Is WWE really better than TNA?

[wwwyki]

I know what you are thinking but just hear me out.

TNA actually has long-term storylines, unlike WWE who's storylines last about what a PPV. Also TNA's mid-card is much better than WWE's. Also before Triple H took over TNA had long title reins, unlike WWE who's lasted about 2 weeks. Also TNA has something I like a lot the Bound for Glory Series. The reason WWE can't do this is because they have no depth. They have what 8 big time superstars. TNA has a bunch. I have been a WWE fan forever and i do like WWE better than TNA. I don't see that changing in the near future. Regardless I still believe WWE is more entertaining and puts on better matches. Please leave your thoughts

[The Main Event]

It comes and goes in spurts, sometimes TNA will be better, sometimes WWE will be better, in terms of booking and story-telling of course. WWE has an audience though, so they kinda win .

[JACKNIFE]

*looks at thread title*

*looks at thread starters AV*

......you serious bro?

[Oncall]

I'd say TNA has more up and down periods. When they're good they're really good but when they're bad it's shocking. Things like Claire Lynch, Sharmell vs Jenna Morasca immediately spring to mind.

As for WWE, their good can also be brilliant but the bad isn't nearly as bad as often. The most recent really bad thing I can remember (and feel free to correct me) was using Eddies death in the Rey/Orton feud.

I'd say get some popcorn people, I feel like this one could be a doozy.

Edit: As for a BFG series thing, assuming Punk and Sheamus are champions here's the 12 entrants

Cena
Orton
Rey
Ziggler
Miz
Rhodes
Bryan
Kane
Sandow
Henry
Show
Barrett

[Cenamark2.0]

WWE is superior to TNA the same way the NFL is superior to Arena Football. WWE is the majors while TNA is the minors where young up and comers and the old and walking to the sunset meet. Guys like Angle, Anderson, and Bully Ray were once in the WWE, but at some point were no longer skilled enough to compete in the WWE. They'll do okay in TNA, but they can't defeat the likes of Cena, Punk, or Sheamus.
TNA puts on some good shows, I'll give you that, but watch WWE for the best.

[Stefan]

One big difference I see between WWE and TNA is in how they try and market themselves and try to get new viewers. WWE do philanthropic endeavors to change their image from just a 'rasslin' company to a place that can be entertaining for everyone in a family. They try to make fans through other means. TNA, whilst they have ownership that isn't historically wrestling, they're relying on senior advisers and management that are historically wrestling related and stuck in their ways. They're not making any buzz outside the wrestling world. Thus why they're not making many new fans. As far as ring product and storyline entertainment, both companies have their ups and downs.

[bret hart mark]

yes

[Benson]

You can say TNA has more depth at the TOP, but WWE definitely has more depth in the midcard and more depth in talent overall.

Tna does have more depth at the top, but they don't have anybody close to being able to make them as much money as Cena does, except MAYBE Hardy, and there's no way you can build a company around him.

[Mercury]

It's debatable who has the deeper pool of talent, but TNA gets the most out of its top to bottom talent overall because of the Bound for Glory series. However, WWE is making serious strides with its tag team division.

[lordInfamous]

Yeah TNA has some pretty decent talent but the creative is really terrible

[Benson]

It's debatable who has the deeper pool of talent, but TNA gets the most out of its top to bottom talent overall because of the Bound for Glory series.

Yet, WWE's guys make them more money. So I guess TNA isn't getting more out of their talent.

[Mercury]

As far as quality programming, yes they are. The WWE is the established wrestling brand. As far as the general public concerned, it is wrestling. Talent pool makes no difference in money right now because the WWE is just too entrenched. Unless Brock Lesnar or the freaking Rock go to TNA to become a regularly appearing competitor and TNA gets a major production overhaul, the WWE will always win as far as ratings and revenue.

[Benson]

You say this as if WWE has not produced better matches than TNA all the way around though.

