You know WWE is better. So why insist on TNA?

Question

Which is really better?

WWE or TNA?

Now...people that answer with "TNA IS WAY BETTER"....why does WWE kill them in ratings each week?

TNA has been around for 5 years?

Shouldn't wrestling fans know about TNA by now? If they do, why aren't they tuning in?

WWE average ratings - 3.3-3.5
Smackdown average ratings - 2.5.-2.8
ECW average ratings 1.5-1.7
TNA average ratings 1.3-1.6

You can look up weekly ratings on either wrestleview.com or NoDq.com as my source.

Why do people keep insisting that TNA is better when it's really not?

They have washed up stars (except Sting) and WWE rejects. With the exception of few talents.

I don't hate TNA. I still tune in to watch it. But it really gets to me when people say that TNA is better than WWE just to get either attention or just being AGAINST WWE programming.

What's your opinion on this?

Answer 1

Why are you letting it bother you so much? Seriously, not everyone is going to agree with you, & statistics aren't going to suddenly change people's opinions, which is what you're asking about when you ask this question. McMahon may have better marketing & be able to get higher numbers, but that doesn't mean his products have better quality. That is determined by the viewers themselves. Some of us, like myself, are old school wrestling fans who started out watching during the early '80s, when people like Hulk Hogan, Randy "Macho Man" Savage, Jake "The Snake" Roberts, Sting, & "Rowdy" Roddy Piper were still fairly new faces to the game. Then, the WWF focused on wrestling, & their storylines were minimal compared to today. This is what people like me prefer, & why we prefer to watch TNA. If I DVR TNA Impact & play it back skipping through commercials & filler, it takes me approximately 40-45 minutes to watch the matches. It takes about the same amount of time to watch the matches on Raw if I DVR it. So, why would I prefer a show that gives me 40-45 minutes of wrestling matches within 2 hours over one that can give me that much wrestling in 1 hour?
Another reason I prefer TNA is because the content's cleaner. Considering when I started watching WWF, I really thought it began to suck when they got to what they call the "Attitude Era". If wrestling had been like that when I was in grade school, my parents would have banned it from the house. It was at this time wrestling became full of unnecessary vulgarity, blasphemy, & idiocy. Suddenly, we went from something that at least may have promoted wholesome family values, even if it did result in kids imitating the moves on one another, to something full of people swearing, flipping the bird, promoting alcoholism, making fun of religion, & being full of fairly graphic images. The programs have increasingly become cesspools of immorality. This isn't so much the case with TNA, even though I wouldn't want my niece & nephew even watching it.
So, why do we prefer TNA? Well, it provides an alternative that will deliver more action, & it's less offensive. That's why I prefer it. Perhaps you may view that as being against McMahon's programming, but in life, if we choose something, part of that motivation is that we're preferring it to or opposing something else. Truth be told, if there were a program more like the classic WWF of the '80s, I would prefer it over everything being offered today.

Answer 2

dude it takes a little while than 5 years to establish a company. wwe took 15 years. The reason why the ratings are so low is if you have seen a impact its rushed because they have 45 minutes to show case a roster of 50 plus so of course it will look ****. plus people forget wcw ratings were terrilbe in 94 but when it got 2 hours, 2 years later they were beating wwe in the ratings every week.tna needs 2 hours to improve untill then impact will be second rate. Also wwe does put on better weekly shows but tna ppv's are the real represent of their brand of wrestling. I order every wwe ppv and tna and 9/10 times tna ppv's are better. also i hate how a wrestler who leaves wwe is consided a"reject" if this is true then austin,triple h and undertaker are all wcw rejects because they were all fired by wcw and i wouldn't call then rejects.Its just a company does wanna book them or they don't have ideas for a certain wrestler, the only washed up guys in tna are nash and stenier and nash is a manger and stenier can put on a decent match the rest of the tna roster is quite young. I like WWE and TNA,they both have their positives and negatives.

Answer 3

And the WWE doesn't have washed up Stars??? (Flair, Stone Cold, FOLEY!!) Please! The WWE has 6 wrestlers (Cena, Khali, Umaga, Lashley, Batista, Edge) that get regurgitated week in and week out and it's getting boring.

