Might I interject?
I'm a TNA fan and whilst I haven't seen many of Smartmark's posts, as I've only been back around the forums a very short while, I do feel a certain level of empathy for the diehard fans of TNA. Whilst I think they suffer slightly from a predisposition to go against the grain, what they have to say is often rooted in truth, just exaggerated. I'm a WWE fan, there isn't a company in the world that does it like WWE does it and it will be a many a year before anything comes close. I watch WWE every week and I watch TNA every week I'm home from uni and I keep up with the results. I certainly consider myself a fan of both although there is no argument as to which is "better" in every aspect.
Of course, there has to be a reason I like TNA, even despite my admittance that it is second best to WWE, so I hope that maybe I can lend some back up Smartmark here before he gets flamed out of the building
Talent: Easily the strongest thing TNA have going for them. They have struck a really beautiful balance as of late with appeasing the TNA regulars and attempting to capitalise on that mainstream, 'WWE-reject' thing by putting a nice amount of exposure on some home-grown guys like James Storm and Robert Roode whilst counterbalancing them with living legends such as Sting and Kurt Angle. You can also consider that whilst Hulk Hogan and Eric Bischoff aren't the best human beings and are definitely burying the TNA undercard every week they're in charge, they are exceptionally fun to watch and can still deliver on the mic and in the charisma department. If you keep up with the ratings you'll realise that back in the mid-noughties the X-Division spiked ratings every week and in the most modern era that spike comes courtesy of the knockouts more often than not. In many ways, the X-Division superstars are entirely spot monkeys but they are ridiculously fun to watch and I'd rather see and X-Division filler match than a Great Khali/Diva/squash match in the WWE. Not ahead of a good mid-card bout, but certainly ahead of those boring encounters WWE puts on. As for the knockouts, some consider them more attractive than divas which I find debatable but what they ARE is better technically than most of the divas so what you find is those over sexualised looks and entrances are actually coupled with some passable wrestling. I still don't care for women's wrestling but I care infinitely more about the knockouts storylines than the divas storylines.
TV Rating: Forgive me for not knowing the exactities but you will still see blood, outlandish weapons, proper swearing at times and a more risque product from TNA. There is NO way you need these things to be a successfuly wrestling television show, I for one have applauded the WWE's PG era as something that I didn't think would work but on the whole has, however, I have an Uncle for example who stopped watching WWE around the departure of Rocky and rise of Cena (to stay topical haha) who is an avid TNA fan. Us on the internet can get bogged down in "proper" story arcs, and I'm usually one of them, but there is a sense of the attitude era every week in TNA. The smaller venue, the ring/ramp set-up, the gore, the run-ins, the antics. It's
fun. It's not the best wrestling product in the world but sometimes I do want to sit down and shut off my head for a little while and TNA wins out in that field.
The Company: I'm talking at an almost grass roots level. WWE put on some excellent house shows I've heard. I've seen clips and read stories and they sound a blast. In my experience of these stories and videos though TNA goes toe to toe with WWE in this department. The interaction between wrestlers and fans, the opportunities, the attention to detail, the giveaways etc all sound amazing. Sure, you might say they have to do that to send the fans home happy and their fledgling status as a company means they CAN do that with less risk than WWE but it certainly seems to turn the casual fans into believers and any company that offers that sort of experience is doing something right in my books.
Showcase: The last point I want to make is that TNA can be an amazing TV showcase of stars people might not have thought would be on TV. Nigel McGuinness prior to retirement, AJ Styles and Samoa Joe spring to mind as IWC and indy favourites who all got their moment in the sun, their moment to shine in front of a vastly bigger audience thanks to TNA. I for one watch TNA to see guys like that in action because it's an easier way to access indy style wrestling than paying for shipment of ROH DVD's or finding grainy footage of other indy feds on youtube, you know?
So, WWE is miles ahead of TNA, that's a given. Does TNA deserve the bashing it gets? For the most part, hell yes, they don't know a good thing when they have it and they can't write for shit. However, TNA DOES do some things well, there's some amazing talent, there's been some truly amazing wrestling matches and when those two don't come together and it can be just good fun. I'd rather watch it for some lighter wrestling entertainment, seen as it airs on free TV, than avoid it entirely because I think I know what's right...or what WWE has deemed is the "correct" way to do things, you know? I mean it's fine if you genuinely don't find it entertaining, I'm not saying everyone SHOULD watch but people are always playing the comparison card and I think at it's most raw level TNA isn't a thing to be compared with WWE (as much as they try to emulate them) but should be considered the college football trick play to the WWE's NFL season.
