The WWE & TNA Double Standard Is Now Clear!

[TellMeWhy]

Okay, so last night I watched WWE's HIAC PPV and Undertaker and Punk opened up the show where Taker beat CM Punk clean in about 15 minutes for the title. Fans overlook it.

Second, you had DX take on Legacy. Why this match closed the show? I have no idea. Nothing spectacular happened for it to close the show whatever. Anyway DX pummels them in about the last 5-10 minutes of the match and DX closes the show as the victors. Fans overlook it.

So basically, we have 2 scenarios where 3 old guys are opening and closing the show with wins over young talent.

Is this not a problem? If this was TNA, would they not be ripped apart for pulling something like this? This would be a very big deal because we'd hear the same rhetoric such as, "TNA is burying talent. TNA keeps pushing the old guys. TNA is burying their young talent for guys past their prime." Why is it that when this happens in WWE, it's looked at so lightly and isn't held up to the same standard as TNA?"

I mean come on, when Sting wins at BFG, people complain head & shoulders when that's his only big win of the year. Undertaker and HHH goes over lesser established guys from about 3-5 times a year and the same for HHH and it's okay Can you imagine the reaction if someone from the MEM defeated someone like AJ Styles for the world title in an opening match in 15 minutes for a world title at a TNA PPV? Can you imagine the outrage? People would sit there and say that there no longer going to watch TNA, etc.

WWE is clearly ran by veterans and guys in their 40s. HHH, HBK, Batista, Undertaker, Jericho, etc. No one complains. In TNA, the only vets that main event are Sting and Angle but yet TNA gets backlash for "pushing the old guys". What is up with this double standard with wrestling fans? Am I the only one that sees this?

 

[Fallen Angel 21.3]

i see nothing wrong with TNA they are having good product and using it well i mean the company must be doing something right if the WWE steals ppv themes from them and finishing moves

 

[Coco]

What the fuck is this crap? When's the last time you were in the WWE section? Or the spam zone? Not just here, but anywhere. People are up in arms. There have been valid complaints for years about WWE's failure to build new stars and frail old Taker beating Punk for the belt in short order is being shat on almost univerally. Maybe you should take your head out of your ass or leave the TNA section once in a while before deciding you've had a post-worthy flash of insight.

 

[TellMeWhy]

What the fuck is this crap? When's the last time you were in the WWE section? Or the spam zone? Not just here, but anywhere. People are up in arms. There have been valid complaints for years about WWE's failure to build new stars and frail old Taker beating Punk for the belt in short order is being shat on almost univerally. Maybe you should take your head out of your ass or leave the TNA section once in a while before deciding you've had a post-worthy flash of insight.

The "uproar" in the WWE section is no where near the backlash that TNA has received in the past regarding their veterans going over lesser established guys. And trust me, the reaction in there now would not match the reaction if TNA had booked an opener for a world title match where a broken down vet beat a young new champion for the belt cleanly in 15 minutes. It would be labeled as bad booking and people would scream fire Russo and people would claim that TNA is going to die.

The problem here is that WWE is suppose to be elevating talent and pushing new stars but yet 3 veterans take home the big wins last night over the young guys. Something is clearly wrong. And don't be offended. I know you're defending you're precious WWE but don't be mad that I put a spotlight on something that I'm sure you and every WWE mark that probably plays the double standard game would probably love to keep under wraps.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

The WWE has been receiving the same amount of criticism TNA has and possibly even more. You do understand that you don't have to lose to somebody to elevate them? The Miz was elevated by Cena because he was a better position after than before. Legacy had the win of their life at Breaking Point and that should be enough before you didn't want DX beating them three straight times. It was 100% certain that DX was going to win that match and the only issue I had was the placement of it on the card.

 

[SARIEL]

OF course there is adouble standard, wwe has been around for over 20 yrs, TNa is only 6/7 years old. Its like an adult vs kid, in what theyre allowed to do. Also WWe is way more mainstream.

WWE- 4 shows on tv, 6 hours altogther

Tna - 1 show, 2 hours long.

do the math.

