Would Pre-Hogan TNA Fare Better Against WWE?

[Thriller Ant]

Before Hogan arrived in TNA, the company was seemingly on the biggest role in its history. For those who want a refesher, here is the quick results from Final Resolution, the last pay-per-view pre-Hogan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Resolution_%282009%29

The main feuds were Bobby Lashley and Scott Steiner fighting over Lashley's wife, Desmond Wolfe vs. Kurt Angle, Tara and ODB, Abyss teaming up with Mick Foley against Dr. Stevie and Raven, and finally, AJ Styles vs. Daniels vs. Samoa Joe.

The company was putting on great shows and gaining a lot of momentum as WWE was seemingly slacking before the WrestleMania build began. Now that Hogan has arrived, TNA has still been good, but it isn't really that alternative it was before. Where WWE has started the push to get more youth into its upper midcard and main event, it seems that TNA has gotten older by bringing in a pushing guys like The Band and The Nastys (who are now gone) and bringing in names mainly for their name value (Jeff Hardy, Brian Kendrick, RVD, etc.) I'm not saying those guys aren't talented or will be unable to find a place in TNA, but it is seemingly a case of fixing what wasn't broken.

So let's say TNA still moved to Monday's but kept what it was doing minus Hulk Hogan and all his additions to the company. Do you think the company would still be able to compete or even do better than it is doing now? Why or why not?

 

[Platypus Palsy]

I think the addition of RVD and Jeff Hardy are better than any negatives Hogan has brought in. As you said, the Nastys are gone. When they were on TV in the first place, it wasn't for very long. The Band are really the only old people getting any kind of push because I don't count Hardy, RVD, and Anderson to be old. I see this Band story ending up with EY closer to the main event. Beer Money are being used as enforcers currently. It seems to me that the MCMGs will be tag champs soon. The X Division seems to be a bigger focal point.

All of these things don't seem as good because the WWE has been in it's Road to Wrestlemania mode and building to that. Put it up against the poor Raws back in 09, and I feel that people will think that it has been more successful.

 

[Kenny Powers]

I don't know if pre Hogan TNA could get to Monday nights without a big name star like Hogan. I think TNA would do good at first and gradually get better over the weeks like they were before Hogan came in. However, without names like Bischoff, Flair, Kennedy, RVD, and Hardy I don't think TNA would of even came close to a 1.0 and definitely not a 1.5

However, the older legends did draw ratings at first but then people tuned out. I love seeing Bischoff as the main heel in charge, but I don't like seeing him having Jarrett do stupid skits. I loved seeing the old NWO together at first, but now it's just been there done that. Also, The Nasty Boys and Morley added nothing to TNA or their ratings.

The lowest ratings on the show involve the Jarrett skits and The Band with Bubba. Hogan and Flair's match was even one of the lowest rated segments. I just think TNA without Hogan and Bischoff could be more entertaining with more wrestling but no one would watch it.

Not too many are watching now, but I think the same outcome would of happened without Hogan. TNA do showcase a lot of young stars even though the older ones and WWE vets sometimes out shadow them. I don't think the older guys were wrestling as much now as they were a few months ago. It seems like there was always a match with Foley, Nash, Steiner, or Booker T. The Band is really the only older guys that have been in the ring over the past month. Besides Hogan and Flair's one time deal.

I just think the problem is trying to find your audience. Whether TNA has Hogan and Flair in the main event or AJ Styles against Samoa Joe in the main event, it doesn't matter if no one is watching. TNA has done a better job of getting their name out there. Not a great job but a better one. I just think TNA would fare better against WWE if they cut The Band, Hogan crap and let the younger guys steal the show.

 

[klunderbunker]

Yes.

The thing is before Hogan came in, it was AJ vs. the world. AJ took on challenger after challenger and beat them all. Wolfe was rising up on the heel side with the showdown between them coming. The key thing at the end was that it was about WRESTLING. Now TNA is about drama and stories with wrestling mixed in. TNA and its fans preached about how they were different than WWE who was all about drama and not about wrestling. The fans that wanted wrestling had a choice and even I was thinking there was something to what TNA was trying. There was a legit alternative to WWE coming up and maybe, just maybe, they could hurt WWE.

Enter Hulk Hogan.

