The Steel Cage

You won't hear me complaining about a lack of TNA coverage. I tried the promotion out a while back (when I still had cable), but there was little there to keep my interest.

The six-sided ring just smacks of over-the-top gimmick and the angles seemed pointless and changed from week to week.

For all the problems the WWE is, I still find it a whole lot more enjoyable than TNA's product.

I still think you are too harsh on WWE's 'stale' main event scene. During it's glory years we had 4 PPVs in a row of Rock/Makind, Rock/HHH in some form etc, it's nothing new to have HHH/Orton headline 4 in a row.

Anyway, since this is about TNA, I would say that there isn't a magic formula that can make them compete with the WWE. I don't even know if they realistically actually want to. For all we know, them not using the WCW cast offs could result in even lower ratings, and they bank on using these former big names to get the fans that they do.

They are trying to take WWE's market though, and that's never going to happen. They aren't offering a different product, and they haven't got the scope to do so, or start doing what the WWE does better than the WWE actually do it. TNA is still sports entertainment, still cartoony gimmicks, weddings, similar humour etc. The only difference is more turns, and probably more interference. That alone seems to do more harm than good, and won't make the difference to make WWE fans think 'Hey, maybe this TNA lot are better.'

I think for all their talk, they simply know they they aren't ever going to catch up to the WWE, and I think they know exactly what they are doing. They are a poorer quality version. It's not like when WCW was kicking WWE's ass and WWE could change their proudct and do it better than WCW. They could do it better because they had the scope to do it. WCW were winning, but they weren't so much more of a bigger company that held so much domination like WWE does.

I say the best TNA can hope for is to make money, not to aim to be above the WWE. It's unrealistic. They are too far behind. And the thing is, WWE is this far ahead in a supposed 'down' period, imagine that it's going to be like when they really take off again? WWE will be even more ahead. Maybe then TNA will get some more fans, but only because there are more fans overall watching wrestling.

Basically they can't do their brand of wrestling better than the WWE. It's not the same landscape as it was 10 years ago where it was cool for the adults to watch, so I'm not sure the answer is to try and go all 'attitude' either. They should keep marketing towards the families and be happy with their share, IMO.

I occasionally flick over to TNA when nothing else is on. The beautiful people interest me. Curry Man seems like a hoot (even though the people in the crowd mimicking his dance look like idiots) but really, everyone else to me I couldn't care less about. I just see it as second rate WWE, which means I probably won't ever care. Lower production value, lower star quality. I then read their PPV results, and see what appears to be one of the most ridiculous finishes ever, and just wonder why anyone would bother.

This isn't me hating TNA and loving WWE, I'm just saying as I see it. WWE looks the all out classier promotion from top to bottom, it looks like a much higher quality presentation.

You're right, w.i.r. TNA is not going to go anywhere as WWE-light when fans could just flip the channel and see the real thing. That's why, even making far less money than TNA, ROH seems to have much more momentum at the moment - for whatever that's worth. I'd love to see how the ROH product would do in TNA's timeslot with the same production values. The one thing ROH has going for it is a sense of originality - Better or worse, it is far, far different from anything else in the national wrestling scene. TNA thinks it's unique by using a six sided ring and having so many ridiculous gimmick matches, but I think those things turn off more fans than they attract.

The 6 sided ring is absurd and TNA would do best to get rid of it. It reminds me of No Holds Barred, and that was a huge flop. I have tried to watch TNA but there really is nothing exciting about it to keep me tuned in. I even use to DVR it every week and ended up just deleting it.

Im not going to lie to you I gave up on WWE back in 2002. But now, I dunno...its happening again. I really think WWE is one great character from taking off again. Its coming folks, mark my words its coming. Raw is the best it has been in a long time. Vince knows his back is against the wall with his ratings. Considering this is WWE's "off season" right now, its really entertaining. Even watching HBK and Jericho redo their fued from a couple years back is great. CM Punk is what he is, and thats lucky Jeff Hardy failed the wellness policy again, cause if he didnt. Hardy would be your champ right now.

If TNA wanted to turn things around and attract more fans, I think they should just stop being so comedic and promote athleticism. Quit trying to market gimmicks. Instead, market the athletic performers and make TV viewers believe TNA is the only place where you will get such action. This makes WWE look like the "weak" wrestlers, almost like UFC's "real is better than fake" approach.

Then, as they start building this spark of interest, light it all up by marketing the brand itself!!! They need to quit mentioning WWE, WCW, and ECW on their programs!!! Again, they should market TNA as top source for the BEST wrestling.

It's not impossible!!!

I wanted to like TNA, I really did. I tried it out when it first got off ppv weekly shows and went to some syndicated channel. I didn't like it and then came back when they got a Spike TV deal. Still did not get it. Then turned it off until a friend recently said try it out again. I tried and it just doesn't do it for me. I don't know if it is the lame story lines that make WWE look like geniuses or that ridicilous 6 sided ring that only works for the X division or maybe its that I feel like in that arean I am watching old WCW Worldwide tapings.

Nash needs to go...enough already...we get it...you are too cool for the room. Back in WWF/WCW at least you could kind of move and have a somewhat decent match. Now its just pathetic.

AJ Styles-Samoa Joe need a long feud with no other relics hanging out trying to mooch off some of there last 15 minutes by tag teaming with them and letting the new guys take all the bumps.

X division is great in my opinion, they for awhile cooled off on that part of the show and have brought it back. They need to focus more on that since WWE does not offer such a great product in that department.