 

[D-Man]

Okay, so last night I watched WWE's HIAC PPV and Undertaker and Punk opened up the show where Taker beat CM Punk clean in about 15 minutes for the title. Fans overlook it.

Second, you had DX take on Legacy. Why this match closed the show? I have no idea. Nothing spectacular happened for it to close the show whatever. Anyway DX pummels them in about the last 5-10 minutes of the match and DX closes the show as the victors. Fans overlook it.

So basically, we have 2 scenarios where 3 old guys are opening and closing the show with wins over young talent.

Is this not a problem? If this was TNA, would they not be ripped apart for pulling something like this? This would be a very big deal because we'd hear the same rhetoric such as, "TNA is burying talent. TNA keeps pushing the old guys. TNA is burying their young talent for guys past their prime." Why is it that when this happens in WWE, it's looked at so lightly and isn't held up to the same standard as TNA?"

I mean come on, when Sting wins at BFG, people complain head & shoulders when that's his only big win of the year. Undertaker and HHH goes over lesser established guys from about 3-5 times a year and the same for HHH and it's okay Can you imagine the reaction if someone from the MEM defeated someone like AJ Styles for the world title in an opening match in 15 minutes for a world title at a TNA PPV? Can you imagine the outrage? People would sit there and say that there no longer going to watch TNA, etc.

WWE is clearly ran by veterans and guys in their 40s. HHH, HBK, Batista, Undertaker, Jericho, etc. No one complains. In TNA, the only vets that main event are Sting and Angle but yet TNA gets backlash for "pushing the old guys". What is up with this double standard with wrestling fans? Am I the only one that sees this?

Take Vince Russo's junk out of your mouth and realize what you're saying...

#1 - You should rewind your clock to three weeks ago when those same guys LOST to their opponents from last night. Punk defeated the Undertaker in a fucking submission match and Legacy defeated Degeneration X CLEAN in a Falls Count Anywhere match.

#2 - Look who the veterans were facing... DX vs Legacy (new generation superstars), Undertaker vs. CM Punk (new generation superstar). Now, let's look at TNA... Nash vs. Foley, MEM consisting of old veterans... oh, and Samoa Joe.

#3 - Microphone time on TNA is constantly swallowed up by either the Main Event Mafia, Mick Foley, or... well... the Main Event Mafia!! In the WWE, CM Punk cuts at least one amazing promo every week, Legacy is always involved in backstage and in-ring promos, and less and less non-wrestling moments are occuring on the shows with the veterans of the product.

There is a HUUUGE difference in both products here. TNA is the epitome of not allowing their new talent to shine on a monthly basis. WWE gives their veterans a rub every few months, but that's only to keep them as formidable opponents for the new generation's stars to conquer.

 

[Rated_R_Superstar2010]

trust me i was pissed how HIAC turned out. terrible matches. i wanted cm punk to go over undertaker and i wanted legacy to get another key win over dx. but what really dissapointed me about the whole thing was the quality of the matches. i personally do not have a double standerd for tna and wwe. i hold both to the highest expectations.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I think you need to take a step back and actually look at the hatred the WWE have gotten recently - even before this PPV. Then when you come to look at Hell in a Cell, one of the only things people have mentioned is that it was booked badly and made no sense, therefore I don't agree with your argument that there is a double standard.

Also, the WWE is still putting on a great show, regardless of whether you think someone is being held down, or the young guys shouldn't have won, which you seemed to be implying. At the end of the day, it's about a good show, and the WWE > TNA. It's not even close. Oh and I think you're forgetting Legacy and Punk getting wins over DX and the Undertaker at previous PPV's - hardly the "only pushing the old guys" thing you seem to be getting at.

 

[Pedro08]

I believe the double standard comes down to this. The wrestlers you cited: Michaels, HHH, Undertaker each have all been with the WWE for well over 10 and have won numerous World Championships. So you don't get the major outcry when they go over younger talent. As was mentioned earlier, their opponents went over at the last PPV.

