WWE vs. TNA discussion thread #5,127,281.

fusionfreak · May 23, 2011

First off, I don’t want to get into heated arguments but I do want feedback on an intelligent level. (That might be hard for us wrestling fans. LOL. Joking, just joking.)

Here’s my background. I was a child of the 80’s. I started watching wrestling about the time of Wrestlemania II or III. I loved it. I was in 3rd or 4th grade probably. My dad hated that I watched wrestling and always made sure to remind me that it was fake. It took me till I was about 10 to except it. Anyway, the last big match I remember watching was Hulk Hogan vs. The Ultimate Warrior. The Ultimate Warrior had become my favorite wrestler and Hogan had been demoted to 2nd. I didn’t really care who won, by now I had accepted it was fake but I understood the need for the company to have a new top dawg so I was pulling a little harder for Warrior. After that something happened. I was probably 11 or 12 and after that Wrestlemania I just didn’t like it as much. It seemed to be instant for me. The wrestling atmosphere seemed like it was made for kids. It wasn’t that it was fake it was that it seemed so cartoonish.

In the 90’s I was in high school. (It’s ok to make old fart jokes. I graduated in 95.) I hadn’t watched wrestling in years. I actually made fun of my friends that did watch it. Around 93 or 94 I noticed more people my age wearing WWF and WCW t-shirts. By 96 it was all over the place. Stone Cold, Rock and nWo shirts were everywhere. Soon after that were the Goldberg and DDP shirts. Folks my age would ask if I saw Goldberg beat Hogan for the title and I would reply that I don’t watch crap for kids. (Nothing against kids though.)

One day in late 2001 or early 2002 I was flipping through the channels and I couldn’t find anything on TV to watch. Finally it landed on WWF Raw I think. I see this guy named Chris Jericho as the undisputed champion. I wondered why the heck they were calling it undisputed. Then later I saw The Rock and later Stone Cold. The Undertaker as the American Bad Ass which was so much better than the dead man thing I remembered from the 80’s. I became an instant, reborn fan again. Wow, great characters and gimmicks but the show seemed geared to adults. I ordered the PPV to see Hogan vs. Rock and Stone Cold vs. Scott Hall. I wondered what happened to WCW and nWo so I found out that it was purchased by WWF. (I didn’t even really understand that there were 2 companies competing in the 90’s until then.) I understood the undisputed championship thing now. Well, I was a huge fan. Brock Lesnar debuted soon after and I though he was the best. I kept hoping for Goldberg to come back just so I could see what the hype was about. Eventually he did for a short period. Evolution was awesome too. Not as great as the nWo I had seen just in WWF though. Something was just awesome about putting The Rock in an ambulance and having Hogan smash it with a big rig.

I quit watching WWE in 2007. The same thing happened. It started to seem as if the show was being prepared for children. (I really wish I hadn’t missed the whole attitude era.) Every now and then I tune in but I can’t stomach it anymore. Getting the “F out” thing was bad as well. It made it seem like entertainment for kids instead of wrestling and dudes beating the crap out of each other. (Wrestling becomes boring when it becomes intellectual. If you want intellectual then sit in a college lecture.) Sometimes when people try for a certain result, the opposite is achieved. (Look at government for great examples.) WWF to WWE and it’s not wrestling, its entertainment…. Well, I’m not entertained anymore when I watch WWE wrestling. Out of a 2 hour show there’s only about 5 minutes that might be kind of okay to watch.

I have been watching a little TNA lately. TNA seems like it’s a little more for adults. Not as much as I’d like but at least they’re trying to get me. WWE seems G rated, while TNA seems PG. (TNA folks should refer to WWE as WWG.) I would prefer a PG 13 type thing but I’ll take PG over G any day.

