In a Major WTF Moment in WWE History, WWE has decided to put out a Top 50 Superstars of All Time DVD set, ranking the Top 50 Wrestlers of All Time.
In fact, here's the list –
#50 – Killer Kowalski
#49 – Batista
#48 – "Ravishing" Rick Rude
#47 – Bob Backlund
#46 – Dory Funk Jr.
#45 – Jeff Hardy
#44 – Nick Bockwinkel
#43 – Kane
#42 – Sgt. Slaughter
#41 – Jack Brisco
#40 – Big Show
#39 – Jake "The Snake" Roberts
#38 – "Superstar" Billy Graham
#37 – Junkyard Dog
#36 – Gorilla Monsoon
#35 – "Nature Boy" Buddy Rogers
#34 – Kurt Angle
#33 – Mick Foley
#32 – "Superfly" Jimmy Snuka
#31 – The Iron Sheik
#30 – Pat Patterson
#29 – Randy Orton
#28 – "Classie" Freddie Blassie
#27 – The Fabulous Moolah
#26 – "The Million Dollar Man" Ted DiBiase
#25 – Chris Jericho
#24 – Bruno Sammartino
#23 – Hulk Hogan
#22 – Terry Funk
#21 – Lou Thesz
#20 – Jerry "The King" Lawler
#19 – Edge
#17 – Dusty Rhodes/Ric Flair (Tie)
#16 – John Cena
#15 – "Mr. Perfect" Curt Hennig
#14 – "Macho Man" Randy Savage
#13 – Gorgeous George
#12 – Triple H
#11 – Eddie Guerrero
#10 – "Rowdy" Roddy Piper
#9 – Rey Mysterio
#8 – Andre The Giant
#7 – Ricky "The Dragon" Steamboat
#6 – Harley Race
#5 – The Rock
#4 – Bret "The Hitman" Hart
#3 – Stone Cold Steve Austin
#2 – The Undertaker
#1 – Shawn Michaels
Now, obviously, any list like this is going to face scrutiny, but WWE's list, in particular, left a lot of people scratching their heads.
The folks on the boards, of course, had what Sigmund Freud would consider a 'field day' with this list…
The Chosen 1
I can't imagine how Rey could POSSIBLY be this high on the list? even if WWE Made it, they put him over HHH.
Flair is 17 & Hogan is 23.
Why'd they even put Hardy on the list?
Very weird it's almost like they tried hard NOT to come off like they were skewing it towards those who were not in their good graces while at the same time as they were actually doing that. Like they said we can't put HHH high on this list or
people
will complain so lets put Rey above him, but it just doesn't make sense.
Exx
This seems like they came up with their top 5 and just did the rest of the order drawing names out of a hat. lol
Did they give any criteria they were basing it on?
Aaron Wood
I don't know why people are pointing to Rey's position being weird. He may not have the biggest star in WWE, but the guy is a true pioneer of his generation, being at the fore-front of the cruiserweight revolution of the 1990's in WCW before going onto the WWE, where he did win the World Heavyweight Title. Something not everyone in the top 10 can have claimed to have done (Piper).
No. 9 precisely? Maybe. Maybe not. But I think he deserves to be up there.
I did expect Flair to be higher than he is, but looking at the rest of the list beyond him, it's not exactly filled with chopped liver. Same with Hogan, although I think he hurt his own WWE legacy with his later runs in the WWE.
To be honest, I think it's a pretty good list.
James Guttman
Yeah, but you chose Mae Young as one of the top babyfaces of all time during your ClubWWI 3:10 Audio, right?
Rey at #9 would be fine on a current list...or even one of the past decade. But all time? No. Hogan at 24 and Rey at 9? There's just something off with that. There are just too many big names below him for it to seem credible.
Again, it's their list. They can put people where they want to, but the active people definitely got put over the guys who were retired or out of the WWE.
