But then WWE didn't make Hogan or Austin for example. Of course they adapted when they went there but it's not like WWE trained them. WWE training people in house is a more recent phenomenon brought about by the death of the territories and then WCW where there wasn't the same talent pool any more for WWE to pick up talent. Of course, a lot of people who come through developmental did some work in small indies beforehand as well. I would say that most people go to an outside wrestling school before doing WWE tryouts.

I didn't mean the training more made their name famous.

AJ Joe Aries for example were very well known before TNA

There are two noticeably different stories about The Bash at the Beach incident.

Russo's version, as you mention, is that everything was scripted and agreed by all parties before hand. Hogan's story is that he was aware of and agreed to everything up to Vince Russo's shoot promo but didn't know that Russo was going to do that promo and very much disliked everything he said during that promo and refused to go back to WCW because of it.

Just as there are two stories about Bash at the Beach there are two relatively believable explanations about what happened.

The first is that Hogan knew WCW was going down and wanted out (and back to WWE). Russo came to him with this angle and he saw the perfect way to get out of his deal with WCW with a nice tidy sum and not get tarnished by the inevitable death of WCW. The other is that Russo wanted Hogan gone from WCW but couldn't convince anyone else backstage to get rid of him so he did that shoot promo knowing what Hogan's reaction would be and knowing that Hogan would never agree to return after it.

For what its worth I tend to believe Hogan's version of events more than Russo's if only because I tend to think there's absolutely zero chance Hogan would have agreed to anyone cutting that Russo promo.


It really depends on how much money Panda is willing to continue investing in TNA and what kind of return they're seeing from international markets. In theory its possible that the international markets would be enough to make continuing production of Impact worthwhile although I suspect they'd almost certainly have to make cuts for that to be the case. Of course it may be possible that Impact is popular enough in international markets that a couple of those would be willing to chip in more although I'd be surprised if the UK were one of those markets (Challenge won't have the money). It may also depend on how they view their chances of getting another US broadcast partner. If they think that's possible continuing production and airing Impact online (presumably via YouTube) could be a worthwhile expense as well. Its a little difficult to gauge at this point.


I don't think this is true at all and I think describing a lot of the acknowledgement of each other that both sides did during the Monday Night Wars as grown up is questionable at the very least. The Monday Night Wars made wrestling bigger because they made wrestling bigger. It was two huge companies competing for an audience that they acknowledged the existence of one another is really a rather tiny and insignificant part of it.


I don't for a second think it would be pride that would result in WWE 'burying' TNA (they were never anything close to competition) but rather a lack of value or significance. Its very difficult to see how WWE really package or sell TNA as significant or important. It doesn't have the creative legacy of ECW or the sheer scale of achievement or recognition of WCW so its hard to know where you position the TNA library. Yes you get a couple of extra matches from former WWE talent and someone like Sting but beyond that its not clear to me what WWE actually does with the TNA library.

I've said it before (and I'm sure I'll say it again) but I would very much subscribe to the argument that the RoH tape library holds a lot more value to WWE at this point than the TNA library does. I'm sure WWE will buy the TNA library if the opportunity arises (especially now they have the network) but I'm not sure they get a whole lot of use out of it except maybe satisfying the completest fantasies of a few hardcore fans.

the argentian clubs make some of the best footballers in the world.

dont make newells old boys more significant than everton.

great feeder system,but will not be remembered more than tna.

btw i do like roh, i like that they made their own identity with the ring colours and logo etc,i like the handshake courtesy they try to keep going,and i like that being their champion means something(at least it did till i stopped watching when mcguiness won title)

final battle 2005 when it was generation next vs embassy in cage was brilliant,and i LOVED roh vs czw fued.

Except of course TNA is a company seemingly in its death throes whereas RoH gives the impression of being a company that's on the ascent which leaves it open to grow and have a much larger and more significant role to play.

I'd also just point out that if it comes down to a choice of the more hardcore wrestling fans RoH is going to be the company that's remembered (or remembered fondly at least) and not TNA. The same will likely be true if it comes down to a choice made by WWE.

im talking about right now. present day. also hardcore wrestling fans dont outnumber normal fans, tna is more well known, its that simple.

in future roh could well be remembered more if it gets a national tv deal and tna dies. longevity is a big deal!

RoH has a national television deal. Also RoH founded in February 2002, TNA founded in May 2002 so that's longevity sorted.

Plus lets look at the contributions RoH has made to the business as a whole in terms of both talent and creative output relative to the contributions made by TNA. RoH is coming out ahead on that one as well.

If both companies ceased to exist tomorrow then RoH is the one people are remembering and doing so in positive terms. TNA is just remembered as an abject lesson in how not to do pro-wrestling. Basically WCW 2000 but over more than a decade. And I'll also say RoH is the tape library WWE gets most use out of.

