View RSS Feed

jamez20

Why do People Hate TNA wrestling? Hogan/Bishoff? PART2

Rating: 2 votes, 3.50 average.
Well after I have read the comments that the last post received, I just needed to correct a few of them. HOGAN AND BISHOFF DID NOT DESTROY WCW. The merge between AOL and Time Warner is what caused the demise of WCW. AOL didn't want anything to do with pro-wrestling at the time. The only option Eric Bishoff had was to keep the company but there would be no TV deal, which would have been a pointless. A wrestling company is nothing without a TV deal especially back then. WCW actually killed the WWE in ratings. And one thing that I also give credit for is the fact that they managed to maintain "attitude" while keeping their content PG. The WWE however couldn't establish that. It seemed as if they believed that the only way they would succeed and become "attitude" was by the use of degrading content.
And to question the use of Ken Anderson; who do fans like the most, Mr. Kennedy or Mr. Anderson? I'm pretty sure most would vote for Mr. Anderson. Why? Well because WWE used him the wrong way. When he went to TNA, look what they did.

And to respond about the remarks that "TNA is full of old-time wrestlers"; Umm, what was TNA lacking from the beginning? Exposure! Yes there were a few fans and people that knew about TNA, but it wasn't enough. So how can they get exposed and receive recognition? Well look what Hulk Hogan did. Bring in some well known talents, mix them with the other talents and let's see where this goes. Pretty sure TNA is more "well-known" than what it was before Hogan and Bishoff stepped in. Yes TNA was great with what they did and all the X-division and stuff, but it only got them so far. It wasn't just enough. And it seemed like TNA was just dieing for some exposure by bringing in any talent or free-agent they could get their hands on and putting them in the main event. Before the Hogan/Bishoff era in TNA, the company brought in "old wrestlers" such as Scott Hall, Kip James, Randy Savage and put them straight to the main event. Now after the Hogan/Bishoff regime, was Scott Hall pushed directly to the main event? TNA is now a mix of all audiences. WWE however focuses mainly on one, the youth.

And this is just my opinion; I don't believe age has anything to do with a wrestler/entertainer. If a person can still go and still has fire in them, why not go until the fire is out. If a person doesn't have any skill, why put them over. John Cena is young, but his major problem is that he has a lack of pro-wrestling skills. Triple-H on the other hand is older and I'm pretty sure he can perform a better match and promo than John Cena. A person is not old until the have ran out and have nothing to offer anymore.

If TNA was pushing the older talent that have accomplished everything in the business such as Ric Flair, then I would have a problem with that. When Mick Foley came to TNA, first thing he made sure he went after was the TNA world title. However when Hogan and Flair came into the organization, I didn't see that from them.

And since TNA has been nicknamed "a company full of old wrestlers", I doubt that if Mick Foley came back to the WWE, the term "has-bin" would be thrown at him. Instead, he would be referred to as a "legend" or icon of some sort by the internet-wrestling-community. But once he steps into TNA, it's the other way around. If the Undertaker made an appearance on TNA, the term "old wrestler" would be thrown full blast towards the company. Yet, the WWE wanted to bring in Sting into their company.

Kurt Angle has a lot of fuel in him, I can see that. MR. Anderson can still go on. And then you have talent such as Somoa Joe and AJ Styles that have already accomplished star status within the company and have a loads of fuel in them, especially that they haven't work the WWE 365 day schedule before.

If TNA went "the WWE" way of things, we would then have that one person in the main picture the entire time(John Cena). TNA however mixes it up as to what I see. Their storylines are unpredictable compared to the WWE. If TNA brought in Carlito to their company, the term "wrestling oldie or has-been or wash-up wrestler would be thrown again. Yet, it seems OK for the WWE to bring in Sin Cara, a wrestling superstar from the AAA into their company. Also, I've been hearing TNA being refereed to as "WCW Lite". Well let's see; who ran WCW? Hogan and Bishoff. It's not like their ripping off of someone else work or creation.

I can go on I guess, but I feel like stopping at this point.

The reason why I am little upset is because that when fans wanted an alternative to the WWE product, that's what TNA brought and now people still dislike their product. Before the Hogan/Bishoff regime, TNA was just full of action. If I wanted to watch all action, I would flip on a porn. They are mostly pure action with very short and cheesy storylines, and to me that's what TNA once was. You have to have storylines and segments and that is what TNA was lacking. Yes, action is good, but you have to mix it up a little bit.

I believe that Hogan and Bishoff are just giving TNA that boost it needs. By a year or 2, I doubt you will see the amount of the so called "wrestling has-bins" on their show.

