what's more important the tv coverage or actual wrestling ?

this was a dispute me and gaffer had yesterday.

he said tna was #2 behind wwe and i said they were #3 behind roh as well despite their lack of tv coverage.

so which is more important the tv coverage that the company has or being able to put on a excellent show?

I'm much more a fan of ROH than TNA but there's a huge gulf between them for brand awareness.

The ROH event at the weekend (which sounded amazing) had between 500-550 people in attendance, that pretty much sums up its level of penetration into the wrestling fanbase.

It's like comparing football clubs.

WWE are Manchester Utd.
They're a company and brand first rather than a club or federation. The owners clash with the more passionate fans due to not being in touch with what they actually want. They pander to corporates and kids.

TNA are Leeds Utd
They're stuck 20 years in the past, they hate the above with a passion. They want to be as good as the above but just haven't a clue how to do it and will probably go bankrupt in the process. They're known more for people who were famous a few years back.

ROH are FC United
They want to be loved by 'proper' fans but most fans still stick with the top one even if the owners don't care. No-one out of the most hardcore fans know who they are.

To be fair I didn't say they where #2, I said there was two main stream Pro Wrestling Promotions in North America and and TNA where wrong to class themselves below WWE, not because its better but because they should believe they are the best and sell that to the viewer, you totally misinterpreted my point last night and you seem to be doing it again

Hero, that is a great anaology about the football teams

good call mate

What I will say though is any fed could put a 5 star match on but without fans its pointless

TV coverage and actual wrestling go hand in hand, you can have one without the other and expect to receive sufficient public recognition to put you on the map as a legitimate wrestling company.

If i had to pick though i'd say TV coverage is more important. Its like making a movie and not filming it.

Look at Randy Savage and Ricky Steamboat, their WM3 was great but its been said that the trial matches they had in Savages own ring at his house where head and shoulders above what they did at WrestleMania yet with it only being hear-say its kinda hard to believe.

Every single Wrestler when they start out want to be doing weekly TVs

You need to have decent wrestling and a decent show overall to get the TV coverage in the first place.

Regarding the crowd, TNA feel like they have less than 550 in the crowd each time, there is like hardly any crowd reaction at all when a wrestler comes out to the music, its just a few cheers and maybe a couple of boo's if they are lucky. It's annoying IMO. I bet ROH had more energy with 550 people than TNA do with thier attendance!

ROH FTW. I don't care about coverage, this company is by miles the best. They never fail to impress,

Btw, great analogy there Hero.

To be fair fernando i find it to be a bit of a dud question if im honest.

'whats more important the tv coverage or actual wrestling'

Important for what?

To be a succesful business? To gain exposure? To gain fans? To please the wrestlers? Because i'd have a different answer for each.

answer them all then mr h. that's what this is about to open a very large debate.

fernando wrote:answer them all then mr h. that's what this is about to open a very large debate.

A mass one?

Though knowing to the level that some ROH smarks take it then that's probably apt.

a mass debate would be good, would lead down different directions and open it up more.

He was 'mass debating'

Basically if ROH had the tv deal that TNA had i dont think it'd be as succesful. Pro-wrestling is now based on entertainment and unfortunately they couldnt survive by just putting on 2hrs of pure wrestling, it just wouldnt cut it for the younger generation and family viewers. If they wanted a primetime slot they'd more than likely be asked to water down their product to make it family friendly. ROH is good at what it does but imo it would damage their reputation and credibility if they were given a tv slot.

The unfortunate thing for TNA is that for two solid years it had a TV deal with HD Net but they didn't pop a live gate, attendancies are still the same as they where before the got a TV deal so in that respect it didn't help them grow the way many including me had hoped

For me, I don't tune in to WWE for wrestling. I tune in for the storylines, sub plots and following the characters.

While it may be a wrestling programme, the majority of the time you either know what's coming through the various spoiler sites or you can guess what's coming because it's quite predictable.

I don't even try and watch TNA anymore purely because it's boring. I really enjoyed it as a show once upon a time and then they introduced the Main Event Mafia segments which just seemed to include all the bigger names bar a couple and they'd either talk for 20minutes or just mindlessly ruin matches that involved any of them. After that it never appealed to me again

Never seen RoH and not really a fan of indie shows so I can't comment.

Haha, Hero good comparasing. I'm more a fan of the Wrestling too be fair, but if it wasn't for the TV coverage, it wouldn't be the same