September 15, 2010

WWE vs. TNA as I see it

Since there's been even more comparison between the 2 "top" companies lately, I figured I'd put them head to head on paper and see how they stack up. I'll be looking at a few things: Roster, matches (quality), creativity (storylines) and production quality.

I'll give my thoughts on each company and pick a winner for each category. At the end, the company that wins the most categories is, in my opinion, the better of the two (albeit shit that's better than other shit is still shit).


WWE: They have finally started pushing the young guys with NXT and are doing so on Raw and Smackdown as well. That said, there are still some relics that need to retire and some stars that need to get out of the title pictures. They have untapped potential in a number of stars, and they are finally starting to use it.

TNA: Funny how a company who tries to be so different from WWE insists on hiring their rejects. TNA has more fossils than a natural history museum on its roster. They are trying to recapture the glory days of pro wrestling by bringing in pseudo-stars from yesteryear and are hoping to draw in viewers with the "big names." That said, they also have some fresh talent, but they need more.

Bottom Line: I have to give the nod to WWE here, as they are trying to bring some fresh faces into the brands. TNA at this point needs to build their own stars and not rely so heavily on already established stars to make their name.


WWE: The aim of WWE programming is more towards entertainment than match quality. However, there have been many great matches in recent memory. I would also like to point out that WWE seems to make the same matches over and over again during feuds. You can only do something so many ways, and only so many times before it gets stale. The matches in themselves may each be good, but it's still something we've seen before.

TNA: Seeing as TNA is mainly using has-beens, match quality is slipping, but as with WWE, there are some good matches here and there. They also have the recurring match problem, but it isn't as bad as WWE's is. TNA also seems to offer more variations in their match types, which leads to more opportunities for great moments.

Bottom Line: This is a tie in my mind. There are enough good and bad matches from each company to make it too close to call. TNA has better technical matches for the most part, but WWE's entertainment value is higher.


NOTE: I don't count a storyline as a bunch of matches and a couple promos. I'm talking about the actual storytelling that goes along with them.

WWE: Storylines have slipped recently, in that there don't seem to be much of them anymore. It appears to me that the only storyline of note at the moment is Kane and Taker, but then remember what I said above about recurring matches. There are a few little things here and there, but nothing that's significant enough to fully be called a storyline.

TNA: There have been more storylines in TNA than WWE recently. Abyss going psycho again, Kurt fighting his way up the top 10 rankings and of course, EV2.0. Again, I don't see much of note. TNA has kind of backed itself into a corner on this because of the aforementioned fossilized roster. They've done pretty much everything there is to do, so what's left aside from doing it all over again?

Bottom Line: When WWE does a big storyline, they really go big, but TNA has put effort into creating more storylines than just 1 or 2. Another draw, but only just.

Production Quality

WWE: They have the money to make the show look good, and they use it. Cameras are usually good, and there are rarely malfunctions with equipment. I don't know if this issue is with my satellite provider or WWE, but there are a few times where all I've seen is a black screen during Raw, and just tonight during the show, it goes to commercial and comes back to Jericho's "I'm not leaving" promo again, then cuts back to the cage match. I think it has something to do with the live feed, but it's annoying and I'm trying not to hold it against WWE.

TNA: There has been many a time when I think TNA is directed and produced by monkeys. Shoddy camera work, bad timing and almost every week you can tell something has been poorly edited. My biggest issue has been "we'll follow this match with no commercial interruptions" followed by, you guessed it, commercials.

Bottom Line: A show will be more appealing if it looks like it's put together well. TNA loses out here, but only because I don't think they have the budget for production that WWE does (or the money is tied up elsewhere). If TNA can raise their production values, I think that is a major step towards competing with WWE.

Winner: WWE. At this point in time, TNA can't compete with WWE in the areas that make the most difference. TNA did tie with WWE in 2 categories, which is a good start, but there needs to be a major improvement.

WWE does have its faults, but I think TNA's are having more impact on them because they are a smaller company.

That does it for this week. Next week, I'll discuss the pros and cons of a unified WWE.

No comments:

Post a Comment