I know folks say they don’t like TNA because the production isn’t as great as WWE. Well, I think WWE is too produced. The camera angles are too perfect, the matches are perfectly structured, every wrestler has a grand entrance and basically nothing seems cheap or like it’s barely held together. So much so that it’s starting to look fake. I got sick of wrestling in the 80’s because I could predict everything perfectly. I knew who would win and how. I could even predict angles and future feuds. When it gets to that point, why watch every week? I like TNA, not much better but a little better, because it’s not as predictable. It’s not as produced. Wrestling to me is part “ass kicking contest”, not almost 100% glamour. I don’t know how to explain it but I don’t get a good “bad ass” feel from WWE anymore. TNA, maybe a little. The best way I could put it is this, imagine if the role of John McClain in the movie Die Hard played by Bruce Willis. Imagine if Robin Williams or Danny Devito had played John McClain. What if McClain used a can of mace instead of a gun? Instead of throwing the bad guy out of the window, he put him on a cart, got on an elevator with him and then rolled him out side to show him to the police. What if he said “yipi kai yeah momma fruiter” instead. Suddenly the movie would have seemed quite week and not tuff. How about Woddy Allen as Martin Riggs in Lethal Weapon? I like wrestling when if feels TUFF and spontaneous, not over produced and glamorous.

I’ll wrap it up by saying this; I feel like there is not a good choice in wrestling to watch. There is a bad choice and then one that is not nearly as bad. I never though I’d say it but I like TNA better than WWE.

I guess it’s my fault for missing the whole attitude era with WWF and WCW. I’m pretty sure I’d liked WCW much better but I’d probably have watched both. I wish someone would put out a massive DVD set called “Raw, Nitro, Smackdown and Thunder 1990 through 2005” so I could see the great matches, feuds and the whole attitude era that I missed out on. I only missed out on it because I thought wrestling was still being made for kids. Will the attitude era or something very similar ever come again?? Wake me if it does so I don’t miss it because as of now I’m barely watching TNA and I’m not watching WWE at all.

What do think?

BHK1978 · May 23, 2011

Well there is always ROH or some of the other various indy promotions out there. Their production will suck but the wrestling is usually pretty good. I agree with you, I am a year younger than you and I have pretty much lost all interest in the WWF. Not because I feel it is focused more towards kids, I just do not care about the wrestler's there. And the one I do like will never get a push because they are not typically the wrestlers that Vince and company like to push.

I do watch TNA every week but even that is not something that I am really into. If there was something better on television on a Thursday night I would be watching that in a heartbeat over TNA.

I was never a fan of the Attitude Era, as I always felt it was Vince's way of copying ECW. The DX skits really annoyed me, here was a group of wrestlers that I have never liked and they were always on the television doing stupid skits. I always felt that DX was a ripoff of the NWO and the one skit that really bothered me was the tank skit. We all know if WCW would have tired that same thing, the WWF would have reacted to it in the same way. Heck, the WWF did not even acknowledge other promotions until he won the war.

Well I seemed to have gone off topic a bit here, but yeah I think I do like TNA a little bit better than WWF. However, that is not saying much for either company.

Hive · May 23, 2011

I follow both WWE and TNA online, reading results every week. But I rarely bother to watch any of their shows, as they both suck on so many levels in my eyes. Too many silly and pointless angles and too few matches... and the few matches they do have are really anything special and often have endings/winners that annoy me.

Fantabulous · May 23, 2011

The Attitude Era is much like any era in wrestling, or any form of entertainment; it had its time, it worked for its time, but it's not that time any more and it won't work now.

Once such an era has passed, it's an exercise in futility to try and recreate it because it took a specific set of circumstances to spark the era to begin with, the biggest of which is the culture of that time and that's something you cannot recreate in wrestling. That is something that happens outside of wrestling and has nothing to do with wrestling, and to simply recreate something that worked in one era and assume it 'might' work again now is to miss that very important point. An example of this would be, say, Bob Backlund. He was a great babyface in the 70s but as the 80s rolled around the people rejected him and called him a geek, etc, because culture had changed and what made a great babyface the people would accept had changed. Clean-cut babyfaces who got cheered into the main event for being the hero were now the geek who got laughed into the opening match.

When an 'era' of wrestling ends, the hot period is over, you're left with wrestling at its most basic; characters interacting in angles or interviews and they end up having a wrestling match to settle things. Unless you liked wrestling before it got hot, or like it when it isn't, you're not sticking around because it wasn't wrestling on its own that hooked you. It was wrestling being hot that hooked you. It was that something special, that intangible, that pulled you in, and without it, you're gone. Time and circumstance mean it isn't coming back.

BHK1978 · May 23, 2011

The Attitude Era is much like any era in wrestling, or any form of entertainment; it had its time, it worked for its time, but it's not that time any more and it won't work now.

