|
|
Post by Psy on Nov 2, 2007 16:43:24 GMT -5
I disagree, but TNA has improved a little.
|
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Nov 2, 2007 18:28:58 GMT -5
I've always given TNA the edge over WWE if just because I've actually felt legitimately excited about certain things TNA has done over the years.
For example, I've watched TNA pay per views and really been interested in who wins a match from a storyline perspective, and not in a non-kayfabe "Man, so-and-so BETTER win this match!" way that a lot of people view, say, Cena matches.
Not to say TNA's perfect about that (how often were we pleading for Jarrett to drop the title?) by any stretch, and I'm not a huge TNA mark, as I don't always order their PPVs and am still one of the biggest ROHbots on this board, but I at least get excited watching TNA sometimes.
WWE just seems so sanitized. Not in a "nothing EXTREEEEEEME(!!!) happens" way, but in a "nothing really important happens" way. There'll be a pay per view one month, a title will change hands...and then nothing will really change. The same guys will be pushed the same way, the same divisions will be ignored (namely Tag and Cruiser), the hierarchy won't change much outside of an occasional fresh face. And don't forget, whoever the top face is at a given time will have to contend with a heel authority figure. It's just dull.
I mean, it DOES translate well onto TV; it flows, it goes smoothly from one segment to the next, it transitions from different bits, promos, and matches to the next bit very well.
But there's nothing beyond it, at least for me. The same matches, the same STYLES of matches (my biggest complaint about "safe style" isn't the moves it bans, but the fact that most of the matches feel exactly the same, no matter who's actually wrestling in it), same methods to get titles on people, etc. etc. I walk away thinking "blah".
That's not to say TNA's perfect, as sometimes its worse to think "what the hell did I just see?!" instead of "blah", but WWE simply does nothing for me as a fan. I don't hate it, I don't like it...it's just there. With TNA, I've thought "that sucked" before, but I've also felt "that was a LOT of fun" too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Daddy Bad Booking on Nov 2, 2007 18:33:46 GMT -5
This feels like a comparo between WCW and WWE from 1997. WCW has the stale product while WWF has the fresher and more entertaining product. WCW has better ratings, and its live while RAW is taped. Now FF to 2007, where TNA has the better product compared to WWE, but sinced TNA is taped and WWE is live, the ratings are quite sizeable in WWE's favor.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785 
|
Post by The OP on Nov 2, 2007 18:37:36 GMT -5
I think a lot of it depends on what you're looking for as a fan. I find it ironic that WWE gets the reputation for being too "sports entertainment", because I think one of the stronger points of WWE is that it's more old school and has more of a classic pro wrestling feel. The Cena/Orton feud is a good example of this. It's one of the better old fashioned clear cut babyface/heel feuds that's happened in recent years IMO.
One could argue that this style is outdated, but it just depends on what you want to see. I personally like this style of booking and the in-ring style.
|
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Nov 2, 2007 18:43:11 GMT -5
I think a lot of it depends on what you're looking for as a fan. I find it ironic that WWE gets the reputation for being too "sports entertainment", because I think one of the stronger points of WWE is that it's more old school and has more of a classic pro wrestling feel. The Cena/Orton feud is a good example of this. It's one of the better old fashioned clear cut babyface/heel feuds that's happened in recent years IMO. One could argue that this style is outdated, but it just depends on what you want to see. I personally like this style of booking and the in-ring style. I think where that falls a bit short is when you think about just HOW old school they go. I hear what you're saying (and, far as I can tell, you're right), but I know, for me, what always annoyed me with the WWE in recent years was that guys were never really allowed to get over utilizing what they can do in the ring. I'm not talking about workrate; I'm talking about letting guys show off their personalities beyond simply working a gimmick, or using certain movesets that really fit the character/personality they're playing. Things just seem too uniform, when each wrestler's style, both in and out of the ring, should feel unique. In their defense, I think WWE is afraid that a big segment of their audience wouldn't really grasp that, and it might demand them to pay more attention, which some people (I'm mainly talking about children) could react negatively to. Ergo, "dumbing it down" a bit comes into play, and I can't totally blame them in some aspects of that. But I do think they sell their audience short a bit. If the wrestlers really do work on their personalities based on what they show, say, and do IN the ring, I think the crowd would catch on very quickly, and more guys would get over. |
|
|
|
Post by Timmy8271 on Nov 2, 2007 19:01:29 GMT -5
Both companies book to different audiences really. WWE goes for the Kid audience and Hispanic Audience with Smackdown. TNA seems to try to go for the frustrated former WWE viewer or ADD wrestling fan. WWE probably doesn't want another Muhammad Hassan/Katie Vick scandal on there hands so they dumb it down. And the wrestlers could work on personalities if everything they do wasn't scripted.
