TNA vs. WWE?

Question

I have to wonder why people are satisfied with the type of programming the WWE produces. They average about 20 minutes of wrestling (if you're lucky) per 2 hour show, while TNA gets in alomst twice that in an hour show. Usually you get close to an hour more wrestling on a PPV opposed to WWE. Maybe someone can explain to me why the WWE is an appealing product. It can't be for the quality of wrestling, because TNA wrestling is alot more entertaining to watch. It has to be something else. If anyone can give a good answer without telling me it's because Cena rules, or you suck because you're hatin' on WWE, I'd be much appreciated. I don't totally hate WWE either, it's just that there hasn't been anything entertaining about a WWE show in years. (The DX reunion is a start, but I have a feeling it's going to get ruined too.) So there's the perameters. Happy debating.

Answer 1

Honestly, I'd say a large part of TNA's problem is business sense. Paul Haymen has long been acknowledged as brilliant as far as the business goes. Yet when Paul tried to give TNA constructive advice, Jeff more or less crapped on him. It is true that TNA has not 'branded' themselves. They've not stood out. They have alot of hold-overs from WCW and WWE and they rely on that a little too much really. Also, yes, I agree that their wrestlers need to work on their mic skills and out-of-the-ring abilities. Yeah, the WWE is a little overfilled with out of the ring, but its still required to cut a good promo to build intrest sometimes, and the TNA wrestlers largely aren't able to do this. I would say that they both have their strong and weak points and neither are currently at the precious middle ground any more than the other, however WWE has the money to stay afloat in a time like this. TNA has yet to pull a profit and has been consistantly losing money since its debut.. that's a problem.

Answer 2

TNA is by far better, look at wresters...not the same mathes weel after week, always something different for a main event. WWE week after week you don't even have to watch to know what's gonna happen. Storylines are drug out way too long and repeated over and over. Not to mention Vince almost always only appears on TV when he's concerned about something in his company. Look at Christian for example, walked away from a huge contract exstention to join with TNA, isn't that interesting. Not to mention TNA now has Jim Cornette (who wwe tried to get back). I'm not the biggest Sting fan, but to turn down WWE's money to help launch TNA even further, gotta wonder about that as well. Besides you respect a wrestling company that doesn't need to build every PPV event around the world title. WWE is great to TIVO boring to watch. Both shows have the same amount of wrestling but one show is 2hrs and the other is 1hr, how is that? One last thing, new ECW bad idea. How can you have ECW when most of guys are now in TNA and could care less about Vince. GREAT JOB LETTING THE DUDLEYS GO!

Answer 3

I don't like the wrestlers TNA has or the production. The guys who run it are the same who were so instrumental in running WCW into the ground. I agree that there is too much story in wrestling now, but TNA is pretty much just lame. I would say that the RVD v. Kurt Angle match on ECW last night was better than any I have seen on TNA. I truly do feel the matches are better on Raw if CEna isn't involved, but I think TNA and Smackdown are about equal.

Answer 4

i haven't watched a TNA show, but i have watched the wrestling.
WWE has gotten, or always was, too much drama. I don't watch TNA wrestling mainly because i don't have cable, but I have watched some of their wrestling, it is intense.... If TNA was on free TV, then i would easily become a fan.

Overall, WWE beats TNA because it has been there longer and it has more money. But TNA is some intense action. I would watch it if it was more available.

Also, I'm currently watching wwe, and it has gotten to be hilarious but I'm still watching it, so it must be doing something right...

Answer 5

TNA has more wrestling on their show because the wrestlers do not have the mic skills or charisma that the WWE wrestlers have. The WWE shows are more entertainment than pure wrestling shows. My wife calls them soap operas for men.

Answer 6

Although TNA has better quality wrestling, WWE has much greater story telling ability. And most wrestling fans that watch WWE are in it for the story. And that just so happens to be most wrestling fans in the world.

Answer 7

I hear all of you TNA haters saying, “TNA has old Wrestlers”, “That’s were wrestlers go to retire”. That may be somewhat true for the Nash’s and Jarret’s, but do you watch the X-Division. That is some of the best wrestling I have ever seen and it just amazes me what these guys will do. I am impressed every week as to how far these guys will go.

Answer 8

you are right that tna guys do a lot of stunts than the wwe superstars but the fact is that wwe superstars are very famous everywhere coz wwe organises shows almost in every country and wwe spends more money and its quite a big showthen tna.
i think you have got your answer.

Answer 9

Sometimes I forget that TNA still comes on, so I don't really have any interest in TNA of whatsoever. B/c it really doesn't make any sense. WWE has always been a dominate brand!

Answer 10

If you put out a show with headliners that include Jeff Jarrett, Scott Steiner, Sting, and most of all, Kevin Nash, your product can only be trash.

At least there is an infinitesimal chance that the WWE show will be watchable.