The Official TNA / Impact / GFW Discussion Thread

[CQI13]

Hyde, what you mention in the second part of the post is how I believe he explained it. He did clarify (and I probably should have as well) by giving the example that if you're pushing wrestler A as a face, and he's getting crapped on; but wrestler B is getting cheered, you should push wrestler B (even if it wasn't your original intention) because the fans aren't buying into wrestler A. So what you said about booking for marks is what he meant it seems.

[PeterHilton]

Indeed. So by extension, their midcarders may have been just midcarders. But because the stage was bigger, they were still better known and thus bigger stars than the midcarders in today's number 2, TNA. Ditto fairly recent signees a la Desmond Wolfe just jumping up to today's number 2 for that matter.

 

 

Going back to your Nasty Boys point: they were bigger stars THEN but considering how long they've been completely out of the limelight do you think it's fair to think they carry the same name value?

 

I mean...really? I'd have to see demographics and numbers that show that TNA's audiences skews to failry old crowd (TV-wise) to believe that the Nasy Boys carry any sort of significance to the fans watching.

[justtxyank]

The Nasty Boys may have been awful at the ppv (I didn't get to see it) and they may not be relevant, but let's please stop undermining what they used to be. The idea that they were never talented or never over is ridiculous. They were a very good brawling tag team and they were over all the way through about 1996. It wasn't until Sags got hurt and Knobs started going solo that I grew to loathe seeing him on my television.

[cappyboy]

Going back to your Nasty Boys point: they were bigger stars THEN but considering how long they've been completely out of the limelight do you think it's fair to think they carry the same name value?

 

I mean...really? I'd have to see demographics and numbers that show that TNA's audiences skews to failry old crowd (TV-wise) to believe that the Nasy Boys carry any sort of significance to the fans watching.

 

Not as such. But at least they HAVE a name to have value with. Pope and Wolfe are just now trying to build theirs. Wolfe's only been Wolfe a handful of months. Pope's only been The Pope what? Six months or so? If something disasatrous happened to their careers at the next Impact, how long would folks remember that Nigel McGuinness had been once Desmond Wolfe? Assuming they even knew who "Nigel McGuiness" was to start with. Or that Elijah Burke and "The Pope" D'Angelo Dinero had been the same guy? Strong as it once was or not, The Nasty Boys have an established brand. If Wolfe or Pope went elsewhere tomorrow, they wouldn't have one to take with them. It's not like they are Matt Morgan who's had the same name all along. That more so than anything like demographics is why I've been giving the nod to the Nastys.

[Hyde Hill]

The thing is with the Nasties is that I get the whole name value thing but there are so many better options out there with either a greater or same level of name value and even more skilled in and or out of the ring. Some are in TNA at this moment and some have been. That's my biggest gripe with them. My gripe will be even bigger if they are still around by this summer and haven't jobbed/lost in a feud to as many people as they can. And yeah their PPV match was really really really really bad almost Sharmell vs Morasca level.

[thommohawk]

I wasn't talking about the product.

 

Well at the risk of sounding hypocritial, you should make yourself clearer because it sounded to me as though you were talking about the product and nothing more, especially seeing as how you never mentioned the structure of the company or size comparison to WCW, you simply said TNA not the equivalent of WCW in it's dying days - yeah, in what context ?? If you make a vague statement like that then expect to be misinterpreted.

 

TNA aren't as big as WCW or as rich, but that has a lot to do with the times, the state of the industry, the backers of TNA, and yes the booking of the talent and excitement of the programming. But the product itself despite the similarities is a lot better than WCW was especially in it's dying days. Goldberg and an in his prime Sting aside. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it lol.

 

To some extent you can have the best product in the world and yet you can't plan success, try as you might. A perfect non-wrestling related analogy would be the Nintendo Wii, hated with a passion by "proper gamers" but some like it, yet it's basically already won the console war in terms of money made despite not really being a modern console in terms of HD, it's basically a Gamecube v2.0 and much to the chagrin of real gamers (and PS3 and 360 fanboys), it's sold like wild fire to the casual market.

