PDA

View Full Version : TNA, the solution to competition?



Advocate
01-09-2006, 10:51 PM
On March 26, 2001 the biggest news, potentially ever, came out of wrestling. It was know for a while that Time Warner was heading into a merger with AOL and that they wanted to cut its losses. Since WCW was in the red it decided to sell WCW to Eric Bischoff and his financial partners. However, Time Warner made the decision to dump the wrestling from TBS and TNT, and thus Eric Bischoff’s money walked away. On March 26, 2001 the WWE bought out the WCW, and thus, killing its main source of competition. Since that day the Internet felt that the industry has been hurt by the lack of competition and have strived to find competition so that they could return to the battles that they once saw.

Three years ago Jeff and Jerry Jarrett decided to form a new company. The company would be called Total Nonstop Action (TNA) and would be affiliated with the National Wrestling Alliance (NWA). The company would air weekly ppvs as its television show for a quarter of the price of one WWE monthly ppv. Three years later I am going to review the current situation and potential of TNA.

Now it is extremely important when reading this that we remember one important factor. For TNA to compete with the WWE it must be better than the WWE. If I decided to come out with my own cola and compete with Pepsi and Coke people would not buy my cola if the aggregate product was equal to or less than Pepsi or Coke. It would either need a better taste, image, price, or some major competitive advantage. So therefore, TNA must be better than the WWE as far as product goes to compete.

Here is a review of what TNA does right and what it does wrong:

What they do right
1. X-Division: TNA did not want to follow how every other league pushed their cruiserweight division. It knew that it could do more with more wrestlers. Also, at the same time TNA knew that the WWE was restricting the moves its wrestlers could do, and even without the restrictions it knew that the WWE would never go with the X-Division type matches. This became TNA’s strong point. It held matches that the WWE would not hold and was able to look different based on that. TNA knew that there is a large group of fans that want to see high flying matches, and catered to that group. The X-Division has been very successful and rarely gives a bad match.

2. Establishment and Potential of new stars: AJ Styles, Monty Brown, Abyss, the America’s Most Wanted, Roderick Strong, and Christopher Daniels are all the future of wrestling. With TNA these young guys have had the chance to establish themselves. In addition TNA has the potential to use these new stars. These stars rarely have poor matches thus making the ppv a greater value.

3. Six Sided Ring: Does not make the match any better or any worse, but it does help differentiate TNA from the WWE.

4. More Action: This is partially attributed to the X-Division and new talent. Basically, it is just that the matches are more fast paced and involve more wrestling.


What it does bad

1. Mike Tenay and Don West: A lot of people will hate me naming this, but these guys do make you turn off the TV. Tenay was good in WCW, but he was mostly colour back then. In TNA he comes off as a whiney fellow. West is horrible, if you do not know that then you must not have heard TNA. Am I requesting the best in the business? No. I think if TNA got some decent, normal commentators it would be okay. The problem is that these two are annoying, and I am not the only one to think it. I suggest cutting back, giving Shane Douglas colour and maybe a guy like Borash play-by-play, or even Scott Hudson.

2. Velocity Rejects: I talked about TNA’s great young guys, so why is it that the old guys, the guys that the WWE fired while they were on Velocity, and the drug addicts that the WWE fired get pushed over these guys? I remember watching the King of the Mountain match where Monty Brown beat everyone. I remember Abyss winning I think three or four number one contender matches last year back to back. Yet when it comes down to it these guys are lost behind Hardy, X-Pac, Nash, Gunn, Dogg, Konnan, DDP, Rhino, D-Lo brown and so forth.

I remember getting excited for the King of the Mountain match this year and it went like less than 15 minutes. LESS THAN 15 MINUTES with 5 guys. The excuse was that there was so much on the card. Then I have a suggestion, take out the fucking Road Dogg match.

3. Over-doing its gimmick matches: How many Ultimate X matches or Six Sides of Steel do we need to see in a year?

4. Hiring Drug Addicts: This is not an on air product thing, but it is important. When the WWE fires a wrestler for repeated drug offenses or fires a wrestler for refusing rehab TNA is committing the ultimate sin by hiring these guys. It is wrong and they must smarten up.

5. Bad World Title Matches: In 2005 the majority of matches where the World title was involved (including tag) were rather brutal. Again, it has to do with pushing some of the too old of tv guys that were released by the WWE. The WWE may not always pull of a great main event, but TNA did not even come close. The champion is supposed to be the best in the league and fighting the best in the league. I know that the X-Division is its strong point, but there is no reason why those guys could not be main eventing. Even so, again look at guys like Brown, AJ, Abyss, ect.

6. Poor storylines: I know TNA is not storyline oriented, but that is no excuse for the lack of decency. The Raven/Larry Z feud is a good example.

7. Lack of listening to fans: Many say that the WWE does not do this, but again, remember, TNA must be better. So when guys like Monty Brown and Samoa Joe are cheered out of the building why are they heel? Why is it that AJ Styles has won Mr. TNA for every year that it has existed and yet is not even in the main event?

Obviously TNA does some great things, but in retrospect it has too many flaws. When I turn on the TV to see Samoa Joe beat up someone or see an X-Division tag match up and get Team 3D against The New Age Outlaws I scratch my head and then change the channel.

