did both shows fail?

[steve85uk]

IMO Neither show did anything major to change the wrestling landscape for the better. Sure the Bret Hart thing was important in the wrestling industry, but i dont know if anything will come of it and its still as stale as ever. TNA had an opportunity to shine and failed to a certain extent. Sure Hogan, Hardy, Flair, Venis was awesome, but that wont happen every week as the start of the show was terrible. Other than the last match, it didnt showcase TNA, it showcased WCW and my worry is that it will turn into some weird TNA/WCW hybrid. I loved seeing an nwo reunion but i want hall and waltman and the nasty boys gone already. They dont suit TNA other than a quick feud with beer money. They must not become a major part of TNA

[HMARK Center]

I wasn't blown away by either show, but TNA, at least, seems like it accomplished what it set out to do, by and large.

We won't know any long term repercussions from either show for weeks, really.

[steve85uk]

i agree, TNA actually did something notable. Bret Hart coming back and saying Goodbye and thank you was awesome, but underwhelming at the same time, they barely built it up.

[Lenny: Smooth like Keith Stone]

Speaking from a storyline perspective, I don't think either show did anything groundbreaking. The Bret Hart stuff seemed to ultimately lead to "Vince vs ____ Part 50", and Impact seemed to build to "____ is now in charge of TNA Part 25".

If TNA was to truly accomplish anything last night, it was going to be with the in-ring action above all else. Whether they accomplished that is up to each fan. They obviously can't put on PPV matches every week, but I am hoping that TNA starts really emphasizing the wrestling. They aren't going to "out-storyline" WWE. They may however be able to out-wrestle WWE, as Vince has never hid the fact that he prefers entertainment over wrestling.

[comahan]

I dont think so, on either side. They made this one of the more exciting nights to be a wrestling fan in a decade, and both did some good things.

The Hart/Michaels segment was money, and the ending was pretty solid too. It has my attention.

Meanwhile, I also loved some of the stuff that TNA did, but from their view, my god look at the buzz around the forum. The impact thread is 130 pages. It usually doesnt even make it to 20. A lot of those people were admittedly first time viewers, or people who havent watched in a long time. Some might have loved it, some might have hated it, but it brought new eyes to them to gain potential viewers. So I think they accomplished what they wanted to accomplish.

[CM Dazz]

I liked both shows. I went into last night curious, but thinking WWE would blow TNA out of the water. To be honest, with the exception of the Bret stuff, I enjoyed TNA a little more. Surprises me really. Again though, I think both were a success.

[PaperStreetBrigade]

I think 9PM showed exactly whats wrong with both major feds. On Raw you have an elderly Bret Hart and an ancient Shawn Micheals. On Impact you have Fossil Hogan, Fat & Old Hall, Silverhaired Nash, Whiteheaded Bischoff and a middle aged Sean Waltman being called "Kid"

These are the same guys who have been (except for Hart for obvious reasons) at or near the top since damn near 93-94. That's almost twenty years. Also, is there any reason to believe Hogan is going to be any different this time then every other time he put himself over EVERY youngster?

[Deleted]

I was more interested in Bret Hart than anything TNA did. Except that Styles/Angle match. That was a good match, and would have been great if it hadn't had so many reversals, near pinfalls during the beginning of the match. They really should have saved those for the end. That would have made the match even better by adding in the drama of pull out anything, and everything for the win.

Anyways my problem was that I was expecting so much more from TNA and they didn't deliver. It was like I was watching WCW all over again. We had promised matches that never happened, and multiple shots of Hogan coming to the arena even though he was there all day. With the exception of Hardy I don't really care about the other people that showed up. I'm not taking a dig at Flair. He's one of my favorite wrestlers of all time, but I'm not going to watch him be an advisor to AJ or worse yet get back in the ring. And Foley vs Hogan/nWo doesn't intrigue me at all. All parties involved are way past their prime. Not to mention that Hall and Waltman's past drug issues. I share that sentiment towards Hardy as well. His past and current drug/legal issues could hurt TNA. If he goes away for time or goes off on a binge anything they are doing with him will fall through.

