Bigger flop: Invasion or the "new" ECW?

[booradley01]

And I'm talking in terms of what could have been based upon from where the companies came.

I think the new ECW is the bigger flop. I finally got around to watching RVD vs. Cena this weekend and, I can't believe Vince had that, and let it all go. It wasn't the greatest match, but the crowd made it awesome and it wasn't even that long ago. Basically, I think the new ECW is definitely the most digraceful of the two, too. At least the Invasion gave WWE some legit stars like Booker T ands Mysterio.

If Vince had booked ECW properly, or let Heyman have complete (or at least way more) control, they could have buried TNA.

[mysterydriver]

Can I vote for these threads?

Invasion could have been done a lot, Lot, better without all the McMahon involvement.

ECW could be better if Heyman was more involved.

These are givens. Since ECW is not done yet, and still pulling decent ratings, I guess I'd pick Invasion.

But really, should we count the chickens before they hatch with ECW? Everyone cries and whines about Lashley, Khali(I guess that is Raw's "problem" after tonight), the lack of "Extreme Rules" when we know that anything can be turned around for the better. Look at Smackdown. People whined about the post-Brock era and now love it. Anything can happen.

[lovingway]

Invasion without question. I truthfully don't understand why people moan about ECW so much. It isn't like Raw and SD are doing that much better creatively. It would be the equivalent of someone bitching about WWE not being all "middle fingers, girls in thongs and Attitude style segments" Times change

[Choose Slack]

booradley01 said:

At least the Invasion gave WWE some legit stars like Booker T ands Mysterio.

Mysterio had nothing to do with the Invasion.

And the Invasion, while the storyline sucked, had some excellent feuds... RVD vs Jeff Hardy, Edge vs Christian, Angle vs Austin, and Jericho vs Rock.

[WoodStoner1]

They are more or less equal in a way...both were/are ego-stroke, "Ha ha our guys are better than their old 'stars'." ECW (in name only) is more of the same, plus using just that name as a gratuitous money-making ploy. It's not as blatant as the InVasion, but ECW (in name only) is dominated by WWE guys, and has guys known for being ECW jobbed out.

On the other hand, the InVasion was a much uglier, mean-spirited political mess than ECW (in name only). Pretty much a mass-public punishment to a group of guys for being WCW stars. And it seems the public-humiliation/punishment angles have gotten particularly bad and more widespread ever since.

[Ultimo Chocula]

InVasion was much, much worse since the build up for the entire angle was years in the making even before Vince bought WCW for peanuts. Every single wrestling fan on the planet wanted to see WCW vs WWF and then.......................THTHTPHTPTHPTHTPT!!!!!!!!

ECW had stink on it from the beginning when one of the big ideas was to push Test as a main eventer despite the fact that he hasn't been over in eight years.

[Jiren]

Invasion

A storyline that's seems impossible to cock-up, YET Vince Mcmahon did just that

[Sam Punk]

The invasion could have been the biggest angle of all time. No matter how bad ECW is it won't be a bigger flop than the invasion. The only thing bad about ECW is calling it ECW. By giving it that name they got the fans excited to see an old ECW style show and only gave them the WWE presents ECW trademark/copyright/etc. style of show.

[Feargus McReddit]

There was a poll about this before and I voted for the same thing I will here.

The InVasion.

It's one of the only times the IWC agrees with itself as one of the worst storylines of all time.

[Boomaga]

I'd say the InVasion, because you have the option of watching wrestling on televsion and NOT watching the new ECW. During the InVasion, the debacle was the only choice for nationally televised wrestling.

That and the InVasion was such an anticipated event and potentially phenomenal storyline that, if booked well, could still be running today. Instead it became a battle between the McMahons, because God knows we need to see more of the non-Vince McMahons, and it was a disappointment from the point at which it started... at least One Night Stand was good this year.

[antimcmahon]

def the invasion. Personally for me as a fan in 2001 I had got bored with wrestling. I was pro WWE and they were obliterating WCW in the ratings. Then the sale was made and I was pumped something years in the making and fresh was about to take place. Finallly wrestling was gonna be super exciting like it was from late 96 to late 99. And Vince completely botched it with WWE dominating the "alliance" and having more WWE guys in the alliance than not. I have't been excited about wrestling since that tiny little period between the sale and before the invasion.

When I heard ECW was coming back as excited as I convinced myself to be. I always knew deep down that Vince wasn't gonna deliver. In fact the night of ECW's debut show, all day at work I couldn't wait to come home and see if he would deliver or not. When I got home the first thing I noticed was my ECW poster on the ground. I wondered should I take this as a sign? And sure enough I should have.

Therefore to me the invasion was so higly anticipated that it seemed there was no way it could have been luved up. ECW on the other hand I and many other long time followers(pretty much anyone who visitis this board) could have come up with millions of ways that we could picture Vince botching it. And I'm sure some of you did, and 85% were probably right on the money.

This is my long, drawn out, manotenous(no idea if spelled right) opinion on the matter take it for what it's worth.

[Ace Diamond]

The InVasion: Took the can't fail angle and made it fail by making it McMahons vs. McMahon