Once such an era has passed, it's an exercise in futility to try and recreate it because it took a specific set of circumstances to spark the era to begin with, the biggest of which is the culture of that time and that's something you cannot recreate in wrestling. That is something that happens outside of wrestling and has nothing to do with wrestling, and to simply recreate something that worked in one era and assume it 'might' work again now is to miss that very important point. An example of this would be, say, Bob Backlund. He was a great babyface in the 70s but as the 80s rolled around the people rejected him and called him a geek, etc, because culture had changed and what made a great babyface the people would accept had changed. Clean-cut babyfaces who got cheered into the main event for being the hero were now the geek who got laughed into the opening match.

When an 'era' of wrestling ends, the hot period is over, you're left with wrestling at its most basic; characters interacting in angles or interviews and they end up having a wrestling match to settle things. Unless you liked wrestling before it got hot, or like it when it isn't, you're not sticking around because it wasn't wrestling on its own that hooked you. It was wrestling being hot that hooked you. It was that something special, that intangible, that pulled you in, and without it, you're gone. Time and circumstance mean it isn't coming back.

I agree with what you say at the top. However, I am not sure I agree with you on being a fan just because I was hooked when it was hot. Much like fusionfreak I started watching wrestling right after Wrestlemania II. This was a hot period and when it passed in the early 1990's I stuck around. Through that crappy period that was the early 1990's.

Then the next boom came a long and I was still a fan. I watched it every week and was very much into it. However, when Vince bought WCW I became less of a fan. Not so much because it was no longer hot, it had more to do with me not liking what they had to offer.

So me no enjoying wrestling due to it not being the same when I was hooked just dose not work for me. As I said I still watch TNA on a weekly basis, I keep up with the WWF, and I go to various indy shows (ROH and Dragon's Gate). To me it is more that wrestling has lost its luster with me.

Nathers7 · May 23, 2011

It's a strange one to be honest. Both companies are failing miserably and are dragging the industry down imo. I think WWE don't bother that much anymore, I mean in the late 90s, I was constantly switching channels between Raw and Nitro because it was just so good. WWF and WCW were in direct competition with each other and couldn't afford to put on 1 bad show or they would lose viewers the very next week.

Now, WWE know they're the top company and know that people will keep watching because honestly there's nothing better on TV in terms of wrestling. WWE needs to evolve and take risks if they want to please their adult audience, I mean look at their champions right now. UberOrton and SuperCena, Orton title reigns - 8, John Cena title reigns - 10. It's just so predictable and painfully boring to watch. In the 80s you could book like that but not anymore imo, it just doesn't work. Cena gets a 50/50 reaction from the crowd and Orton is also starting to get a mixed reaction.

Over the Limit is a perfect example of poor WWE booking, Cena gets beatdown by The Miz and Alex Riley for 20 minutes and then no sells all the punishment he's taken by beating them back and then getting Miz to say "I Quit" after only 6 seconds in a STFU. Way to make your Main heel look credible WWE, good job

Kids are only going to care about 2 guys on the whole roster (Why cheer for a different face when Orton or Cena can beat anyone and have no vulnerability) and they're WWE's main fanbase now. So for the next 6 years we're going to see Orton and Cena remain in the title scene. And yet I still keep watching with the hope that WWE won't stay lke this but sadly it probably will.

This leads me to TNA, at the end of 2009 they were being booked superbly and I couldn't stop watching, they were gaining viewers. Then what do they go and do? Bring in Bischoff and Hogan Great move there, within a year I had stopped watching TNA, Samoa Joe and Pope, 2 guys who could've been huge if pushed properly but they were put in awful feuds that just didn't matter. TNA's angles were painful to watch, I tuned in to an Impact show a few months ago and saw the Angle/Jarrett storyline over Karen is it? God, that was crap. TNA have a better roster than WWE do and if they started booking well, move out of the Impact Zone, they could start to look like a top class company.

lazorbeak · May 23, 2011

It comes down to: watch what you like, don't watch what you don't like. There's plenty of different aspects to wrestling, years of matches available, and believe it or not, more than two promotions. And at the same time, try not to be a jerk when other people don't have the same taste as you (the way you apparently did in the 90's while blowing off one of the best periods in the industry).

And most 90's wrestling you missed is available on sites like dailymotion and youtube, for free, so it's not like you have to go out and buy some big expensive set.

ampulator · May 23, 2011

It's a strange one to be honest. Both companies are failing miserably and are dragging the industry down imo. I think WWE don't bother that much anymore, I mean in the late 90s, I was constantly switching channels between Raw and Nitro because it was just so good. WWF and WCW were in direct competition with each other and couldn't afford to put on 1 bad show or they would lose viewers the very next week.

