Should you not have titled this "TNA fans should watch both products"? No because you are trying to start a TNA love thread. Frankly I watch TNA but seriously the cons outweigh the pros. Basically the only thing TNA has going for them that WWE does not is that TNA does alot more flashier moves and granted they can use alot of their talents well but WWE can aswell.
Wrestling fans should support TNA
- Thread starter shattered dreams
- Start date
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
I agree with you and never said anything about blindly following any of the companies if you gave them a fair chance and it did not work for you. Support can mean a lot of things and that fair chance is a big part of what I was saying. Like I said in my OP and highlighted again after everyone kept harping on it, if you gave a product that chance and decided it was not for you that is fine.
The question remains if you are so confused why on two separate posts did you lead off claiming you "got it" but disagreed with what I was saying. How can you understand and disagree with something while admitting you don't know what I am trying to say. That makes zero sense and seems misleading to me.
Anonymous Mozzarella said:
Why do you always have to insert name calling of some sort? It is really pointless and unnecessary. This is where you continue to miss the point. I did not mislead anyone. Sure the overall point is wrestling fans should support/give a fair chance to all wrestling programming. But the most interesting case at the moment is specifically about TNA. So I wanted to discuss this broad concept in general with a focus on the TNA brand. Thus, I picked the title to meet these goals.
Anonymous Mozzarella said:
When did I ever say if you do not enjoy TNA then you are not a wrestling fan? I did not in spite of what many tried to claim in this thread. Read the OP again. The fact that so many people jumped on this idea that I am a TNA lover saying everyone else isn't a wrestling fan just went to show the stigma against TNA or the polarization between the companies. I never said anything like that. One of the bigger points was TNA was stupid to create a situation where people had to choose and push that concept. However, that time is over and you do not have to choose anymore. So forget the comparisons and such. If you enjoy watching wrestling take a look at TNA objectively as its own entity and see if it is for you. If you have and it is not that is fine. Just check back in from time to time if you hear about something you might be interested in. If TNA fails it is their fault that is for sure but regardless of whose fault it is the industry and ultimately the fans suffer as well.
Anonymous Mozzarella said:
Not going to claim to know exactly what you are saying here (I've seen you do that enough to know it is not a good idea) but if ratings is the argument then there is a large group that only watches WWE. I would never say that there are not people who watch both because that is obviously not true. IMO it is also obviously true that there are many WWE fans that have never seen anything else, you just do not run into them too often in the IWC. I suspect you may be making a comment of some kind on my concept that fans were getting entrenched on either side. You seemed to play into that notion with your talk about supporting WWE over TNA. All I was saying is that do not get caught up in some fake war and think you have to choose one or should disregard one company entirely because you might like another one better. Even if you prefer WWE, if you like watching wrestling TNA MIGHT be something you also enjoy if you watch it for what it is (ie open mind instead of comparisions).
Serious Mozzarella
Special Victims Unit
*sigh* For Christ's sake.
So basically, and this is in response to the rest of your response, you're preaching to the choir. You even imply that you KNOW you're preaching to the choir. You post your opinion here without making it clear who exactly it is you're referring to, and now you're down on me (speaking for the rest of the community here) for having the audacity to think you're referring to me? You've used the term "wrestling fan" many times, and that refers to everyone, both casual fans and the IWC. I understand why I wasn't seeing where you were coming from -- you're telling people that they should watch more than just one type of wrestling on a forum were a vast majority of people watch than more than one type of wrestling, and I was trying to tell you that most people here ALREADY watch more than one type of wrestling, at least to the best of their abilities, and now you're like, "Well... I know."
So if I didn't think this thread was useless before...
You:
You created this thread title to get people to think, "Whaaat the fuck is this guy talking about?" and they click the link only to find that you said something completely different. There's no argument here. It's horrible forum etiquette. Don't do it anymore, so you don't have people responding to your thread with an immediate bias against what you're writing.