[hollywood]

I don't think either program failed.

Impact got people talking and presented a few surprises. They said, "Hey, we're here! And we're something different!" (Granted, different translates to WCW circa 1997, but it's been over 7 years so Cornette's Law says that's allowable.)

RAW gave a solid program that, if anything, said, "We're the best. We've been the best for decades. And here's why..." Not everything was great...like, anything involving the divas...but the wrestling was solid, and everything with Bret was very good.

[Dave at the Movies]

Impact was pretty cool although I'm afraid they are about to do the NWO thing all over again. They set it right up for it.

[salsashark]

Jan 5, 2010 14:17:29 GMT -5 steve85uk said:

IMO Neither show did anything major to change the wrestling landscape for the better.

Come on! What do you expect to happen in one night? Austin 3:16 part 2 (which probably wasn't heralded as being groundbreaking the day after it happened either)? That's a little ridiculous. And hell, if it had happened, would you have been able to notice this early?

Both shows were fantastic and showed great characters and emotion. The reason Bret/Shawn worked was because of history and feeling. Their feud felt legitimate (and likely was) which excites me way more than seeing a couple of whitebread guys face off. Realistically, what exactly were you expecting?

[Brother Ike: Thread Killer]

while both shows had there moments neither were a home imo, but you would have to look at what their missions where

TNA: To create a buzz and attract new fans. While it seems like they they sparked some interest well have to see if they gained any new fans (over all success rate 50%)

WWE: apparently set up Bret vs. Vince. While the Bret stuff was great, I really wasn't blown away with the final segment. It wasant bad, but it wasant really the hottest way to kick off a big wrestlemania angle with 12 years of buildup (but they still have four months to get me excited about it, so Ill give it a 65% success rate)

[ICBM]

Nobody can rain on my parade today. No matter how weak the rating, nor the amount of criticsm I enjoyed Impact last night and Raw. I switched between Impact, Raw and the Fiesta bowl. It was like any monday in 98 all over again. I loved it. Also just to say, Bischoff pulled off his best heel I have seen since like 02 when he fueded with Stephanie. Good job to both shows. I hope they do it again someday

[Mozenrath]

*checks ratings*
Quite the contrary....

[Red Impact]

That depends, what was the goal of each show?

I'd say get more people to watch, and they both increased ratings, so it's hard to say they failed.

[blizz]

both shows where a complete success

[Mister Yummy]

It was the most exciting time I'd had watching wrestling in years. It felt like 1997 again. Switching between shoiws, wondering who I'll see next, marking out every few minutes, and some great matches. Desmond Wolf really impressed me, even though he lost to Pope Lazy. AJ Vs. Angle was pure awesome. Jerishow vs. DX was great, though the wrong team won. And Bourne vs. Seamus was great too. It made me feel like Seamus was more legit as champion. Should have been a title match though.

TNA really did feel like WCW, but that's a good thing. I think they're really about to break through. WCW did mediocre until Hogan showed up, and a few years later was on top of the world. I don't think they'll overcome the E, but they're going to be bigger than anyone thought possible. I was surprised by so many of the people who showed up. Jeff Hardy! Hall and Waltman! Flair and Morely and the Nasty's I expected, but still cool as hell, even if Knobbs can't really move anymore. I marked out when Ric Flair appeared, almost as much as I did when Bret came out on Raw.

Raw was awesome too. I half thought it was gonna be a swerve, but when Bret really came out, I was a 13 year old mark again. The show itself wasn't as big, but it delivered where it mattered. A big title match, lots of fun interaction, Bret and Shawn, Bret and Vince, it was just unreal.