Aaron Wood
You say that, but Rey's the only active guy in the top 10. If you count HHH as being active (although that's now slightly up for debate), only Rey, HHH, Cena & Edge are currently active in the WWE (with Flair in TNA) in the top 20. And in the other 30, I only make seven people currently active in WWE and TNA combined (Jeff, Kane, Big Show, Angle, Foley, Orton and Hogan).
We could all argue until we're blue in the face about what number we assign a certain person, but I think the real substance of the list, the actual names, is about right. And frankly, who's to say that, in a year, that Vince McMahon will look at the list and say to himself "What the hell is Gorgeous George even doing on here?" or "We sure did give Angle the shaft on this list".
I believe there was an element of voting involved (hence why Flair & Dusty are in joint 17th, rather than 17 & 18th). I seem to recall some link for voting, but that might have been something else.
James Guttman
Aaron, you genuinely feel that if you were making a list of top WWE Superstars, you would rank Rey Mysterio 14 spots above Hulk Hogan? Would you rank him ANY spots above Hogan?
I don't care what WWE's beef is. Hogan should be in the top three or four easily and The Warrior should be in the top 50.
Aaron Wood
No, I don't, and if it were my list, I more than likely wouldn't rank him above Hogan. Just in Hulk's case on this list, I would have more of a beef with John Cena being 7 spots above him than Rey being 14. You're right, if this was a purely objective list, Hogan would be somewhere locked in the top 3.
But at least he's on the DVD. I'm surprised Warrior is nowhere to be seen, since they're reached out to him in recent times. And he's the only big snub I can think of off the top of my head.
The Chosen 1
Austin is 3 and Rock is 5
Andre is 8 and Hogan is 23!
How does that make sense? Hogan was THE Man in ALL of Pro Wrestling from 1984 until we'll say the Warrior match in 1990... that's SIX YEARS.
THEN in 1996-98 he was on top of the wrestling world AGAIN as the face of the nWo, not nearly the extent he was in the 80's but still huge again.
WHO ELSE in history can say they were BOTH the face of WWF and WCW in the 80's and 90's? And that guy is 23
Oh and WHY is Batista on the list and not Brock Lesnar. Sure the guy was only in for 2 years, but he is kind of like the Ultimate Warrior of a different generation in that he was only truly on top for a short period of time but the impact he left on the industry is still felt and remembered years and years later
Exx
I agree on Hogan. He was basically the guy the promotion was built around in WWF till the Bret Hart era. They tried to run with Warrior and Macho Man as top guys but had to go back to Hogan. Bret was the first one where it actually stuck. So in reality it was Hogan's promotion for the eight wrestlemanias. Plus he had at least 5 good years or so in WCW before he jumped the shark. That's a heck of a run.
I don't understand how Steamboat is ranked so high. I can't think of a time when he was ever "the guy" in any national promotion. He had a title reign in the NWA but that was more of a years of service title reign. The company was still all about Flair.
No Sting or Vader seems kind of odd.
And as far as old guys go, The Original Sheik and Verne Gagne probably deserve consideration too.
RowdyRodimus
Here's a non pissy response; I'm a huge Piper mark so seeing him at #10 pleases me. It's just weird that he's in the top 10 when Flair and Hogan aren't considering these lists usually have it reversed.
RDLee
Harley Race doesn't belong anywhere near the top 10. Hell, not even the top 20.
James Bullock
Blasphemy! The
man
could beat a majority of everyone in the business during his heyday, and defeated polio. Forget Top 50, Race should get his own DVD for the simple fact he had the sweetest white man afro in the history of wrestling.
ZAH
If this was simply WWE "superstars" then I would agree with you. They're obviously back-tracking here to the NWA era...and in that case, Race absolutely deserves to be in the top 10 without question.
Race...Rhodes...Flair...they WERE the NWA title for years.
And by looking at the list, it HAS to include the NWA. Why else would Dusty "polka dot boy" Rhodes even be ranked on it?