TNA is better, IMO. It's more entertaining with better storylines and gimmicks and their wrestlers perform moves that WWE guys wouldn't dare to try.Plus, the X Division is more entertaining than the WWE heavyweight Division. Also most of the wrestlers I like (Sting, Steiners, Angle) are in TNA.

WWE sucks. Plain and simple. Same guys wreslting week after week. Nothing new. Same bland old wrestling. ECW is just crap. It was cool in 1995, now it's horrible to watch.

Also, Raw and Smackdown are on for 2 sometimes 3 hours while TNA in on for only an hour, so of course the ratings are gonna be in WWE's favor.

Also with 3 brands, WWE has a PPV 3 out of 4 weeks in a given month. Quite frankly it's too much WWE crap. If TNA was on Monday nights for 2 hours (like WCW was) we very well could have another Monday night war.

Answer 4

"It is not about the salary it is all about reality"
the fact is TNA has no Ceman, Lashley and Boretista and by this rate I won't be suprised if TNA came on top
I am a WWE fan and so you are then why do we watch TNA? because it offers something different and some people thinks that this different thing is better than the WWE

Answer 5

Before the draft, I would rather watch a game of cricket than watch an episode of RAW or ECW. And I would rather watch grass grow than watch a game of cricket. You do the math. It's really not that hard to be better than WWE. And I have never cared what the majority of society thinks, because the majority of society are morons. People were asking the same question related to WCW and WWF one decade ago- look where we are now.

Answer 6

WQ: i'm able to basically answer for the WWE titles as a results of fact i do no longer watch TNA or ROH. WWE Championship: Triple H. permit's settle for it, if every physique has the biggest risk of being the champion this time next year this is Triple H. He gets the main identify pictures and he's specific to win it lower back sometime next year. WHC: i'm in simple terms going to take a random wager right here and say side. i'm no longer asserting that i choose side to win however, as a results of fact in all honesty i might plenty quite have the two The Undertaker or Chris Jericho as a results of fact the champion. yet, since we are looking forward twelve months from now, it style of feels like side is a enormously reasonable %.. via then he will honestly be lower back and he would be a identify contender. stable coach 9/10. Promo: final night Jamie, Amie, and that i had a great non identify triple danger tournament. or maybe however i did no longer win the tournament, i'm no longer likely to return out right here and make a huge deal over slightly loss. it is not like it develop into identify tournament or maybe a variety one contenders tournament, so this is different from i'm lacking out on something. i'm going to declare congrats to Jamie however for pulling out a victory over the SPW females's Champion. Amie additionally has herself a clean variety one contender for her females's Championship, EiFA. since a variety one contender develop into declared final night, I probable isn't getting a identify shot of my own for a at the same time as. yet that isn't end me from pushing myself to honestly the decrease and doing my superb in all and sundry of my suits to return. quickly adequate i'm going to earn a identify shot, I assure it.

Answer 7

Wow...Thats an awful thing to say....but I like Tna but WWE is way better, the announce teams are better, the production quality is better, the storylines are better, and I like more of WWE's superstars than TNAs. But TNA does have some talented wrestlers there, I will give them that.

Answer 8

WWE was better a couple of years ago but its on the decline since the rock and chris jericho and all the main highlights like kanes mask left!!!!!!!!!! Since all these suckers like john cena and batista r robbing wwe and its name

Answer 9

I watch them both and am not against wwe it just so predictable with the exception of the McMahon thing and they are messing up good talent with lame storylines

Answer 10

WWE is way better, face it Vince could buy TNA 100 times over if he felt like it. It is just a known fact that TNA can't stand up against TNA that's why Vince ignores it. If it were better in any way then WWE would stand up and fight against it and crush them just like with WCW. Anyone who says TNA is way better is just some jerk who likes to go against the norm and argue against facts. the fact is WWE is better, makes more money, and makes TNA look like the minor leagues, which they pretty much are, just look at Marcus Cor Von and Jeff Hardy. Sure Hardy started in WWE but he went to TNA like it was a training camp and came back better then ever, and Marcus Cor Von started out in TNA as Monty Brown, and then when he was good enough he got called up to the majors a.k.a. WWE.