I can see an argument for TNA being the better company based on propotionality. They've got more goodness-per-dollar than WWE maybe, but if you strip away that TNA is the smaller company, WWE still has the superior product to me and in general in terms of production value, sensibility, and of course, ratings. I like TNA just as much as WWE, but at the same time, I don't think TNA has the same steam as WWE right now, straight up. And that's just another thing to chalk up to cash, but honestly, ROH runs better storylines than TNA at some points and they've got EVEN LESS money. Although, I can't lie... every now and then ROH also has a few storylines that beat WWE's, but less than those who beat TNA's. I think TNA has made some good strides in creating star power with Bobby Roode and James Storm. Sting's star power speaks for itself, but TNA just misses "it" so I don't know if it'll ever top WWE as a whole. There's just something about TNA that seems to B-League. It might be smaller crowds or smaller names, but it just doesn't seem like the stars are on the same level as WWE's to me. But it's all just a matter of preference. I enjoy glitz and glam that WWE presents, but I can also enjoy the cult-ness of a low production show like ROH's or PWG's. TNA is somewhere in the middle and I think because it falls short of being high profile like WWE but is beyond the point of ROH, it seems akward. They pretty much seem like a company trying and failing to be big leaguers (although they are in fact big leaguers). I think that's why I liked their UK shows so much. That set was off the chain and the audience was at least twice what you see in the Impact Zone. It evoked a feeling of star power...
Anyways, I've already forgotten what the topic was. I know I went way off base with that entire paragraph I was just trying to summarize what set WWE and TNA apart for me.
Anyways...
