Jump to content


Photo

Is TNA the worst wrestling promotion in history?


  • Please log in to reply
1651 replies to this topic

#21 jdw

jdw
  • Members
  • 8040 posts

Posted 12 February 2007 - 11:32 AM

I don't know if TNA is the "worst". I do think they've pissed off more money to do less than any promotion. Some might say that Abram's UWF or the AWF or some of the other fly-by-nights did even less, so their pissing away money was a bigger waste. But TNA has pissed away a shitload of money basically to get on PPV and now on TV and really have nothing to show for it. For most of the history of the promotion that money was simply to fund an egofuck for Jeffey. Since they moved a bit away from being Non-Stop Jarrett, things having gotten any better on ROI. John

#22 Stuttsy

Stuttsy
  • Members
  • 114 posts

Posted 12 February 2007 - 11:33 AM

Look, I agree TNA sucks, but how can a promotion that has at least a few match MOTYCs possibly be the "worst wrestling promotion in history"? I couldn't make myself watch a whole show, but I've certainly tracked down some matches here and there.


Bottom lines are way more fundamentally important in wrestling than how many snowflakes Elix Skipper's dumb ass gets. TNA's bottom line financial stats are dreadful. They're only alive because someone is willing to keep pumping money into it, presumably because they're being snowed into thinking it eventually will actually turn a profit. It won't, they'll pull the plug, no more reverse battle royals.

#23 Bix

Bix
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 6237 posts

Posted 12 February 2007 - 11:42 AM

I find it hilarious how apparently Jarrett would whine about how they had a big roster overlap with ROH yet didn't get the praise ROH did. Then the thing last night where their parody of stupid WWE booking has become their own stupid booking and it gives me a headache and I have to stop posting.

#24 Loss

Loss
  • Admins
  • 43387 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 February 2007 - 11:42 AM

WCW was a money pit for years too, but they also had periods of putting out plenty of good stuff, and did show at times that they could start a storyline, build it to a climax and then end it. I'm not sure that in five years, TNA has successfully executed a storyline from start to finish.

#25 goodhelmet

goodhelmet
  • Admins
  • 18951 posts

Posted 12 February 2007 - 11:55 AM

I think there has to be a distinction between on-air product and business model. If you want to say a company was the worst from a business perspective, it would be WCW in 1999 and 2000 when they lost tens of millions of dollars or ECW that couldn't pay its workers for the last year and a half on a consistent basis. From a television standpoint, it was absolutely dreadful sitting through Nitro in the Russo era... about as painful as it is sitting through TNA in the Russo era. I have also never been a fan of ECW TV from 1997-end. All that magic Paul E. created in the early years was gone. From a match quality standpoint, that is subjecive since the X Division has always received a bunch of praise... except (surprise, surprise) when Russo was booking. The 2005 shows were generally praised as a whole from Meltz and on the net. In 2006, I have more matches on my 2006 MOTYC set than on the 2005 set and I didn't select any of the matches either. I think John's statement about sums up TNA. A company with a buttload of potential that has pissed a shitload of money away. Also, XPW is the worst promotion I have ever watched... just abysmal, Juvi or no Juvi. Whoever said MLW may have a strong case as well.

#26 Loss

Loss
  • Admins
  • 43387 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 February 2007 - 12:00 PM

I actually think you can take a look at the whole picture and there's no need to separate the business model from the quality of the television. Because a company can be doing bad business and still have some redeeming qualities. TNA is doing bad business and still is really short on those redeeming qualities. Having a talented roster is meaningless when they do nothing with them.

#27 goodhelmet

goodhelmet
  • Admins
  • 18951 posts

Posted 12 February 2007 - 12:03 PM

OK, and that applies to WCW in 99 and 2000 under Russo just as it applies to TNA under Russo. Like others have mentioned, Joe was booked really strong for a long time. The X Division was something to build on until it became Nash's plaything. Right now, TNA is in the shitter but as a whole, the company has not been a complete wash its entire existence.

#28 Loss

Loss
  • Admins
  • 43387 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 February 2007 - 12:09 PM

WCW definitely didn't use the talent they had, but until Russo came in, most of the time, the booking wasn't hindering them from having good matches. To me, it's all about the overall effect. WCW had some awful periods where there were still some redeeming qualities. WWF has had bad business periods with good wrestling and good wrestling periods with bad business. I wouldn't call either the worst, because when I think of TNA, I think of a company with bad booking, bad promoting and bad wrestling, in the sense that none of the matches have any psychology.

