What's Working in TNA
by, 10-23-2011 at 04:16 AM (3116 Views)
Haven't posted a blog in a while but I've been reading and the marks are still the same.
What TNA does wrong in your opinion?
- Pushing their talent you always argue as to whom deserves a push.
- Credibility claiming that TNA is no longer a credible wrestling organisation.
- Hulk Hogan, Eric Bischoff, Jeff Hardy etcetera... individuals that work in the company.
- Complex storyline.
First and foremost I watch both shows and I prefer WWE just because of Sheamus. Regardless the aforementioned is irrelevant in debunking marks so I'll move on quickly and debunk all of the regular arguments I've seen against TNA.
Towards TNA pushing their talent I have a few quarrels with it but overall I don't mind how they go about it. They have AJ Styles who's already over, Christopher Daniels who's already over, Samoa Joe who's already over. Your argue that the older wrestlers don't put over any of the younger wrestlers? When Jeff Hardy first came to TNA Sting put him over (Sting essentially puts a lot of guys over.) So I don't understand how they can be put more over. You mention TNA even today AJ Styles is still a fan-favourite. The endless cycle of wrestlers dropping titles is irritating TNA only recently began pushing brand new talent towards their company. Mr Anderson, Gunner, Crimson, Matt Morgan and Inc Ink are about to get a push.
So it'd be a double-standard to say "give them all a title run without the belt switching often." They still need to put over their older talent also because people like Jeff Hardy and RVD are superstars around the world. But I'm sure TNA didn't want to kill their careers and characters by hiring them and have them job to everyone especially when I'm sure the both of them are in their 30's. Personally? Everything they've done towards pushing has been fine. WWE would push Undertaker if he was still capable, I'd like to see Abyss get pushed.
Moving on to the argument about credibility. It's fallacious to claim what wrestling organisation is credible and what isn't. Understandably WWE is the biggest and most renowned but that alone doesn't mean TNA isn't credible. Ironically when TNA had Destination-X you, the very same WWE marks were saying it's becoming the best wrestling company? That's a double-standard it sounded like you wanted to see all the pretty flips and kicks from Jack Evans and no actual storyline behind it. (There was one but it was undermined everyone was more focused on who'd get a contract with TNA.) Even though I did argue back to this point I didn't need to because the original argument was fallacious.
Hulk Hogan, Eric Bischoff, and Jeff Hardy. I'll concede the argument why did they bring Hulk Hogan and EB to TNA. It's abhorrent that you'd all use them as scapegoats to marking though, Hulk Hogan and EB have essentially built a year and a half long storyline whether it was necessary or not is beyond the point. But what I will point out is pushing people that deserved pushes. Gunner got the TV title so you can't use him as a main-event argument. I believe it's fair for Bully Ray to be pushed in to singles competition. The marks generally argue that Bully Ray doesn't deserve a singles push, but you're saying William Regal does? L M F A O.
Jeff Hardy neglects his position but again read my earlier blog, I don't believe he deserves to be released. WWE didn't release Shawn Michaels (excluding when he left for injury WWE didn't release Eddie Guerrero etcetera. So wouldn't it be a double-standard to release Jeff Hardy, but overlook everyone else. That makes your arguments a... DOUBLE-STANDARD.
The most recent argument I read was that there's no wrestling just promo's. I can understand different brand marks not understanding this older WWF fans will though. WWE have shortened their storyline(s) over the years. This essentially means a storyline will happen the creative wont like it, the idea gets thrown out the window. The most recent (long storyline(s),) of the WWE are CM Punk and hmm, what else... The Nexus. So explain to me Destination X was entirely wrestling and that's fine, but you've just had a year and a half storyline and you air one show devoted to what's happening Hulk Hogans turn Jeff Jarret / Jeff Hardy, and drop the title on James Storm.
Again there's nothing wrong with it, the aforementioned deserved the title. I remember watching his beer drinking contests with Eric Young, etcetera. James Storm even had a huge heel run so why not? They want Bobby Roode and James Storm to break up as a tag-team to go to singles. Kurt Angle was injured I believe that's why the match didn't last that long; but I can understand them not dropping the title on Bobby Roode because the show before the PPV (Impact!) Bobby Roode beat James Storm he had nothing to prove. This builds a good storyline now because we all believed Bobby Roode was "ready," to become the new TNA Champion. Now that they've put it on James Storm who everyone knows from the early-days in TNA and is credible to hold the title, you're throwing your toys out the pram?
Lmao... was nice debunking your arguments. If you have any-more comment and I'll respond to them eventually.