|
Post by Citizen Snips on Jan 21, 2007 20:49:22 GMT -5
That stupid six-sided ring...I've never, and will, never get over that.Plus, aside from some of the Nash/Shelley stuff, I've never seen anything on Impact that made me want to watch the next week or even think about ordering a PPV.
I've never seen ROH, so I can't judge it. WWE, I grew up on. Whenever I see K-Fed or Big Dick Johnson, I shut my eyes real tight and think "Hogan/Andre...Jake/Savage...Taker/Foley" over and over again. During Donald vs Rosie, I simply played Mr Perfect's music on a loop. They have a lot of good to fall back on.
|
|
|
Post by joeman on Jan 21, 2007 22:38:02 GMT -5
|
|
Scott
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 3,577
|
Post by Scott on Jan 21, 2007 22:58:42 GMT -5
TNA easily. The so-called alternative to WWE is revolving around former WWE stars (Christian and Angle), is more or less "run" by former WWE and WCW guys (Jarrett, Russo and Cornette), and there're more WWE has-been and/or leftovers (Rhino, Billy Gunn, Road Dogg). Not to mention the fact they hired virtually every wrestler with a bit of Starpower WWE had released. If that isn't enough, throw in the cheap shots at the WWE, with HHH and McMahon impersonators, and the ridicolous VKM thing... In-ring action can still be enjoyable at times, but the whole "we're better than WWE" thing stinks of sour grapes. And the overall feeling of the shows is still bush league to me if compared to WWE. Pretentious, but still bush league. Instead of going for a more wrestling oriented product, TNA are trying to incorporate the SE side of the business, so the product is stuck in a limbo. Having a six-sided ring, some good athletes capable of nice spots, a TV deal and a very vocal (annoying and sheepish) audience don't mean TNA's an alternative. ROH is what it is: a wrestling oriented organization and hence provides a niche product. Elitist fans are annoying as hell, but I don't really care. There are sheeps and ubermarks everywhere. ROH is different, because they WANT to be different, and aren't a poor imitation of what they are "against". WWE is WWE. It's a love-hate affair. But it's a matter of expectations and goals. WWE aren't out there to appeal to workrate junkies (no offense meant) or to provide A level witty comedy... They're far from being perfect, and maybe we overrate the "potential" of current WWE, but they're the best all-around SE/PW company. Usually when I agree with something, it seems to come from you. The WWE has off periods, but they always bounce back huge. I'm not even hating TNA, I just think they started off in the right direction and are keeping themselves stagnate by mocking what they are trying to catch up to.
|
|
|
Post by -Lithium- on Jan 21, 2007 22:59:12 GMT -5
there is no "best" all of them have their high spots and low spots Yeah, gonna hit TNA on this one. RoH is what it is and while the WWE has been crap, no one really seems to think elsewise. I mean, you give away Styles/Angle on free TV with a short, dirty finish? Are you retarded? Nothing wrong with that. No ones gonna not order a PPV if AJ/Kurt is the main event just cause they had a really short match on some random Impact. Like I just said, it was short, and we didnt get a clear winner, so its not a big deal at all. I was glad cause we were actually getting a real main event for once...
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Jan 21, 2007 23:01:24 GMT -5
It's tough.
I think WWE maybe viewed as overrated because it's the big thing right now in wrestling, and some view it as the only thing.
TNA is trying to be the alternative, but at times, it does a lot of things WWE does (even before Russo) and tends to ride the coattails of the WWE at times.
ROH can be viewed as overrated because of how popular it is with smarks, and that's just based on in ring performances, and not other important things, including Tv deals.
Ring of Honor with its current format could not be on national television. It's funny. People bash WWE wrestlers because they have bad workrate and can't go in the ring, but you also have to realize that the average ROH match is 25 minutes, where as in WWE, it's about 10-15 if that. That's why Mike Knox got so much hate in the beginning. People saw him as this bland hoss, but once he was put in a match against CM Punk where he could have a good wrestling match, he proved people wrong. Plus, in DSW, he gets main event treatment, and gets to have longer matches. I guarentee that the majority of the WWE wrestlers would get huge ovations and please come back chants from the ROH fans if given the chance to wrestle that style.
