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

[ampulator]

<p>I wouldn't say the WWE grew up. They went corporate. And while that isn't a bad as people think it is, the way that WWE is going about it, it's sort of stupid. </p><p> </p><p>

I know why they book Cena the way they do-they want to protect his value. I can understand that. But they are having this crazy "protect him at against all costs" mentality. Even when the booked Hogan, in his main matches, he was always booked with some vulnerability so that the matches would keep viewer interest. People like to think that Hogan's matches were 20-minute domniation matches, but that's not the case. If he's wrestling against someone that's clearly not his level, (and I mean clearly) he wins dominantly, but in short matches. </p><p> </p><p>

When it came to main matches, against someone, who might not be quite his level, but isn't THAT far off, he's never did these 20-minute Domination matches that Cena does. </p><p> </p><p>

With Cena, the WWE never makes him vulernable. Ever. He's superman. They put him in these long and boring 20-minute domination matches where there is absolutely no doubt he's going to win. It doesn't matter who. It doesn't matter. Same booking no which opponenet, whichever pay-per-view. </p><p> </p><p>

And therein lies the problem with the WWE. They are so scared to show ANY weakness, for fear of Cena losing his merchandise sales, that they protect him at all costs. They fear builiding a star that may get more popular than Cena does, but doesn't quite as much merchandise. </p><p> </p><p>

The problem is, WWE is too merchandise-driven these days. But Live attendance is dropping, Pay-per-view buys are declining, and TV ratings aren't getting worse but aren't certainly getting better,. </p><p> </p><p>

Look, I understand why they do it, but it's come to the point where, if they things for the sake of merchandise, but not actual product itself, something has gone very wrong. They always seem to forget who their core audience is. And they are driving their own core audience away.</p>

[Spud1305]

<p>I have watched WWE on and off from around Wrestlemaina II. I used to watch TNA when they started with the weekly PPV's and became interested. I was glad when they got a TV show and was hoping that they would go from strength to strength. I liked the six sided ring because it was something different. The "old" TNA was much better because they focused on something different from the WWE and that was the X-Division. Styles and Daniels had some fantastic matches and when Joe joined, things got really interesting. The X-Division was pretty much the focus and was treated like a Main Event belt. TNA was building it's own stars, then they started bringing in everyone who left WWE. Steiner, Jeff Hardy, Booker T, Kurt Angle, Christian etc and you could pretty much guarantee that whoever WWE fired/allowed to leave would end up in TNA and would instantly be fighting for the TNA World Title, and would win it in their first attempt. The booking became shoddy at best and a lot of it was just constant interference and ref bumps. Jarret's matches became so predictable always some sort of schmozz finish. </p><p>

Since Hogan and Bischoff have joined things have just gone right down hill, the guys that could have been the focus of the promotion are being slowly pushed down and former WWE workers are being pushed as the top in TNA.</p><p>

Hogan was a big name and still is but his name does not carry the same weight as it once did. I hope that one day that TNA sorts itself out and maybe can rival WWE because it could only be a good thing as both promotions would have to up their game. I don't see that happening whilst Hogan and Bischoff try and recreate WCW ver 2.0.</p>

[crayon]

<p>Funny thing about all of this is that I most likely wouldn't have even got into the whole booking promotion game "thing" if it wasn't for me becoming disillusioned with what I was seeing going on with WWE (or was it WWF then?) around that time.</p><p> </p><p>

It was only when stuff that me and my friends perceived to be questionable booking started to become more noticable to us that we started going "How would things turn out if they had have gone in this direction instead? Oh hey, you can totally do that in this simulation I heard about."</p><p> </p><p>

If I still enjoyed watching wrestling like I used to I probably wouldn't bother playing TEW as much.</p>

