Is TNA WWE's Crutch?

[shattered dreams]

It is no big secret that perception has a big role in what people describe as reality. It is even less of a secret that the IWC is a pretty negative place. So my question is if TNA did not exist, or was nothing more than ROH, how would we be talking about the WWE? The question stems from the fact that TNA seems to take a beating for essentially not being up to the WWE's level, even though it clearly is an unfair comparison. When we had the thread about what would make TNA a success, it confirmed some of my suspicions on that subject. Mainly that TNA had become too successful for its own good and had thus crossed a threshold where it was held to a higher standard it was not ready to meet yet. That standard being the one associated with mainstream wrestling companies, a standard WWE had been shaping alone for years. I am not necessarily interested in this side of the issue here though. I am interested in the flip side. That being is WWE actually held to a lower standard because TNA has made it into the conversation?

I am certainly not suggesting that WWE is free of criticism because like I said the IWC is a pretty negative place. However, when you look the type of criticisms WWE receives they are mostly "I am not a fan of this style" not "they are idiots." The difference being that people seem to acknowledge the WWE has its machine that "just works." Like it or not it gets the job done. I am starting to wonder if they are getting more of a pass than they deserve on the business side of things. The trend has been declines across the board seemingly for a while now. The smackdown rating is dangerously close to January 4th TNA levels and they are moving it off of broadcast. They had to end WWECW, now they may have to show NXT online. Many of their PPV numbers have been coming back quite poorly. In Vince's own words they had a lousy quarter, yet during this time why was everyone bashing on TNA's business and leader for mild decline in ratings in the US?

As a TNA fan I actually somewhat enjoy the comparisons between the two companies because it implies TNA is on a level it can only dream of at the moment. To me, almost every "critique" of TNA can be essentially reduced to well they have about 5-10 percent of the market share and resources comparable to WWE's 90 percent, so what exactly did you expect? But the true folly is not in ragging on TNA for not having the resources you imply they do but lies in excusing WWE for their failures simply because they perform better than someone they obviously are better than from a business perspective. This danger is in allowing TNA to set the bar too low for WWE. Ideally, each company would be judged on their own merits, opposed to these forced comparisons that just do not work because the companies are in quite different places. The worst example of this is the admittedly dumb idea TNA had of moving to mondays for a while. Congrats, WWE "won." Guess what? All that means is the predictable thing happened. It in no way means TNA is failing as a company or WWE is succeeding.

 

[Djm]

This is an interesting way of looking at things, because people that dare to criticize WWE will always get stamped down with the "IT'S A BUSINESS, YOU STUPID IWC SMARK" talk.

TNA's biggest crutch, unfortunately, is their own product. It's just not that good. Couple that with the fact that people want TNA to get 3.0 ratings RIGHT NOW, and anything short of that is an absolute utter failure and the company is gonna die any day now, they're fighting a battle that they pretty much can't win, especially when the majority of wrestling fans are waiting to point and laugh at "The Rise and Fall of TNA" DVD.

 

[Ferbian]

I seriously doubt it. Even if TNA is catching the most heat compared to WWE, because of it being the inferior product to many people. That doesn't automatically mean that the WWE would catch more heat if TNA disappeared. You mention about people generally just complaining because they don't like it. Well that's not always true, you get a lot of hate towards John Cena for example on this very forum. And it wouldn't change if TNA went down under, or TNA never existed.

I would seriously believe, that if TNA was gone right now, there wouldn't be a big noticeable increase in the amount of people complaining about WWE because that was all they had to watch. I'm pretty confident half of them wouldn't even be bothering watching if anything. And that would leave us nowhere, because there'd be nobody to bitch about the product.

TNA isn't a crutch in any way to the WWE, just because some might consider TNA getting the most heat, and therefore being "a shield" for WWE, it doesn't really change much. Even if TNA was the better thing, I generally would consider that TNA would just get more praise, and WWE would most likely be getting the same amount of heat, or praise or whatever that they always have. The product being worse than TNA, doesn't make it awful for example. Or if the product is the only one exposed to the wrestling fans, it doesn't make it awful either, so the hatred, praise or anything wouldn't change, unless the quality of the programming changed.