Then, in the same sentence, you went on to explain that you also entitled it to contrast between WWE fans and wrestling fans, which I've already said, there's no difference. If someone exists in the world that ONLY likes the WWE, and has tried out other kinds of promotions, and didn't like a single one of them, and only likes the WWE, (s)he is still a wrestling fan.
So basically, and this is in response to the rest of your response, you're preaching to the choir. You even imply that you KNOW you're preaching to the choir. You post your opinion here without making it clear who exactly it is you're referring to, and now you're down on me (speaking for the rest of the community here) for having the audacity to think you're referring to me? You've used the term "wrestling fan" many times, and that refers to everyone, both casual fans and the IWC. I understand why I wasn't seeing where you were coming from -- you're telling people that they should watch more than just one type of wrestling on a forum were a vast majority of people watch than more than one type of wrestling, and I was trying to tell you that most people here ALREADY watch more than one type of wrestling, at least to the best of their abilities, and now you're like, "Well... I know."
So if I didn't think this thread was useless before...
You:
You created this thread title to get people to think, "Whaaat the fuck is this guy talking about?" and they click the link only to find that you said something completely different. There's no argument here. It's horrible forum etiquette. Don't do it anymore, so you don't have people responding to your thread with an immediate bias against what you're writing.
Then, in the same sentence, you went on to explain that you also entitled it to contrast between WWE fans and wrestling fans, which I've already said, there's no difference. If someone exists in the world that ONLY likes the WWE, and has tried out other kinds of promotions, and didn't like a single one of them, and only likes the WWE, (s)he is still a wrestling fan.
Remy LaCroix
Lou Thesz' Favorite Son
I'll support TNA when they quit being "total non-stop action" 'cause it's too much (too much action in one episode)! Also, during matches, they tend to always talk about some other feud or developing story instead of the actual match.
I can count only one episode that was decent, but the rest were mediocre to boring -- tonight's episode being very boring. They need to work on good entertainment, no rehashed or pointless storylines.
I can count only one episode that was decent, but the rest were mediocre to boring -- tonight's episode being very boring. They need to work on good entertainment, no rehashed or pointless storylines.
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
Anonymous Mozzarella said:
I made it plenty clear in the OP who I was not referring to. What part of "If you legitimately totally dislike one that is fine do not watch it" makes you (who in an act of humility has apparently been sanctioned to speak on the behalf of everyone) think I am bashing people that do not watch/like TNA's product? So I have used a term that you suggest applies to both casual fans and the IWC, yet we are supposed to discredit my comments because many in the IWC watch a variety of wrestling? What about the other part of the fans definition. Now we cannot discuss what non-IWC fan habits, not to mention "most" is not all to begin with? In fact my point what you have consistently ignored that was the biggest part of the OP is a look at what constitutes giving TNA a fair chance and the variety of possible ways or reasons to support them. That is what I wanted to discuss. The polarized auto-responses were actually in my mind confirmation of some unfortunate biases that I believe may be clouding some fans judgments.
Anonymous Mozzarella said:
Saying wrestling fans should support TNA makes people say WTF? That is news to me. How did I say something completely different? I absolutely posted mucho about that topic. Just because I also broadened the idea does not mean it is completely different. Quite honestly I think it is horrible forum etiquette to read the title instead of the content and then make biased posts accordingly. The draw people in comment has been explained and expanded on although I guess you like to use selective reading to make your points. Is that good etiquette? As you ignored the main point of the title was to shape the conversation around the TNA specific implications of the broader concept.
Semantically the whole obsession with the phrase "wrestling fan" is interesting. Now obviously if you watch any program you are technically a wrestling fan. However, if you only watch one then you are most accurately a "blank" fan instead of a wrestling fan. It is not the whole genre you are interested in merely that one entity. If you do partake in more than one entity then it would seem you would accurately use a broader umbrella. There is nothing wrong with only supporting one but it is clearly different from enjoying an entire industry IMO.
