Who has brightest future - WWE or TNA?

viper.10

WWE are the big dog at the minute but if you look at WWE and take away the undetaker, kane, HHH, plus the fact Y2J, Batista and HBK are already gone and then on TNA's side take away kurt, sting, nash, flair, and hogan and just look at the younger guys: on WWE you'll have cena, orton, seamus, the miz, cody, dibiase etc and on TNA you'll have aj, somoa joe, pope, mr. anderson, morgan, the guns, beer money etc. I'm just wondering who'll you all think have the brightest future ahead of them

waltersobchak

WWE. Because all the TNA talent you named there will be in WWE in the next 5 years, once TNA go out of business.

flahavaj

Ridiculous question, no offence mate.

A cursory glance at both companys' TV ratings, monthly PPV buyrates and profitmargins gives a pretty clear and definitive answer.

Ridley

flahavaj wrote: »

Ridiculous question, no offence mate.

A cursory glance at both companys' TV ratings, monthly PPV buyrates and profitmargins gives a pretty clear and definitive answer.

Are TNA's ratings going down?

Cactus Colm

As it stands WWE has the brightest future, they have all the money, the brand recognition, the pop culture identity, everything on their side to keep profitable for a very long time.

However, i think TNA are in a better position to capitalise on the x-factor, the one feud/angle/wrestler that picks up magic (like Austin/McMahon or NWO). TNA seems to be a much friendlier place for wrestler's own creativity, and much of WWE's creative side seems a bit too restrictive.

CMpunked

At present, wwe hands down.

BUT; 3-4 years ago tna had it right and had a perfect mix of new young wrestlers, older 'legends' and figureheads in a non wrestling role, ie Mick foley.

Now? They got a slight taste of the power and went a bit mad hungry looking for more.

If they strip it back and get back to here they were, give it 5 years they could do it again, but on the flipside is that, as Walter already pointed out, they'll be working for wwe.

flahavaj

Ridley wrote: »

Are TNA's ratings going down?

They're not going up by a significant amount( or haven't ever in the history of the company) to suggest that they're anything pproaching a threat to WWE.

D2D

Ridley wrote: »

Are TNA's ratings going down?

Ratings for TV for averaging around the 1 mark. Even though they don't release their PPV numbers, It was reported that their numbers are miles down (I think 1 PPV got around 20,000 buys)

jaykhunter

This is not even up for debate. WWE is a(n almost) billion dollar company on the Stock Market, that sees very healthy profits each year (more than $35,000,000) with many TV deals, PPV revenue, a film studio etc etc that all make bank. They have secured high-profile advertisers and merchandising deals which ensure a plump profit. It has a solid corporate structure that has harboured much worse times that whatever small hiccups befall them these days (oh, so they're "only" making $35,000,000 profit) even if it that's not their earning potential.

TNA is run by retards and a nice lady who have their heads up their ass. They lack business and creative acumen of even basic story telling, presentation and logic. Their wreckless spending over the last three years has barely seen any increase in viewers, while their PPV is in the ****ter. Over the last year it's been reported that TNA spent $5,000,000 on Hogan/Bischoff/Hardy/RVD/Anderson; and their ratings are just recently back to their usual, after nose-diving earlier this year in a failed, short-lived monday night experiment. The only reason TNA aren't bumped back down to Fox Sports Net is because they've managed to hoodwink Dixie Carter and Spike TV into falsely believing that this is a teething period that is par for the course for all wrestling companies.

TNA need to make drastic changes in every department (payroll, creative etc) if they are to remain in their current position. TNA cannot afford to keep losing money on these fruitless business ventures.

You'll also notice that WWE are doing an admirable job of creating stars for the future this year and last, and will continue to do so. Although we're getting repetitive matches now, in 4 years WWE will have a bona-fide fresh crop of proven main-event draws, something TNA is generally incapable of doing. Also, WWE, with their cash surplus can afford to drive their dump-trucks full of money to TNA wrestlers' houses (like Gail Kim) if they feel they are a threat. All TNA wrestlers, if offered much more than TNA will offer them, to have a chance to wrestle in the biggest wrestling company in the world, on the greatest stage of them all, would jump at the chance....any TNA (or elsewhere) wrestler who claims otherwise probably has no chance at making it in WWE. Even old-timers like Nash, Team 3D and Angle have professed wanting to do another run with WWE.

Even seeing the shape/health of wrestlers during their time in TNA vs their time in WWE (Jeff Hardy, Goldust) tell you what TNA is really like....an easy paycheque.

In short, TNA are a struggling company that is spending tons of cash without results, and WWE are a very profitable company, instead of being an even more profitable company.

P.S. I am a supporter of TNA and WWE, both have their faults but I want both to succeed very much, especially TNA, their competition and success would make WWE's programming more enjoyable and we, the fans, would win.

Gerard.C

TNA's future is on Vinces shelf beside WCW and ECW.