 

But getting back to wrestling, does anyone else find it coincidental that TNA are now on permanently on Monday's and live on the fortnightly, and all of a sudden apparently a bunch of top WWE talent are retiring after Wrestlemania - including Undertaker, HBK and Rey Mysterio as well as 1 other person apparently who I'm going to assume is Batista - how many of them will do the dirty and end up in TNA ?? That's what it's going to take to kick off this Monday Night War - the stealing of legit talent. Which is harder than it used to be since WWE have the non compete clause in effect for this very reason. But between the Wellness Policy and "retirement" there are ways I suppose. But it's who's willing to do it ? And is there any loyalty in life and business ? Nah. If the big names go to TNA it's because of 1 thing, the limited schedule whilst having a clear purpose again in HBK and Taker's case. I can see those two in TNA this summer if they can afford them, but saying this they could afford Angle and Hogan so why not....RVD will be there soon enough too.

[justtxyank]

Well at the risk of sounding hypocritial, you should make yourself clearer because it sounded to me as though you were talking about the product and nothing more, especially seeing as how you never mentioned the structure of the company or size comparison to WCW, you simply said TNA not the equivalent of WCW in it's dying days - yeah, in what context ?? If you make a vague statement like that then expect to be misinterpreted.

 

TNA aren't as big as WCW or as rich, but that has a lot to do with the times, the state of the industry and the backers of TNA. But the product itself despite the similarities is a lot better than WCW was especially in it's dying days. Goldberg and an in his prime Sting aside. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it lol.

 

 

Well, at the risk of mocking your intelligence, may I please suggest you read the context of the post I was responding to? The poster was comparing the networks that were showing TNA vs the networks that were showing WCW in 2000 despite both being the number 2 company in North America. I pointed out that this is not a good comparison because even though both were/are the number 2 promotion in their respective time frame, WCW was a much larger company with a more prestigious national (heck, global) brand than TNA.

 

I think anyone who read my post following the post before it would realize I was talking about size, company prestige, etc. as opposed to the product. Please, start following along if you want to get along here.

[thommohawk]

Well, at the risk of mocking your intelligence, may I please suggest you read the context of the post I was responding to? The poster was comparing the networks that were showing TNA vs the networks that were showing WCW in 2000 despite both being the number 2 company in North America. I pointed out that this is not a good comparison because even though both were/are the number 2 promotion in their respective time frame, WCW was a much larger company with a more prestigious national (heck, global) brand than TNA.

 

I think anyone who read my post following the post before it would realize I was talking about size, company prestige, etc. as opposed to the product. Please, start following along if you want to get along here.

 

Oh well pardon me for not keeping up to date with all your posts from 3 days ago that are probably about 5 pages old now. I respond to what I see when I come online and respond to the things said. It's not my fault you were vague. Blame yourself and don't shoot the messenger. Nice attitude too, maybe one day you'll be able to do promo's half as good as me.

 

Think I'm not good at promo's ? Want to contest it ? Think of this, it's too easy for me to say something and get heat. Clearly I have a natural talent for winding people up and making them dislike me. You don't help yourselves though half of the time and neither do I, the difference is that I really don't care. I say what I want, when I want. You show me respect and I will show you respect back. That's a two way street. And I'm more than happy to say so is acting like a prick to someone. Especially the holier than thou hypocrites.

[Hive]

If the big names go to TNA it's because of 1 thing, the limited schedule whilst having a clear purpose again in HBK and Taker's case. I can see those two in TNA this summer if they can afford them, but saying this they could afford Angle and Hogan so why not....RVD will be there soon enough too.

 

Are you in all seriousnes saying you could see those two, who are among the most loyal company boys WWE has, jump to TNA? Why on earth would they do that? They already have the light schedules and I doubt TNA would pay them more. Why suddenly become disloyal to WWE for no good reason?

[cappyboy]

The poster was comparing the networks that were showing TNA vs the networks that were showing WCW in 2000 despite both being the number 2 company in North America. I pointed out that this is not a good comparison because even though both were/are the number 2 promotion in their respective time frame, WCW was a much larger company with a more prestigious national (heck, global) brand than TNA.

 

Which is another way of saying what I brought the comparison up to demonstrate. The contraction of the industry of a whole between the time WCW was number 2 and today when TNA is.