Thing is with the older guys, is that everyone sayds they need to focus on the TNA originals, but a lot less people would know that these TNA originals even exist if it wasn't for the older guys. You use the older guys to make the new ones into stars...it's just difficult to find the balancing act. The 1.0 they get now would probably be a lot less if it wasn't for the likes of Nash and Booker, and then your Joes and AJs would be getting even less exposure.

With ROH, they are different, and I think if we was in 1998 right now they would stand a lot better chance of building a fanbase. I actually wrote a few blogs back that I thought they had the best chance of challenging WWE, but that's probably wrong. The fact is that your casual audience doesn't tune in for 60 minute mat classics. The kids that go with their parents, the guy that drags his girlfriend along, these are the top of people that WWE attracts, and they don't care about 'good' (the IWC definition of good) wrestling. They want larger than life characters. That's why I think TNA should just be happy with what they have, and I think they probably are. They know they aren't ever going to offer a superior looking product to WWE, but they know that as long as they target the type of fans that actually watch wrestling still, they'll at least make money. If they tried to go with an ROH style product, it probably wouldn't fair to well, and similarly if they tried to go attitude, because the people that jumped on board for attitude have long since departed and aren't coming back.

WWE has gone through a few years of targetting families, and having characters that families can watch. That's smart, because they've attracted new kids to their product, who should grow up with WWE for a few years. It's easier to attract the kids that it is to claw the adults back, because unless wrestling is 'hip', it's always going to be too silly for them. So TNA's shot of making money is to do the same thing, try and target some of the families that can be actually convinced in this day and age to watch wrestling. ROH isn't ever going to get the families, so I think it will always serve the niche of the hardcore wrestling fan.

So basically it comes back to what I was saying. TNA are WWE-lite, but it's basically their best shot of making money. The adults during attitude have gone, and an ROH style product wouldn't attract that families that actually watch wrestling and be attracted to it. They are where they are, and I'm not sure they're ever going to proportionately get much better, or closer to the WWE.

Especially now WWE seem to really be cranking it up a notch. It's like something has snapped with them. All of a sudden they are doing outlandish things and taking their characters to the max. It started with Regal's coronoation and has continued excellently, bar one poor episode which was the first Million Dollar Mania. There's been a clear change in the product since that Regal episode. I'd love to know why they suddenly decided to change. For so long they seemed to be content with ending the shows with a simple run in, stare down etc. Now it's like - they don't just have Regal play a disgruntled authority figure moaning about disrespect - they go OTT and have him take the whole show off the air. It's great. Maybe they had a few years break from such OTT style angles because if they did them too regularly, they wouldn't be OTT and have that impact value anymore. I don't know, all I do know is that there's been a definate change, and I'm liking it. I didn't think TNA could compete even with the WWE of 4 months ago, but with this new OTT WWE, I don't think they have a cat in hell's chance.

Nitro circa 1988?

I think he meant 1998.

I tried TNA but my irrational hatred of Kurt Angle keeps me away. For some reason I just don't like the guy.

i agree tna still has alot of problems but i say that the last month of tna impacts have been actually really good and interesting and victory road had alot of good matches. Only bad thing is say about it , is the main event, i thought it was good up to the whole sting part. but thats just my oppion.

Dixie Carter is a Monday Night War-era relic?

tna should be better. they just need to use guys like booker, steinner, nash, angle, and sting as guys who come in to challenge for the world title and job out.

tna should start pushin aj styles, shelly, jay lethal, homicide and to a lesser extent cage as main guys on the show and build their show around those guys being strong characters. also keepin joe really strong will help.

as history has shown, pushing young talent yields positive results long term.

Impact has been very good the past few weeks. They've done a good job building up Joe/Booker/Nash as well as Angle/AJ. The knockout division and x-cup have also worked out well. I'd say they've done better than WWE recently.

"Shawn Michaels, Triple H, and Edge? What is this, RAW 1998?"

See what I did there?

I can handpick out guys to make an argument also.

TNA is totally unwatchable. I've given it a chance several times over the last few years, and the divide between WWE and TNA is like Broadway and Dinner theatre respectively.

I always hear the performers talking about how much easier the schedule is compared to WWE, and I wonder if that ease doesn't correlate to the in-ring work. Who knows? But I just find it bland.

I just figured it out. wweisright is Kevin Nash. Why else is he forever putting over HHH and the other old guys? Wait. Maybe he's Flair.

ANYWAY, you're right in what you SAY -- you can use older guys to make new stars -- but that's not what TNA is doing. The ONLY "TNA Original" in any sort of high profile spot is Joe. AJ Styles is next, and then...yep.

In fact, they often use the older guys to make the younger guys look like chumps. Remember Nash and his anti-X Division thing? Remember him changing Jay Lethal into Black Machismo? Remember Team 3D beating the holy hell out of the X Division and it taking all of them to beat them down? Remember 3D beating the hell out of the Motor City Machine Guns?

I'm like a lot of you guys. I gave TNA a chance to be an alternative to WWE for my viewing time, and I couldn't deal with the WCW Thunder flashbacks. And it's not getting any better.

I still watch TNA because there is still potential there, with guys such as Samoa Joe and their women's division is very talented. But, yeah, the WCW/WWE retreads for the most part stifle what is a very talented group. Petey Williams has the most awesome finishing move in North America, and they saddle him with Scott Steiner? Shark Boy turns into a Stone Cold clone? The episode titles are stupid as well, and the Angles soap opera makes WWE look like Tolstoy. And Mike Tenay and Don West have to stop screaming and commenting whenever someone's giving a promo. For all their flaws, the WWE announcers usually keep quiet when a wrestler is speaking, not going "Can you believe that?"