TheGreatWhiteDope
anybody else think Andre got 8th because he is the 8th wonder of the world? And it just makes it fit really easily?
Throw Hogan at 1, put michaels/hart at 4/5 and i think the list would be fine. The Hogan one is just the most obvious "problem" with the list.
JohnnyCraze
That list is horrible. Backlund is way to high. He should be in the top 10. Rey at 9 is unbelievable. I like him and everything but you can't put him above Hogan. Flair is too high too. Bogus list.
HBK is #1? If your talking about drawing power then Austin should be #1. HBK was a great wrestler but didn't draw as much as Austin. I hate HHH but he should be lower.
James Guttman
Lists like this always drive people nuts because of ranking disagreements, but this is the worst I've ever seen. If a wrestling news site did a list like this and ranked Hogan at 23, people would be all over them for being "marks" and not understanding what the business is really about. A part of me genuinely thinks this was done for reaction. They knew it would slam Hulk's ego and make many fans go nuts.
Canadian Bulldog
The list is a joke.... but anyone who takes it seriously is also a joke.
This isn't a serious collection of the top 50 performers -- it's a way to glorify the guys that they employ now (and the ones that are in their "good books"). That's all it is, all it's meant to be.
Let's be honest - most of the people watching WWE today don't give a crap about Jimmy Snuka or Dusty Rhodes or Randy Savage. Even Hogan, Flair, Austin and Rock are quickly becoming forgotten names to a good chunk of the target market. I'm not saying that's everyone, but the majority don't care.
James put it very succinctly on his audio tonight (and I won't spoil it for anyone who wants to listen) why WWE made this list the way they did. Totally agree with JG - AND - it makes perfect sense why WWE did this.
Forget for a moment where you personally would have ranked Hogan, or Flair, or whomever. If you the type of person who enjoys debating this subject -- the DVD probably isn't for you.
Tharvey1
I was thinking about this the other day. I saw something on the torch where they were ranking their top 5 WWE Superstars of all time. That's something to think about. It's easy to toss out a bunch of arbitrary names and say they are in the top 50 all time in the business. But when you break it down into just WWE, its gets more interesting. My top five look like this...
5. HHH - He has evolved (no pun intended) from a blueblood into one of the most dominating characters ever in the WWE. He gets the nod here over some others simply due to his longevity in the company and the fact that he has a ton of title runs.
4. The Rock - He is the most electrifying wrestler in WWE history in my opinion. If he came back next Monday, everyone would mark out.
3. Shawn Michaels - He is Mr. Wrestlemania and one of the biggest innovators in the WWE.
2. Stone Cold Steve Austin - Without Austin, the Attitude Era doesn't mean much.
1. The Undertaker - No one has been as dominant for as long in the WWE and his Wrestlemania streak means alot to alot of people.
Hogan misses this list for me because he didn't do it for as long in the WWE and he made just as big a name for himself in WCW. Bret Hart, John Cena, Edge, and Andre the Giant would round out the top 10 with Hogan.
Slimjames
Well, if we're talking in WW
E history, to be smart ass and disallow the previous 41 years of W/WWF history, the top 5 would be
5. Batista
4. Edge
3. Triple H
2. Undertaker
1. John Cena
RDLee
Hogan's "done it" in the WWE much longer than Steve Austin, HHH and The Rock combined.
He carried the entire company on his back for nearly 10 years. Sure the Ultimate Warrior briefly was handed the ball but he quickly dropped it and the company gave it back to the Hulkster in the end anyway.
Who was "the man" from 1983 till 1993? Hulk Hogan.
Who was "the man" from 1999 till now? Several people... Rock, Austin, HHH, Undertaker, Cena, ect.... (And even Hogan in 2002! Remember?)
Hulk Hogan being ranked behind all these guys is just plain silly to me.
But since it's the "cool" thing to hate Hogan these days people will make up some crazy reason why he shouldn't be number one or even top 5.
