Does/should WWE care about TNA?

[Thanks for the Fish 0]

Roode is crud. I think the wwe showed interest just to allow TNA to essentially bid against themselves.

 

Shelley is just going through the motions now - it's to the point where he'll stay if the money is right, but would probably be happier on the indies. He's probably eying a ROH return as well now that they got television. I know he hung them out to dry when he jumped to TNA, so I wonder if ROH would want him back.

[PILLS! PILLS! PILLS! 0]

You really think that WWE is that concerned with fucking with TNA?

[The Truthiness 0]

Exactly...

[Thanks for the Fish 0]

You really think that WWE is that concerned with fucking with TNA?

 

Yes. They signed Gail Kim and haven't used her yet. They signed Harris and treated him like a nobody. Any interest they had in Roode is because he is a tag champion in TNA, not because they had plans for him. The wwe has a roster of developmental wrestlers they could tap into if they had a character in mind.

[Golgo 13 0]

Ron Killings hasn't been booked too bad. Harris wrote his own ticket out by looking and wrestling like shit and it likely would've been the same result had they billed Chris as Jesus himself. I'm also not sure WWE is keen on throwing money at Gail Kim in the current economy and having her sit just for the sake of screwing with a company that's several steps behind and has such a small share of the wrestling market, much less that company's niche division, even.

 

I know WWE has targeted wrestlers to keep them away from TNA. But I doubt WWE even considers TNA competition worthy enough to rub their hands together and cook up various plots aimed against them. Besides, they do such a fine job degrading and sabotaging themselves that WWE doesn't really need to take such deliberate measures to mess with them. Yeah, it'd be one thing if TNA was a hotshot late-90s WCW-like rival and WWE could afford to do so like they could then, but neither is the case.

[DarKnight 0]

Ron Killings hasn't been booked too bad. Harris wrote his own ticket out by looking and wrestling like shit and it likely would've been the same result had they billed Chris as Jesus himself. I'm also not sure WWE is keen on throwing money at Gail Kim in the current economy and having her sit just for the sake of screwing with a company that's several steps behind and has such a small share of the wrestling market, much less that company's niche division, even.

 

I know WWE has targeted wrestlers to keep them away from TNA. But I doubt WWE even considers TNA competition worthy enough to rub their hands together and cook up various plots aimed against them. Besides, they do such a fine job degrading and sabotaging themselves that WWE doesn't really need to take such deliberate measures to mess with them. Yeah, it'd be one thing if TNA was a hotshot late-90s WCW-like rival and WWE could afford to do so like they could then, but neither is the case.

 

I think TNA sabotages themselves big time by talking about WWE all the time on their shows. Its almost like they admit they're not important by talking about WWE's classic matches, yet they seem to never put over themselves.

[LuckyLopez 0]

You know, I never really understood the whole "TNA makes themselves look bad by talking about WWE" thing. I mean, I guess I understand the logic of it. Acknowledging the value of the competitor risks undermining your value. Its certainly the approach WWE has taken during its whole run. Ignore what happens outside these walls. But that's always annoyed me. It annoys me that R-Truth isn't acknowledged as a former WWE Tag Champion and NWA World Champion. It annoys me that Chris Harris' 5 years or so as one half of the best tag team in the business was tossed out the window. It annoys me that the far past only gets mentioned when WWE deems in convenient. So I appreciate it when TNA acknowledges the past between wrestlers or doesn't cut short a wrestler's resume because it happened in a company they don't want to mention. Because when I see BG James and Jeff Jarrett in a scene together I too think of the Roadie and Double J. And it bugs me if Cena tags with Carlito a year after Carlito stabbed him.

 

Of course cutting a promo on how much ECW pales in comparison to the "real ECW" or having VKM call out Vince on TV week in and week out may be too far (although there's probably SOME debate to that since DX did great with a similar idea). So I totally get that there's a limit here. And that "acknowledging the wrestling world" can turn into "spending too much time on the wrestling world." But I don't know. I never understood why acknowledging that what happened in WWE matters amounts to putting WWE above you. TNA has always been booked on the notion that they acknowledge the past. NWA, WCW, ECW. WWE is part of that.

