|
Post by carly1988 on Jan 22, 2011 0:36:22 GMT -5
Not even close. WCW was pulling in ratings in the high 3s
|
|
|
Post by jfinnomore on Jan 22, 2011 2:36:33 GMT -5
well both are tough to watch, but at least in this day and age I can DVR and fast forward through the crap segments/matches i don't care to see.
|
|
|
Post by Random Hero Est. 2003 on Jan 22, 2011 2:38:06 GMT -5
Stop being so ing critical. Damn it this place pisses me off. IT'S TV.
|
|
mase307
Main Eventer
Elite Trader
instagram.com/mase307 Getting Rid of Figs! Send a PM if interested
Joined on: Sept 22, 2010 7:46:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,836
|
Post by mase307 on Jan 22, 2011 6:28:43 GMT -5
It's not being critcal, its just pointing out my opinion of what I'm seing. This is a discussion board. Someone mentioned they supported their argument with facts, if you call it that, but the real question that I want answered than is what makes TNA different from WCW before it collapsed??? It has the same writers, the same wrestlers in lead parts (hogan, flair, jeff jarret, etc.). And it has little wrestling and too much talking. Wasnt WCW, I mean TNA , suppose to be all about wrestling when hogan and bischoff took over??? That was what was going to make them different from WWE??? By the way my TNA kool Aid is in the frig, just in case any of you TNA guys want it ;D
|
|
|
Post by SodaGuy on Jan 22, 2011 6:35:56 GMT -5
I wasn't aware that Matt Conway wrote for WCW.
|
|
mase307
Main Eventer
Elite Trader
instagram.com/mase307 Getting Rid of Figs! Send a PM if interested
Joined on: Sept 22, 2010 7:46:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,836
|
Post by mase307 on Jan 22, 2011 8:18:06 GMT -5
But you are aware vince russo and eric bischoff did and they are the ones who are the head creative team in TNA. And by the way you don't think Hogan has input in TNA and had input in the old WCW. Come on be real here Matt Conway??? Next thing you will tell me is Paul Heyman is running the show, oh wait a minute he turned down TNA.
|
|
|
Post by joker123 on Jan 22, 2011 10:30:38 GMT -5
I don't watch TNA. Because I tried to watch it many many times before and it has failed to keep my interest and keep me entertained.
|
|
|
Post by THE *Legendary* STINGER on Jan 22, 2011 16:14:18 GMT -5
i hate hogan
|
|
|
Post by SodaGuy on Jan 22, 2011 16:22:43 GMT -5
But you are aware vince russo and eric bischoff did and they are the ones who are the head creative team in TNA. And by the way you don't think Hogan has input in TNA and had input in the old WCW. Come on be real here Matt Conway??? Next thing you will tell me is Paul Heyman is running the show, oh wait a minute he turned down TNA. Yes, I'm aware of that fact but you said the writers, implying all of them wrote for WCW which is inaccurate. You don't know who is the head of creative, but I can tell you this much when Vince Russo and Matt Conway were the only two guys on the creative team for those few months after Jeff Jarrett was benched and Dutch Mantel was fired... a ton of good things came out of it, including the fact that the young guys started to be pushed, more wrestling, less stupid finishes, less gimmick matches. The fact of the matter is this: You don't know who is responsible for anything that is being booked on TNA television until someone comes out and admits that they booked it. You're making assumptions, that's it. I doubt Hulk Hogan has much/if any creative input right now considering he can't even drive an hour to show up at television, much less go to Nashville like Eric Bischoff did or even pick up a phone. Also, the Paul Heyman situation... has been stated by multiple people [including Jeff Jarrett] that is was nowhere near a "closed deal" nor was it anything close to being a case of Paul Heyman ever coming to TNA. So, the Paul Heyman "turned them down" situation isn't relevant to the situation because he was never coming in.
|
|
|
Post by 3Lephant (Naptown Icon) on Jan 22, 2011 16:28:11 GMT -5
You know what's really wrong with TNA? The Internet wrestling community.I would have said WF. WF is whats wrong with TNA
|
|
|
Post by k5 on Jan 22, 2011 18:52:36 GMT -5
wcw 2000 was ed because of the result of contracts with creative control, a fallout of interest from their parent company (turner broadcasting) and main source of finance, numerous lawsuits, severe booking errors that led to a stagnancy of purpose, and a non-structured heirarchy of authority that collapsed...nevermind the .com crash. tna has none of this. absolutely none. are a lot of it's storylines pretty badly written and sometimes the whole show doesn't cohesively play out perfectly? yep, but so does wwe's show. be happy there is a company willing to attempt being an alternative.
