thats some 80s thinking right there! faces should not win the fued all the time!

fmkk- giv eit up man, its obvious you hate tna,you and your buddies have invaded this thread like the nwo when tna might go out of business imminently but nowhere to be seen beforehand when the thread topic was the actual shows

Doesnt Destination America want Angle as champ so if Carter won the belt it wouldnt be doing TNA any favours.

Yes they want Terrell as KO champ to.

nothign wrong with that!

Apart from the fact she is crap she makes the Bellas look like Aja Kong.

shes pretty hot,like her new style promos and can wrestle, had some good matches with gail kim last year

i dont feel the need to see T&A like did when i was a teenager but some appealing to the opposite gender does not do her character any harm!

Gail Kim was carrying her at the moment her and the Dollhouse are the worse things in TNA even James Storm Wyatt is better.

She along with Dollhouse are the worse female wrestlers in TNA history even The Beatuful People are/were better good god even Lacey Von Eric was better

That is what annoys me to at one time the KO division was great the best thing in TNA on it's worse day it was 1000X better than the Divas Division on it's best.

Now they are doing everything they once (rightfully) mocked WWE for.

I don't think she's a looker either her smile looks like a shark hit by Joker Gas.

she looks a bit like the lead from big bang theory.

and i think shes a good wrestler.

Can nobody defend TNA without reverting to
'Woe is TNA'? Are we really still playing this card?

TNA is odd

Usually when a business starts they learn from their mistakes and grow they lrean what fans/customers like and dislike and improve what they dislike.

TNA is now worse than it was when it started and rather than improve what fans didn't like they kept it the same and made what they did like worse.

I see your 'woe is TNA' card (cool card. Would it have Dixie crying on it?) and I raise you a 'bunch of WWE fanboys & WWE shareholders with no interest in TNA beyond seeing it fail coming over here citing unsubstantiated negative rumour & non-specific TNA is bad / badly run FUD as faux concern' card. And that card has your face on it. YOUR FACE

game over

Ill ask again how whatever tiny amount of money i have/had in WWE leads to a desire or necessity to see TNA fail. Do you think shareholders in Man U want to see Doncaster Rovers fail? How does it affect my share price? What do i or WWE gain from it? And please answer this time.

TNA is badly run, that comes from people have worked there!!! WWE thread is full of rumours being discussed, that's largely what talking about wrestling is, discussion on rumour.

I find it sad that after 13 years in business, the only response to criticism is WWE fan boys. its hardly surprising Dixie has been able to coast it for so long

What also has my face on it is the 'watched a company having any shred of individuality stripped away to become a shell of its self. Great talent sidelined to home ex-WWE talent in an attempt to gain relevance and every time it fails dismally.' card.

Right now, my concern is for the employees. I couldn't care less about Dixie or the brand. Seemingly, neither can Dixie

So its not that you're dismissing my view, you're just making out as if its somehow dishonest or illegitimate. Great.


What ideas have TNA actually had though? What stars have they actually built for themselves? Its kinda addressing my point, but in the usual 'poor old TNA never stood a chance in the big bad world' kinda way.


Well, it was. Who knows who has more TV viewers now seeing that ROH is on Sinclair and Destination America? At least they draw a paying audience.


But none of this has anything to do with the arguments I've made or the discussion I'm wanting to have. My opinions are my own and I have made constructive criticism and praise of TNA in the past on this thread. Just because it happens to be more damning than your analysis doesn't mean it can just be lumped in with the 'haters' who you seek to dismiss. It's frustrating that TNA supporters keep going back to this well of 'smarks' and 'haters' and OMG Meltzer hates us' stuff without actually being able to provide a proper defence of the company. A company which I think it's pretty hard to argue against the accusation that it's very poorly run.


How childish. If you want a TNA appreciation thread, set one up.


It seems to be the only card in the deck.

If the game is to not actually argue how TNA is well run/relevant/ successful then yes, the game is over and won by seibu. What a victory end the game by doing exactly what the other person says you are doing is

Oh come off it, when you think nobody's looking over on the other thread you post pointless mean little digs at TNA all the time. It's part of how your little group bonds I think.