[lazorbeak]

Well Gary Hart bless his sole isn't completely correct there as in the current landscape of things it doesn't wholly work that way. Most people only know what they want to see after they see it so if you don't even give a guy/story time and or exposure who is to say?

 

 

Hyde, what it means is if the crowd is cheering for the New Age Outlaws throwing Cactus Jack in a dumpster, don't try to sell the crowd that they're heels. It's not about not building up new stars or whatever, it's about recognizing what the crowd wants and giving it to them. It's what wrestling is about.

 

Like I said in an earlier post, the babyfaces in a wrestling company reflect the ideals of the fans that cheer for them. So if your crowd is a bunch of kids and old folks who want nostalgia, TNA should start booking the Hulk Hogan/Kevin Nash title match we've all been waiting for.

 

It's why, in the territory days, you couldn't just bring in a guy and use him as your top face. He's an outsider, someone different. It's still true today, territories or no. TNA tried to push Sean Morley as a babyface, but the crowd saw him as an outsider and Daniels as their guy.

[justtxyank]

Which is another way of saying what I brought the comparison up to demonstrate. The contraction of the industry of a whole between the time WCW was number 2 and today when TNA is.

 

I'm not going to respond to that child, but I will to you.

 

I see what you are saying, but my point is that TNA is not a good reference by which to measure the industry. They are #2 by default, not because they are actually big.

 

When WCW went out of business in 2001, the wrestling industry was still peaked. The second biggest promotion would have been what, World Wrestling All Stars or something silly like that? But, just like with TNA, they were only second because the only real competitive Number 2 company in the last 20+ years was gone.

 

The industry is down right now, but TNA doesn't prove that. They are a growing regional/cult promotion that benefits from having a wealthy owner. WCW could come back tomorrow and they would instantly be the second biggest company just because of brand power. That was what I was trying to illustrate.

[Hyde Hill]

Hyde, what it means is if the crowd is cheering for the New Age Outlaws throwing Cactus Jack in a dumpster, don't try to sell the crowd that they're heels. It's not about not building up new stars or whatever, it's about recognizing what the crowd wants and giving it to them. It's what wrestling is about.

 

Like I said in an earlier post, the babyfaces in a wrestling company reflect the ideals of the fans that cheer for them. So if your crowd is a bunch of kids and old folks who want nostalgia, TNA should start booking the Hulk Hogan/Kevin Nash title match we've all been waiting for.

 

It's why, in the territory days, you couldn't just bring in a guy and use him as your top face. He's an outsider, someone different. It's still true today, territories or no. TNA tried to push Sean Morley as a babyface, but the crowd saw him as an outsider and Daniels as their guy.

 

Well it is kind of upto interpretation and I included that part of the interpretation in my op. The thing is it was in direct reference to OJ implying that it is useless to give him a push because people don't want to see him. What I replied in that sense is if you don't push/ give exposure to someone how will you know if people will actually like him etc?

 

If it was more in the vein of give the marks what they want that is also true but that statement without the clarification that the op gave and you did here more extensivly could also be interpreted as only show the known names and only those, implying you can't get the fans to want someone.

 

Lazor I completely agree with your statement above but as it doesn't conflict with what I posted, just a portion of it and that portion was a possible interpretation of Hart's statement which I pointed out and didn't think was true.

[cappyboy]

I'm not going to respond to that child, but I will to you.

 

I see what you are saying, but my point is that TNA is not a good reference by which to measure the industry. They are #2 by default, not because they are actually big.

 

When WCW went out of business in 2001, the wrestling industry was still peaked. The second biggest promotion would have been what, World Wrestling All Stars or something silly like that? But, just like with TNA, they were only second because the only real competitive Number 2 company in the last 20+ years was gone.

 

The industry is down right now, but TNA doesn't prove that. They are a growing regional/cult promotion that benefits from having a wealthy owner. WCW could come back tomorrow and they would instantly be the second biggest company just because of brand power. That was what I was trying to illustrate.

 

You know, man, you're probably right in every word you just said here. Problem is TNA is what we have to work with at the moment. So it doesn't particularly matter whether they are number 2 by default or because they are actually big. Either way they are the point of reference.

[thommohawk]

Are you in all seriousnes saying you could see those two, who are among the most loyal company boys WWE has, jump to TNA? Why on earth would they do that? They already have the light schedules and I doubt TNA would pay them more. Why suddenly become disloyal to WWE for no good reason?

