Hey remember when...

**Theo Dious** · 05-23-2008, 12:22 PM

...TNA was going to be so awesome and totally go head to head with WWE, just as soon as they got a TV deal? Yeah, what's it been, two years?

Then remember when Impact was going to get soooooo much better when they got two hours? How long has that been?

At least we don't hear "this-guy should go to TNA where he will be used properly and save the company" every other day anymore.

**4 knuckles up** · 05-23-2008, 12:56 PM

Not quite sure I get your point.

TNA hasn't lived up to your expectations. Has WWE?

**Theo Dious** · 05-23-2008, 12:58 PM

I don't usually make it a point to quote the Rock, but...

.
.
.
.
.

Who in the blue hell are you???

**Mercury Bullet** · 05-23-2008, 01:03 PM

TNA has failed far more miserably than the WWE at this point. At one time there was a lot in TNA to be optimistic about...where as I think with WWE we all expect about what we are getting. And though it's not very good, it's better than that garbage TNA is doing.

**thedamndest** · 05-23-2008, 01:09 PM

I don't see this brought up in here too much, but two my hypothesis is that to a WWE mark two of the biggest detriments to the promotion are A) The six-sided ring and B) The fucking name Total Nonstop Action. How can you take the Total Nonstop Action World Championship Belt seriously? So they seem like a joke promotion before you even tune in. Don't know how true that is but yeah.

**Theo Dious** · 05-23-2008, 01:11 PM

Kind of sad too, since the 6-sided ring is one of the few things that interests me about TNA.

**The Optimist** · 05-23-2008, 10:15 PM

By the time that TNA got two hours, no one had any confusion about how retarded they were. I'll admit I was excited about their tv deal, and for about six months there after but they had already screwed themselves by the time they got two hours.

And statistically, WWE has failed harder. I should expect more from the biggest most expensive promotion in the world, but they haven't had an interesting champion since Rob Van Dam. Failing while on the way to the top is more embarrasing, but failing while at the top is more dissappointing.

Also, what thedamndest said.

**The One** · 05-23-2008, 11:22 PM

TNA has a lot of problems, it certainly does. BUT, I'd like to say that TNA, on a whole, does more in 2 hours that's good than WWE does in 5 hours every week.

They're actually giving depth to the Women's Division. And that's a good thing. It's amazing, I think they have some of the best looking women, not to mention that 4 or 5 of their lady wrestlers can go. And I mean put on a legit good match.

TNA has an AWESOME Tag division. And now that the belts are finally around LAX's waist, I think we're going to see it be highlighted more instead of just something to be put around Tomko and AJ's shoulders. MCMG, LAX, 3D. I gotta tell you, I haven't been this optimistic about a tag division since the Attitude era. Plus they got quite a few other throw away teams like Rock'n'Rave and The Monsters.

On a pure roster stand point, they have some of the best and/or most over talent in the world; Kevin Nash, Angle, Cage, Booker, Sting, Steiner, say what you will but Styles is becoming better, guys who are on the verge of breaking out like James Storm and Robert Roode. Oh yeah and then there's Samoa Joe who internet smarks jerk off to.

I think the thing that's so hard about TNA is that there is so much to work with, but they drop the ball. But every once in a while you get a really good episode or two of Impact. TNA's biggest booking problem is over booking. Their gimmick matches are terrible and 9 times out of 10 have no connection with the angle what so ever.

As for not hearing "_____ should go to TNA and be used properly." Ever since Angle showed up, I think the world understands now that TNA is no better as using their talents than WWE is...except that TNA has less restrictions on what they can and can't do. Which in tern, I will say, I think TNA's matches, despite being overly complex with gimmicks all the time, are still on a whole much better than WWE's.

**FourFifty** · 05-23-2008, 11:51 PM

Allow me to beat a dead horse here....

TNA needs better production value. They still look and sound like shit compared to WWE. You know why WWE beat out TNA, WCCW, and anything else in the golden era? Production values. They made it look like money, and it became money. TNA needs to back off on signing huge names like Angle, Sting, Cage, and work on making their own home grown talent look good. Not knocking anyone on the TNA roster but they're just not working because they look like shit. Hell, this watered down ECW by-product looks good compared to TNA.

**The One** · 05-23-2008, 11:53 PM

I don't know that I'd buy that.

WCW had better production value than WWF did, and WWF was better. ECW had intentionally bad production value and they still made their guys look great.

**FourFifty** · 05-24-2008, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The One

I don't know that I'd buy that.

WCW had better production value than WWF did, and WWF was better. ECW had intentionally bad production value and they still made their guys look great.

WWF had ~~John Cena~~ Hulk Hogan during some prime years.
And when Hogan was out, there was HBK and Nash picking things up. From there WWF had Stone Cold, DX, great storylines, and not hulk hogan. For a while WCW was beating the WWF in the ratings war because they had a better product. In the end no one would argue that WCW's main problem was production value. They had great prodcutin value but they sorta lacked in other areas.
As of ECW...... yea...... Paul Heyman wrote checks that looked even more dismal than the storylines that Vince Russo took care of.