Keevel
Bruno is the man from 1963 to 1977 and he's ranked 24?
That's the biggest mistake on this list for me.
This past week, RAW went Old School.
Our Board Memebers, on the other hand, were pretty much the same.
What did our gaggle of smart-ass smarks have to say about WWE's Trip Down Memory Lane?
And, more importantly, what dumbass thing did Michael Cole say this week?
RDLee
I am actually excited to review this. I
love
nostalgia. Hopefully the Nexus will have a big match 6 on 6 against the veterans that can still go tonight with Cena as special ref to
continue
the story, give the old timers screen time and get the new guys over all at once.
Exx
Here's hoping the iron sheik has one too many drinks before raw tonite and gives us something memorable. :D
Johnny Craze
U2's "Stuck in a moment you can't get out of" should be tonight's theme.
RYTMAN
What's the over/under that ORTON'S DAD is behind Nexus?
(I know, I'm starting to think like Russo.)
So does anyone know WHY they're doing this "old school" bit?
Aaron Wood
Because it's a three hour show and they need some sort of theme to fill the time. Literally. That's it. The three hour show in a couple of weeks is King Of The Ring and then a couple of weeks after, it's The Slammy Awards.
JohnnyCraze
Glad to see The Hart Dynasty still together.
Aaron Wood
I would suggest you give it about ten minutes...
RYTMAN
And we have our heel turn.
JohnnyCraze
OK, Hart Dynasty is history....and the tag division in WWE goes wayyyyyyyyyyy down
RDLee
If Raw was like this everyweek I would actually like it. So far this has been very entertaining to me.
JohnnyCraze
I didn't know old school had laptops
Aaron Wood
Well, to be fair, laptops have been around since the late 80's. Macbooks, not so much, but laptops, yes. Hell, just look at Michael Wallstreet and Ms. York in WCW.
JohnnyCraze
Alex Riley vs Cena???
Aaron Wood
That briefcase has been battered more than Rihanna...
The Green Teabagger
Iron Sheik just made it through three sentences without the word f*ck.
We have witnessed history
JohnnyCraze
Why is Eve always with R-Annoying-Truth?
The Green Teabagger
She has nothing better to do. She can't hang out with the "guest stars" because that's the Bellas
job
. She can't suck completely and still keep a job because that's Kelly Kelly and Alicia Fox's jobs. They don't want her to wrestle anymore for some reason so she's a valet/manager/random dancer for R-Truth now.
[Mike's Note:
Eve blew a major spot doing guest commentary on RAW a few months back, which basically killed her push entirely.
Dancing with R-Truth keeps her on TV, but keeps her from talking, or being in the Divas' Title picture, as she's clearly not able to handle it yet.]
The Chosen 1
On a "ACTUAL SH*T THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE WEEKLY SHOW AND NOT JUST TONIGHT" Note.... R-Truth has been really very heavily involved in this whole storyline and honestly has been acting very subtley heelish.... I'm surprised no one has mentioned this. This could very well turn into a big part of the storyline.
Works for me, any time I see Truth & Cena acting all friends-like I just remember the TNA CAR RAPS from a few years ago.
RowdyRodimus
Forgot this was old school tonight, strangely I just turned it on to see Sarge walk down the aisle after I had just putting my new San Diego COmic Con GI Joe figure I got in today off of ebay into my display case...Sgt. Slaughter.
T-Dog
I f*cking hate Cole for his shit during the DBD/Swagger match. I don't know if it was Vince trying to piss off JR or whatever, but it infuriated me since it very well could be the last time we hear JR call a match. Completely counter-productive as it took the attention away from the match and overshadowed what should have been a great moment in JR calling a match. That kind of banter if fine for a squash match, but not for a competitive match feature two guys WWE have invested heavily in.