DHYNZY

I think WWE have consolidated themselves as THE big company. You could argue that WCW challeneged WWF, but only with a billionaire behind them (Turner) to match Vinces own pocket. But this is the 90s. This is 20 years on, and WWE have truly cemented themselves as the unchallengeable. Would take a flux of middle eastern sheiks to take on Vinces WWE now.

CMpunked

DHYNZY wrote: »

Would take a flux of middle eastern sheiks to take on Vinces WWE now.

As funny as a thought that is, it is possible.
With


As the face of the whole thing

Bounty Hunter

viper.10 wrote: »

WWE are the big dog at the minute but if you look at WWE and take away the undetaker, kane, HHH, plus the fact Y2J, Batista and HBK are already gone and then on TNA's side take away kurt, sting, nash, flair, and hogan and just look at the younger guys: on WWE you'll have cena, orton, seamus, the miz, cody, dibiase etc and on TNA you'll have aj, somoa joe, pope, mr. anderson, morgan, the guns, beer money etc. I'm just wondering who'll you all think have the brightest future ahead of them

There is so much more to it than wrestling personal on rosters, The WWE is a global business machine churning out so many hours of programming and so much more that branches off from that. They have far deeper resources, better production value, a bigger market/audience etc and tbh TNA is not even competition for the WWE.

All you outlined above is that the WWE is going through a much needed process whereby the older stars are finally looking like moving aside for other at the moment less big name stars. Albeit a good observation it is as i said needed for the WWE to grow especially when talking about a bright future as you are.

Machismo Fan

In terms of business it's a no contest. Even if TNA sort out all their problems I still doubt they'd be anywhere near the level of WWE in five years time. But in terms of roster I think TNA are better equipped. WWE have failed to make any stars this year despite trying at certain times.

Sheamus has been elevated to main events but recent PPV buyrates indicate he's a commercial flop. Bourne and Kofi's pushes fizzled out quickly after encouraging starts, Nexus has been stripped of all credibility since SummerSlam, Swagger was never really given a chance despite having all the necessary tools but he was jobbed out and dumped back in the midcard, The Harts were less over with the tag titles than without, Cody, McIntyre, Morrison and DiBiase have shown very little upward mobility off the back of short pushes, Christian has been told loud and clear that he's midcard for life considering the lack of depth on Smackdown and I still don't think Miz is fully equipped to carry a main event spot. Plus looking at all those people, I think only Swagger, Sheamus and to a lesser extent Morrison have potential to be long term main eventers.

Whereas if you look at the TNA roster, you see guys like Styles, Joe, Sabin, Shelley, Roode, Storm, Pope, Anderson, Morgan, Lethal, Wolfe and Magnus who for the most part have years of TV experience, have never been used right and haven't been over-exposed and all can main event in the TNA environment with credibility and garner interest.

viper.10

Ok ok i think only a few people are getting what i meant. I meant in terms of wrestling talent on both rosters. Of course, TNA cant match WWE money wise so everybody can calm down im not suggesting they can. It was a simple question concerning the rosters and the wrestlers. The wrestling fans tune in to see the wrestlers perform not to see which company makes the most money - which just to make clear again i know is WWE.

danny29

In terms of money..business..looks..fanbase..success its WWE
in terms of talents and performance its TNA

Where does X Division belongs to? TNA
Did anyone not see the MCMG-Beer Money series? how epic it was? TNA did that
You'll see much better match in TNA then WWE(most of the times)

I can't believe im saying this if TNA would ever gone out of business...pro wrestling might be gone as well...because there aren't going to be any competition and most pro wrestling fans would then move on to watch the UFC.

All i can wish for for both companies to keep on pushing talents and for TNA please get rid of WWF/WCW/ECW talents from the past..its time for other talents to shine

I would think ROH would have much better talents than both companies..half of the TNA roster starts in ROH ...If you want to ever see a best match possible it would be ROH Or TNA..In WWE..they have been told to wrestle accordance to their system..so you'll see much slower matches..its up to you which would you prefer..not all fans are the same

rossie1977

if someone told you 2 years ago that a program with a bunch of girls who nobody knows anything about would be beating a show containing the llikes of rvd, jeff hardy, ken anderson, ric flair, kevin nash, sting, hulk hogan, mick foley, would you have believed them??

wwe are going through a transitional period atm, its going to take time and there are going to be a few (many) bumps along the way but they are clearly building guys for the future in miz, morrison, sheamus, drew, punk, danielson, barrett, gabriel, rhodes, dibiase; i simply don't see that in tna at all, shows seemed to be booked on the fly, there is no clear top middle and bottom regarding the roster and this confuses fans

Machismo Fan

danny29 wrote: »

I can't believe im saying this if TNA would ever gone out of business...pro wrestling might be gone as well...because there aren't going to be any competition and most pro wrestling fans would then move on to watch the UFC.

