Wrestlefreak 0 Report post Posted January 18, 2006 As an alternative to WWE, what's better? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Duke_The_Dog Report post Posted January 18, 2006 *Emails mods about putting an end to new accounts* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hyperchord24 0 Report post Posted January 18, 2006 *Emails mods about putting an end to new accounts* What's wrong with new having new people? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest bigm350 Report post Posted January 18, 2006 WCW. At least with WCW around, you would see the WWE try to step up their game and try to produce decent TV. Also, WCW had some great undercard stuff, and had alot of marquee names. I'm not saying I don't enjoy TNA, but it doesn't compare to WCW at its best, which was around 1996/7 or so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Duke_The_Dog Report post Posted January 18, 2006 I'm new.... Oh the irony! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheInsane 0 Report post Posted January 18, 2006 WCW easily. I never saw much of them at the height of their popularity (just early 90'ies). I'd choose them over TNA. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Hass of Pain Report post Posted January 18, 2006 Even WCW at their lowest low had better writing, production and presentation than TNA has exhibited up to this point, and they had a roster full of guys who could work the X-Division style. WCW in a total walk. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wrestlefreak 0 Report post Posted January 19, 2006 Even WCW at their lowest low had better writing, production and presentation than TNA has exhibited up to this point, and they had a roster full of guys who could work the X-Division style. WCW in a total walk. I totally agree. WCW was a bigger threat! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Papacita 0 Report post Posted January 19, 2006 WCW, but it's really not a fair comparison since they had so much more to work with than TNA currently does. This'll be a more interesting question if/when TNA really get themselves established, but right now they're not even in WCW's league. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dobbs 3K 0 Report post Posted January 19, 2006 True...it's not a fair comarison. WCW had been around much longer by the time they started going toe to toe with Monday Night RAW with Nitro. TNA has only been around about five years, and started from scratch. They didn't have a base from Georgia, Florida, and Mid-Atlantic wrestling to build from. It also kind of depends what era of WCW you're referring to. If it's WCW of anywhere between '95 and '99, they win by a mile. If it's 2000-2001 WCW, TNA wins because of the lack of Vince Russo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianGuitarist 0 Report post Posted January 19, 2006 True...it's not a fair comarison. WCW had been around much longer by the time they started going toe to toe with Monday Night RAW with Nitro. TNA has only been around about five years, and started from scratch. They didn't have a base from Georgia, Florida, and Mid-Atlantic wrestling to build from. It also kind of depends what era of WCW you're referring to. If it's WCW of anywhere between '95 and '99, they win by a mile. If it's 2000-2001 WCW, TNA wins because of the lack of Vince Russo. Thats pretty well what I was gonna say. Ask this question in about 18 months, and then there'd be a debate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
