Tag title Question
 

Has anyone held the Tag title from the big four organizations while working for that company?

I know the Dudleys held every title but they held the WCW title with WWE.
Foley held the WCW, WWE(F), and ECW but not the TNA tag title.

I don't believe so. It's also difficult to ascertain "big 3/4" considering back in the 80's/90's the big 3 consisted of WCW/NWA, WWF, and AWA. LOD held the AWA, WCW/NWA, and WWF, but Hawk has been dead for the majority of TNA so I don't see them claiming that last set if you're considering TNA a "Big" company. I personally don't.

You have to consider TNA a big company, they are on TV, the only thing wrong with them is their writing.

ROH is on TV and I don't consider them a "Big" company either. I don't think TV makes a company "Big". I've never taken TNA seriously, and don't regard their champions as being on the same level as their former or present company's counterparts. Their belts aren't on the same level in my opinion of say the WCW Championship or the WWE Championships, or hell even the AWA Championships.

There are some I'm sure who view the ECW Championships the same way. I just view TNA as minor league in comparison to previous and present companies.

ROH being syndicated in a small part of the country is not the same as a major network deal with Spike. Come on now.

TNA is nationally broadcast. Only ECW, WCW, WWE, AWA can say that. And those were BIG organizations.

No, I don't.

Don't you sass me!

The original statement made was that they were on TV....and my argument was that ROH is ON TV as well, but it doesn't necessarily put them on the same level as a WCW or WWE. I mean fuck, the Global Wrestling Federation was on ESPN, but how often do you see the Patriot mentioned as a holder of a "Big" title. If we're going by whether or not they were "nationally broadcast", then your argument would indicate the GWF was a BIG company on the same level as WCW/WWE, correct?

I don't agree with that assessment, nor do I consider TNA on the same level as an WCW, WWE, or AWA.

How can you consider ECW bigger than TNA?

Vic, I edited my post. I don't actually consider ECW as on the same level as the 3 I mentioned. It could be my age, but I don't feel their championships held the same level of prestige as WCW, WWE, or AWA. I felt ECW led to a huge cultural shift in professional wrestling, but the poor business acumen of Paul Heyman stopped its growth and eventually led to its downfall. I feel ECW is probably a more valuable entity than TNA due to its legacy in regards to the professional wrestling industry. I don't believe, however, its championships (or champions for the most part) are on the same level as those mentioned above. Was a typo on my part.

Why not?

I'll be honest. I'm not totally sure if there is one legit reason as to why, but the main one would probably be the age of the company.

I for one don't feel the company, though 10 years old, has been around long enough to be considered in the same regard as the previous "Big 3". If we're counting being on TV nationally then they are only 8 years old as the first 27 months consisted of weekly PPV's. ECW was 9 years old when it collapsed, and I don't consider it on the same level either. The prestige and title lineage is much longer for the WWE/WCW/AWA which in my opinion led more credibility to a business model (company) that had been around awhile and you could expect would continue to. I can't say the same for TNA yet. They are still a fairly young company in the grand scheme of things.

I'm sure you could also look at the quality of the shows they put on (writing, not creating their own stars, etc.), but I don't factor that in because WWE writes shit too. (Katie Vick, anyone?) I just feel that TNA hasn't been around long enough to deserve the recognition just because they're the only other game in town with a national TV outlet, because again, GWF had one too and it never amounted to anything.

While they may be one of the bigger promotions around at the moment, I don't feel that puts them on the same level as WWE.

What reasons do you feel justify them being placed on the same level?

For the fact that they have been able to last on TV for about 7 years and they have big names wrestling for their company. I am not saying they are as big as the WWF however.

I agree, they have done better than most in regards to maintaining a TV deal due to their relationship with Spike TV, but to pose a hypothetical question I ask this.

Let's say WCW, WWE, and AWA were still around, with all of their lineage and history intact, with shows on television. Would you still consider TNA to be one of the big three? Or view TNA as a company trying to get there.

As far as them having big guys wrestle for the company, I know many independants who can get big name guys on a regular basis, mixing them in with their homegrown stars (Something TNA after 10 years is only really beginning to do). I don't base the respect of their titles in regards to other companies past and present on who wrestles there because a shit ton of talent have never held them and assclowns have.

My opinion stands that TNA is currently the #2 wrestling company in the U.S. behind the WWE, with Ring of Honor a distant #3. I don't believe, however, that the TNA Championship, Tag Championships, and X-Division Championships are on the same level as the WWE, WCW, and AWA counterparts (if available, b/c I don't recall AWA having a Cruiser division) due to the age of the company and the lack of lineage. (You could also argue TNA's lineage only begins in 2007 because the NWA claims lineage to the champions up to 2007.)

The AWA had a Light Heavyweight division, which is the same thing as a Junior Heavyweight and/or Cruiserweight division.

Just looked at the ECW tag team holder wiki page and looking at guys who've worked in all 4 promotions the best i can find, not including the Dudleys, is three different Tag Titles.

Guess that settles it then