Now, WWE know they're the top company and know that people will keep watching because honestly there's nothing better on TV in terms of wrestling. WWE needs to evolve and take risks if they want to please their adult audience, I mean look at their champions right now. UberOrton and SuperCena, Orton title reigns - 8, John Cena title reigns - 10. It's just so predictable and painfully boring to watch. In the 80s you could book like that but not anymore imo, it just doesn't work. Cena gets a 50/50 reaction from the crowd and Orton is also starting to get a mixed reaction.

Over the Limit is a perfect example of poor WWE booking, Cena gets beatdown by The Miz and Alex Riley for 20 minutes and then no sells all the punishment he's taken by beating them back and then getting Miz to say "I Quit" after only 6 seconds in a STFU. Way to make your Main heel look credible WWE, good job

Kids are only going to care about 2 guys on the whole roster (Why cheer for a different face when Orton or Cena can beat anyone and have no vulnerability) and they're WWE's main fanbase now. So for the next 6 years we're going to see Orton and Cena remain in the title scene. And yet I still keep watching with the hope that WWE won't stay lke this but sadly it probably will.

This leads me to TNA, at the end of 2009 they were being booked superbly and I couldn't stop watching, they were gaining viewers. Then what do they go and do? Bring in Bischoff and Hogan Great move there, within a year I had stopped watching TNA, Samoa Joe and Pope, 2 guys who could've been huge if pushed properly but they were put in awful feuds that just didn't matter. TNA's angles were painful to watch, I tuned in to an Impact show a few months ago and saw the Angle/Jarrett storyline over Karen is it? God, that was crap. TNA have a better roster than WWE do and if they started booking well, move out of the Impact Zone, they could start to look like a top class company.

Well, you pretty much said what I wanted to say. I've given up a lot more on TNA, though. They have all the talent, but much of it is misbooked, mismanaged, or misused. No one really knows what's going on, there's ton of miscommunication, and general gaga all around.

Fantabulous · May 23, 2011

I stopped watching TNA seriously in the second half of 2006, when they stopped doing everything that made them a quality alternative TNA and became WWE-lite, with stupid angles and storylines, overbooked matches with stips upon stips and a slow degradation into some of the most putridly horrific booking ever seen.

And it's impossible to care about the fate of TNA because they've not only shown they cannot learn but that they outright do not want to learn.

ampulator · May 23, 2011

I stopped watching TNA seriously in the second half of 2006, when they stopped doing everything that made them a quality alternative TNA and became WWE-lite, with stupid angles and storylines, overbooked matches with stips upon stips and a slow degradation into some of the most putridly horrific booking ever seen.

And it's impossible to care about the fate of TNA because they've not only shown they cannot learn but that they outright do not want to learn.

I have to say this... with TNA, it's always 9 steps forward, 8 step backwards. For big leap they do, they have almost nearly as big fall each time.

I knew TNA's management situation isn't going to improve. The problem goes all the way to the top.

Rone Rivendale · May 23, 2011

I've been watching wrestling since I was 5. I am 31 now. I enjoyed the cartoonish WWF. I enjoyed the old NWA/WCW before they went NWO. I enjoyed WWF when the Attitude era came about. I enjoyed the WCW when NWO hit and they passed the WWF in the ratings war. I even enjoyed WCW near the end when they went out of business. I loved ECW. I enjoyed TNA during their weekly PPVs. I enjoy WWE's PG era now. I enjoy TNA's new wrestling first approach. You can see where I am going with this.

I don't care about what era it is. I just love wrestling. I watch WWE, TNA, ROH, CHIKARA, Osaka Pro, DDT, and SHIMMER. And I even watch some backyard feds on YT like ABW, VTWF, and CWR. And of course I run and wrestle in POBYW.

If you follow me on Twitter, I can get very opinionated about stuff I think is dumb that WWE or TNA do. But overall, I just love it all. And I get pissy when I see other people talking crap about it even though they still watch it every single week.

I really hope TNA gets higher ratings soon. Wrestling NEEDS 2 National wrestling companies. It's good for everyone. But even if TNA ends up belly up, someone like a ROH or a CHIKARA will just take their place.

