posted
Does anyone have any thoughts on Hulk Hogan going to TNA? Serious competition for WWE? I think another year or two and it might have possibilities.
Posts: 427 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll have to read more on Hogan's move to TNA. Right now, TNA is SO FAR behind the WWE, it's not even funny. When TNA becomes bigger, the WWE will run that corporation out of business. The NWA tried to compete. How are those guys doing? TNA will soon learn what AWA, WCW and ECW have learned the hard way: If you try to compete with the WWE as the top professional wrestling organization in North America (particularly in the United States, Mexico does not count) you will file for bankruptcy. And then, they will wind up on WWEs 24/7 OnDemand where fans can order matches from all promotions. Like with the other three organizations, the WWE will have a three-DVD set that will be called "The Rise and Fall of TNA". It's incredible how people think that TNA will be the exception to History's lesson.
Like I said, I'll have to read on this Hogan thing, but I'll tell right now that Hogan is NOT going to help much. In fact, he won't help at all. At his age, he can't jump more than two feet off the floor. That guy is a wreck. He contemplated suicide, and he's going to be real flaky on them.
TNA should not be taken seriously. Did you know that over the last year or two, TNA's World Champions have been, on avereage, six years older than the WWE- and World Champions? I don't have the exact numbers with me, but I read it somewhere. If you're competing against the WWE, you have to do better than that.
TNA will go down. I'll give it six years, tops. If not six years, then it's going to go down eventually. WWE should be very concerned as soon as TNA gets to sell out those 24,000-seat arenas that WWE does every night. Until then, TNA will stick with it's crowds of 3,000.
posted
Your 100% right..I went to a TNA show here in Mass(tickets were free).Probably the worst show I've ever been to.I would've been mad if I had to pay for them..
-------------------- "I'd like to live as a poor man with lots of money" Pablo Picasso Posts: 1192 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They were FREE? I would've been livid if I had to pay for TNA tickets and then see a show as bad as you said it was.
I'm in NYC. Raw will be at the Garden this Monday. But I'm not going to that show. Next time for sure. There was this one time I went to a WWE show at the Garden, I bought $20 tickets, each for my brother and I. At that show, they put on Smackdown AND Raw on the same night. First, they did the taping of Smackdown, which started around 6:30. Then at 9:00, Raw went on the air live. I saw TWO shows for the price of one. The crowd was MUCH more pumped for RAW then they were for Smackdown.
The only thing I like about TNA is the Knockout Division. THAT's how women's wrestling should be like.
I mean, WWE has some great women's matches. One women's match that I will NEVER forget is this one for the Women's Title at the PPV Armageddon back in 1999.
Like I said, for TNA, the women's matches are my primary source of interests. Overall, they put together better matches than the Divas at WWE. In TNA, my favorites are The Beautiful People. I love their entrance music, and I LOVE how they enter the ring.
posted
i don't wanna consider myself one, but i'm kind of a "smark" and the vibe from the online forums i visit daily indicates that NO ONE is happy about hogan signing on with TNA except for Dixie Carter. It doesn't help matters that TNA was created partly as a way for Jeff Jarrett to convince the wrestling world he could be a main event talent (he isn't)
outside of a hand full of guys and the Knockout's division, TNA is usually not taken THAT seriously.
Considering the way RAW had gone in the past couple of months, Smackdown has become the best wrestling program on TV.
Posts: 2128 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the fact that TNA has a strong tag team division. WWE's has gotten kinda weak over the last few years. Has not been the same since the early to mid nineties. I think there is a lot of good talent in the younger generation, they just need to be utilized right. A.J. Styles and Eric Young are a couple of guys that have a lot of talent.
Posts: 427 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tyger: I like the fact that TNA has a strong tag team division. WWE's has gotten kinda weak over the last few years. Has not been the same since the early to mid nineties. I think there is a lot of good talent in the younger generation, they just need to be utilized right. A.J. Styles and Eric Young are a couple of guys that have a lot of talent.
A.J. Styles is one of the top 5 wrestlers in the world, and making Eric Young a upper-mid card leader of a heel "stable" was so out of nowhere
Posts: 2128 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As soon as the TNA started turning into wrestling's senior citizen circuit, I stopped caring. There's just nothing about that promotion that I find interesting asides from the knockouts, Styles, and Samoa Joe, but otherwise, it's whatever. And it's not like the WWE is doing great either. It really needs to step up if it wants to continue validating itself as a mainstream attraction.
Posts: 2681 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Salvy_Mic: And it's not like the WWE is doing great either. It really needs to step up if it wants to continue validating itself as a mainstream attraction.
