WWE and TNA

FERGAL7

Do you guys think WWE show TNA as mush respect as TNA do to WWE??
for example whenever a wrestler that was prominent in The WWE moves over to TNA like kurt angle or jeff hardy I have noticed TNA will recognise his accomplishments in WWE. for example they will say this man is an "X" time world heavyweight champion referencing his reigns as the WWE champ. but do WWE do the same when a wrestler who was a major star in TNA jumps ship to WWE??

jaykhunter

WWE basically don't say TNA exist, as that would give them free advertising. TNA on the other hand try to give their wrestlers credibility by talking up their past WWE achievements. By getting Hardy, Anderson, RVD and the rest they're hoping their fans will check out their show. It's quite an insult to the rest of their roster but that's how outside the WWE bubble is. You get a skewed version of how big each company is on the internet, but there's a MASSIVE leap between Vince & Dixie's companies. The general public don't know TNA even exist, think Kurt Angle's retired etc.

Some examples of WWE's dismissal that springs to mind : WWE brought Ric Flair to live TV to do an angle with the SHIELD a few weeks back - even though they hadn't settled a lawsuit TNA filed against them which revolved around hiring a guy who had details of TNA wrestlers' contracts! That's how much WWE think of TNA! Also Inducting Ric Flair into the HoF before clearing it with Dixie. Also do you remember Michelle McCool used to use AJ Styles' Styles Clash? Also Candice Michelle used Christian's finisher (who would've been in TNA at the time I believe). WWE don't view them as any kind of threat. Although some small things do happen, like Matt Striker referring to Christian using the words 'instant' & 'classic' (TNA moniker) upon his return and WWE.com doing a 3D bio 1-2 days after Bully Ray winning the TNA world title!

Ando's Saggy Bottom

WWE have no superiority complex re TNA. TNA on the other hand are still suffering from severe inferiority complex and keep trying to ape the storylines WCW used in the 90's to beat them (even though TNA beating them is in no way realistic ever). Theses days Styles = WCW Sting for example.

mikey13

Its safe to say TNA is no threat to WWE at all and Vince knows that. TNA is a WWE retirement home/rehab clinic.. All the old washed up wrestlers go there for the money which TNA is stupid enough to give them and all the wrestlers who fail drugs tests WWE make them take (for their own good) go their because Dixie doesnt give a ****! maybe in a few years she will realize drugs are bad.

I love Jeff Hardy. Hes the reason I got into wrestling.. He left WWE to go to TNA so he didnt have to worry about drug testing. He is probably one of the best paid members of their roster and he repaid them by gettin busted for posesion/dealing/making and then got so smashed he ****ed up a PPV.. thats the way TNA do business and thats why they will fail.

(Im glad Jeffs been given a second chance and im glad hes clean I cant wait for him to return to WWE which hopefully one day he will)

gnfnrhead

A lot of TNA guys have said they arent in competition with WWE do I dont know where some of these ideas are coming from. From some comments so far you can tell who watches the show and who just goes with the crowd.

mikey13 wrote: »

(Im glad Jeffs been given a second chance and im glad hes clean I cant wait for him to return to WWE which hopefully one day he will)

He apparently has zero interest in that. Matt has said (so it must be true! :pac:) that its because of how they treated him when around the time of the Punk feud.

hufpc8w3adnk65

TNA is WCW 2.0

GTR63

WWE's budget and reach far exceeds Tna to the point where they can offer the likes of Rock and Lesnar deals.
Its such a pity Tna offered many of their best deals to wasters like Nash, Foley, Flair and Hogan.
Sad part is that i don't see either of them getting bigger or moving forward.
I really worry for Tna when the likes of Aries, Roode, Storm and Styles retire in 5 or 7 years time. Not a lot of young talent there now. WWE's are kinda similar in that Mania shows they still rely on mainly near 40 years to sell there big show.

rossie1977

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPXB5iXPciI

Ando's Saggy Bottom

gnfnrhead wrote: »

A lot of TNA guys have said they arent in competition with WWE do I dont know where some of these ideas are coming from. From some comments so far you can tell who watches the show and who just goes with the crowd.

The guys might say it but the writers keep doing bad impressions of 90's WCW for some reason. It as if they still harbour some idea that lightening will strike twice or something.

Charisteas

I wonder if Paul Heyman signed for TNA two years ago, if he would have changed the direction of the company to the point of them actually increasing ratings and being taken as a more serious threat to WWE?