''"Shawn Michaels, Triple H, and Edge? What is this, RAW 1998?"

See what I did there?

I can handpick out guys to make an argument also.''

Difference is, a crowd will still pop huge for HBK and HHH, and will still boo Edge out of a building. They still have legs in the biggest company in the world.

The WCW cast offs are in TNA because they couldn't generate the kind of reaction that a main eventer in the WWE need, so they go to the second biggest promotion where they still have a use. WWE would be stupid not to use legends that can still generate a pop. They generate pop because a crowd still wants to see them, if they started getting tired of them, they'd stop cheering as loud. That's a certainty. HBK's lucky in the sense that he had a 4 year break, HHH is lucky that he can reinvent himself and be over as a face after a long heel run, and Edge is lucky that he's a heat magnet and hasn't really been a main eventer for all that long anyway. It's down to Taker that he's still a main eventer in the biggest promotion in the world. He is still making it work.

Nash and Steiner especially wouldn't have a hope in hell of main eventing WWE right now, and they'd be lucky to be good enough mid carders. Sting would have got a huge pop 6 years ago, but that ship has sailed.

I do think TNA are right to use the old stars to an extent though. If they just brought them in for one shot deals to lose to AJ and Joe, it does nothing. You have to make them hated to the TNA audience for beating them to actually mean something. Or you have to build them up as faces. Merely having them on the show is probably drawing the hardcore fan or some of the kids that wonder where these old legends that they heard about from their older brothers are wrestling these days.

And to be honest, I don't think there's anyone just waiting to break out in TNA and lead them to dominance over WWE. I don't think Joe is that guy. He doesn't have the mainstream look (Vince knows what that is and likes it for a reason), and neither does AJ really. They are fine and could probably represent TNA as they are now, but I'm really not sure people are ever going to flock to AJ or Joe in TNA over Cena or Batista, or even HHH or Taker, or even CM Punk.

I'm looking at their roster now and can honeslty say I don't really see anyone with the potential to lead TNA to new heights. Cage is decent but I would think with Vince's machine behind him he would stand a much better chance. Robert Roode is a great heel IMO but not really going to lead TNA by himself. Kaz? No. Matt Morgan? No. Tomko? No.

They have a decent enough roster, but it comes back to what I was saying. They are simply too far behind the WWE to have any of these new young stars break out and overtake them. That's why I don't think the answer to TNA's problems is to simply ditch the old guard and focus on the youngsters, because not a lot of the youngsters are all that great. They are decent, but in terms of being better than what WWE can offer, I don't think they are anywhere near.

Personally for me, I have no interest in what Nash, Sting etc are doing these days. They aren't going to make me tune in. They are old hat to me. They are has beens that wouldn't make it in the current WWE in my mind. However I also don't think TNA is neccesarily wrong for using them as they are, because there has tobe a balancing act, they have to use what star power they can get their hands on to draw what they can, and so I think if they just want to make money and just accept that they are far and away second choice to WWE and serve a much smaller fanbase, then what they are doing is fine. I think challenging WWE is going to need a much greater overhaul than simply ditching the old guard. Thier 'problems' as they pertain to being so far behind the WWE run much deepert than that.

It's true, those are guys who are totally not ready to lead. It's like way back when the WWF brought in that guy to be the Ringmaster. What a stupid gimmick! Guy went nowhere.

Or that blueblood Hunter Hearst Helmsley gimmick. Stupid! Dude did nothing.

Or Isaac Yankem. Or "Cowboy" Bret Hart (I'm so not making this up, that's what Vince wanted to give him initially). Or Rocky Miavia. Or the Dingo Warrior.

Point being, guys can turn it around if given the chance. you can't point at them now and say "never".

My point is, wrestling isn't in a boom, and society isn't just screaming out for an obvious wrestling superhero that they can get behind. The counterculture era has also passed. TNA is so far behind, and in a wrestling down period, that even if one of the TNA guys did discover a really hot gimmick, no-one is going to know about it. TNA simply don't have the scope to market themselves like WCW and WWE have done, because they are so far behind. They are so far behind, that even if there was a breakout TNA star, they aren't going to drag TNA kicking and screaming to dominance over WWE simply because it isn't possible right now.

My point is, wrestling isn't in a boom, and society isn't just screaming out for an obvious wrestling superhero that they can get behind. Did anyone want to get behind the Rock or Stone Cold or did it just happen.Most things just take on a life of it's on if the fans don't take it won't work no matter how it's pushed. Take Edge for example there are still alot of people that don't buy him as a main eventer he just a 5 time transitional champ.Yes Nash and Big Poppa Pump could still get a huge pop in WWE if they had been protected like HHH, HBK, Taker, ect. However if you make a Character look weak fans will start to lose interest. ( Val Venus, Carlito,Shelton anyone...) TNA just needs to hit reset and do the things they did during they early years it's only been what, five, six or so years WWE in some form or fashion has been around over 50. WCW was basically a spinoff NWA which had been around for years. To me TNA lost a bit of luster after they spilt with NWA. Oh yeah about ROH, they have an Indy feel once they go national they'll lose that feel and then fans will start to hate on them.

"The WCW cast offs are in TNA because they couldn't generate the kind of reaction that a main eventer in the WWE need, so they go to the second biggest promotion where they still have a use."

That is the dumbest thing I've ever read. 20 whore diamonds to wweisright.

You seriously think Steiner would generate the reaction that some of the WWE legends get these days? He wouldn't stand a chance. I wasn't watching in 2003, but wasn't he tagging with Test? And you're telling me that me saying that he wouldn't be able to get the reaction that other WWE legends get is the dumbest thing you've heard?