 

Well if their schedules are so light then why are they retiring ? Did you ever consider they might have nothing to prove at WWE for being there so long and achieving literally all they could there and are bored with it - thus at this point in their careers jumping ship to help achieve something good for the business that they devote their lifes to AND get an even more relaxing schedule, instead of months off and months on.

 

Plus TNA is closer to home for both HBK and Taker so it's also a lot less travel. There's no loyalty in life or business and at this point all them workers I mentioned will be looking after number one at this point - and right now TNA is a very nice proposition for workers in the sweet spot. Which Taker and HBK are. You seem to assume money and loyalty are the be all and end all but they really aren't. Natural boredom plays a part too. Or mental fatigue at being somewhere for so long despite achieving all you can there.

 

It sounds ludicrous at first, but give it a chance and you'll realize that it's not such a preposterous assertion after all. After all did you ever think you would ever see Eric Bischoff walk through the doors of WWE and on to Monday Night Raw working for Vince McMahon ? My point exactly. Stranger things have happened.

 

I see what you are saying, but my point is that TNA is not a good reference by which to measure the industry. They are #2 by default, not because they are actually big.

 

When WCW went out of business in 2001, the wrestling industry was still peaked. The second biggest promotion would have been what, World Wrestling All Stars or something silly like that? But, just like with TNA, they were only second because the only real competitive Number 2 company in the last 20+ years was gone.

 

The industry is down right now, but TNA doesn't prove that. They are a growing regional/cult promotion that benefits from having a wealthy owner. WCW could come back tomorrow and they would instantly be the second biggest company just because of brand power. That was what I was trying to illustrate.

 

You have a point here, except it's all hypothetical to suit you obviously. If WCW came back tomorrow they'd be a sub division or brand of the WWE so the #2 thing wouldn't fly as they'd be an extension of the #1....also for classic WCW "of old" to come back tomorrow, yes they'd instantly be #2 BUT that would also mean a time paradox as Tenay, Sting, Hogan, Bischoff, Flair, Booker T and a few others can't be in 2 places at once or indeed ever be in TNA as they'd be erased from existence because the buyout never happened, Benoit comes back to life as the brilliant grappler he was and the murder suicide never happened, and now that I think about it sounds like a great wish despite it meaning TNA never existed. So you obviously see the flaw in the logic even if it does have some hypothetical credence but it's still like saying something like if i was 10 years old again tomorrow I could beat you in a race to to the top of that hill - but it has no baring nobodies reality except one of the alternate ones.....hence in our reality it's hypothetical theory.

 

And I have to disagree with your opinion on TNA not being global. They are global they do overseas tours, they have some of the biggest names in wrestling history and the some of the biggest minds, they have monthly PPV, a weekly 2 hour tv timeslot which has now moved permanently to Monday nights where they'll go live half of the time having since had huge success for them in going live on a previous Monday night and being the first company in almost 10 years to go head to head with the all conquering WWE - that's pretty global, at least it is in my opinion. Your only case for TNA not being global is that they hold their shows in the impact zone. Whereas I've just listed about 5 reasons for them genuinely being global.

[PeterHilton]

Well if their schedules are so light then why are they retiring ?

 

 

Where exactly is the news of their impending retirement?

[jesterx7769]

With Shawn's injuries I dont see him wrestling post WWE, if he wants just a part time manager or something role I imagine WWE will be glad to keep him on in that regard. When Taker hangs it up I expect him to take some time off, realize he's bored, then become a backstage road agent since he's so well respected.

 

RVD however, will hopefully go to TNA, I also expect at least one of the guys that gets fired after being on NXT to end up in TNA by the end of the year

[sabataged]

Even though TNA is the number 2 company in America, they are not the equivalent of WCW, even in its dying days.

 

EXACTLY!

 

TNA in it's current state is more of a ECW than a WCW. They don't have the resources or fan base that WCW had. Even WCW was still going on the road doing house shows and drawing major crowds.

[Slagaholic]

ECW was an indy promotion with a TV deal. I think TNA's a step above that. I'll say they're in the middle between ECW and WCW.