 

[ABMorales787]

People need variety. Because they are not the same. They don't like the same things. I agree things would seem different if TNA wasn't around because that would mean less variety. Meaning people would feel WWE is stale even if it really wasn't. But to say TNA is some sort shield that makes WWE look better is a tad ridiculous. WWE has and has always had it's bing number of flaws. Over the years some aspects improve while others fail. Just because there is also TNA doesn't mean it curves the view of things in WWE. TNA is a rising company. WWE hasn't been that in over 25 years. That alone makes them different because the landscape has changed drastically in that time period.

Criticism by comparison is never good. You hold somebody highly because somebody who's similar is different in some aspect and is viewed as inferior. It would be like saying a 25 year old Toyota Corolla isn't as good as a 10 year old Mitsubishi Mirage. Tell me which breaks down faster. Not a good criticism if you ask me.

 

[DirtyJosé]

It is no big secret that perception has a big role in what people describe as reality. It is even less of a secret that the IWC is a pretty negative place. So my question is if TNA did not exist, or was nothing more than ROH, how would we be talking about the WWE? The question stems from the fact that TNA seems to take a beating for essentially not being up to the WWE's level, even though it clearly is an unfair comparison.

This sounds like a child going "You'll all be sorry when I'm gone". And it's not really an unfair comparison when TNA was the first to announce a "war", and put itself up against Raw earlier this year. That is asking for comparisons, and it's hardly unfair.

When we had the thread about what would make TNA a success, it confirmed some of my suspicions on that subject. Mainly that TNA had become too successful for its own good and had thus crossed a threshold where it was held to a higher standard it was not ready to meet yet. That standard being the one associated with mainstream wrestling companies, a standard WWE had been shaping alone for years. I am not necessarily interested in this side of the issue here though. I am interested in the flip side. That being is WWE actually held to a lower standard because TNA has made it into the conversation?

Are you joking? If anyone is holding low standards, its TNArds who are telling me its "unfair" to criticize pointless swerves and dead-end angles. If anything, WWE is held to a much higher standard than TNA.

I am certainly not suggesting that WWE is free of criticism because like I said the IWC is a pretty negative place. However, when you look the type of criticisms WWE receives they are mostly "I am not a fan of this style" not "they are idiots."

"PG ERA IZ KILLING WRESTLING"

"OMG SUPER CENA IZ FOR KIDS, WWE ARE IDIOTS"

"WWE IZ DUMB, WHY IS CHRISTIAN NOT CHAMPION YET?"

Yeah, the WWE only ever draws fair criticism on the internet; they never draw haters like TNA does....NOT! Are you that ignorant, or would you like a list of many of the stupid threads where criticisms you claim don't exist are lobbed at WWE? They are created on a daily basis. You can go ahead a take your not-so-subtle digs at the IWC; TNA damage control involves invalidating any argument against it by calling it "unfair".

The difference being that people seem to acknowledge the WWE has its machine that "just works." Like it or not it gets the job done. I am starting to wonder if they are getting more of a pass than they deserve on the business side of things.

Yeah, they are totally getting a pass. It's not like they have been in business for over 25 years and haven't already established a brand identity and a place in modern culture. That's so totally unfair!

The trend has been declines across the board seemingly for a while now. The smackdown rating is dangerously close to January 4th TNA levels and they are moving it off of broadcast.

Yeah...moving it to SyFy, a channel where it will have many more viewers than MyNetwork TV can provide. Looks like they have rolled out an impressive array of ads to inform viewers of this change (something TNA could learn from). But hey, why use logic when you can just twist information to suit your needs. Yeah, Smackdown is totally going off the air soon, guys.

