Something TNA has the WWE lacks, why TNA is worse

[BLOODY™]

I'd like to now voice my opinion about TNA's reccent product. Total Nonstop Action Wrestling is better than the WWE in many different ways, mostly the talent and TNA's effort to push young superstars, which WWE lacks.

-Mr. Anderson (Kennedy), Desmond Wolfe (I still call him Nigel McGuiness), Rob Terry, Amazing Red, The Pope, Matt Morgan, Hernandez. These TNA wrestlers are some of the greatest performers in the world to date. And the reason I'm mentioning them is because these are the real young and fresh wrestlers in the world, and TNA is a great home for them. Why? Because the WWE likes to play with John Cena, Randy Orton, Triple H, and Batista. Those four have been in th emain event scene for 2 years straight now, and I'm sick of it. Mainly because these guys suck at putting people over. WWE is apparently inable to push young superstars, with the exception of Sheamus, who didnt even deserve the push in the first place. TNA is wonderful at pusghing and using their colorful array of young superstars, and I find that spectacular.

There is your reason right there. The WWE is incapable of using their fresh talent., which ticks me off.

Now why am I then unhappy with TNA's current product? Two words - Hulk Hogan. He's single-handedly ruining TNA! He's ripping apart everything unique about them, from their six-sided ring to the idea of young talent wrestling. I mean, why dont you just stay retired you old fart, I dont wanna see Hogan vs Flair for the tenth time! Nobody does! What we wanna see is The Pope, Samoa Joe, AJ Styles, Mr. Amnderson, the real stars on TNA. And dont argue with Hogan bringing in ratings, because last year, before Hogan, their ratings were around 1.2 This year, with Hogan, ratings are around 1.2! (with the exception of the January 4th episode, which got a 1.5 rating, which is still pathetic if you wanna compete with the WWE)

There. TNA has better talent than the WWE, and Hogan is ruining TNA's product. Opinions?

[Deleted]

I'd like to dispute the thing about WWE not pushing any young stars besides Sheamus.

[Massive G]

I pretty much agree, though WWE has lots of nice young talent, it just seems they don't know what to do with it. there are lots of things to like about TNA, but Hulk just casts a greasy, saggy, crappy cloud over almost all of it.

[KingPopper]

You lost me when you called Rob Terry one of the greatest talents in the world to date.

[wcw]

TNA better in ring talent from a technical perspective. TNA has the X-Division which is much more interesting then anything on the WWE undercard. TNA has the Knock Outs which are better then the Divas.

WWE on the other hand has a much more established brand. WWE also has a bigger feel thanks to their 10,000 plus audience that watches their broadcast. TNA being in the Impact Zone gives off a very small time feel.

Both have bad booking in my opinion. But TNA has the better roster but WWE has the more over look.

[jobsquad]

Mar 1, 2010 20:32:00 GMT -5 @wcw said:

TNA better in ring talent from a technical perspective. TNA has the X-Division which is much more interesting then anything on the WWE undercard. TNA has the Knock Outs which are better then the Divas.

WWE on the other hand has a much more established brand. WWE also has a bigger feel thanks to their 10,000 plus audience that watches their broadcast. TNA being in the Impact Zone gives off a very small time feel.

Both have bad booking in my opinion. But TNA has the better roster but WWE has the more over look.

Actually, from a technical perspective, WWE is way ahead since most of their guys can truly work. TNA has mostly guys that can work, but a lot of their people need to learn how to work the formula correctly.

[thatguybayne]

Mar 1, 2010 20:32:00 GMT -5 @wcw said:

TNA better in ring talent from a technical perspective. TNA has the X-Division which is much more interesting then anything on the WWE undercard. TNA has the Knock Outs which are better then the Divas.

WWE on the other hand has a much more established brand. WWE also has a bigger feel thanks to their 10,000 plus audience that watches their broadcast. TNA being in the Impact Zone gives off a very small time feel.

Both have bad booking in my opinion. But TNA has the better roster but WWE has the more over look.

True. I always wondered why TNA gets such much crap when WWE's booking is just as bad if not worse but at least TNA's in ring product is good enough to make up for it.

[Krimzon]

Mar 1, 2010 18:43:04 GMT -5 BLOODY™ said:

-Mr. Anderson, Desmond Wolfe, Rob Terry, Amazing Red, The Pope, Matt Morgan, Hernandez.

One of these things is not like the others.