Wrestling needs competition. The death of WCW was one of the worst things that happened in Wrestling and TNA are the only company that have any hope of pushing WWE and WWE will respond if pushed (the build to this years WrestleMania proves this, even the pathetic direct competition of TNA made WWE raise their game). Anybody that wants TNA to go out of business is talking nonsense.

rossie1977 wrote: »

wwe are going through a transitional period atm, its going to take time and there are going to be a few (many) bumps along the way but they are clearly building guys for the future in miz, morrison, sheamus, drew, punk, danielson, barrett, gabriel, rhodes, dibiase; i simply don't see that in tna at all, shows seemed to be booked on the fly, there is no clear top middle and bottom regarding the roster and this confuses fans

The problem is WWE goes too far the other way that it makes it very difficult to break new people into the well established main event, plus WWE's creative team don't have the nuts to actually put anybody new over at the expense of the established guys.

jaykhunter

I might as well mention that the vast majority of wrestling fans (i.e. WWE fans) want compelling storylines, and characters they're emotionally invested into. The wrestling comes second -- it's why Chris Benoit never really drew anything but Cena is the merchandise/ratings king. Overall WWE give the people what they want much more than TNA do.

On the internet, there's a much higher concentration of smart fans, and so are more interested in match quality etc.

Really odd Machismo fan you left out The Miz, who dominates WWE's main show and is the guy being solidly pushed right now. A lot of people are getting ready to/accept Miz as main event sometime in 2010/11, something quite unthinkable 2 years ago.

TNA for the longest time have had the better work-rate roster than any one brand in WWE but TNA continually squander their roster; giving them stupid fast-forwarded storylines and failing to hook the viewers (i.e. us) in. Any TV show with Angle, Pope, AJ, Kennedy, RVD, Sting etc etc should be doing at least 2's....

They just have a mish-mash of talent; unlike WWE, who have a delineated heirarchy of opening/mid-card and main event talent.

Another point that I must make is that TNA have pretty much ditched their X-Division since Hogan and Bischoff took over. We've had barely any spotfests and they installed a wrestler who's gimmick is it that hates traditional X-Division wrestling.

Beer Money and MMG have been amazing since at least 2008!

parker kent

jaykhunter pretty much hit the nail on the head as regards TNA v WWE.

I'd just add that in terms of actual in-ring action, TNA is actually going backwards. The more legends (aka time hogging has-beens) that they hire, the less time there is for AJ Styles et al. A lot of top talent has been demoted or even released because of Hogan and Flair's astronomical wages and TV time.

Oh and RUSSO MUST GO! They are shockingly run and Dixie Carter needs to stop being an on-screen character. I could write a thesis on all that is wrong with TNA at the minute.

Machismo Fan

jaykhunter wrote: »

Really odd Machismo fan you left out The Miz, who dominates WWE's main show and is the guy being solidly pushed right now. A lot of people are getting ready to/accept Miz as main event sometime in 2010/11, something quite unthinkable 2 years ago.

I slapped him in at the end, I don't think he can deliver a good enough main event quality match. Plus, even a few months ago they faltered on pushing him when he was losing to R-Truth and Bret Hart. WWE creatie are just as bad as TNA's.

jaykhunter wrote: »

Another point that I must make is that TNA have pretty much ditched their X-Division since Hogan and Bischoff took over. We've had barely any spotfests and they installed a wrestler who's gimmick is it that hates traditional X-Division wrestling.

The X-Division's been dead since mid-2007.

parker kent wrote: »

I'd just add that in terms of actual in-ring action, TNA is actually going backwards. The more legends (aka time hogging has-beens) that they hire, the less time there is for AJ Styles et al. A lot of top talent has been demoted or even released because of Hogan and Flair's astronomical wages and TV time.

I'm sick of people blaming Hogan, Bischoff and Flair for problems that have existed long before they were ever in TNA (and being honest Hogan hasn't actually been on TV that often in the last few months). Before Hogan and Flair, there was Foley, Nash, DDP, Sting, Hall, Steiner, Booker and a whole host of over-the-hill folks in the Nashville era who took time from the talent that could help TNA be something different.

rossie1977

Machismo Fan wrote: »

plus WWE's creative team don't have the nuts to actually put anybody new over at the expense of the established guys.

sheamus went over HHH quite strong

vince has always been about slow build up, outside of lesnar, yokozuna and you could argue undertaker everyone else has had to bide their time in the lower/mid card before getting their push, so i never expected anyone to get superpushes

parker kent

Machismo Fan wrote: »

I'm sick of people blaming Hogan, Bischoff and Flair for problems that have existed long before they were ever in TNA (and being honest Hogan hasn't actually been on TV that often in the last few months). Before Hogan and Flair, there was Foley, Nash, DDP, Sting, Hall, Steiner, Booker and a whole host of over-the-hill folks in the Nashville era who took time from the talent that could help TNA be something different.

I did just say I could write much more on TNAs problems. I also mention the amount of over-the-hill guys they have, which obviously means more than Hogan and Flair. TNA have a history of great matches being lost amidst chaotic management.