Well, IMO, that is a pile of bollocks. That's like saying if you only drink Carlsberg you're only a Carlsberg fan and not a beer fan. It's all the same thing, just packaged differently and to try and box it in is wrong. I don't care if it's TNA/WWE/ROH or one of the english, mexican or Jap companies, you like it, you're a wrestling fan.
Your thread title was very misleading, and to claim it wasn't after admitting that you titled it so to get people to view is changing the rules after they're written. Yet I'm sure you'll quote me and say how i've not got your argument and blah, blah, blah. I've got it, you're misleading. Wrestling is about choice.
But, hey, you say Soccer, I say football, it's horses for courses, just try to not mislead others to get them to view your thread in future
pipcole123
New Member
My view is that TNA has a better wrestling product, but WWE is evidently a much more established company, having the money to extensively promote their product and travel the world performing house shows. TNA is not big enough at the moment to take on WWE, they should take time with Hogan at the helm to build up their product and their company, so they can reach a level where they might actually sucessfully take on WWE . . . although I can't see why both companies cant live in harmony 
I tried, they failed. They lost me as a viewer already. I agree with the OP when he says they kept running their mouths too much about how they were going to destroy the competition. Now they look like a bunch of fools who have retreated back into their hole by switching to Thursday nights again. Hogan and Bischoff got lucky with WCW's success mainly because Time-Warner gave them an unlimited checkbook to sign WWE's top stars. Dixie Carter hasn't given them much money to work with. If $175,000 for two years is a huge contract for Christy Hemme, imagine how much most of the other guys are making. $400 a match? What a joke to risk your life and body. TNA should have spent their money more wisely instead of bringing Van Dam and Hardy in to save the federation. Neither guy has very good Mic Skills and Mic Skills are what sells wrestling, not wrestling. So what that WWE had 14 mins of actual wrestling on their show, the people they put on the mic were very entertaining so it was a better Wrestling show.
I say give Black Machismo some more TV time, he was hilarious. However, instead of making that something regular, they made him look like a pussy by immediately groveling to Flair for forgiveness.
Ric Flair and Hulk Hogan are too old and they need to hang up the boots before they ruin TNA permanently.
I say give Black Machismo some more TV time, he was hilarious. However, instead of making that something regular, they made him look like a pussy by immediately groveling to Flair for forgiveness.
Ric Flair and Hulk Hogan are too old and they need to hang up the boots before they ruin TNA permanently.
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
How does that make sense? You mislead me by saying you like beer, yet if I bring you anyone to drink except a specific singular one then you actually do not like it. You do not like 99% of beer, yet you are a beer fan because you like one type. Do you like a type of beer? Yes. Are you a fan of beer generally speaking? Not to me. However, if you had a post entitled "I am a beer fan" that went on to explain your feelings on this in your own words I would not say you were misleading. A title does not make a post unless someone has lazy eyes. It is an accessory to the post, not its own separate point. If you or anyone else jumped to incorrect conclusions that is their own shortcoming IMO, not my own.
I think you missed the point on that one. While I obviously agree with you about the way they spoke about the move my main point was not to let that screwup play too heavily into your decision-making especially since it is over and is essentially irrelevant to what they put out now. If you like promos then I would be surprised if you did not actually find many parts of TNA quite entertaining. Although at least you gave it a try which is nice. If you think you gave it a level-headed fair shot then that is fine. If maybe you had a little bit of an axe to grind think about if you might like to be able to watch Ken Anderson talk each week.
See, if you'd just gave it an honest title, instead of using it to draw people in, perhaps you wouldn't have needed to explain yourself so much. Oh, and having every other post being you trawling through and arguing the toss with people because they disagree with you is rather silly. I was going to ignore you but you refer to people like myself (who found you deliberately misleading) as having lazy eyes and having shortcomings because we don't see your elitest form of bollocks as the way it should be.