[Michael Coello]

Mar 1, 2010 21:49:02 GMT -5 Krimzon said:

Mar 1, 2010 18:43:04 GMT -5 BLOODY™ said:

-Mr. Anderson, Desmond Wolfe, Rob Terry, Amazing Red, The Pope, Matt Morgan, Hernandez.

One of these things is not like the others.

Jeez, just cause Pope's black, Krimzon, ya gotta single him out for it. You racist....

[Tiger Millionaire]

Haven't guys like Styles, Pope, and Anderson been heavily featured since Hogan took over?

[Red Impact]

Mar 1, 2010 21:39:54 GMT -5 @thatguybayne said:

Mar 1, 2010 20:32:00 GMT -5 @wcw said:

TNA better in ring talent from a technical perspective. TNA has the X-Division which is much more interesting then anything on the WWE undercard. TNA has the Knock Outs which are better then the Divas.

WWE on the other hand has a much more established brand. WWE also has a bigger feel thanks to their 10,000 plus audience that watches their broadcast. TNA being in the Impact Zone gives off a very small time feel.

Both have bad booking in my opinion. But TNA has the better roster but WWE has the more over look.

True. I always wondered why TNA gets such much crap when WWE's booking is just as bad if not worse but at least TNA's in ring product is good enough to make up for it.

WWE gets a whole lot of crap too, and I don't get why TNA fans think it doesn't. But a lot of people have also just given up on it ever changing for the better, where they haven't for TNA.

[HMARK Center]

Mar 1, 2010 20:52:35 GMT -5 jobsquad said:

Mar 1, 2010 20:32:00 GMT -5 @wcw said:

TNA better in ring talent from a technical perspective. TNA has the X-Division which is much more interesting then anything on the WWE undercard. TNA has the Knock Outs which are better then the Divas.

WWE on the other hand has a much more established brand. WWE also has a bigger feel thanks to their 10,000 plus audience that watches their broadcast. TNA being in the Impact Zone gives off a very small time feel.

Both have bad booking in my opinion. But TNA has the better roster but WWE has the more over look.

Actually, from a technical perspective, WWE is way ahead since most of their guys can truly work. TNA has mostly guys that can work, but a lot of their people need to learn how to work the formula correctly.

I don't really agree. There's a difference between "the formula" and simply being "formulaic", which, really, describes WWE match psychology to a T at this point.

As for the rest, I'm still not seeing why some people want to hate Hogan so much. Last week's Impact was week, but the shows on the whole have been strong, and it's not like Hogan's been on screen for more than a couple minutes for any of them.

[thatguybayne]

Mar 1, 2010 23:20:14 GMT -5 Red Impact said:

Mar 1, 2010 21:39:54 GMT -5 @thatguybayne said:

True. I always wondered why TNA gets such much crap when WWE's booking is just as bad if not worse but at least TNA's in ring product is good enough to make up for it.

WWE gets a whole lot of crap too, and I don't get why TNA fans think it doesn't. But a lot of people have also just given up on it ever changing for the better, where they haven't for TNA.

I suppose seeing as people are begging for someone to knock WWE off thier perch and get them fighting again you may be right.

[Dub H]

Took the words out of my mouth,you didnt know how much i had a fangasm with Elijah was at TNA

[jobsquad]

Mar 1, 2010 23:41:42 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

Mar 1, 2010 20:52:35 GMT -5 jobsquad said:

Actually, from a technical perspective, WWE is way ahead since most of their guys can truly work. TNA has mostly guys that can work, but a lot of their people need to learn how to work the formula correctly.

I don't really agree. There's a difference between "the formula" and simply being "formulaic", which, really, describes WWE match psychology to a T at this point.

As for the rest, I'm still not seeing why some people want to hate Hogan so much. Last week's Impact was week, but the shows on the whole have been strong, and it's not like Hogan's been on screen for more than a couple minutes for any of them.

Oh yeah, I don't think WWE guys are really let go to do their best stuff. I mean, why take risks/work harder than you have to? If I am an agent, you never see me coming up with matches that have highly injury prone spots in them.

It is like an Angle/Styles match, they do exactly what I am talking about, and so do most of the guys on their current roster that are on TV post 1/4.

However, in WWE, anyone can work a match with anyone else, and it comes off good because they follow the formula, but they don't seem to come up with the cool spots.

Since I was talking about technical anyway, from a working standpoint, you should be able to go out there and have a good match without even talking to the guy your working with, because you both know the 'ingredients' for a match.

