Rate Wrestling

Out of 10?

I'd give WWE 3/10 and TNA about 6/10

Leslie???

if punk wasnt there, 3

tna, i dont really watch it. but it gets atleast a 3.1

WWE 6/10

Don't watch TNA.

WWE 6/10 TNA 4/10

How can you give it a 6? I'd go to 4 that's about it. WWE's creative team is burying wrestling atm imo.

TNA is pretty poor but is miles more enjoyable atm

WWE 10/10 TNA 0/10

Haha 10/10 wum,clown.

AntLord wrote:Leslie???

pauline?

i'd go:

WWE 6 out of 10
TNA 5 out of 10

How can I give it a 6? Quite simple really

Whether you like the build ups or not and I haven't so far, in a few weeks we're going to see Rock/Cena, Punk/Taker, Brock/HHH, Ryback/Henry, Del/Rio Swagger

What other Wrestling organisation can sell matches like that? I also feel that while the build-ups haven't been great I'm actually happy that for the most part these guys have been kept apart so it feels like when they meet it will actually mean something.

I want to like TNA but everything they do just feels like they're trying to hard

Is that alright for you?

TNA 6.5/10

WWE from what I see,(which isnt much) 3/10

To be honest cant really get into WWE.

Went downhill a long time ago.

HitmanOwl wrote:Haha 10/10 wum,clown.

Not really. Its actually not far from the truth. Ok ok not 10/10 as it would have to be pure perfection for that to happen.

With regards to TNA, I have never watched it and never intend to so that either gets 0/10 or a "non-applicable" rating.

In all seriousness I will give WWE 8/10. I apologise if this is a controversial and unpopular view but I honestly like most of what the WWE has to offer. I watch every min of Raw and Smackdown and only FF the breaks and WWE World Tour adverts. I am loving the build up to Wrestlemania and all of these are impressing me: The Shield, Mark Henry, Ryback, The Undertaker, CM Punk, Brock Lesnar, Triple H. With regards to The Rock v John Cena I am not massively interested at this current time but I think it is one more decent segmnet away from that stage. Every Raw has me wanting to watch the next straight away and even Smackdown is enjoyable right now. They make a lot of mistakes (what they have done to Kane being the prime example) but in general I dont have too many issues.

wwe 2/10 I don't find any of the current feuds interesting due to a very rushed build, yes some of it wasn't their fault e.g undertaker coming back late but they still don't seem to have a clue what to do with anyone for example what happened to the sheamus/wade feud? is big show a face now? I don't have a clue the same as the creative team.

tna 7/10 while they do have a set plan of what to do they don't seem to really have a plan below main event level e.g why does matt morgan hate Hogan again? because he got fired....buuut now he's re-hired and still hates Hogan...ermmmm ok........ but the parts of the show that they do get right which is most of it is very enjoyable as opposed to wwe which seems more like a chore to get through as you know what will happen and when.

Shot 21

Are you being serious?


Fair play if you are.

This weeks raw was one of the worst ever and for the opening segment was embarrassing.

If you don't watch tna you can't be a wrestling fan.

TNA i dont watch

WWE its an awkward one, on the whole id have to go with 4/10 , but it would be unfair to say that its like that all year round, there are times where there is an exeption to the rule, royal rumble and elimination chamber for one were excellent, and also raw last week and the week before was pretty decent. Its a shame really as at times cretive come up with some really really good ideas, to bad its a rareity though.

HitmanOwl wrote:Shot 21

Are you being serious?


Fair play if you are.

This weeks raw was one of the worst ever and for the opening segment was embarrassing.

If you don't watch tna you can't be a wrestling fan.

Are you aware that different people have different opinions?

HitmanOwl wrote:Shot 21

Are you being serious?


Fair play if you are.

This weeks raw was one of the worst ever and for the opening segment was embarrassing.

If you don't watch tna you can't be a wrestling fan.

Yes. I must add I havent yet watched this weeks Raw so that might knock it to a 7 lol!!

I disagree on your last sentence. I definately consider myself a wrestling fan or else I wouldnt even be on this board. I suppose I am a WWE loyalist. That is the only programme I have watched. I never liked WCW or ECW, and neither do I like TNA. I have never wathched ROH but from what I hear on this board it seems like a good little indie company.