Not sure I am adding anything to the discussion, but there is my 2 cents.

ampulator · May 23, 2011

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Rone Rivendale" data-cite="Rone Rivendale" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="31291" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I've been watching wrestling since I was 5. I am 31 now. I enjoyed the cartoonish WWF. I enjoyed the old NWA/WCW before they went NWO. I enjoyed WWF when the Attitude era came about. I enjoyed the WCW when NWO hit and they passed the WWF in the ratings war. I even enjoyed WCW near the end when they went out of business. I loved ECW. I enjoyed TNA during their weekly PPVs. I enjoy WWE's PG era now. I enjoy TNA's new wrestling first approach. You can see where I am going with this. I don't care about what era it is. I just love wrestling. I watch WWE, TNA, ROH, CHIKARA, Osaka Pro, DDT, and SHIMMER. And I even watch some backyard feds on YT like ABW, VTWF, and CWR. And of course I run and wrestle in POBYW. If you follow me on Twitter, I can get very opinionated about stuff I think is dumb that WWE or TNA do. But overall, I just love it all. And I get pissy when I see other people talking crap about it even though they still watch it every single week. I really hope TNA gets higher ratings soon. Wrestling NEEDS 2 National wrestling companies. It's good for everyone. But even if TNA ends up belly up, someone like a ROH or a CHIKARA will just take their place. Not sure I am adding anything to the discussion, but there is my 2 cents.</div></blockquote> Except I don't watch TNA. I just read the results. I can pretty much gauge how bad or good TNA's shows are overall. TNA's management is a mess. That's very difficult to argue against. The WWE? It's on and off. I know what they want to do, but I mostly disagree with their vision, and related but separately, completely disagree on how they go about what they want to do. What the WWE does these days, is they make a plan, and then apply work to said plan. But if the plan fails, they blame the worker, not the planning or the plan. They give up on the worker, but keep the plan. They try again with another worker, but the plan fails again. This worker is blamed too. At what point, does WWE admit their plan was bad? Or better yet, why do they to find a worker that fits their plans, rather than find plans that fit their workers? I know fitting workers around plans is "ideal"-I don't disput that. But instead of looking at what the "ideal" way is to do things, you do things the practical way. And I'm not sure WWE cares enough about that.

BloodyKnuckles · May 24, 2011

I don't watch wrestling anymore, I'm kind of waiting it out until I turn it back on and it interests me. I've followed along with whats happening through the internet in the WWE and it seems like a World Title changes hands every other card (Hulk Hogan is a 12-Time World Champion, Cena is already a 10-Time World Champ!).

I never cared for TNA after they moved away from the X-Division and became the Kurt Angle show, but my biggest peeve with wrestling is when World Titles start to mean nothing. Then it becomes a matter of what are they fighting for? I can handle the PG stuff, but since I stopped watching a couple years ago the WWE and World Heavyweight titles have changed so much to the point where I honestly can't tell you who holds them. (I think Cena and Christian?)

lazorbeak · May 24, 2011

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Rone Rivendale" data-cite="Rone Rivendale" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="31291" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>And I get pissy when I see other people talking crap about it even though they still watch it every single week. </div></blockquote> <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="ampulator" data-cite="ampulator" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="31291" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Except I don't watch TNA.</div></blockquote> Then he wasn't talking about you specifically or in general. <img alt=":confused:" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/confused.png.d4a8e6b6eab0c67698b911fb041c0ed1.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" />

ampulator · May 24, 2011

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="lazorbeak" data-cite="lazorbeak" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="31291" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Then he wasn't talking about you specifically or in general. <img alt=":confused:" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/confused.png.d4a8e6b6eab0c67698b911fb041c0ed1.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></div></blockquote> Yes, that's correct. But I understand why those people complain-they see the potential, but it always fail to do so.