I don't know why WWE wrestler's don't put the creativity into all of their matches. They be intentionally holding back for PPV's and such.

[Jason]

My list of things TNA have that the WWE doesn't.

The ability to put over new stars
TNA is great at putting stars over, period. They have no supermen characters like John Cena who can not be beat and I find that great in this day and age. Basically, their wrestlers are human beings and booked as so. Their top stars are Kurt Angle and AJ Styles. WWE's are arguably Triple H and John Cena. Do you see the difference here? Kurt Angle can lose, AJ Styles can lose. CLEAN. They can actually lose clean without them being distracted or have any excuse as to why they lost. Ken Anderson beat Kurt Angle clean at Against All Odds. Literally clean. There was no shananiqans, no excuse as to why Kurt lost. Simply Anderson was the better man and boy, did that put him over.

He cut him with his own medals, bled his head and put him down like a dog. When was the last time you saw that? No. Sheamus isn't getting pushed, Sheamus just got the title. Pushed is not the word, because he fails to have any credible wins against any credible main eventers. He beat Bourne, MVP and Christian. Three midcarders, call me when he pins Cena, Triple H or Randy Orton in the same fashion that Mr. Anderson beat Kurt Angle in. Meaning NO Dq, no count-out, no cheating, a simple finishing move and a 1-2-3. That's it. No "Cena lost his balance and fell through the table", no "He had the match won". Nothing.

Face/Heel status
Yes, TNA do have faces and heels. But they also have the ability to book great matches on the show and don't let this get in the way. For instance, MCMG teamed up with Kendrick to face Generation Me and Amazing Red. That is two opposite sides teaming with each other to put out the best match possible. WWE never does this. They never have their stars fight for the spirit of competition. Everyone wants to win the title, so let them go through everyone in hopes of getting noticed. I don't care about no tradition, I like my rosters to be realistic and seeing some bastard all of a sudden become a nice guy because of a few cheers, doesn't exactly seduce me. Infact it insults my intelligence, it's not so bad when a good guy becomes a bastard, because I guess that's possible. Unless of course, he starts teaming and buddying it up with an old arch-nemisis. But when a guy turns face from heel and does that, it straight up pisses me off. ATLEAST acknowledge their past or give an excuse as to why they're buddies all of a sudden. Example of this... The Great Khali and Kane teaming up on Raw a few months back. The same Raw that Khali returned on... and surprise surprise, he was teaming up with the guy who put him OUT and tortured his damn brother.

Tag wrestlers allowed to hold singles titles
This is what I would love to see in WWE. Imagine Tyson Kidd or DH Smith holding the IC title and feuding with the likes of Morrison, Mysterio and Hardy? TNA allows their tag team wrestlers to hold singles titles. See Doug Williams and Alex Shelley.

[joeiscool]

Mar 2, 2010 4:01:12 GMT -5 jobsquad said:

Mar 1, 2010 23:41:42 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

I don't really agree. There's a difference between "the formula" and simply being "formulaic", which, really, describes WWE match psychology to a T at this point.

As for the rest, I'm still not seeing why some people want to hate Hogan so much. Last week's Impact was week, but the shows on the whole have been strong, and it's not like Hogan's been on screen for more than a couple minutes for any of them.

Oh yeah, I don't think WWE guys are really let go to do their best stuff. I mean, why take risks/work harder than you have to? If I am an agent, you never see me coming up with matches that have highly injury prone spots in them.

It is like an Angle/Styles match, they do exactly what I am talking about, and so do most of the guys on their current roster that are on TV post 1/4.

However, in WWE, anyone can work a match with anyone else, and it comes off good because they follow the formula, but they don't seem to come up with the cool spots.

Since I was talking about technical anyway, from a working standpoint, you should be able to go out there and have a good match without even talking to the guy your working with, because you both know the 'ingredients' for a match.

I don't know why WWE wrestler's don't put the creativity into all of their matches. They be intentionally holding back for PPV's and such.

Meh what you are talking about is not because, wwe wrestlers are more talented. This is a product of having house shows every day. Most of the matches in house shows are just practices for main shows. A lot of the matches are the same matches you'll see on raw and smackdown, and will contain the same spots and what not.

[Chip Jordan]

WWE is far better at telling stories, and therefore better at getting (inferior) talent over.