Besides that, GREAT show. The final segment is something TNA could take notes on how to get people to buy PPV's. Kind of sad that nostalgia gets more reaction than most the current guys, but it really worked tonight. From the guardrails to King's suit to Finkel to the refs and even the cameramen had on the blue jumpsuits. WWE doesn't half-ass their promotions.
Mike Johns
I liked the way the show LOOKED and the way it was presented. It makes it far more obvious how over-blown the staging and the ringside area is on a normal RAW. I can understand some of the bells and whistles (it is entertainment, after all), but there's something about all the LED screens and metal and black padding even on the barricades that just looks... wrong. Like WWE is intentionally trying to disconnect itself from its fans, and, in many ways, reality in sports.
Also, how there just seemed to be some ORDER to everything. People went out to a set aside stage to talk with Mean Gene. Cole and the King actually stood up, moved away from the table, and greeted you, the fan, in a personable way. The mini-promos durring the ring entrances were well done. The colors looked RIGHT for a family friendly show. It even came off as fun.
Now, was the show good? Meh.. it's certainly not bad, but I think JG's got a point with how WWE uses nostalgia the wrong way.
I actually LOVED the Cole/JR/Lawler deal during the Swagger/Bryan match and felt it advanced Cole's new persona well. Plus, it was funny as all hell seeing Cole pout as JR was the bigger man and called the match. But, I can see where some might be pissed. At the same time, we all need to realize that JR is gone and is going to stay gone. Vince has wanted to move on for years, and the only reason he didn;t for so long was because we kept bitching at him to bring back JR. Thus, WWE went out of its way to constantly humiliate him, to try and turn us on JR. It didn't work. Personally, I'd rather have a retired JR get his due respect than a JR WWE is just going to dump on week after week because he's not young, cool, and hip enough to appeal to an audience that isn't watching the show anyway.
Beyond that, Old School RAW was all right, but I think it made me miss stuff I may have not even realized I missed (and actually LIKE about how TNA and ROH looks, staging and ring-wise) when it came to how WWE used to present itself.
I also think the guy who said "Hey, we can just get some shoddy impersonator to do the Lord Alfred Hayes voiceovers! No one will ever notice!" should be drug out in the street and shot. No one could have called Sean Mooney or Todd Pettengill to do them instead?
James Guttman wrote a somewhat controversial column last week discussing the average fans' hatred towards TNA.
This, of course, led to a bit of discussion on the subject on the forums as well –
Bundorama
I enjoyed this article. A subject you touched on a bit here was the fact that TNA was supposed to be a true alternative to The WWE when they started out over 8 years ago. Do you think the fact that the bar was raised so high during The Boom Era/Monday Night Wars, that almost anything TNA,(and The WWE as well), did/do would come across as "been there, done that"? I slam both companies at times, but really, what is left to do on a creative basis that not only has never been done before, but will increase ratings, buyrates, etc?
James Guttman
There's a lot they could do actually. What's happened is that WWE and WCW together redefined the format of wrestling in the 90s. Suddenly it was all about two hour shows with an authority figure and most of the storyline advancement being told through backstage segments and promos. To many of us now, that feels like all that you can do because we have been doing it so long. But by taking out a few things here and there or tweaking some point of the format, you can have a whole new product.
The biggest example is the tired power struggle storyline. I mean, before NWO 90s Bischoff and Mr. McMahon, there were almost no "evil bosses" on the big stage. WWF had Tunney. WCW had Watts or Kyp Frye. But now, every company on the planet has some sort of authority figure running the show. It's as if they don't know how to advance their shows without it. Another reason is that with
the invention
of heel authority figures comes
the opportunity
for those in charge to book themselves in leadership roles on TV. Vince Russo was the most glaring example of this in WCW. At the end of the day, removing that crutch alone and having the authority be a faceless board of directors somewhere would almost force TNA to go in a direction that no one else is.