The problem is, being a WWE fan, I have 5 hours of wrestling to watch a week with Raw and Smackdown. But I also watch a lot of football on TV, watch various other programmes such as Shameless, Supernatural etc. Then I have an X Box online so spend time playing Black Ops 2, FIFA 13 and WWE 13 among others. On top of this I hang out with friends who are not wrestling fans so they wont watch it with me. Also I like to see family and other friends etc. With all that I simply dont have time to watch any other wrestling. I have always wathced WWE so will continue to do just that. Even on the odd occasion that I flick over to Challenge and see TNA on, it just bores the hell out of me. That is obviously because I havent followed storylines.

But I still reckon that makes me a wrestling fan.

WWE - 5/10

TNA - 7/10

TNA do long term booking and stick to it. WWE are always changing there minds last minute and it hurts the product. The feuds built to the grandest stage of them all should have been set in stone around Royal Rumble time however only The Rock/Cena was for sure. I think WWE also only looks as people who will draw them the most money, e.g. the Rock whereas TNA provide incentives to those who work harder and deservce it, e.g. Bully Ray. Although sometimes underwhelmining, TNA put on entertaining shows and entertaining content. However, I'd say WWE PPV's are better as they put more effort into them. That being said, now TNA has cut down to 4 PPV's, there PPvs should be much better now.

HitmanOwl wrote:Shot 21

Are you being serious?


Fair play if you are.

This weeks raw was one of the worst ever and for the opening segment was embarrassing.

If you don't watch tna you can't be a wrestling fan.

By that he means if you don't watch TNA you aren't missing anything.

MIG

just said fair play to him. I'm just giving mine!

Just think when Brock,taker,triple h,rock,Cena and punk go,what will wwe have? The only guy what seems like a legit star is ryback but he's a poor man's version of Goldberg(wcw)

The thing is short term alright but long term not so. WWE's inability to create legit superstar's will cost them in the long run. Simple logic.

So much talent but yet wasted.

So frustrating when you know it could be so much better.

HitmanOwl wrote:MIG

just said fair play to him. I'm just giving mine!

Just think when Brock,taker,triple h,rock,Cena and punk go,what will wwe have? The only guy what seems like a legit star is ryback but he's a poor man's version of Goldberg(wcw)

The thing is short term alright but long term not so. WWE's inability to create legit superstar's will cost them in the long run. Simple logic.

So much talent but yet wasted.

So frustrating when you know it could be so much better.

What will WWE have when they go? Well Cena and Punk wont be going anywhere anytime soon, neither will Randy Orton, all 3 of whom are current megastars. When the time is right to pull the trigger on the likes of Bryan, Ziggler etc, they'll do it. To say WWE can't create legit superstars is a ridiculous comment with no substance. Thats what they are best at and what they've been doing for decades. The WWE creates stars, always have done always will do, and TNA are reaping the rewards of that by having Jeff Hardy, Team 3D, Kurt Angle etc in their ranks. All of whom are currently big players in TNA which begs the question Hitman, what state will TNA be in when all their big ex-WWE draws decide to leave?

The fact that they are heavily reliant on the big ex-WWE names (aswell as Hogan and Sting) to promote their company makes your defence of TNA somewhat laughable.

WWE 5 TNA 2

TNA 8/10
WWE 6/10

TNA have continued to improve and grow, impact is on the road - it is genuinely a new era for the company and all their PPVs will be in bigger venues now they've left the impactzone! Not sure what to make of the one night stand specials but for me they're moving in the right direction. Bully Ray heel turn was great and TNA have made a genuine star out of him, something very few of us would have guessed a few years ago. Alright Aces & 8s haven't always been booked strongly but again they're moving in the right direction with Bully as president.

WWE have some big marquee matches set for Mania but the product in general doesn't really inspire me. Mania is given the biggest marquee matches, which is right for the WWE's flagship PPV and their "Superbowl". But they've really screwed up their general booking - I think MITB breaks rather than makes stars, Ryback's big streak came to a premature end when he was pushed too quickly into the WWE title scene. Del Rio and Big Show bore me as performers and I wish Taker's streak would end.

Mr H

Where did I mention tna in that response? I'm sure I didn't say anything about tna.

So wwe have created Cena,Orton and punk in how many years? 2 I couldn't care less about and the other will be gone sooner rather than later. Funny though all these stars yet taker,Brock,rock,trips are main events Haha but yeah they create stars but they aren't big enough stars to erm main event.

Talking point

Spot on all that.

HitmanOwl wrote:Mr H

Where did I mention tna in that response? I'm sure I didn't say anything about tna.

So wwe have created Cena,Orton and punk in how many years? 2 I couldn't care less about and the other will be gone sooner rather than later. Funny though all these stars yet taker,Brock,rock,trips are main events Haha but yeah they create stars but they aren't big enough stars to erm main event.