TNA is a company that is only 7 years old and was built with younger talent and X-Division guys. Over the past couple of years they have signed older, established stars, sometimes referred to as WWE rejects (a term I don't agree with) and have put them over the younger guys who help built the company. So when you have disasters like Victory Road, where all the Mafia beat all the younger talent, it's seen as the old guys keeping the young guys down.

 

[CKDaimen]

This is the oldest and most smarked about topic on the Internet. Young guys should go over old guys. Do you guys (the guys who always say this) ever get tired of saying this?

If you really look at who internet fans complain about and how fast they complain about them, there would be a new main eventer every month and before long there would be 20 main eventers with no way to keep everyone at that level. I bet if CM Punk did beat Taker and continued to go over big stars, in two years you'd be complaining about HIM not putting over people, and that's just TWO YEARS. But on to this topic...

Taker going over CM Punk is NOT a big deal. The very fact that CM Punk is now a three time champion is HUGE for him because he has so many years ahead of him. Plus, he's The Undertaker. You can't complain about Taker winning a match...be honest with yourself....PLUS, it's hard to realistically book CM Punk beating Taker in a Hell in a Cell atmosphere.

DX, old or not, going over Legacy is also no big surprise. Just because talent is young doesn't mean they should go over other older talent that are clearly still ahead of them. Dibiase and Rhodes are still brand new. Dibiase will end up high, maybe even a main eventer in the next 2-3 years. But internet fans can't wait that long. They are too busy busting a nut whenever they see a new young male wrestler in spandex. Calm down. He's Undertaker, their DX...legends win matches...big wins are not and will never be reserved JUST to 'make superstars' and 'get over young talent'...they will be used for legends too.

That's when people will say, "Yeah but they have nothing to gain from it..." which is when I then go back to my two year analogy. Before long you would say CM Punk has nothing to gain and he should put over Dolph Ziggler or something like that. Then a year and a half later, Dolph Ziggler has nothing to gain and should put over Evan Bourne. It never ends! As long as a wrestler is active on the roster and isn't retiring, there is ALWAYS something to gain for them. ALWAYS. Nobody will ever reach the MAXIMUM level of being over.

Bottom line, stop with the young talent bitching and complaining threads. WWE and wrestling in general usually takes a while for young talent to get to the top. If you don't like it, stop watching.

 

[People's Champ]

I don't think there's much more to add than what everyone has already said. But I will anyways because this is just stupid. The biggest issue that everyone has is the building of new stars. But they can't be rushed. As mention by D-Man and others, Legacy went over clean on DX. Punk beat the Undertaker. JeriShow has elevated the tag division and made guys like Cryme Tyme look good. Pay closer attention to the WWE section and what's being talked about before you start all this.

 

[johnbragg]

One reason is that people who write about TNA want TNA to be the alternative to the stale WWE programming. They've become wrestling fans, they remember the rush of excitement. They know or have been told how innovative and ahead of the curve ECW was and how the competitive threat of the Monday Night Wars drove WWF and WCW to create good television--and they want it back.

The people who run down TNA for having an old roster badly want to latch on to the next big thing in pro wrestling. They remember (or have been told about) the Monday Night Wars when watching wrestling was exciting. They want to chant "This is awesome" because something is awesome rather than just okay. They know that Sting, Nash, Foley and Jarrett are not bringing those days back, even if they might be what's keeping TNA ratings above 1.0.

WWE fans/critics acknowledge that WWE is fat and happy. Even if they don't like it, they realize that permutations of Orton/Cena/HHH and 4-6 months of Undertaker per year will provide solid television, good enough PPV buys

More specific responses:

1. I agree that Undertaker bigfooting all over Punk was the wrong move to make creatively. (I don't know if it was punishment for whatever Punk did backstage or if it was just the Way It Works) But the fact is that, until last night, new generation star CM Punk was the SmackDown World Champion. Until the Undertaker and Batista returned, the Smackdown main event scene was Punk, Jeff Hardy, John Morrison and Matt Hardy, with Mysterio as IC champ in a program with Ziggler. Smackdown has not just been the same old guys.