|
|
|
Post by carly1988 on Jan 22, 2011 18:55:29 GMT -5
wcw 2000 was ed because of the result of contracts with creative control, a fallout of interest from their parent company (turner broadcasting) and main source of finance, numerous lawsuits, severe booking errors that led to a stagnancy of purpose, and a non-structured heirarchy of authority that collapsed...nevermind the .com crash. tna has none of this. absolutely none. are a lot of it's storylines pretty badly written and sometimes the whole show doesn't cohesively play out perfectly? yep, but so does wwe's show. be happy there is a company willing to attempt being an alternative. Cmon bro, you know you cant talk logic on Wfigs!! ;D
|
|
TheXtremisT
Main Eventer
10 Year Member
This is the way
Joined on: May 3, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,858
|
Post by TheXtremisT on Jan 22, 2011 19:22:43 GMT -5
wcw 2000 was ed because of the result of contracts with creative control, a fallout of interest from their parent company (turner broadcasting) and main source of finance, numerous lawsuits, severe booking errors that led to a stagnancy of purpose, and a non-structured heirarchy of authority that collapsed...nevermind the .com crash. tna has none of this. absolutely none. are a lot of it's storylines pretty badly written and sometimes the whole show doesn't cohesively play out perfectly? yep, but so does wwe's show. be happy there is a company willing to attempt being an alternative. I believe you sir have a worthy piece of information that is well written and comprehensive. +1 But you are aware vince russo and eric bischoff did and they are the ones who are the head creative team in TNA. And by the way you don't think Hogan has input in TNA and had input in the old WCW. Come on be real here Matt Conway??? Next thing you will tell me is Paul Heyman is running the show, oh wait a minute he turned down TNA. However you sir have no basis to your OPINIONS and you just generally fail
|
|
mase307
Main Eventer
Elite Trader
instagram.com/mase307 Getting Rid of Figs! Send a PM if interested
Joined on: Sept 22, 2010 7:46:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,836
|
Post by mase307 on Jan 22, 2011 20:57:29 GMT -5
So if someone supports TNA they are logical and their stance is sound. You TNA people are unbelieveable. Before Turner Broadcasting went to sell out, Vince Russo, Eric Bischoff and whoever you want to name used extreme amounts of money for WCW and they ran WCW to its death. Did you guys read the quotes and books from all the former WCW people (Hogan, Flair, Bischoff, Hart,etc.) They said the place was poorly run. They had the money, they just didn't know anything about wrestling. And TNA is going down the same road. I personally liked TNA pre Hogan. It was different and it really had more wrestling than WWE. But here comes Bischoff and Hogan and down the tubes goes TNA. Some people don't want to hear the truth and it seems like this is the case for TNA fans. Honestly who in TNA is better than WWE top talent. Is Jay lethal and Kaz better than Rey Mysterio? Is Ken Anderson better than Edge??? Lets debate these things. But for some of you its to hard for you because all you want to do is say people don't know what they are talking about and such. TNA vs. WWE whos better??? Ratings say WWE,. Attendance, sales say WWE. TNA fans put it on the table and stick up for TNA...if theres anything to really stick up for
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Mar 29, 2024 4:11:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2011 21:00:04 GMT -5
Hogan, Bischoff, Russo, Flair, Jarrett, = WCW Hogan, Bischoff, Russo, Flair, Jarrett = TNA
Evad Sullivan being a Hulkamaniac = WCW Abyss being a Hulkamaniac = TNA
NWO = WCW Immortal = TNA
Duggan finding a belt in the garbage = WCW Eric Young finding a belt in the garbage = TNA
Giving away free matches you could have made money off of on pay per view = WCW Giving away free matches you could have made money off of on pay per view = TNA
A promotion having a clueless money mark to give away millions to spend (Ted Turner) = WCW A promotion having a clueless money mark to give away millions to spend (Dixie Carter) = TNA
A promotion that was profitable for a short time, but mostly lost millions = WCW A promotion that was profitable for a short time, but mostly lost millions = TNA
A promotion more concerned about pushing old stars instead of developing new ones = WCW A promotion more concerned about pushing old stars instead of developing new ones = TNA
A promotion more concerned about ratings instead of PPV buys and merchandise sales = WCW A promotion more concerned about ratings instead of PPV buys and merchandise sales = TNA
Backstage segments being more important than in ring action = WCW Backstage segments being more important than in ring action = TNA
A promotion having top talent and booking them terribly (i.e. Bret Hart) = WCW A promotion having top talent and booking them terribly (i.e. Jeff Hardy) = TNA
TNA is a very frustrating promotion. Half the time they do some great things and the other half they just make idiotic decisions. I really thought Scott D'Amore did a great job booking when he was in TNA. The Hogan regime is comprised of people that live in the past. The fact that the ratings and PPV numbers are lower since the Hogan regime entered speaks volumes of how out of touch they really are. Kids don't care about washed up performers being on their screen. Nobody cares about a power struggle of Immortal vs. Dixie Carter. Jarrett and Borash do a great job of booking the house shows. You would hope they would get their heads out of their asses and use their talent to their full potential.