It is true that the money spent on Hogan and Flair is much more than on anybody else. Just because problems existed before Hogan does not mean that it is wrong to point out the problems caused by his arrival. Post Hogan, the X-division and womens division have been destroyed. They were USPs of TNA and they have been ruined to give us guys who peaked in 1987.

TNA continue the same problem from day one, they ignore their own talent in favour of anybody who has eve been within spitting difference of a WWE ring. Vince Russo should take the blame for a lot of the madness in TNA. Why Dixie has hired him twice is beyond me. The best thing in TNA this year was the Beer Money/MCMG series and that had nothing to do with Russo and his "vision".

As for the WWE, I actually think they have a pretty strong roster and should be OK talent wise in 5 years time.

Machismo Fan

rossie1977 wrote: »

sheamus went over HHH quite strong

vince has always been about slow build up, outside of lesnar, yokozuna and you could argue undertaker everyone else has had to bide their time in the lower/mid card before getting their push, so i never expected anyone to get superpushes

But you know HHH will be back later this year to get his win back and Sheamus really hasn't beaten anybody else. WWE's biggest problem now is they're rapidly in need of new stars and they seem to be doing everything within their power to stop people who are beginning to get over from getting over (Kofi, Nexus, Swagger and Bourne more specifically) because they're too busy trying to protect the main eventers they already have far too much.

Machismo Fan

parker kent wrote: »

It is true that the money spent on Hogan and Flair is much more than on anybody else. Just because problems existed before Hogan does not mean that it is wrong to point out the problems caused by his arrival. Post Hogan, the X-division and womens division have been destroyed. They were USPs of TNA and they have been ruined to give us guys who peaked in 1987.

The X-Division died in mid-2007 and the Knockouts Division died in mid-2009 at the latest. All these are pre-Hogan. Hogan and Flair aren't really the issue. The issues now are the same as they've always been, an inconsistent product and an inability to advertise, promote or market anything. TNA have had the same problems pretty much from day one and they'll continue to rear their head over and over again until new management and creative is put in.

On Russo, the reason he has a job is because he is a master politician. Why do you think we're seeing Dixie on TV more and more these days?

waltersobchak

Machismo Fan wrote: »

But you know HHH will be back later this year to get his win back and Sheamus really hasn't beaten anybody else. WWE's biggest problem now is they're rapidly in need of new stars and they seem to be doing everything within their power to stop people who are beginning to get over from getting over (Kofi, Nexus, Swagger and Bourne more specifically) because they're too busy trying to protect the main eventers they already have far too much.

Wasn't Wade Barret just in the Main Event of a PPV?

If anything Nexus has been a complete sucess. Especially if it means the angle has created even one, new fresh Main Eventer in Barrett..

WWE have done a decent job in creating new talent, obviously its a long term thing and id say in 2 years Barrett, Sheamus, Danielson, Morrison, Miz, and whomever else WWE decide to push in the next few years will become bona fide Main Eventers, because WWE dont have a choice.. Taker, HHH, Edge, Mysterio and co dont have time left tbh..

Whereas TNA have never, and will never, create stars that could either sell PPV's or get decent ratings, history has proved that, and tbh it will never change..

jaykhunter

Wade Barrett is not a main-eventer. By that logic, the Dudley Boyz and Rhyno are main eventers, as is Bob Holly and Test. Having your title shot in a 6-man match is demeaning and practically worthless, WWE don't have enough faith to put you in a main-event singles match. (At least Barrett is getting a high-profile singles match this month)

'A complete success' suggests WWE have done everything right - far from it - WWE did a fantastic angle, elevating rookies, but have subsequently decided to halt their push immediately, and have shot themselves in the foot. Losing before SummerSlam, at SummerSlam --with Team WWE very weakened, no less-, losing a few members, getting half-assed DQ/Countout token wins, Nexus (and Barrett) have little credibility left. WWE stopped mid-push, decided to just wrap-up the angle, and instead of having a few new mid-carders and even a sub-main-eventer, we have jobbers who -if disbanded- are likely to get fired (save for Barrett and Gabriel)

The main point is, where will the nexus wrestlers be when Nexus disbands? Barrett is cemented in mid-card, Gabriel (and any others) will have to work their way up to it. The rest of them are in big trouble. Definitely (although I think it'd take more than 2 years -- maybe 3-4) in a few years we'll have a fresh crop of money-drawing main eventers in WWE, which you won't have/never had in TNA.

Agreed with TNA, they cannot make new main-eventers, although Kennedy is at least where he was on SD! in WWE, and Pope is higher than he's even been in a company's eyes. If anything they're a black-hole for star power....Things people loved about TNA (X-Division, KO Division, fantastic matches) are all dying out/dead...It's hard to believe that anything will turn that around.

I'll also stress that TNA has always had a fantastic roster. Even since I started watching in 2005, it was always the bloody booking. Absolute shambles with flashes of genius, made more scarce whenever Russo got the job....