They had to end WWECW, now they may have to show NXT online. Many of their PPV numbers have been coming back quite poorly. In Vince's own words they had a lousy quarter, yet during this time why was everyone bashing on TNA's business and leader for mild decline in ratings in the US?

Mild decline? I suppose dropping to .97 following a PPV-quality (ha!) episode the following week is only a mild decline, especially if it's only a lower rating than the company has pulled at the same time of the year for the prior two years. Oh noes, Vince had a lousy quarter, everyone bash on them for it. Oh wait, they do already. This is a neat attempt to shift criticism to the WWE, but are you ever going to get around to why TNA is WWE's crutch?

As a TNA fan I actually somewhat enjoy the comparisons between the two companies because it implies TNA is on a level it can only dream of at the moment.

It is on a level it can only dream of.

It is on a level it can only dream of.

I suppose the level you see it as in your mind is one they could only dream of right now.

To me, almost every "critique" of TNA can be essentially reduced to well they have about 5-10 percent of the market share and resources comparable to WWE's 90 percent, so what exactly did you expect?

How about they book shows around stars no one wants to see anymore, even though they posses some of the hottest younger stars around? Or that the constant "worked shoot" feeling Russo loves so much turns off a majority of casual viewers the same way it did in 2000-2001? Or that no changes or specials are announced and advertised properly, and that they have no clue how to market their product and their stars? But yeah, those arguments and critiques are only about market share.

But the true folly is not in ragging on TNA for not having the resources you imply they do but lies in excusing WWE for their failures simply because they perform better than someone they obviously are better than from a business perspective. This danger is in allowing TNA to set the bar too low for WWE. Ideally, each company would be judged on their own merits, opposed to these forced comparisons that just do not work because the companies are in quite different places. The worst example of this is the admittedly dumb idea TNA had of moving to mondays for a while. Congrats, WWE "won." Guess what? All that means is the predictable thing happened. It in no way means TNA is failing as a company or WWE is succeeding.

You have actually avoided the topic of your own post. So TNA being bad makes WWE look marginally better. Who's fault is that, really? Who was so keen on putting itself on the same level as WWE when it wasn't prepared? Who was so vocal about a war, and about revolutionizing the industry, and about "bringing real wrestling back", only to fall on their faces on national television week in and week out?

Sorry dude, but WWE has been fielding plenty of criticisms on its own long before TNA ever became a blip on the map. To act otherwise is to betray your own ignorance. I know you hate reading criticisms of a product you enjoy; I would too. Oh wait! That's right, there's plenty of WWE criticism around here.

 

[shattered dreams]

I'd like to point out that I am not saying TNA shields WWE from criticism. I am saying TNA changes the benchmark from which people form their perceptions of success. If TNA never made it this far then WWE would be judged on what wrestling used to be. That benchmark is above what WWE currently does. Essentially the existence of TNA conveniently made the current state of WWE the benchmark instead of the industry standards of even a few years ago. As long as WWE is its own benchmark then it is conveniently always successful.

It should also be noted what I meant in my comments about criticisms of WWE is that people do talk about the quality but not so much about the theoretical business ramifications of those ideas etc.. Meaning they say I do not like this style, not this style I dislike is hurting the product in other ways.

 

[DirtyJosé]

I'd like to point out that I am not saying TNA shields WWE from criticism. I am saying TNA changes the benchmark from which people form their perceptions of success. If TNA never made it this far then WWE would be judged on what wrestling used to be. That benchmark is above what WWE currently does. Essentially the existence of TNA conveniently made the current state of WWE the benchmark instead of the industry standards of even a few years ago. As long as WWE is its own benchmark then it is conveniently always successful.

WWE does not use TNA as a bench mark for it's success, and neither do most fans. WWE has its own problems independent TNA's success or failure. If anything, people use WWE as a bench mark of how TNA is doing, and that's because it's a position TNA willingly put themselves into by talking of "war" and "real wrestling".

It should also be noted what I meant in my comments about criticisms of WWE is that people do talk about the quality but not so much about the theoretical business ramifications of those ideas etc.. Meaning they say I do not like this style, not this style I dislike is hurting the product in other ways.