|
|
|
Post by SodaGuy on Jan 22, 2011 21:04:04 GMT -5
So if someone supports TNA they are logical and their stance is sound. You TNA people are unbelieveable. Before Turner Broadcasting went to sell out, Vince Russo, Eric Bischoff and whoever you want to name used extreme amounts of money for WCW and they ran WCW to its death. Did you guys read the quotes and books from all the former WCW people (Hogan, Flair, Bischoff, Hart,etc.) They said the place was poorly run. They had the money, they just didn't know anything about wrestling. And TNA is going down the same road. I personally liked TNA pre Hogan. It was different and it really had more wrestling than WWE. But here comes Bischoff and Hogan and down the tubes goes TNA. Some people don't want to hear the truth and it seems like this is the case for TNA fans. Honestly who in TNA is better than WWE top talent. Is Jay lethal and Kaz better than Rey Mysterio? Is Ken Anderson better than Edge??? Lets debate these things. But for some of you its to hard for you because all you want to do is say people don't know what they are talking about and such. TNA vs. WWE whos better??? Ratings say WWE,. Attendance, sales say WWE. TNA fans put it on the table and stick up for TNA...if theres anything to really stick up for Ratings, Buyrates, and attendance numbers... have nothing to do with how good or bad a product is. There are countless TV shows out there that get high ratings, yet I watch it and the show sucks. There are countless TV shows out there that have low ratings, yet I watch it and the show is fantastic. Ratings/BuyRates/Attendances do not equal a better television product.
|
|
|
Post by k5 on Jan 22, 2011 21:25:23 GMT -5
So if someone supports TNA they are logical and their stance is sound. You TNA people are unbelieveable. Before Turner Broadcasting went to sell out, Vince Russo, Eric Bischoff and whoever you want to name used extreme amounts of money for WCW and they ran WCW to its death. Did you guys read the quotes and books from all the former WCW people (Hogan, Flair, Bischoff, Hart,etc.) They said the place was poorly run. They had the money, they just didn't know anything about wrestling. And TNA is going down the same road. I personally liked TNA pre Hogan. It was different and it really had more wrestling than WWE. But here comes Bischoff and Hogan and down the tubes goes TNA. Some people don't want to hear the truth and it seems like this is the case for TNA fans. Honestly who in TNA is better than WWE top talent. Is Jay lethal and Kaz better than Rey Mysterio? Is Ken Anderson better than Edge??? Lets debate these things. But for some of you its to hard for you because all you want to do is say people don't know what they are talking about and such. TNA vs. WWE whos better??? Ratings say WWE,. Attendance, sales say WWE. TNA fans put it on the table and stick up for TNA...if theres anything to really stick up for first off, i am not a 'tna person'...i am a wrestling fan. you fail to mention the fact that wcw made a huge amount of cash and for a long time were defeating the wwe in ratings. tna is worth defending because it's willing to be adversely different to the wwe product. are they succeeding in every way? definitely not, their ecw ppv last year was just bad news and i'd agree that the hulk hogan regime in tna is bad news...but why the hate on bischoff? he had nothing overly to do with wcw's downfall. and if anything, they are worth defending for the amount of focus they still put in on actual WRESTLING. essentially every tna payperview has a match that is above 3 stars...that is saying much more for tna than the average wwe ppv. i just don't understand why people are so obsessive with hating tna. is it the greatest wrestling product? no. is it striving to improve and in some ways succeeds? yes. is it, overall, just a positive thing to have another leading wrestling company in north america than wwe? YES, for ALL wrestling fans. so if you don't like it...don't watch it. but it's not the 'sinking death ship wcw 2000' bullcrap you're trying to say whatsoever. that's typical internet fan jargon. people said in 2002 that tna wouldn't survive until 2005 and that people are fools to support it. well, they were wrong, and in that time of three years we got endless high quality matches and unique concepts that hadn't been provided to the mainstream wrestling audience in years (the x cup tourny, for example). here they are, almost 10 years later, still improving and churning out a unique product. at this point, i really have no patience left for doomsayers. you don't know enough to randomly spout that tna is on it's deathbed, it's a simple fact.