Machismo Fan

waltersobchak wrote: »

Wasn't Wade Barret just in the Main Event of a PPV?

If anything Nexus has been a complete sucess. Especially if it means the angle has created even one, new fresh Main Eventer in Barrett..

WWE have done a decent job in creating new talent, obviously its a long term thing and id say in 2 years Barrett, Sheamus, Danielson, Morrison, Miz, and whomever else WWE decide to push in the next few years will become bona fide Main Eventers, because WWE dont have a choice.. Taker, HHH, Edge, Mysterio and co dont have time left tbh..

Nexus was initially a success but now they're an afterthought due to being booked into the ground. Sheamus as a main event heel has failed to spike PPV numbers. Fatal Four Way bombed and MITB looks like it bombed with Sheamus in headline spots on both shows (more so for MITB). I'm sick of people talking about a 'WWE Youth Movement' because it just doesn't exist. They haven't created a single star this year despite what everybody seems to be saying, and anytime somebody begins to gain momentum (Nexus, Bourne, Kofi) it's squashed quickly. People seem to be completely blind to WWE's failure this year yet are far too quick to point out TNA's failings.

jaykhunter wrote: »

Agreed with TNA, they cannot make new main-eventers, although Kennedy is at least where he was on SD! in WWE, and Pope is higher than he's even been in a company's eyes. If anything they're a black-hole for star power....Things people loved about TNA (X-Division, KO Division, fantastic matches) are all dying out/dead...It's hard to believe that anything will turn that around.

I'll also stress that TNA has always had a fantastic roster. Even since I started watching in 2005, it was always the bloody booking. Absolute shambles with flashes of genius, made more scarce whenever Russo got the job....

The current regime will always fail to make any stars because they have no idea how to pace anything or make it seem important (though let me stress that while the booking of iMPACT! is nowhere near conducive to growth or creating stars, I still find it all round the most entertaining wrestling programme on TV). In truth the Knockouts division had about a six month run of being great before it started to fall to what it is today. The X-Division will never draw in big numbers of people, it's always the heavyweight division that's going to keep people around so TNA still has plenty to work with because if you ask me their roster's never been better (bar a lack of depth in the X-Division). TNA's roster is the perfect mix of star power and in-ring talent and if they had somebody that knew what they were doing in charge they'd actually get somewhere because there's plenty to work with.

jaykhunter

I agree that WWE have handled Kofi, Bourne, Swagger, Nexus poorly, but I think they've done a great job with Sheamus and Miz. You can't expect someone to be put in the main-event quickly and expect them to draw -- they're new, they're 'relative nobodies' right now. WWE have to expect low buy-rates as making bona-fide main-stays take a lot of time -- years. The main point is that WWE in 4 years will be much better off, but until these stars are actual main-eventers WWE's ratings and buys will be in the sh!tter. And WWE deserve every low buying-PPV they get; they practically stopped making new stars in 2004. We're still in cultivation period right now, and will be for a the next few years. People are happy because they've started to groom new main-stays.

I agree that wrestling fans are far quicker (in general) to denigrate TNA's efforts, but I also think that it's not without cause. WWE do some things right. TNA do almost nothing right. What have they done to the X-Division, what have they done to their KO division, WTF why are mid-card matches the best on the PPV and not the main event? Why is the failure Abyss being pushed so hard down our throats? Why why why!! :pac::pac::pac: I think people are harder on TNA because their roster is fresh, hungry and immensely talented.

WWE are doing well enough with the (lack of) talent they've got, while TNA are absolutely squandering the amazing talent they've got.

waltersobchak

Machismo Fan wrote: »

Nexus was initially a success but now they're an afterthought due to being booked into the ground. Sheamus as a main event heel has failed to spike PPV numbers. Fatal Four Way bombed and MITB looks like it bombed with Sheamus in headline spots on both shows (more so for MITB). I'm sick of people talking about a 'WWE Youth Movement' because it just doesn't exist. They haven't created a single star this year despite what everybody seems to be saying, and anytime somebody begins to gain momentum (Nexus, Bourne, Kofi) it's squashed quickly. People seem to be completely blind to WWE's failure this year yet are far too quick to point out TNA's failings.