What is this little group? I'm not aware of any formal arrangements.

Also, there's clearly more to this Jarrett thing beyond a one off match. But I can't quite work out exactly what it is. There are a good few possibilities. Is the match for the title?

Do you have any intention of defending TNA by giving examples of what they've actually done?

And i don't make digs when i think nobody is looking. its an internet site, how do you even do ?

My position has always been that TNA is pretty much as well / badly written as WWE, no more no less. It's WWE with much lower production values & wrestlers allowed bigger movesets.

I've "argued" this countless times. But guess what? Whenever I post something on this thread appraising the actual TNA TV product, either positively or negatively, it gets completely ignored! Why could that be? Because your little gang doesn't actually watch TNA! So you're unable to engage in any kind of measured, constructive, useful debate regarding it. As I said, you're here to throw shade, nothing more. It's painfully obvious.

I still don't know what this is meant to be.

And I would say that there are often times when TNA has had much worse writing than WWE. For example, during the Immortal run in 2011 where Anderson was top babyface, last year when Dixie was all over TV with her heel stable and MVP's heel stable and I am sure there are other examples I can think off. WWE has had some terrible writing too, but I would say that they are in more of a bland holding pattern than anything. I'm also not sure about the point on wrestlers being allowed bigger move sets. Most of the matches follow a similar formula I would suggest.

And being very similar to WWE should actually be a damning indictment of what is supposed to be an alternative promotion.

Have to say, slightly upset at being demoted from a clique to a little group

This is fun, isn't it? We are all still having fun right? Just wanted to check.

I don't want to argue really.

TNA definitely allow talent bigger movesets. You're not going to see a brainbuster onto a chair in WWE. However, you're not going to see the Levi's Stadium in TNA. It's swings and roundabouts. Actually, that would be a good match type.

I think you can point to abysmal writing in both promotions. Some TNA writing is very good though, like the Spud / EC3 angle recently. Also, when WWE really wants to break out its writing A-game, they can be great too, like the current Kevin Owens / Cena feud.

So yeah. The main difference is that TNA looks like it was filmed in a broom cupboard after most of the brooms made an excuse to leave. And WWE looks like it was filmed in a shiny space station in the future where all human emotion has been deemed unhygenic, and is patrolled by futuristic space cops who taser you for expressing a thought not pre-approved by the corporate board of directors. So yeah, swings and roundabouts.

No in fact the PPV has not got a title match on it.

But nobody is arguing to my knowledge that WWE is badly written and the fact you describe TNA as "WWE with much lower production values" is exactly my problem with TNA in 2015. TNA wasn't "WWE with much lower production values" when it started, it was fun, it was exciting. Fresh talent who I had never seen before, and 13 years later it has become "WWE with much lower production values". Do you not see why that is an issue for somebody that watched at the start? It isn't a glowing representation for the alternative TNA WAS to become what it is now.


That's not true. When was the last time you spoke about TNA's product? You say the "little gang" (by the way, quite pathetic to call a few people that speak regularly a gang) doesn't watch, I can say I do watch. Not with any level of regularity but I do watch. Why could that be? Because I'm not that interested in what they are offering right now. It's also the reason I've stopped watching Raw through to the end, I still haven't watched the final two hours of MITB.

What is painfully obvious is that you have no rebuttal at all to the idea TNA is poorly run. It's also painfully obvious that you have no actual answer to the shareholder question I've asked now, probably three times, but you will keep posting it and then choose to not answer the quite fair question IMO.

And whilst I'm asking questions, wouldn't it be fair to name the people in the "little gang" rather than hiding behind a very obscure reference to a group of people?

I'm having fun, I love having debates about wrestling, it's a lot of fun.

I don't want to argue either, I just think it would be fair to answer some of the points put to you.


Thank god.


And does anybody expect that?


Very very true.


I don't believe that is the main difference at all. Maybe WWE comes across as corporate because it's ran as a corporation?