[ampulator]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="crayon" data-cite="crayon" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="31291" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Funny thing about all of this is that I most likely wouldn't have even got into the whole booking promotion game "thing" if it wasn't for me becoming disillusioned with what I was seeing going on with WWE (or was it WWF then?) around that time.<p> </p><p> It was only when stuff that me and my friends perceived to be questionable booking started to become more noticable to us that we started going "How would things turn out if they had have gone in this direction instead? Oh hey, you can totally do that in this simulation I heard about."</p><p> </p><p> If I still enjoyed watching wrestling like I used to I probably wouldn't bother playing TEW as much.</p></div></blockquote><p> Ha. That's interesting to know. What got me into TEW, or really, EW, was an interest in what was happening in wrestling at the time. My reasons for playing TEW are different now, but what got me started was my interest, not my lack of, in what was happenining in wrestling.</p>

[BurningHamster]

<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><p> 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.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> What do think?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> You make some good points about the production side of things, personally production isn't a big deal to me ... I am about wrestling and characters, production can only help put over someone's talent or character but cannot really make a bad wrestler good etc. Also I hate this idea that everyone in WWE is a SUPERSTAR or DIVA. To me a superstar is an overpaid actor or sportsperson. I don't follow major sports much and I don't watch big budget movies much either. I like my entertainment a little rougher, but with heart, balls and passion .... the kind of things that big money has a habit of diluting. WWE can get it right every so often, but mostly it just comes off slick but meaningless.</p><p> </p><p> That said, While current day WWE doesn't do much for me, I'll at least check out their big events or if I hear something interesting is going on I will take a look. Jesus could come back, sign a deal with TNA and immediately be booked into an exploding cage match against a cyborg Elvis and I would still think twice about watching since .... it's TNA. I just can't get into it. I know they have a lot of talented people there but I just can't watch it because they find a way of making anything suck. It's not the production so much as the lack of logic and just how goofy everything is. Every six months or so I will go back and take a look and be like "yep, still sucks". Nothing they do interests me whereas at least WWE are smart enough to throw you a bone every so often then go back to boring the crud out of you with predictable, overly staged, scripted to hell word for word uncreative drivel.</p><p> </p><p> Sadly, ROH hasn't been up to scratch lately either as they desperately need someone who isn't Davey Richards or Roderick Strong to take to the ball and run with it.</p><p> </p><p> Thank god we live in an age where it's pretty easy to get your hands on old wrestling though.</p>

[ampulator]

I think production values are important, but they aren't the end-all. My only requirement is to be able to clearly see what's going on inside the ring. In other words, good filiming quality, good lighting, and decent sound from the filming, and I'm happy.

[juggaloninjalee]

TNA needs to build to a yearly show... Bound for Glory?

 

If they could do that and try to make their top match for the World Title the most anticipated match up of the year. Plan the show as their Wrestlemania!

 

So take for instance Sting as champ. He gets into some feuds with big menacing guys up until then. Meanwhile say Rob Van Dam goes on a mission to earn his respect back and get his belt back. They build him up over the months and even team him with Sting a few times. Finally after 4 months of Sting and RVD beating a lot of guys they finally match up in a major match for the top belt! (TNA tries to do this in 3 weeks. Then they throw it all out and start over.)

 

Now work on this with other matches on the card too. It creates a buzz to see matches when built up.

[ampulator]

And this all back to the real problem: TNA needs to get its house in order. And it's management clearly can't do that.

[fusionfreak]

Thank you all for your replies. You've all given me much to think about.

 

I still can't get behind the idea that just because a wrestling company goes from pg13 to g that somehow they are on the moral high ground and now have inlightned wisdom that no other company has. I'll say this, I don't tune into wrestling for wisdom or anything intellectual. Is there anyone here who actually does that??? I have other things I look to for wisdom. Most of it is not on TV anyway. I agree with Vince McMahon that wrestling should be entertaining, the problem is that I don't find WWE entertaining at all and TNA is only a little bit entertaining. I enjoy about 7% to 9% of RAW and about 12% to 15% of TNA. Also, I don't see how anyone could not notice the change from pg13 to pg and now to g. I noticed it before it was talked about. WWE is claiming to be pg but it's actually just g now.