Same with Nash. Again, I wasn't watching, but I've seen him described as 'heatless'. I'm sure he was getting a decent enough reaction, but nothing like the HHHs, HBKs, and Takers of this world get. Booker may still have had a use, but WWE are hardly missing him. Sting wouldn't get anywhere near the reaction he would have gotten 6 six years ago.

In business, and in life, you are rewarded by how much value you can add. HHH and Taker have been protected and made to look like stars, but that's because they've proven that they can generate that reaction. So it works both ways. Guys prove their worth, and they get rewarded from the other side. You can't just push any guy and expect the fans to buy it and have them catch fire, because it doesn't work like that. If Nash or any of the other WCW cast offs in TNA right now proved to the WWE that they could still draw to the extent that they needed, they'd still be there. There's a reason people get pushed. There's a reason Cena gets a mega push while Charlie Haas gets nothing.

Steiner, Nash and Sting are old hat. They were old hat in 2003 when WWE was just recycling through the old WCW stars, and now they are even lower down the food chain on the grand scheme of things. Guys like Cena, Batista, Orton, Edge and even MVP have far surpassed anything Nash and Steiner could do for the company in this day and age. If Steiner or Nash came back to the WWE today, they wouldn't be given prominent roles. WWE's younger talent has surpassed them.

They do a job for TNA. They give TNA some exposure. They would absolutely fall flat on their face in WWE though - just like they already have done.

Yeah, those guys were all old hat WHEN THE WWE EMPLOYED THEM. Which was not too long ago. Nash AND Steiner seemed pretty "heatless" in their matches with HHH. But of course, the boss's son-in-law is beyond reproach...

TNA employs them because they've gotten TV exposure, end of story. To say "the WCW cast offs are in TNA because they couldn't generate the kind of reaction that a main eventer in the WWE need, so they go to the second biggest promotion where they still have a use." is pure WWE ass-kissing. You have no idea what the terms of their releases were, so quit pretending.

I don't know what you're getting so worked up about. It's not WWE-ass kissing, I've even defended TNA using them in this comment section because I believe they need to use them to draw the fans they do. I just don't think Nash or Steiner, or Sting, would stand much of a chance in the current WWE. And I do believe if WWE truly believed that these WCW cast offs could be drawing more money than the Cenas, Batistas, Ortons, Hardys etc of this world then they would try and get them. They'd make more money in WWE and be bigger stars.

And for crying out loud, the HHH hate is embarrising. Yes, I'm sure it's all his fault that the WWE crowd didn't take to Steiner or Nash. I mean they gave Steiner a giant fanfare and had had both brands fighting over him like he was the second coming, and yet you think they didn't want him getting over? Or how about Nash? The guy was Vince's guest at Wrestlemania, but apparently there was a conspiracy to stop him from getting over? Please.

Steiner, Nash and especially Sting would draw today. WWE will sometimes miss out on easy money for what ever reason, look at Randy Savage I'm sure he could get a monster pop but......
And Steiner came in WWE a few years ago had two godawful matches with HHH and proceeded to get buried, also his back was injured so he had lost so mobility and his first couple of matches sucked but he got better I mean look this guy can still do the Frankensteiner from the top rope for a highspot.
As for Nash, when the NWO was brought in Stone Cold hunted them down and had them running around back stage like the 3 stooges wow a 7 foot badass, a former "Bad Guy" and the Hulkster doing slapstick punked by 1 man. Also Nash had two godawful matches with HHH and proceeded to get buried, just when he thought he was cleard to wrestle he hurt his leg again, tapped out to Y2J and had to cut his hair ( for his role in the Punisher movie, no not the Dolph one the Jane one just stop it)
Also Goldberg had a wig put on his head, DDP became a stalker, Lex Luger wore a diaper, Terry Taylor was a Rooster, Vader lost to everyone.ect. and yes I was watching. TNA just needs time. The "Old Hat" shouldn't always lose to put over younger guys most times a real good match will put the younger talent over ....Sting and Flair time limit draw = a rub for Sting

"In business, and in life, you are rewarded by how much value you can add." How long have you been out in the workforce? In every job there are always people in positions where they don't belong or can't handle for what every reason. Cream does not alway rise to the top no matter what you may have heard. Most companies no longer value employees, think layoffs, being past over for promotions by someone not as qualified, mismanagement happens in business everyday, even in Fortune 500 companies. WWE and TNA are no different. I'm not saying it's going to happen but TNA could overtake WWE next year or they may never. WWE could buy ROH tommorrow or never, with the way things are going who knows what the value of anything will be a 10yrs.AOL buying TimeWarner back in the day, makes no sense.

Look, I've defended TNA's use of the old hat, I just don't think they would do much in current WWE, that's what I'm saying.

And yes, you do get rewarded by how much value you add. It's based off of a system of proving your worth. The best job applications are selected, then the best interview candidate is selected, and then for whatever reason, people get promoted because somewhere along the line they have shown the value and worth that would prove to someone that they could perform at a higher level.

Excuses can be made for Nash and Steiner all you want, but the true top stars make it work. Goldberg has a wig on his head! So what? Stone Cold went from being the toughest SOB in the company to hugging Vince and singing on the guitar. Did it ruin him? No. He makes it work, and excuses aren't made. John Cena made a wannabe white rapper gimmcik work. Kane has made the gimmick work for eleven years.