|
|
mase307
Main Eventer
Elite Trader
instagram.com/mase307 Getting Rid of Figs! Send a PM if interested
Joined on: Sept 22, 2010 7:46:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,836
|
Post by mase307 on Jan 22, 2011 21:42:54 GMT -5
Ratings and Earnings don't always tell you if a product is good? Its all about what people want and if you have High Ratings and you get people to spend lots of money on your product than that means there is a market. TNA does not have at least 3 star matches for every match during its PPV's. Trust me I watch all of them and half the time I have to keep myself from falling a sleep. I must admit I do this for some of WWE PPV's too. But the bottom line is The correlations are there, as posted a few replies back. TNA needs new blood running it. How can anyone explain Vince Russo still being associated with TNA??? Only in TNA can you take Jeff Hardy and ruin his character. Are you telling me there is no one else they could of put the belt on while Hardy deals with his legal issues??? Believe it or not I want TNA to be good like how WCW was good in 1996. It made for great television and wrestling. But TNA is going down the wrong path and they need to turn it around before they become nothing more than a local/regional/minor league promotion
|
|
|
Post by tnafan17: The Total Package on Jan 22, 2011 21:50:48 GMT -5
So if someone supports TNA they are logical and their stance is sound. You TNA people are unbelieveable. Before Turner Broadcasting went to sell out, Vince Russo, Eric Bischoff and whoever you want to name used extreme amounts of money for WCW and they ran WCW to its death. Did you guys read the quotes and books from all the former WCW people (Hogan, Flair, Bischoff, Hart,etc.) They said the place was poorly run. They had the money, they just didn't know anything about wrestling. And TNA is going down the same road. I personally liked TNA pre Hogan. It was different and it really had more wrestling than WWE. But here comes Bischoff and Hogan and down the tubes goes TNA. Some people don't want to hear the truth and it seems like this is the case for TNA fans. Honestly who in TNA is better than WWE top talent. Is Jay lethal and Kaz better than Rey Mysterio? Is Ken Anderson better than Edge??? Lets debate these things. But for some of you its to hard for you because all you want to do is say people don't know what they are talking about and such. TNA vs. WWE whos better??? Ratings say WWE,. Attendance, sales say WWE. TNA fans put it on the table and stick up for TNA...if theres anything to really stick up for first off, i am not a 'tna person'...i am a wrestling fan. you fail to mention the fact that wcw made a huge amount of cash and for a long time were defeating the wwe in ratings. tna is worth defending because it's willing to be adversely different to the wwe product. are they succeeding in every way? definitely not, their ecw ppv last year was just bad news and i'd agree that the hulk hogan regime in tna is bad news...but why the hate on bischoff? he had nothing overly to do with wcw's downfall. and if anything, they are worth defending for the amount of focus they still put in on actual WRESTLING. essentially every tna payperview has a match that is above 3 stars...that is saying much more for tna than the average wwe ppv. i just don't understand why people are so obsessive with hating tna. is it the greatest wrestling product? no. is it striving to improve and in some ways succeeds? yes. is it, overall, just a positive thing to have another leading wrestling company in north america than wwe? YES, for ALL wrestling fans. so if you don't like it...don't watch it. but it's not the 'sinking death ship wcw 2000' bullcrap you're trying to say whatsoever. that's typical internet fan jargon. people said in 2002 that tna wouldn't survive until 2005 and that people are fools to support it. well, they were wrong, and in that time of three years we got endless high quality matches and unique concepts that hadn't been provided to the mainstream wrestling audience in years (the x cup tourny, for example). here they are, almost 10 years later, still improving and churning out a unique product. at this point, i really have no patience left for doomsayers. you don't know enough to randomly spout that tna is on it's deathbed, it's a simple fact. Wow dude. Thank you. I agree with this whole heartidly. +1
|
|
|
Post by SodaGuy on Jan 22, 2011 21:57:00 GMT -5
No, ratings don't tell you if a product is good or not, there is a major difference between "a good product" and "there being a market", a very big difference. Stop flip-flopping on what you say.
Yes, WWE is going to have a bigger audience and buy-rates. Why? Because, they're a fifty plus year company that is a name. A name doesn't make your product better than anyone else nor does ratings. Does it make them more SUCCESSFUL? Yes, but it doesn't automatically make them a better product. Earnings have no effect on wether your product is a good product or not, look at promotions like CHIKARA and ROH... they're all good products/enjoyable products, yet they're not rolling in "WWE money", it doesn't mean they're a worse product than WWE.
You determine wether a product is good or bad based on your own thoughts, opinions, and decisions... not because they're the "biggest" with the "most money". I don't sit around and watch NCIS due to it's ratings, I watch it because I enjoy the show... just like i don't sit around and watch TNA due to it's ratings, I watch it because I enjoy the show.
I'm not saying one product is better than the other in TNA/WWE, there isn't a right or wrong answer to that question as it's an opinion but I'll tell you this much: I watch TNA because I enjoy their product, I don't watch WWE because I didn't enjoy their product . You can sit here and argue that "TNA is horrible" until your fingers fall off from typing... you're not going to change my view point in the company.
I enjoy the product TNA puts on, you can tell me I am "drinking the kool-aid", I'm a "mark", or whatever crappy insult you got... but it's not going to change anything. So, if you don't enjoy the product then it's very simple: Don't watch it.
|
|