That's not to say they have to get rid of a boss character at all. In fact, there's nothing wrong with copying WWE's format if you have genuinely unique ideas to plug into it. Skits, promos, and even authority figures can be used. The problem comes up when you're basically going through the motions that the other company has done to death. The most important things for fans to understand is that by being an "alternative" doesn't mean you have to be collar-and-elbow wrestling. You can do sports entertainment, as long as it's not a near-carbon copy of the competition. If TNA was failing miserably while trying to do something unique, at least people would respect them a bit more. At this point, they can't even use the whole "you just don't understand what we're doing" argument because we do understand it. We've been understanding it for nearly two decades. We're just tired of it.
Aaron Wood
Really, creative isn't the problem when it comes to being the alternative. It's all about the vision for the company as a whole.
Right now TNA is WWE Lite with Ex-WWE workers that they either didn't want or felt they had to get rid of. As James said, it's shot much like a WWE show. Sure, they have the "real & gritty" looking bits backstage, and credit to them for that.
It all comes down to what they want their product to be. When TNA started and WWE were doing the wackiest crap ever, people were wanting WRESTLING. That's why despite being a commercial failure in the early days, they were so critically lauded for having guys go out there and just wrestle some great matches to tha point that there was some goodwill towards them when they did angles just as wacky and dumb as WWE were doing. Especially since they were being done with largely a crop of new people. Didn't like them pushing the group of Heidenreich, Nathan Jones & Matt Morgan? Then watch XXX, AJ Styles & AMW! That is them being a DIFFERENT company.
TNA really should be looking at what WWE has been doing in recent times and saying "We are going to go in the exact opposite direction". So they distinct themselves by doing the PG-13 thing while WWE is PG. That said, they don't do it well, because they've gone TOO FAR into it and used blood to the point where it means absolutely nothing anymore, where it gets no reaction at all and is just being done for the sake of it. That's where creative and the others who put the show together come into it. You want a "heavy" angle in the main event that's going to involve blood? Don't use ANY on the show until then. Want to book a legendary tag team break up with one of the guys turning on the other? Then don't book another heel turn on the show, especially not in the PREVIOUS segment.
Don't like the fact that WWE supposedly has the same faces on top all the time, even though that's really a bunch of baloney when you look at it in recent times? Then be completely pro-active in booking NEW people up there. NO-ONE who used to be in WWE that people have seen time and again before. Not even particularly AJ Styles, since he's been up there for 8 years now. But folks like Doug Williams, Kazarian, Dinero or actually bother giving Hernandez the push we keep hearing he's going to get but then never actually does. And I don't mean just flirt them with the main event level as Kaz and Dinero have. I mean push them consistently in those spots and for an extended period.
For me, it's all about the mindset. If you book ex-WWE guys in angles poeople can instantly recognize as coming from the WWE or (worse) WCW, and then to make matters worse do it all badly, then, well, you get the TNA of 2010. If they at least tried to show they had intentions of being truly different to what WWE was doing, then people might actually have some goodwill towards them and let them have a couple of bad storylines or a couple of dodgy matches. But when you are driving your fanbase to the point where a rumoured EIGHT THOUSAND people bought the last PPV, then there is no goodwill to give.
The Chosen 1
I honestly think that TNA under Dixie Carter's control will never ever succeed. Because 1. She doesn't have any type of vision for a company. She runs the company like kids run Extreme Warfare/TEW companies, you hire big name people and run generic storylines that don't really matter and can change on a dime without you really caring. and 2. She has too much money at her disposal. There's no sense of having to use the guys that have to the best of their ability when the options to just bring in someone else is ALWAYS there... if you didn't have much money and Booker T became a free agent you wouldn't even think about bringing him in unless you had a plan for him that's worth the money.
RowdyRodimus
This has been said a lot about every company since the early-mid 90's, but I wonder how much a new format for iMPACT sort of like the old Prime Time Wrestling would help them? I don't mean just show all squash matches or have a talk show setup, but make it so that you admit it's a taped show and have a host that discusses what's going on and then send it to the ring using the best matches from the different house shows or whatever but have them tie together.