Again: "PG/SUPER CENA IS KILLING WWE". You can find variations on that theme up and down these forums. Of course, you'd know that if you knew what you were talking about.

 

[shattered dreams]

So Jose what is the benchmark for success of WWE? (note I never said TNA was) Maybe I read different threads than you but most anything I have ever read about PG at least admits it is a decent business decision even if it makes that particular individual less likely to watch. I also think you might want to re-read my opinion on people measuring TNA against WWE. While it is annoying because of the obvious disparity of the resources for each company, ultimately it is a good thing for TNA because it puts them in a conversation that they should not be in. Like it or not the way people talk about TNA treats them like the expectation is that they are a major mainstream company. Even if they come up short, the idea behind it is a step in the right direction as far as perception goes.

 

[gd]

I can actually see what you're coming from somewhat. Not sure if I have it completely though, can't completely follow the first post. Anyway, my two cents, possibly even three if you're lucky.

I think when it comes to fans talking about it and whatnot, it plays somewhat of a factor. With TNA being so shit at the moment with all the stupid stables and Tommy Dreamer being heavily involved in the product, etc, WWE doesn't have to do much to look good by comparison.

Despite the Nexus angle and some pretty good PPVs recently and all, the WWE really hasn't exactly been the greatest wrestling show ever. Certainly looks better than TNA though.

In the end though, not sure what the point of all this is. WWE is still trying to put out a good product and make money, regardless of how shitty TNA is. It's not like because TNA isn't doing well, they all of a sudden decide they don't need to try as hard.

What I'm saying is this doesn't really have any practical relevance.

 

[DirtyJosé]

So Jose what is the benchmark for success of WWE? (note I never said TNA was)

Um, how about comparisons to previous years? That's a good place to start. Indeed, what you said was WWE uses itself in the present to gauge it's own success; a concept which is really quite dumb when you think about it. Were you trying to say WWE just goes "We're WWE, I guess we're a success"? Isn't the whole point of your thread that WWE and WWE fans use the perceived low quality of the TNA product to pat itself on the back as a success?

Maybe I read different threads than you but most anything I have ever read about PG at least admits it is a decent business decision even if it makes that particular individual less likely to watch.

Well, you see that in all of those threads because it's true. However, your point is that people just don't criticize the WWE in the same cryptic manner that they do TNA, and that is simply untrue.

No Blood, chair shots to the head, cursing, choking, Miz getting a push (because he makes media appearances and can talk, not because he can wrestle) , Kelly not being able to show her tits (but they let her rape the ring by trying to wrestle), no type of sexual skits (and most of the divas can't wrestle so they are pretty much dead), story-lines having to be pulled because of the rating! That's not bad to you? How about the rating dropping week after week? Add to the fact that they have 70% of the better wrestlers in WWE yet still WWE can't keep a good rating, is that proof enough?

They are failing to produce new stars... The ratings, buyrates, and stock are dropping...

But hey! Linda might buy herself a Senate seat...

So I am not being selfish at all, speaking from experience, I think the kids would enjoy the pre-PG era WWE much more, it was certainly the case with everyone my age I know who started watching when they were kids. No, parents might not be as happy with their kids watching, but they had a neutral before with a PG14 rating, which was fine for kids IMO. And incase you remember, the ratings were higher before it was PG as well, so I don't see how you can say it turned off the younger demographic when that was the time when they gained a lot of that younger demographic.

So it has always been the case that the PG WWE has always delivered the companie's lowest ratings.

Vince killed the WWE with the PG Era. Kids grow up in 5-6 years. Adult fans are fans for life.

Whether these idiots are right or wrong (mostly wrong), they are hardly alone and are usually quite vocal about these opinions on these forums. The issue isn't that people aren't making the same criticisms about WWE unfairly because of TNA. It's just that TNA, being newer and still trying to find a way to be successful, is harder to defend from such criticisms.