2. DX did go over Legacy last night, big time. On the other hand, Legacy beat DX clean a month ago. But remember that, over this summer, Legacy have become credible contenders. In June, people were calling them Orton's bumbling minions and making male model jokes. Six months ago, Cody Rhodes and Ted Dibiase were on a level with Crime Time and the Colons. Now, either one could move into a World title shot without looking ridiculous. I was a huge skeptic of the DX reunion, I thought they would "Spirit Squad" Legacy. To translate, I thought that Legacy would get the rub from DX that Pete Williams got from Scott Steiner or the X-Division got from Kevin Nash. I was wrong--the DX program has done wonders for Legacy.

3. Most of TNA's old talent are guys that WWE discarded because they were old and broken down. TNA's old guys are more broken down and more obviously broken down than WWE's old guys. Nash, Foley and Steiner are the clearest examples. The entire build to the Nash-Foley match was based on the idea that they're both half-crippled. Compared to the wear and tear on those bodies, Undertaker, HHH and HBK are in their primes.

And it's not that long ago that the picked carcasses of the New Age Outlaws were a TNA fixture.

4. TNA has been getting some praise lately for building up younger guys. AJ Styles, Matt Morgan. Hernandez until about a minute ago. TNA's tag team division continues to be solid, and I think you have to give some credit to 3D for that--their feuds have helped Beer Money, British Invasion and LAX.

5. In 5 years, when say Undertaker, Batista, HBK, HHH, Jericho, Edge, Big Show, Kane and Rey Mysterio are all gone or are working "special attraction" schedules (2-3 PPV a year) WWE will still have Cena and Orton as proven, top-flight acts who have carried a show. They were building Jeff Hardy, and they are putting a lot into building CM Punk, Legacy and Morrison. They have Miz, Swagger, Kofi Kingston, MVP, Dolph Ziggler and Evan Bourne in a position where they could either develop or not.

TNA is facing that position soon, as in yesterday. Foley, Nash and Steiner are physically shot. Sting is retiring. Booker, Angle and Jarrett are all really, really close. Who is their bench? AJ Styles and Samoa Joe are TNA stars, but they have never been the focus of the show and carried the ball. Six months ago, Hernandez was a tag specialist and Matt Morgan was nothing.

Plus, TNA is the heir to WCW, and they have a lot of guys who were there when WCW went down the tubes--Russo, Jarrett, Steiner, Booker, Sting, Nash. So people worry about it happening again.

 

[TellMeWhy]

Take Vince Russo's junk out of your mouth and realize what you're saying...

You're a 100% pure idiot! If you're head wasn't stuck up you're ass. you'd know how stupid you sound.

#1 - You should rewind your clock to three weeks ago when those same guys LOST to their opponents from last night. Punk defeated the Undertaker in a fucking submission match

Undertaker didn't lose clean to CM Punk in that submission match. He was protected. Are you not aware of the 2009 Montreal screwjob finish involving Teddy Long and CM Punk?

#2 - Look who the veterans were facing... DX vs Legacy (new generation superstars), Undertaker vs. CM Punk (new generation superstar). Now, let's look at TNA... Nash vs. Foley, MEM consisting of old veterans... oh, and Samoa Joe.

No, lets look at TNA. Abyss vs. Foley, Morgan vs. Angle, Sting vs. AJ, MEM vs. WE,

#3 - Microphone time on TNA is constantly swallowed up by either the Main Event Mafia, Mick Foley, or... well... the Main Event Mafia!! In the WWE, CM Punk cuts at least one amazing promo every week, Legacy is always involved in backstage and in-ring promos, and less and less non-wrestling moments are occuring on the shows with the veterans of the product.

If you watched Impact, you'd know the most time on TNA lately has been devoted to Eric Young & the World Elite with the writers letting MEM and guys like Foley take a backseat.

There is a HUUUGE difference in both products here. TNA is the epitome of not allowing their new talent to shine on a monthly basis. WWE gives their veterans a rub every few months, but that's only to keep them as formidable opponents for the new generation's stars to conquer.

