Which Was The Better Show? (TNA IMPACT SPOILERS)

[egyptianblizzard]

Impact was the better show all in all until the fans started chanting "Who needs Bret?" Good to know that TNA feeds off of WWE like WCW did.

[manstis1804]

Yeah "who needs Bret?" seriously pissed me off, what a bunch of douches. They sound like such zombies chanting "this is wrestling" and "this is awesome" at any remotely good match. The real question is, who cares what the Impact Zone kiddies have to say?

[brettappedout (BLM)]

Jan 5, 2010 5:02:24 GMT -5 manstis1804 said:

Yeah "who needs Bret?" seriously pissed me off, what a bunch of douches. They sound like such zombies chanting "this is wrestling" and "this is awesome" at any remotely good match. The real question is, who cares what the Impact Zone kiddies have to say?

Don't forget the TNA chant after a dive to the outside.

[Natalya's Ass Fanboy]

RAW had the best moment with the whole Hart/Michaels opening segment, but from then on out it was the same old s... I can't see Bret Hart being any sort of a major drawing point. He's not the huge star many make him out to be, and the neatness factor of seeing him back in the WWE was already mostly gone by the end of RAW. He looks absolutely terrible, too, way worse than any of the 'old timers' in TNA.

TNA picking up Jeff Hardy was absolutely huge. We're talking about a guy who was as over as anyone in wrestling for the past two years. Between that and Hogan, TNA now trumps RAW in star power and isn't too far behind the whole of the WWE. Say what you will about their product, the fact that they've grown from the little weekly PPV company to a legit competitor to the WWE is remarkable and deserves much kudos.

[hajimenoippo]

Jan 5, 2010 5:02:24 GMT -5 manstis1804 said:

Yeah "who needs Bret?" seriously pissed me off, what a bunch of douches. They sound like such zombies chanting "this is wrestling" and "this is awesome" at any remotely good match. The real question is, who cares what the Impact Zone kiddies have to say?

Their chants always jar and irritate. I don't know why. Yay they enjoy the show. But, it's like they are pompous about it. It's why I like PWG as far as "OMG SMARK" crowds.

Honestly if you watched TNA as a non-fan/curious WWE fan. You'd see a bunch of old faces, Jeff Hardy, and a bunch of poorly structured matches. Which is what TNA used to be. I mean the main event was good, but the "THIS IS EPIC!" "THIS IS WRESTLING!" "THIS IS AWESOME!" chants just seem wrong to me.

I still go into wrestling as this guy, hates that guy, so this guy tries to beat him. THis guy is the bad guy, this guy is the good guy.

They gave AJ a big, clean, and decisive win over Kurt Angle. However it didn't feel like "mission accomplished", not because of Hulk bolting, but because to me there was no drama in the match. Just move after move. I knew AJ was going to win from the first 10 minutes, and sure the big spots were cool, but AJ was going to win no way they put him over on the mic that much and pull the rug out from under him.

WWE had an overall successful show. They ended JeriShow/DX and Kofi/Orton in 2 good matches. They built the Divas Tournament, Bret/Vince, MVP/Miz, Legacy Dissolving, and of course our first HOF announcement.

TNA built, Hogan/Foley, nWo reformation, Sting, "Backstage beat downs", team 3d/Nasty Boys, and the building of the younger guys.

[A Dubya (El Hombre Muerto)]

Impact was way better to me. Raw just seemed so phony and manufactured. I just didn't think a lot of the matches on Raw had any "you gotta see this" vibes to them either.

[jamofpearls]

Impact was definitely better.

[A Dubya (El Hombre Muerto)]

Jan 4, 2010 23:42:40 GMT -5 TheDieselTrain said:

The only time I changed the channel was after Impact ended.

Likewise.

[domrep]

Impact by a country mile. And for all the talk about TNA using old stars, WWE's main angle involves a 60 year old non wrestler and a 40+ year wrestler who hasn't had a wrestling match in 9 years and are playing off an angle that happened 13 years ago, so today's audience don't know what the hell they are talking about or what they are referring to.

[wrestlecrapcrap]

Thing with TNA, is that they have a lot of good young guys, great young guys either. Not just quality wrestlers like Styles and Daniels, but guys that are good characters, 'larger than life' that could probably make it in WWE, like Wolfe and Pope. So they have some great potential on their roster. However there seems to be a disconnect. I get that you use the older guys to make the new guys, but TNA guys are just that...old. If they used current stars to make the new guys, it would be better. But guys like Hall, Waltman, Venis, Jordan, Nasty Boys...just so random. They are guys that aren't going to grab the attention of the WWE audience, because they are legends that aren't useful to the WWE and would no longer make it there. WWE has legends that people still care about...TNA doesn't. Maybe Hogan and Flair, but they can't use them to create stars.

Will give TNA one thing though, and that's the signing of Jeff Hardy. I said before that Flair, Kennedy, whoever wouldn't get the attention of the wrestling world...they need someone who is a true current main event draw. They got Jeff Hardy. That's huge. If he was in WWE right now he'd be a main eventer, he's not someone with potential, he's not an indie god, he's not a washed-up has been, he is a current main event star who's incredibly over. That's exactly the kind of guy TNA should be using, not these random 'veterans' that are well past their sell by date.