[Self]

Going PG or G isn't about wisdom or the moral high ground. It's about money. Companies like Mattel are prepared to make WWE big bucks, but will only do so if WWE keep a clean-cut image. WWE soften things up. They make millions. Easy decision. It'll cost a few fans, but those toys are big business.

 

I don't watch WWE. Or TNA. Haven't for a while. TNA stopped pushing the X-Division, and WWE is essentially the exact same show format as a decade ago. I found I was only enjoying a fraction of their shows, and decided that crossing my fingers every week was foolish. There are plenty of promotions putting on a product more my cup of tea, who deserve my attention and my money. CHIKARA. PWG. IPW:UK. Dragon Gate. I like them, so I reward them. I don't like WWE or TNA, so I ignore them. If all these people who bitch about WWE sucking would just turn it off, maybe WWE buyrates and ratings would go so low that they would pay attention and instigate some changes.

[ThriceP86]

I like all arguments here and like to get a different perspective on wrestling with other REAL fans of wrestling. Talking to co-workers about how awesome Rock and Austin were back in the Attitude Era just doesn't cut it.

 

Anyways, I have seen some dragon gate and used to watch ROH almost religiously especially when guys like Punk were around. (His feud with Raven was amazing!)

 

When TNA first started I did enjoy it and thought the X Division would put them on the map. (Samoa Joe vs. Styles vs. Daniels for the X title a while back was AMAZING!) Don't get me wrong but their main event scene was not all that great back then but it gave some of those guys experience, and now some sort of push (ala R-Truth). I catch TNA every once in a while now. Really glad that went back to the four-sided ring and now there whole deal with "Wrestling matters here." I can tell that there are a number of guys who put there all in their matches and feuds so I enjoy guys like Mr. Anderson, Kurt Angle, Sting, RVD, AJ Styles, Samoa Joe, The Pope. I like rooting for the underdogs so hoping they get some other guys in the main event scene that haven't even scratched it yet.

 

With WWE, I was a huge fan of the company around when they had the Monday Night Wars. Don't get me wrong, I did like WCW back then back only for the cruiserweight division and maybe a handful of other guys like DDP, Benoit, Rey, and Eddie. However, I noticed more careful strategy when WWE booked their feuds and all that kind of stuff back then. I don't know how else to explain it. Plus, one of the biggest things that got me hooked was the storyline where Trips "married" Steph and the beginning of the McMahon-Helmsley regime after that Armageddon match with Vince. When I first saw the whole story play out, I was disgusted with Triple H (before I really knew a lot about wrestling) and then looking back now I think it was a pivotal storyline for that time. Now, I'm not so much a fan of the company but maybe just a handful of guys I like to root for like Punk, Sheamus, Christian, Cody Rhodes, and Daniel Bryan. (How awesome would it be if they let Bryan and Punk have a feud!? Just a dream ever since watching those guys in ROH)

 

I know I've only talked about the good things each company has to offer but I guess what I'm trying to say is that I do find myself more of a fan of WWE but that doesn't mean I'm not open to anything else. One of my high school buddies really got me into wrestling so he tends to get Dragon Gate and ROH shows and some other miscellaneous stuff that I'll watch with "the guys." (Plus, I bought a Japanese wrestling DVD when I took a study abroad trip over to Japan. Stupid me: it won't work because of the region code.)

 

I, along with my friends, have come to point where we watch it for whatever we like whether it be WWE, TNA, or whatever. Then again, when it comes down to it, WWE is the main company I watch but not necessarily always the favorite... if that makes any sense.