#29 Bix

Bix
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 6237 posts

Posted 12 February 2007 - 12:45 PM

A big part of the problem is that TNA seems to have no real identity. Not as much lately, but they wanted to be seen as THE ALTERNATIVE with the X Division roster overlapping with ROH a lot, while even pre-Russo the show was this retarded WWE Lite like the middle part of GWF, only with flip piledrivers. At the very least, XPW had a clear identity as the methed out lovechild of ECW and porn. Towards the end, it was a perfectly fine promotion with Douglas booking.

#30 Guest_TheShawshankRudotion_*

Guest_TheShawshankRudotion_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 February 2007 - 02:33 PM

I actually liked WOW in a non-ironic fashion. Aside from the goofy gimmicks, the booking was solid and logical. The women were mostly very, very green, but it was fun to see some of them grow into decent wrestlers.


"Aside from Goofy Gimmicks"
and
"Some of them"

Are understated here.

WOW was very heavy on goofy gimmicks, and had every stereotype under the sun that isn't seen as offensive here only because the bar is so low on offensive things in wrestling (saying wrestling has always had stereotypes is not a valid argument, also). To say "aside from goofy gimmicks" with wow is akin to saying "aside from the war in Iraq" with GwB. A key element of WOW was the gimmicks, you can't deny that.

And there were maybe one or two watchable/capable wrestlers in WOW. A lot more were blown up in the ironic fashion, or the lust-in-pants fashion. "Some" is to suggest there were more than that. The best WOW workers are just below the worst TNA wrestlers, and the best WOW matches... well, as bad as TNA has been, they have smoked WOW in the matches dept. Not to mention WOW lasted all of a cup of coffee.

Not that this is a serious matter, it's just you sorta downplayed some important elements in what made WOW suck. However, having more competent storylines than TNA doesn't really say much, and in a way, says a lot.

#31 Guest_TheShawshankRudotion_*

Guest_TheShawshankRudotion_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 February 2007 - 02:35 PM

Uh, I actually kind of liked Abrams shows. Not that they were good, but they were unoffensive and an interesting place to see some of the "stars" work in. I haven't watched any of the stuff I have on tape in a long time (I have a couple of commercial releases IIRC), but I seem to remember thinking they were solid.


The UWF was like the WWF during the same time period, except with worse (and more out-dated) wrestlers and production values.

#32 Bix

Bix
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 6237 posts

Posted 12 February 2007 - 03:05 PM


I actually liked WOW in a non-ironic fashion. Aside from the goofy gimmicks, the booking was solid and logical. The women were mostly very, very green, but it was fun to see some of them grow into decent wrestlers.


"Aside from Goofy Gimmicks"
and
"Some of them"

Are understated here.

WOW was very heavy on goofy gimmicks, and had every stereotype under the sun that isn't seen as offensive here only because the bar is so low on offensive things in wrestling (saying wrestling has always had stereotypes is not a valid argument, also). To say "aside from goofy gimmicks" with wow is akin to saying "aside from the war in Iraq" with GwB. A key element of WOW was the gimmicks, you can't deny that.

Well, what I meant was that while the gimmicks were ridiculous and kitschy, for the most part, the booking was actually very solid and logical.

And there were maybe one or two watchable/capable wrestlers in WOW. A lot more were blown up in the ironic fashion, or the lust-in-pants fashion. "Some" is to suggest there were more than that. The best WOW workers are just below the worst TNA wrestlers, and the best WOW matches... well, as bad as TNA has been, they have smoked WOW in the matches dept. Not to mention WOW lasted all of a cup of coffee.

Oh c'mon, there is no way that Peggy Lee Leather is worse than guys like Petey Williams or Lance Hoyt.

The UWF was like the WWF during the same time period, except with worse (and more out-dated) wrestlers and production values.

They actually had some pretty decent talent for the time, such as:

Cactus Jack
Dan Spivey
Steve Williams
Terry Gordy
Larry Zbyszko
Bam Bam Bigelow
The Blackhearts

Most of the roster was pretty washed up, but there were bright spots.

#33 goodhelmet

goodhelmet
  • Admins
  • 18951 posts

Posted 12 February 2007 - 03:26 PM

WCW definitely didn't use the talent they had, but until Russo came in, most of the time, the booking wasn't hindering them from having good matches. To me, it's all about the overall effect. WCW had some awful periods where there were still some redeeming qualities. WWF has had bad business periods with good wrestling and good wrestling periods with bad business. I wouldn't call either the worst, because when I think of TNA, I think of a company with bad booking, bad promoting and bad wrestling, in the sense that none of the matches have any psychology.


There really wasn't anything redeeming about Russo era WCW... at all. He turned anything worthwhile in that company into an unwatchabe mess.... much like TNA now.