But whatever brand of beer it is, it's still a brand of BEER. Just because it's one type you don't say I like Carlsberg alcoholic beverage, you say you like Carlsberg beer? So that is misleading because I like one type you define that as not being a fan of beer but yet calling a topic something misleading just to get people to look at it and jump to "incorrect conclusion", even thought you've admitted you titled it so to get them to read, is our shortcoming?
Double standards there and, IMO, as I stated before, bollocks!
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
What is this honest title everyone wants? Please tell me what my OP is about because apparently I have mislead myself because I still firmly believe it is an apt description of what I typed. What is elitist about what I said? So you were going to ignore me by posting about what I said and not allowing me to debate your interpretation of my words? Seems an odd choice. Silly? I think finding a topic and discussing it is kind of the point of a messageboard. Arguably the title could have a few meanings if it is the only thing someone looks at. However, if you combine the title and the OP it seems to be clear what I am and am not talking about. This is why I made the lazy eyes jab. Why am I the one who mislead people when they simply picked a possible meaning and ran with it without reading the post itself. It seems like people mislead themself and I find the reasons why that happened quite interesting within the scope of this topic.
harrythem said:
I see where I screwed up. Apparently writing something for people to read was not suppose to be my purpose. So you do not want me to debate with people or to write for people to read. Odd. If you read what I wrote and you quoted while watching a wrestling show technical makes someone a wrestling fan, that might not be the most accurate description. Sure you are a beer fan but that is not the most accurate description. That is all I am saying. Why would someone so adamantly want to have credit for supporting something (entire industry) when they clearly do not? Nothing wrong with being a WWE only fan though but it is definitely different than wrestling industry fan to me. If it is not to you then that is fine but confusing to me.
Would've been more honest to say wrestling fan should give TNA a try, not wrestling fans should support TNA. A large difference in the context in can be taken in and, in all fairness, would have got a more reasoned debate then you've had.
By your whole definition of what is a wrestling fan. To say someone isn't a wrestling fan because they only watch WWE is elitest as it's basically saying that you're more of a wrestling fan then someone who only likes to watch WWE. Makes you a more hardcore fan, yes, but no more of a wrestling fan.
If you'd read what I said, as you're often saying in this entire thread, I said I was going to ignore it but after the lazy eyed and short-comings comment I decided to reply.
We'll forget the beer analogy and use football instead. I'm an Arsenal fan. I don't like any other teams (and detest Tottenham, Machester United and Chelsea). I support only one particular "brand" of football team so does that make me any less of a football fan then a neutral that likes all teams? No, I spend my hard earned money on the mighty Gooners and have the right to call myself a football fan. And the same goes with wrestling, whatever ship you hoist your flag for (or all of them if that's the case) you're a wrestling fan (and since when did the term change to wrestling industry? You've been referring to it as "wrestling fan" the entire thread, can't change the goal posts son, it's not fair game)
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
So you believe there is a huge misleading difference between "support" and "give a try"? I fail to see that as a huge misleading difference at all and I also believe "give a try" is not the most accurate description of what I was talking about. Just "give a try" implies all I wanted was for people to try watching TNA because they liked wrestling. That may have been a part of something I said but I was focused on supporting the industry because competition is good historically. I wanted people to not give TNA an unfair try for the wrong reasons or celebrate their failures like it was a good thing. Maybe people assumed "support" meant they had to watch, but even if they did I clearly said that was not the case, so how is that my fault they made that mistake (especially when support can mean many things)?
harrythem said:
I think that being a wrestling fan implies that you are a fan of the wrestling industry as a whole which has always been the point. If you actually only like a certain subset of the industry then it is more accurate to describe you as a fan of that particular subset. Forget the labels, is there not a difference between someone who only follows one team and someone who follows a sport as a whole? Of course there is. Does that difference make one "someone" superior to the other? No, and I never claimed it did. So not only am I responsible for people assuming an incorrect definition of support but I am responsible for people assuming an elitist implication that was not present either? At some point the old saying about "ass u me" becomes quite relevant. Many clearly tried to make an ass out of me, hopefully some people realize they were making an ass out of themselves at the same time.