Its not the 1980's you cant attribute the success or indeed the drawing powering of a single individual anymore..

waltersobchak

jaykhunter wrote: »

'A complete success' suggests WWE have done everything right - far from it - WWE did a fantastic angle, elevating rookies, but have subsequently decided to halt their push immediately, and have shot themselves in the foot. Losing before SummerSlam, at SummerSlam --with Team WWE very weakened, no less-, losing a few members, getting half-assed DQ/Countout token wins, Nexus (and Barrett) have little credibility left. WWE stopped mid-push, decided to just wrap-up the angle, and instead of having a few new mid-carders and even a sub-main-eventer, we have jobbers who -if disbanded- are likely to get fired

I think you missing my point, if Wade Barrett is elavated to a bon fide Main Event spot, then Nexus was indeed a success, any vehicle/angle/match that gets a wrestler over in the eyes of the fans is in my opinion a complete success.. And Nexus has gotten Barrett over, and again imo its only a matter of time before the guys is legimately a Main Eventer

h8scobes

i dont watch wrestling anymore that much but still keep up to date whats happening and the fact of the matter is there is very little TNA could do to become top wrestling company. it be like the magners league and the french top 14 in ireland. the top 14 is soo much bigger but because the magners league has cemented itself in publics mind the viewing figures would far outweight the same views a match on setanta in the top 14 would have.

people say tna hasnt created stars but they have, way more than wwe, its just because tna is much smaller they havent made a star like the rock or stone cold. its actuali like insane how much fresh blood they created, its not that tna doesn't make the audience care its that its hard to make them care. wwe is automatically seen where its at..so tna will always suffer from that. its not their fault. they might do some bad things but at the end of the day wrestling is not popular anymore so their viewing figures arent that bad.

the best thing to do is to not compare tna to wwe(in anything other than wrestlers) because wwe will win everytime but damn i would still watch wrestling today if you had the tna mindset and wrestlers in a wwe environment.

Machismo Fan

jaykhunter wrote: »

I agree that WWE have handled Kofi, Bourne, Swagger, Nexus poorly, but I think they've done a great job with Sheamus and Miz. You can't expect someone to be put in the main-event quickly and expect them to draw -- they're new, they're 'relative nobodies' right now. WWE have to expect low buy-rates as making bona-fide main-stays take a lot of time -- years. The main point is that WWE in 4 years will be much better off, but until these stars are actual main-eventers WWE's ratings and buys will be in the sh!tter. And WWE deserve every low buying-PPV they get; they practically stopped making new stars in 2004. We're still in cultivation period right now, and will be for a the next few years. People are happy because they've started to groom new main-stays.

The problem with this is in four years time Sheamus will be just as stale as Cena and Orton are now because he'll have done everything already. On Miz, you never know when WWE are going to pull the rug out on him like they nearly did a few months ago (when he was losing to Hart and Truth), it's not like MITB did Swagger any good. In the modern era where there are 12 PPV's a year and six hours of TV a week, new stars have to be constantly created in order to keep things moving and fresh.

waltersobchak wrote: »

Its not the 1980's you cant attribute the success or indeed the drawing powering of a single individual anymore..

All wrestlers in headline positions are directly responsible for the PPV buyrates. And Sheamus has failed to get people to buy PPV's despite being a fresh face in a stale main event scene. Fans clearly don't find him interesting enough to pay to see him wrestle the other big names.

waltersobchak

Machismo Fan wrote: »

All wrestlers in headline positions are directly responsible for the PPV buyrates. And Sheamus has failed to get people to buy PPV's despite being a fresh face in a stale main event scene. Fans clearly don't find him interesting enough to pay to see him wrestle the other big names.

WWE itself is the draw, Orton/Cena/etc etc are as much to blame as any other factor..

GTR63

In my opinion Both haven't a clue what fans(particularly adults)want in the present or the future. Everyone names the guys they have for the future but most have been pushed already too early or weren't given a long enough push.Wrestling feels a lot like soaps I haven't watched any full show since Night of Champions but I doubt i've missed anything.The last thing I saw was Abyss branding a Guy with a 10/10/10 Iron.How insultingly stupid is that.5 years from now Tna will be gone cause the older than Dirt talent they push aren't,haven't or ever will draw enough that justifies their pay.A 10,000 Buy PPV is disgraceful.Most their younger talent will be in Wwe no doubt getting jobbed.WWE will still be around but won't be increasing the ratings or fan base.

parker kent

Machismo Fan wrote: »

The X-Division died in mid-2007 and the Knockouts Division died in mid-2009 at the latest. All these are pre-Hogan. Hogan and Flair aren't really the issue. The issues now are the same as they've always been, an inconsistent product and an inability to advertise, promote or market anything. TNA have had the same problems pretty much from day one and they'll continue to rear their head over and over again until new management and creative is put in.

On Russo, the reason he has a job is because he is a master politician. Why do you think we're seeing Dixie on TV more and more these days?

I think Power Slam described Dixie being on TV as the classic case of distracting the owner. The X-division did take a notable drop after Samoa Joe left to the main event scene but the opportunity to see the X-division guys was still there. There is no hope of seeing them on TV when Flair, Hogan, Nash, Jarrett, Angle etc all have to feature on Impact.

TNA needs a complete rebuild from the top down. Russo, Hogan, Bischoff and lots of others have to go and somebody that can build an identifiable brand needs to come in. They have lots of good wrestlers, but they are lost in the shiffle of wrinkly skinned WWE/WCW veterans and the moronic booking of Russo.