Abyss, a gimmick character, is pushed over Wolfe. Wolfe is a jobber now. AJ is doing something completely foreign to him. As I've said before, AJ is the best wrestler int he world. How can Flair help him? Is he going to make him the best wrestler on Venus? AJ wasn't the best talker, but like a Benoit or an Angle, he let his in ring work do the talking. Now he's hanging out with a 60 year old man and dancing in dressing rooms with no music playing with ****s. Why would you not play to your best strengths? There is too much of an emphasis on the older guys like Hall and Nash and FLair and Hogan. Are they big names? Yes. Have they made a ton of money? Yes. Are they bigger stars than AJ and WOlfe? Yes. Are they more valuable than AJ and Wolfe? No way. I'll take AJ vs. Angle or Wolfe for 25 minutes over 22 minutes of promos and a 3 minute match anyday.

Before Hogan, TNA was an alternative. Now they're WWE but with older talent and less interesting stories. WHen they ahve great matches like AJ vs. Angle from 1/4, they have something they can do. I'll take that over Abyss looking like he spilled ketchup and mustard on his shirt everyday.

To be fair though, WWE has been so hot lately nothing could touch it so it really means nothing.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

No, because prior to Hogan & Bishoff, guys like Anderson, Hardy and RVD (all major, major players in TNA right now) were no where to be found.

While I think it's admirable all the indies loved TNA for what it was, what it's become (or what it wants to become) requires an evolution they were incapable of providing without a number of marquee free agent acquisitions.

TNA wants to be an alternative to WWE, not an alternative to ROH. Pre-Hogan they were the latter, post-Hogan they can be the former, IMO.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

No, because prior to Hogan & Bishoff, guys like Anderson, Hardy and RVD (all major, major players in TNA right now) were no where to be found.

While I think it's admirable all the indies loved TNA for what it was, what it's become (or what it wants to become) requires an evolution they were incapable of providing without a number of marquee free agent acquisitions.

TNA wants to be an alternative to WWE, not an alternative to ROH. Pre-Hogan they were the latter, post-Hogan they can be the former, IMO.

I think that's a coincidence, though. These guys jumped over right as their contracts were up. In fact, I think Hogan timed his return in order to come back with as many names as possible.

While it sounds good on paper, all it really did was severely dilute the TNA roster with ex-WWE names, and now the biggest names on the roster are all names that people would immediately associate with "that guy that got fired from WWE,"...and AJ Styles.

As far as the rest of the thread... I couldn't sit here and tell you that I know what TNA could have done to become a main competitor with the WWE, because I don't. But I do know that no one has any idea what really killed the WCW. If you look at Fall-of-WCW interviews, you'll find plenty of interviews from about 25 different guys giving you different answers as to what it actually was that killed WCW. Hell, even Bischoff seems to think that it was Turner company higher-ups that killed WCW, but he's fucking deluded.

If I owned TNA, I would have just focused on becoming a solid wrestling show, focused on 50/50 wrestling and compelling storylines, and just ran with it, not trying to compete with WWE and attack it at every chance I get. If people like your product, they'll watch it. Not because you're making petty little insults during your 90% talking/10% wrestling show about a company that's worlds more successful than yours.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

I think that's a coincidence, though. These guys jumped over right as their contracts were up. In fact, I think Hogan timed his return in order to come back with as many names as possible.

I doubt that, very much. That, in fact, I'd consider coincidental. RVD has been sitting around without a contract for some time now, as has Anderson. Anderson wasn't hired by TNA until well after his 90-day no-compete clause expired.

While it sounds good on paper, all it really did was severely dilute the TNA roster with ex-WWE names, and now the biggest names on the roster are all names that people would immediately associate with "that guy that got fired from WWE,"...and AJ Styles.

If that's the case, those people are mistaken seeing as Angle, Hardy, RVD all left the WWE on their own accord. They weren't fired. In order to be a reject, you have to have been rejected in the first place. All the "big names" were not, so to reiterate that same point – they can't be "WWE rejects".

As far as the rest of the thread... I couldn't sit here and tell you that I know what TNA could have done to become a main competitor with the WWE, because I don't. But I do know that no one has any idea what really killed the WCW. If you look at Fall-of-WCW interviews, you'll find plenty of interviews from about 25 different guys giving you different answers as to what it actually was that killed WCW. Hell, even Bischoff seems to think that it was Turner company higher-ups that killed WCW, but he's fucking deluded.

What does the death of WCW have anything to do with the rise of TNA? Two different eras. Two different companies. Two different financial patterns. The two are incomparable, IMO.