Rone Rivendale · May 24, 2011

It's sort of like following your favorite team. You love them when they win, you love them when they lose. You always want them to get better, but you understand they can't always be the best. <img alt="

" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" />

ampulator · May 24, 2011

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Rone Rivendale" data-cite="Rone Rivendale" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="31291" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>It's sort of like following your favorite team. You love them when they win, you love them when they lose. You always want them to get better, but you understand they can't always be the best. <img alt=":D" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></div></blockquote> The problem isn't they can't be always be the best. That's not the issue at all. It's one thing to have an off-night... it's another thing to continually disappoint. The thing is, TNA never lives up to its promises. It promises one thing, and it almost always fails to deliver. They promise to do better next time, that the next time it's going to be different... and the cycle repeats itself. TNA is that person you know that never gets their life in order, always makes promises it can never keep, and is the guy you everyone just wants to ignore because he's a constant screw-up. At this point, I'm done with TNA and until TNA shapes up. I have better things to do with my time then to see broken promises on repeated occasions. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Luckily for me, they only fooled me once, and that was it. No more TNA for me until they shape up. People see me criticize WWE more, but that's because I believe its errors can be corrected. The way that TNA is, I don't believe they can be. Not until the management is cleaned out. And like Jim Cornette, my life, my time, and my blood pressure is more valuable than caring about TNA.

fusionfreak · May 24, 2011

Wow, I didn't expect this much response. Thanks. All of you have said some great things and I want to respond with more questions and/or comments I have. I just got off work and I'm kind of tired.

I do have one questions but some background first.

Because of the 80's I still love guys like Hogan, Flair and Sting but I do agree that they don't do as much for TNA as management thinks. Sting still does but Hogan and Flair?? This is comming from a fan of both now.... I think Hogan and Flair are useful but maybe as managers, color comentators, authority figures and maybe the occasional match. I don't think they should get the huge paychecks for that either. Maybe a little more than the average manager/commentator etc... I think TNA has about as many big name active guys that WWE has. Let's see, Angle, Sting, Jarrett, Joe, Styles, Daniels, Abyss, Jeff Hardy, Matt Hardy, Mr. Anderson, RVD, Scott Steiner and that's just off the top of my head. Free agents that are big names and still credible like them or not, Goldberg, Batista and Lesnar but big names doesn't mean I'll watch.

Anyway, all that is said so I could throw this out. I think TNA should be focused on bringing in big crowds and not so much big names. Besides, they have plenty of big names for me and some that are just about useless in the ring even though I like them.

ampulator · May 24, 2011

I don't know about Sting, But Hogan's and Flair's times have clearly passed.... but the reason why they are continuing ISN'T for old glory.

Unlike Sting, they need the money. Bad. And TNA is willing to offer whatever amount they ask of. What would YOU do in that case? I would take the deal, and even I do diddly-squat, I'll just eat it, because I need the money, bad.

The problem isn't Hogan or Flair. The problem is Dixie Carter. She's not a bad woman by any means, but she clear has no knowledge of the wrestling promotion, or how to even run a wrestling promotion.

fusionfreak · May 24, 2011

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Fantabulous" data-cite="Fantabulous" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="31291" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>The Attitude Era is much like any era in wrestling, or any form of entertainment; it had its time, it worked for its time, but it's not that time any more and it won't work now. Once such an era has passed, it's an exercise in futility to try and recreate it because it took a specific set of circumstances to spark the era to begin with, the biggest of which is the culture of that time and that's something you cannot recreate in wrestling. That is something that happens outside of wrestling and has nothing to do with wrestling, and to simply recreate something that worked in one era and assume it 'might' work again now is to miss that very important point. An example of this would be, say, Bob Backlund. He was a great babyface in the 70s but as the 80s rolled around the people rejected him and called him a geek, etc, because culture had changed and what made a great babyface the people would accept had changed. Clean-cut babyfaces who got cheered into the main event for being the hero were now the geek who got laughed into the opening match. When an 'era' of wrestling ends, the hot period is over, you're left with wrestling at its most basic; characters interacting in angles or interviews and they end up having a wrestling match to settle things. Unless you liked wrestling before it got hot, or like it when it isn't, you're not sticking around because it wasn't wrestling on its own that hooked you. It was wrestling being hot that hooked you. It was that something special, that intangible, that pulled you in, and without it, you're gone. Time and circumstance mean it isn't coming back.</div></blockquote> I agree with much of what you've said. I wouldn't want to see the additude era but something that is bad ass. An action movie still has to kick ass to sale tickets. Who would want to see Terminator 23 "The Love and Hug Machine", This time the Terminator will be played by Rick Moranus. Change the name. Maybe the "kick ass era". How about the "barebones era". I agree that an era can't just be created and expected to sale and it has to reflect to an extent current society. It still needs to be great though. Here's a question for everyone. What era is wrestling in now? Honestly I have no idea since about 2007 and that's probably way too generous. The additude era ended much earlier than that. Or at least started fading. I would say maybe the "confusion era". It's seems like nobody really knows what to do. Or the "timid era". No one wants to take a chance on anything new at all. Here's another question. Vince McMahon said recently at a stock holder meeting that it's hard to create new things because everything has been done already. Or something to that effect. How many of you think that everything that can be done in wrestling has already been done before? What percentage would you all be willing to guess has been done?

ampulator · May 24, 2011

It isn't in ANY era. The Wrestling is transition, decline, or both, since the end of the WCW.