I also think you might want to re-read my opinion on people measuring TNA against WWE. While it is annoying because of the obvious disparity of the resources for each company, ultimately it is a good thing for TNA because it puts them in a conversation that they should not be in. Like it or not the way people talk about TNA treats them like the expectation is that they are a major mainstream company. Even if they come up short, the idea behind it is a step in the right direction as far as perception goes.

Yeah, didn't you also think TNA would benefit from being sued by McMahon?

This is what you said:

As a TNA fan I actually somewhat enjoy the comparisons between the two companies because it implies TNA is on a level it can only dream of at the moment.

Dude, they are the only other nationally televised wrestling promotion on North American basic cable besides the WWE; they are going to be in that conversation regardless. I don't think it helps them to be constantly marked as less than WWE by any measure of success. Yes, comparison can show them where they need to improve, but your original comment leads readers to believe that you feel that TNA even being mentioned in the same breath as WWE is good for it, just as you felt that way about TNA possibly getting sued by the WWE.


Also, I was wondering if you were ever going to get around to explaining how WWE is using TNA as a crutch, thank you very much.

 

[shattered dreams]

What I'm saying is this doesn't really have any practical relevance.

Does anything we discuss in the IWC have "practical relevance? If it does then that is news to me. FWIW you do capture the point. I am mostly referring to how fans and others talk about the two products based on these perceptions that might be somewhat warped. I do believe in spite of its fall from grace there is an audience of people who will watch prowrestling in some form no matter what. The general discourse about the companies ends up shaping the perceptions of those individuals. So in that way it does actually have some mild relevance.

Um, how about comparisons to previous years? That's a good place to start. Indeed, what you said was WWE uses itself in the present to gauge it's own success; a concept which is really quite dumb when you think about it. Were you trying to say WWE just goes "We're WWE, I guess we're a success"? Isn't the whole point of your thread that WWE and WWE fans use the perceived low quality of the TNA product to pat itself on the back as a success?

Jose, all you ever do is misinterpret in the most ass backwards ways possible. I am not talking about how WWE judges its own success. I am talking about how people judge the product. It is not about WWE fans using the "low quality" of TNA to proclaim WWE a success (although you are kidding yourself if you think people do not frequently do that in debates about the quality of the companies). I am saying that because by comparison aspects of WWE are much better than TNA then people end up overlooking or gloss over other unsuccessful aspects of WWE. The most confusing part of this is that WWE is obviously already superior to TNA in these ways. It creates the illusion of accomplishment. I like your benchmark of previous years but if that is the case it seems like there should be a greater volume of criticism of WWEs business decisions IMO.

However, your point is that people just don't criticize the WWE in the same cryptic manner that they do TNA, and that is simply untrue.

No. My point has never been that it never happens. The OP merely says that such criticisms occur in a much smaller volume and are mostly (notice not always) focused on certain facets. Are you really going to argue that the discussions about TNA and WWE contain the same amount of negativity and focus on the effects on the business side? I think you will lose that argument.

The issue isn't that people aren't making the same criticisms about WWE unfairly because of TNA. It's just that TNA, being newer and still trying to find a way to be successful, is harder to defend from such criticisms.

Isn't this the essence of my point? TNA is not WWE, so it is harder to defend from these criticisms. Yet, the source of these criticisms is placing them on a similar level even though that is false since they are newer and still exploring possibilities. Ipso facto, they are judged on an unfair scale.

Yeah, didn't you also think TNA would benefit from being sued by McMahon?

Off-topic but yes. My reasoning, in spite of what silly IWC people might think they would have been quite unlikely to be successfully sued. Vince suing them would be great publicity that would reach the target audience. Vince suing them would immediately draw interest in what he was suing them about so people would check it out. Publicity is one of the hardest things for TNA to come by. Thus, in the unlikely case it did draw out the money in legal bills might be worth it. They were not doing anything especially illegal anyway, in spite of what some might think. Probably worst thing that would happen is that judge would tell them to not say certain things again. The whole thing would suggest Vince considered them legit competition.