In this case you are talking about the general case and myself about the specific. I have said several times generally speaking someone who only watches WWE is a wrestling fan, obviously. However, when you get down to specifics that is not the most accurate description IMO. I really could care less about the label, anyone can call themself whatever they want. I am not obsessed with the labels because I am not worried about status or superiority like those that focused on them. One thing I was interested in was the difference in behaviors of people with distinct viewing habits, which you can call whatever you want, especially towards the TNA product.
3/4 Facelock
Pre-Show Stalwart
TNA will get better once Hulk Hogan stops using the company and his TV time as therapy for all the garbage he went through.
His continued agressive presence in the majority of the show has ruined a fantastic alternative program. Eric Bischoff acting like Eric Bischoff has ruined a fantastic alternative program. The removal of the 6-sided ring and the addition of the ramp has ruined the X-Division.
If they are pushing young talent like many of you say and like Hogan said he would, well...I don't see it. AT ALL.
I supported TNA in its entirity before this debacle occured and until someone over there realizes that what worked 15 years ago won't work now, I won't support them. I already saw all that shit.
His continued agressive presence in the majority of the show has ruined a fantastic alternative program. Eric Bischoff acting like Eric Bischoff has ruined a fantastic alternative program. The removal of the 6-sided ring and the addition of the ramp has ruined the X-Division.
If they are pushing young talent like many of you say and like Hogan said he would, well...I don't see it. AT ALL.
I supported TNA in its entirity before this debacle occured and until someone over there realizes that what worked 15 years ago won't work now, I won't support them. I already saw all that shit.
What you need to do is stop arguing a flawed argument. A fan of the wrestling industry can still hate TNA, end of fucking discussion. I've watched wrestling since I was a child, I've always loved wrestling and the wrestling industry, I've studied, I've watched, I've followed every aspect of wrestling from a child to an adult. I watched WCW during different eras, I've watched WWE during different eras, I watched ECW back in the day, but I refuse to watch TNA because the product is garbage. I've given it "a try" countless times and it continually fails and doesn't stand up to the standard that I, as a WRESTLING FAN, want to see from a WRESTLING COMPANY, so I don't watch it. And that does not make me any less of a wrestling fan then some tool who watches a garbage product they may not even like just because they want to be viewed by people who's opinion hold no value in their every day life, as a true wrestling fan. That's really all that needs to be said.
The football reference (which can be said about Hockey, Basketball, Baseball or any other sport) entirely destroys your flawed logic, because a football fan can follow, back and love ONE football team and not any others. They can hate other cities and other teams and not go out of their way to watch or follow those teams, and yet they're just as much a fan of football.. the SPORT.. the ENTITY.. as anyone else. A wrestling fan can watch only WWE and love WRESTLING in it's most basic of terms and not like or watch TNA. It's not rocket science. And yes, your title was misleading, but more so the post you made in the beginning was flawed, that's much more the issue.
The end.
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
About the sport reference. I would disagree. A fan who only supports a certain team is most accurately a fan of that team opposed a fan of the sport in general. Now someone could be both a fan of a specific team and of the sport in general. However, if someone is only a fan of a team then there are differences. The most obvious one is that they will not watch a game of the sport in general if it does not involve either directly or indirectly the team they are a fan of. Everyone keeps saying something like "just as much of a fan." I actually find that basically speaking a fan of any degree is simply a fan. To me there is no such thing as I am a better fan than you and I never said anything like that. Now apparently people obsess about being a better fan than others for some reasons that seem odd to me yet insist I am an elitist. Go figure?
