Should TNA even have their own "answer" to WrestleMania?
 

Yeah, this would be better to discuss around the time Bound For Glory is actually held, but I feel like making the topic now.

Back when TNA announced that they had a monthly PPV deal, I was pretty happy. It meant that TNA could build on television towards a great show each month. Then I heard that they were looking to establish their own version of WrestleMania, and I thought "what the fuck?"

WrestleMania was established in an era when there were only a few PPVs every year. Fuck, the same goes for Starrcade. The two shows were the flagship PPVs for the WWE and WCW because they were special events that had a place in the fans' hearts, but a lot of that is because of their long history. Every TNA PPV realistically should have the same history, as they were all created at the same time in the same era.

I remember thinking that TNA should make each and every PPV of their's a WrestleMania. Granted, you can have every match on every PPV end a feud, but there is no reason why a little PPV in October cannot house the epic end to a TNA World Heavyweight Title Match, while in the X-Division, a program just begins.

Yeah, just basically discuss TNA's PPV strategy, and what you like about it, and don't like about it. Is taking their show on the road a good idea? Are they using their PPVs right? Do they have too many a year? Just the right amount? Whatever you want.

I am a fan of the wrestling styles they showcase on tna. The X Division in particular. I guess they need some solid investment- big money and exposure.

They need to have equivalents of the Big Four. Every PPV can't be epic, there's too many factors as far as making every PPV an absolute epic because they have too many. They would be burned out too fast.

If they cut the PPVs to one every two months it would be possible, but there are too many at this point to blow their load on every PPV.

Even with it cut like that, they do need a big PPV to end multiple feuds at once and to elevate workers. Wrestling, as far as I'm concerned, works better on that unofficial season schedule, where things really heat up and year-long feuds can culminate in one place.

They really need to build up to something that can actually be reasonably viewed as "The Biggest Event of the Year," first. There's just not enough to distinguish most PPVs from one another. Except Lockdown, which is only distinguished because there's a prop in every match.

i thought slamaversary was the big one for them.

Slammiversary is closer to their equivalent to Summerslam. TNA's "big three" PPVs are Bound For Glory, Slammiversary and Lockdown (probably in that order).

Xero, BDC and KK seem to think that it's a good idea for TNA to have a "big four," or something similar. I see their reasoning, but part of me thinks that it waters down the rest of the year. Of course, that could just be the WWE's shit getting in my head. In 2000, the WWE managed to put on some great sleeper PPVs, for example. You don't need to have a big PPV to have a good quality one.

I just don't know how they are going to promote something as the biggest show of the year. "Hey, this event has no history, but it's bigger than the rest anyway because we actually try!" Slammiversary has King of the Mountain, which works for them. Lockdown has the excessive steel cages. I just don't know what or how Bound For Glory should be special.

their "WrestleMania" will consist of gimmick matches from top to bottom

Every sport builds to something. Baseball has the World Series, hockey has the Stanley Cup, football has the Super Bowl, college basketball has the Final Four. It doesn't mean that the "games" in the meantime are meaningless. On the contrary, what happens to a football team in Week Five can have an effect on where they'll be when the playoffs hit. Just like winning your match at Genesis can have an effect on your status going into BFG. They build through that whole season toward one ultimate event. Imo, every major wrestling promotion needs that ONE show.

They need to get rid of the all steel cage ppv.

WWE's not asking a "question".

See, now I have to say "it's just an expression," which makes me feel stupid, because people should just get that, and it shouldn't need to be said.

You have convinced me, sir.

And they'll call it Starcade

In fact, they should probably just call it "gimmickMania."

:?:

Well they do treat BFG like Wrestlemania, they said it was like the World Series for TNA.

I like the way tna does a ppv every 4 weeks, cause over here we get to watch them for free (thank you bravo2) , you get more in year than wwe, and you can't beat a ppv compared to a normal show

Also, TNA ppv's tend to be twice the show wwe will put on

Twice the shit, half the price!

Actually, that much better describes what I mean about the PPV.

Look! It's another cage match!

You said they need an anchor for the year.

KK said that they need to establish good PPVs first.

Both imply to me that you think it's a good idea that there is a bigger PPV that stands out moreso than the others. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, that's just what I got from the subtext of your posts, even though you both talked about how the current product is crap, which is not what I'm looking to discuss.

In two words...here's the first of the PPV's they can kill.

Fuck Lockdown

Lockdown is a regularly good event. They find ways to mix things up and use the steel cage to their advantage while not over-using it to kill off the audience. Plus, they usually have the main event be Lethal Lockdown, which is as entertaining if not more-so than the Elimination Chamber, giant hunk of black metal shit that it is.

I have absolutely no problem with Lockdown when they do it right. I do have problems with 3 hour PPV's that end up being 2.5 hours and continuously have plodding, boring matches that I could see on TV for free.

they should have a PPV where the ring keeps getting another side after every match and shrinks in size. Imagine how great a Kevin Nash v Jeff Jarrett match would be in a 32 sided ring that is only 5 feet wide. That would propell TNA into the upper echelon of mediocrity! wooo rasslin!!

They need cohesive storylines and quality weekly TV programming before they get too worried about setting a particular PPV structure.

I think the reason TNA has trouble distinguishing BFG from the rest of their shows, is because almost every feud they have is for the short-term. Everything that is put on Impact is usually settled within 4 weeks at max, and then the next feud happens.

For instance, WrestleMania has its seeds planted months prior to the show itself. Meanwhile, Sting vs. Angle had 3 weeks build being revolved around Sting's son.

And the fact that they have a "Monster's Ball" every BFG is meaningless unless there is heat between the wrestlers. Every PPV it seems, TNA takes 4 wrestlers (one has to be Abyss), and put them in a hardcore match (most are entertaining, but have ZERO meaning). Now, they do it at BFG, with no heat, and call it "Monster's Ball", so now it's supposed to be credible/special?

I just think TNA's biggest problem is that they never seem to want to build anything long-term.

goes right back to the whole thing about using gimmick matches. They only really work on the popular scale if people care about the characters. So Monster's ball or whatever else they throw will be meaningless unless they do something to establish it.

Mania's the only real longterm planning WWE seems to do these days, but it works.

it just feels like they are not sure if they want slammiversary or bound for glory to be their biggest ppv of the year.

According to some stats on NoDQ.com, of the 102 PPV matches TNA staged in 2007, 51 of them were gimmick matches of some variety. 50%! Mind boggling...

Bound For Glory is a shit name for a "granddaddy" PPV anyway. Hell, it's a pretty mediocre name for a run-of-the-mill PPV, let alone their annual showcase event.

And from a historical standpoint, Slammiversary should be their big one. Again, a name change wouldn't go amiss.