I had 2 VCR's going, and one show in each room. I went back and forth, and haven't seen either in it's entirety yet. But, overall, my impression during was much like an overexcited Tony Schivonne. It was The Greatest Night in the History of the Sport! At least so far this decade.

[Tiger Millionaire]

People watched wrestling on Monday Night more then they did in years. There is ongoing debate about both shows. You have interest in storylines. So no, it didn't fail

[tap]

Yes and no.

TNA has definitely benefited from being a) live b) on Monday and c) against Raw. To me the show was fun in a goofy sort of way, either from being painfully bad in spots to little pockets of greatness like the Pope and parts of Angle/Styles (like the ending). The whole show felt like watching an old Nitro, especially with a lot of the old faces, and switching back and forth between channels was fun.

TNA definitely put a foot forward, but they didn't put their BEST foot forward. A lot of the complaints Cornette made in Andrew Is Good's thread really do hold. It may have been a fun wrestling show but it wasn't a GOOD one, in the sense that it didn't really showcase the potential TNA has to be an alternative to WWE. And honestly, for whatever reason, the whole show looked really "cheap" tonight. I can't put my finger on it, but it was the first time I noticed how "low rent" TNA seems. I get it, on one hand, because the company doesn't have the funds WWE has. But they didn't make up for the aesthetic of the show through highly competitive matches featuring dynamic, charismatic wrestlers. The Heyman philosophy: hide the negatives, accentuate the positives. When you don't hide the negatives it makes them that much more glaring.

Raw, for the return of someone like Bret Hart, really didn't feel that special. I made a thread about how potentially if Raw were in Canada, Hart would have been over like rover, so fans watching this week who never have even heard about Bret Hart would realize he's a pretty big deal for a lot of people still, wrestlers and fans alike. Besides the opening of the show, he kind of felt like a piece of furniture the whole night. The Orton/Kingston match was really good, but Raw on the whole still feels very tired and repetitive. And something that was made painfully obvious when Ventura hosted: Vince sounds INCREDIBLY old. I honestly don't want to see him on my TV in really any capacity at this point. Certain acts like John Cena's pluckiness and "overcome the odds" attitude, DX's shilling, Hornswoggle's zany antics, it's all been done. They're really wringing blood from a stone, riding gravy trains that lost a lot of their appeal years back.

I don't even think the shock factor of Sheamus winning the title has helped the brand. To me, it only shows how desperate WWE is to find something, someone that "clicks." Sheamus is over enough, but he's not MASSIVELY over to be the champion. The whole idea of putting the title on Sheamus reminds me of Vince Russo's idea of putting the title on Tank Abbott. Yeah, it's shocking, but is it REALLY a great idea for business?

The only real enjoyment of this one-night only "war" was going back and forth. It's too bad that neither show felt like "MUST SEE TV." I'm much more curious to watch Impact the next couple of weeks (because I only watch the show maybe once every two months and I watch Raw more out of habit than any desire to watch, and most of the time it's just background when I'm doing stuff on the computer). I'm not even a UFC/MMA fan really but again, Cornette's right: Dana White took the "business" away from those who had it and has many people's eyeballs and wallets on their product. Not to mention other things that people watch or do that take them away from watching a wrestling product that seemingly (and amazingly, perhaps) has been limping along for a couple of years.

[Bub (BLM)]

If they'd cut the majority of the old farts out of Impact, it would have been infinitely better than RAW. During TNA and WWE's main events, I was trying to switch back and forth but AJ and Kurt kept me tuned in to TNA.

Now, I'm not taking anything away from Randy Orton and Kofi Kingston, but rather WWE's crappy restrictions on the wrestling style. Modern WWE matches just can't hold a candle to what two great athletes can do when they aren't told to wrestle a certain way.

Another reason I enjoyed TNA a bit more is because they at least seemed to be trying to put on a special show. Whether it was good or bad is up for debate, but at least they were trying. On the other hand, you have RAW which turned into just another generic Monday night after the Bret Hart/Shawn Michaels segment.