How many Mega stars were in the Attitude Era? Nostalgia aside the only guys who come close to Cena, Orton or Punk in terms of company and crowd backing were Austin, The Rock and HHH. They had guys who were main event level aswell but Undertaker vs Kurt Angle for the WWF title in 2000 is just as forgettable as Edge vs ADR from Mania 27. Hell, even further back than that the only 3 MEGA stars were Hogan, Warrior and Savage. When they were at the top no one came close. Its always been the same.

It takes years to get someone over and to that pedastal of "Mega Star". Austin didnt get there over night. Neither did Shawn Michaels. There are exceptions of guys who get big quick, like Lesnar and The Rock to some degree. All it takes is a spark for someone to explode. Sometimes the spark takes longer to get there than with others.

HitmanOwl wrote:Talking point

Spot on all that.

So TP is spot on with his 6/10 for WWE but Kay Fabe is way wrong?

WWE - 4/10 One of the worst periods that I can remember for a while in WWE. Wrong people being pushed/ held down and a real lack of forward planning. Short term booking at its worst. Only gets 4 for the talent that is there such as Punk, the Shield, Heyman and Swagger.

TNA - 7/10 Best spell since pre Bound for Glory. Although the names have been generally underwhelming, every member (bar Anderson) have done well in their roles. And TNA at least have stuck to the story (even if it did go on forever). Bully Ray is the best heel in the business at the moment and one thing that Aces and 8s has done well (particularly Bully) is that they have clearly defined their heels unlike say Swagger who is liked by many Americans and Punk who will never be totally hated by the crowd (in a same way Aries wont).

3 months ago, TNA and WWE were pretty much on par for me (both being sub par their best) but WWE has gone backwards (generally) and TNA has got much, much better.

TNA 4 LIFE

HitmanOwl wrote:Mr H

Where did I mention tna in that response? I'm sure I didn't say anything about tna.

So wwe have created Cena,Orton and punk in how many years? 2 I couldn't care less about and the other will be gone sooner rather than later. Funny though all these stars yet taker,Brock,rock,trips are main events Haha but yeah they create stars but they aren't big enough stars to erm main event.

No you didn’t mention TNA but you are criticising WWE for not creating new stars and putting them in the main event when TNA do exactly the same. It’s called hypocrisy.

Pro-wrestling is not about the past or the future it’s very much about the present and if you’ve got box office names like The Rock and Brock Lesnar at your disposal who are going to get you 1 million buys at a PPV what business in their right mind will turn down that opportunity? The guys are huge draws and can still perform. Hence why TNA still book Kurt Angle, Sting and RVD high on their card.

Do you think for one minute if Bill Goldberg approached TNA about signing that TNA would say ‘No thanks Bill, we’re pushing James Storm so don’t need you’. Not a chance. Goldberg would be TNA World Champion in no time and why? Because he’s a huge draw and is good for business.

It’s all about the present and The Rock, Brock Lesnar and HHH are still very much relevant.

WWE 7
TNA 4

For me whilst I'm not overly impressed with the Wrestlemania card as it's become increasingly aimed at the casual fan over the past couple of years I'm encouraged by WWE's efforts to recognise that in the longterm they need to invest in new talent to have ready for post WM30 and there's a plethora of fantastic new guys coming through both already and in NXT.

Dean Ambrose, Roman Reigns, Seth Rollins, Antonio Cesaro, Kassius Ohno, El Generico, Adrian Neville, Bray Wyatt, Big E Langston, these are the guys that is what is interesting me in the WWE product right now.

In TNA whilst the Aces & Eights storyline finally gained some relevance its seems that for most people they've quickly forgotten the many months of absolute dirge in the build up, the reveals of the likes of Garrett Bischoff, Mike Knoxx, D'Lo Brown etc, one swallow does not make a summer.

Mr H wrote:

HitmanOwl wrote:Mr H

Where did I mention tna in that response? I'm sure I didn't say anything about tna.

So wwe have created Cena,Orton and punk in how many years? 2 I couldn't care less about and the other will be gone sooner rather than later. Funny though all these stars yet taker,Brock,rock,trips are main events Haha but yeah they create stars but they aren't big enough stars to erm main event.

No you didn’t mention TNA but you are criticising WWE for not creating new stars and putting them in the main event when TNA do exactly the same. It’s called hypocrisy.