BHK1978 · May 24, 2011

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="fusionfreak" data-cite="fusionfreak" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="31291" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I agree with much of what you've said. I wouldn't want to see the additude era but something that is bad ass. An action movie still has to kick ass to sale tickets. Who would want to see Terminator 23 "The Love and Hug Machine", This time the Terminator will be played by Rick Moranus. Change the name. Maybe the "kick ass era". How about the "barebones era". I agree that an era can't just be created and expected to sale and it has to reflect to an extent current society. It still needs to be great though. Here's a question for everyone. What era is wrestling in now? Honestly I have no idea since about 2007 and that's probably way too generous. The additude era ended much earlier than that. Or at least started fading. I would say maybe the "confusion era". It's seems like nobody really knows what to do. Or the "timid era". No one wants to take a chance on anything new at all. Here's another question. Vince McMahon said recently at a stock holder meeting that it's hard to create new things because everything has been done already. Or something to that effect. How many of you think that everything that can be done in wrestling has already been done before? What percentage would you all be willing to guess has been done?</div></blockquote> No joke I would consider this the Cena Era. He is the biggest star in the biggest company so I think if anything this is his era. Almost everything has been done in wrestling. However, they can take old ideas and tweak them to make them look new. ECW was ground breaking for their hardcore matches but hardcore matches were around long before ECW opened its doors. Now I will make it clear what I consider hardcore to be. Basically, any match with copious amounts of blood and or weapons being used, is what I consider to be hardcore. Take a look at the Greg Valentine/Roddy Piper Dog Collar match from the first Starrcade or the Tully Blanchard/Magnum T.A. I Quit match and tell me they were not hardcore. The NWO was just a newer spin on the various stables that have been in promotions for years. There might be something truly new that will come around but for the most part I think everything has been done before.

ampulator · May 24, 2011

As they say in comedy, "Everything has been done. The question, is it being done better?"

Hardcore matches have always existed... but ECW just upped the ante on them. Along with Hardcore Wrestling, ECW was also a Cult wrestling company. ECW specifically caterred to Cult fans. This where all other knockoffs failed... they could not control the tensions between Hardcore vs. Cult fans.

As for the NWO, the key difference was an ESTABLISHED face turning heel. There has been faces turning into heels in the past, but no one like Hogan had it done it before. He had a been a face so long, people didn't even think of him as heel. But a good heel he was.

BHK1978 · May 24, 2011

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="ampulator" data-cite="ampulator" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="31291" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>As for the NWO, the key difference was an ESTABLISHED face turning heel. There has been faces turning into heels in the past, but no one like Hogan had it done it before. He had a been a face so long, people didn't even think of him as heel. But a good heel he was.</div></blockquote> Andre? He was a huge attraction back in the 1970's and 1980's. Granted he was not as big as Hogan but he did not have the exposure and hype machine that Hogan had either. However, when he turned on Hulk it was a huge deal and it led to the match that headlined the best Wrestlemania (At least in my opinion.) of all time.