I guess that's why TNA has arguably actually created and elevated more new talent this year with only 2 hrs of tv than WWE has this year with 6-7 hrs. of tv.

 

[JJYanks121]

The key word to any company working with old and young wrestlers is balance. It's a delicate line to walk but think about it. An older talent who is a current or former champion must continue to win most of his or her bouts in order to stay credible. If they started going on losing streaks and everyone was beating them, would getting a victory over them do anything for the victor? In this scenario, we are talking about HBK, HHH, and the Undertaker. These men need to win their matches most of the time to be credible. Then, when someone like Legacy gets a win like they did at breaking point, it raises eyebrows as this is a team that doesn't get beat very often. Of course, when a team or individual as such DOES win over an up and coming talent, it's important to make that opponent look good. It is always your goal as a superstar to make you opponent look good because that in term makes you look good.

The major difference between TNA and WWE is that they are in different points in their lives. TNA is still a young company, one that was built by independent wrestlers similar to ECW, but instead of weapons and cursing, you have crazy spots and flips and stunts. TNA made its name by being crazy in the ring and their X division somewhat carried the company's early existence. Some of those stars went on to heavyweight gold, but as the company grew, they, like WCW before them, brought in "name" talent. As the old Kevin Sullivan addage goes "workers on the bottom, gimmicks on the top". Even though guys who started with the company were champions or in contention, they were not seen as draws and thus, pushed backwards on the card. Today, it is getting better, though not with quality booking, but with a little exposure nonetheless. But take if you will the Kurt Angle/Matt Morgan feud. We know Morgan is huge and should crush a guy like Angle, but he is green. He isn't smart like Angle. He also isn't a former champion who has beaten everyone. For Angle to lose all the time to Morgan would ruin Angle forever, leaving the company with a nobody who won't look credible again. But if booked where Angle wins for a while and Morgan finally gets a win, it feels huge and feels like he earned a spot among the elite. Of course, if Morgan were to lose in squashes, you'd write off Morgan as someone who is not a true contender. The key is that balance.

Back to WWE, the balance is key. So far, the DX/Legacy feud has been amazing. If you are watching, you feel that Legacy is actually a threat to DX, at least in ring. Obviously in their mic battles, it's pretty clear who is superior (can we please get Dibiase OFF the mic). However, by spending a long feud on them, it's clear DX's job is to elevate the kids who now have a win and 3 solid ppv bouts in which they weren't squashed and looked tough and viable as a tag team.

As for Undertaker, it is always a special thing when someone goes over the Undertaker. Punk already has (in controversial fashion) and then got himself in trouble. Chalk it up to his own stupidity for his bad loss, but if he's smart, he'll work hard to bounce back and eventually, get that win he needs. Or at very least, look like the contender he needs to be.

In the grand scheme of things, you can't win 'em all, and you can't lose 'em all. You also can't look at one Raw, one Smackdown, or one PPV and decide how something is. You have to take a step back and see how things look for the future and how this feud and this match play into it. That goes for anything. Try your best not to overreact to one match result because there's always tomorrow to find out why it happened and how it will affect the wrestler and the company moving forward.

 

[TellMeWhy]

And lol at all the other responses in this thread. This thread is nothing but filled with WWE fanboys defending their product. It's okay for WWE to do one thing but it's okay for TNA to not do 1 thing. You guys just prove me right that a double standard exists.

 

[johnbragg]

You can't complain about Taker winning a match...be honest with yourself....

I'm not. I'm complaining that Taker won both of them. Taker tapping to the Anaconda Vice would have been huge for Punk, and Taker could have gotten the belt and his win back at Hell In A Cell, a more Taker-friendly environment. As it is now, it looks like Punk was a fluke champion who only had the belt until WWE could find a "real star" to carry it.

 

[HBK-aholic]

And lol at all the other responses in this thread. This thread is nothing but filled with WWE fanboys defending their product. It's okay for WWE to do one thing but it's okay for TNA to not do 1 thing. You guys just prove me right that a double standard exists.

I'm a sucker for irony, so when I read this, and then the beow statement, I laughed out loud.