[Rone Rivendale]

<p>Just want to add something in reply to stuff being said in here.</p><p> </p><p>

I really REALLY dislike when people start calling TNA things like WWE Lite and WCW 2.0 because they hire people who had been in WWE or WCW in the past. I know I have made this point before in here in a different thread but I'll say it again.</p><p> </p><p>

If you were working at Wal-Mart (for this argument the WWE of Retail) and you were one of the best managers that chain ever had, but you got fired after working there for 15 years. What do you do now? If you look at it like some of you do with wrestling companies than if you went to Walgreens or CostCo or some other retail chain, you would just be rehashing your Wal-mart days. You would be a part of Wal-Mart 2.0. We can't have people with past experience doing the same line of work! <img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /> And we can't have people who were good at their jobs in a top position! <img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p>

Yeah, it's sarcastic. But you can see my point.</p>

[fusionfreak]

<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>Just want to add something in reply to stuff being said in here.<p> </p><p> I really REALLY dislike when people start calling TNA things like WWE Lite and WCW 2.0 because they hire people who had been in WWE or WCW in the past. I know I have made this point before in here in a different thread but I'll say it again.</p><p> </p><p> If you were working at Wal-Mart (for this argument the WWE of Retail) and you were one of the best managers that chain ever had, but you got fired after working there for 15 years. What do you do now? If you look at it like some of you do with wrestling companies than if you went to Walgreens or CostCo or some other retail chain, you would just be rehashing your Wal-mart days. You would be a part of Wal-Mart 2.0. We can't have people with past experience doing the same line of work! <img alt=":D" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /> And we can't have people who were good at their jobs in a top position! <img alt=":D" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> Yeah, it's sarcastic. But you can see my point.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> That's probably the best argument for hiring old WWF/WCW/ECW guys. I don't really have a problem with that and I hope I didn't come off that way, I just think some are a little old or rusty in the ring to make me want to watch unless they started a legends division or something. I know Goldberg and Batista aren't exactly considered super talents in the ring but they have name valued that could help. I think Hogan and Flair just don't add much. Maybe 10 years ago but no anymore. Not as wrestlers. Back to Batista and Goldberg, I love both. I don't judge a wrestler only because of in ring abilities. As long as they can make the match look realistic then I'm happy with the in ring abilities even if they are limited. Besides, I think strength is a talent. I don't think CM Punk could jackhammer or powerbomb The Big Show just as Goldberg or Batista probably couldn't do a super duper pluper sommer sault of the top of 5 steel cages, land on the target, bounce off the target 10 feet in the air, then backflip and hit 2 guys with a ddt. I guess I kind of like and at least appriciate all styles of wrestling. I do have a preference for powerhouse wrestling and technical wrestling though.</p>

[juggaloninjalee]

<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>Just want to add something in reply to stuff being said in here.<p> </p><p> I really REALLY dislike when people start calling TNA things like WWE Lite and WCW 2.0 because they hire people who had been in WWE or WCW in the past. I know I have made this point before in here in a different thread but I'll say it again.</p><p> </p><p> If you were working at Wal-Mart (for this argument the WWE of Retail) and you were one of the best managers that chain ever had, but you got fired after working there for 15 years. What do you do now? If you look at it like some of you do with wrestling companies than if you went to Walgreens or CostCo or some other retail chain, you would just be rehashing your Wal-mart days. You would be a part of Wal-Mart 2.0. We can't have people with past experience doing the same line of work! <img alt=":D" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /> And we can't have people who were good at their jobs in a top position! <img alt=":D" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> Yeah, it's sarcastic. But you can see my point.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I think its a dumb thing to call TNA in that situation because the WWF did in the 80s and 90s. WCW did it in the 90s. People didn't call the Minnesota Vikings Green Bay Packers lite when they got Favre. You hire the best people you can for the job. Who cares where they worked before!</p><p> </p><p> I still think TNA's biggest problem is their marketing, and how they book very short sighted.</p>

[lazorbeak]