You can have different storylines going on without A having to intersect with B and C can be seperate from A and B. Bring back taped promos that condense everything into 2 minutes instead of in ring 20 minutes ones that are full of fluff. Also, bring back the Clash style show every few months that give a PPV quality show for free so that it seems like an event so more people are curious about it.
It's sort of like what JG said during an episode of Glorious (with future WWE Hall of Famer Paul Roma, exclusively on www.clubwwi.com with a cost less than a cup of Starbucks coffee or an issue of PWI) when he talked about the days when we never saw Hulk Hogan in the ring, we saw pretapes and highlights and such, so when we were told he would be wrestling on free TV against Akeem it was the biggest thing we could think of and had to watch.
Yeah, it would be tough since modern fans (people that have come around since say the Cena era) expect instant gratification and storylines to wrap up in two to three weeks. The only way wrestling (not just TNA) will ever survive and thrive like it did in the 80's and 90's is to retrain the audience to appreciate the slow burn, sort of put the genie back in the bottle that Raw and Nitro started with PPV's basically every Monday. If we don't see AJ or Cena every episode, it makes it that much more special when we do. It strings the audience out and makes them want to watch since you never know when they will appear or what will happen. You don't oversaturate the product with one guy, the crowd doesn't get sick of seeing them and when you put on a PPV it makes it mean something since you don't have them 14 times a month (all the tv and the PPVs) so more people will order them.
It's pretty basic stuff, but I guess it's easier to notice the trees when you don't live in the forest.
The Chosen 1
I honestly don't think that squash matches would work in this generation as the main reason why it worked before was that people really didn't know any better. The thought of High Quality matches on TV was a ridiculous thought. Now it is the norm, so should you try to go back it will look inferior. The same problem with the monthly PPV's.
There should be a middle ground between shit matches and hotshotting that, with some exception every number of weeks or so I think WWE actually has pretty down pat, though no one gives them credit for it.
Bundorama
I will say in what I regard as unfair criticism towards TNA is this "We want a better alternative to what The WWE is providing us." While I understand, if not agree with that statement on the surface, it's not TNA's fault that Vince has had The WWE on cruise control for almost 10 years now. I mean if The WWE were putting out a better product, that complaint would be almost null and void....
Mike Johns
What is the point and purpose to TNA if not to be an alternative to WWE? What would be the purpose to Pepsi, Mountain Dew, or Dr. Pepper if not to be alternatives to Coke? To complain about people complaining about an alternative's failure to be an alternative, like, for instance, Domino's Pizza sucking ass, is to completely miss the point. You don't like Pizza Hut, but the alternative, Dominoes, might as well be cardboard with ketchup and playdough on it. So, outside of making pizza yourself, you can either get a halfhearted fast food attempt at pizza, or eat cardboard.
As someone who actually HAS tried to fund and run his own wrestling shows, let me tell you something - MOST OF US COULDN'T AFFORD TO DO IT MORE THAN POSSIBLY JUST ONCE, AND YOUR CHANCES OF DRAWING ENOUGH TO BREAK EVEN ARE ABOUT AS GOOD AS MY CHANCES OF HAVING A 3-WAY WITH TRISH STRATUS AND MARILYN MONROE!!!!
Being mad at TNA for not being a better alternative to WWE is not only a valid complaint, it';s the single most valid complaint anyone could possible have of TNA. It's this, WWE, or going bankrupt funding your own shows that'll never draw near enough to sustain itself.
And even if WWE's product was better, it doesn't change the fact that A- not everyone is going to like it, and B- they're still going to want a satisfying alternative. You're now complaining that people who just don't like something don't like it, which is just F'n pointless.