FERGAL7

WWE is declining too in my opinion. alot of its main event superstars lack that raw charisma they did in the past. like when you look at the current crop ( Del Rio, Big Show, Mark Henry, Sheamus, Daniel Bryan, Jack Swagger.) they pale in comparison to the likes of the rock, stone cold, undertaker, 90s kane, the hardys, edge, kurt angle, HHH, HBK. The likes of John Laurenitis, Vicki Gurrero is abysmal as the brutal authoritarian figure when compared with Vince McMahon in his hay day, They havent been able to replace McMahon effectively in that role Eric Bischoff did it well, but not as well as McMahon. I think Shane McMahon would have flourished in that role but he seems to have little involvment nowadays, HHH probably has the potential to do it when hes finished wrestling. The ruthless agression era was good as well and had a different kind of appeal than the attitude era. while not as entertaining as the rivalries between stone cold and the rock or the see saw relationship between undertaker and kane feuds between superstars like randy orton and HHH, Batista and HHH, Batista and the undertaker, Batista and Cena and so on were all extremely entertaining and you would not miss an episode of raw or smackdown for fear you'd miss something major. nowadays watching wwe storylines is like watching paint dry such as Del Rios feuds with Show and Swagger

gnfnrhead

Charisteas wrote: »

I wonder if Paul Heyman signed for TNA two years ago, if he would have changed the direction of the company to the point of them actually increasing ratings and being taken as a more serious threat to WWE?

Unlikely when you hear some of the ideas he had. Like shipping you out once you hit 40. The current World Champion is 41 and is the best he's ever been.

briany

MrMac84 wrote: »

TNA is WCW 2.0

I remember thinking that when TNA first appeared on the scene. The set looked like some quick thinking Nitro staffer pinched a few road cases full of ring and set equipment before WCW got sold. The red ropes, the entranceway, it was all there. They even stole the case that Mike Tenay was kept in (I wouldn't have opened it).

jaykhunter

Brentley Scruffy Rainfall wrote: »

TNA is WCW 2.0

TNA wish they were WCW 2.0! Same guys running the show but 15 years older. At least WCW were hot & made a ton of cash for a few years before dying in a blaze of sour grapes. I don't mean to denigrate them, but TNA aren't on the map. Only hardcore wrestling fans even know who TNA is. Even in WCW's dying days in 2001 they averaged about a 2.3 TV rating. TNA's ratings budge from 1.1 like an asthmatic ant with some heavy shopping

gnfnrhead

jaykhunter wrote: »

TNA wish they were WCW 2.0! Same guys running the show but 15 years older. At least WCW were hot & made a ton of cash for a few years before dying in a blaze of sour grapes. I don't mean to denigrate them, but TNA aren't on the map. Only hardcore wrestling fans even know who TNA is. Even in WCW's dying days in 2001 they averaged about a 2.3 TV rating. TNA's ratings budge from 1.1 like an asthmatic ant with some heavy shopping

To be fair, in 2000 (considering WCW folded in March 2001, I'm using the final full year), the Raw average was just under a 6.0, Nitro was a little over 2.5. WWE would rip your hand off for those numbers now! Raw this week was 3.2, last week 3.1 and thats just before Wrestlemania!

With Raw's ratings being roughly half nowadays, you could argue that Nitro would be the same. 1.25-ish. What is TNA always around? 1.1/2 :eek::pac:

briany

gnfnrhead wrote: »

To be fair, in 2000 (considering WCW folded in March 2001, I'm using the final full year), the Raw average was just under a 6.0, Nitro was a little over 2.5. WWE would rip your hand off for those numbers now! Raw this week was 3.2, last week 3.1 and thats just before Wrestlemania!

With Raw's ratings being roughly half nowadays, you could argue that Nitro would be the same. 1.25-ish. What is TNA always around? 1.1/2 :eek::pac:

Wrestling has stagnated, creatively speaking, for this last 5 years or so. I think both companies will have to accept those numbers until either can do something that makes the business hot again, if they ever can, and maybe even make headway into that lucrative 18-35 demographic.

Still, if TNA 'aren't on the map', maybe they're happy enough with 1.1?

jaykhunter

That's sound logic GnR, yep i'd call WWE now WWF 2.0!

TNA have taken steps to get their house in order (fired Russo, reduce # of PPVs, move out of iMPACT zone) and are in a tough place with having to be different from WWE but not too different as they're they same audience. I'd imagine Spike (and so TNA) are happy enough with 1.1. Although to increase the audience they'll have to put on shows that are much better than WWE, for like a year consistently, before seeing results.

