Once and for all....TNA vs WWE

CMpunked

I watch WWE, i've always watched WWE.

I occasionally watched WCW to see some guys referred to as "Legends" (Goldberg, Hogan, Sting). I was young, i didn't care. lol.
I seen ECW a few times when i was younger and was confused by the violence, but as i grew i started to love it.

But now, both WCW and ECW are now defunct, and a new(ish) kid is on the block in the form of TNA!

To me, TNA seems like a newer version of WCW. I know they have ex-wwe wrestlers, but i don't always critisise them, they do have some awsome matches and have a good deal of younger talent.


But i know there is soooo many people on this forum who have a more of a passion for one over other promotion.

So i wanna hear the facts and the reasons for why each respective company is better.

Vince135792003

Comic-Book-Guy wrote: »

But i know there is soooo many people on this forum who have a more of a passion for one or other promotion.

I'm not sure if there's that much passion (with the exception of the hardcores) in comparison to what it was like in the late 1990's. At this stage due to TNA's lack of growth it's very much a phony war.

For me, I'm not really passionate about either right now. I've given up watching TNA in any shape or form. It hurts my head watching it.

WWE is something I casually watch for 20 minutes here or there throughout the week but it isn't must see tv for me anymore in the way a UFC event is or a big boxing match like Cotto/Margaritto.


So if I had to pick between a WWE or TNA, I'd pick WWE . But if I had to pick between a WWE, TNA or UFC ppv, it would be UFC every time.

Fozzy

TNA

I'm sort of the same as Vince. I used to be a big TNA fan, but then it got real bad but I still watched it. I stopped watching it sometime this year, I didn't even realise that I'd stopped until a month or so later. I've read a few results since then but it just doesn't interest me

I usually watch Raw and WWE PPVs but it's not as if I'm a big fan of WWE. But it's more entertaining than TNA to me

When it comes down to it I'd choose ROH, New Japan, NOAH, UFC or another big MMA show over both

ShawnRaven

Other

Personally, i prefer to watch vintage stuff from WWE and NWA/WCW from around 86-94. I really wish 24/7 would come out over here.

I watch WWE, more as force of habit than anything else, despite the fact that it bores me completely bandy. But it hasn't sustained my interest for the better part of two years. Although Smackdown has improved somewhat since the draft.

I watch TNA because it's something different. Different faces in the sense of AJ, James Storm, Bobby Roode, MMG, all of which, i find, are a lot more entertaining to watch than the John Cena show on mondays.

If WWE would do something about catering to kids on every show, it'd be more of interest to me. But it's revenue for them, and for a business standpoint, i can see where they're going with it. I just think that it will do more harm than good in the long run.

At this point in time of typing this, TNA is getting my vote. Of course, that could all change in a matter of weeks.

VR!

flahavaj

90's All Japan.

ec18

validreasoning! wrote: »

If WWE would do something about catering to kids on every show, it'd be more of interest to me. But it's revenue for them, and for a business standpoint, i can see where they're going with it. I just think that it will do more harm than good in the long run.


VR!

Well eventually these kids are going to get older so in 5-10 years WWE may have to revert back to the older audience style programming circa late 90's early 00's.......Thats my opinion anyway

ShawnRaven

Other

ec18 wrote: »

Well eventually these kids are going to get older so in 5-10 years WWE may have to revert back to the older audience style programming circa late 90's early 00's.......Thats my opinion anyway

Well that's exactly my point. Sure it made the transition before, but in the two years it took for WWE to go from cartoon characters to attitude era in 1995 and 1996, buyrates tanked, tickets didn't sell (in fact, a rakeload of tickets for the 1996 Royal Rumble were given away hours before the event to fill up the Arena), and WWE then proceeded to have it's ass handed to them during this period of time, by WCW.

The essential difference is that WWE's only major competition, should that happen again now, is not ROH, it's not TNA. It's MMA.

Vince can only market to children for so long before the product goes stale.
VR!

callaway92

TNA

YouFC FTW...but i voted WWE!?

Vince135792003

validreasoning! wrote: »

. I just think that it will do more harm than good in the long run.

I think it's the opposite. By attracting younger kids, they're ensuring the company's future long term by creating another cycle of fans.

Plus, the kids that grew up with Hulk Hogan as their hero would be at the stereotypical age (22+) where they themselves are having kids and by appealing to kids more, it's a way of creating generations of families that grow up watching wrestling.

rovert

TNA

I voted twice against TNA

rossie1977

Vince135792003 wrote: »

I think it's the opposite. By attracting younger kids, they're ensuring the company's future long term by creating another cycle of fans.

Plus, the kids that grew up with Hulk Hogan as their hero would be at the stereotypical age (22+) where they themselves are having kids and by appealing to kids more, it's a way of creating generations of families that grow up watching wrestling.

i agree with this,

i think its the 1997 royal rumble that they gave away some tickets (knowing san antonio as i do they probably didn't get the chance to give away many, that place is a ghostown in january); attempting to fill a 72,000 seat stadium was a huge gamble back then, especially for a ppv that had lost alot of credibility in the previous years.

DRakE

TNA

Bryan Alvarez and Vinny whatever-his-name-is have skewed my vierw on TNA.


I used to enjoy it, but from listening to their shows all i can see are the faults now

rovert

TNA

DRakE wrote: »

Bryan Alvarez and Vinny whatever-his-name-is have skewed my vierw on TNA.


