is not entertaining myself or many posters of this forum community. That's an undeniable fact. It's also a fact that many of them love TNA. So be it. But at least I'm sticking with facts here and not opinions.

The reason none of these subjective opinions matter is that the IWC is a small subset of the wrestling audience. Millions of people watch either product in a given week. 50 people bashing tna while 10 defend it is irrelevant in the scheme of things. Especially when at least half of that 50 watch tna anyway.

Very good point here. But I'm an avid watcher of TNA and I have an opinion. Sure, I'm a small percentage of the viewers, but the stagnant ratings don't lie... TNA is not gaining viewers. They're keeping the same ones. They've had between a 1.0 and a 1.3 since 2008. That means their product is not improving. Whether you think it's great or I think it's shit don't matter.

jeDus complex much?

Lulz. Resorting to this? Puhhlease.

What is with the current outbreak of my opinion is correct and anyone who disagrees is a blind mark?

Because you defend EVERYTHING hat has to do with TNA. Unless we put our noses to the grindstone and force it out of you, it is damn near impossible for you to speak negatively about the product. The TNA review thread has about a 60% to 40% delta when it comes to positive versus negative reviews. Yet you think it's perfect. Something's terribly wrong here.

Check the WWE's review thread. Even WWE marks like KB and Jack-Hammer give many segments of the Raw and Smackdown shows "Thumbs Down" or bad remarks. We know when aspects of the program are shit and we admit it every time. But you won't do it unless you're held at gunpoint. THAT'S the difference.

 

[The Crock]

What are you trying to say? TNA signs rejects and the WWE signs prospects, what's so weird about that. TNA takes guys that have been let go because they don't have the power to really develop guys yet, especially since they're competing against a juggernaut such as The 'E. WWE on the other hand, develop guys and take guys from the Indy leagues, the "Minor Leagues". If a huge star from ROH doesn't turn into a mega-star in the WWE that's not that big of a deal. The WWE has much better talent, more guys to compete with. It's obviously worse to pick up rejects and try to repackage them and try to put them in the Main Event.

 

[One to Remember]

sometimes companies just aren't right for certain wrestlers or depending on the era the wrestler and the organization become to divergent. TNA took RVD to the main event, Christian to the main event, WWE cut Christian down upon taking him out of WWECW. Ron Killings was elevated why Gail Kim was cut down badly.


Legit examples of jumping ship
TO WWE:
R-Truth
Evan Bourne
TO TNA:
kURT Angle
Booker T.
CHRISTIAN

Examples of gluttony based signing
Gail Kim
Monty Brown
Christian Cage
R-Truth

gotta be more tothe above list, please add who else you all think belongs..


I think the issue is an attempt to calibrate one companies card to another without taking in other factors. Mr. Kennedy will be a TNA World champ. He is from a strict standpoint a WWE reject because he was released. Some will as a dirty debate tactic choose not to look into the politicking leading to his release.

But this is not what I said. I said that IWC fans think "CENA SUX BEECAWSE HES GOTZ FIVE MOVS". In other words, they say he sucks in the ring. How would they know? Have they been to wrestling school? I have and I can tell you that Cena is FAR superior to Hulk Hogan in a ring. And Hogan is one of (if not the) greatest of all time. So the IWC is dead wrong there.

EYE DIALECT. I've been reading about things like EYE DIALECTS, Loaded questions, etc on wikipedia, its used alot around here. Your quote was an example of that. lol

He sucks because he appeals to naive children and because he does have about five moves. And just because he knows 25 moves doesnt mean he cant be blasted for using 5 because in his current company what we see todayis all he is allowed to be.. And to me doesn't matter what moves Hogan used to get that IWGP Title because stateside, the only area in the world i live in, he was regulated to using a freaking leg drop. If they cant see it it doesnt exist, in the context of criticizing Cena or Hogan I will accept that logic, one of the few times I ever will..


And you gotta concider the writers as an issue because WWE and TNA are running the same damn storyline with names of note. Nexus came from guys from a show. EV2 came from guys from a PPV. Guys in WWE who didnt like each other united, Fortune united with some TNA alumni they have had friction with. Same dynamic, ancient concept, huge ratings discrepancies, someone explain that to me..


Was it not the IWC that got Matt Hardy his job back? Who are we to say the IWC and wrestling fans don't share the same people? even if there are 40 detractors and 10 TNA defenders or w/e number you said thats still a microcasm of the larger number. With some multiplication the views of the IWC can probably be used to get a general feeling. You think just because we argue about thins on a forum that that makes one an IWCer? I don't.. most fans don't feel like debating a few hours a day about wrestling and behind the scene conflicts, doesn't mean they dont think about it..