<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 still can't get behind the idea that just because a wrestling company goes from pg13 to g that somehow they are on the moral high ground and now have inlightned wisdom that no other company has.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Fortunately, no one has said anything like this. But if "inlightned wisdom" is stuff like paying your employees when they get hurt taking bumps at your shows, or sending people who need help to get help, then yes, WWE has it, and TNA doesn't.</p><p> </p><p> </p><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'll say this, I don't tune into wrestling for wisdom or anything intellectual. Is there anyone here who actually does that??? I have other things I look to for wisdom. Most of it is not on TV anyway. I agree with Vince McMahon that wrestling should be entertaining, the problem is that I don't find WWE entertaining at all and TNA is only a little bit entertaining. I enjoy about 7% to 9% of RAW and about 12% to 15% of TNA. Also, I don't see how anyone could not notice the change from pg13 to pg and now to g. I noticed it before it was talked about. WWE is claiming to be pg but it's actually just g now.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Where are you getting this stuff about "wisdom" and "intellectual"-ism? Did I miss WWE's last PPV that featured poetry readings, alternative dispute resolutions, and a literary analysis of the early works of James Joyce? Pretty sure feuds are still built around guys fake fighting each other, the same way they were 10, 20, 30, or 70 years ago.</p><p> </p><p> Again, if you don't like variety shows not aimed at your demographic, and are not caught up in the fundamental aspect of wrestling (that is: <span style="text-decoration:underline;">wrestling</span>), don't watch. Nobody is making you watch anything against your will. Again, literally thousands of hours of wrestling is available on the internet, for free, over the past three decades. </p><p> </p><p> And as far as the "G"/"PG" thing, you're obviously reading into it more than what's really there. It might be a symptom, but it's far from the problem you make it out to be.</p>

[fusionfreak]

<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>Fortunately, no one has said anything like this. But if "inlightned wisdom" is stuff like paying your employees when they get hurt taking bumps at your shows, or sending people who need help to get help, then yes, WWE has it, and TNA doesn't.<p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Where are you getting this stuff about "wisdom" and "intellectual"-ism? Did I miss WWE's last PPV that featured poetry readings, alternative dispute resolutions, and a literary analysis of the early works of James Joyce? Pretty sure feuds are still built around guys fake fighting each other, the same way they were 10, 20, 30, or 70 years ago.</p><p> </p><p> Again, if you don't like variety shows not aimed at your demographic, and are not caught up in the fundamental aspect of wrestling (that is: <span style="text-decoration:underline;">wrestling</span>), don't watch. Nobody is making you watch anything against your will. Again, literally thousands of hours of wrestling is available on the internet, for free, over the past three decades. </p><p> </p><p> And as far as the "G"/"PG" thing, you're obviously reading into it more than what's really there. It might be a symptom, but it's far from the problem you make it out to be.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Part of that is a reply to someone who said that WWE is more mature because of the G rating. I forgot who made the post on that originally. I should have quoted but it was a long reply to my first post I think.</p><p> </p><p> Anyway, thanks for making my point. I'm not watching the stuff. As I said, I haven't watched WWE since 2007. Every now and then I read ewrestlingnews.com to see if anything has changed because I don't see WWE worth the time to find out. I didn't know it was suspose to be a variety show. When did they start having live bands, stand up comedians, a juggler, a guy to put swords down his throat and animals that do tricks. (I know, at wrestlemania live bands show up and a juggler might be a gimmick but it's not intended to be a talented, real juggler.)</p><p> </p><p> The main point of this thread is that I don't understand why WWE has become so child like. Especially with ratings dropping so much. I understand ratings were good in the 90's and up to 2004 or 2005 (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm just trying to get an idea of how many folks here feel similar I do. It seems like a lot more than I thought.</p>