I bet WWE have sabotaged a lot of people who might migrate to TNA but oversaturating their product. Like I'd imagine the majority who'd consider TNA would say 'there's too much WWE at the moment for me to take on another wrestling show'.

Charisteas

We shouldn't forget Dixie Carter allowing Kevin Nash and Booker T to be released from their contracts so that they could appear in the 2011 Royal Rumble. They both then signed long term contracts with WWE, a couple of days before the start of a planned major new storyline, Immortal vs Main Event Mafia, which had to be scrapped.

Machismo Fan

Charisteas wrote: »

They both then signed long term contracts with WWE, a couple of days before the start of a planned major new storyline, Immortal vs Main Event Mafia, which had to be scrapped.

In hindsight that was one of the best things that ever happened to TNA.

Charisteas

Worth noting that TNA and WWE and relatively close in the UK market.

TNA Impact broadcast- week ending March 17 2013 - 215,000 viewers (Sunday evening).

WWE Raw broadcast - week ending March 17 2013 - 126,000 viewers (live 2am show) + 44,000 viewers (Thursday night repeat).

TNA Impact UK taping - January 28, 2012 - 7,000.

WWE Raw UK taping - April 15, 2012 - 8,000.

starviewadams

TNA is on FTA TV though (Challenge),whereas WWE is on subscription TV (Sky Sports).

rossie1977

Charisteas wrote: »

Worth noting that TNA and WWE and relatively close in the UK market.

not really

WWE
* RAW on November 2nd 2012 in Newcastle drew 8,000 fans for $440,000
* RAW on November 3rd in Manchester drew 14,000 fans for $800,000
* RAW on November 4th in Nottingham drew 6,800 fans for $375,000
* SmackDown on November 4th from London at Wembley Arena drew a sellout of 9,700 fans for $600,000
* RAW on November 5th in Birmingham, England drew a sellout of 10,000 fans
* RAW on November 6th in Glasgow, Scotland drew a sellout of 4,600 fans

TNA
* 1.23.13 in Glasgow: 1,800
* 1.24.13 in Nottingham: 2,500
* 1.25.13 in Manchester (impact taping) 4,000
* 1.26.13 in London (iMPACT! taping): 5,000

* 1/26/12 in Nottingham, England: 2,500 fans.
* 1/27/12 in Manchester, England: 4,300 fans.
* 1/28/12 in London, England (Impact Wrestling tapings): 7,000 fans.

source: observer

token101

briany wrote: »

Wrestling has stagnated,creatively speaking, for this last 5 years or so just under a decade

I think since about 2004/2005 it's been mostly **** with the odd flash of great stuff here and there. There's never been a storyline that was exceptional since then. I thought in summer 2011 Punk leaving/returning might be it, but that was one of the worst handled storylines since the invasion.

briany wrote: »

maybe even make headway into that lucrative 18-35 demographic. Still, if TNA 'aren't on the map', maybe they're happy enough with 1.1?

I doubt WWE will change under their business until it falls through the floor. I'd say it would take something very, very drastic for them to go back to anything approaching TV for adults. I think TNA are trying to capture that market. And failing miserably. WCW in early 2001, when they were at the lowest of the low, was at times better than some of the dross TNA puts on. It's a bush league.

Ando's Saggy Bottom

TNA's problem is they don't know what to be.

They kinda tried to capture the mainstream by hiring ex WWE guys but most people don't even know who they are.

They kinda tried to capture the smarks by getting guys like Joe but most smarks just see them as a joke.

They kinda try to rehash WCW storyline but nobody gives a sh*t.

gnfnrhead

starviewadams wrote: »

TNA is on FTA TV though (Challenge),whereas WWE is on subscription TV (Sky Sports).

Thats a hinderance is anything. Most people likely dont even know they have Challenge (You cant get it at all on UPC). It's kinda hard not to know if you have Sky Sports. Sky Sports isnt short on subscribers either.

starviewadams

It explains why TNA's UK TV viewing figures are so similar to the WWE's though,because a lot more casual fans can access TNA programming for free then WWE programming which is on pay TV.Majority of UK residents can access Challenge through Virgin,Sky or on Freeview.

Also makes sense of the disparity in live attendance figures of WWE and TNA in the UK.A lot of casual fans watch Impact,but aren't bothered attending the TNA live events.