**I'm not looking for an argument here**
I'm not sure I quite get what you're saying there? Aren't they already mainstream attraction? How does it need to step up to validate itself as mainstream?
The only thing I can come up to explain why they haven't been doing better is because their ratings have not been as good as it was from 1997 through 2002. Right now, Raw averages 4-point something in the ratings, compared to 6-point something between '97 and '01. That was because throughout most of that period, WCW was at the peak of their game and people started to pay attention to WWE's Attitude Era where everything seemed to be sexually suggestive and when they started putting together PPV caliber matches on cable TV they way WCW did for Nitro. Now, with no competition (TNA is NOT competition), the numbers have gone down a bit.
Other than that, Raw is better than Smackdown.
----
Tyger is right about the tag team division. WWE released a DVD some time ago which chronicled the greatest tag teams in wrestling history. I don't think we'll ever see another great tag team in the WWE again. Ever. Vince McMahon always breaks up teams. There will never be a tag team as dominant as Demolition, The Hart Foundation, Legion of Doom, The Rockers, Steiner Brothers, The Smokin' Gunns, and even the Allied Powers. The tag team scene will never be the same. I don't think I can remember the teams that fought for the tag titles in the last ten or eleven WrestleManias, but the WrestleManias before those I can probably tell you those matches off the top of my head.
The Intercontinental title scene is also another joke. Don't get me started on that one. These commentators have the audacity to tell the viewers such as, "Steve Austin used to be the IC Champ, and Shawn Micheals, so has Triple H." Yeah, and so has (pretty much) EVERY other superstar who has ever wrestled for that company. That title does not have the prestige as it once did when Mr. Perfect and Texas Tornado held it. I started losing interest in that belt after Shawn Micheals lost it for the last time.
posted
As far as the tag team division, most of the time they seem to just throw two guys together for the sake of having tag team champions. Some times the pairing do not seem to make sense. In TNA there seems to be more sense with their pairings.
As far as the titles are concerned, there are to many titles and they do not mean what they used to mean. Does WWE really need to world champions and two woman's champions. I know they have a lot of talent, but it would make things more interesting if they cut back on a belt or two.
As far as the pay per views, I think there are to many of them. I remember when I first started watching wrestling there was four ppv's and it was 3-4 months between each of them. The matches always seemed to be great. If there was a bad match there was maybe one. Now there maybe one or two good or great matches. That is out of the 6-8 matches they typically have on a pay per view. I think they should only have six pay per views a year and really make the storyline more interesting.
Posts: 427 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldnt say that WWE ran the WCW/NWA out of business as much as I would say that the WWE and Vince Mcmahon single handedly destroyed wrestling.
You have to have a yin and a yang, the NWA was the yin to WWE's yang and once those monday night wars ended that was it for wrestling.
The WWE is a joke IMO and the only reason anyone would watch TNA is because WWE is so horrible that people will search for anything to watch in it's place.
So until another one of those old companies return to compete with the WWE wrestling is just kind of out in limbo, and so far TNA is not the answer.
Hogan might create a buzz for a little while but unless you have a large number of big names simultaneously flood TNA's doors he'll get bored and jump ship in the next 9 to 10 months.
Posts: 949 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Salvy_Mic: As soon as the TNA started turning into wrestling's senior citizen circuit, I stopped caring.
angle got booted from WWE (from what i heard) Sting refused to go to WWE after WCW went under. if anything, TNA is 60% WCW 2.0 and 40% good (Knockouts, Styles and Joe, X Division)
Posts: 2128 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
National, don't you remember when WWF (before they had to get the 'f' out) was in the spotlight constantly? I dunno, but I look around these days, and the only time anyone mentions the company these days is whenever they do a publicity stunt with celebrities (like the recent spate of guest hosts on RAW) or something to do with steroids. And as hard as they try with John Cena, he'll never be as huge as The Rock or Steve Austin if they keep pushing him in everyone's face as this crossover star with repeated movies, albums, and whatnot.
All the writers seem to be saying a similar thing, and I just don't seem to be that into this watered down version of the WWE(F) these days. There's no focus. If they're still mainstream, they're hanging on by a thread in my opinion.
Posts: 2681 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tyger: As far as the titles are concerned, there are to many titles and they do not mean what they used to mean. Does WWE really need to world champions and two woman's champions. I know they have a lot of talent, but it would make things more interesting if they cut back on a belt or two.
Does WWE really need two world champions?
Absolutely, yeah!
When WCW finally croaked, WWE took in a lot of their stars. The roster became overstaffed with WWE and WCW wrestlers.