Dude, they are the only other nationally televised wrestling promotion on North American basic cable besides the WWE; they are going to be in that conversation regardless. I don't think it helps them to be constantly marked as less than WWE by any measure of success. Yes, comparison can show them where they need to improve, but your original comment leads readers to believe that you feel that TNA even being mentioned in the same breath as WWE is good for it, just as you felt that way about TNA possibly getting sued by the WWE.

My point is that using market share WWE is probably approximately 20 times more important than TNA. To me, being in the conversation with someone so vastly superior actually portrays TNA as more powerful than they are. It would not surprise me if people "only" thought WWE was 5-10 times greater in resources. Even when people shit on everything TNA it is often said or implied that they have all the pieces to be on that level. The fact is they do not, at least not anytime remotely soon. One of the main things I am talking about is that people do lump it all into something along the lines of nationally televised wrestling promotion on North American basic cable. While that might sound specific, it is actually exceedingly broad and thus a poor grouping for comparison purposes.

Also, I was wondering if you were ever going to get around to explaining how WWE is using TNA as a crutch, thank you very much.

The crutch is that by TNA being in the mainstream conversation, it distracts some of the criticism from WWE, thus making mediocre look better than it is and easier to accept for wrestling fans. Notice how the message boards light up in excessively positives ways for marginal improvements in WWE. Compare that to the perceptions of WWE when it was the lone choice and the industry was declining. The industry is still declining and WWE does not seem to have changed much. Did people just give up and the new generation doesn't know any better because they never have had a chance to be exposed to it? Quite possible, but I am suggesting an alternative.

 

[DirtyJosé]

Jose, all you ever do is misinterpret in the most ass backwards ways possible.

Wouldn't be such a problem if your thread made any sense at all.

I am not talking about how WWE judges its own success. I am talking about how people judge the product. It is not about WWE fans using the "low quality" of TNA to proclaim WWE a success (although you are kidding yourself if you think people do not frequently do that in debates about the quality of the companies). I am saying that because by comparison aspects of WWE are much better than TNA then people end up overlooking or gloss over other unsuccessful aspects of WWE.

So what you are saying is that the fans don't regard WWE as flawless because TNA is shit, but that the fans regard WWE as flawless because TNA is shit. Keep digging, amigo.

The most confusing part of this is that WWE is obviously already superior to TNA in these ways. It creates the illusion of accomplishment. I like your benchmark of previous years but if that is the case it seems like there should be a greater volume of criticism of WWEs business decisions IMO.

And there are. But being a fervent T-NArd, you can't seem to see beyond getting riled up over criticism of your preferred form of entertainment. I've already provided you with plenty of criticism of WWE's decisions.

No. My point has never been that it never happens. The OP merely says that such criticisms occur in a much smaller volume and are mostly (notice not always) focused on certain facets. Are you really going to argue that the discussions about TNA and WWE contain the same amount of negativity and focus on the effects on the business side? I think you will lose that argument.

Since when did criticism of the two promotions have to be balanced evenly?

Furthermore, this is what the OP actually says:

I am certainly not suggesting that WWE is free of criticism because like I said the IWC is a pretty negative place. However, when you look the type of criticisms WWE receives they are mostly "I am not a fan of this style" not "they are idiots." The difference being that people seem to acknowledge the WWE has its machine that "just works."

I quite soundly proved you wrong on this. Feel free to try and change your argument since you've been proven wrong, but don't act like it's me being the one not making sense.

Isn't this the essence of my point? TNA is not WWE, so it is harder to defend from these criticisms. Yet, the source of these criticisms is placing them on a similar level even though that is false since they are newer and still exploring possibilities. Ipso facto, they are judged on an unfair scale.

And who made the effort to push themselves into that comparison? Who talked all that talk about a new war and about taking on McMahon? About pulling 3.0's in the ratings and revolutionizing televised wrestling? Oh, that's right, TNA did. So suddenly it's wrong for us to continue making those comparisons because they failed? The world does not operate on principles of fairness defined by you, amigo. If you'd like us all to go back to regarding TNA as only a step above the indies, however, just say so.