If I owned TNA, I would have just focused on becoming a solid wrestling show, focused on 50/50 wrestling and compelling storylines, and just ran with it, not trying to compete with WWE and attack it at every chance I get. If people like your product, they'll watch it. Not because you're making petty little insults during your 90% talking/10% wrestling show about a company that's worlds more successful than yours.

And you'd probably do relatively well in the wrestling market for it, but you also aren't likely to make the dime that TNA wants to make in terms of revitalizing the industry through another Monday Night War. "Solid" wrestling and "compelling" story lines are what ROH does. If TNA is going to be an "alternative", they have to think alternatively, which means they can't simply replicate what the WWE does with regard to putting on "solid matches" and "compelling" story lining. It has to be more, which IMO is why they tend to "cross the line" (all pun intended) as often as they do.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I doubt that TNA would fare any better against the WWE if he'd never come to TNA. To be completely honest, I'm not really even sure TNA would have been able to convince Spike to move iMPACT! to Monday nights without Hogan on the card.

Some of the individuals brought in since Hogan's arrival have been dead weight. The Nasty Boys have reportedly been let go, so that's a big plus for TNA right there. However, TNA's primary goal for quite a while now has been trying to increase the size of the TNA viewing audience and, in order to do that, TNA has had to bring in these more established wrestlers that are already stars as a result of time spent in WCW and/or WWE. The homegrown talent that TNA wouldn't pull in the numbers and neither would any of the wrestlers from the indy scene that's become part of TNA either.

Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, Sting, Kevin Nash, Scott Hall, Mick Foley, Jeff Jarrett, Kurt Angle, Sean Waltman, Jeff Hardy and Rob Van Dam are mong the most well known and most popular professional wrestlers of the past 15+ years. A few most certainly have to be ranked among the best of all time. Whether you like the presence of any or all of them is neither here nor there, but TNA hired them in the hopes of building their audience. All these major stars are currently part of the TNA roster and iMPACT! has pulled the worst numbers its had in several years over the past couple of weeks. Ratings for iMPACT! did go up upon Hogan's arrival but they did taper off quickly as most people predicted and, for a little while now, TNA hasn't even drawn it's "average" 1.1-1.2 rating. If these big name stars haven't really been able to help TNA increase its audience head to head against the WWE, then no one else on their roster would have had a chance in hell.

 

[hatehabsforever]

Personally, I really don't think it matters one way or the other. WWE has been so strong for the last 3-4 months that there's little to nothing that TNA could do to keep pace.

Pre-Hogan iMPACT could not compete because they didn't have the name recognition factor. Without said recognition factor, forget a move to Monday Nights, and therefore, forget a new Monday Night War. Which would be a blessing in disguise because there's no war anyways.

Post-Hogan brings name value, but it's all old names, which has the double whammy of not being able to compete with the new blood of the WWE, but also alienates it's existing fan base.

Head to head, in today's pro wrestling era, I truly believe there's absolutely nothing TNA can do to compete with WWE. It's a losing battle and the sooner they realize it, move back to Thursdays, and try to supply a plausible alternative to WWE rather than head to head competition with it, the better. Otherwise, they won't last another 2-3 years.

 

[gd]

I don't think so, simply because of the fact that Hogan is a big name. The actual TNA prodcut may have been better pre-Hogan, but the name recognition is not even close. You aren't going to draw in any casual fans if Hogan didn't come along, those are just the facts. As good as AJ Styles in, he's virtually a nobody to the casual fans.

At this point, now that they have established some new viewers by utilizing Hogan, Flair, Sting, and they Band, they should be looking more toward the future. Keep the angles going with the old guys for a month or two, but slowly start to phase them out. If they are able to make a gradual transition back to a more alternaitve, younger TNA, it'd be much to their benefit.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

I doubt that, very much. That, in fact, I'd consider coincidental. RVD has been sitting around without a contract for some time now, as has Anderson. Anderson wasn't hired by TNA until well after his 90-day no-compete clause expired.

I meant to say that all of their returns to wrestling were meant to happen all at once. Hogan, Flair, Bischoff, Hardy, Nasty Boys, Hall, Sixxpac, and Val Venis came back that night. Did Anderson come back later, or did he come back that night? I forget.