Ok, and TNA without Russo was a perfectly acceptable company where everything wasn't complete shit. They had the occasional hot angle, the occasional hot match (maybe not by your standards) and some decent feuds. To say they have done nothing right is really over-generalizing.

If you want to say that 2007 TNA is starting off so bad that it could be considered one of the worst wrestling runs by any company, I am inclined to agree with you... and again it leads back to Russo. Russo's early run was absolute shit as well.

As for Bix enjoying XPW, knock yourself out. I would take the crappiest overbooked Jeff Jarrett match and watch it until my eyes bled before I ever watched XPW.

#34 Bix

Bix
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 6237 posts

Posted 12 February 2007 - 03:30 PM

As for Bix enjoying XPW, knock yourself out. I would take the crappiest overbooked Jeff Jarrett match and watch it until my eyes bled before I ever watched XPW.

Oh, most of XPW's run was pretty crappy, but the last several months were fine and there was decent stuff at times before then.

#35 goodhelmet

goodhelmet
  • Admins
  • 18951 posts

Posted 12 February 2007 - 03:32 PM

So are you saying that at no time in TNA's life that there hasn't been any decent stuff or stretches that were fine?

#36 Guest_TheShawshankRudotion_*

Guest_TheShawshankRudotion_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 February 2007 - 04:03 PM


They actually had some pretty decent talent for the time, such as:

Cactus Jack
Dan Spivey
Steve Williams
Terry Gordy
Larry Zbyszko
Bam Bam Bigelow
The Blackhearts

Most of the roster was pretty washed up, but there were bright spots.


And just about everyone performed to the lowest of their abilities there. I was severely disappointed watching the vast majority of those "good" wrestlers listed above. The odd time you had a motivated Cactus Jack, which was nullified by anything Captain Lou and his ghettoass rubberband did afterwards.

#37 Dylan Waco

Dylan Waco
  • Moderators
  • 10166 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 February 2007 - 04:44 PM

Orndorff worked there too and I seem to remember him being pretty good there.

#38 Dylan Waco

Dylan Waco
  • Moderators
  • 10166 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 February 2007 - 04:55 PM


WCW definitely didn't use the talent they had, but until Russo came in, most of the time, the booking wasn't hindering them from having good matches. To me, it's all about the overall effect. WCW had some awful periods where there were still some redeeming qualities. WWF has had bad business periods with good wrestling and good wrestling periods with bad business. I wouldn't call either the worst, because when I think of TNA, I think of a company with bad booking, bad promoting and bad wrestling, in the sense that none of the matches have any psychology.


There really wasn't anything redeeming about Russo era WCW... at all. He turned anything worthwhile in that company into an unwatchabe mess.... much like TNA now.

Ok, and TNA without Russo was a perfectly acceptable company where everything wasn't complete shit. They had the occasional hot angle, the occasional hot match (maybe not by your standards) and some decent feuds. To say they have done nothing right is really over-generalizing.

If you want to say that 2007 TNA is starting off so bad that it could be considered one of the worst wrestling runs by any company, I am inclined to agree with you... and again it leads back to Russo. Russo's early run was absolute shit as well.

As for Bix enjoying XPW, knock yourself out. I would take the crappiest overbooked Jeff Jarrett match and watch it until my eyes bled before I ever watched XPW.



Two things.

While I agree that Russo era WCW pretty much universially sucked, there was at least one interesting facet about from the "smark" perspective, namely the fact that it was interesting to see this much touted "succesful" WWF writer in a WCW setting. For that reason the behind the scenes aspect of the business was arguably more interesting and perversely entertaining than most other periods have been in recent memory. Of course that has virtually NOTHING to do with the quality of the shows, but it's the single reason I can think of why WCW from that era may seem less offensively shitty than TNA now.

And on XPW...I don't really have anything positive to say about the company..BUT one key difference is that they didn't seem to destroy their stars. TNA has pretty much sunk LAX, The entire X-Division, Joe,Christian, Abyss, and even Angle. It's almost lilke they create stars to destroy them. XPW never created any stars really, so the results of their shittiness was less horrifying.

#39 Loss

Loss
  • Admins
  • 43387 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 February 2007 - 05:00 PM

I'm also still intrigued by which Juventud fans of XPW got? The great worker or the trainwreck?

#40 Bix

Bix
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 6237 posts

Posted 12 February 2007 - 05:04 PM

I'm also still intrigued by which Juventud fans of XPW got? The great worker or the trainwreck?

Both. You got him rambling in a vastly entertaining manner during his "Juice Bar" segments and then dragging a decent match out of Chris Chetti.

The debut of The Juice Bar on YouTube.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users