Pro-wrestling is not about the past or the future it’s very much about the present and if you’ve got box office names like The Rock and Brock Lesnar at your disposal who are going to get you 1 million buys at a PPV what business in their right mind will turn down that opportunity? The guys are huge draws and can still perform. Hence why TNA still book Kurt Angle, Sting and RVD high on their card.

Do you think for one minute if Bill Goldberg approached TNA about signing that TNA would say ‘No thanks Bill, we’re pushing James Storm so don’t need you’. Not a chance. Goldberg would be TNA World Champion in no time and why? Because he’s a huge draw and is good for business.

It’s all about the present and The Rock, Brock Lesnar and HHH are still very much relevant.

Whilst I completely agree I would also like to point out that it doesnt mean that the shows are booked well and the top names great with the current material. Which is why I think that with worse raw materials, TNA is putting on a better show than WWE at the moemnt.

How does 20 minutes of wrestling on the show where wrestling matters first constitute a better show?

Hero wrote:How does 20 minutes of wrestling on the show where wrestling matters first constitute a better show?

Fair point - still think in the last few months TNA has been better generally.

Bully RAy > pancake players

I really rate O'Neill, I haven't a clue what the jeebies that was all on about but at least it was a bit of exposure for one of the most undervalued mic workers in WWE, given the right gimmick and opponent he could really work his way up the roster.
The whole pick TNA's current brightest star v a ridiculous gimmick in WWE though is just a snapshot. Why not Dean Ambrose > Garrett Bischoff? or CM Punk > Mike Knux?

@ Hobo

You think the Aces & 8’s angle and underwhelming reveals of D-Lo, Anderson, Knox, Tazz, paired with the Brooke/Bully love storyline is good, solid booking which will help draw more viewers to help the growth of TNA?

At this moment in time am enjoying TNA with the Aces and eights story line, They seem to run with there story's a lot longer than WWE at the moment.

WWE could have done some great things with the Nexus but the failed, Then there was the Core and that fizzled out into Nawt lets see how long the Shield can last there the only thing that's keep me watching WWE at the moment.

With TNA they prolong there story Lines and build them up pretty well giving every member of the roster something to do and not just been back stage with pointless promo's.

WWE: 5

TNA: 8

Mr H wrote:@ Hobo

You think the Aces & 8’s angle and underwhelming reveals of D-Lo, Anderson, Knox, Tazz, paired with the Brooke/Bully love storyline is good, solid booking which will help draw more viewers to help the growth of TNA?

I do think its solid booking but dont think the reveals were great names however. Having said that, I think that a lot of the mid card reveals have played their roles better than anyone could have expected - ie Devon, Doc and to some extent, Bischoff (hes certainly better than Knox, Anderson and Brisco).

It seems that whether you like the storyline or not, at least they stuck to logical (if underwhelming at times) booking.

The Brooke storyline served its purpose perfectly for the reveal of Bully Ray so I am overall happy with it.

WWE has some amazing stars (and talent) but I just feel the booking has been average at best. The only storyline that was good has completely stalled imo (the shield/ heyman and punk). The three of them are going into the biggest show of the year with rushed storylines.

I do prefer TNA and everyone knows that but I do try and give impartial opinions as well.

Hope that explains it!

The only problem I had with Bully Ray was Hulk Hogan, I said months ago he'll be the leader so Hulk Hogan could say "I told you so"

I don't think the reveals stuck to logic apart from Devon and Bully Ray, however I feel the timing of the Devon reveal was poor, I also think it went on far to long, will it improve business? I really doubt it, I'd hope it does but I just can't see it, as for A&8s reveals serving their purpose...some could see it like that, I see it like it dilutes their product, numbers for the sake of it is never good, the nWo are testiment to that

I understand you are enthusiastic about TNA and try to fight their corner, I’ve no problem with that. I also realise that most of what TNA are presently doing has been logical.

But I also believe ‘most’ of the WWE booking has been logical. Straight up lets just take Punk and Taker out of the equation as Taker’s annual match isnt booked using logic!

Cena v Rock. Although most don’t want to see it, it is logical. Cena won the Rumble, Rock is champion, Cena wants redemption and the WWE Title. It bores me but its logical.

HHH v Lesnar. Pretty much same as above, don’t really want to see it but HHH’s promo said he was ‘waiting for a reason’ and he has ‘found his reason’. He wants revenge and backed up Vince after Brock attacked him. It’s logical.

Swagger v Del Rio. Swagger wins EC, he’s now got this gimmick and facing a Mexican suits his gimmick. The match was the first Mania match after Swagger became No1 contender. It’s logical.