 

Of course maybe its just me not getting it and WWE being "right." Or at least enough fans agreeing with WWE's way of seeing the business and me just being on the outside looking in. Because I certainly know enough fans who sort of play to the "If it doesn't happen in WWE it doesn't matter" idea that WWE likes. So maybe it just all amounts to people thinking that its only 2 options. Either you pretend you're alone in the world to protect your standing, or you recognize what's out there and undermine your place in the wrestling world.

[DarKnight 0]

You know, I never really understood the whole "TNA makes themselves look bad by talking about WWE" thing. I mean, I guess I understand the logic of it. Acknowledging the value of the competitor risks undermining your value. Its certainly the approach WWE has taken during its whole run. Ignore what happens outside these walls. But that's always annoyed me. It annoys me that R-Truth isn't acknowledged as a former WWE Tag Champion and NWA World Champion. It annoys me that Chris Harris' 5 years or so as one half of the best tag team in the business was tossed out the window. It annoys me that the far past only gets mentioned when WWE deems in convenient. So I appreciate it when TNA acknowledges the past between wrestlers or doesn't cut short a wrestler's resume because it happened in a company they don't want to mention. Because when I see BG James and Jeff Jarrett in a scene together I too think of the Roadie and Double J. And it bugs me if Cena tags with Carlito a year after Carlito stabbed him.

 

Of course cutting a promo on how much ECW pales in comparison to the "real ECW" or having VKM call out Vince on TV week in and week out may be too far (although there's probably SOME debate to that since DX did great with a similar idea). So I totally get that there's a limit here. And that "acknowledging the wrestling world" can turn into "spending too much time on the wrestling world." But I don't know. I never understood why acknowledging that what happened in WWE matters amounts to putting WWE above you. TNA has always been booked on the notion that they acknowledge the past. NWA, WCW, ECW. WWE is part of that.

 

Of course maybe its just me not getting it and WWE being "right." Or at least enough fans agreeing with WWE's way of seeing the business and me just being on the outside looking in. Because I certainly know enough fans who sort of play to the "If it doesn't happen in WWE it doesn't matter" idea that WWE likes. So maybe it just all amounts to people thinking that its only 2 options. Either you pretend you're alone in the world to protect your standing, or you recognize what's out there and undermine your place in the wrestling world.

 

Well, it isn't always bad when TNA mentions WWE, like in that Steiners/Dudleys feud, where both teams said how many titles they won from other promotions, it came off like both these teams were important and it was leading to a dream match. However, Foley's debut in TNA was a BAD example of talking about WWE, since he did nothing but put over a lot of his classic matches like Hell in a Cell, and the match with Edge, and even talked about matches he wasn't a part of, like the ones from last year with Michaels/Jericho, and yet it seemed like he didn't talk about any classic TNA matches. That was also that episode of Impact where it seemed like TNA talked about WWE in every talk segment, and didn't talk about themselves at all.

 

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

You know, I never really understood the whole "TNA makes themselves look bad by talking about WWE" thing. I mean, I guess I understand the logic of it. Acknowledging the value of the competitor risks undermining your value. Its certainly the approach WWE has taken during its whole run. Ignore what happens outside these walls. But that's always annoyed me. It annoys me that R-Truth isn't acknowledged as a former WWE Tag Champion and NWA World Champion. It annoys me that Chris Harris' 5 years or so as one half of the best tag team in the business was tossed out the window. It annoys me that the far past only gets mentioned when WWE deems in convenient. So I appreciate it when TNA acknowledges the past between wrestlers or doesn't cut short a wrestler's resume because it happened in a company they don't want to mention. Because when I see BG James and Jeff Jarrett in a scene together I too think of the Roadie and Double J. And it bugs me if Cena tags with Carlito a year after Carlito stabbed him.