[fusionfreak]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Self" data-cite="Self" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="31291" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Going PG or G isn't about wisdom or the moral high ground. It's about money. Companies like Mattel are prepared to make WWE big bucks, but will only do so if WWE keep a clean-cut image. WWE soften things up. They make millions. Easy decision. It'll cost a few fans, but those toys are big business.<p> </p><p> I don't watch WWE. Or TNA. Haven't for a while. TNA stopped pushing the X-Division, and WWE is essentially the exact same show format as a decade ago. I found I was only enjoying a fraction of their shows, and decided that crossing my fingers every week was foolish. There are plenty of promotions putting on a product more my cup of tea, who deserve my attention and my money. CHIKARA. PWG. IPW:UK. Dragon Gate. I like them, so I reward them. I don't like WWE or TNA, so I ignore them. If all these people who bitch about WWE sucking would just turn it off, maybe WWE buyrates and ratings would go so low that they would pay attention and instigate some changes.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> None of these other promotions are on TV where I live. I'm in Georgia and my cable provider is Comcast. I'd love to see these other promotions. When I was a kid in the 80's I remember WWF came on at 8 then NWA. After that it was Memphis Wrestling, Southern Championship Wrestling, Georgia Championship Wrestling, Regional Class Something but basically from about 8 to 1 or 2 in the morning wrestling would be on. I use to love the stuff after WWF and NWA. It seemed more raw or gritty. Of course, most my favorite guys were in WWF and NWA though.</p>

[ampulator]

<p>I'd said this before, and I'll this again-TNA cannot improve much right now. It's just too hard. Their problems are systemic. It's not that they choose to be WWE-lite... they do that, but they also do it extremely poorly. It's one thing to be want to be a mainstream wrestling promotion, it's another thing to be a carbon copy, and bad one at that, of the WWE. </p><p> </p><p>

They seem to forget there was time when the NWA iterations of WCW was mainstream, but quite a different product in terms of just everything else.</p>

[sebsplex]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Self" data-cite="Self" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="31291" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Going PG or G isn't about wisdom or the moral high ground. It's about money. Companies like Mattel are prepared to make WWE big bucks, but will only do so if WWE keep a clean-cut image. WWE soften things up. They make millions. Easy decision. It'll cost a few fans, but those toys are big business.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Tbh, beyond the logical economics - i.e. not alienating family/child audience who eat up your merchandise and actually pay for your ppvs, the WWE is simply returning to it's comfort zone. Back in the day, there was no evidence of the WWF's product dramatically evolving in the early 90s until WCW's surging popularity (coupled with their frequent high profile talent raids) eventually forced Vince's hand. In fact, I see a lot of similarities with the promotion prior to the Attitude era and what we have now.</p><p> </p><p> The WWE isn't likely to move out of this PG comfort zone anytime soon because it doesn't have to and more importantly, it doesn't want to.</p>

[lazorbeak]

<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>Part of that is a reply to someone who said that WWE is more mature because of the G rating. I forgot who made the post on that originally. I should have quoted but it was a long reply to my first post I think.<p> </p><p> Anyway, thanks for making my point. I'm not watching the stuff. As I said, I haven't watched WWE since 2007. Every now and then I read ewrestlingnews.com to see if anything has changed because I don't see WWE worth the time to find out. I didn't know it was suspose to be a variety show. When did they start having live bands, stand up comedians, a juggler, a guy to put swords down his throat and animals that do tricks. (I know, at wrestlemania live bands show up and a juggler might be a gimmick but it's not intended to be a talented, real juggler.)</p><p> </p><p> The main point of this thread is that I don't understand why WWE has become so child like. Especially with ratings dropping so much. I understand ratings were good in the 90's and up to 2004 or 2005 (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm just trying to get an idea of how many folks here feel similar I do. It seems like a lot more than I thought.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Wrestling has <span style="text-decoration:underline;"><strong>always</strong></span> been a variety show (and what you're describing is a circus, not a variety show). Remember that classic match from your childhood memories? Think about the match that came before it. Was it the same sort of match between the same level of participants? It's always been a mix of different stuff, and when you pull out the numbers like "oh only 15% of TNA entertains me," it means that most of their <em>variety</em> isn't something that appeals to you. Wrestlemania 3 had Hogan/Andre, which was a dismal match by most standards but a great story, it had Savage Steamboat, which was a phenomenal match and told a great story. Then there were ten more matches, including Butch Reed vs. Koko B. Ware (the match immediately before Steamboat/Savage), Bob Orton jobbing in a tag match to the Can-Am Connection that lasted under 6 minutes, and several other matches that were just there for flavor, since they knew most of the crowd was there for Hogan/Andre, and the "workrate" fans were there for Savage/Steamboat. That's what I mean by "variety." So yes, it's a variety show now, it was when you liked it, all that's changed is you don't like the variety.</p><p> </p><p> Ratings swan-dived well before 2004-05. They were doing 6's during the war with WCW in 2000, but by the time the Invasion was winding down they were struggling to get 4's. Ratings actually improved in 2005-06 during the beginning of Cena and Batista's runs on Raw and Smackdown, but have dropped back to where they were in 2002-2003 levels. But I'm not sure how any of that was caused by making the product either "child-like" or "intellectual."</p><p> </p><p> I still don't understand what you even mean by those terms. What are examples of what you're talking about? I realize that's probably tough since you admit you haven't watched the product in four years.</p>