At first, the world champion and the womens champion were the only wrestlers allowed to wrestle on the two brands. When a champion lost, the new champion had to wrestle on the two shows.
Then Brock Lesnar decided that as champion, he would exclusively wrestle on Smackdown, never for Raw. That's when they decided to have two champions. Otherwise, either a WHOLE bunch of wrestlers were never going to see a world championship OR the title was going to change hands every week or two.
WWE saved itself by splitting the roster in half and having a WWE Champion and a World Champion represented its company. Now, we have wrestlers deserving to be world champions, serving as world champions.
The shows are a LOT more interesting this way. This gets the viewers to tune into their shows more often. Because each show has a world champion. Moreover, the WWE championship and the World title are 100,000 times more relevant and prestigious than that TNA championship.
There needs to be an Intercontinental champion and a United States champion. Since the U.S. championship was reinstituted, that has meant more than the IC belt. The U.S. belt is now what the IC was from 1979 to 1996.
The tag team belts should be unified. This way, tag teams are now under a new impression that they must stay together longer if they want another tag team dynasty.
There is no need, however, for two womens titles. The Divas title is a joke. It sounds like a title you win at a beauty pageant more than a wrestling contest.
----
WWE is no joke, my friend. Although it is watered down, it's still the most prominent wrestling company in the WORLD. Then, now, and always. TNA wants NO part of WWE.
Did you know that more people watch ECW than TNA? MORE PEOPLE WATCH ECW THAN TNA! They barely draw more viewers than TNA, but they get more people watching, nonetheless.
If you can't get past ECW, then you've got a LOT of work to do. WWE is TOO powerful, I'm telling you. They will never sink and they will put their next closest competition into extinction. TNA is messing with fire.
----
Yeah, Cena will not be as big as Rock or Austin no matter how hard they try to shove him in front to people's faces. But he's one hell of a competitor, there's no denying that.
Yes, I remember when WWF was such a big sensation back in 1997-98. But sex does sell. That's what WWE sold during that era more than any other time in its history. Salvy is also right when he said they've watered things down considerably. For example, John Cena's finishing move is the Attitude Adjuster when it was once was the FU. They even took out the "U" in STFU. The blatant sex and language is not there as it once dominated in 97-98.
In wrestling, steroids has always been synonymous with WWE, like Salvy said. That's always messed up, but controversy can make your product more prevalent. Controversy, no controversy, WWE will be wrestling's calling. Pro wrestling ends with WWE.
posted
National, I dont know how old you are (maybe you dont remember the 80's) but wrestling is really going down the tubes because of the WW'E'.
When there is no competition you have no reason to put on your best show, and it also keeps you from being able to see other talent. It's like saying Michael Jordan would have been great dribbling up and down a basketball court alone, or that Muhammad Ali would be the greatest if he was only shadowboxing. We would never have appreciated these athletes and we would never have been able to see how great the Joe Fraziers or Scottie Pippens were either.
Once the WWF didnt have anyone to compete with the entire wrestling world changed for the worse.
Back in the 70's, 80's and 90's the WWF represented a certain 'entertainment' type of wrestling that you were, in a sense, "promoted to" while the WCW/NWA related more to the southern wrestling fan and seemed more 'real' if you know what I mean...wrestling promotions from Dallas, Georgia, Florida, Memphis, the Carolinas (and Minnesota) DEVELOPED the stars like the Road Warriors, the Von Erichs, Freebirds, Austin Idol, Jerry Lawler, The Four Horsemen, Ric Flair, Sting and the Ultimate Warrior, Hulk Hogan, Ricky Steamboat, Dusty Rhodes and even stars like The Rock and Steve Austin (who had to go through promotions in Dallas and Memphis before they made it) and they also gave you the option of watching a more mature show, if that's what you wanted see. It was like Ric Flair Vs. Hulk Hogan....stylin and profilin with any woman over 21 vs. cartoons, toys, and lunch boxes.
The WWF has locked down the entire wrestling world which makes it impossible for a young star to develop anywhere other than the WWF where Vince oversees everything.
Im sorry but this reminds me of what Don King did to boxing or what Al Davis is doing to the Raiders. Totally destroying what you supposedly love.
The WWE's shows are absolutely the worst that I've seen from a major wrestling promotion since the AWA started to go under, and if the WWE didnt already have nationwide fame they would've been outta here too.
In order to really get a grasp on how things have changed you have to remember how they were first.
John Cena? He would have been on the level of The Brooklyn Brawler if he were around back in the day.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