I understand most of the booking has been unspectacular but the matches themselves are logical. I just don’t think WWE are doing a great job in promoting these matches to the best of their ability because the booking has been so slack.

We are pretty much saying the same thing!

I just think that WWE hasnt been surpassing the level they should be with the talent they have whereas I feel that TNAs talent has done better than they should have.

I know what you are saying about the storylines in WWE but as you said, they havent done very well promoting it. The WWE title scene is a mess.

They should have made it Cena v Punk for the title (Punk holding it) and have Rock vs undertaker.

I feel the best booked story has been Swagger for this mania and even though its had its problems (ie Swagger getting busted), they have turned around the story very quickly into something very good (although you could argue the story started with Swagger disappearing but then again I wont give them that much credit!)

Adam D wrote:

I just think that WWE hasnt been surpassing the level they should be with the talent they have whereas I feel that TNAs talent has done better than they should have.

Precisely.

The problem with WWE at the moment is they completely lack a long term vision. We got a glimpse of it with Team Hell No, building to a WrestleMania match between the two. But instead of the prefered split they are defending the Tag Titles against Ziggy and Choc Lesnar in a thrown together match because they have nothing for Ziggler.

Alot of the singles matches they could have planted the seeds for months ago, like Henry vs Ryback, they could easily have had a Rumble spot together.

Also, I cant help but wonder if Bill Moody hadn't passed away, what would the story behind Punk/Taker?

I completely agree with the WWE Title Match being Punk as Champ going over 500 days vs John Cena, I also think Taker vs Rock should have been the streak match too

I think Punk/Cena had the genuine storyline behind it, I also feel that after beating WWE's golden boy in the Main Event last year the next logical step for Rock would have been facing Taker.

I think it had so much potential, for me it'd have been The Undertakers biggest ever WrestleMania opponent (not his best but the biggest) it'd also tie in with Rock saying he's going to do something at WrestleMania he'd never done before and with The Undertaker not returning until when he usually does it leaves less pressure depending on Rock turning up

maybe they're saving Rock v Taker for next year? Don't think they'd have Rock v Cena three years in a row!?

I don't think they have a clue as to what they'll do next year.

Crimey wrote:I don't think they have a clue as to what they'll do this year.

Edited that for you.

Theres a few points on this I find to be backed up by no evidence.

Firstly, TNA have logical long term booking? I will direct you to their botch of Storm vs Roode at Bound For Glory.

TNA does appear to be vehemently defended by TNA fans whereas WWE fans are generally more open to criticise the WWE product.

Thus, TNA getting a better rating than WWE because they are perceived by some to be doing better with what they have to work with doesnt actually make any sense in terms of what is better to watch. I watch some fights on nights out that have a back story but no budget, but considering WWE has millions of pounds to work with then really that chav vs chav fight is a 8/10 (its not perfect, the promos are awful) and WWE a 1.

I'm not sure how much of the Mania build has been rushed. Cena vs Rock has been on since the Rumble and is the culmination (most likely) of a two year feud. Lesnar v HHH has been a good few months in the making whilst Punk vs Taker has been long obvious and always had a clear line of story even before Bearer's death.

I also disagree that WWE has nothing under their part time stars. When The Rock, Taker, HHH depart they'll still have Lesnar to use across a few PPVs and still have Cena and Punk. Add to that Orton, Bryan, Kane, Ziggler, Cesaro etc and I think the talent pool does outdo that of TNA.

TNA at the moment also has 1 story. Mainly based around Hulk Hogan. Aces and Eights are about to get taken on by Sting and Hogan. That would sound more pathetic if they werent about to go to war with Garrett Bischoff, Wes Briscoe, Mike Knox (or is it now Knux?) the Comptroller of Mischief (or DOC), D'Lo Brown and the county of Devon.

Actually, they have 2 stories because AJ Styles has come back from sleeping rough to get into a fresh and innovative feud with Christopher Daniels.

So basically "IT WAS BULLY ALL ALONG AUSTIN!" and Ian Beale has returned to feud with a much thinner Grant Mitchell.

TNA has a lot to be criticised for at the moment and its down to basic laziness and arrogance of their big names.

I'd give TNA at least a 9 for getting behind the hot new stars Hulk Hogan and Sting. I also applaud them for recognising the natural talent of people like Brooke Hogan and Garratt Bischoff, whose vast abilities may have been overlooked if their dads weren't in powerful positions in the company.