[ampulator]

<p>You know, I've seem people claim that you can't critcize the WWE if you don't watch their product. I think that's a fair argument. I've also seem people claim that you can't criticize the WWE if you keep watching the product. </p><p> </p><p>

The thing is, you can't argue both ways. It's as if there are under no circumstances we can criticize the WWE, because if we don't watch it, we don't really know what's going on, but if we do watch it, we are supporting their product, which means we don't have a right to criticize it. </p><p> </p><p>

One of those arguments is wrong.</p>

[Fantabulous]

<p>"If you don't like it, don't watch it" is typically the mantra of people who don't have an answer for the argument being presented.</p><p> </p><p>

You can watch something you like and still be critical of things about it that you don't like, yet still be a fan overall. For whatever reason, a lot of people have this mentality that if you're critical of something you watch then you don't really like it, and because they like it too, they then seem to take it personally.</p>

[fusionfreak]

<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>Wrestling has <span style="text-decoration:underline;"><strong>always</strong></span> been a variety show (and what you're describing is a circus, not a variety show). Remember that classic match from your childhood memories? Think about the match that came before it. Was it the same sort of match between the same level of participants? It's always been a mix of different stuff, and when you pull out the numbers like "oh only 15% of TNA entertains me," it means that most of their <em>variety</em> isn't something that appeals to you. Wrestlemania 3 had Hogan/Andre, which was a dismal match by most standards but a great story, it had Savage Steamboat, which was a phenomenal match and told a great story. Then there were ten more matches, including Butch Reed vs. Koko B. Ware (the match immediately before Steamboat/Savage), Bob Orton jobbing in a tag match to the Can-Am Connection that lasted under 6 minutes, and several other matches that were just there for flavor, since they knew most of the crowd was there for Hogan/Andre, and the "workrate" fans were there for Savage/Steamboat. That's what I mean by "variety." So yes, it's a variety show now, it was when you liked it, all that's changed is you don't like the variety.<p> </p><p> Ratings swan-dived well before 2004-05. They were doing 6's during the war with WCW in 2000, but by the time the Invasion was winding down they were struggling to get 4's. Ratings actually improved in 2005-06 during the beginning of Cena and Batista's runs on Raw and Smackdown, but have dropped back to where they were in 2002-2003 levels. But I'm not sure how any of that was caused by making the product either "child-like" or "intellectual."</p><p> </p><p> I still don't understand what you even mean by those terms. What are examples of what you're talking about? I realize that's probably tough since you admit you haven't watched the product in four years.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Sorry, your not selling me on the variety show idea. I guess you could say its all the same variety, that being wrestling. Is a rock concert that has 5 different bands a variety show. Maybe if its 1 jazz band one rock band one country band etc but it would still be a music variety show I guess. Maybe your thinking in terms of it being a variety show because theres more than one wrestler on the show? Yeah, when I was a kid I could watch WWF and be entertained by probably 85% of the show. From what I've read about 90's WCW I would have probably liked about 85 or 90%.</p><p> </p><p> The terms child like or intellectual.... As far as child like, just watch 10 minutes and then watch something on the cartoon network... Intellectual, I was refering to another who said WWF had just matured. What I meant is that I don't watch wrestling for maturity, wisdom, intelligence, life advice or anything like that. I love Seinfeld but I wouldn't want to be friends with any of the main characters on the show. I enjoy wrestling but I don't want to beat someone in the head with a steel chair and I don't want a girl friend that wears those kind of outfits in public. Wrestling should be fun to watch, not moraly and politically correct. I guess its fine but I'm not watching. I don't see people in they're 20's and 30's wearing WWE shirts or Cena, Orton or Miz shirts. I really don't see that many kids 12 and under wearing the stuff and I live in Georgia for Pete's sake. In the 90's it seemed like 20% of the folks around town wore Stone Cold, Rock, Goldberg, DDP and WWF and WCW shirts and the percentage would have probably been 45% if you went to the local Wal-Mart. I'm just saying....</p>