 

Of course cutting a promo on how much ECW pales in comparison to the "real ECW" or having VKM call out Vince on TV week in and week out may be too far (although there's probably SOME debate to that since DX did great with a similar idea). So I totally get that there's a limit here. And that "acknowledging the wrestling world" can turn into "spending too much time on the wrestling world." But I don't know. I never understood why acknowledging that what happened in WWE matters amounts to putting WWE above you. TNA has always been booked on the notion that they acknowledge the past. NWA, WCW, ECW. WWE is part of that.

 

Of course maybe its just me not getting it and WWE being "right." Or at least enough fans agreeing with WWE's way of seeing the business and me just being on the outside looking in. Because I certainly know enough fans who sort of play to the "If it doesn't happen in WWE it doesn't matter" idea that WWE likes. So maybe it just all amounts to people thinking that its only 2 options. Either you pretend you're alone in the world to protect your standing, or you recognize what's out there and undermine your place in the wrestling world.

The problem is that when TNA promote what their wrestlers have done in WWE they do so in such a way that it makes them look like their glory days are behind them. It comes off so much like, "Hey, look at how good we used to be". They almost always present it in such a way that makes TNA look like the place wrestlers go when they can't run in the big league anymore. They almost never compare a wrestlers TNA accomplishments to their TNA accomplishments, and when they do, they invariably make what happened in WWE look like the bigger deal.

 

There is NO debate over VKM calling out WWE every week. It was a stupid idea that just made TNA look like the kids at the children's table trying to get the attention of the adults. It's also a bad idea to compare it to what DX did, because when they did that, WWF and WCW were on equal footing in a major wrestling war. If TNA were in any way close to WWE then yes, you could make that argument. But they weren't close to WWE. They never have been and, in all likelihood, never will be. The whole mess came off like a desperate cry for attention.

[LuckyLopez 0]

I should clarify. "VKM" was unquestionably stupid. I was just saying the rough idea of it had been successful in the past. This effort was however a horrible and pointless version that made them and TNA look bad. And perhaps all that follow would have the same effect because they'd just be biting off DX. And yeah, I do get that TNA and WWE aren't equals so there's a different feel to it than WCW/WWF but I don't know. I guess I'm weird. I have no delusions that TNA is near WWE and I personally hope they realize they're as far away as they are so they never do something supremely stupid business wise like moving to Monday nights. But I guess as a wrestling fan I don't really tend to look at the level of the company as much as the quality within. Production values don't bug me as much as some. Size doesn't. Names don't. But I totally acknowledge I am probably in the minority and that the "casual fan" may have the opposite view.

 

I see what you're saying about the individuals celebrating their WWE accomplishments but at the same time that sort of strikes me as a problem of the individuals. If Team 3D go on and on about their past in ECW and WWE and it makes them sound old and past their prime... its probably because they are. Mick Foley talking about what he did 10 or 20 years ago may feel played out but it felt that way to me the last X years in WWE. So it kind of feels like a double edged sword to me. If Angle has value to your company his resume is part of that value. If the overwhelming majority of his resume occurred in WWE what can be done about that? Its ignore his resume thus devaluing his worth or acknowledge and apparently undermining your place. And its tough to compare the TNA accomplishments of a guy vs the WWE/WCW/ECW accomplishments if he's been in TNA for only a short while. Angle, Booker, The Dudleyz, Nash, Foley... there's no two ways about it. Their careers have been in WWE and other companies and TNA is only a late stop for them at the end of their careers.

 

And while I'll agree with those who say TNA may have too much focus on the stars of the past at the moment, I do think there's clear value guys like Angle, Booker, and Nash have to the company. Even if that's not as a main event stable dominating the roster.

 

Obviously I guess that may be the heart of the issue. Am I right in assuming that if Booker's talking about his past was followed by AJ beating him clean that it would theoretically serve to put AJ (and through him TNA) over? That beating an X-time Champ who competed at the main event level in WWE would theoretically help? But obviously TNA largely has not done this, and when they have they've had a pile of issues with it. TNA's never seemed terribly good at booking its faces in its 6 years as its always seemed to favor the "Evil heel champ with dominant stable" story that has been told through a large majority of those 6 years.