TNA vs WWE 2010
- Thread starter Doomsday
- Start date
-
Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!
I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register
Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board
Well I'll try to steer this into a discussion. TNA vs. WWE for the 2010 year is nothing. Presently there is no "vs" between the 2 companies. TNA may have gone out and signed a bunch of well known wrestlers, but they're still a work in progress. They still only have 3 hours of programming a week to WWE's 5-6 hours. TNA is doing some good things, but on the other hand, it's still TNA. And I've said it before, every time TNA takes a step forward, they find a way to take 2 steps backward. WWE is focusing on it's youthful talent. Stars such as Wade Barrett, Justin Gabriel, Cody Rhodes, Ted DiBiase, Mike Mizanin, John Morrison, Evan Bourne, Kofi Kingston, etc. etc are paving the way for WWE to stay atop of the wrestling mountain for a long time. Fans have said that WWE is boring and that it sucks. They want more blood and other things, but those same fans that piss and moan still tune in each week like moths to a streetlight. WWE doesn't have to change the product in the ring because they're still generating cash. TNA is just now coming into the merchandising like WWE, but still has a long way to go before they're a player on WWE's level. WWE is a corporate multi-media conglomerate that prints money. TNA is an up and coming promotion that is still trying to navigate the post professional wrestling, modern day sports entertainment market. TNA had to learn to crawl before it could walk. Now it looks like they want to go straight to the marathon before learning to run or sprint. TNA has a future, but who knows how long that will last??? As long as TNA learned from WCW's mistakes and doesn't make the same folly that WCW made, they should be around for a long time. Just remember Hulkster and Easy E, those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it.
WWE misses some spark on it's product. It's not that it is bad, it's just that they are on steady mode.
TNA just plain sucks. That's my opinion though. I tried to watch an episode on iMPACT but their camera shots made me feel so sick and so dizzy during the MCMG vs Generation me vs Beer Money vs Ink inc that I just had to turn it off.
TNA just plain sucks. That's my opinion though. I tried to watch an episode on iMPACT but their camera shots made me feel so sick and so dizzy during the MCMG vs Generation me vs Beer Money vs Ink inc that I just had to turn it off.
Defending TNA is like a hobo digging through garbage, sure there is a half eaten apple or unlabeled canned product here and there to whet the appetite, but the bottom line is IT'S GARBAGE.
BTW, Doomsday, stop trying too hard.
BTW, Doomsday, stop trying too hard.
i agree with you guys, TNA isn't all that it could be right now, and i think from the wrestlers they already have, they should be a bit further what they're trying to do with the company but you're right about taking one step forward and two steps back.
i don't agree with that's it's garbage, it could be better but not garbage.
look at wwf at the time when it first started, without the gimmick-wrestlers it had, it would've seem to be just as bad. Not saying that they didn't have any good wrestlers, just that more gimmick wrestlers were there then real wrestlers.
i don't agree with that's it's garbage, it could be better but not garbage.
look at wwf at the time when it first started, without the gimmick-wrestlers it had, it would've seem to be just as bad. Not saying that they didn't have any good wrestlers, just that more gimmick wrestlers were there then real wrestlers.
When you say look at the WWF when it started, just what time frame are we talking about???? The WWWF was started in the 60's when gimmicks weren't very plentiful. Im trying to understand your position but WWE is not like TNA. WWE has been around 50+ years, TNA is what 8/9 years old???? WWE is the journeyman to TNA's apprentice.
Besides that argument is completely misguided. You cannot compare the WWE's beginning wrestlers and say they were garbage, due to the fact that it was a completely different era. Guys like Billy Graham may be horrible by today's standards, but they were great back then. You have to look at context. The guys that TNA is pushing right now are horrible by today's standards, despite the fact that they have/have had access to very capable talent.
There are some pretty valid arguments here. TNA has a great tag team division. WWE just throws 2 people together whenever they want a team (exception is the usos). TNA hasn't had time to be great, but Im sure one day there will be another small company and people will say how bad it is and compare it like people do now. TNA has only been around for roughly 10 years and needs time to expand. WWE is better overall, but it makes some bad decisions too.
^^^I have no idea what you're going on about to be honest...
Fuck... I am sick of hearing about how wonderful TNAs tag division is.
If it was that great then:
a) They'd have had a team OTHER than Beer Money to pose a CREDIBLE threat to Motor City's tag reign (which, even after MCMGs long wait for the belts, has sucked for this reason).
b) I wouldn't be forced to endure Ink Inc. PERIOD.
...Former glorys me thinks.
Fuck... I am sick of hearing about how wonderful TNAs tag division is.
If it was that great then:
a) They'd have had a team OTHER than Beer Money to pose a CREDIBLE threat to Motor City's tag reign (which, even after MCMGs long wait for the belts, has sucked for this reason).
b) I wouldn't be forced to endure Ink Inc. PERIOD.
...Former glorys me thinks.