Why do you think ROH is not that big as TNA? They are lacking star power. They have talents, but no well-known names. Or maybe not enough; I don't usually watch ROH, but as of what I heard the only 2 recognizable names in their company are Haas & Benjamin.

At the end of the day, I rather watch TNA than the same John Cena thing, cheesy storylines, and a magical leprechaun. Oh yeah, and divas pretending to fight.


These are the facts:
  • WWE did not run the WCW out of business.
  • WCW never ran out of business.
  • WCW destroyed the WWE when it came to ratings.
  • Wrestlers hated the 6sided ring, it didn't look good on camera, and it was also a rip-off of the AAA ring.
  • WCW was "Attitude" while keeping their content PG at the same time and still beat the WWE in ratings.



--- I was a WWF fan at the time. I hated WCW until I grew up and realized what they really did. I will always be a WWF fan. ---

Submit "Why do People Hate TNA wrestling? Hogan/Bishoff? PART2" to Digg Submit "Why do People Hate TNA wrestling? Hogan/Bishoff? PART2" to del.icio.us Submit "Why do People Hate TNA wrestling? Hogan/Bishoff? PART2" to StumbleUpon Submit "Why do People Hate TNA wrestling? Hogan/Bishoff? PART2" to Google

Updated 06-23-2011 at 03:20 PM by jamez20

Categories
Thoughts and Opinions , User News

Comments

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
  1. TwoTone's Avatar
    Anyone who thinks the older talent cant go in TNA didn't watch tonight. I've never been a big Sting fan but man has he had a fire lit under his ass in the last couple weeks. I haven't seen him putting forth effort like that in ages. And can anyone name a time when he did something that violent ever?
  2. kiltbill's Avatar
    •WWE did not run the WCW out of business.
    •WCW never ran out of business.
    •WCW destroyed the WWE when it came to ratings.
    For a while, yes. But then, it went back and forth, and we will never know what could have happened. The Time/Warner partnership did constrain the adult side of the buisiness, and was a big contributing factor.
    But for me, it was not PG stories or matches that ruined the shows. It was the half arsed, ammatuer, pointless storylines and Nash/Hogan/Jarrett/ etc taking the limelight.
    WCW with Benoit, Eddie, Jericho, Booker T, etc could have kept the fans entertained. But they used paycheck players instead of proffessional performers.
    •Wrestlers hated the 6sided ring, it didn't look good on camera, and it was also a rip-off of the AAA ring.
    Can't answer on what the wrestlers thought, and I didn't watch the show before I got it on Challenge TV here in the UK. But I think that, used in a Main Event/PPV, it can help TNA look and feel different to the WWE.
    •WCW was "Attitude" while keeping their content PG at the same time and still beat the WWE in ratings.
    But there "Attitude" was, lets make up tonights show as we go and the fans will just accept it.
  3. jamez20's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by kiltbill
    •WWE did not run the WCW out of business.
    •WCW never ran out of business.
    •WCW destroyed the WWE when it came to ratings.
    For a while, yes. But then, it went back and forth, and we will never know what could have happened. The Time/Warner partnership did constrain the adult side of the buisiness, and was a big contributing factor.
    But for me, it was not PG stories or matches that ruined the shows. It was the half arsed, ammatuer, pointless storylines and Nash/Hogan/Jarrett/ etc taking the limelight.
    WCW with Benoit, Eddie, Jericho, Booker T, etc could have kept the fans entertained. But they used paycheck players instead of professional performers.
    •Wrestlers hated the 6sided ring, it didn't look good on camera, and it was also a rip-off of the AAA ring.
    Can't answer on what the wrestlers thought, and I didn't watch the show before I got it on Challenge TV here in the UK. But I think that, used in a Main Event/PPV, it can help TNA look and feel different to the WWE.
    •WCW was "Attitude" while keeping their content PG at the same time and still beat the WWE in ratings.
    But there "Attitude" was, lets make up tonights show as we go and the fans will just accept it.





    Well, let's see. I can't recall anyone from WCW who the WWE has pushed besides Chris Jericho upon their arrival in the WWE. As of what I can remember, I never heard any fans complaining about


    Jeff Jarrett was one of the few who received their push at the end of WCW. He was mostly a mid-carder. WCW began pushing talents at the end of it's demise. And as of what I could remember, I never heard any fans complaining about WCW not pushing talents at the time. Never heard that until the WWE began that misconception after the demise of WCW. From my view of things, Bishoff and Hogan believes that if you got it then why not continue. The WWE however, forces the "passing of the torch" even though the individual still has it.