Guys get pushed if they can prove that they'll add value. I'll bet Kofi Kingston impressed in developmental, then impressed enough in ECW to get the call to Raw so soon. If Nash or Steiner showed they could draw more than whoever was above them, they'd get a push. HHH, HBK and Taker are still popping crowds in the biggest company in the world as regular main event acts, Nash and Steiner aren't because they just can't draw as well. There are no where near even the likes of Jeff Hardy and MVP anymore. Their time has passed, they had their oppurtunity and didn't take off in a post attitude WWE. Excuses can be made for them, but even the stupidest gimmicks have worked. They are fine for TNA, but not for WWE.

It's why Alfonso is writing 'Is this Nitro 1998?'. The difference is in the eyes of the casual fan and not the hardcore internet one, is that Nash et al 'used' to be stars, while the likes of HHH and Taker still are. And because TNA is so far behind and looks all round the inferior promotion, people assume that they aren't stars anymore, because they are no longer in the big leagues. If TNA was any closer to WWE after their numerous aquisitions then maybe you could say they still are stars, but the fact is they've gone to the smaller promotion and TNA's ratings remain stagnant.

No doubt that Nash, Steiner, etc. are past their prime. But that didn't stop the folks at WWE from employing them. But when WWE does it, it's because they know what they're doing. When TNA does it, it's because they're past their prime. Double standard, biased, stupid, end of story.

And I just LOVE the deep insight into the WWE's inner workings. Please, enlighten us some more on how they run things. You seem to have some real working knowledge that the rest of us lack, leaving us to bash HHH in our ignorance.

That was sarcastic, fyi. Really, I don't need to read 5 more paragraphs of missing the point.

TNA's crappy booking = Even if they had Jesus H. Christ appearing live and in person, they would manage to somehow make people want to change the channel.

LOL...I get your point perfectly. I just disagree with it.

It's not just a deep insight into inner workings of the WWE, it's common sense, plus a knowledge of the business world. I don't have the opinions I do for no reason whatsoever.

TNA are getting them because they are past their prime. They ain't capable of performing at the top of the industry anymore. You think Steiner or Nash have a chance of main eventing a WWE PPV anymore? They are has beens in the current wrestling landscape. HHH and Taker are still current stars. That's the difference.

It's not really fair, but if a wrestler goes to TNA, they drop off the landscape to a lot of wrestling fans. A lot of the kids and casual fans that WWE attracts won't bother to follow them. They won't care where they have gone. It's not an equal jump from WCW to the WWF or vice versa - they are leaving the giant, dominant company to go to the young upstart that not even every wrestling fan knows exists. They are going to the smaller promotion, so every big star they sign is just going to have the stench of not being able to cut it in the bigger leagues. All I'm saying is that even if that isn't true - in Angle's or Christian's cage - that's what it looks like. TNA are so far behind that it looks like a giant step down.

So as long as they keep signing the older stars while they are a much smaller promotion, they are going to have the aura of a company where the has beens go in the twighlight of their career. If TNA were almost equal to WWE, people would look at it as the older stars still having 'it'. They aren't though. I have nothing against TNA, but signing loads of old stars isn't going to make them overtake WWE in a years time. They'll maintain their positin and market share, but it isn't the drastic boost they need. They got Angle and it done nothing for them. Thier problems go deeper than that. If you can call them problems. Simply put, overtaking WWE isn't a simple task and there's no guarenteed way to do it. There's no shame being far and away second choice to them as long as they are making some decent money.

And yes the HHH bashing is in ignorance? Met the guy? Backstage for the booking meetings? If you weren't, it's ignorance.

"Stone Cold went from being the toughest SOB in the company to hugging Vince and singing on the guitar. Did it ruin him? No. He makes it work, and excuses aren't made." No he just walked out on the WWE not once but twice remember when they changed the name and Rock said Stone Cold took his ball and ran home to get the F out so....yeah.
Some fans still will not just watch TNA out of loyalty, will bash without watching. I have met HHH and I can't tell his stroke just because I've shook hands with the man. Jeffy Hardy is sloppy but countinued to get pushed. Randy and Edge stay hurt but still get pushed.

HHH bashing isn't ignorance; on this very blog, the HHH-Steph angle was referred to as a "nepo-push"by a former writer for WWE. That's short for nepotism, meaning they got pushed because they are related to the boss. It's nothing new in wrestling (Eric Watts, anybody?), and to claim WWE isn't guilty of it is REAL ignorance.

Good point about Stone Cold, Mr. TNA. One of the reasons he walked out was the writing was "piss-poor". That's when you can tell the writing "isn't working", when your top star leaves because of it.

Not saying TNA is any better. Watching TNA only gives people more reasons to bash it. After that Genesis PPV with Angle's first match against Samoa Joe, I will never waste my money on them again. BOOKING is the issue; a good promotion can book even bad wrestlers in entertaining matches. TNA gets great wrestlers, and proceeds to bury them under terrible storytelling.

Of course, this is why WWE sucks as well. Highly paid does NOT mean good, no matter what wweispayingmetoposthiscrap says.

So wweisright, are you at the top of your profession or class or whatever, if not why? are you past your prime, not ready for primetime, or what I'd like to know. As I've stated here before where have you been where "you do get rewarded by how much value you add. It's based off of a system of proving your worth. The best job applications are selected, then the best interview candidate is selected, and then for whatever reason, people get promoted because somewhere along the line they have shown the value and worth that would prove to someone that they could perform at a higher level." Maybe you get promoted because the higher-ups fear for their job security and the most quailfied is a threat so they go with someone who may not be so much of a threat or even nepotisim, If you think this does not take place often then you must not have been in the work place for very long, it's a reality no matter how much you choose to believe otherwise.
Now, if WWE hired Nash, Sting, Steiner or any other old hat and put the machine behind them they could be headlining Wrestlemania next year. That includes Angle, Cage, Hogan, Warrior, Doink, Dink, Brooklyn Brawler, Jerry Lawler, Buzz Sawyer, Eugene, The Blue meanie and any other wrestler that's set foot in the a Wrestling ring, Heck this time next year Chris Hero could be a worthy WWE champ with the right push feuding with CM Punk again.