djthefunkchris · May 24, 2011

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="BHK1978" data-cite="BHK1978" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="31291" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Andre? He was a huge attraction back in the 1970's and 1980's. Granted he was not as big as Hogan but he did not have the exposure and hype machine that Hogan had either. However, when he turned on Hulk it was a huge deal and it led to the match that headlined the best Wrestlemania (At least in my opinion.) of all time.</div></blockquote> The only person to have come close to being as big of a "Wrestling" star as Hogan is The Rock and Steve Austin. I really can't imagine anyone being as huge as Hulk was for a time, so I wouldn't make that comparison.. That and Hogan was a Heel a few times when he was "That Guy" that everyone wanted to win, but they kept making him lose. People forget that Hulk was popular long before his debut in WWF, and he was the people's champ, the guy that people complained wasn't getting a proper push. WWF did him right, or at least as right as anyone could... They grabbed hold of him while he was hot, and cruised by his side. Without Hulk, there couldn't have been a Wrestlemania. On the OP's comments. I have gone through a similar path. I watched when I was young, turned it off when I KNEW FOR A FACT (caps for emphasis, not yelling), it was fake. Hey, I might have been around 10 or 12, I was a kid... Ok. My parents always told me it was fake as well, but I wanted to believe. Got back into it around the time Hulkamania went to WWF. I liked Piper, and always wanted to see Hulk in a different atmosphere. Long story short, I went into the military and kind of lost track of it.... bassically. I got back into it with a totally different aproach. Rey Mysterio (of all the people to admit to getting me into it) actually got me back into it. I used to play my son's games with him and used that guy all the time, so I wanted to see him on TV. On the subject of Push's.... I don't know anyone that watch's (and I watch it off and on with a group, around 12 at times, six normally), getting upset at WWE or TNA for not "Pushing" someone they like. They want to see their favorites wrestler, and their favorites aren't always main event... Looking back at everyone's first time getting into wrestling, I'm sure you can remember a time you didn't ask why he wasn't being pushed, you just wanted to see your favorite wrestler in the ring, and hoped he would win. That's what MOST people do. They aren't complaining about who is being pushed, etc. On the subject of PG vs PG13, or whatever... I don't know anyone that actually noticed the change. No one I know went "OMG, They aren't cussing anymore, this sucks!" They never talked about it, and it took me to point out their hasn't been any weird womens matchs, to prove there was actually a change. For me, they (the WWE) grew up. I know most people that post are under 30, so you probably won't agree.... Funny thing with age though, with it comes wisdom... well ussually. Wisdom is a different instrument then Intelligence mind you, so most will probably end up seeing what I'm saying as true as you age. To me the attitude era was nothing more then Wrestling "Porkys", and that's not a bad thing really, but it's a totally juvenile thing. It's for teenager's, and perhaps those that are older that still think like teenagers. It's fun the first time you see it, and you can re-watch it even today, and remember it fondly. The problem is, I have no plans to go and pay to see a "Porkys" at this time. "Porkys" was a movie (actually made more then one), that was a huge success, that was geared toward very young adults (and all us teenagers LOVED it at the time). So yeah, that's what I think of PG13... It's like when Luke come out with all those Nasty Booty songs. I couldn't believe what they said on their record, and I had to here it all, but I wouldn't want my parents to listen to it with me. PG13 just means flaunting the girls, using bad language, and trying to tell juvenile jokes. It can get a little more intense, but we know that's not how it's used... You CAN do intense without swearing. I know, seen it thousands of times at the movies. To me the PG gives me the chance to enjoy it with whatever company I want to enjoy it with, Parents, Uncle's, etc... As well as children. Far as TNA vs. WWE... No comparison. Wish there was. You can follow TNA religiously and not understand half the stuff they do, especially after it gets dropped the very next week. Half the time it looks like a free for all, and no one ever goes anywhere... they all stay exactly where they are. WWE can do this as well, but it's far and in between. Far as who they push, and who they don't (both TNA and WWE). It's not something that I or you can change, unless your willing to drop enough clout on merchandise that it actually makes a difference (few hundred grand would probably do something). Doesn't matter who you think they should push, or who I do. We are too much into what and why these companies do what they do, rather then just enjoying what they do. I wouldn't be able to watch a Movie if everytime someone in a coffee shop shows up, everyone goes... DAMN MAN! That Guy has ton's of potential, he should BE the star, and they should have Vin Diesel as the guy in the coffee shop... He's too old, he needs to lose to some of these GREAT NEW guys. I can't believe they don't give that guy with the awesome accent a leading role! Hard work, dedication, and consistancy will always pay off in the long run.. Unless your being held back on purpose (out of your control). Yeah, he might be great, he might kick butt, he might be the best dang wrestler in the world on the right night, with the right crowd, etc... But doesn't mean squat if I can't depend on them, can't build around them, can't get them to perform at least half that good most of the time. It's like that person at work that doesn't understand why they haven't been wrote off as learning it yet.... It's because they haven't shown that they have learned it yet in most cases.

Sign In

WWE vs. TNA discussion thread #5,127,281.

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Archived