    WCW did push Booker-T. Didn't he come into the WWE as the U.S. and World Champion. He also brags that he"is the 5 time WCW champion" He was one of their biggest push. I am also pretty sure that the wrestlers you have mentioned especially Benoit stayed with WCW, they would have received their push.(that's only if WCW didn't closed) The WWE never pushed them when they arrived in the company. They were mid-carders. They still had to wait years to receive their "push".

    "But there "Attitude" was, lets make up tonights show as we go and the fans will just accept it."----

    ---I don't think so. That sounds more like the WWE. WCW was more spontaneous and went with the flow of things. They probably had scripts, but were also spontaneous as well.
  4. kiltbill's Avatar
    Agreed, no one from WCW was really pushed for the top title when the went to WWE. But your confusing not being pushed for the top title as being wasted. In WCW, talented midcarders were given a feud with each other that came from nowhere one night and was forgotten the next. That's the "atttitude' I'm speaking speaking about. There was no buildup for a wrestler, they weren't shown as improving. Nash/Hogan/Hall/Steiner/Sting/Goldberg were to main event, with or without a title or even a good reason. At least in the WWE, even at mid card, these WCW rats that jumped ship got a logical feud and some title shots.
    Booker T was title older, but was never built as being in the same league as those named above.
  5. jamez20's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by kiltbill
    Agreed, no one from WCW was really pushed for the top title when the went to WWE. But your confusing not being pushed for the top title as being wasted. In WCW, talented midcarders were given a feud with each other that came from nowhere one night and was forgotten the next. That's the "atttitude' I'm speaking speaking about. There was no buildup for a wrestler, they weren't shown as improving. Nash/Hogan/Hall/Steiner/Sting/Goldberg were to main event, with or without a title or even a good reason. At least in the WWE, even at mid card, these WCW rats that jumped ship got a logical feud and some title shots.
    Booker T was title older, but was never built as being in the same league as those named above.




    Booker T was title older, but was never built as being in the same league as those named above.
    ----The reason why you might consider Booker-T not being in the same league as the name above are quite simple; He was pushed at the end of WCW. If WCW had not close, he would have been given more chances to prove him self in the near future. The demise of WCW was sudden. No one really knew it was coming until the AOL-Time Warner merge.
    ----Steiner was also a mid-carder until the end of WCW.
    Not because you are in the nWo means that you are not a mid-carder.
    ----WCW had their own way of doing things when it came to different areas; I mean do you expect them to be the same as the competition(WWE). That's why they ran their own company, they had their own way of doing things. If the WCW went and did things the "WWE way" including storylines for that matter, then we would have had a WWE 2. No one could have seen the full-potential of WCW because of the sudden departure of the company which wasn't their fault. If the company hadn't closed, we would have seen more and probably have a different out outlook on things. But for the run it had, they've achieved a lot.
    ----A lot of talents began to receive their push at the end of WCW, including Billy Kidman. He was in the main picture a lot. Did the WWE pushed him?
  6. kiltbill's Avatar
    The reason why you might consider Booker-T not being in the same league as the name above are quite simple; He was pushed at the end of WCW....A lot of talents began to receive their push at the end of WCW.
    That's the problem. Had the company used the young talent earlier, and not tried to compete against the WWE's mosre adult scene, then the AOL merger may not have been the death blow. But the lack of any sense of direction or control when you tuned into Nitro had allready made the fans turn away from WCW. It was obvious to everyone, and no it wasn;t a sudden death, when WCW fell
    And that's why Bischov and Hogan get a lot of the blame. Nash/Hall/Russo and others are also to blame.
  7. jamez20's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by kiltbill
    That's the problem. Had the company used the young talent earlier, and not tried to compete against the WWE's mosre adult scene, then the AOL merger may not have been the death blow. But the lack of any sense of direction or control when you tuned into Nitro had allready made the fans turn away from WCW. It was obvious to everyone, and no it wasn;t a sudden death, when WCW fell
    And that's why Bischov and Hogan get a lot of the blame. Nash/Hall/Russo and others are also to blame.

    Ok, so defend your point that WCW wasn't a sudden death. And if it made fans turn away then why did they receive high ratings and beat the WWE for the most part of it?



    Quote Originally Posted by kiltbill
    "That's the problem. Had the company used the young talent earlier, and not tried to compete against the WWE's mosre adult scene, then the AOL merger may not have been the death blow"
    ????

    AOL didn't want anything to do with pro-wrestling at the time. Look it up
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

© 2011 eWrestlingNews, All Rights Reserved.