The argument can be made for all though.
|
|
|
Post by OGBoardPoster2005 on Jan 21, 2007 23:06:19 GMT -5
I believe the fact that this is on the WWE Board means nothing.I prefer TNA to WWE but I believe TNA is overrated because people seem to think that everything they do is gold(Paparazzi Productions and Christian as World Champ).Not hating just saying.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Backlund on Jan 21, 2007 23:39:34 GMT -5
To me, TNA is currently the most overrated of the three options.
WWE may be the most hyped, visible, and accesible product, but it didn't suddenly show up on the landscape and instantly capture it. Like it or not, they did some things right in their history and, despite having a pretty rough patch, they're the number one promotion (and to most people the only promotion) in the US now and likely for a long time. Besides, it's held to such a high level of scrutiny, it's really hard to call it overrated, outside of the fans that know nothing of wrestling outside of the WWE.
ROH is what it is. It's a very specific product that appeals to an almost niche market. Yeah, the ROHbots are annoying, but from my vantage point, they're not detrimental to the product.
TNA, on the other hand, is suffering from split personality disorder and has the most obnoxious fanbase on national television. On one hand, they're waving the flags as the alternative to the "guys up North" and claim to be the home to the people who miss the style of wrestling WCW used to offer. Yet, they sign all the "Northerners" the second they become available, lose homegrown talent like Monty Brown to make way for these WWE castoffs, and WASTE time on a PPV that people actually PAID to see putting the Old Age Outlaws to banter about being upset they're gone and completely forgotten. Despite this obvious inconstistency, the Impact Zone laps it all up and does everything to put itself over.
Advertise a PPV that is outside of the area? Boo it to death! Major face of wrestling trying to make a semi-serious promo? Chant to put yourself over!
Add to this the fact that a semi-audible chant on the worse segment Raw may have ever seen results in the mass celebration, with people swearing this is the beginning signals the end of a major company, and it's not only overrated, it's delusional.
|
|
|
Post by samachine on Jan 21, 2007 23:40:56 GMT -5
TNA the fans just make me hate the product for some reason. They praise it as the future and what will be what wrestling is all about. I don't want wrestling to be all about being a WCW/ECW/WWE wannabe. ROH is overrated because of their fans too, saying that ROH wrestlers are the most original and refuse to acknowledge anything else. WWE marks are bad too, but most of them are kids so yeah. All in all I enjoy all 3, but PWG is my favorite indy right now, with WWE being my favorite "big" federation. There's just no comparing the atmosphere of a WWE to any other wrestling show. Then again I am from Los Angeles, where most of us prefer to become kids again rather than being smark jerks. it's those 14-16 year old pimple faced smarks that ruin wrestling events. Pretty much everything he said.
|
|
|
Post by royboy8 on Jan 22, 2007 11:52:56 GMT -5
It's tough. I think WWE maybe viewed as overrated because it's the big thing right now in wrestling, and some view it as the only thing. TNA is trying to be the alternative, but at times, it does a lot of things WWE does (even before Russo) and tends to ride the coattails of the WWE at times. ROH can be viewed as overrated because of how popular it is with smarks, and that's just based on in ring performances, and not other important things, including Tv deals. Ring of Honor with its current format could not be on national television. It's funny. People bash WWE wrestlers because they have bad workrate and can't go in the ring, but you also have to realize that the average ROH match is 25 minutes, where as in WWE, it's about 10-15 if that. That's why Mike Knox got so much hate in the beginning. People saw him as this bland hoss, but once he was put in a match against CM Punk where he could have a good wrestling match, he proved people wrong. Plus, in DSW, he gets main event treatment, and gets to have longer matches. I guarentee that the majority of the WWE wrestlers would get huge ovations and please come back chants from the ROH fans if given the chance to wrestle that style. The argument can be made for all though. Thats an excellent point
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Jan 22, 2007 12:42:09 GMT -5
WWE. The company is only as big as it is because of what it once was. WWE got huge on Hulk Hogan and Shawn Michaels and Stone Cold and The Rock. If WWE didn't have such a long lineage and was a young company like TNA, and putting out their current product, people wouldn't give any more of a crap about it than they do TNA.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jan 22, 2007 14:57:02 GMT -5
ROH isn't really an option for me since most people have never heard of it. It can't be overrated if it has such a limited audience. Its tempting to say TNA, because they have a way of squandering the limited time they have available for their TV shows on VKM crap and talky segments. But I'm gonna have to say WWE just because they have the largest promotional budget and have a way of continually failing the high expectations their promotions create.
|
|
|
Post by Aaron E. Dangerously on Jan 22, 2007 15:51:15 GMT -5
I'm gonna go with ROH. From what I've seen, it's just too slow paced. Don't get me wrong, some seriously talented guys are in it, no doubt. But WWE has molded me into a quick 6-10 minute match guy. That's why I love Londrick and the Blue Blood's feud. They got great transitions in tagging, and have awesome spots. I love it.