If that's the case, those people are mistaken seeing as Angle, Hardy, RVD all left the WWE on their own accord. They weren't fired. In order to be a reject, you have to have been rejected in the first place. All the "big names" were not, so to reiterate that same point – they can't be "WWE rejects".

"WWE reject" is a broad term that's always been used to describe ex-WWE guys who jumped ship over to TNA. Maybe the term's not accurate, but it gets the right message across (in my opinion anyway). None of these guys are nearly as good, or even have a hair on the name-value of WWE's main-event talent. So to the casual viewer, someone who isn't into the backstage stories and internet dirt sheets, RVD, Jeff Hardy, and Anderson just weren't big deals.

What does the death of WCW have anything to do with the rise of TNA? Two different eras. Two different companies. Two different financial patterns. The two are incomparable, IMO.

Are we really going to sit here and pretend that the people running the show at TNA aren't the same people who ran the show at WCW? Because it sounds like you're trying to get me to pretend just that. I'm not going to. TNA is ran by a group of people (save for Dixie Carter) who wanted to give the WCW another shot. And it's admirable, it really is. But these days, TNA is making the same mistakes they did with the WCW, with a fraction of the audience. Seriously, look at the faces of the business.

Hogan, Flair, Hall, Nash, Sixx, Sting... and AJ Styles.

Take away one of these names, and you have a company that fucked itself right into the ground.

And you'd probably do relatively well in the wrestling market for it, but you also aren't likely to make the dime that TNA wants to make in terms of revitalizing the industry through another Monday Night War. "Solid" wrestling and "compelling" story lines are what ROH does. If TNA is going to be an "alternative", they have to think alternatively, which means they can't simply replicate what the WWE does with regard to putting on "solid matches" and "compelling" story lining. It has to be more, which IMO is why they tend to "cross the line" (all pun intended) as often as they do.

Except, they ARE replicating what the WWE does. Every single night. With a worse creative team, older wrestlers, a fraction of the production value, in one building every week. I mean, if they're going to flat out do whatever the WWE does (then proceed to make fun of them for it), then they should at least make an attempt at making it better. I'm talking, storylines minus Hornswoggle and guest host "comedy." Wrestling without the 15-minute rest holds. Targeting the appropriate demographic. You see where I'm going with this?

 

[Dagger Dias]

So let's say TNA still moved to Monday's but kept what it was doing minus Hulk Hogan and all his additions to the company. Do you think the company would still be able to compete or even do better than it is doing now? Why or why not?

No, I don't think TNA would stand a chance if it had gone up against Raw before Hogan and all the other big names who recently joined. Were better guys getting pushed back then? Absolutely. Were Abyss and Styles better off when they weren't ripoffs of Hogan and Flair? Very much so. HOWEVER.... The current version of TNA actually stands a small chance against Raw because they have big names who can still draw, whereas Pre-Hogan TNA would not be taken as seriously. Fans who flipped between the two would see guys they have never heard of and probably just flip back to Raw. The current version of TNA is taken more seriously as another option to Raw by casual mainstream fans. I'll make a few comparisons.

Current TNA: Traditional 4 sided ring, familiar to mainstream fans.
Former TNA: 6 sided ring, strange to mainstream fans.

Current TNA: Styles and Abyss mentored by Flair and Hogan (widely recognized legends.)
Former TNA: Styles and Abyss (somewhat unknown guys) feuding with other somewhat unknown guys.

Current TNA: More attractive Knockouts getting tv time, fans more likely to keep watching the match/segment.
Former TNA: Awesome Kong.... Boring!!!! Flip back to Raw.

Current TNA: Hogan and Bischoff as authority figures.... much more believable as authority figures.
Former TNA: Jarrett and Foley as authority figures.... less famous, therefore less believable.

Current TNA: Has much more well-known guys on the roster. Bigger names often draw better.
Former TNA: Was full of wrestlers who were unfamiliar to mainstream fans.

Those are just a few of the comparisons that could be made. The former TNA would have been destroyed by Raw and would be lucky to make ratings above a 1.0 if they had gone head to head with Raw. The current version of TNA stands a small chance because it appeals more to mainstream fans and has enough big names to give it the potential to become a threat to Raw, although that will obviously take a while. As much as I liked the former version of TNA, I think that if casual fans changed the channel to that then they would be much more likely just change back to Raw because either they don't know enough of the roster, or they'd be weirded out by the 6 sided ring. At least this version of TNA has that small potential to become a threat to Raw, Pre-Hogan TNA did not.