[sabataged]

ECW was an indy promotion with a TV deal. I think TNA's a step above that. I'll say they're in the middle between ECW and WCW.

 

I would agree with the middle comment. But if I were to pick between the two TNA is closer to ECW status then they are WCW status.

 

For me it would be something like ROH > ECW > TNA > WCW > WWE but its really apples/oranges because of the different times.

[Slagaholic]

I would agree with the middle comment. But if I were to pick between the two TNA is closer to ECW status then they are WCW status.

 

For me it would be something like ROH > ECW > TNA > WCW > WWE but its really apples/oranges because of the different times.

 

Exactly, TNA rose to prominance in concurrance with the decline in wrestling's post-Invasion popularity, plus they have less money to spend. What makes it hard for me to choose either/or on whether it's more like WCW or ECW is the financial security. TNA pays their bills, and to my knowledge pull in a profit, ECW did not. To me that's as huge difference as the difference in popularity and exposure.

[HughBatey4]

Exactly, TNA rose to prominance in concurrance with the decline in wrestling's post-Invasion popularity, plus they have less money to spend. What makes it hard for me to choose either/or on whether it's more like WCW or ECW is the financial security. TNA pays their bills, and to my knowledge pull in a profit, ECW did not. To me that's as huge difference as the difference in popularity and exposure.

 

Fail. Just because they turn a profit does not mean they are popular, nor does it have anything to do with exposure. As far as we know, TNA spends less money than WCW, which is why it is easier for TNA to make profit. Regardless of size of a company, which one if easier? Making profit with a budget of $1,000,000 or $5,000,000? Obviously the first one. Example, Mom and Pop Video Rental stores are turning a profit, while Movie Gallery filed bankruptcy. Obviously Movie Gallery has more exposure and is more popular than a local video store. Yet they are bankrupt.

 

Popularity/Exposure does not equal Profit. That's just an incorrect statement that you made.

[Nedew]

Fail. Just because they turn a profit does not mean they are popular, nor does it have anything to do with exposure. As far as we know, TNA spends less money than WCW, which is why it is easier for TNA to make profit. Regardless of size of a company, which one if easier? Making profit with a budget of $1,000,000 or $5,000,000? Obviously the first one. Example, Mom and Pop Video Rental stores are turning a profit, while Movie Gallery filed bankruptcy. Obviously Movie Gallery has more exposure and is more popular than a local video store. Yet they are bankrupt.

 

Popularity/Exposure does not equal Profit. That's just an incorrect statement that you made.

 

It would be an incorrect statement if that's the statement he made. But it wasn't.

 

He was purely talking about finances there, and saying profitable and unprofitable is as big a difference as popular and unpopular.

 

In your words, fail.

[HughBatey4]

It would be an incorrect statement if that's the statement he made. But it wasn't.

 

He was purely talking about finances there, and saying profitable and unprofitable is as big a difference as popular and unpopular.

 

In your words, fail.

 

Disagree. It might be a big difference when it comes to the business world. However, in wrestling, companies aren't remembered for their amazing business skills. Companies are remembered for great storylines, innovations, and impact on the entire industry.

 

Care to compare TNA with ECW?

 

ECW popularized hardcore in America, introduced lucha/cruiser/X-division style wrestling to America, introduced crash TV to the world of wrestling, and completely changed the way the indy scene is viewed.

 

TNA has done....nothing. They have innovated one match type (Ultimate X), and that is it. TNA will be a footnote in history, mostly due to Hogan's involvement. I can describe to you the contribution of TNA to the world of wrestling in one sentence. Quote me.

 

"TNA was a glorified indy promotion that signed a bunch of washed up and/or drug addicted wrestlers, along with some talented cruiserweights, and got a TV slot on Spike TV before signing Hulk Hogan, who promptly ran the company into the ground."

 

The End...

 

And Vince McMahon lived happily ever after, being the victor of 3 wrestling wars in his lifetime.

[HughBatey4]

It would be an incorrect statement if that's the statement he made. But it wasn't.

 

He was purely talking about finances there, and saying profitable and unprofitable is as big a difference as popular and unpopular.

 

In your words, fail.

 

If we are talking just paying bills, I can name off at least fifteen indies in my region that pay the talent, and all other bills. Are they above ECW then?