I'm not the first one to say this but TNA has to do something to seperate themselves from the rest. They could have done this with Joe winning the belt but that never happened. And like I said before, Tenay and West KILL the show with their rambilings. It's like they try too hard to be JR/King when they should be Tenay/West.
|
|
Joekishi
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,490
|
Post by Joekishi on Nov 2, 2007 20:12:12 GMT -5
you mean suck.
seriously tenay and west suck. i hate mike tenay
|
|
Hiroshi Hase
Patti Mayonnaise
The Good Ol' Days
Posts: 30,755
|
Post by Hiroshi Hase on Nov 2, 2007 20:18:29 GMT -5
This feels like a comparo between WCW and WWE from 1997. WCW has the stale product while WWF has the fresher and more entertaining product. WCW has better ratings, and its live while RAW is taped. Now FF to 2007, where TNA has the better product compared to WWE, but sinced TNA is taped and WWE is live, the ratings are quite sizeable in WWE's favor. I dunno, I thought WWE up until the summer of 1997 had the stale product opposing WCW. |
|
Joekishi
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,490
|
Post by Joekishi on Nov 2, 2007 20:31:17 GMT -5
This feels like a comparo between WCW and WWE from 1997. WCW has the stale product while WWF has the fresher and more entertaining product. WCW has better ratings, and its live while RAW is taped. Now FF to 2007, where TNA has the better product compared to WWE, but sinced TNA is taped and WWE is live, the ratings are quite sizeable in WWE's favor. WCW wasn't stale in 1997 though. TNA is just as stale in WWE without being as established as wwe |
|
|
|
Post by twiggy101 on Nov 2, 2007 20:33:18 GMT -5
Cade/Murdoch London/Kendrick Holly/Rhodes WGTT Jesse/Festus Deuce/Domino Highlanders I'm not that good in math but I think that's more than "four teams." One thing that both WWE/TNA have good right now is tag teams. I think they are nice teams. The thing about all of those teams is that they are on 2 different shows. That means that there are 3.5 teams on Raw and 3.5 teams on Smackdown and each show has a tag team championship. It kinda makes each show thin. That's why I prefer the TNA Tag Division because there are a whole bunch of them and there is only one tag team championship to compete for. I hate how wwe books the same matches over and over, ie. HHH vs Umaga and Orton, Palumbo vs Dykstra, and Punk vs Morrison |
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,480
|
Post by metylerca on Nov 2, 2007 21:00:00 GMT -5
TNA is good. I will give it that. It seems as though they gain ground, they take a step or two back (Hard Justice, Pac-Man,Rikishi, Test, Total Nonstop Angle). I saw last nite's show, it was alright; not as groundbreaking as some are calling it, it's just above average. I find that the usual TNA fan was also a die-hard WCW fan, meaning they're for anything not WWE. TNA is resembling WCW in the latter days, where they put on a half decent show and people praise it to high hell because it isn't the usual crap. WWE at least has variety with 3 different brands. I personally stick to RAW and ECW because i'm never home on Fridays.
Pushing people who aren't WWE guys is their first priority, which is why i'm all for Sting in the main event, even if he was a WCW washout. But if it really is Booker-T in the main event at Genesis, then it'd be hypocritical not to judge them for bringing in MORE WWE-castoffs. Does anyone else find it a bit funny that a recent interview with Angle blatantly states 'anyone can guess it, who recently left WWE and is a free agent?'
I am really hoping it is Jarrett, and before you grab pitchforks and label me dumb, let me explain it. Jarrett is as TNA as they come, and it'd be building somewhat towards their own roster. Booker can come out sometime soon after, but not in the main event. All it would show is TNA is willing to take anyone and make them a main eventer, even over arguably the best wrestler in the world: Samoa Joe.
So to say TNA is better than WWE is very much an overstatement. They are good. WWE is good. Right now its even in my books, but TNA is doing some things right at the moment that will hopefully pay off in the near future.