I love iMPACT more because of the quick pace of it. The six sides do help with that. BUT the X division is far too underutilized on TV, like they trot it out during PPVs as like a novelty. And I don't buy PPVs, so f*** that shit.
|
|
Brain Of F'n J
Hank Scorpio
Not that cool enough to have one of these....wait.
We Discodians must stick apart.
Posts: 6,890
|
Post by Brain Of F'n J on Jan 22, 2007 15:51:20 GMT -5
I doubt you'll get flamed, but Gabe has said on several interviews that he doesn't want a TV deal and that he's content with how the promotion is being run as it is, and if they did get a TV deal they'd have to answer to sponsors and couldn't do things the way they used to. It's gotten me flamed in similar threads in the "(w)rest" forum before. Thats seriously my (And I'm imagine lots of casual/WWE only fans as well) opinion, that if it was worth watching I wouldnt have to risk buying a DVD I dont like, they'd be good enough to be on TV. Isn't a flame here ... just a counter-point. They don't WANT to be on TV. They're happy growing at a natural pace, and don't see the need to compete with Vince when they know it'd overextend and kill themselves trying to compete at Vince's level. And, to counter the logic another way, just because it's on TV doesn't mean it's worth watching. WOW was on TV ... does that automatically give it value above RoH? Brand-name co-opting, on the other hand, is one of the more subtle threats to this country's free trade. WWE being synonymous with wrestling--like Playstation is for video games, iPod is for mp3 players, etc--shows it's global value, regardless of the fact that the product is horrid and nonsensical. Jed Shaffer ~Thank you, animated Randal, for letting me co-opt that argument.
|
|
"IcePic" Rick Cobos
Don Corleone
www.ericbischoff.com - some great comedy material!!!
Posts: 2,002
|
Post by "IcePic" Rick Cobos on Jan 22, 2007 19:09:44 GMT -5
It's gotten me flamed in similar threads in the "(w)rest" forum before. Thats seriously my (And I'm imagine lots of casual/WWE only fans as well) opinion, that if it was worth watching I wouldnt have to risk buying a DVD I dont like, they'd be good enough to be on TV. Isn't a flame here ... just a counter-point. They don't WANT to be on TV. They're happy growing at a natural pace, and don't see the need to compete with Vince when they know it'd overextend and kill themselves trying to compete at Vince's level. And, to counter the logic another way, just because it's on TV doesn't mean it's worth watching. WOW was on TV ... does that automatically give it value above RoH? Brand-name co-opting, on the other hand, is one of the more subtle threats to this country's free trade. WWE being synonymous with wrestling--like Playstation is for video games, iPod is for mp3 players, etc--shows it's global value, regardless of the fact that the product is horrid and nonsensical. Jed Shaffer ~Thank you, animated Randal, for letting me co-opt that argument. Raw 10th Anniversary Show > Manhattan Mayhem + Better Than Our Best Why? 'Cause the Raw show was televised.
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Dave on Jan 22, 2007 19:30:42 GMT -5
WWE us more dissapointing. Some of my favorite wrestlers and they tend to squander away their what? six hours of tv time a week. TNA is best on PPV. Impact is dull sometimes, but the PPV save it for me.
That leaves ROH. Now, I order ROH DVDs and love them, but it is overrated. It is still really really good, but it is not the end all be all wrestling.
|
|
"IcePic" Rick Cobos
Don Corleone
www.ericbischoff.com - some great comedy material!!!