Off-topic but yes. My reasoning, in spite of what silly IWC people might think they would have been quite unlikely to be successfully sued. Vince suing them would be great publicity that would reach the target audience. Vince suing them would immediately draw interest in what he was suing them about so people would check it out. Publicity is one of the hardest things for TNA to come by. Thus, in the unlikely case it did draw out the money in legal bills might be worth it. They were not doing anything especially illegal anyway, in spite of what some might think. Probably worst thing that would happen is that judge would tell them to not say certain things again. The whole thing would suggest Vince considered them legit competition.

Maybe TNA should then focus on promoting itself, instead of waiting for a rub from McMahon. They aren't going to escape comparison to the WWE until they stop building themselves around forcing us to make that comparison.

My point is that using market share WWE is probably approximately 20 times more important than TNA. To me, being in the conversation with someone so vastly superior actually portrays TNA as more powerful than they are. It would not surprise me if people "only" thought WWE was 5-10 times greater in resources.

How about I start a conversation about shit you are, oh, let's say singing when compared to, oh I don't know, Frank Sinatra? Does that make you look any more credible as a singer? You have some pretty faulty logic, amigo.

Even when people shit on everything TNA it is often said or implied that they have all the pieces to be on that level. The fact is they do not, at least not anytime remotely soon.

The hottest babyface star of 2009 and a proven merch seller (Jeff Hardy), one of the best all around performers ever (Kurt Angle), resurgent stars hitting new highs of their careers (Pope and Anderson), and a collection of stars from the hottest era in the independent scene since ECW was in business (AJ, Joe, and Wolfe) aren't enough pieces for you to make a successful company?

One of the main things I am talking about is that people do lump it all into something along the lines of nationally televised wrestling promotion on North American basic cable. While that might sound specific, it is actually exceedingly broad and thus a poor grouping for comparison purposes.

This is close to the most foolish thing I've ever seen you post. Fuck it that there's only two promotions in that market, that's too broad of a grouping to form a basis of comparison. Is your whole point in this thread to tell us that TNA isn't ready to be regarded as a serious company? Again, are you wishing we all just went back to thinking of TNA as nothing but a step above the indies?

The crutch is that by TNA being in the mainstream conversation, it distracts some of the criticism from WWE, thus making mediocre look better than it is and easier to accept for wrestling fans. Notice how the message boards light up in excessively positives ways for marginal improvements in WWE. Compare that to the perceptions of WWE when it was the lone choice and the industry was declining. The industry is still declining and WWE does not seem to have changed much. Did people just give up and the new generation doesn't know any better because they never have had a chance to be exposed to it? Quite possible, but I am suggesting an alternative.

WAA WAA WAA EVERYONE IS MEAN TO TNA AND THEY LET WWE GET AWAY WITH EVERYTHING! IT'S NOT FAIR IT'S NOT FAIR, THEY MAKE MISTAKES TOO! WAA WAA WAA!

Quit being a child. WWE will always have its detractors and critics, regardless of where TNA is at. Every move they make spawns just as many "WWE sucks because of..." posts as it does the "I'm so excessively positive" posts. Speaking of excessively positive, just look at some of these threads about TNA. They are dancing along the 1.0 for ratings, and the EV2.0 angle only hurt those rating going into Hardcore Justice, but to hear it from the mouths of most T-NArds, this is the most exciting and best produced time in TNA history. There are WWE marks who are going to praise everything just as much as there are T-NArds who will do the same for their promotion of choice.

Maybe, just maybe, TNA draws more criticisms because it is the inferior product. Is that totally fair? Maybe not, but it is entirely justified. WWE and its fans are not using TNA as a crutch; TNA and its fans use WWE, and anything else, as an excuse for its repeated failures and its damaged brand name despite the millions they've spent.