WWE also is doing the right things, and all they need to do is pull the trigger on Save_Us.222 and they'll get an automatic ratings boost and interest for a little while at least. Enough time to get viewers who defected after the Benoit happenings, back to watching wrestling again.
-metylerca
|
|
|
|
Post by thestinger on Nov 2, 2007 21:25:13 GMT -5
Not to get off on a tangent, but how can people keep mentioning Test as though he had any effect on TNA, positive or negative?
He appeared twice, spoke once and wrestled in one six-man match. If you missed one impact, and didn't order one ppv, you would never even know he was there.
Fatu I'll give you. He appeared like five times, and caused real pain every time, but thankfully he wasn't hired.
Anyway, Dustin Rhodes is last of the three ex-WWE losers TNA has given a tryout to that has yet to be tossed out. Let's hope they don't keep us waiting long
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Nov 3, 2007 0:26:58 GMT -5
Saying TNA is better than WWE is like saying getting stabbed in the arm is better than getting stabbed in the eye.
|
|
comahan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,899 
|
Post by comahan on Nov 3, 2007 0:28:30 GMT -5
Saying TNA is better than WWE is like saying getting stabbed in the arm is better than getting stabbed in the eye. Well to be fair. I would MUCH rather be stabbed in the arm. Come on, eye? OUCH. |
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Nov 3, 2007 0:30:14 GMT -5
Saying TNA is better than WWE is like saying getting stabbed in the arm is better than getting stabbed in the eye. Well to be fair. I would MUCH rather be stabbed in the arm. Come on, eye? OUCH. Yea, true. But one just happens to suck less. I'd just as soon not choose either. |
|
|
|
Post by Double Chickenwing w/ Bridge on Nov 3, 2007 1:05:18 GMT -5
booking is still atrocious And Coach vs Foley isn't? |
|
|
|
Post by Timmy8271 on Nov 3, 2007 1:36:03 GMT -5
Cade/Murdoch London/Kendrick Holly/Rhodes WGTT Jesse/Festus Deuce/Domino Highlanders I'm not that good in math but I think that's more than "four teams." One thing that both WWE/TNA have good right now is tag teams. I think they are nice teams. The thing about all of those teams is that they are on 2 different shows. That means that there are 3.5 teams on Raw and 3.5 teams on Smackdown and each show has a tag team championship. It kinda makes each show thin. That's why I prefer the TNA Tag Division because there are a whole bunch of them and there is only one tag team championship to compete for. I hate how wwe books the same matches over and over, ie. HHH vs Umaga and Orton, Palumbo vs Dykstra, and Punk vs Morrison How many times have we see XXX/LAX, 3d/Steiners XXX/Shark Boy Young? They are good feuds but they have had almost as many matches as WWE's tag teams have. |
|
comahan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by comahan on Nov 3, 2007 1:47:39 GMT -5
The thing about all of those teams is that they are on 2 different shows. That means that there are 3.5 teams on Raw and 3.5 teams on Smackdown and each show has a tag team championship. It kinda makes each show thin. That's why I prefer the TNA Tag Division because there are a whole bunch of them and there is only one tag team championship to compete for. I hate how wwe books the same matches over and over, ie. HHH vs Umaga and Orton, Palumbo vs Dykstra, and Punk vs Morrison How many times have we see XXX/LAX, 3d/Steiners XXX/Shark Boy Young? They are good feuds but they have had almost as many matches as WWE's tag teams have. XXX and LAX have had one match on PPV. Theyve been involved in 6 and 8 mans on TV, but thats it. The Steiners and 3D had two matches over the course of a long feud. The only team that I can recall Shark/EY facing, at least recently, is 3D. |
|
|
|
Post by Timmy8271 on Nov 3, 2007 2:22:52 GMT -5
I'm guessing you don't watch TNA Xplosion or TNA today?
|
|
comahan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by comahan on Nov 3, 2007 2:42:51 GMT -5
Since 3D and the Steiners are always on Xplosion, right?
I do watch TNA Today btw.
I remember a few LowKi/Homicide matches. No tags though. I DO remember LAX/MCMG. Online World of Wrestling, which at least has some Xplosion stuff, doesnt have any LAX/XXX matches besides their match @ BFG.
Anyway, point is, TNA has a ton more potential matchups than any of the WWE Brands when it comes to actual tag teams. Im not saying TNA is better, or WWE is worse. Just that TNA easily has a deeper tag division than any one wwe brand.
|
|