05-23-2008, 12:22 PM	#1
Theo Dious EATER OF HOT POCKETS Posts: 14,340	Hey remember when... ...TNA was going to be so awesome and totally go head to head with WWE, just as soon as they got a TV deal? Yeah, what's it been, two years? Then remember when Impact was going to get soooooo much better when they got two hours? How long has that been? At least we don't hear "this-guy should go to TNA where he will be used properly and save the company" every other day anymore.

05-23-2008, 12:56 PM	#2
4 knuckles up The Sellsword Posts: 307	... Not quite sure I get your point. TNA hasn't lived up to your expectations. Has WWE?

05-23-2008, 11:22 PM	#8
The One Boss Posts: 17,611	TNA has a lot of problems, it certainly does. BUT, I'd like to say that TNA, on a whole, does more in 2 hours that's good than WWE does in 5 hours every week. They're actually giving depth to the Women's Division. And that's a good thing. It's amazing, I think they have some of the best looking women, not to mention that 4 or 5 of their lady wrestlers can go. And I mean put on a legit good match. TNA has an AWESOME Tag division. And now that the belts are finally around LAX's waist, I think we're going to see it be highlighted more instead of just something to be put around Tomko and AJ's shoulders. MCMG, LAX, 3D. I gotta tell you, I haven't been this optimistic about a tag division since the Attitude era. Plus they got quite a few other throw away teams like Rock'n'Rave and The Monsters. On a pure roster stand point, they have some of the best and/or most over talent in the world; Kevin Nash, Angle, Cage, Booker, Sting, Steiner, say what you will but Styles is becoming better, guys who are on the verge of breaking out like James Storm and Robert Roode. Oh yeah and then there's Samoa Joe who internet smarks jerk off to. I think the thing that's so hard about TNA is that there is so much to work with, but they drop the ball. But every once in a while you get a really good episode or two of Impact. TNA's biggest booking problem is over booking. Their gimmick matches are terrible and 9 times out of 10 have no connection with the angle what so ever. As for not hearing "_____ should go to TNA and be used properly." Ever since Angle showed up, I think the world understands now that TNA is no better as using their talents than WWE is...except that TNA has less restrictions on what they can and can't do. Which in tern, I will say, I think TNA's matches, despite being overly complex with gimmicks all the time, are still on a whole much better than WWE's. Last edited by The One; 05-23-2008 at 11:30 PM.

05-23-2008, 12:58 PM	#3
Theo Dious EATER OF HOT POCKETS Posts: 14,340	I don't usually make it a point to quote the Rock, but... . . . . . Who in the blue hell are you???

05-23-2008, 01:03 PM	#4
Mercury Bullet The Year of the Bullet Posts: 4,259	TNA has failed far more miserably than the WWE at this point. At one time there was a lot in TNA to be optimistic about...where as I think with WWE we all expect about what we are getting. And though it's not very good, it's better than that garbage TNA is doing.

05-23-2008, 01:09 PM	#5
thedamndest A Property of Matter Posts: 25,543	I don't see this brought up in here too much, but two my hypothesis is that to a WWE mark two of the biggest detriments to the promotion are A) The six-sided ring and B) The fucking name Total Nonstop Action. How can you take the Total Nonstop Action World Championship Belt seriously? So they seem like a joke promotion before you even tune in. Don't know how true that is but yeah.

05-23-2008, 01:11 PM	#6
Theo Dious EATER OF HOT POCKETS Posts: 14,340	Kind of sad too, since the 6-sided ring is one of the few things that interests me about TNA.

05-23-2008, 10:15 PM	#7
The Optimist Planet Races The Moon Posts: 2,376	By the time that TNA got two hours, no one had any confusion about how retarded they were. I'll admit I was excited about their tv deal, and for about six months there after but they had already screwed themselves by the time they got two hours. And statistically, WWE has failed harder. I should expect more from the biggest most expensive promotion in the world, but they haven't had an interesting champion since Rob Van Dam. Failing while on the way to the top is more embarrasing, but failing while at the top is more dissappointing. Also, what thedamndest said.

05-23-2008, 11:51 PM	#9
FourFifty As over as Crystal Pepsi Posts: 21,639	Allow me to beat a dead horse here.... TNA needs better production value. They still look and sound like shit compared to WWE. You know why WWE beat out TNA, WCCW, and anything else in the golden era? Production values. They made it look like money, and it became money. TNA needs to back off on signing huge names like Angle, Sting, Cage, and work on making their own home grown talent look good. Not knocking anyone on the TNA roster but they're just not working because they look like shit. Hell, this watered down ECW by-product looks good compared to TNA.

05-23-2008, 11:53 PM	#10
The One Boss Posts: 17,611	I don't know that I'd buy that. WCW had better production value than WWF did, and WWF was better. ECW had intentionally bad production value and they still made their guys look great.