[fusionfreak]

<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>You know, I've seem people claim that you can't critcize the WWE if you don't watch their product. I think that's a fair argument. I've also seem people claim that you can't criticize the WWE if you keep watching the product. <p> </p><p> The thing is, you can't argue both ways. It's as if there are under no circumstances we can criticize the WWE, because if we don't watch it, we don't really know what's going on, but if we do watch it, we are supporting their product, which means we don't have a right to criticize it. </p><p> </p><p> One of those arguments is wrong.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Thanks for this one............ I love folks who notice things..... I think if your a fan of wrestling it's ok to criticize WWE. Even if your not a fan of wrestling I think its ok but I don't take it as seriously. Some might say that since I haven't watched WWE since 2007 that I have no right to critisize. That would be a stupid thing to say.... It's not like I've never seen wrestling before. I'm just saying I don't watch WWE because last time I checked there was barely anything for me.</p>

[Self]

<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>None of these other promotions are on TV where I live. I'm in Georgia and my cable provider is Comcast. I'd love to see these other promotions. When I was a kid in the 80's I remember WWF came on at 8 then NWA. After that it was Memphis Wrestling, Southern Championship Wrestling, Georgia Championship Wrestling, Regional Class Something but basically from about 8 to 1 or 2 in the morning wrestling would be on. I use to love the stuff after WWF and NWA. It seemed more raw or gritty. Of course, most my favorite guys were in WWF and NWA though.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> None of those promotions are on TV where I live either. I buy DVD's, iPPVs and attend shows. It's not free or as easy as turning on a TV set, but it's a price I'm willing to pay to get wrestling that I really enjoy.</p><p> </p><p> </p><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>"If you don't like it, don't watch it" is typically the mantra of people who don't have an answer for the argument being presented.<p> </p><p> You can watch something you like and still be critical of things about it that you don't like, yet still be a fan overall. For whatever reason, a lot of people have this mentality that if you're critical of something you watch then you don't really like it, and because they like it too, they then seem to take it personally.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> You have a point here. Being constructively critical of something you generally enjoy is fine. There's a tipping point though. When the annoyances outweigh the good bits. Personally, I think life's too short for all that negativity, and when I find myself more frustrated with a TV show than not, I move on to greener pastures. Happened with WWE, TNA, Smallville, Breaking Bad... There are so many entertainment options out there, why suffer more than you have to?</p><p> </p><p> Besides, the only way to punish a TV show is to not watch it. That's how you tell them they're doing a bad job. Especially with wrestling shows that live and die by ratings. Complaining on an internet message board doesn't mean a hell of a lot if you're still bumping up their ratings every week.</p><p> </p><p> The main reason I push the "if you don't like, watch something else" philosophy is not because I don't like reading complaints (although it can get a bit tedious) but because I desperately want more people to watch the indy promotions I love, to support them and help them succeed. It really hurts me when I hear someone bitch about how a TNA PPV sucks because they're not pushing the X-Division, when for just $15 (less than a TNA PPV costs) they could watch a Dragon Gate USA iPPV, which is pretty much 100% X-Division style cruiserweight stuff.</p>