I thought he called the divorce angle rubbish? He referenced a 'nepo push' in another article. It's funny though, because if anyone needs to protect their spot in the company, it isn't HHH. He's the guy that has job security for life. He's going to inherit the running of a large part of the business most probably. Steph also has said one of the reasons Vince kept them apart was because he didn't want people thinking HHH was champion just because of his marriage. I could go on with my logical thinking, but I'm sure second hand information, hearsay and whispered are much more fun. Putting him in an angle with Steph isn't a nepo push. Seth's also even said that they were right to make him champion over RVD when the entire internet it seemed united in unison over their love for RVD, and their hate because HHH de-railed his push.

Nepotism sometimes gets you oppurtunities. Especially in the public eye though, if you don't have the talent to make the most of the oppurtunity you were given, you will fail. I went for a job at IBM once. My uncle worked there, and put in a good word to his boss. I got past the application stage which was handled by the HR department and not his boss. I then had my assessment day, and in the individual interview that my uncle's boss had already said that she'd take me on based on what she'd heard about me. Few days later I was informed I didn't get it. Fair play to them - I was deemed not good enough. My uncle could have campaigned night and day, but if they deem me not good enough, I ain't getting the job. If they don't think I can perform, it doesn't matter who I know.

Nepotism happens more regularly in monkey jobs that anyone can do. A supermarket vacancy? Maybe one of the existing workers can put a good word in for their friend. Maybe a guy runs a business and needs a receptionist, so he asks his daughter if she knows anyone that could do it. All they really need is trust. If they can trust their existing workers, that will be good enough. A bigger skill set isn't really neeeded.

Now in the WWE, this is big business. This isn't some shoddy indie territory that's struggling to survive, this is making money left right and centre. Steph could campaign to Vince that HHH should be champion until the cows come home, but if HHH can't draw the money that will satisfy his stockholders it isn't happening. Just like if IBM don't trust me in a prominent role in their sales force - it isn't happening. There are far more considerations that need to be made when it comes to selecting their team other than the word of one of their staff, because trust isn't the only thing they need to be proven. I needed to prove that I could fulfill all the other requirements, and obviously they didn't. Now consider that this is even after one of the bosses had said they'd take me. I was assessed, and then I didn't get taken.

Thing with who they decide to push is, they could decide to make Robbie the Highlander the World champ tommorow. Sure they could do it - but it isn't going to draw much money. They could put the machine behind him and try their best, but they won't make as much money as they would of if they had chosen someone else. Why do you think they chose to push the people they do. Why was CM Punk chosen to win the MITB ahead of Jericho? They could have pushed either, but they chose him. There are reasons and considerations for everything they do, and just because you don't know them, it doesn't mean they don't exist. Just like IBM or any other big business have considerations that are a lot more complicated than what an outsider looking in would assume. I'm not going to be so arrogant as to say I should have been hired though, I can accept I didn't meet their requirements on the day. They chose to 'push' another candidate into their team, just like WWE choses the people they push for reasons that may not be initially obvious to the fans.

"There are reasons and considerations for everything they do, and just because you don't know them, it doesn't mean they don't exist."

And you thinking that YOU know what they are makes your whole point bogus. You don't know any better than any other mark, so don't pretend otherwise.

And yes, nepotism happens, thus HHH and Stephanie are on our tvs. Not saying they aren't talented (HHH at least), but talent isn't everything. As I said, pretty much every territory had a wrestler or two who wasn't around because they were necessarily the right person for the job. But to ignore it is, um, ignorant.

Yeah, you would think HHH would try and build the business. Funny how wrestling has been literally hard to watch since he and Steph have been around.

Did I say I knew what they are? No. What I said is that they happen, and that they exist. And I know that for a fact.

HHH and Steph would still be on our TVs if they hadn't got together. HHH was already a world champion multiple times before they were married, and Steph was already a great heel.

Maybe in the territories it did happen, but it would be a lot harder for it to happen in a publicly listed company. They have stock holders to satisfy, and they have money to make. If HHH wasn't making them as much money as expected, he wouldn't be in the position he is in. There are a lot more people to please in the WWE than there would be in an old territory, and a lot more people to appeal to. As for Steph, it's been said from numerous accounts that Vince actually demands more from Steph than he does anyone else. Therefore he hasn't just put her in that postion to keep her happy, he makes her work harder than anyone else. If she couldn't hack it, she wouldn't be there.

And wrestling has been hard to watch? This year has been one of the best in ages. No coincidence that this is the first time that both rosters have been really stacked with talent since probably 2002. Less stars + more injuries + more suspensions = less ability to plan big time long term angles. We are getting them now though. Both main rosters have a lot of talent, and this year has been better as a result.

I stopped watching for 4 years in 2003. Evolution had got me really excited, then they were injured. Then Austin stopped wrestling. Then Angle was injured. Then Rock left. That's a massive hit on a company. That's when it started going real downhill. Now they've created new stars, beefed out their roster and a lot of people saying this has been the best year since 2002. If they don't have the stars to work with, the show isn't going to be as good.