Sure, TNA has some great things, but it is not better than the WWE thus will never amount to real competition. I argue that they are much further worse than the WWE, but that is more opinionated and not the way I want this article to move.

Five years ago the Internet wanted competition, however, now that TNA has arrived you have to question the solution. If this is the competition will the WWE ever improve? I think not. Personally, I would like to see TNA go under so that wrestling has the chance to create a real competitor and do it properly.

mumbles
01-10-2006, 01:53 AM
That was a good read advocate. You made some good points. Be sure to read my future piece "Why everything Advocate says is wrong".

Unknown
01-10-2006, 02:01 AM
Yeah, even though I feel that you're too much of a mark you did make some good points (some I had in my head as well). I think the one thing TNA really needs to get away from is trying to be the next ECW or the next WCW. They need to just try and be the first TNA. Like I've been saying for a while too, book your homegrown talent fuck the washed up WWE rejects (Christian and Rhyno aren't included in that statement). You're not going to get more PPV buys or a ratings spark by booking recognizable names as the notion ends up being that the company is the minor league as they are pushing talent that the WWE didn't even want. I disagree about TNA not being the solution though, if they got their proverbial shit togehter, got rid of some of the filth, and got a bit more innovative in their booking they should be able to become a solid number two within the next few years. That's me being optimistic as I really want the industry to have two strong wrestling companies as that's something it needs...

EDIT: LOL at mumbles...:lager:

Kalen™
01-10-2006, 02:06 AM
That was a good read there Advocate - would you mind if I posted it on the main site? I don't have the chance to see TNA but a lot of questions materialise in my mind and you have addressed a lot of them in this thread.

Advocate
01-10-2006, 03:20 AM
That was a good read advocate. You made some good points. Be sure to read my future piece "Why everything Advocate says is wrong".


Mumbles, mumbles, mumbles...

You should know by now that I am correct 99.95 percent of the time. But I will tell you something, when you get that 0.05 percent when I am wrong you better make sure you mark it down, because it will be a while before you see it again ;)


That was a good read there Advocate - would you mind if I posted it on the main site? I don't have the chance to see TNA but a lot of questions materialise in my mind and you have addressed a lot of them in this thread.

Yep, sure go ahead. I would be honoured.

Kalen™
01-10-2006, 04:09 AM
Mumbles, mumbles, mumbles...

Yep, sure go ahead. It would be my honour.

Well this could very well be the 0.5% :wink1: - I think you meant to say you would be honoured, and I shall reply "it would be my honour to put your column on the main site" :laughing: It'll go up shortly - thanks for that, I think if we can offer our visitors some good reads we should be more and more impressive every day.

Sunshine
01-10-2006, 04:13 AM
Bad joke. Very bad joke.

I do think TNA can be the competition that gives WWE the nudge that they need. They have a lot of things going right but at the same time a lot of things going wrong. Although you list more bad then good, most of the bad stuff are very minor.

I haven't been caught by the TNA hook yet. Don't know why really...it feels almost as if it doesn't give me a personal 'it' factor. I for one, love watching WWE because of storyline and character developement. Something TNA needs to focus a lot more on. (Help from Heyman will do wonders)

With more exposure to be expected with a videogame and house shows, I think TNA will be very big within 3-4 years. And by that time, there should be a 2 hour time slot. And then they'll beat RAW in ratings 80 weeks in a row and then WWE buys them out. :pipe:

NoelC1983
01-15-2006, 01:13 PM
I gots to say, most of your negatives are what made it so hard for me to really get into TNA, I have finally been converted after seeing a few Samoa Joe matches, but seriously get Jeff Jarrett, Road Dogg, Konnan, Kip James, and the announce team off the friggin' show already. I understand they are there to draw in the casual fan, but ultimately they do more to drive those fans away. I tried to watch a few episodes when if first started, but it wasn't anywhere near as good as I had heard it was, because I caught the old folks that belong behind the scenes not in the ring, and the announcing was just aweful, Tenay is alright I can handle him but somebody please just shoot West already. The storylines make my head spin too, the best build up they have is the Samoa Joe-Daniels-Styles storyline that's going on right now, and outside of actual matches they haven't really done anything to build it up, and yet it still has a better build up than the Raven storyline or the 3LK storyline, which have had 1,000 times the build up. The only other match with any real build up is the Christian and Sting VS. Jarrett and Brown match, and Brown and Christian are the only reason that one has even been entertaining. I may not be popular for this one, but they need to quit wastng their time with Hardy too, he was special in WWE because he did stuff nobody else there could or were willing to do, but in TNA there are at least a half a dozen younger more reliable guys that can do everything he does better, and would kill for his spot. It's really kind of frustrating, but Samoa Joe, Christian, and the entire X-Division will keep me watching, not to mention the whole Sting is returning to TV thing. Some grew up worshipping Hogan or Savage or Stone Cold or The Rock, but the one guy I still full on mark out for is Sting.

**edit**
Also I think they need to get Jarrett out of the booking, people like to point out how he's always in the picture, but it goes beyond that, he's almost got his own version of the Clique going right now. It's almost like the old guys are rewarded simply for having worked with him before.