Bundorama
Actually, it's you who missed my point. Again, how is it one promotions fault that another totally separate promotion has has become boring, stale, etc.? Talk about misdirecting blame while absolving others of it. But I guess it's a lot more fun to constanly rip this company to shreds for ANYTHING they do, rather than, oh I don't know, just changing the channel. That would be too easy...
And I'm not "mad" at people who rip on TNA when they deserve it. I just get annoyed at over the top, never ending bitch sessions from people who clearly hate the product, yet won't stop watching or following what they are doing for whatever reasons. That makes a lot of sense....
James Guttman
Actually, I see Bundorama's reasoning, but he's missing the bigger point. It's the fact that Vince's business is so bad that makes you wonder why they would copy his format. If Vince hadn't run wrestling into the ground, it would make sense for them to be promoting things the way they are. The fact that WWE has creatively been on cruise control for so long makes you bang your head into the wall wondering why TNA would try to do the same thing. Common sense would dictate they'd do something - anything - differently.
It's as if there's one restaurant in your town. They sell rotten hotdogs. Everyone hates them, but they eat there anyway because they have no choice. Then, someone else comes along and promises an alternative. Everyone cheers. Then, they sell rotten hotdogs with extra mustard. It's like, "Why? Why are you even here? We already had a rotten hotdog store! We needed someone to sell pizza, or burgers, or friggin' something besides rotten hotdogs!"
JohnnyCraze
Just look at who the TNA X-Division Title belongs to right now!!
The tag division is far superior to WWE right now. I don't know why they have to have Team 3-D fued with each other right now though. That didn't make any sense.
I don't mind Hardy being champ but he sucks as a heel.
As long as Hogan and Flair don't wrestle anymore then everything should hopefully fall into place.
The Green Teabagger
Wow. That's the ONE THING I will argue with anyone about that TNA is actually doing right. Imagine if WWE had turned Hardy when he was there and went this direction. Jeff Hardy would have made a f*cking mint and could have just bought his way out of his legal troubles.
@Bund: I don't think anyone is blaming TNA for WWE being stale, boring, etc. What I think they're saying is that TNA is copying a formula that is making then stale, boring, when they don't have the goodwill/leeway from fans to do that. We can take it more often from WWE when they lay an egg because they often enough turn it around with something spectacular or excellent. TNA lays an egg, we call it business as usual----two words: Turning Point.
Bundorama
I think yours and James's points about TNA copying a tired WWE format for their shows, having a tired authority figure(s) running Impact, etc., are all valid complaints. However, I disagree with WWE building goodwill with viewers, especially the past 8-9 years. Even if that's my subjective outlook, the numbers the company has produced during this period back up my view...
T-Dog
I hate TNA because there's no clear vision. There's the goal of being the top wrestling company in the world, but they have done nothing in the recent past to make me believe they can achieve that.
The execs wait anxiously until 4 pm on Friday for the ratings to come in and react extremely one way or the other. That's pathetic and indicative of an over-emphasis on the short-term quick fixes.
This is just a taste of what you're missing on the Boards. Why don't you come by sometime and check it out for yourself, eh? You never know when something you post may end up being the next Hot Thread.
http://s14.zetaboards.com/Wrestling_Insanity
*****
Mike Johns, imbued with special, shameless self-promotional powers the likes of which haven't been seen since the height of DX's self-fellatious babyface run in 2006, is a contributor to WorldWrestlingInsanity.com and ClubWWI.com, single-handedly responsible for WWI's coverage of All Things TNA. In what spare time he has left, Mike produces and records original music under the name 'SaviorSelf.07.05.98' as well as remixes and mash-ups of far more popular songs under the name 'TMJ'.
You can contact Mike via e-mail at MikeJohns@WorldWrestlingInsanity.com
You can also follow him on the various Social Networking Sites.
http://www.twitter.com/themaverickmj
http://www.facebook.com/TheMaverickMJ
http://www.myspace.com/mikejohnsusaw
http://www.youtube.com/user/themaverickmj