GTR63

Doesn't Tna tend to beat wwe in the uk ratings most weeks and as Gnfnr said its not like Sky are lacking in subscribers you'd swear Tna was on BBC, they are dumped on a Network showing Bullseye and other 80's gameshows.
And as far as house shows the 'casual' fans tend to flock to the tv tapings rather than the house shows. Tna didn't do bad in Manchester or Wembley but struggled more in Scotland and here. How well are WWE's going that they needed to advertise Taker?

briany

token101 wrote: »

I think since about 2004/2005 it's been mostly **** with the odd flash of great stuff here and there. There's never been a storyline that was exceptional since then. I thought in summer 2011 Punk leaving/returning might be it, but that was one of the worst handled storylines since the invasion.

The Invasion and Brand Extension eras saw WWE so swollen with talent that even if the company was creatively bereft, the matches were still great in many cases. The exodus of some of that talent, retirement and deaths since that time means that we've been feeling the brunt of WWE's stale creative approach that much more since 2007/2008.

I doubt WWE will change under their business until it falls through the floor. I'd say it would take something very, very drastic for them to go back to anything approaching TV for adults. I think TNA are trying to capture that market. And failing miserably. WCW in early 2001, when they were at the lowest of the low, was at times better than some of the dross TNA puts on. It's a bush league.

One thing I've always wondered is if there's so much outcry for a move back to more controversial/adult oriented wrestling, why doesn't someone create a promotion that caters to that competently or financially get behind one that already does and get tv time? People here are talking about WCW 2.0 but what's to stop an ECW 2.0 (figuratively speaking) from taking off?

Machismo Fan

briany wrote: »

One thing I've always wondered is if there's so much outcry for a move back to more controversial/adult oriented wrestling, why doesn't someone create a promotion that caters to that or financially get behind one that already does and get tv time?

That's essentially what Vince Russo tried to do during his TNA tenure and failed miserably. Times have changed, that kind of stuff just comes across as dated these days. Wrestling in general (both WWE and TNA for different reasons) has to start moving forward.

Ando's Saggy Bottom

Most analysis of wrestling suffers these days from a mistaken view that everything was amazing in the 90's compared with now. If you look back and watch RAW from those days there was an awful lot of sh*te to wade through to get to the good stuff.

FERGAL7

Pete Campbell wrote: »

Most analysis of wrestling suffers these days from a mistaken view that everything was amazing in the 90's compared with now. If you look back and watch RAW from those days there was an awful lot of sh*te to wade through to get to the good stuff.

wrestling was still highly entertaining after the 90s up to around 2007 or 2008. the tag team division still had talent in it like when rey and eddie were the TT champs or MNM were still about. the IC and US titles were still a central part of the company and reigns as IC or US champ meant something. The brand split was brilliant. it created a rivalry within the company similiar to WWF vs WCW. there was a point to having two world champions and it always created a great debate among fans as to who had the better champ and overall which brand was better. Each champ represented their brand, with the distinction between the brands toned down it seems a bit silly having tow world champs to represent one group of competitors and the tag team and secondary titles mean nothing these days. plus the programming has lost its edge.

Ando's Saggy Bottom

Can't say I remember the US or IC Titles meaning that much in the last 10-15 years. And I don't think the brand extension created that much of a compelling rivalry.

orestes

Pete Campbell wrote: »

Most analysis of wrestling suffers these days from a mistaken view that everything was amazing in the 90's compared with now. If you look back and watch RAW from those days there was an awful lot of sh*te to wade through to get to the good stuff.

That's because most people who compare the two eras forget the simple fact that they were teenagers in the 90's and are now pushing 30.

Machismo Fan

Pete Campbell wrote: »

Can't say I remember the US or IC Titles meaning that much in the last 10-15 years. And I don't think the brand extension created that much of a compelling rivalry.

I think the brand split just did a better job of keeping guys apart so there'd be more fresh matches because guys were on different brands (like Angle vs. Michaels going into WM 21). These days with no split and so much TV time to fill WWE are rapidly running through fresh matches and then doing them to death.

Wils110

Anyone remember when TNA where relaunching eg hulk,razor and that everyone was giving them stick for bringing in old guys and rejects WWE go and do it taker,hhh THE ROCK it's just acceptable

gnfnrhead

The brand extenstion was great up until Bischoff was replaced. He made it seem like an actual contest between the shows. Nobody since has even come close to doing that.