ROH is more significant to the history of wrestling, that's what I'm arguing, not about whether it has a better TV deal or whatever. It's had a greater impact on the direction of the business as a whole with both the stars it's provided and how it's style has been adopted at least to some degree in WWE. Forget TV deals or whatever, what has TNA actually brought to the table in terms of influence on the business as a whole?

they aint more well known.

smarks can love them all they want,and i can understand why. but it aint bigger and is less known than tna. no caveat will change that.

It's a good thing that I'm not arguing about how well known they are then.

Being well known or popular in the moment (do either of those really apply to TNA anyway?) doesn't necessarily dictate how you're remembered.

tna gave wrestling:

the x division
ultimate x
first proper push for womens wrestling on national tv(that now nxt are building on to next level without any T&A)
womens tag titles(silly as it is)
a place for wrestlers to go if wwe dont want them
a place for big stars to jump ship too(angle,christian,booker)
first show since nitro to go heaf to head with raw on mondays

above coupled with fact that millions more people know their brand means they are more significant.

you may not like tna but they are significant and unless roh get their name out to the masses they will always be the newells old boys of wrestling industry.

OK this is just funny...


Nope.

Well I suppose they did label something entirely unoriginal as the X Division.


Yeah that really influential and popular gimmick match that's everywhere... Oh wait...


Nope


Nope


Not really. Also not sure how this is an example of significant and important contributions from TNA.


See above.


And...?


No it doesn't.


Hence all these great winning examples of their significance.

Crusierweight matches with former ROH guys.


A gimmick that has been adopted by no one.


I'll give them that. Women's matches were their best ratings draw on TV for a good while. Of course, they didn't capitalise on it in any meaningful way but that's par for the course.


Being the place for WWE cast-offs doesn't sound as impressive as being the place for the stars of tomorrow, though having more places for wrestlers to find employment is obviously a positive thing.


An absolute disaster commercially and creatively that undid a lot of the good work that was beginning to gain traction in late 2009.

Think of it like this, imagine if TNA never existed and think of how that would impact wrestling. Now do the same for ROH. When I think about it like that, ROH comes out ahead by leaps and bounds.

And this has nothing to do with what company I like more. I've really watched quite little ROH.

if roh wernt around czw would be, or someone similar. thats like saying samoa joes mum is so significant to wrestling industry lol, more significiant than trishs tratus lol

its jsut a starter place for wrestlers

p.s alexi-back to ignore list,rude reply to what i thought was a good debate

You shouldn't because its not true.

TNA absolutely were not the first company to push women's wrestling away from sex appeal. Re-watch the women's wrestling WWE was nationally televising in the 80s and early 90s. That was about female wrestlers/athletes. Wendi Richter was genuinely one of their biggest Rock & Wrestling stars for God's sake.

Also just FYI the WWE had a Women's Tag Championship in the 80s. And the NWA had one since the 50s.

CZW which isn't actually similar to RoH really.

And RoH is around. That someone else might possibly have filled their role doesn't negate what they've done nor does it negate the significance or importance of it.

I could also make the exact and entirely unfounded argument about TNA. If they hadn't been on television someone else would have been. My argument would also say that someone else would have done a better job as well.


I really do miss the rolly eye emoticon.

ROH is the biggest indy there is. If it doesn't exist, how do you know that Punk, Bryan, Cesaro etc. get the exposure they did? I certainly don't think they would be anywhere near as good or as attractive to WWE if they were doing garbage wrestling in mid-2000s CZW.

In addition to this, I've seen it put forward that TNA has actually been anet negative to the business overall in that the TNA experience has poisoned the waters for anyone else seeking to build a number two promotion to eventually challenge Vince McMahon.

What would his part have been? I cant see him & Booker duking it out at the Fall Brawl PPV.

Well quite. This was one of the many, many problems with this whole mess as an angle. As with much of what Russo was doing at this point it was a big splashy attention grabbing idea that made no sense with no clear sense of where it was going or what the point of it was.

Meanwhile in TNA news Slammiversary is this Sunday and TNA have yet to announce any participants in the King of the Mountain Match (or confirm what title it'll be for) and 5 matches have been confirmed for the show

King of the Mountain Match
TBA

TNA Tag Team Title Match
The Wolves vs. Austin Aries and Bobby Roode

TNA Knockout Titles
Awesome Kong and Brooke Tessmacher vs. The Dollhouse

Singles Match
James Storm vs. Magnus

Singles Match
Robbie E vs. Jessie Godderz

I'm not sure they could make it much clearer this show simply isn't a priority for them.

It can't be a priority really. TV ratings are the sole metric that will save the company at this point, and no one is buying their PPVs anyway. Still, the title situation in particular is a cluster****.

Still, at least they can bury this Storm and Magnus angle without anyone having to see it.

Seems there won't be a Dirty Heels v American Wolves match

http://www.f4wonline.com/more/more-top-stories/100-tna/43219-note-on-sundays-tna-ppv-show

If ROH is just a starter place for wrestlers, what the hell does that make TNA? The ending place for wrestlers WWE have little to no desire for?