Machismo Fan

parker kent wrote: »

I think Power Slam described Dixie being on TV as the classic case of distracting the owner. The X-division did take a notable drop after Samoa Joe left to the main event scene but the opportunity to see the X-division guys was still there. There is no hope of seeing them on TV when Flair, Hogan, Nash, Jarrett, Angle etc all have to feature on Impact.

TNA needs a complete rebuild from the top down. Russo, Hogan, Bischoff and lots of others have to go and somebody that can build an identifiable brand needs to come in. They have lots of good wrestlers, but they are lost in the shiffle of wrinkly skinned WWE/WCW veterans and the moronic booking of Russo.

Russo is putting Dixie on TV more and more to attempt to make her a star and make himself indispensable as a result, he's getting desperate. Questioning the amount of TV time Angle gets is silly considering he's the best wrestler in the world but the problem isn't the older guys, it's the creative. It's all about presentation and not as much about age.

waltersobchak wrote: »

WWE itself is the draw, Orton/Cena/etc etc are as much to blame as any other factor..

WWE sells tickets as a brand but it's the matches, stars and feuds that sell PPV's which is why they're in the toilet. To completely dismiss Sheamus inability to sell PPV's (which isn't entirely his fault, he's been booked terribly) as just part of the times he's in is stupid. Cena and Orton don't draw on PPV anymore because the product is stale and there's nothing left to do with them.

jaykhunter

waltersobchak wrote: »

I think you missing my point, if Wade Barrett is elavated to a bon fide Main Event spot, then Nexus was indeed a success, any vehicle/angle/match that gets a wrestler over in the eyes of the fans is in my opinion a complete success.. And Nexus has gotten Barrett over, and again imo its only a matter of time before the guys is legimately a Main Eventer

I get what you mean, I just feel WWE starting booking poorly right before, and really dropped the ball at SummerSlam. WWE missed out on elevating Barrett more, and Nexus in general, who are a relative disaster right now, their heat is pretty much gone. I agree that Barrett will be a main eventer, but it's not for at least 2 years, if pushed right. The guy might be booked in a main event but it doesn't make him so.

I reckon my hopes/threshold for "complete success" are much higher than yours. I guess you're looking at the positive, with the good work that's been done with Barrett, and I see the potential, where Barrett could've been, and how Nexus could've been, if booked right. But having Barrett vs Cena in a featured match on a PPV can be counted a success. That match won't draw any money though. If properly booked over the summer, a Cena vs Barret; Title vs Nexus Disbands match @ the Survivor Series could've deservedly main-evented.

waltersobchak

jaykhunter wrote: »

I get what you mean, I just feel WWE starting booking poorly right before, and really dropped the ball at SummerSlam. WWE missed out on elevating Barrett more, and Nexus in general, who are a relative disaster right now, their heat is pretty much gone. I agree that Barrett will be a main eventer, but it's not for at least 2 years, if pushed right. The guy might be booked in a main event but it doesn't make him so.

I reckon my hopes/threshold for "complete success" are much higher than yours. I guess you're looking at the positive, with the good work that's been done with Barrett, and I see the potential, where Barrett could've been, and how Nexus could've been, if booked right. But having Barrett vs Cena in a featured match on a PPV can be counted a success. That match won't draw any money though. If properly booked over the summer, a Cena vs Barret; Title vs Nexus Disbands match @ the Survivor Series could've deservedly main-evented.

Im a realist and since i know that Brian Gewirtz is a sh*t, unoriginal writer, my expectations for all WWE angles are definitely lower than yours..

parker kent

Machismo Fan wrote: »

Russo is putting Dixie on TV more and more to attempt to make her a star and make himself indispensable as a result, he's getting desperate. Questioning the amount of TV time Angle gets is silly considering he's the best wrestler in the world but the problem isn't the older guys, it's the creative. It's all about presentation and not as much about age.

I didn't question Angle's time on TV, I am pointing out that they have an amount of "stars" who are guaranteed TV time. The more of these they hire, the less time there is for Motor City Machine Guns and co.

Age is an issue. The vast majority of older guys they have are incapable of decent wrestling. Take Flair for example. He cannot wrestle and has not been able to since about 1992 (the Royal Rumble may have been his last true top night as a performer). Yet he will hog TV time that should be used on TNA's homegrown stars. Flair is a lifelong egotist so he will always want the spotlight. Same for Hogan, Nash and the rest.

Yes the creative is flawed, but a large amount of those flaws stem from TNA trying to shoehorn in ex-WWE or WCW guys. They need somebody in charge who realises in is 2010, not 1990 or 2000. If TNA are to thrive, they need to become an alternative to WWE.

They can never match Vince in terms of cash (unless a new Ted Turner emerges) or in the soap-opera style entertainment WWE provides. I think their best option is to provide the best possible in-ring action. That is not going to happen with old men. TNA have provided a lot of great matches, but it has been going downwards for a couple of years.