Take TNA's top story - AJ Styles wants to be Ric Flair and they hate Abyss for some reason, even though The Pope is the number one contender, but wait Hogan has got Abyss' back, even tough he remains friends with Easy E, who hates Jarrett for some reason and just wants Mick Foley to wear a suit.

But I feel I must say something nice, Angle vs Anderson is ok and Beer Money vs Hernandez/Morgan has loads of potential.

[HMARK Center]

Mar 2, 2010 4:01:12 GMT -5 jobsquad said:

Mar 1, 2010 23:41:42 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

I don't really agree. There's a difference between "the formula" and simply being "formulaic", which, really, describes WWE match psychology to a T at this point.

As for the rest, I'm still not seeing why some people want to hate Hogan so much. Last week's Impact was week, but the shows on the whole have been strong, and it's not like Hogan's been on screen for more than a couple minutes for any of them.

Oh yeah, I don't think WWE guys are really let go to do their best stuff. I mean, why take risks/work harder than you have to? If I am an agent, you never see me coming up with matches that have highly injury prone spots in them.

It is like an Angle/Styles match, they do exactly what I am talking about, and so do most of the guys on their current roster that are on TV post 1/4.

However, in WWE, anyone can work a match with anyone else, and it comes off good because they follow the formula, but they don't seem to come up with the cool spots.

Since I was talking about technical anyway, from a working standpoint, you should be able to go out there and have a good match without even talking to the guy your working with, because you both know the 'ingredients' for a match.

I don't know why WWE wrestler's don't put the creativity into all of their matches. They be intentionally holding back for PPV's and such.

To be honest, I'm not talking about highspots; you could plop me down in front of a card full of mat-based or submission based matches and I'd be happy as a clam. Highspots are fun, but I agree they should be saved for when they're needed.

I've never thought that WWE's problem is the lack of guys hitting stiffer, or flying more off the top rope; I've always felt that, once you've seen one, say, Randy Orton match, you've seen them all. He'll basically wrestle the same way against Triple H that he will against someone like Sheamus, the same way he'll wrestle against Cena.

That goes beyond the "Five Moves of Doom" argument; Bret Hart gets ragged on (inappropriately) for that, yet Bret was a master at using minutiae and subtlety to make most of his matches come off as unique from one another. He'd repeat some spots, yes, but the actual psychology of the match changed depending on the opponent/circumstances.

I recently got to see some of the Royal Rumble pay per view, first time I've seen WWE pay per view matches in, well, about five and a half years. I saw the Orton/Sheamus match (big reason why I'm brought those two names up before), and having seen both guys work on Raw previously, again, even at Royal Rumble, arguably the second or third biggest show of the year...they wrestled it almost exactly as they would have on Raw.

Again, I'm not saying "Orton should've done a dive off the top!", or "Sheamus should have stiffed him!", I'm just saying they need to start doing something, ANYTHING, differently.

Though I do have to give credit to the Undertaker/Rey Mysterio match I saw; they put on a good show, wrestled a smart match.

[Deleted]

The arguement that TNA pushes new stars falls apart at the seams when you really look at it.

"Mr. Anderson (Kennedy), Desmond Wolfe (I still call him Nigel McGuiness), Rob Terry, Amazing Red, The Pope, Matt Morgan, Hernandez"

None of these guys have held anything higher than the Tag Team titles. 3 of them have never held a title at all and two of them just started with the company less than 4 months ago. That is hardly a good indicator.

Plus the arguement that Styles is TNA champ is also shakey because Styles is hardly a "new" talent by any stretch of the imagination. He's been with the company since its inception.

If you really want to compare which company is pushing younger stars more then, unfortunately WWE wins out.

The Miz - US Champ, Unified Tag Team Champ
Drew McIntyre - IC Champ, but still very new, so we'll see if he's really going somewhere, but the arguement can be made that at least they're giving the young guy a chance.
Daniel Bryan just main evented WWE's newest show against the World Champ in a competitive match. Again - its too soon to tell, but something nonetheless.
John Morrison - The only title the guy hasn't held is the WWE Title and that's only a matter of time. He's constantly just below the main event scene and is a star for WWE - they just released a DVD for the guy.
CM Punk I have a bias here, but I think they have established the hell outta this guy.
MVP and Legacy are also heavily featured.

The main even scene does get clogged up with HHH, Cena, Batista and Orton - but that's mainly on the RAW brand. Edge, Jericho, CM Punk, Hardy (while still employed there), and Undertaker (though he's tied up with HBK now) are the mainstays of the SD brand's main event scene.