Posts: 2,002
|
Post by "IcePic" Rick Cobos on Jan 22, 2007 19:42:34 GMT -5
People say TNA is an alternate, and I agree, as an alternate is a person acting in the place of another; a substitute.(answers.com). Going the route of a dictionary/thesaurus doesn't settle anything; it only opens up more of a debate. thesaurus.reference.com/browse/alternativesynonyms for "alternative" courtesy of the above link include: - another - backup - different - flipside - other side - second - substitute - surrogate Obviously, the word "alternative" lacks a definite meaning, and unfortunately, your explanation of TNA being an "alternative" to WWE is not definitive. However, I am NOT saying that you are wrong; remember, the word "alternative" has various meanings/synonyms. You chose to go with "substitute" as a synonym for "alternative" to explain TNA. I choose to do with "different" as a synonym. Clicking on the word "different" on the link I provided earlier, here's the next link that comes up - thesaurus.reference.com/browse/differentUsing the synonyms now for the word "different," there are about 20 to 25 listed, which I will not post here, since the link is provided in the previous paragraph. I will use three synonyms for the term "different," and then going back to the term "alternative," explain why my eyes do not seen an "alternative" to WWE when watching TNA in recent months. My three choice synonyms (along with my choice of definitions for them that can be found on http://www.dictionary.com) for the word "different" are: - distinctive 2. Having a special quality, style, attractiveness, etc. - individual 10. Distinguished by special, singular, or markedly personal characteristics; exhibiting unique or unusual qualities. - unalike Not alike or similar. Using those synonyms along with the definitions I chose for them from the dictionary.com website, anybody who was watched the TNA product recently can see that it is not truly an "alternative" to WWE. TNA fails to differentiate itself from WWE; TNA, at this current time, lacks any remarkable personal characteristics or qualities. Again, I am not saying that you are wrong; I was just explaining that there is more than one way of defining the word "alternative," and when using a different way than yours, TNA isn't really an "alternative" to WWE.
|
|
BrianZane
Team Rocket
The Finest Fibers All The Way From France
Host of Wrestling With Wregret
Posts: 972
|
Post by BrianZane on Jan 22, 2007 19:52:27 GMT -5
TNA by a mile. Everything moves at 600 mph on their show, including the commentary, matches, skits and transitions from one thing to another. Everyone screams more than the guy in that frigging WSX trailer, and all their matches are too short (excluding most PPV matches). They're largely unknown to the common fan, though they are gaining some ground. At least ROH knows that they're not going to make millions of dollars, but it is the best indy fed in the states to get some cred. TNA, however, thinks they're WCW incarnate and can run with the big dogs. This is the promotion that some think will eventually topple Vince? Yeesh...
|
|
Dave FCIC
Mephisto
I said nice one bruva!
Posts: 714
|
Post by Dave FCIC on Jan 22, 2007 20:00:18 GMT -5
We get ROH, TNA and WWE all on Sky TV here in the UK.
I've heard someone say its not the major matches we get for ROH. But give or take a few fancy moves and a few decent matches, it doesn't seem to be anything amazing. I would much rather watch TNA or WWE in a flash.
|
|
|
Post by Hassan bin Sober on Jan 22, 2007 20:26:31 GMT -5
I voted WWE. I've talked to people who act like it can do no wrong and that any other wrestling promotion isj ust a rip-off of the WWF/WWE. I don't feel the WWE should get a free pass just because it used to be great.
I should add for every "TNA can do no wrong" fan there is a "TNA can do no good because they are not the WWE" fan.
|
|
"IcePic" Rick Cobos
Don Corleone
www.ericbischoff.com - some great comedy material!!!
Posts: 2,002
|
Post by "IcePic" Rick Cobos on Jan 23, 2007 23:47:31 GMT -5
TNA for reasons that have been stated enough times.
To be fair though, Hmark brought up an excellent point recently as far as Impact is concerned, and that it is the only time that TNA has on TV each week (this was brought up because I compared the days of 60 minute episodes of Raw to current Impact, and he brought up that WWE still had other programming to put its wrestlers on.)
However, while I am certainly understanding of TNA's situation, the bottom line is that for all the hype and slogans that it has, it doesn't live up to it. Hey, look around enough, and you'll see that I really don't care for WWE that much either; but anyways, as I said, the bottom line is the delivered product. WWE calls itself sports-entertainment, and dammit, that's what it is more than 90% of the time; I at least appreciate that company's honesty. ROH calls itself pro wrestling, and anybody who has seen at least one show and/or a handful of the company's best matches knows that ROH is being very honest about what it claims to be.
TNA claims to be the alternative for fans who are sick of guys talking, for fans who are sick of toilet humor, for fans who are sick of politics holding down talented wrestlers.
I need say no more.
|
|