I used to enjoy it, but from listening to their shows all i can see are the faults now

How can it be skewed they praise the good stuff (normally the matches.)

Dancor

TNA

TNA, I just don't get it, I was watching it yesterday and I just found it bizarre. they have great talent but the characters are just weird, They have a lad called Curry man for Christ sake. It seemed like a tribute show of some sort, There was a Black Randy Savage with a wedding story line? Christian doing Jericho's entrance? A small version of Scott Steiner? a team called Beer Money Inc, Made me think of Money Inc and a lad doing an Apollo Creed type character from Rocky.

ShawnRaven

Other

rossie1977 wrote: »

i think its the 1997 royal rumble that they gave away some tickets (knowing san antonio as i do they probably didn't get the chance to give away many, that place is a ghostown in january); attempting to fill a 72,000 seat stadium was a huge gamble back then, especially for a ppv that had lost alot of credibility in the previous years.

I think you're right there. Rumble 95 wasn't the success they'd hoped for due to a 43 minute Rumble and an overly long Bret v Nash match, while 96's one was filled with tryouts and hasbeens (Omari, Swat Team 1 and 2, Dory Funk and Jake Roberts) killed a load of interest. WWE were also so desperate at the time that they were willing to work with AAA at the time to bring something different to the table "to compete with WCW", it didn't work.

VR!

mehfesto2

TNA

dancor wrote: »

TNA, I just don't get it, I was watching it yesterday and I just found it bizarre. they have great talent but the characters are just weird, They have a lad called Curry man for Christ sake. It seemed like a tribute show of some sort, There was a Black Randy Savage with a wedding story line? Christian doing Jericho's entrance? A small version of Scott Steiner? a team called Beer Money Inc, Made me think of Money Inc and a lad doing an Apollo Creed type character from Rocky.

It's ridiculous. But WWE aren't exactly faultless themselves though in their production. Not to the same extent of "curry man", mind.

C'mon, Hornswoggle (stupid name & idea) essentially ruined what could've been a credible career in the WWE for Finlay, so far. A 7ft Indian appears out of nowhere in the past few weeks to earn a Title match. JBL against CM Punk is ridiculously uninteresting too. D'LO Brown's return was handled poorly - same with Jericho. "Obama" fought "Hilary" near candidate nomination time. And let's not forget there was once a worm-eating man called Boogeyman on their books not too long ago. I watch it because it's more accessable than TNA!.

Pro-Wrestling at the moment in general for me at least, is poor at best. I mean I enjoyed Kozlov's match the most this week. That's poor form! But you watch it by force of habit, nearly. 'Least I do!

Dancor

TNA

mehfesto2 wrote: »

But WWE aren't exactly faultless themselves though in their production.

Agreed

mehfesto2 wrote: »

C'mon, Hornswoggle (stupid name & idea) essentially ruined what could've been a credible career in the WWE for Finlay, so far. A 7ft Indian

As terrible as they are, they are a bit more original.
Im watching alot too out of habit, After 10 mins I lose interest then just switch back to see if Jericho is talking or something.

DRakE

TNA

@rovert:
I didnt say their view was skewed, they've skewed MY view on it, as i used to enjoy it for what it was and not read too much into everything making sense.

rovert

TNA

DRakE wrote: »

@rovert:
I didnt say their view was skewed, they've skewed MY view on it, as i used to enjoy it for what it was and not read too much into everything making sense.

oops.

flahavaj

mehfesto2 wrote: »

It's ridiculous. But WWE aren't exactly faultless themselves though in their production. Not to the same extent of "curry man", mind.

Daniels was wrestling under that gimmick for years in Japan before TNA started used it.

Ruu_Old

I rarely watch it on telly but have 24/7 access (:p@validreasoning) so I can watch the old WCW stuff and some other programming. I haven't watched TNA in a while as I never really scroll up as far as Spike TV.

ShawnRaven

Other

Ruu wrote: »

I rarely watch it on telly but have 24/7 access (:p@validreasoning) so I can watch the old WCW stuff and some other programming. I haven't watched TNA in a while as I never really scroll up as far as Spike TV.

Website doesn't count, sorry but i didn't buy a big TV to sit hunched in front of my laptop to watch!
(or are you one of those lucky bastards in the US?)

Besides, my archive is more than enough of a substitution for 24/7 anyway, now if only i had the time to go through it all!

Funny you mention old WCW stuff, was watching some Nitro 95 recently to give my head peace from the god awful sh*t that RAW 95 was, and dear lord. I really don't know what was worse. It was like a really bad carbon copy of WWE 1989!

Truly wretched stuff.
VR!

rvd156

TNA

You must give it to WWE due to the fact that they can create more dramatic and exciting storylines.....

TNA just seems way to staged and fake....

The backstage interviews are just pathetic and unprofessional....

Now WWE is not what it used to be I will say that...

I just hope they bring back the more hardcore in your face jaw dropping stuff like they had in the Attitude era.....:D

ShawnRaven

Other

rvd156 wrote: »

I just hope they bring back the more hardcore in your face jaw dropping stuff like they had in the Attitude era.....:D

Bring a life preserver if you plan on holding your breath then, as everything has been switch to kiddy rating for their TV networks.

VR!

rovert

TNA

validreasoning! wrote: »

Bring a life preserver if you plan on holding your breath then, as everything has been switch to kiddy rating for their TV networks.

VR!

You always seem to post about this, eventhough it's impact on the television product is largely null on a show to show basis.

JP Liz

TNA

WWE