You're a 100% pure idiot! If you're head wasn't stuck up you're ass. you'd know how stupid you sound.

All you're doing is following the crowd by suddenly hating on the WWE - it's cool for the IWC to do so at the moment. You made this thread acting as if this was some revolutionary thing you were coming out with - WE'VE HEARD IT ALL BEFORE. Stay on this forum for 10 damn minutes and all you'll see is "WWE sucks, yay TNA". "WWE is burying their talent". There IS no double standard.

 

[TellMeWhy]

I'm a sucker for irony, so when I read this, and then the beow statement, I laughed out loud.



All you're doing is following the crowd by suddenly hating on the WWE - it's cool for the IWC to do so at the moment. You made this thread acting as if this was some revolutionary thing you were coming out with - WE'VE HEARD IT ALL BEFORE. Stay on this forum for 10 damn minutes and all you'll see is "WWE sucks, yay TNA". "WWE is burying their talent". There IS no double standard.

If you got off this forum for one second, maybe you'd see what I was talking about. The backlash that TNA receives for doing similar things involving their vets is not the same. This crap about TNA pushing their vets and keeping down young talent has been the talk of the internet among marks for about 2-3 years but yet WWE has been doing the same thing consistently for years involving the same guys but yet they get overlooked more or is more accepted which is the point. Yes, WWE fans may complain but it dies down after a certain point. The internet marks continue with the same stigma about TNA and veterans and never seem to get over it. When it comes to TNA, the feeling is more universal but when it comes to WWE, it seems as if they aren't held up to such regards.

 

[D-Man]

You're a 100% pure idiot! If you're head wasn't stuck up you're ass. you'd know how stupid you sound.

Oh that's right... I guess that's why about half of the responders agreed with me.

Undertaker didn't lose clean to CM Punk in that submission match. He was protected. Are you not aware of the 2009 Montreal screwjob finish involving Teddy Long and CM Punk?

What difference does that make? A win is a win. Especially a win over the Undertaker in a submission match. However the circumstance, it's still a notch on Punk's belt knowing that he successfully defended the WHC belt against the Undertaker and beat him in a submission match.

No, lets look at TNA. Abyss vs. Foley, Morgan vs. Angle, Sting vs. AJ, MEM vs. WE,

It's funny how allof these feuds just started happening about 2 months ago. What about the past 2 years? Yeah, exactly.

If you watched Impact, you'd know the most time on TNA lately has been devoted to Eric Young & the World Elite with the writers letting MEM and guys like Foley take a backseat.

Once again, this started happening about 10 minutes ago. The MEM was the first and middle promo on almost every episode of Impact for the past year and a half.

I guess that's why TNA has arguably actually created and elevated more new talent this year with only 2 hrs of tv than WWE has this year with 6-7 hrs. of tv.

Ok, this year the WWE has elevated Kingston, Swagger, Morrison, DiBiase, Rhodes, Dolph Ziggler, MVP, CM Punk, etc... all without the use of a stable.

TNA has only elevated Matt Morgan and Eric Young. All of their other talent is EXACTLY where it's been for the past year. AJ Styles was already main event, the veterans are still running the show, and only just recently did the World Elite step up. Without Eric Young, the World Elite wouldn't be jack shit, so you really can't count any of them in your little equation. So, who else am I missing? Who has seriously done more this year than they did last year? You don't have a fucking clue.

Yup, that's what I thought. But, I guess things could be worse... you could have tried to defend Suicide.

 

[sugah2300]

I guess that's why TNA has arguably actually created and elevated more new talent this year with only 2 hrs of tv than WWE has this year with 6-7 hrs. of tv.[/QUOTE]

Name one talent they created that wasnt a talent in the star in the indepenents first roh etc.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

TNA has exactly elevated as many young stars as you think they have. Only Matt Morgan and Eric Young have been elevated and Young is shit so pretty much it's been Morgan. Swagger, Miz, Kofi, Ziggler, and Morrison have all been elevated this past year. The veterans are consuming more of TNA than the veterans of WWE.

Sorry LetEmKnow, I had to let you know.