The best PPV they had last year was just before Hogan came in. Since they did not want to do anything too dramatic storyline wise, they just let the wrestlers wrestle and it was brilliant. More of that and less of Hogan and Flair attempting to recreate the 1980s would make me happy.

parker kent

waltersobchak wrote: »

Im a realist and since i know that Brian Gewirtz is a sh*t, unoriginal writer, my expectations for all WWE angles are definitely lower than yours..

With HHH in his pocket, we better get used to him too. A pity Steph would not have an affair with a brilliant, edgy writer who loves logical long-term planning

h8scobes

IN RING ACTION DOES NOT MAKE FANS. THE MAJORTY DO NOT WATCH WRESTLING FOR MATCHES, THEY WATCH IT FOR STORYLINES

Machismo Fan

parker kent wrote: »

Age is an issue. The vast majority of older guys they have are incapable of decent wrestling. Take Flair for example. He cannot wrestle and has not been able to since about 1992 (the Royal Rumble may have been his last true top night as a performer). Yet he will hog TV time that should be used on TNA's homegrown stars. Flair is a lifelong egotist so he will always want the spotlight. Same for Hogan, Nash and the rest.

It's not age that's the issue it's performance (which is ultimately linked to age but not entirely). The likes of Nash and Hogan shouldn't be wrestling because they can't deliver, whereas I don't have a problem the likes of Jarrett, Angle and even to a lesser extent Sting because they can deliver (though Sting remains to be seen considering his recent injury issues). People seem to say 'cut all the old guys' as a blanket statement when it's probably not for the best and a little short sighted. Presentation can get around age difficulties if the person in question can still deliver value for money when it's needed.

h8scobes wrote: »

IN RING ACTION DOES NOT MAKE FANS. THE MAJORTY DO NOT WATCH WRESTLING FOR MATCHES, THEY WATCH IT FOR STORYLINES

I wouldn't entirely agree. Yes, stories and feuds are vital but at the end of the day what happens in the ring should be the most important part (and focus) of any company.

waltersobchak

h8scobes wrote: »

IN RING ACTION DOES NOT MAKE FANS. THE MAJORTY DO NOT WATCH WRESTLING FOR MATCHES, THEY WATCH IT FOR STORYLINES

Well no, an combination of both is what makes a good Wrestling company..

jaykhunter

h8scobes wrote: »

IN RING ACTION DOES NOT MAKE FANS. THE MAJORTY DO NOT WATCH WRESTLING FOR MATCHES, THEY WATCH IT FOR STORYLINES

:pac: That said, compelling storylines and characters make fans. The only real important thing wrestlers have to do in ring is have signature moves that excite the crowd. In-ring work is for the small percentage of smarks who are watching anyway (like me!)

h8scobes

yeah obvers but people dont care for technical matches, it bores them to tears. for example john cena vs rvd at ecw ons is a far more interesting match than anything bryan danielson has ever done.

waltersobchak

h8scobes wrote: »

yeah obvers but people dont care for technical matches, it bores them to tears. for example john cena vs rvd at ecw ons is a far more interesting match than anything bryan danielson has ever done.

Are you for real?

h8scobes

yes for the casual fan that match would be a hundred times more interesting than a bryan danielson match in some **** hall when he was in roh

jaykhunter

waltersobchak wrote: »

Are you for real?

If you don't watch/care about ROH/emotionally involved in their storylines then of course, he'd personally believe the statement. It's just his opinion. I agree that the vast majority of wrestling fans would agree, hence WWE being a far bigger/more profitable company than ROH.....

If storylines & emotion is all that matters, then I'd agree that RVD/Cena match was completely enthralling. The crowd's rabid emotion really, really made that match. Sure, although I love hard-hitting workrate matches, Rock/Hogan is my favourite match of all time, not known for it's technical prowess...

....Probably should point out that ROH fans can be just as vociferous.

Back on topic, when's the last time (in your opinion) there was a MUST-SEE match in TNA?

waltersobchak

jaykhunter wrote: »

If you don't watch or care about ROH then of course he'd personally believe the statement. It's just his opinion. Judging by his last two posts, I can't help but think that h8scobes is trolling this conversation. I could be wrong.

If storylines & emotion is all that matters, then I'd agree that RVD/Cena match was completely enthralling. The crowd's rabid emotion really, really made that match. Sure, although I love hard-hitting workrate matches, Rock/Hogan is my favourite match of all time, not known for it's technical prowess...

....Probably should point out that ROH fans can be just as vociferous.

Back on topic, when's the last time (in your opinion) there was a MUST-SEE match in TNA?

Absolutely.. My Troll radar was turned up to 11 there:pac: Obviously as a said before a good wrestling company should have a mix of workrate, characters and storylines, both WWE and TNA probably one of those criteria each

jaykhunter

Ah, edited that out cause I didn't want to go down that road....ya still caught it lol.

Anyway......

jaykhunter wrote: »

when's the last time (in your opinion) there was a MUST-SEE match in TNA?

Gosh, I'm drawing a blank after Angle/Joe @ Lockdown. There must've been more since.