It was never about perceived fan status, a concept so foreign to my thinking that I totally ignored it until I figured out that is why the panties were bunching up like a sorority laundry room. It is about the distinctions that occur when you specifically look at what people view and how that effects their opinions/reactions. Surely a fan on one side of a rivalry in sports will view something that happens in a game different than the fan on the other side, while a neutral party will likely see it a third way. This analogy is the heart of what I wanted to discuss since the "rivalry" in this case is essentially fake and at the moment the success of one has no effect on the other, in fact it might actually boost the quality of whatever you like from a fan point of view. When your "rival" loses in sports that is often to be celebrated since it helps your team. I contend that in the scope of the wrestling industry failures in TNA or any "rival" company should be treated the opposite way because they induce the opposite result. Meaning they should not be celebrated because they seem to decrease competition/alternatives which leads to lower quality.
If you gave TNA a fair try and do not want to watch it then you are a fan of the industry and I have consistently said that starting in the OP and on through the thread. If you hate it and find it garbage that is fine. I find it hard to believe if you enjoyed that much wrestling over the years you hate ALL of TNA and have no wrestlers in the company you would want to at least support (does not have to be by watching).
If the non-favorite team game involves teams that are even marginally interesting, sure. But, if you aren't a fan of either the Detroit Lions or Oakland Raiders, are you going to watch a Lions/Raiders game on TV, knowing how bad each team is, just because you enjoy football as a general rule? No. Because you know the Lions and Raiders suck, and whether you watch them or not doesn't change the fact that they suck. (I say this as a diehard Lions fan, but I can acknowledge they have sucked ass). You can love football, and still pass up watching what you know is going to be a craptacular game.
Your logic is flawed.
Your arguments are flawed.
This thread is flawed, because the logic behind it is.
This is the silliest statement I've heard in a long time.
So, how do you presume I support those aspects then if not by watching the product? Let's say I was a fan of Mr. Anderson (which I am) how do you presume I go about supporting HIM when there is no way I am going to watch the entire TNA product which I find to be garbage and unwatchable, and which leaves such a bad taste in my mouth that I regret watching it the times that I have sat down and tried to watch it to "support" the alternative. I could watch the videos on youtube that they put up that specifically involve him, right? I do. But now you're just getting so far off the topic you yourself first posted about, while trying to grasp to some argument that is completely flawed logic, that you're losing any semblance of a point. I think you need to go back and read through your own thread and refocus yourself because you seem entirely lost, jumping here and there grasping at straws to me.
Your arguments are flawed.
This thread is flawed, because the logic behind it is.
This is the silliest statement I've heard in a long time.
So, how do you presume I support those aspects then if not by watching the product? Let's say I was a fan of Mr. Anderson (which I am) how do you presume I go about supporting HIM when there is no way I am going to watch the entire TNA product which I find to be garbage and unwatchable, and which leaves such a bad taste in my mouth that I regret watching it the times that I have sat down and tried to watch it to "support" the alternative. I could watch the videos on youtube that they put up that specifically involve him, right? I do. But now you're just getting so far off the topic you yourself first posted about, while trying to grasp to some argument that is completely flawed logic, that you're losing any semblance of a point. I think you need to go back and read through your own thread and refocus yourself because you seem entirely lost, jumping here and there grasping at straws to me.
yes wrestling fans should support tna and here is why.
1. it is alternative to wwe
2. it has the superior match quality
3. it might be the last hope to topple wwe
4. to bring back the monday night wars
wrestling has lost it's edge for several years now, more and more fans are going away from wrestling by the week, if it wern't for tna i would probably had gone on a no wrestling watching strike for a another year or two, plus they appeal more to us, the iwc, and have a more gripping unpredictable show than wwe, so i say Support tna, before it is to late
1. it is alternative to wwe
2. it has the superior match quality
3. it might be the last hope to topple wwe
4. to bring back the monday night wars
wrestling has lost it's edge for several years now, more and more fans are going away from wrestling by the week, if it wern't for tna i would probably had gone on a no wrestling watching strike for a another year or two, plus they appeal more to us, the iwc, and have a more gripping unpredictable show than wwe, so i say Support tna, before it is to late