HHH/Taker
Punk/Bryan
Bryan/Sheamus
Punk/Jericho
Punk/Cena
Sheamus/ADR
Cena/Lesnar
Jericho/Ziggler
Punk/Bryan/Kane

All better matches or AS GOOD as anything TNA has had all year. You can throw up a few of the TV matches between lower midcard guys, but I'd put up any of the Kidd/McGillicuddy matches, or Ziggler/Sheamus(Orton) matches against any of them.

[Jack Nichols]

I enjoy watching both companies right now. Impact Wrestling is my second favorite show right now next to Raw. Its nice to watch a different brand of wrestling and they are having good shows weekly.

[Jay Lethal]

What I think WWE has that sets it apart from TNA is production value, I am sorry but TNA reminds me of how wCw and wwf looked like from Monday Night Wars, they look 10 years ago in regards to how their production looks, while WWE looks much more crisp in how they put their product on the air.

Now from actual product, TNA has its moments but when WWE hits it big, there is just nothing like it. In recent years we have seen Undertaker/Shawn Michaels, the CM Punk/John Cena MITB moment and of Rock/Cena to name a few moments that TNA couldn't possibly match.

And finally the majesty, there are two events: The Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania that in many ways transcend the business of wrestling, I know people who aren't even wrestling fans that will watch both, just because of the general unpredictability of the Rumble and the overall showcase that Wrestlemania has become. TNA has nothing that can counter that.

[Cenamark2.0]

What I think WWE has that sets it apart from TNA is production value, I am sorry but TNA reminds me of how wCw and wwf looked like from Monday Night Wars, they look 10 years ago in regards to how their production looks, while WWE looks much more crisp in how they put their product on the air.

Now from actual product, TNA has its moments but when WWE hits it big, there is just nothing like it. In recent years we have seen Undertaker/Shawn Michaels, the CM Punk/John Cena MITB moment and of Rock/Cena to name a few moments that TNA couldn't possibly match.

And finally the majesty, there are two events: The Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania that in many ways transcend the business of wrestling, I know people who aren't even wrestling fans that will watch both, just because of the general unpredictability of the Rumble and the overall showcase that Wrestlemania has become. TNA has nothing that can counter that.

I never liked the impact zone. Just seems like you can never achieve the big time feel there.

[Austin 3:16]

TNA would be good but the shitty bingo hall like enviroment just ruins everything it makes it feel like nothing they do matters anyway

[Cenamark2.0]

TNA would be good but the shitty bingo hall like enviroment just ruins everything it makes it feel like nothing they do matters anyway

Actually a bingo hall would probably be preferable to the Impact Zone. The bingo halls gave ECW a nice rugged gritty feel and brought in the greatest audience in wrestling history, whereas, the Impact Zone brings a stale TV studio feel.

[songz4real]

TNA is good for wrestling because every time they do something big, WWE wants to match or better that. And when that happens, its magic. WWE better by a long way, but TNA guy for wrestling.

[Butters' Pitt]

What I think WWE has that sets it apart from TNA is production value, I am sorry but TNA reminds me of how wCw and wwf looked like from Monday Night Wars, they look 10 years ago in regards to how their production looks, while WWE looks much more crisp in how they put their product on the air.

Now from actual product, TNA has its moments but when WWE hits it big, there is just nothing like it. In recent years we have seen Undertaker/Shawn Michaels, the CM Punk/John Cena MITB moment and of Rock/Cena to name a few moments that TNA couldn't possibly match.

And finally the majesty, there are two events: The Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania that in many ways transcend the business of wrestling, I know people who aren't even wrestling fans that will watch both, just because of the general unpredictability of the Rumble and the overall showcase that Wrestlemania has become. TNA has nothing that can counter that.

I think WWE is better for the money shot and TNA is better for the build up. Meaning, when it comes to big matchs, WWE gets the edge, there's nothng like it but TNA is better at everything in between. Like for instance the whole build up between Bobby Roode vs James Storm from last year before Bound for Glory to Lockdown this year. There was nothing like it. But the match itself between Roode and Storm was nothing special. While WWE's storyline sucks but say you have the match between Cena and Punk when they were both faces and it was off the hook.