That isn't HHH or Steph's fault. Steph is head of creative, but everything has to go by Vince. And that's to say that Steph is even bad at her job, which I don't believe she is, because she can obviously hack Vince's demands. There's been a lot of great stuff this year, more than last year, and more than most recent years. A lot of that will have been down to Steph, amoung other people, I'm sure. There's been more stars to make that possible.

Wait didn't HBK say himself that HHH was not a main eventer, that he only hangs around main eventers? When HHH was being punished always losing did anyone think he'd be a top draw? Who knows if Robbie the Highlander could draw as a champ i doubt he'll ever get that push. Who thought Mankind was worthy of a Championship when he first came. It's what you put into the booking just as well as who you put in that top slot. They booked the Rock strong it worked. If Stone Cold had not been booked to win KOTR and uttered 3:16 it would not have caught on then ha was booked really strong afterwards. You can't book someone losing all the time and then bam make them Champ and have them a Main eventer all of a sudden look at Punk he Champ but is he really an main eventer. Just like Bret's first title reign he's in the middle of the card until the make him look stronger for having made him job out to so many others. Yes the machine has alot to do with things talent is just the icing on top. Britney had a better machine behind her that Christina it's a fact not an opinion Christina sings better.They both kissed Madonna but you mostly heard about Brintney. That's the machine working.
Sorry about your luck at IBM, but how do you know that job didn't go to a managers buddy or realtive? Ken Lay was the right man to run Enron? Bush a C student at best attended Yale University own his own merits? Isiah Thomas the right person to run the Knicks organization? yes the corporate world picks the wrong people all the time just like Mcdonalds or as you refered to a supermarket. I have a company, I call the shots and I want brand A to win brand B won't stand a chance. Shareholders be damned if you are majority owner and the shareholders are seeing some gain and noones knocking on your door offering more money to buy your options, plus they don't really know much about how to run your product. They may make suggestions but they won't rock the boat much as long as you don't cross the line or tarnish the product to lessen it's overall value

Also a fact: Vince McMahon Jr bought the company from Vince McMahon Sr. Not a coincidence. And it's a publicly traded company, but the McMahon family holds 80% of the stock, making their responsibility to the stockholders limited. The stockholders being themselves.

It's a matter of taste, I guess. Injuries and suspensions are definitely to blame for a lot of WWE's problems, but bad booking has been running wild for years. If you disagree, fine, but it's no excuse to spin the facts.

It's hard to watch because they are obviously floundering. They've taken the spotlight off wrestling, and have nowhere else to put it. Resulting in so many crappy angles and wasted opportunities, I don't even want to get started. Of course, some people enjoy the sports entertainment. Which is too bad for the wrestling fans.

Of course HHH is a main eventer. When did HBK say this? 10 years ago? It's not even up for debate. He is a main eventer.

They push Mankind, Austin or anyone else once they have prved that they can handle the push, and then give them a little bit more. It wasn't just a sudden decision to push either of them. There was the connection that they saw, and thought it could be pushed more. If Robbie ever shows that connection, even to get to a mid card level, he'll get a push. Or if he fulfills any of the other requirements they need. It isn't just a random decision to put the machine behind anybody.

I'd say in the corporate world that people getting hired for the wrong reasons and the exceptions, and not the rules. Because for every wrong decision made to hire someone that can't do the job, there are millions of decisions every day that they get right in terms of the function of the business.

As for Vince and the stock, it's been said by numerous people that WWE doesn't even need to be a publicly listed company anymore. The main reason any company does it in the first place is to raise capital, but WWE have piles of it. They could buy back the stock tommorrow if they wanted, but it's been said that Vince likes the discipline that being a PLC gives them. So it's not just a McMahon plaything, it's serious business. Considering they wouldn't even have to answer to stockholders and non-exec directors if they didn't want to, because they could just buy back the stock, I'd say there's a pretty good reason as to why they still are a PLC. HHH and Steph simply don't have the scope to run wrestling exclusively to make the HHH character look better or anything else. Everything still does have to satisfy Vince, and has to make money.

And there is just as much wrestling on Raw nowadays as there was in the attitude era. Infact I'd say that until this year there was even less story, because everything seemingly centered around wanting to be the champion. Now though they've got a lot more creative with their feuds and how they begin. It's led to an all around much better product this year than it has been probably for the last 6, over all. Smackdown and ECW still focus more on wrestling, but Raw has always been like this. It isn't a sudden change.

Discipline? THAT kind of crap isn't hearsay and rumor? That sounds like you read it in a WWE press release. Please.

Yeah, they've gotten a lot more creative, to the point where it's unwatchable. Like I said, I don't even want to get in to how abortive the last few years have been in terms of storylines. And wrestling. And money they could have made that they just threw away. Whatever the reasons, the shows consistently suck.

The WWE trainers themselves have said they're working with a bunch of guys who just never learned how to wrestle. If you think different, great, but it's pretty obvious the wrestling these days is crap. If WWE showcases the best of the best, what the hell is CM Punk doing with the title? And absolutely NO story to go with it?

They are creatively bankrupt. When WCW was putting out it's worst programming, tons of people were still buying tickets. I think WWE is in the same boat. It will take time, but people will turn on this kind of worthless product in the long run. If you read WWE's financial reports, you can see they've been apologizing for revenue loss for a while now. WWE films? Not such a savvy move. They're a better business than WCW, but crap will only float for so long.

Your undying faith in WWE's product is either deranged or financially motivated. Or it could just be you have really bad taste.

No, Raw has not always been like this. It used to be a one hour Wrestling show not a two plus hour variety show. Raw did not start with the Attittude era it started shortly before the New Generation.