So I give it to Raw. Namely because I don't really want to see another 'IT'S ALL ABOUT THE YOUNG GUYS!!!!!' storyline in TNA, with the veterans trying to hold them down. It's all they seem to do, constantly try and say how it's about the young guys, when the story has been done constantly in TNA and they just keep going through that motion with a new figure head for each group. Raw let's the characters tell the story. Problem with that is if the character sucks or is massively stale then the show tends to suck, but that's a matter of circumstance. When they have current, or new characters Raw works.

If TNA let their characters tell the stories rather than this constant shilling to the internet then I'd give them a higher rating in my mind. Let Pope, Wolfe, Jeff Hardy tell stories with their characters. Get Angle in feuds based around him being a solid competitor, like he is, instead of this phony mission for respect. And do away with the veterans that the WWE had no use for anymore. Time wasted on Val Venis and Sean Waltman is time that could be spent on any of the supposed 'YOUNG GUYS!!!!' that TNA loves.

[The Ichi]

Bret and Shawn burying the hatchet was an AMAZING moment, but after that happened it was the usual, mediocre Raw until the ending. I haven't seen Impact yet, but it at least sounds like they tried.

[Cry Me a Wiggle]

Impact. Raw was still Raw, only with Bret Hart bookending it. You had the usual DX shilling segment, more Hornswoggle crap, the weekly Jerishow burial, and pointless Diva matches. What's more, outside of the surrealism of seeing Hart back, his stuff with Vince at the end was very predictable.

With Impact I had no idea what was about to happen next, and I'm still wondering where the storylines set up last night are headed. It created intrigue, which has been missing from wrestling for far too long.

As far as the chants go, well so what? It's not like they were insulting Bret Hart to his face. It's not as if, upon hearing that the Impact Zone dismissed him, Bret went into his locker room on Raw and shed a tear. It was just TNA fans getting into their product with a funny mantra.

[543Y2J]

i did love when jericho did the hogan pose, a gif really needs to be done for that. so i go RAAWWWWWWWW.

[Cactus Jack]

In all honesty, and I'm not a TNA fan by any means, iMPACT. Felt fresher, the wrestling action looked to be of better-quality, while RAW, to me, felt as most people have said - same old shit with Bret bookending it.

[thehartfoundation]

Jan 5, 2010 8:15:43 GMT -5 domrep said:

Impact by a country mile. And for all the talk about TNA using old stars, WWE's main angle involves a 60 year old non wrestler and a 40+ year wrestler who hasn't had a wrestling match in 9 years and are playing off an angle that happened 13 years ago, so today's audience don't know what the hell they are talking about or what they are referring to.

But they are supposed to care about Sting hanging out in the rafters watching Hogan like he did 13 years ago? Or the Nasty Boys who are building a feud with Team 3D even though the Nasty boys are barely able to move around anymore and haven't fought on national TV in how long? Or maybe we should be excited that most of the guys they have brought in don't have the best track record for being stable and keeping commitments to the company they work for.. I haven't been a huge fan of WWE recently but last night I found myself watching the entire show live and not wanting to DVR it first and skip 90% of it like I did with Impact.

[angryfan]

RAW, outside of its guest host, was just RAW, nothing more. It was a show that set up some angles for the next few months, teased some things, and that was that. Big moment plus regularly scheduled programming.

Impact, it was, to reuse a phrase from a post earlier, crash TV on acid. Thorow in "appearances" and "debuts" that we honestly have no idea if it's a one-off or not. If it IS a one and done for most of the guys (Morley, Flair, Jordan, Hardy) then what the hell was the point? If they're not coming back, then why do it in the first place other than to pop a rating and bait and switch people into watching?

Whether or not it was a one-off though, by just having random debuts with no time to digest it, what feeling is there when the "holy crap" part wears off? That's what worries me. A lot.

You bring in everyone you can think of, one after the other in a three hour spectacular. It feels special, different, and unique. Thing is, don't you have to save something to keep the surprise element alive? After last night, who else is left to shock the viewers with?

[efram]

iMPACT for me, raw still had the same sh**** hornswoggle/dx segments, rubbish womens match and every other match was just so predictable, you just knew who was going to win, whereas on tna you had surprise after surprise.

i think everyone agrees how horrible tnas terror dome match was but raw had its fair share of crap too

bret hart was a big let down too, shame

[Back to being Cenanuff]

Impact was a confusing clusterF. Was I shocked to see Ric Flair? No. The man will go into a gay bar with a sign on his chest that says "push in your stool?" if the check doesn't bounce. Jeff Hardy? Just more proof that TNA doesn't have a wellness policy. Rebooking the entire night? Why? Better women's matches, sure. Angle/Styles again? Kofi/Orton again? At least the matches were good, even if TNA's matches were way too short from top to bottom. Both shows did a nostalgia kick. Raw did theirs better, because they limited Hart's involvement. But if I wanted to see a bunch of old guys, I'd check out the AWA on ESPN Classic. For as much money as TNA was throwing around, they could have found some more guys that weren't Hogan's cronies.

[Marvelously Mediocre]

Impact because it was trying to be better.

Raw didn't try that hard and it was still a good show but TNA went all out and produced a great show. It pains me to say it but Impact was better.

[Solid Stryk-Dizzle]

Raw all the way.

I clicked off Impact 2 minutes into the Steel Asylum.....yeah I saw the entire match.