 

[TellMeWhy]

3. Most of TNA's old talent are guys that WWE discarded because they were old and broken down. TNA's old guys are more broken down and more obviously broken down than WWE's old guys. Nash, Foley and Steiner are the clearest examples. The entire build to the Nash-Foley match was based on the idea that they're both half-crippled. Compared to the wear and tear on those bodies, Undertaker, HHH and HBK are in their primes.

I agree with everything you said except that guys like Nash, Foley, and Steiner are broken down. Are you serious? Besides Nash getting a staph infection, when was the last time either of those guys got injured? Foley has always been broken down. He was never in the best of shape and was never a guy who was quite mobile in the ring. And Say what you want but Nash and Steiner are in great shape and are much more healthier than Taker, HHH, and HBK. Taker is not even fully healed yet and can no longer work matches longer than 15 minutes but yet they put the title on him. And HBK's back is torn up. Why do you think Taker & HBK take so much time off? And HHH? Come on? HHH's knees are jacked up. When wa the last time you heard about any of the vets in TNA with an injury?

TNA is facing that position soon, as in yesterday. Foley, Nash and Steiner are physically shot. Sting is retiring. Booker, Angle and Jarrett are all really, really close. Who is their bench? AJ Styles and Samoa Joe are TNA stars, but they have never been the focus of the show and carried the ball. Six months ago, Hernandez was a tag specialist and Matt Morgan was nothing.

Plus, TNA is the heir to WCW, and they have a lot of guys who were there when WCW went down the tubes--Russo, Jarrett, Steiner, Booker, Sting, Nash. So people worry about it happening again.

The difference with WCW and TNA is that TNA has load of guys that can carry the ball if all of TNA's veterans decided to leave at once. The young guys in TNA have gotten so much face time on tv and so much of a rub that guys like AJ, Joe, Daniels, Morgan, Hernandez, Robert Roode, and James Storm can easily fill spots. Say what you want but the average TNA fan can identify with all of these guys especially AJ and Joe.

overall good post.

 

[TellMeWhy]

I guess that's why TNA has arguably actually created and elevated more new talent this year with only 2 hrs of tv than WWE has this year with 6-7 hrs. of tv.

Name one talent they created that wasnt a talent in the star in the indepenents first roh etc.

Hernandez, Matt Morgan, Eric Young, I can go on and on if you want me to.

 

[PhenomAJJones]

Let be honest and straight up here. TNA only has one show so i am gonna compare TNA now and Raw now. That is fair.

Since the time Jeff Jarrett went away from TNA Creative we have seen guys like Joe, AJ, Eric Young, and Hernandez get more time on tv and have been getting pushes and are getting more television time. Main Event picture in TNA has changed in a couple ways.

AJ Styles, & Matt Morgan are getting more opportunities to shine and show what they can do.

Eric Young has really came into his own since his heel turn, Hernandez will be a good Main Eventer with more time in the ring he will be a more championship contender.

In the last Year of Raw the Main Event and Championship picture has been centered around Triple H, John Cena, Randy Orton, and Batista.

WWE had opportunities to make guys like Swagger, Miz, Evan Bourne, MVP into bigger stars but they haven't done that.

Evan Bourne has hit Jobber status lately.

Jack Swagger looks dumb for taking the U.S. belt in a United States Championship match that he had against Kofi on Raw a couple weeks back, and is danger of going to jobber status.

Miz lost cleanly to Cena in every single match they had, and lost the U.S. Championship match, only people Miz beaten are people like Evan Bourne and other jobbers.

MVP had a nice match with Triple H but instead of pushing MVP, WWE decides to put him in their tag team division w/Mark Henry and they lose to Jericho & Big Show every time.

Lately like i said TNA have been pushing younger talent and trying to make them into bigger stars while on Raw the stars really don't have a chance to shine. Yeah Legacy won a match with DX at Breaking Point, but you know its only a matter of time before Legacy breaks up and Cody gets lost in the Raw Shuffle. Only person who has a chance to be a star on Raw is Ted Dibiase and i hope WWE don't mess up his bright future.