I don't mind angles as long as the match pays off. Steamboat and Savage was an angle and it paidoff in spades.

"As for Vince and the stock, it's been said by numerous people that WWE doesn't even need to be a publicly listed company anymore. The main reason any company does it in the first place is to raise capital, but WWE have piles of it. They could buy back the stock tommorrow if they wanted, but it's been said that Vince likes the discipline that being a PLC gives them. So it's not just a McMahon plaything, it's serious business. Considering they wouldn't even have to answer to stockholders and non-exec directors if they didn't want to, because they could just buy back the stock." You just reinforced my earlier statement.

"Of course HHH is a main eventer. When did HBK say this? 10 years ago? It's not even up for debate. He is a main eventer"
Why because he was given a chance. Look I like HHH I even named my son after him, but you have to understand how people could think hes shown favoritism, the same way people thought of Jeff Jarrett in TNA.

In fact WWE has a much better main event roster then TNA, TNA has a better undercard then WWE. Not because of the performers but because of the focus they put on the tag team and women division and used put on the X division.

I still say in sports which is a large part of sports entertainment (wrestling) competition is the best angle of all. It's been said a number of times if you don't want to be Champion some day you don't belong in the business.

One last thing about whom may get a push, sometimes you have to throw things at the wall to see what sticks. Ever heard of that? Some people get hotshotted Brock did not really prove hisself before he was a main eventer, was given the ball and while it seemed to work he couldn't handled it for what ever reason. It was reportedly said by HHH that Brock made money for himself but not the business. So you can't prove yourself until you get the chance, you can't get the chance until you are given that chance.

To #1 Hater: If you don't like the shows now it's likely that you never will. It's not just me saying it, it's a lot of people, casual fans and even internet fans saying this has been the best year top to bottom since 02. PPVs have been consistently good, and Raw is far better than it was last year. If you think they suck, WWE just isn't for you.

To TNA: Even if Raw hasn't been like this forever, you're still making out that it's problems now are the lack of wrestling - despite the fact that during their best ratings period ever the wrestling was still exactly the same. The format of Raw isn't anything new to complain about.

How did I reinforce your statement? My point is that they don't even need to be a PLC. The fact that they still are is for a reason. Even if you don't want to believe this 'hearsay' - that's based off of logic - it's pretty simple to understand. They don't have to answer to stockholders. They don't even need stockholder money. They still want to be a PLC though. They still want some other influences to answer to. Why is that? If it isn't discipline, what is it? It's not for no reason.

I don't know what your point is about HHH. Of course he was given a chance. They identified something in him that they could use at a higher level. It wasn't a random decision. Just like it wasn't with Brock. They didn't say 'Who shall we push...that guy?'. They identified that they could push him as an absolute beast and based off of what they know about their audience they could judge if it was going to work or not. It wasn't a random push. Brock proved that he could add value. It may have been through his physique and athleticism rather than his charisma, but he still showed something. It wasn't random. Nothing is random, everyone has to justify why they where they are to the people that make the decisions.

You're absolutely right, WWE is not for me, or anyone over the age of ten. But as a wrestling fan, you have to take what you can get. WWE 24/7 is great, but on the whole WWE isn't worth spending money on. Flair vs. Shawn is the only "must-see" PPV match WWE has produced in years. It's only personal taste, but since wrestling is entertainment, that's all there is to go on.

WWE went public because it made Vince a billionaire. Any other reason is secondary.

Fair enough, everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion.

But now Vince is a billionaire, why doesn't he buy the stock back with his massive stockpiles of cash? They are rolling in profit, more than they know what to do with. They floated and it let them expand to the profitable business that they are today, but they don't need to be public for monetary reasons anymore. He could easily buy that stock back if he wanted to, but he doesn't.

It really isn't a plaything for Steph and HHH to ruin, it's a money making operation. How they arrive at that money making is down to the people that run the wrestling business and know about it, so while stockholders won't know much about that, they still need to be satisfied and ensure that the business is being run with their best interests at heart - so they can make returns on their investment. If there was any hint of HHH or Steph malciously ruining the money making potential of the operation for their own personal amusement, it wouldn't fly. It wouldn't be allowed. Stockholders would know about it, sell their shares, the price would plummet, and therefore the value of the company plummets and Vince becomes a little less richer. He isn't going to stand for that.

Or maybe he said let's give this kid a try what do we have to lose we have HBK,HHH, Stone Cold, Hogan,The Rock and just about the greatest Roster ever during the early 2000's they could afford to take chances on the Brocks afterall huh.

Mick Foley has stated he made Vince laugh so he got the World title. So yeah that sounds like a personal project. HBK stated that they came to him with the Trump angle he passed so Vince made Lashley his pet project even though Bobby was said to not connect with the fans very well. As a matter of fact ego plays a big role as well as who has the "it" factor XFL, the bodybuilding stuff, yeah the fans were claimoring for that stuff. However sometimes if if does not fit some may try to break off a piece to may it fit. That being said I know WWE can't stay in buisness without a plan, but i do know at times even people in charge ring their hands over what to do next sometimes just throw things out there.

As for Raw is forgive any crappy angle or gimmick if the wrestling is good or even decent. I've been watching for over 20 years so I've stayed a fan during some pretty crappy things I did not just jump on the bandwagon during the last boom period. See I'm not a WWE mark I like wrestling period hell I even watched USWA. It doesn't matter but I call it like I see it. This has been an decent year for WWE but nothing to write home about same with TNA. I like the direction that Raw has been going wrestling wise when they do wrestle but the 30 minute promos, have to stop.